HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal EIR-General Plan - January 2004!
CITY OF PALM DESERT
RIVERSIDE COUNTY;CALIFORNIA
i
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(SCH# 200,3051103)
i
FOR THE _
CITY OF PALM DESERT
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN
I
f,
i -PREPARED FOR
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
! PALM DESERT,GA 92260
PREPARED BY
r
TERRA NOVA PLANNING&RESEARCH, INC
400 SOUTH FARRELL,B-205
PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262
fJanuary 7,2004
i
i
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
FINAL EIR
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
ON
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
PALM DESERT
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN
JANUARY 7, 2004
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2003051103
AGENCY COMMENTS/RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The Response to Comments on the Draft EIR for the Palm Desert Comprehensive General Plan
project has been prepared in accordance with Section 15088, 15089 and 15132 of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The following agencies and interested parties
have commented on the Draft EIR. Please note that Section I contains verbatim comments from
agency and other interested parties, and subsequent responses. Section II contains the full text of
commenting agency correspondence.
SECTION I:
AGENCIES/PARTIES PAGE
A. Allen Matkins Leek Gamble & Mallory LLP 4
B. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 24
C. Southern California Edison 25
D. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 26
E. City of La Quinta 27
F. Southern California Association of Governments 28
G. Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency 36
H. Donald&Patricia Rosburg and Charles & Sally Sparks 38
I. Coachella Valley Water District 39
SECTION II:
A. Allen Matkins Leek Gamble&Mallory LLP 41
B. Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 54
C. Southern California Edison 56
D. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior 57
E. City of La Quinta 58
F. Southern California Association of Governments 60
G. Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency 70
H. Donald& Patricia Rosburg and Charles & Sally Sparks 73
I.. Coachella Valley Water District 74
2
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
SECTION I
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The following verbatim comments were received on the Draft EIR transmitted to various public
agencies and interested parties. These comments concern aspects of the Draft EIR, including
clarification of information, adequacy of analysis, and similar issues. Related comments may
occasionally be combined to allow one response to address these related questions. The following
responses have been prepared to address issues raised in the agency/interested party comments.
3
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
A. ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE & MALLORY LLP
A.I. Comment: The DEIR reflects a number revisions to the General Plan Land Use Plan that is
proposed as part of the DCGP. These revisions affect specific areas throughout
the City, including the property owned by Cornishe. The DEIR fails, however, to
address with adequate specificity the impacts that will result from the proposed
revisions to the Land Use Plan or the justifications for such revisions. The
discussion of Land Use Compatibility also contains a number of assumptions with
respect to projected growth that are not adequately supported by facts.
By way of example, the discussion of potential buildout within the planning area
of the General Plan relies on the assumption that (i) residential buildout is
expected to occur at 75% of maximum permissible densities, (ii) buildout of
commercial lands assumes 22% lot coverage, and (iii) buildout of industrial land
assumes 34% lot coverage. There is, however, no explanation or justification for
such assumptions. Regardless of how plausible such assumptions may appear, the
absence of any factual support renders such assumptions inadequate as a means of
quantifying potential buildout of the General Plan area. The DEIR thereby fails to
analyze the maximum potential impact on land use development if the threshold
assumptions are inaccurate. CEQA requires all reasonably foreseeable impacts on
the environment to be analyzed. It is reasonably foreseeable that residential
buildout will occur at 100% of maximum permissible densities. It is also
reasonably foreseeable that buildout of commercial and industrial properties will
exceed 22% and 34% of lot coverage, respectively. Because the DEIR does not
address all reasonably foreseeable land use impacts, it is legally inadequate. The
DEIR should accordingly be revised and recirculated for public review.
A.i. Response: Assumptions were not used in establishing the basis for gauging the intensity of
land use. As mentioned on page III-3 of the Draft EIR, the percentages of
development intensity, including residential densities, and commercial and
industrial square footages are based upon an "assessment of existing development
intensities in the General Plan study area". Inasmuch as the acreages have not
been weighted to account for loss to streets and other non-development
improvements, including public uses, it is not reasonably foreseeable that
development could occur at 100 percent.
A.2. Comment: In addition to proceeding on the basis of unsupported assumptions, the DEIR does
not adequately reflect revisions that have been proposed to the Preferred
Alternative set forth in the DEIR. According to Exhibit III-1 in the DEIR, which
represents the Preferred Alternative and is dated July 15, 2003, the land use
designation for most of the Cornishe property is Low Density Residential, which
permits a maximum residential density of 0-4 units per acre. A small portion of
the Cornishe property has been redesignated as Hillside Reserve, which permits
one dwelling unit per five acres. Exhibits V-2 and V-3 of the DEIR, which
illustrate the More Intense Alternative and the Less Intense Alternative for
purposes of environmental review, both show the land use designation for the
Cornishe property to be the same as the Preferred Alternative.
4
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final FIR
Response to Comments on Draft FIR
A subsequent land use map, which is also labeled as the Preferred Alternative and
which is dated August 18, 2003, has now been circulated. According to the
August 18 Preferred Alternative, the entire Cornishe property has been
redesignated as Hillside Reserve, thereby limiting the permitted density of
development for the whole property to one dwelling unit per five acres. Revisions
affecting other properties within the General Plan area were also included in the
August 18 Preferred Alternative. It is our understanding that the update to the
City's General Plan has been underway for approximately two years. It is
therefore difficult to understand why, after all of the study undertaken over a
considerable period of time, it was determined to revise the Preferred Alternative
after the DEIR was prepared for circulation. Any revisions to the Preferred
Alternative, the More Intense Alternative, and the Less Intense Alternative have
clearly not been analyzed as part of the CEQA process and therefore cannot be
approved absent recirculation for public review. Absent adequate analysis and
recirculation, incorporation of the proposed revisions to the Preferred Alternative
into the DEIR would constitute a violation of CEQA and would render the
adoption of the DCGP legally invalid.
A.2. Response: The Preferred Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIR determined that the City
currently has 30,514 dwelling units and that buildout of the current city limits as
set forth in the Preferred Alternative would total approximately 39,125 dwelling
units. The General Plan study area has a total of 45,666 dwelling units and
buildout of the planning area has the potential to yield a total of approximately
79,293 dwelling units.
The General Plan study area encompasses about 135 square miles or 86,198 acres
and thousands of parcels were considered in evaluating land use. The General
Plan review process provides an opportunity for mapping refinements and making
corrections. All land use issues arising from public review are carefully assessed
and changes are recommended, as appropriate. The commentor appears to be
arguing that changing the land use designation on the subject 12f acres is
adequate to require the re-circulation of the EIR. The prospective difference in
residences is approximately 54 units. Staff-recommended densities are lower than
those evaluated in the Draft EIR. The recommended change on the subject 12f
acre property, as well as those other suggested amendments set forth in the "Staff
Recommended" alternative, are well within the analytic scope of the Draft EIR.
A.3. Comment: Section 111.13 of the DEIR, Traffic/Circulation, fails to disclose or attempt to
mitigate identified significant impacts to roadway link capacities on Monterey
Avenue, Washington Street, Cook Street, Varner Road, Portola Avenue, Fred
Waring Drive, Highway 111, and Interstate 10. Page III-37 of the DEIR states:
"While link capacities will be significantly impacted, it is impacts to intersections
that will be the determining factor in roadway network operations...." By
favoring an analysis of intersection impacts over roadway link impacts, the DEIR
fails to analyze, disclose, or attempt to mitigate reasonably foreseeable significant
environmental impacts that are separate and distinct from intersection impacts.
5
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
A.3. Response: The Draft EIR and the General Plan Traffic Study explain the conservative
manner in which the analysis was conducted. As is demonstrated by the City's on-
going monitoring of existing conditions, mid-block roadway segments with
current LOS volumes of F continue to operate within acceptable levels of service.
As discussed on page III-18 of the Draft EIR:
" Mid-block Levels of Service are represented as volume to
capacity ratios, or vehicle demand divided by roadway capacity. In
general terms, as the ratio approaches 1.00 or maximum capacity,
the roadway approaches LOS F. However, it is important to keep
in mind that for mid-block, the LOS is meant to define a
qualitative rather than a quantitative measure of operation. The
LOS assignment is only marginally useful in characterizing
capacity, and is not meant to determine actual volumes that a
particular roadway segment can carry. Mid-block volumes and
volume to capacity ratios (V/C) should be used as a means of
monitoring traffic flows toward the intersections and can inform
traffic engineers of areas where further analysis is warranted.
"A variety of conditions and mix of improvements can enhance
mid-block roadway capacity. Added travel and turning lanes
increase capacity, as do the inclusion of raised medians and
restricted access on a roadway. Restricted access and raised
medians increase roadway capacity by reducing the number of
vehicle conflict points and improving traffic flows. Restricted
access avoids loss of capacity caused by interruptions and
disruptions to traffic flow resulting from vehicles coming onto or
leaving the roadway."
The intersections represent the most constrained portion of the roadway network.
Adequately addressing intersection operations largely assures that, except in
special circumstances, the balance of the roadway network will operate at
acceptable levels of service.
A.4. Comment: Page III-18 of the DEIR identifies a method for evaluating mid-block traffic
levels, then fails to apply the method in the analysis. Where a viable method
exists for evaluating impacts, a DEIR must apply that method in order to disclose
to the public the nature of the impacts and prescribe feasible mitigation measures
if any exist. The DEIR fails in this regard. An analysis of the particular mid-block
link capacity impacts must be included in the DEIR. By admitting that mid-block
link impacts will be significant but failing to further identify or mitigate them, the
DEIR must be recirculated with this information provided for public review
A.4. Response: Please see Response A.3, above. The General Plan and traffic analysis project
City, planning area and regional growth out beyond the year 2020, and
incorporate a variety of regional planning tools for this purpose. The method of
6
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
"mid-segment gauging" is clearly applied. Mid-block volumes are compared
against an appropriately conservative estimate of possible future roadway
capacities and the potential to build adequately sized facilities has been assessed.
As noted in the Draft EIR, the LOS conditions cited in the traffic report clearly
understate capacity. Nonetheless, the LOS system alerts City traffic engineers to
the need to be sensitive to likely future capacity issues and to address them well in
advance of their emergence.
The analysis used is a focused extension of the Coachella Valley Area
Transportation System (CVATS) traffic model, which is also integrated into the
larger SCAG regional traffic model. This approach provides consistency across
local and regional modeling.
A.S. Comment: Where roadway links are significantly impacted, mid-block neighborhood cut-
through traffic is reasonably foreseeable. The DEIR fails to discuss even the
possibility of, much less the available mitigation of, neighborhood cut-through
traffic when roadway links are significantly impacted by congestion. CEQA
requires a discussion of all reasonably foreseeable impacts and a discussion of all
feasible mitigation measures. This failure in the DEIR renders the DEIR legally
inadequate.
A.S. Response: Please see Responses A.3 & 4, above. The "project" being analysed is a
community-wide general plan with a buildout horizon of more than fifteen years.
The Plan's Circulation Element includes policies and programs that assure on-
going monitoring of volumes and operating conditions, advanced planning to
assure rights-of-way and use of the capital improvements program to assure
timely facilities funding. Both Circulation and Community Design Element
policies also address the need to protect residential neighborhoods from non-local
traffic to the greatest extent practicable. In addition, Section III-B of the Draft
General Plan lists ten mitigation monitoring and reporting programs which will
assure acceptable operating conditions at major intersections and along major
roadway links, will address the full range of transportation issues identified in the
Draft General Plan and Draft FIR.
A.6. Comment: The DEIR does not expressly and clearly state the significance thresholds for
traffic impacts as required by CEQA. Page 111-41 of the DEIR seems to imply that
so long as peak hour intersection impacts are at LOS D or better, a traffic impact
is considered less than significant. Yet, the DEIR admits to changing the
significance threshold to achieve the pretext of less-than-significant impacts. Page
III-41 of the DEIR admits that LOS C was considered desirable and acceptable,
but because LOS C is more difficult to achieve, a lesser standard of LOS D should
become the significance threshold. CEQA does not allow the measure of
significance to be dictated by the difficulty in achieving less-than-significant
levels. Under such a standard, LOS F would be considered less-than-significant in
many urban California environments.
7
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft FIR
A.6. Response: The commentor is incorrect. Standards of performance are discussed through out
the Circulation Element and the Draft FIR. Standards are cited from standard
sources, including the Highway Capacity Manual, which clearly states both
qualitative and quantitative standards of performance (see p. III-18 through III-53
of the DEIR. One important function of a comprehensive general plan update is
the evaluation of standards and an assessment of their appropriate application. As
discussed in the referenced discussion, LOS D is the most widely applied
performance stand for acceptable peak hour operating conditions in the Coachella
Valley and the southern California region. By comparison, in the regional
Congestion Management Plan, which includes Monterey Avenue, the acceptable
LOS is "E". With mitigation measures set forth in section III-B. 3, all major
intersections analysed are projected to operate at LOS D or better at planning area
buildout. Impacts to local roadways from implementation of the General Plan and
EIR are clearly less than significant. The implementation of the mitigation
measures set forth in the Draft EIR and the policies and programs set forth in the
Draft General Plan Circulation Element will improve overall roadway system
performance at many intersections compared to current operating conditions, as
well as conditions expected at General Plan buildout.
A.7. Comment: In addition, the "reverse" significance threshold of LOS D or better fails to
account for drastic changes from existing LOS levels and LOS degradation to
LOS D due to project impacts. At 15 locations identified in Table III-2 of the
DEIR, Average Daily Trips ("ADT") increase at least 100%, and many increase
by over 500 percent, with the incorporation of so-called mitigation measures (the
adequacy of which is also woefully inadequate, as discussed below). At four
intersections identified in Table III-3 of the DEIR, peak hour delays double,
increasing by 100 percent or more. These drastic changes are discussed below and
identified in Table 1, below.
Table 1. Intersections Drasticall Delzraded By Project Impacts.
Intersection Degree of Degradation
Cook St.(NS)/Gerald Ford(EW) Approx. 100% increase in PM peak delay
Count Club Dr. S)/Oasis Club Dr.(EW) Over 100% increase in PM peak delay
Monterey Avenue(NS)/Dinah Shore Dr. (EW) Approx. 150%increase in PM peak delay
Approx. 100% increase in ADT
Washington St. (NS)/1-10 EB Approx. 150% increase in PM peak delay
Approx.300% increase in ADT
HM I I 1 W. of Cook St. Approx. 100%increase in ADT
Hwy I I I W.of Washington St. Approx. 100%increase in ADT
1-10 W. of Bob Hope Dr. A rox. 140% increase in ADT
I-10 E. of Cook St. Approx. 300% increase in ADT
Cook St.N. of I-10 Approx.700% increase in ADT
Washington St.N.of Varner Rd. Approx, 600% increase in ADT
Fred Waring Dr. W. of Washington St. Approx. 100% increase in ADT
Gerald Ford Dr. W. of Cook St. Almost 600% increase in ADT
Gerald Ford Dr.E. of Cook St. Approx. 150% increase in ADT
Varner Rd.E. of Cook Street Approx. 1000%increase in ADT
Varner Rd. E. of Washington St. Approx, 300% increase in ADT
8
TN/City of Palm DeserU1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
Furthermore, this drastic degradation of service levels on the intersections
identified in Table 1 is inconsistent with the stated goals and purposes of the
General Plan. Page III-41 of the DEIR states: "The General Plan Circulation
Element establishes and directs actions to maintain acceptable levels of service on
all community roadways." (emphasis added). In addition, Item B of the
Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program requires the transportation planning
agencies to "study and implement effective means of preserving and improving
capacity along major roadways." Yet, the DEIR deems "acceptable" and less-
than-significant the severe degradation of service to LOS D at 19 intersections.
This inconsistency alone renders Section III-B of the DEIR inadequate because
the significance threshold is inconsistent with the performance standard set forth
in the mitigation measure.
A.7. Response: The "project" being analysed in the Draft FIR is a General Plan encompassing
more than 130 square miles and occurring within a growing subregion of southern
California. The stated concern is more appropriately applicable to impacts of an
individual development project, such as a shopping center. In the current context,
the issues raised of project-related traffic increases are not relevant. In the context
of a General Plan update and projected planning area buildout, the impacts should
not be characterized as "drastic", but rather as essentially an anticipated,
acceptable end-state. With regard to maintaining acceptable levels of service,
please see response A.6., above. There is no inconsistency between the
recognized need for the use of adaptive management in response to growth in
traffic, and the LOS D standard that the Draft General Plan recommends.
Nonetheless, to the greatest extent practicable, the General Plan commits the City
to achieving LOS C.
A.S. Comment: The mitigation measures set forth in the DEIR are impermissibly vague and
impermissibly attempt to substitute assumptions and future analysis for required
mitigation measures. The "LOS C Improvements" and "LOS D Improvements"
set forth in the General Plan Traffic Study are never restated in the DEIR and are
not set forth as mitigation measures in the DEIR. Consequently the DEIR fails to
identify all mitigation measures. References to the Traffic Study are not sufficient
to fulfill the purposes and requirements of CEQA.
A.S. Response: The mitigation discussion in Section III-B. (see DEIR pages III-46 through III-53)
is extensive and addresses maintenance of acceptable operating conditions, on-
going monitoring, analysis and management, and mitigation through the
application alternative modes of transportation. This section and the General Plan
Traffic Study in Appendix F of the DEIR of also provide detailed assessments of
fifty-three (53) major intersections in the planning area, and provide explicit
improvement recommendations for each to assure acceptable levels of service in
the post-buildout period (see DEIR Table III-15 and Appendix F).
A.9. Comment: In addition, the so-called mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation
Monitoring/Reporting Program are nothing more than vague and impermissibly
unspecific notions to "periodically evaluate", "consult and coordinate" or
"monitor" activities that do not include the requisite performance thresholds or
9
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
outcomes required of mitigation measures involving future study. As such, these
so-called mitigation measures do not comply with CEQA and are woefully
inadequate to address the significant degradation of service at the intersections
identified in Table 1, above. Furthermore, no mitigation measures are proposed
for significant mid-block impacts and reasonably foreseeable neighborhood cut
through traffic. Finally, a Program EIR is not relieved of the duty to provide
specific and enforceable mitigation measures for foreseeable environmental
impacts. Characterizing planning goals as mitigation measures is not sufficient to
show that the mitigation measures are enforceable and will likely achieve the goal
of reducing the impacts they are intended to reduce.
A.9. Response: Please see Response AX, above. In conjunction with the explicit mitigation
measures in the Draft EIR and General Plan Traffic Report, the mitigation
monitoring and reporting programs provide clear and specific direction to the
City. Table 111-15 in section III-B of the Draft EIR identifies each of the 53
intersections analysed, and identifies specific improvements necessary to achieve
LOS C or D. The Circulation Element includes twenty-nine (29) implementation
programs, which identify responsible parties and schedules for their
implementation. As discussed above, implementation of the General Plan policies
and programs, and the mitigation measures and monitoring programs in the Draft
EIR assure that implementation of the Plan will not result in any significant
adverse impacts to mid-block segments or other components of the planning area
roadway network. Consistency of proposed future development with the General
Plan is required under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Therefore,
the policies and programs of the General Plan, as well as the mitigation measures
set forth in the Draft EIR, are fully enforceable.
A.10. Comment: Section III.0 of the DEIR, Soils and Geology, fails to establish significance
thresholds for seismic events and fails to provide a quantitative analysis and
determination of the effectiveness of mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of
the proposed General Plan to below the significance thresholds.
In discussing the hazards posed by development on ridgelines, the DEIR
dismisses the impact of developing on ridgetop slopes by making the conclusory
statement that "development does not typically occur on these slopes, [thus] the
impacts of these phenomena on man-made structures and human life is not
expected to be significant." See DEIR at page III-66. The DEIR fails to determine
whether the proposed General Plan does indeed provide for such development,
and, if it does, to quantify the impacts from such development and then propose
mitigation measures if such impacts are significant.
A.10. Response: The Draft Comprehensive General Plan and Draft FIR provide an extensive
analysis of geotechnical conditions within the planning area and the region.
Geotechnical hazards and the threats they pose are well established in these
documents and include extensive mapping, references and illustrations of relative
potential seismic impacts, including the Mercalli scale of impacts (Table 1-1 of
10
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
the General Plan geotechnical reports), earthquake and ground acceleration
potential. The Draft EIR, General Plan and geotechnical report also include
detailed mapping of overall geological conditions, wind erosion hazard zones,
faults and fault zones, liquefaction, seismically-induced settling and
rockfalls/landslide hazards. With regard to potential development on ridgetops,
geotechnical and other hazards must be addressed through development plan
approvals. The Draft EIR lists 17 major mitigation measures that include a range
of performance standards and require that all new construction comply with
current seismic design codes. The General Plan and EIR also provide the
technical information for the City to make informed decisions about future
proposed development.
A.11. Comment: The mitigation measure identified for ground subsidence is groundwater
conservation. However, the consultant that evaluated the mitigation of subsidence
through groundwater conservation and recharge concluded that conservation and
recharge will be "difficult to implement...[and will be] more than offset by the
rapid growth of the region and heavy water requirements of golf courses". See
Seismic, Geologic and Flooding Sections of the Technical Background Report to
the Safety Element of the General Plan for the City of Palm Desert Riverside
County, California, Earth Consultants International, Section 2.3.6 (Jan. 17, 2002).
The consultant recommended instead that the impact from subsidence be
addressed by a mitigation measure to fund structural repairs or replacement with
the costs of such repairs to be passed through to the water users. The DEIR
provides no explanation for relying on mitigation measures that the consultant
found to be inadequate or for failing to impose a mitigation measure
recommended by the consultant. Furthermore, if successful, the general mitigation
measure of continuation and expansion of groundwater recharge proposed to
protect water quality/resources and prevent subsidence could result in an
increased liquefaction hazard because of the rise in the groundwater table. The
DEIR needs to reconcile the advantages and disadvantages of groundwater
recharge by quantifying the impact of the recharge program on groundwater
levels and subsidence and then assessing the impact of recharge on the
liquefaction hazard present during earthquakes.
A.11. Response: In the City and planning area, groundwater management is the responsibility of
the Coachella Valley water District (CVWD). Ground subsidence associated with
groundwater pumping has only recently been identified as an issue in the
Coachella Valley and currently appears limited to portions of the planning area
and to lands near the margins of the surrounding mountains to the southeast in the
vicinity of La Quinta. While the US Geological Survey continues to monitor the
ground surface elevations, the CVWD has succeeded in securing significant
additional supplies for purposes of expanded groundwater recharge. The CVWD
also recently adopted the Water Management Plan, which includes significant
conservation and efficiency targets that will reduce per capita and unit
consumption of groundwater. Section 4.2.4.3 of the CVWD Water Management
"Geotechnical Section of the Technical Background Report to the Safety Element of the Palm Desert General Plan,"
prepared by Earth Consultants International.January 17 2002.
11
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
Plan EIR concludes that, "Implementation of the Proposed Project will reduce the
land subsidence hazard in the Coachella Valley by maintaining groundwater
levels, a beneficial impact. Although no mitigation is required, the District will
continue to monitor subsidence in the Coachella Valley through cooperative
efforts with the USGS."2
Furthermore, CV WD, in cooperation with the City, has significantly expanded its
use of tertiary treated waste water for use of area golf courses and landscape
irrigation. The General Plan and FIR include mitigation measures, policies and
programs that encourage and, as permitted, require water conservation in new
construction, landscape design and irrigation and other areas. While the City does
not have direct control over the management of the groundwater basins serving
the planning area, the Plan and FIR mandate on-going coordination with CVWD
to preclude significant impacts from ground subsidence associated with pumpage
of groundwater.
Regarding the adequacy of the subject discussion in the General Plan and Draft
FIR, the concerns raised are highly speculative and cannot be effectively
addressed by the City alone. The policies and programs set forth in the
Geotechnical, Water Resources and other elements of the Draft General Plan, and
the mitigation measures set forth in the Geotechnical (Section III-C) and Water
Resources (Section III-E) discussions of the Draft FIR clearly identify the
subsidence issue and coordinated local and regional means of mitigating this
threat.
A.12. Comment: Section IILD of the FIR, Hydrology, fails to provide a detailed, complete and
quantitative analysis and determination of the significance of the environmental
impacts resulting from the General Plan. The DEIR acknowledges that (i) the
General Plan area is susceptible to flash floods, (ii) overland water flow and
flooding are "issues of concern" because of increased runoff from the lack of
permeable soils due to asphalt and other impervious surfaces associated with the
build-out of the General Plan area, and (iii) the hazard posed by flooding is
significant if not mitigated. However, the DEIR, with the exception of the limited
discussion regarding the Mid-Valley Stormwater Channel, fails to do any of the
following: (i) quantify the capacity of existing stormwater control systems, (ii)
quantify the increase in stormwater runoff resulting from a reduction in permeable
soil area due to the proposed increased development, (iii) analyze whether the
existing stormwater control systems have the capacity to manage the increased
runoff, (iv) establish significance thresholds with respect to runoff, or (iv)
quantify the benefits of the proposed mitigation treasures. Without such
quantification, analysis, and determination of significance thresholds,the DEIR as
presently drafted provides an insufficient degree of analysis by which to inform
the public of the General Plan's adverse environmental impacts and to provide
decision makers with the information with which to make informed decisions
regarding the adequacy of the mitigation measures.
2 "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report for the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan and State Water
Project Entitlement Transfer",prepared by Montgomery Watson Harza for the Coachella Valley water District.June
2000.
12
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
Overall, the impact analysis regarding Hydrology fails to quantify any of the
impacts and mitigation measures, is conclusory and wholly inadequate.
A.12. Response: The Draft General Plan (Flooding and Hydrology Element) and Section III-D. of
the Draft EIR (Hydrology) provide clear qualitative and quantitative analysis of
the flooding and hydrologic conditions in the planning area. General climatic
conditions, historic benchmark storms, estimates of mean annual rainfall across
the planning area, peak storm flows in major drainages in the plan area are cited,
as are existing and planned facilities. Capacities of major drainages, including the
primary conveyance (Whitewater River) and the Mid-valley Stormwater Channel,
are also presented (see DEIR page II-75 through 83). The Whitewater and Palm
Valley Channels are built improvements, while construction of the Mid-valley
Channel has been occurring incrementally. Section III-D of the Draft FIR also
provides a comprehensive list of mitigation measures, including those requiring
provision of on-site stormwater retention, assurance of adequate all-weather
crossings, and periodic updating of the City Master Plan of Drainage. The City's
Drainage Master Plan is also incorporated by reference and demonstrates the
effective management of local and regional storm flows.
A.13. Comment: Section IILE of the DEIR, Water Quality/Resources, fails to provide a
quantitative analysis and determination of significance of the environmental
impacts on water quality and resources resulting from the General Plan.
Groundwater is the main water supply source for the Coachella Valley. Within the
General Plan planning area, this resource is presently suffering from overdraft
ranging in rate from 70,132 to 127,018 acre-feet per year, which overdraft has
resulted in some surface subsidence. Surface water recharge/replenishment
program efforts have failed to curb the decline in groundwater levels and have
degraded the quality of the naturally occurring groundwater. After stating that the
buildout of the proposed General Plan represents an increase of 42.7% in dwelling
units and 36% increase in industrial development over the current General Plan,
the DEIR acknowledges that the "implementation of the proposed General Plan is
expected to result in greater impacts to water resources in comparison to those
associated with the current General Plan." See DEIR at page III-91. The DEIR
then goes on to state, without any supporting quantification and analysis, that
"f immpacts to water quality resulting from the adoption and implementation of the
proposed General Plan are anticipated to be comparable to, or slightly greater than
those resulting from the buildout of the current General Plan." This final
statement is wholly without support, conclusory and contrary to the above-
referenced statements contained in the DEIR.
A.13. Response: The commentor is incorrect. Both the Draft General Plan and EIR provide a
detailed quantitative analysis of groundwater resources, including water in
storage, sources and amounts of natural and artificial groundwater recharge, and
the production, treatment and re-use of waste water. The Draft EIR also conducts
a detailed analysis of consumption by land use type and conforms to the CVWD
13
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
Water management Plan. It has been conclusively demonstrated in the CVWD
Water Management Plan that surface water recharge/replenishment program
efforts have been and continue to be successful in curbing the lowering of
groundwater levels.
The commentor's citation of"increases" in water use intensities and water demand
in the Draft General Plan are incorrect. On the whole, the Preferred Alternative is
less intense than the current General Plan,not more intense. Applying the demand
generation factors prepared by CVWD, buildout of the Preferred Alternative
(which is more intense than the "Staff Recommended Alternative") will generate a
demand of approximately 312,562 acre feet per year (see table III-20 of the
DEIR). Buildout of the "No Project" alternative would generate a demand of
315,755 acre feet per year (see Table V-25 of the DEIR), and the "Less Intense"
alternative would generate a demand for 312,623 acre feet per year (see Table V-6
of the DEIR). Furthermore, if the Staff Recommended alternative is adopted, it
will be the least water-demanding of all the alternatives evaluated. The apparent
contradictions are associated with the CVWD demand factors, which are based
upon acreages rather than units. Alternatives with higher residential densities are
more efficient users of water than larger lot subdivisions, which generate most of
their demand for irrigation purposes. Industrial and commercial uses considered
across the various alternatives constitute relatively minor portion of the overall
demand for all alternatives.
A.14. Comment: The mitigation measures addressing overdraft of groundwater resources and
resulting subsidence rely heavily on conservation efforts, contrary to the
consultant's evaluation of the effectiveness of such measures. As discussed above
in connection with Soils and Geology impacts, the consultant that evaluated the
mitigation of subsidence through groundwater conservation and recharge
concluded that conservation and recharge will be "difficult to implement...[and
will be] more than offset by the rapid growth of the region and heavy water
requirements of golf courses". See Seismic, Geologic and Flooding Sections of
the Technical Background Report to the Safety Element of the General Plan for
the City of Palm Desert, Riverside County, California, Earth Consultants
International, Section 2.3.6 (Jan. 17, 2002). The consultant recommended that a
mitigation measure to fund structural repairs or replacement with the costs of such
passed through to the water users. Again, the DEIR provides no explanation for
relying on mitigation measures that the consultant found to be inadequate or for
failing to impose a mitigation measure recommended by the consultant.
A.M. Response: Please see Response A.11. Significant uncertainties remain about the extent,
degree and rate of subsidence within the planning area and elsewhere in the
Coachella Valley. As cited in the geotechnical report prepared for the General
Plan, "Mitigation of subsidence will require a regional approach to ground water
conservation and recharge." The water basins serving the planning area are
currently in an overdraft condition. With the existing recharge facilities located in
the upstream portions of the basins (Whitewater and Mission Creek) and
continued and expanded availability of recharge water with the adoption of the
Quantification Settlement Agreement (see Section III-E of the Draft EIR),
14
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
significant immediate progress is expected in addressing the overdraft conditions
in these basins. The effectiveness of this effort in the Whitewater River Subbasin
is evidenced by the reversed trends in groundwater levels in the areas influenced
by these recharge activities. Both the City and CVWD have adopted water
conservation measures, which are discussed in the Draft General Plan and Draft
EIR, and which are designed to aggressively address the issue of water
conservation. Clearly, this is a regional effort that will require the combined
efforts of all jurisdictions.
A.15. Comment: The DEIR fails to (i) quantitatively determine and analyze the ability of existing
groundwater resources to meet the needs of the increased residential and
industrial facilities, (ii) quantitatively determine and analyze the impacts on the
quality of groundwater due to increased replenishment through surface
application of imported water of poorer quality, (iii) establish significance
thresholds with respect to groundwater overdraft and quality, and (iv) quantify the
benefits of the proposed mitigation measures. Without such quantification,
analysis, and determination of significance thresholds, the DEIR as presently
drafted provides an insufficient degree of analysis by which to inform the public
of the General Plan's adverse environmental impacts and to provide decision
makers with the information with which to make informed decisions regarding the
adequacy of the mitigation measures.
A.15. Response: Please see Responses A.13. and A.14. above.
A.16. Comment: Section IILG of the DEIR, Cultural Resources, fails to propose adequate
mitigation measures for the potentially significant impact on important
archeological resources within the study area. The study area includes a
significant amount of land of high sensitivity for prehistoric and archeological
artifacts, as well as historic structures. The City sits on lands that are highly
valuable and hold key facts about Native American and California history. The
DEIR states that "...the proposed General Plan Update designates the majority of
these lands [lands of high sensitivity] for conservation, and limited lands
designated for development are assigned very low densities." The DEIR also
provides that if archeological resources are discovered during construction, such
construction will cease. If there is a potential for exposure to important
archeological resources, mitigation measures typically require that a certified
archeologist be available during grading and not simply that construction be
ceased in the event that archeological resources are discovered.
A.16. Response: The comment mischaracterizes the EIR discussion and ignores the supporting
documentation, including the Draft General Plan. It must again be pointed out that
the project being evaluated is a General Plan, not a development project of finite
size on a specific piece of land. As set forth in Mitigation Measure A on page III-
120 of the Draft EIR, provision is made for the evaluation of potentially sensitive
sites by a qualified professional. The Cultural Resources Study prepared for the
General Plan (see Appendix C) also cites measures to protect cultural resources
from development impacts.
15
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
A.17. Comment: Further, the City has failed to adequately survey the study area for important
historical and archeological resources. The DEIR proposes that "site surveys be
conducted on all future development projects, if deemed necessary, to determine
the presence and significance of archeological and historic resources." See DEIR
at page III-119. This is insufficient given the fact that there are currently a number
of proposed development projects within the study area, which will inevitably
disrupt cultural resources. Because the City has specific knowledge about certain
development projects, a survey should be conducted (at the minimum for those
areas where development is anticipated) and the significance of the cultural
resources determined prior to the finalization of the EIR in order for the impact to
be fully evaluated. The proposed mitigation measures are not sufficient given (i)
the large amount of land within the study area known to have a great probability
of containing important archeological resources, and (ii) the anticipated
development projects.
A.17. Response: It is unclear to what the subject comment refers. All development projects in the
City (and the County) are evaluated for their potential to adversely impact
sensitive cultural resources. At a minimum, a request for comment is sent to the
Eastern Information Center at the Archaeological Research Unit at the University
of California at Riverside. In many instances, the need is clear and the project
proponent is requested to have a cultural resources survey conducted by a
qualified professional. The mitigation measures and the information base created
by the General Plan and EIR will provide the City staff and future cultural
resources and environmental consultants with a valuable baseline for determining
appropriate levels of surveying for individual sites. Also please see the comment
letter from the Agua Caliente Tribe of Cahuilla Indians, which endorses the
analysis of resources in the planning area and provides recommended language
that is also responsive to the issue raised.
A.18. Comment: Section III.H of the DEIR, Air Quality, fails to provide a quantitative analysis and
determination of effectiveness of the mitigation measures that are purported to
reduce the impacts of the proposed General Plan to below the significance
thresholds. The anticipated aggregated daily Project-related emissions for carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulates and reactive organic gases
associated with buildout of the proposed General Plan all exceed the threshold
criteria established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The
emissions exceed the threshold criteria by no less than 2.6 up to 71 times the
threshold criteria. The DEIR attempts to minimize these exceedances by pointing
out that other development projects or areas are degrading air quality in the
Coachella Valley to a greater extent than proposed development within the
General Plan area. The DEIR fails to quantify the reductions that will be achieved
through the mitigation measures. Without such quantification, the DEIR as
presently drafted provides an insufficient degree of analysis by which to inform
the public of the General Plan's adverse environmental impacts and provide
decision makers with the information with which to make informed decisions
regarding the adequacy of the mitigation measures.
16
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
A.18. Response: The project being assessed is a general Plan encompassing a city of 25 square
miles and a 135 square mile planning area. Section III-H. of the Draft EIR
provides a detailed discussion of existing conditions and the potential of the
Preferred Alternative to generate air pollutants. Table III-26 identifies the state
and federal ambient air quality standards for a variety of pollutants, including
PM10 and ozone. Tables III-27 and 28 provide twelve years of data for these two
pollutants of concern for the planning area. Enforcement of state and federal
standards is the responsibility of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District, which is in turn directed by the California Air Resources Board. The US
Environmental protection Agency (US EPA) is responsible for enforcing federal
standards and empowers state and regional agencies to regulate polluters in this
regard.
Table 1II-29 provides a hypothetical calculation for fugitive dust potential and is
not meant to provide actual project-specific estimates for PM10 generation. The
cited potential assurnes that all vacant (non-open space) portions of the planning
area are disturbed at the same time and without the benefit of any grading or site
management, and without the implementation of any mitigation measures.
The methodologies used in calculating other pollutant emissions associated with
buildout of the Preferred Alternative and other project alternatives are consistent
with those established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and
the California Air Resources Board. The methods used in the Draft EIR are
directly from the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The methodologies
used are consistent with those found acceptable by SCAQMD.
The Draft General Plan and EIR include extensive discussions of existing
conditions, General Plan buildout impacts and mitigation measures. (see pages III-21
through III-40 of Draft EIR). Calculations of project-related emissions were
prepared using methodologies set forth in the prevailing South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) EIR Handbook. Thresholds set forth in the
handbook are those recommended to determine the possible need to prepare an
environmental impact report, not whether impacts of a given project are significant.
Per unit emissions are expected to be reduced over time with improvements in
technology. The Draft EIR includes a wide range of mitigation measures, as well as
a comprehensive menu of mitigation strategies (see Draft EIR pages 111-37 through
40), that assure that potential impacts are mitigated to levels of insignificance. These
are consistent with SCAQMD requirements and the State Implementation Plan (SIP)
for PM10 (2002) developed and adopted by SCAQMD and the US EPA.
A.19. Comment: The DEIR quantifies fugitive dust potential by estimating a total daily fugitive
emissions rate anticipated from the total buildout of the General Plan. The
estimate makes no attempt to predict buildout based on historical growth patterns
and, accordingly, makes no attempt to estimate the significance of impacts from
dust emissions related to development. By failing to provide such an analysis, the
DEIR has failed to disclose the significance of the environmental impacts
resulting from dust emissions related to the General Plan.
17
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft FIR
A.19. Response: Please see Response A.18, above.
A.20. Comment: The DEIR fails to identify and analyze the impact of anticipated buildout of the
General Plan on sensitive receptors. The only attention given to sensitive
receptors is through a mitigation measure requiring the City to "assure that air
pollution point sources, such as manufacturing facilities, are located at an
appropriate distance from residential areas and other sensitive land uses and
receptors." An analysis of air quality impacts on sensitive receptors from some as
yet unknown manufacturing facility may require too many assumptions to be of
value now. However, adequate information is presently available to reasonably
estimate, for example, (i) the air quality impacts resulting from vehicular
emissions under the General Plan, (ii) the significance of the impact of those
emissions on sensitive receptors, and (iii) the adequacy of proposed measures to
mitigate significant impacts. The DEIR is devoid of such an analysis.
A.20. Response: Section 111-H of the General Plan EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential
levels of pollutant emissions associated with all potential development made
possible by the adoption and implementation of the Plan. Section V of the Draft
FIR provides a summary of the same air quality analysis performed for three
additional project alternatives, including the No Project alternative. The existing
conditions discussion in section 111-H includes a detailed discussion of primary
and secondary pollutants of concern, current state and federal standards, and 12
years of monitoring data for PMI0 and ozone at both the Palm Springs and Indio
stations.
The Palm Desert Traffic Model was developed and run for each of the General
Plan alternatives and provided the basis for trip generation and average trip
length. These data were incorporated into the California Air Resources Board
Highest EMFAC 2002 (Version 20.2) Emission Factors for on-road vehicles. The
analysis of daily moving emissions for the Preferred Alternative is found in
Tables III-36, 111-37, 1I1-38 and III-39. The aggregate of potential daily emissions
for all emitters is summarized by category in Table III-40 of the Draft FIR.
With regard to sensitive receptors, air quality is a concern to all Palm Desert
residents but children and the elderly are most susceptible to adverse health
effects of poor air quality. The Draft General Plan is the project analysed in the
subject EIR, and it provides six comprehensive policies and 14 programs designed
to achieve the stated goal of the Air Quality Element: "Preservation and
enhancement of local and regional air quality for protection of the health and
welfare of the community." (PDGP p. IV-59)
The General Plan provides limited opportunities for land uses that are associated
with a high level of air pollutant emissions. Industrial uses are primarily I-BP
(Business Park) in the existing city limits and essentially maintains County
industrial designations in the balance of the planning area. Most County industrial
lands, which are also designated primarily for Light Industrial and Business park
development, are located either along US Interstate-10 or in remote portions of
north planning area.
18
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR _
The Draft EIR indicates that compared to the existing general Plans (No Project
Alternative) the Preferred Alternative will result in a modest increase in overall
emissions of Carbon monoxide, Nitrogen oxides and Sulfur oxides, but will
generate less particulates and reactive organic compounds (ROCs). Particulates
and ozone precursors (ROCS) are the two pollutants of primary concern in the
region and locally. Both the General Plan and the EIR provide policies, programs
and mitigation measures that directly address these pollutants.
With regard to the adequacy of Draft EIR mitigation measures, again it should be
noted that the "project" being analysed is a Comprehensive General Plan, which is
programmatic in nature. Nonetheless, the Draft FIR provides 17 mitigation
measures and 25 sub-measures that address pro-active coordination with
SCAQMD and the local air quality program coordinator, the Coachella valley
Association of Governments (CVAG). These measures also assure on-going
assessments of land use compatibility, protection of sensitive receptors, reduction
in travel emissions, and numerous measures designed to mitigate potential PM10
impacts. Appropriate to the type of project analysed, the mitigation measures
adequately address potential adverse impacts to local and regional air quality.
A.21. Comment: Both the Desert Sands Unified School District and the Palm Springs Unified
School District are currently operating near capacity, and in some instances
experiencing overcrowding. Buildout under the General Plan will result in the
enrollment of 28,353 additional students. While the construction of additional
school facilities can be funded by developer fees, such facilities cannot be
developed at a sufficiently fast pace. Specific sites should be identified and
designated for school facilities prior to the finalization of the DEIR.
A.21. Response: The statement is speculative and is not consistent with the facts. Neither school
districted has indicated that the proposed General Plan update would adversely
affect their ability to serve the future student base. The Palm Desert General Plan
has been developed in consultation with all public service providers, including
both the Palm Springs and Desert Sand Unified Schools Districts. Educators also
played a major role in the Plan's development, as is evidenced by the numerous
policies and programs in the Plan's Schools and Libraries Element. Furthermore,
the Plan reflects the anticipated needs of both schools districts, as set forth in their
respective master plans.
A.22. Comment: Moreover, buildout under the General Plan will create significant impacts on
police and fire services. The DEIR simply suggests that because buildout will
occur gradually, needs for such services will be evaluated as it becomes
necessary. This analysis, or lack thereof, is inappropriate. At a minimum, the
DEIR should identify the locations of police substations, water mains and
emergency equipment, which will accommodate the anticipated growth. The
General Plan clearly identifies areas of anticipated development; for instance, the
university-related development will create a significant increased need for police
19
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
services, yet this need is not particularly addressed in the DEIR. Further, existing
police services provide a ratio of 1.75 sworn officers for every 1,000 residents.
According to the DEIR, the "preferred ratio" is 1.5 sworn officers for every 1,000
residents, which requires 153 additional officers. The DEIR fails, however, to
address when the hiring of additional officers will commence or how the City will
reach the preferred ratio.
A.22. Response: No significant adverse impacts to existing or future levels of fire and/or police
protection have been identified in the Draft EIR for the General Plan. The City
excels at providing a high level of public safety and has the demonstrated means
to maintain acceptable levels through buildout. Section III-K of the Draft FIR
addresses these issues, which are elaborated in detail in the Police and Fire
Protection Element and the Emergency Preparedness Element of the General
Plan.
A.23. Comment: Overall, most public services and facilities are operating near, if not at, maximum
capacity. Schools are overcrowded, landfills are nearing closure, police and fire
services can only provide for the existing needs. The General Plan will create
significant growth in population, which will in turn create a significant increase in
demand for public services and facilities. The DEIR simply fails to explain how
these services and facilities will grow and expand in order to adequately
accommodate the thousands of new residents for which the General Plan
provides.
A.23. Response: Please see response A.21. Buildout of the Preferred Alternative within the
existing city limits would result in a less than 50 percent increase in population in
the post 2020 period (please see Section III-L: Socio-Economic Resources of the
Draft EIR). General Plan Elements and the Program FIR provide a clear,
quantified assessment of potential impacts and means by which acceptable levels
of service will be maintained. Of course, it is important to acknowledge that the
City has limited direct control over many service providers but has nonetheless
taken a pro-active position in assuring coordination and consultation with all
service providers.
A.24. Comment: The DEIR concludes that development under the General Plan will create greater
tax revenue for the City and that therefore the General Plan has a positive socio-
economic impact. While this may be true for the City, this is not the case for those
areas within the sphere of influence of the City, which do not contain sufficient
retail and commercial designations. Further, the DEIR does not adequately
address the need for affordable housing within the City, nor does it provide for an
adequate jobs/housing balance. While the planning area will generate a generous
amount of jobs, the DEIR does not indicate that those jobs will pay salaries
sufficient to afford housing within the City. The proposed mitigation measures
offer monitoring of Socio-economic issues, as well as encouragement of certain
development. This does not suffice.
20
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
A.24. Response: It is important to understand that the fiscal impact analysis prepared for the
General Plan, which is not required under the California Environmental Quality
Act(CEQA), utilizes the City of Palm Desert 2002-03 budget to derive per capita
costs for the provision of general government services. These reflect the "urban"
character of the city limits, the more intense land use and the higher demand for
services. By contrast, most of the non-city planning area encompasses thousands
of future homes on large lots, which will reflect an essentially rural environment,
where the level of services is understandably lower.
Sections III-1, and V of the Draft EIR both discuss the issue of jobs creation and
opportunities for housing within the City and the planning area. Based upon this
analysis, a concerted effort was made to increase the amount of higher density
housing on appropriate lands near existing and future employment centers. This
effort was also extended to lands north of Interstate-10, where opportunities for
higher density residential development have also been increased. The General
Plan Housing Element also provides statements of policy and programs designed
to increase the amount of affordable housing in the community.
A.25. Comment: Section IV of the DEIR states that there are unavoidable significant impacts in the
areas of Biological Resources, Water Resources, Geotechnical Hazards, Traffic
and Circulation, Hydrology, and Air Quality. Section IV does not, however,
describe with particularity the specific impacts that are deemed to be significant
and avoidable. Instead, Section IV speaks in generalities about impacts that may
be expected to occur in connection with the buildout of the General Plan. Section
15126.2(b) provides in pertinent part that "[w]here there are impacts that cannot
be alleviated without an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why
the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described."
Moreover, CEQA Section 21081 provides that a public agency shall not approve a
project with significant unavoidable impacts unless the public agency finds that
specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make
mitigation of such impacts infeasible.
No discussion of specific economic, legal, social, technological or other
considerations is included in Section IV of the DEIR. Nor is there any discussion
of the reasons why the General Plan is proposed notwithstanding the existence of
significant unavoidable impacts. Instead, the discussion of significant and
unavoidable impacts is vague, conclusory, and legally inadequate. Additional
information must therefore be provided with respect to significant and
unavoidable impacts along with a complete discussion of why such impacts
cannot be avoided through the adoption of alternative measures. The DEIR should
then be recirculated for public review and comment.
A.25. Response: The commentor is incorrect. The Draft EIR(Section IV) states:
"Section III of this EIR provides a comprehensive assessment of
all impacts associated with future development within the Palm
Desert General Plan study area. The potential impacts identified
during the assessment are addressed through a broad and
21
TN/City of Palm DeserY/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
comprehensive range of mitigation measures and monitoring and
reporting programs. These measures, in conjunction with the
policies, programs and implementation measures set forth in the
Draft General Plan, can demonstrably and effectively reduce
potentially significant impacts to levels of insignificance."
(Emphasis added)
Nonetheless, Section IV provides a general discussion of"a few areas of special
concern and sensitivity", which were "given focused consideration in the
development of the General Plan and in the development of mitigation measures."
(Draft EIR, p. IV-1)
A.26. Comment: Section VIII of the DEIR fails to adequately analyze reasonably foreseeable
cumulative impacts. The discussion set forth in Section III of the DEIR is limited
to analyzing those impacts that are expected to occur only in connection with
anticipated development within the General Plan planning area. No analysis is
provided with respect to the combined environmental impacts due to development
on a regional scale and how such development will affect regional resources. By
way of example, Section VIII.B of the DEIR states that there are no cumulative
environmental impacts on Land Use Compatibility, yet Section IILA of the DEIR
posits an increase in residential development within the General Plan planning
area of 44.2% and an increase in industrial development within the General Plan
planning area of 12.6%. Neither Section IILA nor Section VIILB of the DEIR
contains any discussion of the anticipated cumulative impacts of development in
other jurisdictions throughout the Coachella Valley. Clearly, the development
expected to occur in connection with the buildout of the General Plan will not
take place in a vacuum. Failure of the DEIR to address development on a regional
scale constitutes a violation of CEQA.
A.26. Response: As discussed in the above responses, the Draft General Plan and EIR analyses
have utilized a variety of regional plans, including the CVATS Transportation
Model and valley-wide multiple species habitat conservation plan, as well as the
recent adopted Riverside County General plan and local city general plans. The
cumulative impacts that have been assessed in these studies provided important
context within which the City's General Plan Advisory Committee made their
decisions. Such essential planning parameters as land use and traffic are analysed
in the context of regional development. Cited future increases in residential and
other development are consequences of General Plan buildout. They are not the
consequence of nor do they represent adverse impacts to current or future land use
compatibility.
A.27. Comment: Similarly, Section III.B of the DEIR states that Highway 111, Highway 74, and
Interstate 10 are all "Regional Roadways." Yet, only the project's contribution to
these Regional Roadways is analyzed—as if the rest of the region will remain
static. Common sense and ample data available from SCAG and CalTrans show
that traffic congestion on these roadways is expected to increase steadily through
2020 due to population growth and a shift in the age of drivers. More drivers will
22
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
remain on the roadways longer than in previous decades. By adding cumulative
traffic impacts, it is likely that cumulative traffic impacts at some study
intersections will become significant and unavoidable. The DEIR therefore
impermissibly ignores reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts on these
Regional Roadways,rendering the DEIR legally inadequate.
A.27. Response: This is incorrect. As discussed above, traffic projections provide for the
concurrent land use-based traffic modeling conducted on a regional level. The
Palm Desert Traffic Model and the EIR clearly set forth the parameters of
analysis, which essentially represents a cumulative analysis, with the contribution
of the City's General Plan clearly delineated for comparative purposes.
A.28. Comment: The DEIR states that the City will make a good faith effort to assure that
intersections operate at LOS D or better and that due to the programmatic nature
of the DEIR, ongoing and project specific monitoring will occur to assure
adequate levels of service in the long term. Good faith efforts do not constitute
adequate mitigation, nor may the City defer mitigation until project specific
impacts are identified. "Even if a general plan amendment is treated merely as a
'first phase' with later developments having separate approvals and environmental
assessments, it is apparent that an evaluation of a 'first phase-general plan
amendment' must necessarily include the larger project, i.e., the future
development permitted by the amendment. Only then can the ultimate effect of
the amendment upon the physical environment be addressed." Christward
Ministry v. Superior Court, 184 Cal.App.3d 180, 194 (1986). CEQA requires that
all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts arising the contribution of
cumulative projects and growth also be analyzed. A Program EIR for a General
Plan is not exempt from this requirement.
A.28. Response: Please see Responses A 3 through 9, above. As set forth in the Draft EIR and the
General Plan Circulation Element, the City is no deferral of mitigation is
proposed. Levels of mitigation are clearly identified in the traffic study and Draft
EIR. The various analyses carried out for the General Plan update project,
including that for traffic, assess the overall project and its impacts. The above
referenced example is not applicable, being related to a project-specific General
Plan Amendment versus the community-wide Palm Desert General Plan update
project.
23
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
B. AGUA CALENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
B.I. Comment: Page III-121-Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program: Item B addresses
Establishment of a city-side database that is updated annually. The City may want
to consider developing an Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan that
could be updated periodically, say every 2-3 years.
B.1. Response: Comment noted. Program 2.A of the Archaeological and Cultural Resources
Element of the General Plan directs the preparation of an "historic preservation
plan". The referenced mitigation monitoring and reporting program provides the
timeframe for updating, which is anticipated as an annual staff function of the
City Community Development Department.
B.2. Comment: When a proposed project is within an identified cultural sensitivity zone, and
when ground disturbing activities will occur, the city/developer shall employ a
cultural monitor or a Secretary of the Interior's Standards qualified archaeologist
to monitor construction in the event that cultural resources are encountered. This
monitor/archaeologist should have the authority to halt destructive activities in
the event of a discovery and shall notify the appropriate authorities to inspect
and, if need,prepare a treatment plan for the mitigation of cultural resources.
B.2. Response: Comment noted. Mitigation Measure A in Section III-G of the Draft EIR requires
the evaluation of potentially sensitive sites by a qualified professional. Mitigation
Measure J directs the halting of development in the area of potential effect and
site inspection when potentially significant resources are uncovered. As
determined necessary by a qualified professional, initial or on-going site
monitoring during grading may be required.
B.3. Comment: At this point, it may be beneficial in the long run for the City to research and
incorporate local tribal areas of concern, and develop plans to attend to them now
rather than wait for them to surface during project implementation.
B.3. Response: Comment noted. The development of the Draft General Plan and the CEQA
review process have provided local tribes with the opportunity to comment and
express concerns regarding the protection of potentially sensitive cultural
resources. Local tribal concerns have also been incorporated into the Draft
General Plan. Programs 2.13, 4.13, 5.A,B & C, and 6.A and B of the
Archaeological and Cultural Resources Element all refer to Native American
Tribes as "responsible agencies" under the Plan.
24
TN/City of Palm Desert/13.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
C. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
C.1. Comment: The relocation,reconstruction, extension or under grounding of Edison's
electrical system which may be necessitated within the proposed area will be
performed by Edison in accordance with Edison's effective Tariff Schedules
approved by and filed with the California Public Utilities Commission.
Please include the following concerns in your report:
• Please be aware that the SCE facilities may be impacted by the project and
may require relocation. Facilities will be relocated at the customer expense
unless a recorded land rights on private property contains a relocation clause
to move facilities at SCE expense.
• The integrity of any and all SCE land rights will be maintained and the
developer at no cost will secure all replacement land rights to SCE.
• Identified SCE properties may require relocation, please make sure REO is
provided 5 sets of street improvements plans showing all SCE facilities at no
less than 50 scale drawings 20 or 30 is preferred. It is critical to provide SCE
plans as soon as possible to:
C.1. Response: Comments noted and are hereby incorporated by reference into the General Plan
EIR.
25
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
D. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
D.I. Comment: The preferred alternative of the Palm Desert General Plan calls for zoning of
lands adjacent to the park boundary into either open space (OS/PR) or to
mountain estate (R-ME). This seems to be an appropriate compromise as reserve
zoning is highly compatible with the park's land use and mountain estate is the
lowest density of residential land use. However, for maximum protection of the
area along our park boundary, we would always prefer that the adjacent outside
lands be in some sort of reserve status to provide a buffer zone to the park against
less compatible land uses.
D.1. Response: Comment noted. Approximately 20 percent of the lands bordering the park are
designated OS-PP (Open Space Public Preserve), which recognizes lands in
public ownership and thereby provides an effective buffer. The balance of the
lands bordering the park are designated R-DE (Desert Estates), which allows one
dwelling unit per 10 acres and thereby should also provide an effective low-
density barrier against intrusion into the park and more intense land uses.
D.2. Comment: An additional land issue indirectly related to the park is the use of lands in your
plan located between the park and the Fringed-toed Lizard Preserve. There is an
ecological process at work whereby alluvial material from the park moves down
slope to feed the sand dunes and other critical habitat of the fringe-toed lizard at
the preserve. Any land use on the lands between the park and the reserve that
would block this process will create a critical environmental issue.
D.2. Response: The recent adopted Riverside County General Plan addressed and re-designated
these lands predominantly to 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres. The County is also a
partner in the development of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan,
which includes provisions for the management of lands in this area to assure the
preservation of fluvial sand transport to the aforementioned lizard preserve. The
City Draft FIR and Draft General Plan fully support this management
prescription, which must still be approved by local jurisdictions.
26
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft FIR
E. CITY OF LA QUINTA
E.I. Comment: The City of La Quinta is particularly interested in the evaluation criteria that will
be employed in analyzing two intersections on Washington Street: 1) the
Washington Street/Calle Las Brisas intersection (590' n/o Fred Waring Drive),
and 2) the Washington Street/Tucson Circle intersection (150' s/o Darby Road).
Neither of these intersections complies with the proposed General Plan unless the
unknown special circumstance criteria is applies. These two intersections are
excellent case studies in why full-turn access should not be given to every
development that connects to a Major Arterial street. There will always be
pressure to provide convenient access by sacrificing the mobility and capacity
preservation aspects which are the higher priority considerations on Major
Arterial streets. Acquiescing to the pressure means a few citizens receive a benefit
at the expense of many. The special circumstance criteria should not be tailored to
accommodate decisions favoring special interest pressure.
E.I. Response: Comment noted. The Draft General Plan EIR analysed 53 intersections
throughout the planning area, including seven intersections located along
Washington Street. The analysis did not include the referenced intersections. The
General Plan and Draft EIR clearly support the preservation of capacity by a
variety of means along major arterials, including restricting the number of access
points and the turning movements allowed into and out of a site with arterial
access. The reference to special circumstances is meant to provide a reasonable
level of flexibility, while continuing to enforce restricted access to the greatest
extent practicable.
27
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
F. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
Policies of SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and Regional Transportation Plan,which may
be applicable to your project, are outlined in the attachment. It would be helpful if the Final EIR would
specifically cite the appropriate SCAG policies and address the manner in which the Project is
consistent with applicable core policies or supportive of applicable ancillary policies. Please use our
policy numbers to refer to them in your Final EIR. Also, we would encourage you to use a side-by-
side comparison of SCAG policies with a discussion of the consistency or support of the policy with
the Proposed Project.
F.1. Comment: The Draft EIR should reflect the most current SCAG forecasts which are the 2001
RTP (April 2001) Population, Household and Employment forecasts for the
Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) subregion and the City of
Palm Desert. These forecast follows:
1 F 'f � ..
Snbreuioh 2 2M ZM- 7 291$
l "tlo� 3„ `( -NMERPE 014$la 401 OD�7 ,
:Household` 122,664 13'0, 75 m149;0 9 1fi6,910, 188,853 212,960
m fiNf ' f= l _. 4 1T OWE
Palm Desert 2M 9mL, 2914 2 2424 29Z�
Household 15,784 16,708 17,935 19,107 20,55.1 22,099
F.I. Response: Comment noted. The cited SCAG forecasts are hereby incorporated into the Draft
EIR. Its should be noted that future forecasts have already been exceeded for the
City in the year 2001.
F.2. Comment: 3.03 The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and
transportation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's growth
policies
F.2. Response: The Draft Comprehensive General Plan and the Draft EIR provide the basis for
long-term planning by the City, public utilities and other public service providers
to anticipate and time the extension, location and financing of the referenced
infrastructure.
F.3. Comment: The Growth Management goals to develop urban forms that enable individuals to
spend less income on housing cost, that minimize public and private development
costs, and that enable firms to be more competitive, strengthen the regional strategic
goal to stimulate the regional economy. The evaluation of the proposed project in
28
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
relation to the following policies would be intended to guide efforts toward
achievement of such goals and does not infer regional interference with local land
use powers.
3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use, which reduce costs
on infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities.
3.09 Support local jurisdictions'efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure and
public service delivery, and efforts to seek new sources of funding for
development and the provision ofservices.
3.10 Support local jurisdictions' actions to minimize red tape and expedite the
permitting process to maintain economic vitality and competitiveness.
F.3. Response: The General Plan makes a concerted effort, both in terms of policies and
programs, and in land use mapping, to encourage the types of land use patterns
referenced. The efficient extension and cost-effective use of infrastructure and
public service systems is a stated goals, policies and programs of the Public
Services and Facilities Chapter of the General Plan. Goals and policies and
programs also call for the City's pro-actively support for new funding for such
services. The City's Economic and Fiscal Element both cite permit streamlining
as a desirable goal.
FA. Comment: The Growth Management goals to attain mobility and clean air goals and to develop
urban forms that enhance quality of life, that accommodate a diversity of life styles,
that preserve open space and natural resources, and that are aesthetically pleasing
and preserve the character of communities, enhance the regional strategic goal of
maintaining the regional quality of life. The evaluation of the proposed project in
relation to the following policies would be intended to provide direction for plan
implementation, and does not allude to regional mandates.
3.12 Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions' programs aimed at
designing land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for
roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled, and
create opportunities for residents to walk and bike.
3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions' plans that maximize the use of existing
urbanized areas accessible to transit through infill and redevelopment.
3.16 Encourage developments in and around activity centers, transportation
corridors, underutilized infrastructure systems, and areas needing recycling and
redevelopment.
3.18 Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause
environmental impact.
29
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
3.20 Support the protection of vital resources such as wetlands, groundwater
recharge areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and
endangered plants and animals.
3.21 Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the preservation and
protection ofrecorded and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites.
3.22 Discourage development, or encourage the use of special design
requirements, in areas with steep slopes, high fire,flood, and seismic hazards.
3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations,
measures aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures
that would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and
to develop emergency response and recovery plans.
FA. Response: A wide variety of policies and programs set forth in the Land Use, Circulation,
Air Quality, Community Design and other elements of the Draft General Plan are
directed toward complementary land uses that encourage transit and alternatives
modes of transportation. Mitigation measures set forth in Section III-13.3 of the
Draft EIR traffic impact analysis include encouraging access to alternative modes
of transportation, including buses and non-motorized means of conveyance. The
Air Quality analysis of the EIR also direct the City to maintain a diversified
transportation system, development of pedestrian-oriented commercial centers,
and transportation management programs (see Section III-B and H of the Draft
EIR).
The City General Plan and Program EIR also encourage infill development as a
means of optimizing the efficient use of existing infrastructure, diversifying the
housing stock, place medium and higher densities closer to existing and planned
commercial services, and the convenient siting of bus stops. Land use planning
was carried out throughout the process with minimizing potential adverse
environmental effects to the greatest extent practicable.
Both the Draft General Plan and the Program EIR provide an extensive analysis
of sensitive biological, cultural and archaeological resources, as well as air and
water resources. The Draft General Plan includes fully elaborated Archaeological
and Cultural Resources Element, Biological resources Element, Water Resources
Element, and Air Quality Element. The Program EIR fully assesses the potential
impacts of Plan buildout on these resources, and both the general Plan and EIR
include policies, programs, and mitigation measures designed to assure that
impacts remain below levels of significance. Furthermore, the Draft General Plan
recognizes the importance of these resources and addresses their long-term
protection and enhancement. The General Plan Land Use and Community Design
Elements provide policies and programs designed to protect sensitive slopes and
avoid or appropriately limit development in the vicinity of loud noise sources,
flooding and geotechnical hazards. Sections III-C, D and I of the General Plan
Program EIR provide mitigation measures that support and facilitate the
protective goals and policies of the General Plan.
30
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
F.S. Comment: The Growth Management Goal to develop urban forms that avoid economic and
social polarization promotes the regional strategic goal of minimizing social and
geographic disparities and of reaching equity among all segments of society. The
evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the policy stated below is intended
guide direction for the accomplishment of this goal, and does not infer regional
mandates and interference with local land use powers.
3.24 Encourage efforts of local jurisdictions in the implementation of programs that
increase the supply and quality of housing and provide affordable housing as
evaluated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment.
3.27 Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in their efforts to develop
sustainable communities and provide, equally to all members of society, accessible
and effective services such as: public education, housing, health care, social
services, recreational facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection.
F.S. Response: The Community Design Element of the General Plan and land use compatibility
issues discussed in section III-A of the Draft EIR include policies, programs and
measures meant to enhance economic, employment and housing opportunities in
the City. The Land Use Element and the Housing Element both serve to assure the
availability of affordable housing and the meeting of the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment.
One of the essential goals and themes throughout the Palm Desert General Plan is
the sustainability and enhancement of community life in the City, including
assuring a broad range of educational opportunities (see Schools and Libraries
Element and Section III- K of the Draft EIR), housing opportunities (see Land
Use and Housing Elements, and Sections III-A., and L of the Program FIR, health
care and social services, (see the Health Services Element and Section III-K of the
Program EIR), recreational facilities (see the Parks and recreation Element and
Section III-K of the Draft EIR), and enforcement and fire protection (see Police
and Fire Protection Element and Section III-K of the Program EIR).
F.6. Comment: The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) also has goals, objectives, policies and
actions pertinent to this proposed project. This RTP links the goal of sustaining
mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the
environment, reducing energy consumption, promoting transportation-friendly
development patterns, and encouraging fair and equitable access to residents
affected by socio-economic, geographic and commercial limitations. Among the
relevant goals, objectives, policies and actions of the RTP are the following:
Core Regional Transportation Plan Policies
4.01 Transportation investments shall be based on SCAG's adopted Regional
Performance Indicators:
31
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
Mobili - Transportation Systems should meet the public need for improved access,
and for safe, comfortable, convenient, faster and economical movements of people
and goods.
• Average Work Trip Travel Time in Minutes—25 minutes (Auto)
• PMPeak Freeway Travel Speed—45 minutes (Transit)
• PMPeak Non-Freeway Travel Speed
• Percent of PMPeak Travel in Delay (Fwy)
• Percent of PMPeak Travel in Delay (Non-Fwy)
Accessibility - Transportation system should ensure the ease with which
opportunities are reached. Transportation and land use measures should be
employed to ensure minimal time and cost.
• Work Opportunities within 45 Minutes door to door travel time (Mode Neutral)
• Average transit access time
Environment - Transportation system should sustain development and preservation
of the existing system and the environment. (All Trips)
• CO, ROG, NOx, PM10, PM2.5—Meet the applicable SIP Emission Budget and the
Transportation Conformity requirements
Reliability— Transportation system should have reasonable and dependable levels
of service by mode. (All Trips)
• Transit—63%
• Highway— 76%
Sae - Transportation systems should provide minimal accident, death and injury.
(All Trips)
• Fatalities Per Million Passenger Miles—0
• Injury Accidents—0
Equity/Environmental Justice - The benefits of transportation investments should be
equitably distributed among all ethnic, age and income groups. (All trips)
• By Income Groups Share of Net Benefits—Equitable Distribution of Benefits among
all Income Quintiles
Cost-Effectiveness - Maximize return on transportation investment (All Trips). Air
Quality, Mobility, Accessibility and Safety
• Return on Total Investment— Optimize return on Transportation Investments
4.02 Transportation investments shall mitigate environmental impacts to an
acceptable level.
4.04 Transportation Control Measures shall be a priority.
4.16 Maintaining and operating the existing transportation system will be a
priority over expanding capacity.
F.6. Response: With regard to Mobility, the Draft General Plan and Program EIR indicates that:
the average work commute is expected remain below 25 minutes; PM freeway
travel speed are expected to well exceed 45 mph; efficient mass transit (bus)
32
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
service is expected to continue; PM peak hour arterial travels speeds will reflect
LOS D or better at peak hours and throughout the day.
Regarding Accessibility, please see Response F.4, above. All of the core policies
are addressed in the general Plan and Program EIR. With regard to Environment,
General Plan policies and programs in the Circulation and Air Quality Elements
are geared to reduction of emissions on a per mile basis, reduction of trips and trip
length and conformity with the regional Congestion Management Plan. Regarding
reliability,the cited reasonable and dependable levels of service measures can and
will be achieved through the implementation of the Draft General Plan and the
mitigation measures set forth in Section III-B of the Program EIR.
Safety issues are also integral to the General Plan. Transportation system design
guidelines embodied in the Circulation Element policies and programs, as well as
the improvement plans set forth as mitigation in Section III-B of the Draft EIR,
also address issues of transportation safety. Issues of equity and environmental
justice are integral to many parts of the General Plan, including the Community
Design Element, Housing Element, Land Use Element, Schools and Libraries
Element and Health Services Element.
Issues of cost-effectiveness are also an important theme throughout the General
Plan. Bother the Circulation Element and Program EIR address balancing the cost
of land and improvements with the optimum level of service. Transportation
improvements are expected to assure acceptable levels of service, optimize the
use of traffic control measures, and prioritizing the maintenance and efficient use
of existing facilities.
F.7. Comment: The Air Quality Chapter core actions related to the proposed project includes:
5.07 Determine specific programs and associated actions needed (e.g., indirect
source rules, enhanced use of telecommunications, provision of community based
shuttle services, provision of demand management based programs, or vehicle-
miles-traveled/emission fees) so that options to command and control regulations
can be assessed.
5.11 Through the environmental document review process, ensure that plans at
all levels of government (regional, air basin, county, subregional and local)
consider air quality, land use, transportation and economic relationships to ensure
consistency and minimize conflicts.
F.7. Response: The Circulation Element, Community Design Element and Utilities Element all
incorporate policies and programs that are designed to reduce unit emissions of
pollutants, including those from travel and use of energy, and encourage more
efficient and innovating employment opportunities. The General Plan Program
EIR utilizes a variety of regional planning effects, including regional goals and
programs of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, the Coachella
Valley CVATS transportation model and plan, and an assessment of nearby land
planning. An essential theme of the General Plan has been the logical
compatibility of the planning effort with surrounding lands and jurisdictions.
33
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
F.8. Comment: Outdoor Recreation
9.01 Provide adequate land resources to meet the outdoor recreation needs of
the present and future residents in the region and to promote tourism in the
region.
9.02 Increase the accessibility to open space lands for outdoor recreation.
9.03 Promote self-sustaining regional recreation resources and facilities
F.8. Response: The Draft General Plan identified open space and public parklands available for
recreation and enjoyment by all sectors of the community. The Land Use Plan
provides additional lands for neighborhood and community parks at a level
consistent with and responsive to the increased demand associated with existing
and planned development. Open space has been an essential element of successful
tourism promotion in the region and especially in the City of Palm desert. This is
recognized and reinforced throughout the General Plan and Program EIR.
F.9. Comment: Public Health and Safety
9.04 Maintain open space for adequate protection of lives and properties
against natural and man-made hazards.
9.05 Minimize potentially hazardous developments in hillsides, canyons, areas
susceptible to flooding, earthquakes, wildfire and other known hazards, and areas
with limited access for emergency equipment.
9.06 Minimize public expenditure for infrastructure and facilities to support
urban type uses in areas where public health and safety could not be guaranteed.
F.9. Response: Clearly the Draft General Plan and Program EIR provide detailed background
information, and policies and programs to assure the maintenance of open space
and the protection of lives and properties from natural and man-made hazards.
The General Plan also assigns low intensity land uses in potentially hazardous
areas and the Program EIR includes mitigation measures designed to protect lives
and property from various hazards occurring in the planning area. Management
and mitigation measures limit the need to expend public funds and assure the
construction of cost-effective improvements.
F.10 Comment: Resource Production
9.07 Maintain adequate viable resource production lands, particularly lands
devoted to commercial agriculture and mining operations
F.10. Response: There are no agricultural lands within the planning area. The Draft General Plan
and Draft EIR identify the occurrence of sand and gravel resources within the
planning area and the need for their protection, in balance with other resource
management issues.
34
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
F.11. Comment: Resource Protection
9.08 Develop well-managed viable ecosystems or known habitats of rare,
threatened and endangered species, including wetlands
F.11. Response: The City is a pro-active participant with the Coachella Valley Association of
Governments (CVAG) and the Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, which
are developing the valley-wide Multiple Species habitat Conservation Plan. Both
sensitive ecosystems and species are to be protected under this multi jurisdictional
management plan.
F.12. Comment: The Water Quality Chapter core recommendations and policy
options relate to the two water quality goals: to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical and biological integrity of the nation's water; and, to achieve and maintain
water quality objectives that are necessary to protect all beneficial uses of all waters.
11.02 Encourage "watershed management" programs and strategies, recognizing the
primary role of local governments in such efforts.
11.05 Support regional efforts to identify and cooperatively plan for wetlands to facilitate
both sustaining the amount and quality of wetlands in the region and expediting the
process for obtaining wetland's permits.
11.07 Encourage water reclamation throughout the region where it is cost-
effective, feasible, and appropriate to reduce reliance on imported water and
wastewater discharges. Current administrative impediments to increased use of
wastewater should be addressed
F.12. Response: The General Plan Water resources Element and the associated analysis in the
Program EIR provide detailed discussions of water resources and the management
programs recently adopted and now in effect. General Plan Flooding and
Hydrology Element policies and programs also address the issue of enhancing
groundwater recharge wherever practicable. The General Plan Biological
Resources Element and the discussion in Section III-F of the Program EIR both
address the City's continuing pro-active participation in the soon to be released
Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), which
includes conservation strategies for wetlands. CVWD is the local sanitary sewer
service provider and is a recognized leader in tertiary treated water use for golf
course and other landscape irrigation.
F.13. Comment: All feasible measures needed to mitigate any potentially negative regional impacts
associated with the proposed project should be implemented and monitored, as
required by CEQA.
F.13. Response: Comment noted. The General Plan Program EIR constraints a wide range of
mitigation monitoring and reporting programs to assure that mitigation measures
are appropriately implemented.
35
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
G. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION AND LAND
MANAGEMENT AGENCY
G.I. Comment: a. The RCIP General Plan land use designation names for the residential
categories have changed. For your reference, I am attaching the Land Use
Designations Summary Table, which lists the adopted land use designations. In
various places, the Draft EIR for the Palm Desert General Plan refers to these
designations, and they are not correct as currently written.
G.1. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated by reference into the Draft EIR and
Draft General Plan.
G.2. Comment: b. The residential land use designation category of Hillside Reserve, allowing up
to 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres in a few of the areas within the City's Sphere of
Influence north and south of the City is designated as Open Space-Conservation
in the RCIP General Plan. 1 dwelling unit per five acres is generally more intense
for those areas than the County' Open Space-Conservation designation.
G.2. Response: Comment noted. It should be noted that the designation allows a range of up to a
maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per acre. Each development proposal must
include an analysis of slope and other site constraints before the maximum density
could be realized.
G.3. Comment: Along the Pines to Palms Hwy. We have recently recognized a property that was
privately owned, and given the designation of Open Space-Conservation Habitat
in the draft land use map. That was corrected in the adopted General Plan map,
and now the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan land use map calls for the Rural
Mountainous (10 Ae. Min.) designation for this site.
G.3. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated by reference in the Draft General Plan
and EIR.
GA. Comment: Along Interstate 10 there are a few minor changes in the Commercial and
Industrial Designations that need to be reflected in the City's FIR pertaining to
the Sphere of Influence areas.
GA. Response: Continent noted and hereby incorporated by reference in the Draft General Plan
and EIR.
G.5. Comment: e. There are two new policy areas of the RCIP General Plan that fall within the
City's Sphere of Influence area-Sky Valley Mobile Homes & RV Parks Policy
Area, and Section 8 Sand Source Policy Area. Please ensure that the provisions of
these policy areas are reflected in the Palm Desert General Plan EIR.
G.5. Response: Comment noted. The subject policy changes have been considered in the City
Draft General Plan for almost two years and have been incorporated into the
Biological Resources Element and the Flooding and Hydrology Element.
36
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
G.6. Comment: The County is very interested in preserving the resources in the Cahuilla Hills
Area. The preferred alternative land use plan reflects the majority of the land uses
of the adopted RCIP General Plan except the areas that are designated as Low
Density (0-4 DU/AC). The RCIP General Plan call for a Low Density Residential
designation, which allows maximum of 2 DU/AC. There should be some
recognition in the City's General Plan and EIR that indicates the County's limit
on density in this area to 2 DU/AC.
G.6. Response: As noted above, the land use designation permits a range of development
potential, which may be more precisely defined in subsequent assignment of
zoning designations. Each development proposal may be required to include an
analysis of slope and other site constraints before the maximum density could be
realized.
G.7. Comment: The preferred land use map in the EIR reflects Golf Courses as the Resort
Commercial land use designation within the City; however, in the Sphere of
Influence areas, the Golf Courses are not reflected in the same pattern. If you need
the County's GIS information for the location of these golf courses, the County
would be willing to assist you to obtain that information.
G.7. Response: The golf course open space areas associated with the North Star Specific Plan
north of I-10 at Cook Street is correctly delineated as open space. The Tri-Palms
Estates land use has been abbreviated and the actual development density spread
over the entire Tri-Palm site. The City will coordinate with County GIS to assure
a consistent database.
37
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final FIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
H. DONALD & PATRICIA ROSBURG
CHARLES & SALLY SPARKS
H.1. Comment: We of College View Estates II greatly oppose your plan for the University
Village. The density of apartments, condos and high-density housing and
professional buildings should be closer to the college.
We strongly urge you to consider placing the green space plans closer to our
existing homes and moving the proposed University Village on the land between
Portola and Cook.
We feel that professional offices in front of College View Estates II would impose
a hardship on residence including depreciation of property values, increases in
traffic, light pollution and the view and privacy that we paid for.
H.l. Response: Comment noted. The College View Estates neighborhood's name reflects how
close these homes already are to the University, the visibility of which is implied
to be a benefit to the homeowners. The University Village concept proposed in
the University Park planning area is a dispersed and distributed mix of residential
product that is in the overall "medium density" in character. Anticipated
residential development includes single family residences of up to 10 units per
acre, as well as low density resort-style housing and apartments and
condominiums.
The Draft General Plan Community Design Element provides guidance to the
City and development community on the appropriate use of landscape and other
buffers to enhance land use compatibility. Open space buffers, especially along
arterial roadways, including Portola Avenue, are integral parts of the University
Park development concept.
Professional office development (C-OP) can frequently be a compatible land use
along arterials roadways, can take advantage of consolidated access drives and
constitute a generally moderate intensity land use. Office development can also
cause a significant reduction in traffic noise from adjoining arterials roads, and in
this regard offices can be an effective and compatible land use adjacent to
residential development. Office use patterns are generally compatible with
residential development, operating primarily between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM, with
little or no activity during evenings and weekends. Offices require relatively low
lighting levels and can be made essentially unobtrusive to surrounding residences.
38
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
I. COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
I.1. Comment: Paragraph 1,page II-11, Water Quality, needs to be amended to read:
Some portions of the Coachella Valley groundwater basin are
contaminated with increased levels of nitrate. Possible sources of this
nitrate contamination include the application of fertilizers on golf courses
and farms and effluent from septic tanks and wastewater treatment plants.
I.1. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated by referenced in the General Plan EIR.
I.2. Comment: Paragraph 5,page III-86, Groundwater Replenishment,needs to be amended
to read, "the facility , which began operation is 1995, and expanded in 1998, has
successfully recharged 12,685 acre-feet of water use as of August 2003.
I.2 Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated by referenced in the General Plan EIR.
I.3. Comment: Paragraph 2,page III-87, Groundwater Replenishment, needs to be amended
to add, "The San Diego Water Authority is also an agency listed in the
Quantification Settlement Agreement."
I.3. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated by referenced in the General Plan EIR.
I.4. Comment: Paragraph 1, page I11-89, Water Quality,needs to be amended to read,
"Possible sources of this nitrate contamination include the application of
fertilizers on golf courses and farms and effluent from septic tanks."
I.4. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated by referenced in the General Plan EIR.
39
TN/City of Palm Desert/1.7.04
Comprehensive General Plan Update Final EIR
Response to Comments on Draft EIR
SECTION II
COMMENT LETTERS
ON THE
PALM DESERT
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The following comment letters were received on the Draft EIR transmitted to various public
agencies and interested parties. Comments restated in Section I are bracketed in this section
and correspond to the comment numbers in Section I.
40
11/03/2003 16:42 FAX IM002
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP
as{ameYi of faro A
51.5 south Flgueroa 7th Floor Los Angeles Callfornia 9007FI-3395
.Allen Maiklns ItOlePhOne. 213 622 5565 facsimfle,213 620 aals www.allerimatkins.com
-rax.Petrick A.Pent t.21a see e304
ale sum6ar,F32EW021 AWog4p,01 e,PP"tPallenmatklM.eom
November 3, 2003
VIA FACSIMILE AND
FIRST CLASS MAIL
Mr.Philip Drell
Director of Cornmunity Development
City of Pahn Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Palm Desert Draft
Comprehensive General Plan(SCH#2003051103)
Dear Mr.Drell_
This Cxrm represents Comishe of Bighorn,LLC ("Comishe") in connection with the
proposed development of approximately twelve acres of undeveloped property located along the
southem boundary'of the City adjacent to the Canyons at Bighorn development We have
reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report ("DEIR") for the.City's Draft Comprehensive
General Plan ("IICOP"), and although we recognize that the preparation of the DCGP and DEIR
are the result of considerable thought and effort on the.part of the City, we are concerned that the
DEIR fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(Public
Resources Code §§ 21000 et M.) ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, §§ 15000 et sue.) ("CEQA Guidelines"). As set forth in substantial detail
below, the DEIR fails to adequately address a number of significant impacts on the environment
that will result from future development in the City as provided in the DCGP. Instead, the DEIR
consists largely of conclusory assertions that are not supported by substantial evidence in the
record. Potentially significant impacts in many areas should accordingly be reevaluated,
additional information should be provided, and the DEIR should be recirculated for public
review and comment.
Comments on speck areas of concern are set forth below. For case of reference, the
following comments are presented in the order in which the issues are presented in the DEIR.
Los Av Ag 1 s Ce"oaay C„y Oran K° Calmry San Dicgo San Francisco
Received Nov-OS-Z005 05:45pm From- To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 00E
11/03/2003 16:42 FAX 1@009
.Allen Matkins Lack Gamble & Mallory LLP
attorneys at law A
Mr. Philip Drell
November 3, 7-003
Page 2
1. The DEIR Is Legally Inadequate in the Following Respects.
1. Land Use Compatibility.
The DEIR reflects a number revisions to'the General Plan Land Use Plan that is pIfor
as part of the DCGP. These revisions affect specific auras throughout the City, including
property owned by Comishe. The DEIR fails,however, to address with adequate specifi
impacts that will result from The proposed revisions to the Land Use Plan or the justificatsuch revisions. The discussion of Land Use Compatibility also contains a number of
assumptions with respect to projected growth that are not adequately supported by facts.
By way of example,the discussion of potential buildout within the planning area ote
General Plan relies on the assumption that(i) residential buildout is expected to occur at 75a/o of
maximum permissible densities, (ii)buildout of commercial lands assumes 22% lot coverage,
and(iii)buildout of industrial land assumes 340i6 lot coverage. There is,however,no I A 1
explanation or justification for such assumptions. Regardless of how plausible such assumptions
may appear, the absence of any factual support renders such assumptions inadequate as a means
of quantifying potential buildout of the General Plan area. The DEIR thereby fails to analyze the
maximum potential impact on land use development ifthc threshold assumptions are inaccurate.
CEQA requires all reasonably foreseeable impacts on the environment to be analyzed. It is
reasonably foreseeable that residential buildout will occur at 100%of maximum permissible
densities. It is also reasonably foreseeable that buildout of commercial and industrial properties
will exceed 22% and-34% of lot coverage,respectively, Because the DEIR does not-address all
reasonably foreseeable land use impacts,it is legally inadequate. The DEIR should accordingly
be revised and recirculated for public review.
In addition to proceeding on the basis of unsupported assumptions, the DEIR does not
adequately reflect revisions Thai have been proposed to the Preferred Alternative set forth in the
DEIR. According to Exhibit III-1 in the DEIR, which represents the Preferred Alternative and is
dated July 15, 2003,the land use designation for most of the Comishe property is Low Density
Residential, which permits a maximum residential density of 0-4 units per acre. A small portion
of the Cornishe property has been redesignated as Hillside Reserve,which permits one dwelling
unit per five acres. Exhibits V-2 and V-3 of the DEIR, which illustrate the More Intense
Alternative and The Less Intense Alternative for purposes of environmental review, both show A 2
the land use designation for the Cornishe property to be the same as the Preferred Alternative.
A subsequent land use map, which is also labeled as the Preferred Alternative and which
is dated August 18, 2003, has now been circulated: According to the August 18 Preferred
Alternative, the entire Comishe property has been redesignated as Hillside Reserve, thereby
Received Nov-03-2003 05:45pm From- To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Pale 0US
11/03/2003 16:40 FAX 1@004
All Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP
crtoorrye ar law
Mr.Philip Drell
November 3,2003
Page 3
limiting the permitted density of development for the whole property to one dwelling unit per
five acres. Revisions affecting other properties within the General Plan area were also included
in the August 18 Preferred Alternative. It is our understanding that the update to the City's
General Plan has been underway for approximately two years. It is therefore difficult to A 2
understand why, after all of the study undertaken over a considerable period of time, it was
determined to revise the Preferred Alternative after the DEIR was prepared for circulation. Any
revisions to the Preferred Alternative, the More Intense Alternative, and the Less Intense
Alternative have clearly not been analyzed as part of the CEQA process and therefore cannot be
approved absent recirculation for public review. Absent adequate analysis and recirculation,
incorporation of the proposed revisions to the Preferred Alternative into the DEIR would
constitute a violation of CEQA and would render the adoption of the DCGP legally invalid.
2. Traffic/Circulation.
A. The Analysis of Mid-Black Traffic Impacts is Inadequate.
Section IILB of the DEIR, Traffic/Circulation, fails to disclose or attempt to mitigIthe
identified significant impacts to roadway link capacities on Monterey Avenue, Washingto
Street Cook Street, Varner Road, Portola Avenue, Fred Waring Drive, Highway 111, and
Interstate 10. Page III-37 of the DEIR states: "While link capacities will be significantlyA 3
impacted, it is impacts to intersections that will be the determining;•ring factor in roadway netw
operations......... By favoring an analysis of intersection impacts over roadway link impacts
DEIR fails to analyze, disclose, or attempt to mitigate reasonably foreseeable significant
environmental impacts that are separate and distinct from intersection impacts_
Page 111-18 of the DEIR identifies a method for evaluating mid-block traffic levels,then
fails to apply the method in the analysis. Whcrc a viable method exists for evaluating impacts, a
DEIR must apply that method in order to disclose to the public the nature of the impacts and
prescribe feasible mitigation measures if any exist_ The DEIR fails in this regard. An analysis of A 4
The particular mid-block link capacity impacts must be included in the DEIR- By admitting that
mid-block link impacts will be significant but failing to further identify or mitigate them,the
DEIR must be recirculated with this information provided for public review.
Where roadway links are significantly impacted,mid-block neighborhood cut-through
traffic is reasonably foreseeable. The DEIR fails to discuss even the possibility of, much Iess the
available mitigation of,neighborhood cut-through traffic when roadway links are significantly A 5
impacted by congestion. CEQA requires a discussion of all reasonably foreseeable impacts and
a discussion of all feasible mitigation measures. This failure in the DEIR renders the DEIR
legally inadequate.
Received Nov-03-2003 05:45pm From- To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC Pl Pa&o 004
11/03/2003 16:43 FAX I7J005
Allen Markins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP
aiNmays ar law
Mr. Philip Drell
November 3,2003
Page 4
B. Significance Thresholds Are Impermissibly Vague and Inconsistent with
Project Objectives.
The DEIR does not expressly and clearly state the significance thresholds for traffic
impacts as required by CEQA_ Page 111-41 of the DBIR seems to imply that so long as peak hour
intersection impacts are at LOS D or better, a traffic impact is considered less than significant.
Y'et, the DEIR admits to changing the significance threshold to achieve the pretext of less-than- A 6
significant impacts,. Page 111-41 of the DEIR admits that LOS C was considered desirable and
acceptable, but because LOS C is more difficult to achieve, a lesser standard of LOS D should
become the significance threshold. CEQA does not allow the measure of significance to be
dictated by the difficulty in achieving less-than-significant levels. Under such a standard,LOS F
would be considered less-than-significant in many urban California environments.
in,addition,the "reverse" significance threshold of LOS D or better fails to account for
drastic changes fi:om existing LOS levels and LOS degradation to LOS D due to project impacts.
At 15 locations identified in Table III-2 of the DEIR,Average Daily Trips ("ADT") increase at
least 100%, and many increase by over 500 percent, with the incorporation of so-called
mitigation measures (the adequacy of which is also woefully inadequate, as discussed below).
At four intersections identified in Table 111-3 of the DEIR,peak hour delays double, increasing
by 100 percent or more. These drastic changes are discussed below and identified in Table 1;
below, -
Table 1. Intersections Drastically De aded By Project Impacts. A 7
Intersection Degree of Dc radation
Cook St S /Gerald Fold W) A rox. 100%increase in PM eak dela
Coun Club Dr. S /Oasis Club Dr. W) Over 100°/a increase in PM eak delay
Monterey Avenue(NS)/Dinah Share Dr. (E W) Approx. 150%increase in PM peak delay
A rox. 100%increase in ADT
Washington St. (NS)/1.10 EB Approx_ 150%increase in PM peak delay
A rox,300%increase in ADT
H i 11 W. of Cook St- ADorox. 100%increase in ADT
Hwy 1 t 1 W.of Wa rhin ton Se Approx. 100%increase in ADT
I-10 W. of Bob Hope Or. Approx. I40%increase in ADT
1-10 E.of Cook St. A rox.300%increase in ADT
Cook St.N. of I-10 ARiprox. 700%increase in ADT
Washington St-N.of Varner Rd. A rox- 600%increase in ADT
Fred Waring Dr.W.of Washington St. A rax. 100%increase in ADT
Gerald Ford Dr.W. of Cook St. Almost 600%increase in ADT
Gerald Ford Dr-E.of Cook St. A rox. 150°/increase in ADT
Varner Rd. E,of Cook Street Approx. 10009/increase in ADT
Varner Rd.E. of Washington SL A rox.30076 increase in ADT
Received Nov-03-NUa 05:45pm From- To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 005
11/03/2003 16:43 FAX Boos
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory T Le
arrarncys ar law
Mr. Philip Drell
November 3, 2003
Page 5
Furthermore, this drastic degradation of service levels on the intersections identified in
Table 1 is inconsistent with the stated goals and purposes of the General Plan. Page HI-41 of the
DEIR states: "The General Plan Circulation Element establishes and directs actions to maintain A 7
acceptable levels of service on all community roadways_" (emphasis added). In addition, Item B
of the Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program requires the transportation planning agencies To
"study and implement effective means of preserving and improving capacity along major
roadways." Yet, the DEIR deems "acceptable" and less-than-significant the severe degradation
of service to LOS D at 19 intersections. This inconsistency alone renders Section III-E of the
DEIR inadequate because the significance threshold is inconsistent with the performance
standard set forth in the mitigation measure.
C, Mitigation Messures Are Legally Inadequate.
The mitigation measures act forth in the DEIR are impermissibly vague and
impermissibly attempt to substitute assumptions and future analysis for required mitigation
measures. The "LOS C Improvements" and "LOS D Improvements" set forth in the General
Plan Traffic Study are never restated in the DEIR and are not set forth as mitigation measures in A 8
the DEIR. Consequently the DEIR fails to identify all mitigation measures. References to the
Traffic Study are not sufficient to fulfill the purposes and requirements of CEQA.
In addition, the so-called mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation
Monitoring/Reporting Program are nothing more than vague and impermissibly unspecific
notions to "periodically evaluate", "consult and coordinate" or "monitor" activities that do not
include the requisite performance thresholds or outcomes required of mitigation measures
involving future study. As such,these so-called mitigation measures do not comply with CEQA
and are woefully inadequate to address the significant degradation of service at the intersections A 9
identified in Table 1, above. Furthermore, no mitigation measures are proposed for significant
mid-block impacts and reasonably foreseeable neighborhood cut through traffic. Finally, a
Program EIR is not relieved of the duty to provide specific and enforceable mitigation measures
for foreseeable environmental impacts. Characteriting planning goals as mitigation measures is
not sufficient to show that the mitigation measures are enforceable and will likely achieve the
goal of reducing the impacts they arc intended to reduce.
For all the reasons set forth above, the traffic impact analysis should be re-done to
address these inadequacies and recirculated for public review and comment.
Received Nov-03-2003 05:45pm Prom- To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 006
11/03/2003 16:44 FAX IM 007
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLI'
attolaoyl at law
Mr.Philip Drell
November 3, 2003
Page 6
3. Soils and Geoloev.
Section [II.0 of the DEIR, Soils and Geology, fails to establish significance thresholds
for seismic events and fails to provide a quantitative analysis and determination of the
effectiveness of mitigation measures to reduce the impacts of the proposed General Plan to
below the significance thresholds.
In discussing the hazards posed by development on ridgelines,the DEIR dismisses the A 10
impact of developing on ridgetop slopes by making the conclusory statement that "development
does not typically occur on these slopes, [thus] the impacts of these phenorhena on man-made
structures and human life is not expected to be significant_" See DEIR at page 111-66. The DEIR
fails to determine•whether the proposed General Plan does indeed provide for such development,
and,if it does,to quantify the impacts from such development and then propose mitigation
measures if such impacts are significant.
The.mitigation measure identified for ground subsidence is groundwater conservation_
However, the consultant that evaluated the mitigation of subsidence through groundwater
conservation and recharge concluded that conservation and recharge will be "difficult to
implement...[and will be] more than offset by the rapid growth of the region and heavy water
requirements of golf courses". See Seismic. Geologic and Flooding Sections of the Technical
Background Report to the Safety Element of the General Plan for the City of Pahn Desert
Riverside County California, Earth Consultants International, Section 2.3.6 (Jan. 17,2002). The
consultant recommended instead that the impact from subsidence be addressed by a mitigation
measure to fund structural repairs or replacement with the costs of such repairs to be passed A 11
through to the water users. The DE111 provides no explanation for relying on mitigation
measures that the consultant found to be inadequate or for failing to impose a mitigation measure
recommended by the consultant. Furthermore, if successful,the general mitigation measure of
continuation and expansion of groundwater recharge proposed to protect water quality/resources
and prevent subsidence could result in an increased liquefaction hazard because of the rise in the
groundwater table. The DEllt needs to reconcile the advantages and disadvantages of
groundwater recharge by quantifying the impact of the recharge program on groundwater levels
and subsidence and then assessing the impact of recharge on the liquefaction hazard present
during earthquakes.
4. Hydrology.
Section II1.13 of the EIR, Hydrology, fails to provide a detailed, complete and quantitative
analysis and determination of the significance of the environmental impacts resulting from the A 12
General Plan. The DEIR acknowledges that(i) the General Plan area is susceptible to flash
Received Nov-03-2003 05:45pm From- Tu-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 007
11/03/2003 16:44 FAX 1@008
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP
attoratyr at(aw
Mr. Philip Drell
November 3,2003
Page 7
floods, (ii) overland water flow and flooding are "issues of concern" because of increased runoff
from the lack of permeable soils due to asphalt and other impervious surfaces associated with the
build-out of the General Plan area, and(iii) the hazard posed by flooding is significant if not
mitigated. However, the DEIR, with the exception of the limited discussion regarding the Mid-
Valley 5tormwater Channel, fails to do any of the following_ (1) quantify the capacity of existing
stormwatcr control systems, (ii) quantify the increase in stormwater runoff resulting from a
reduction in permeable soil area due to the proposed increased development, (iii) anafyze
whether the existing stormwater control systems have the capacity to manage the increased A 12
runoff, (iv) establish significance thresholds with respect to runoff, or(iv) quantify the benefits
of the proposed mitigation treasures. Without such quantification, analysis, and determination
of significance thresholds, the DEIR as presently drafted provides an insufficient degree of
analysis by which to inform the public of the General Plan's adverse environmental impacts and
to provide decision makers with the information with which to snake informed decisions
regarding the adequacy of the mitigation measures.
Overall,-the impact analysis regarding Hydrology fails to quantify any of the impacts and
mitigation measures, is conclusory and wholly inadequate.
5_ Water Ouality/Resource&
i
i
Section 11.E of the DEIR,•Water Quality/Resources, fails to provide a quantitative
analysis and determination of significance of the environmental impacts on water quality and
resources resulting from the General Plan. Groundwater is the main water supply source for the
Coachella Valley. Within the General Plan planning area, this resource is presently suffering
from overdraft ranging in rate from 70,132 to 127,018 acre-feet per year, which overdraft has
resulted'in some surface subsidence. Surface water recharge/replenishment program efforts have
failed to curb the decline in groundwater levels and have degraded the quality of the naturally
occurring groundwater. After stating that the buildout of the proposed General Plan represents A 13
an increase of 42.7%in dwelling units and 36% increase in industrial development over the
current General Plan,the DEIR acknowledges that the "implementation of the proposed General
Plan is expected to result in greater impacts to water resources in comparison to those associated
with the current General Plan." See DEIR at page 111-91. The DEIR then goes on to state,
without any supposing quantification and analysis,that"[i]mpacts to water quality resulting
from the adoption and implementation of the proposed General Plan are anticipated to be
comparable to, or slightly greater than those resulting from the buildout of the current General
Plan." This final statement is wholly without support, conclusory and contrary to the above-
referenced statements contained in the DEIR.
Received Nov-03-2003 05:46PM From- To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 005
11/03/2003 16:44 FAX Q 009
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP
arrornryr ar law
Mr.Philip Drell
November 3,2003
Page S
The mitigation measures addressing overdraft of groundwater resources and resulting
subsidence rely heavily on conservation efforts, contrary to the consultant's evaluation of the
effectiveness of such measures. As discussed above in connection with Soils and Geology
impacts, the consultant that evaluated the mitigation of subsidence through groundwater
conservation and recharge concluded that conservation and recharge will be "difficult to
implement...[and will be] more than offset by the rapid growth of the region and heavy water
requirements of golf courses". See Seismic, Geologic and Flooding Sections of the Technical A 14
Background Report to the Safety Element of the General plan for the City of Palm Desert
Riverside County, California, Earth Consultants International, Section 2.3.6 (Jan. 17, 2002). The
consultant recommended that a mitigation measure to fund structural repairs or replacement with
the costs of such passed through to the water users. Again, the DEI12 provides no explanation for
relying on mitigation measures that the consultant found to be inadequate or for failing to impose
a mitigation measure recommended by the consultant..
The DEIR fails to (i) quantitatively determine and analyze the ability of existing
groundwater resources to meet the needs of the increased residential and industrial facilities, (ii)
quantitatively determine and analyze the impacts on the quality of groundwater due to increased
replenishment through surface application of imported water of poorer quality, (iii) establish
significance thresholds with respect to groundwater overdraft and quality, and(iv) quantify the A 15
bents of the proposed mitigation measures. Without such quantification, analysis,,and
determination oi'sigtuficance thresholds, the DEIR as presently drafted provides an insufficient
degree of analysis by which to inform the public of the General Plan's adverse environmental
impacts and to provide decision makers with the information with which to make informed
decisions regarding the adequacy of the mitigation measures.
Overall, the impact analysis regarding Hydrology fails to quantify any of the impacts and
mitigation measures,is conclusory and wholly inadequate.
6. Cultural Resources.
Section III.G of the DEIR, Cultural Resources, fails to propose adequate mitigation
measures for the potentially significant impact on important archeological resources within]DFI!R
study area_ The study area includes a significant amount of land of high sensitivity for
prehistoric and archeological artifacts, as well as historic structures. The City sits on lands
are highly valuable and hold key facts about Native American and California history. The states that "...the proposed General Plan 1lpdate designates the majority of these lands [lanhigh sensitivity] for conservation, and limited lands designated for development are assignA 16
very low densities." The DEIR also provides that if archeological resources are discovered
during construction, such construction will cease. If there is a potential for exposure to
Received Nov-Oa-2003 05:45pm From- To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC V! Page 009
11/03/2003 16:45 FAX CM010
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP
an"rnrys a[ law
Mr.Philip Drcll
November 3, 2003
Page 9
important archeological resources,mitigation measures typically require that a certified A 16
archeologist be available during grading and not simply that construction be ceased in the event
that archeological resources are discovered.
Further,the City has failed to adequately survey the study area for important historical
and archeological resources. The DEIR proposes that"site surveys be conducted'on all future
development projects,if deemed necessary,to determine the presence and significance of
archeological and historic resources." See DEIR at page III-119. This is insufficient given the
fact that there are currently a number of proposed development projects within the study area,
which willdnevitably disrupt cultural resources. Because the City has specific knowledge about A 17
certain development projects, a survey Should be conducted (at the minimum for those areas
where development is anticipated) and the significance of the cultural resources determined prior
to the finalization of the EIF,in order for the impact to be fully evaluated. The proposed
mitigation measures are not sufficient given(i) the large amount of land within the study area
known to have a great probability of containing important archeological resources, and(ii)the
anticipated development projects.
7. Air Quality.
Section III_;=I of the DEIR, Air Quality, fails to provide a quantitative analysis and
determination of effectiveness of the mitigation measures that are purported to reduce the
impacts of the proposed General Plan to below the significance thresholds. The anticipated
aggregated daily Project-related emissions for carbon monoxide,nitrogen oxides,sulfur oxides,
particulates and reactive organic gases associated with buildout of the proposed General Plan all
exceed the threshold criteria established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
The emissions exceed the threshold criteria by no Icss than 2.6 up to.71 times the threshold A 18
criteria. The DEIR attempts to minimize these exceedances by pointing out that other
development projects or areas are degrading air quality in the Coachella Valley to a greater
extent than proposed development within the General Plan area. The DEIR fails to quantify the
reductions that will be achieved t cough the mitigation measures. Without such quantification,
the DEIR as presently drafted provides an insufficient degree of analysis by which to inform the
public of the General Plans adverse environmental impacts and provide decision makers with the
information with which to make informed decisions regarding the adequacy of the mitigation
measures.
The DEIR.quantifies fugitive dust potential by estimating a total daily fugitive emissions
rate anticipated from the total buildout of the General Plan. The estimate makes no attempt to
predict buildout based on historical growth patterns and, accordingly, makes no attempt to A 19
estimate the signifrcancc of impacts from dust emissions related to development. By failing to
Received Nov-03-2003 05:45pm From- To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 010
11/03/2003 16:45 FAX laoil
Allen Matkins Leek Gamble & Mallory LLP
attoMd•i at law
Mr.Philip Drell
November 3, 2003
Page 10
provide such an analysis,the DEIR has failed to disclose the significance of the environmental A 19
impacts resulting from dust emissions related to the General Plan.
The DEIR fails to identify and analyze the impact of anticipated buildout of the General
Plan on sensitive receptors. The only attention given to sensitive receptors is through a
mitigation measure requiring the City to "assure that air pollution point sources, such as
manufacturing facilities, are located at an appropriate distance from residential areas and other
sensitive land uses end�receptors." An analysis of air quality impacts on sensitive receptors frorp
some as yet unknown manufacturing facility may require too many assumptions to be of value A 20
now. However, adequate information is presently available to reasonably estimate, for example,
(i)the air quality impacts resulting from vehicular emissions under the Gcneral Plan,.(ii)the
significance of the impact of those emissions on sensitive receptors, and(1i1)the adequacy of
proposed measures to mitigate significant impacts. The DEIR is devoid of such an analysis.
8. Public Services and Facilities.
The General Plan creates impacts in connection with public services and facilities which
rise to the level of significance. The proposed mitigation measures fail to adequately address
such significant impacts. Current services and facilities arc clearly insufficient to serve the study
area after buildout under the General Plan.
Both the Desert Sands Unified School District and the Palm Springs Unified School
District are currently operating near capacity, and in some instances experiencing overczowdiug.
Buildout under the General Plan will result in the enrollment of 28,353 additional students.
While the construction of additional school facilities can be fimded by developer fees, such A 21
facilities cannot be developed at a sufficiently fast pace. Specific sites should be identified and
designated for school facilities prior to the finalization of the DEIR..
Moreover, buildout under the General Plan will create significant impacts on police and
fire services_ The DEIR simply suggests that because buildout will occur gradually, needs for
such services will be evaluated as it becomes necessary. This analysis, or lack thereof, is
inappropriate_ At a minimum, the DElR should identify the locations of police substations,
water mains and emergency equipment which will accommodate the'anticipated growth. The A 22
General Plan clearly identifies areas of anticipated development; for instance, the university-
related development will create a significant increased need for police services, yet this need is
not particularly addressed in the DEIR. Further, existing police services provide a ratio of 1.75
sworn officers for every 1,000 residents_ According to the DEIR, the "preferred ratio" is L5
swom officers for every 1,000 residents, which requires 153 additional officers. The DEIR fails,
Recelved Nov-03-2003 05:45pm From- To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 011
11/03/2003 16:45 FAX a012
Allen Matkins Leek Gamble & Mallory LLP
49WMErT Rr law
Mr.Philip Droll
November 3,2003
Page 11
however, to address when the hiring of additional officers will commence or how the City):illj A 22
reach the preferred ratio.
Overall,most public services and facilities are operating near, if not at,maximum
capacity. Schools are overcrowded, landfills are nearing closure,police and fire serviccs can
only provide.for the existing needs. The General Plan will create significant growth in
population, which will in turn create a significant increase in demand for public services and A 23
facilities_ The DEIR simply fails to explain how these services and facilities will grow and
expand in order to adequately accommodate the thousands of new residents for which the
General Plan provides.
9_ Socia-Fiamornic Resources_
The DEIR concludes that development under the General Plan will create greater tax
revenue for the City and that therefore the General Plan has a positive socio-economic impact.
While this may be tiue for the City, this is not the case for those areas within the sphere of
influence of the City,which do not contain sufficient retail and commercial designations.
Further,the DEIR does not adequately address the need for affordable housing within the City, A 24
nor does it provide for an adequate jobs/housing balance. While the planning area will generate
a generous amount of jobs,the DEIR does not indicate that those jobs will pay salaries sufficient
to afford housing within the City. The proposed mitigation measures offer monitoring of socio-
economic issues, as well as encouragement of certain development. This does not suffice.
10. Unavoidable Significant Impacts.
Section 1V of the DEIR states that there are unavoidable significant impacts in the areas
of Biological Resources, Water Resources, Geotechnieal Hazards, Traffic and Circulation,
Hydrology, and.Air Quality. Section IV dots not, however, describe with particularity the
specific impacts that are deemed to be significant and avoidable. Instead, Section IV speaks in
generalities about impacts that may be expected to occur in connection with the buildout of the
General Plan. Section 15126.2(b)provides in pertinent part that '[w)here there are impacts that
cannot be alleviated without an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the A 25
project is being proposed,notwithstanding their effect, should be described." Moreover, CEQA
Section 21081 provides that a public agency shall not approve a project with significant
unavoidable impacts unless the public.agency finds that specific economic, legal, social,
technological or other considerations make mitigation of such impacts infeasible.
No discussion of specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations is
included in Section IV of the DEIR_ Nor is there any discussion of the reasons why thc.Gencral
Received Nov-03-Z003 05:45pm From- To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Pale 01Z
11/03/2003 16:46 FAX [a013
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP
ette rnCy9 a!fow
Mr. Philip Drell
November 3, 2003
Page 12
Plan is proposal notwithstanding the existence of significant unavoidable impacts. Instead,the
discussion of significant and unavoidable impacts is vague, conclusory, and legally inadequate.
Additional information must therefore be provided with respect to significant and unavoidable
impacts along with a complete discussion of why such impacts cannot be avoided through the A 25
adoption of alternative measures. The DEIR should then be recirculated for public review and
comment.
11. Growth Inducing and Cumulative Impacts.
Section VIII of the DEIR fails to adequately analyze reasonably foreseeable cumulative
impacts. The discussion set forth in Section III of the DEJR is limited to analyzing those impacts
that are expected to occur only in connection with anticipated development within the General
Plan planning area. No analysis is provided with respect to the combined environmental impacts
due to development on a regional scale and how such development will affect regional resources.
By way of example, Section VIII.B of the DEIR states that there are no cumulative
environmental impacts on Land Use Compatibility, yet Section III.A of the DEIR posits an
increase in residential development within the General Plan planning area of 44.2% and an A 26
increase in industrial development within the General Plan planning area of 12.6%. Neither
Section III_A nor Section VIII.B of the DEIR contains any discussion of the anticipated
cumulative impacts of development in other jurisdictions throughout The Coachella Valley.
Clearly,the development expected to occur in connection with the buildout of the General Plan
will not take place in a vacuum. Failure of the DEIR to address development on a regional scale
constitutes a violation of CEQA.
Similarly, Section 111.13 of the DEIR states that Flighway 111, Highway 74, and Interstate
10 are all "Regional Roadways." Yet, only the projeofs contribution to these Regional
Roadways is analyzed—as if the rest of the region will remain static. Common sense and ample
data available from SCAG and CalTrans show that traffic congestion on these roadways is
expected to increase steadily through 2020 due to population growth and a shift in the age of
drivers. More drivers will remain on the roadways longer than in previous decades. By adding A 27
cumulative traffic impacts, it is likely that cumulative traffic impacts at some study intersections
will become significant and unavoidable. The DEIR thcreibre impermissibly ignores reasonably
foreseeable cumulative impacts on these Regional Roadways, rendering the DEIR legally
inadequate.
The DEIR states that the City will make a good faith effort to assure that intersections
operate at LOS D or better and that due to the programmatic nature of the DEIR, ongoing and A 28
project specific monitoring will occur to assure adequate levels of service in the long term.
Good faith efforts do not constitute adequate mitigation, nor may The City defer mitigation until
Received Nov-03-2003 05:45pm From- To-PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 013
11/03/2003 16:46 FAX j014
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP
derornoys at Ida,
Mr. Philip Drcll
November 3,2003
Page 13
project Specific impacts are identified. "Even if a general plan amendment is treated merely as a
'first phase'witli later developments having separate approvals and environmental assessments, it
is apparent that an evaluation of a 'first phase-general plan amendment'must necessarily include A 28
the larger project, i.e., the future development permitted by the amendment. Only than can the
ultimate effect of the amendment upon the physical environment be addressed." Christward
Ministr�v. Superior Court, 184 Cal.App.3d 180, 194 (1986). CEQA requires that all reasonably
foreseeable environmental impacts arising the contribution of cumulative projects and growth
also be analyzed. A Program EIR for a General Plan is not exempt from this requirement.
II. CONCLUSION.
For all ofthe foregoing reasons,the DEIR for the DCGP is inadequate as a matter of law.
Additional analysis should accordingly be performed, and the DEIR should be recirculated for
Public review and comment. Please call with any questions or if I can provide additional
information with respect to this matter.
Very truly yours,
PAP:kt Patrick A. Perry
cc: Mr. Fred Franzia
Roger M- Schrimp, Esq.
Fred Allen, Esq.
Received Nov-03—Z003 05:45pm From— To—PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 014
�JP cAiIF�T� B
TRIBAL PLANNING, BUILDING 6 ENGINEERING
ae
�CAHU11��
October 29, 2003
Mr. Phil Drell, Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: Draft EIR— City of Palm Desert General Plan
Dear Mr. Drell,
We appreciate the opportunity to review the Draft EIR for your city's Draft General Plan
and offer the following comments:
1. Page III-121— Mitigation Monitoring/Reporting Program: Item B addresses
establishment of a city-wide database that is updated annually. The City may w]toB 1
consider developing an Integrated Cultural Resource Management Plan that co
be updated periodically, say every 2-3 years.
2. The cultural sensitivity zones shown on Exhibits III-14 and III-15 are well developed
and conform to modern interpretations of desert adaptation strategies, both
prehistoric and historic. I suggest that the following mitigation measure be added:
When a proposed project is within an identified cultural sensitivity zone, and
when ground disturbing activities will occur, the city/developer shall employ a
cultural monitor or a Secretary of the Interior's Standards qualified archeologist to
monitor construction in the event that cultural resources are encountered. This B 2
monitor/archaeologist should have the authority to halt destructive activities in the
event of a discovery and shall notify the appropriate authorities to inspect and, if
need, prepare a treatment plan for the mitigation of cultural resources.
3. At this point, it may be beneficial in the long run for the City to research and
incorporate local tribal areas of concern, and develop plans to attend to them now B 3
rather than wait for them to surface during project implementation.
650 C. TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY • PALM SPRINGS, CA 99262 • (760) 3253400 • FAx: (760) 325-0593
Palm Desert GP DER
October 29, 2003
Page 2 of 2
We hope you find these comments helpful. If you have any questions, please feel free
to contact Joe Nixon, Cultural Resources Coordinator, at 883-1313.
Very truly yours,
Margaret Park, AICP
Director of Planning
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF
CAHUILLA INDIANS
C: Tom Davis, Chief Planning Officer
Joseph M. Nixon, PhD., Cultural Resources Coordinator
Project File
FALetters and Memos\Palm Desert GP DER Itr.doc
c
.J SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Kathleen DeRosa
E D I S O N• Region Manager
An EDISON 7NTERN.ATIONALO Company
September 25, 2003
Mr. Phil Drell { [ 2003
Community Development Director
City of Palm Desert
M.- ;}FMEi@'i DFa.4P?'R�'i."
73-510 Fred Waring Dr. _ ,
Palm Desert, CA 92260 _L.�,�;c,.�LT
Subject: Draft Comprehensive General Plan
Dear Mr. Drell,
Thank you for including Southern California Edison (Edison) in the review process for the above referenced
document.
The City of Palm Desert is located within the service territory of Edison. Edison's power distribution system
is prepared to deliver the power by the State's electricity market to this area. The California Independent
System Operator is the agency now responsible for managing the States electric grid and securing power
supplies.
The relocation, reconstruction, extension or under grounding of Edison's electrical distribution systJand
which may be necessitated within the proposed area will be performed by Edison in accordance wi
Edison's effective Tariff Schedules approved by and filed with the California Public Utilities Commission.
Please include the following concerns in your report:
• Please be aware that the SCE facilities may be impacted by the project may require relocation. Facilities will be relocated at the customer expeC 1
unless a recorded land rights on private property contains a relocation c
move facilities at SCE expense.
• The integrity of any and all SCE land rights will be maintained and the
developer at no cost will secure all replacement land rights to SCE.
• Identified SCE properties may require relocation, please make sure REO is
provided 5 sets of street improvements plans showing all SCE facilities at no
less than 50 scale drawings 20 or 30 is preferred. It is critical to provide SCE
plans as soon as possible to:
Mark Mainer
Manager of Real Estate Operations
Corporate Real Estate
Southern California Edison
14799 Chestnut Street
Westminster, CA 92683
If you have any question or need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at
(760)202-4211.
S,n5cefaIy,
leen DeRosa
Pu 'c Affairs
Region Manager
36100 Cathedral Canyon Dr.
Cathedral City,CA 92234
760-202-42I1
Fax 760-202-4136
QtMENT OF TyF '- D
OAP Lm
� A
United States Department of the Interior
O
� a
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
CH T9n Joshua Tree National Park
aJ MPLY6 ER To: 74485 National Park Drive
L7621 (JOTR-R) Twenrynine Palms,California 92277-3597
October 20, 2003
Mr. Phil Drell
Community Development Director
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Mr. Drell:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the Draft Environmental Impact Report
for the Palm Desert General Plan.
The plan is well-written and well thought out. Environmental concerns as they relate to
the park appear to be covered. Because the park is increasingly becoming an
"ecological island" surrounded by high-density urban and commercial development, our
major concern is the type of development of lands immediately adjacent to the park
boundary. The preferred alternative of the Palm Desert General Plan calls for zoning of
lands adjacent to the park boundary into either open space (OS/PR) or to mountain
estate (R-ME). This seems to be an appropriate compromise as reserve zoning is highly
compatible with the park's land use and mountain estate is the lowest density of D 1
residential land use. However, for maximum protection of the area along our park
boundary, we would always prefer that the adjacent outside lands be in some sort of
reserve status to provide a buffer zone to the park against less compatible land uses.
An additional land issue indirectly related to the park is the use of lands in your plan
located between the park and the Fringed-toed Lizard Preserve. There is an ecological
process at work whereby alluvial material from the park moves down slope to feed the D 2
sand dunes and other critical habitat of the fringe-toed lizard at the preserve. Any land
use on the lands between the park and the preserve that would block this process will
create a critical environmental issue.
We hope that our comments will be of use to you for your plan.
Since ly,
urt Sauer
Superintendent
� Wit:`P E
T,
--1 P.O. Box 1504
Ji-' • <—� 78-495 CALLS TAMPICO
"- •` -' (760) 777-70o0
!',F LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253 - FAX (760) 777=7101
October 31, 2003
RECEIVE
Phillip Drell, Community Development Director 11 2003
City of Palm Desert
73-5 10 Fred Waring Drive ot .urJtT':D£9ELOPMEeJTDEPARTMENT
_:, OF P LM DESERT
Palm Desert, CA 92260
RE: Draft General Plan
Dear Mr. Drell:
Your draft General Plan appropriately identifies capacity preservation, intersection spacing
and access management on pages III-81 & 82 in Policy 2 and the subsequent program
statements for implementing Policy 2. However,Program 2.0 contains escape language that
can allow city officials to subvert the fine goals stated elsewhere in the General Plan.
Specifically, Program 2.0 says "Except for special circumstances on Major Arterials the
minimum spacing for signalized intersections shall be 1,750 feet. " The General Plan is
silent with respect to what constitutes a special circumstance.
The General Plan should identify example intersections that are considered to have special
circumstances, and cite criteria and reasons as to why they are special. For example, are
existing full-tum intersections that do not comply with the General Plan spacing requirement
considered special? If so why?
The City of La Quinta is particularly interested in the evaluation criteria that will be
employed in analyzing two intersections on Washington Street: 1) the Washington
Street/Calle Las Brisas intersection (590' n/o Fred Waring Drive), and 2) the Washington
Street/Tucson Circle intersection (150' s/o Darby Road). Neither of these intersections
complies with the proposed General Plan unless the unknown special circumstance criteria is
applied. These two intersections are excellent case studies in why full-turn access should E 1
not be given to every development that connects to a Major Arterial street. There will
always be pressure to provide convenient access by sacrificing the mobility and capacity
preservation aspects which are the higher priority considerations on Major Arterial streets.
Acquiescing to the pressure means a few citizens receive a benefit at the expense of many.
The special circumstance criteria should not be tailored to accommodate decisions favoring
special interest pressure.
T:\P W DEpT�STAFFISPEER�LETTERS\03ID24A.pOC Page t of 2
-J r
If you have questions regarding this matter, please call me at (760) 777-7042.
Sincerely,
imottonas P.E.
Public Works Director/City Engineer
TRJ/SDS/acj
cc: Jerry Herman, Community Development Director
Page 2 of
TkPWDEPT STAFFISPEERILETTERS\031024A DOC
F
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA October 29, 2003
Mr. Phil Drell
Community Development Director
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert,CA 92260
RE: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Palm
ASSOCIATION of Desert Comprehensive General Plan Update—SCAG'No. 1 20030545
GOVERNMENTS
Dear Mr. Drell:
Main Office
818 West Seventh 5treet Thank you for submitting the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Palm
L2th Floor Desert Comprehensive General Plan Update to SCAG for review and comment. As
areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of
Los Angeles,California local plans, projects, and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's
90017-3435 responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and
regulations. Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and
t(za3)236-a8on project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and
f(213)236-1825 policies.
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Palm Desert
vaeoW's`ag.ca.gDy - Comprehensive General Plan Update, and have determined that the proposed Project is
DIRmrs: Plaodenl:Mayar Be.Pem.ema•nrst 'regionally significant perCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
Vim President Coundlmember Ron Roberts,
Temecula•Second Vice President: Supervise; (Section 15206). The proposed Project considers a local general plan, element, or
Hank art Imperial Past President: ,.amendment for which an environmental impact report is being prepared. CEQA requires that
Hank memher Ruoa.d Bafes,Ios Natures
Imperial County:Hank lLuInf,Imperial County EIRs discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable general plans
Io Shields.sCoun and regional plans (Section 15125 d If there are inconsistencies, an explanation and
Ins Angeles Cnunry:Wonne Bralhwaite Burke, ( j)• p
Res Angeles County gev rarmlayskv.cos Angeles rationalization for such inconsistencies should be provided. The Draft EIR does not address
County • Melanie Andrews, Compton • Harry SCAG policies that may be applicable to the City of Palm Desert Comprehensive General
County,San Gabriel•Paul Header.@rhos•
Tony CnNem,Jos Angeles•Margaret Clark,
Rosemead•Gene Daniels,Paramount•Mike Plan Update, which were outlined in our June 4, 2003 letter on the Notice of Preparation
espenza,Palmdale•Judy Dunlap,Inglewood• (NQP) for this Draft EIR.
Eric Gannon,co mu s Angeles•Wendy Gel,Has
Angeles•Frank Gmule,Cudahy•lames Hahn,
Los Angeles•Janice Hahn,cos Angeles•5andm
lambs,El Segundo•Tom LaBonge,Los Angeles• Policies of SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and Regional Transportation
Bonnie Lowenthal,Long Beach•Martin Ludlow,
His Angeles•Reith McCarthy,Downey-Hewelir Plan, which may be applicable to your project, are outlined in the attachment. It would be
Miller, Claremont • Cindy Mixikewski, Los
Angeles • Paul Nowalka, tannin¢ • Pam helpful if the Final EIR would specifically cite the appropriate SCAG policies and
DzrpIas r, Santa Monica •Alea Padilla, Los address the manner in which the Project is consistent with applicable core policies or
Angeles•Bernardtio. Jos Angeles•Ian Perry,
Ras P.Los •Beatrice i, Pico Go,Angeles
• ra supportive of applicable ancillary policies. Please use our policy numbers to refer to
Reyes,Jos Angeles•4reig Smith,Ins gngeles
Dick Stanford.Azusa•Tam Sykes,Walnut•Paul - them in y g our Final EIR. Also, we would encourage
Talbot.Alhambra•Sidney TYlw.R,.Pasadena• you to Use aside-by-side
train Reyes oranga. Long Beach • Antonio comparison of SCAG policies with a discussion of the consistency or support of the
V,lamigosa,Los Angeles • Dennis Washburn,
Calabasas •lack Weiss, Las Mgeles • Bob policy with the Proposed Project.
Youselan,Glendale•Dennis P.2ine.Las Angeles
emerge County Chris Norby.Orange County•R.
Bates,Los Alamitos•Ad Dram.Buena Park.Inv Please provide a minimum of 45 days for SCAG to review the Final EIR when this document
Bone.Tustin•Richard Chavez,Anaheim•Debbie
Cook, Huntington Beach •Cathryn DrYmmg, is available. If you have any questions regarding the attached comments, please contact me
Laguna Niguel•Richard Glen.Lake forest•Alla
Duke.La Palma•BevPwry,8.-hod Ridgeway, at(213)236-1867. Thank you.
Newport Reach -
Riverside County: Marion Ashley, Rweoide
County•Ron Lweridge.Riverside•Jeff Miller. Incerely,
Cmecula-garlesWhite.Manor
rvidle Noheds, ^` k
Corp..la•Charles While.Mareno Valley
San Bernardino County: Paul Biane, San *Se6RtenaMf
Bernardino County• Bill Nexaodel. RanchoCucamonga•Edward Hurgnon,Town al Apple
Valey•Lawrence Date,Barsm •Lee Ann Garcia, fIT , AICP
GrandTenme•Susaniumenlle,San BernardinoGary Orion.Ontario•Deborah Robedmn,RlalIn Planner
Ventura eeunlp Iudy y-C.Verona County s Intergovernmental Review
Glen aecwra.Simi valley Carl Morehouse,San
Buenavenlma•real Young,Port Hueneme
Riverside County TmnspaNtim Commission:
Robin Lowe,Hemel
Ventua CountyTmrmpadmien Commissian:Bill
Davis,Simi Wiley
® furvw Gn NnyxiNPAPa 5,,.,led.,
October 29, 2003
Mr.Phil Drell
Page 2
COMMENTS
ON THE
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
FOR THE
CITY OF PALM DESERT COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
SCAG NO. 1 20030545
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project considers a comprehensive update of the City of Palm Desert
General Plan.
INTRODUCTION TO SCAG REVIEW PROCESS
The document that provides the primary reference for SCAG's project review activity is
the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG). The RCPG chapters fall into
three categories: core, ancillary, and bridge. The Growth Management (adopted June
1994), Regional Transportation Plan (adopte&April 2001), Air Quality (adopted October`
1995), Hazardous Waste Management (adopted November 1994), and Water Quality
(adopted January 1995) chapters constitute the core chapters. These core chapters
respond directly to federal and state planning requirements. The core chapters constitute
the base on which local governments ensure consistency of their plans with applicable
regional plans under CEQA. The Air Quality and Growth Management chapters contain
both core and ancillary policies, which are differentiated in the comment portion of this
letter. The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) constitutes the region's Transportation
Plan. The RTP policies are incorporated into the RCPG.
Ancillary chapters are those on the Economy, Housing, Human Resources and Services,
Finance, Open Space and Conservation, Water Resources, Energy, and Integrated Solid
Waste Management. These chapters address important issues facing the region and may
reflect other regional plans. Ancillary chapters, however, do not contain actions or
policies required of local government. Hence, they are entirely advisory and establish no
new mandates or policies for the region.
Bridge chapters include the Strategy and Implementation chapters, functioning as links
between the Core and Ancillary chapters of the RCPG.
Each of the applicable policies related to the proposed project are identified by number
and reproduced below in italics followed by SCAG staff comments regarding the
consistency of the Project with those policies.
October 29, 2003
Mr. Phil Drell
Page 3
SUMMARY OF SCAG STAFF COMMENTS
1. The Draft EIR does not addresses the relationship of the proposed project to
applicable regional plans as required by Section 15125 [d] of Guidelines for
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act.
2. The Final EIR should address the relationships (consistency with core policies and
support of ancillary policies) to SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide,
utilizing commentary from the following detailed SCAG staff comments. The response
should also discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable
regional plans. We suggest that you identify the specific policies, by policy number,
with a discussion of consistency or support with each policy.
CONSISTENCY WITH REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND GUIDE POLICIES
The Growth Management Chapter (GMC) of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and
Guide (RCPG) contains the following policies that are particularly applicable and should
be addressed in the Draft EIR for the City of Palm Desert Comprehensive General Plan
Update.
3.01. The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's
Regional Council and that reflect local plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG
in all phases of implementation and review.
Regional Growth Forecasts
The Draft EIR should reflect the most current SCAG forecasts which are the 2001 RTP
(April 2001) Population, Household and Employment forecasts for the Coachella Valley
Association of Governments (CVAG) subregion and the City of Palm Desert. These
forecast follows:
Subregion 2000 2005 2010 2015 20201 2025
ME"1ati4n �;t4i. t4§ ssE>" l)ff0 +. f .
Household 122,664, 180,375 149 039 166 910 188i853 212,460.e
� mpdtirl}eti ,,v _1?l0 48 r _ t57 3 .` $in��� 8 2 j £ a ��
�. F ._z. ✓ EW 0-1 ffl
.. �. r
Palm}Desert 2000 9005 2y010 2015_: 202�0 �2025.-
Household 15,784 16,708 .17,935 19,107 20,551 22,099
�rtj loyrnent, 3D750 v 32,572:;. ',34,954 5,s68 _ xr`, 36; 85i '4s 6L
October 29,2003
Mr. Phil Drell
Page 4
3.03 The timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and
transportation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's growth F 2
policies.
GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO IMPROVE THE REGIONAL
STANDARD OF LIVING
The Growth Management goals to develop urban forms that enable individuals to spend
less income on housing cost, that minimize public and private development costs, and
that enable firms to be more competitive, strengthen the regional strategic goal to
stimulate the regional economy. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the
following policies would be intended to guide efforts toward achievement of such goals
and does not infer regional interference with local land use powers.
3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use, which reduce costs on
infrastructure construction and make better use of existing facilities. F 3
3.09 Support local jurisdictions' efforts to minimize the cost of infrastructure and public
service delivery, and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and
the provision of services.
3.io Support local jurisdictions'actions to minimize red tape and expedite the permitting
process to maintain economic vitality and competitiveness.
GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO IMPROVE THE REGIONAL
QUALITY OF LIFE
The Growth Management goals to attain mobility and clean air goals and to develop
urban forms that enhance quality of life, that accommodate a diversity of life styles, that
preserve open space and natural resources, and that are aesthetically pleasing and
preserve the character of communities, enhance the regional strategic goal of maintaining
the regional quality of life. The evaluation of the proposed project in relation to the
following policies would be intended to provide direction for plan implementation, and
does not allude to regional mandates.
3.12 Encourage existing or proposed local jurisdictions' programs aimed at designing F 4
land uses which encourage the use of transit and thus reduce the need for
roadway expansion, reduce the number of auto trips and vehicle miles traveled,
and create opportunities for residents to walk and bike.
3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions' plans that maximize the use of existing urbanized
October 29,2003
Mr. Phil Drell
Page 5
areas accessible to transit through infill and redevelopment.
3.16 Encourage developments in and around activity centers, transportation corridors,
underutilized infrastructure systems, and areas needing recycling and
redevelopment.
3.18 Encourage planned development in locations least likely to cause environmental
impact.
3.20 Support the protection of vital resources such as wetlands, groundwater recharge F 4
areas, woodlands, production lands, and land containing unique and endangered
plants and animals. .
3.21 Encourage the implementation of measures aimed at the preservation and
protection of recorded and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites.
3.22 Discourage development, or encourage the use of special design requirements, in
areas with steep slopes, high fire, flood, and seismic hazards.
3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in certain locations, measures
aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that would
reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to
develop emergency response and recovery plans.
GMC POLICIES RELATED TO THE RCPG GOAL TO PROVIDE SOCIAL POLITICAL
AND CULTURAL EQUITY
The Growth Management Goal to develop urban forms that avoid economic and social
polarization promotes the regional strategic goal of minimizing social and geographic
disparities and of reaching equity among all segments of society. The evaluation of the
proposed project in relation to the policy stated below is intended guide direction for the
accomplishment of this goal, and does not infer regional mandates and interference with
local land use powers.
3.24 Encourage efforts of local jurisdictions in the implementation of programs that F 5
increase the supply and quality of housing and provide affordable housing as
evaluated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment.
3.27 Support local jurisdictions and other service providers in their efforts to develop
sustainable communities and provide, equally to all members of society, accessible
and effective services such as: public education, housing, health care, social
services, recreational facilities, law enforcement, and fire protection.
October 29,2003
Mr. Phil Drell
Page 6
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN
The Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) also has goals, objectives, policies and
actions pertinent to this proposed project. This RTP links the goal of sustaining mobility
with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing
energy consumption, promoting transportation-friendly development patterns, and
encouraging fair and equitable access to residents affected by socio-economic,
geographic and commercial limitations. Among the relevant goals, objectives, policies and
actions of the RTP are the following:
Core Regional Transportation Plan Policies
4.01 Transportation investments shall be based on SCAG's adopted Regional
Performance Indicators:
Mobili - Transportation Systems should meet the public need for improved
access, and for safe, comfortable, convenient, faster and economical movements
of people and goods.
• Average Work Trip Travel Time in Minutes—25 minutes (Auto)
• PM Peak Freeway Travel Speed—45 minutes (Transit)
• PM Peak Non-Freeway Travel Speed
• Percent of PM Peak Travel in Delay(Fwy)
• Percent of PM Peak Travel in Delay(Non-Fwy) F 6
Accessibility- Transportation system should ensure the ease with which opportunities are
reached. Transportation and land use measures should be employed to ensure
minimal time and cost.
• Work Opportunities within 45 Minutes door to door travel time (Mode Neutral)
• Average transit access time
Environment- Transportation system should sustain development and preservation of the
existing system and the environment. (Ali Trips)
CO, ROG, NOx, PM10, PM2.5— Meet the applicable SIP Emission Budget and
the Transportation Conformity requirements
Reliabili — Transportation system should have reasonable and dependable levels of
service by mode. (All Trips)
Transit— 63%
Highway— 76
Safety - Transportation systems should provide minimal accident, death and injury. (All
Trips)
Fatalities Per Million Passenger Miles—0
October 29,2003
Mr. Phil Drell
Page 7
Injury Accidents—0
Equity/Environmental Justice - The benefits of transportation investments should be
equitably distributed among all ethnic, age and income groups. (All trips)
By Income Groups Share of Net Benefits — Equitable Distribution of Benefits
among all Income Quintiles
Cost-Effectiveness - Maximize return on transportation investment (All Trips). Air Quality, F 6
Mobility, Accessibility and Safety
Return on Total Investment— Optimize return on Transportation Investments
4.02 Transportation investments shall mitigate environmental impacts to an acceptable
level.
4.04 Transportation Control Measures shall be a priority
4.16 Maintaining and operating the existing transportation system will be a priority over
expanding capacity.
AIR QUALITY CHAPTER CORE ACTIONS
The Air Quality Chapter core actions related to the proposed project includes:
5.07 Determine specific programs and associated actions needed (e.g., indirect source
rules, enhanced use of telecommunications, provision of community based shuttle
services, provision of demand management based programs, or vehicle-miles-
traveled/emission fees) so that options to command and control regulations can be F 7
assessed.
5.11 Through the environmental document review process, ensure that plans at all
levels of government (regional, air basin, county, subregional and local) consider
air quality, land use, transportation and economic relationships to ensure
consistency and minimize conflicts.
OPEN SPACE CHAPTER ANCILLARY GOALS
Outdoor Recreation
9.01 Provide adequate land resources to meet the outdoor recreation needs of the
present and future residents in the region and to promote tourism in the region. F 8
9.02 Increase the accessibility to open space lands for outdoor recreation.
October 29,2003
Mr. Phil Drell
Page 8
F8
9.03 Promote self-sustaining regional recreation resources and facilities.
Public Health and Safety
PE=J
9.04 Maintain open space for adequate protection of lives and properties against
natural and man-made hazards.
9.05 Minimize potentially hazardous developments in hillsides, canyons, areas F 9
susceptible to flooding, earthquakes, wildfire and other known hazards, and
areas with limited access for emergency equipment.
9.06 Minimize public expenditure for infrastructure and facilities to support urban
type uses in areas where public health and safety could not be guaranteed.
Resource Production
9.07 Maintain adequate viable resource production lands, particularly lands devoted
to commercial agriculture and mining operations. F 10
Resource Protection
9.08 Develop well-managed viable ecosystems or known habitats of rare, threatened F 11
and endangered species, including wetlands.
WATER QUALITY CHAPTER RECOMMENDATIONS AND POLICY OPTIONS
The Water Quality Chapter core recommendations and policy options relate to the two
water quality goals: to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity
of the nation's water; and, to achieve and maintain water quality objectives that are
necessary to protect all beneficial uses of all waters.
11.02 Encourage "watershed management" programs and strategies, recognizing the
primary role of local governments in such efforts.
F12
11,05 Support regional efforts to identify and cooperatively plan for wetlands to facilitate
both sustaining the amount and quality of wetlands in the region and expediting
the process for obtaining wetlands permits.
11.07 Encourage water reclamation throughout the region where it is cost-effective,
feasible, and appropriate to reduce reliance on imported water and wastewater
discharges. Current administrative impediments to increased use of wastewater
should be addressed.
October 29,2003
Mr. Phil Drell
Page 9
CONCLUSIONS
All feasible measures needed to mitigate any potentially negative regional impacts
associated with the proposed project should be implemented and monitored, as required F 13
by CEQA.
October 29, 2003
Mr. Phil Drell
Page 10
ENDNOTE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
Roles and Authorities
THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG) is a Joint Powers Agency
established under California Government Code Section 6502 et seq. Under federal and state law, SCAG is
designated as a Council of Governments (COG), a Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA), and a
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). SCAG's mandated roles and responsibilities include the
following:
SCAG is designated by the federal government as the Region's Metropolitan Planning Organization and
mandated to maintain a continuing, cooperative, and comprehensive transportation planning process
resulting in a Regional Transportation Plan and a Regional Transportation Improvement Program pursuant to
23 U.S.C. '134, 49 U.S.C. '5301 et seq., 23 C.F.R. '450, and 49 C.F.R. '613. SCAG is also the designated
Regional Transportation Planning Agency, and as such is responsible for both preparation of the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) under
California Government Code Section 65080 and 65082 respectively.
SCAG is responsible for developing the demographic projections and the integrated land use, housing,
employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies portions of the South Coast Air
Quality Management Plan, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 40460(b)-(c). SCAG is
also designated under 42 U.S.C. '7504(a) as a Co-Lead Agency for air quality planning for the Central Coast
and Southeast Desert Air Basin District.
SCAG is responsible under the Federal Clean Air Act for determining Conformity of Projects, Plans and
Programs to the State Implementation Plan, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. '7506.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65089.2, SCAG is responsible for reviewing all
Congestion Management Plans(CMPs)for consistency with regional transportation plans required by
Section 65080 of the Government Code. SCAG must also evaluate the consistency and compatibility of such
programs within the region.
SCAG is the authorized regional agency for Inter-Governmental Review of Programs proposed for federal
financial assistance and direct development activities, pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12,372
(replacing A-95 Review).
SCAG reviews, pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087, Environmental Impacts
Reports of projects of regional significance for consistency with regional plans [California Environmental
Quality Act Guidelines Sections 15206 and 15125(b)].
Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. '1288(a)(2) (Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act), SCAG is the
authorized Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning Agency.
SCAG is responsible for preparation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessment, pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65584(a).
SCAG is responsible (with the Association of Bay Area Governments, the Sacramento Area Council of
Governments, and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments) for preparing the Southern
California Hazardous Waste Management Plan pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section
25135.3.
Revised July 2001
G
E00 erred M oiisnd 1030 RIVd-cl 151E 996 80B-wojd wd0l 10 EOOZ-lE-h0 panlesaa
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE &.4 8
TRANSPORTATION AND a
LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY �y .
LANot�P b Plaitning Department
Richard K Lashbruo Robes Johnson.
Agency Dirvc r Pfannfaz Director
j
i
Mr. Phil Drell,
Community Development Director,
Department of Community.Development,
City of Palm Desert,
73.51 Fred Waring Drive, .
Palm O esert, CA 92260
October 30, 2003
Re: C mments from County of Riverside on the Draft EIR for the Palm Desert General Plan
Dear Mr. Drell:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City
of Pall Desert General Plan.
The County of'Riverside recognizes and appreciates the comprehensive approach that the
Palm Desert General Plan has adopted towards the natural resources and environmental assets
of this geograpNc region-With a few concerns that we have, as listed below, we would like to
suppoi t this effort.
1. As you are aware, the County was in the process of developing the Riverside County
Integrated Project (RCIP) General Plan in September 2003, when the Draft EIR for the
Palm Desert General Plan was prepared. Because the RCIP General Plan was
adopted on October 07, 2003, there are a multitude of changes that have occurred that
affect areas within the City's Sphere of Influence. I am enclosing a Compact Disk that
comains'the adopted maps as well as all the corrections to the General Plan text that
have occurred aft®r the Draft RCIP Ganoral Plan was prepared. Please refer to these
changes and reflect them in your EIR as they pertain to the Palm Desert Sphere of
influence areas. The following is a summary of the changes that are described in detail
in the CO.
a. The RCIP General Plan land use designation names for the residential
categories have changed- For your reference, I am attaching the Land Use
'Designations Summary Table, which lists the adopted land use designations. In G 1
various places, the Draft EIR for the Palm Desert General Plan refers to these
designations, and they are not correct as currently written.
b. The residential land use designation category of Hillside Reserve, allowing up
to 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres in a few of the areas within the City's Sphere of G 2
I
Rlveiside Office-4060 Lemon Street,9� Floor Indio Ofrlce� 62-575 Hwy 111,2n"Floor Murdeia Office- 39493 Las Alamos Rd.
'=a`Box t409-Rivera de,California 9 2502-1 409 Room 209, Indio,California 92201 MUfOeta,California 92563
(909)955-9200•F (909)966-3157 (760)863-8277• Fax(780) 883-7040 (909)600-6170 - Fax(009)600-6145
ZO 'd 60:81- EnOL LE f00 L9LE-996-806 :nej SNHO1 301Sd3Ald J0 00
E00 add A 0116nd ABU AlVd-01 151E 996 606-w011 WdOI:iO 600E-IE-1D0 penleaaa
Influence north and south. of the City. is designated as Open Space -
Conservation in the RGIP General Plan.' 1 dwelling unit per five acres is G 2
generally more intense for those areas than the County's Open Space -
Conservation designation.
c. .Along the_ Pines to Palms Hwy. we have recently recognized a propertyAmap
was privately owned, and given the designation of Open Space - ConservG 3
Habitat in the draft land use map. That was wrrected in the adopted Ge
Plan map, and now the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan land use
calls for the Rural Mountainous (10 Ac. Min.) designation for this site.
d. . Along Interstate 10 there are a few minor changes in the Commercial' an
Industrial Designations that need to be raflacted in the City's EIR pertaining to G 4
the Sphere of Influence areas.
e. _ There are new two policy areas of the RCIP General Plan that fail within the
Gitys Sphere of Influence area Sky Valley Mobile Homes & RV Parks Policy G 5 ..
Area, and section 8 Sand Source Policy Area. Please ensure that the
provisions of these policy areas are reflected in the Palm ❑esert General Plan
EIR.
The County is very interested in preserving the resources in the Cahuilla Hills area.
The preferred alternative land use,plan reflects the majority of the land uses of the
adopted RCIP General Plan except,the areas that are designated as Low Density (0-4 G 6
DU/AC). The RGIP General Plan.calls for a Low Density Residential designation,
which_allows maximum of 2 DU/AC- There should be some recognition in the Clty's
General _Plan and EIR that indicates the County's limit on density in this area to 2
DU/AC.
I. The preferred land use map in the EIR reflects Golf Courses as the, Resort
Commercial land use designation within the City; however, in the Sphere of Influence
areas, the Golf Courses are not reflected in the same pattern. If you need the Countys G 7
GIS information for the location of these golf courses, the County would be willing to
assist you to obtain that Information.
If you have any questions, plaasa foal fr96 to contact ma at mthakkar®co.riverside.ca.us or
(909) 55 -2489.
Sincer ly,
Mitra Thakkar,
UrbamRegional Planner,
Count,of Riverside,
4080 Lemon Street,
Riverside, CA.
92502 1409
CC: Roy Wilson, Fourth District Supervisor
Michael O'Connor, County Executive Office
Richard Lashbrook,TLMA Director
Robert Johnson, Planning Director
Paul Clark, Principal Planner, Planning Department
i
i
I
i
SO 'd 30 :13l EOH LE i00 L5l£-556-606-nej SNV81 301SUAItl 30 00
Table LU-3
Land Use Designations Summary Table
Roundatton-" Area Planti2ndUse TabdtRmg -
Componani Deslgintion DensityRntensd3' -+ i ✓
..Range
Estate Density 2 AC Min. •Single family detached residences on large parcels where intensive animal keeping is discouraged
DevaTppmept" Residential(EDR)
¢z Very Law Density 1 AC Mtn •Single-family detached residences on large parcels where intensive animal keeping is discouraged
Residential(VLDR)
i' Low Density Residential %AC Min. •Single-family detached residences on large peou1s where intensive animal keeping is discouraged
(LDR)
Medium Density 2-5DU/AC •Single-family detached residences
Residential(MDR) •Lot sizes range from 5,500 to 2%000 s .ft.,that means standard 7200 s .ft.lots allowed
Medium High Density 5-8 DUTAC •Single-fandy detached residences,with potential for cluster development
Residential(MHDR) •Lot sizes range from 4,000 to 6,500 s .ft.
- High Density 8-14 DU/AC •Single-family attached residences,including townhouses,slacked Fats,courtyard homes etc.
Residential(HDR)
Very High Density 14-20 DU/AC •Single-family attached residences and multifamily,dwellings
Residential(VHDR)
Highest Density 20+DU/AC •Multi-faulty dwellings,includes apartments and condominium
Residential(HTDR) •Multi-storied IT+ structures ereallowed
Commercial Retail 0.20-0.35 FAR* •Local and regional serving retail and service uses
(CR)
Commercial Tourist 0.20 C -0.35 FAR- •Tourist related commercial including hotels,golf eomses,and recreatior✓amusement activities
(CT)
Commercial Office US-IA FAR- .Variety of office related uses including financial,legal,insurance and other office services
(CO)
_ Light Industrial 0.25-0.60 FAR- • Industrial avd related rises including warehousing/distribution,assembly and light manufacturing,
(LID
and repair facilities.
Hcavy industrial 0.15-0.50 FAR- •More intense industrial activities that generate significant impacts such as excessive noise,lusq
(HI) and other nuisances.
-_ Business Park 0.25-0.60 FAR- •Employee intensive uses,including research&development,technology touters,importer.
- (BP) offices and"ctean"indus
- Public Facilities <0.60 FAR- •Public/quasi-public uses such as landfills,airports,utilities,and other civic uses.
(PF)
- Community Center 5-40 DU/AC .includes combination of small-lot single family residences,mufti-family residences,commercial
- .(CC) 0.01-0.3 FAR- retail,office,business park uses,civic uses,transit facilities,and recreational open space within a
_ muiLed planned development area
-' Mixed Use per Adapted •Mixture ofnaidenfial,commercial,office,entertainment,educational and/or recreational uses or
- Specific Plan other uses per adopted S ecifie Plans
INrrai Estate Density 2 AC Min. .Single family detached residences on large parcels -
t glmfkmty'a Residential(EDR) Intensrve equestrian and amaal keeping uses are expected and encouraged
l As.Min.for SOI of City of Corona,Moreno Valley&Riverside;10,000sq.1ft.Min. for
injects adjacent to CD Fomdafimwithclmtered units;%Ac.Min.for all other areas
Very Low Density -1 AC Min. Single-family detached residences on large parcels
vi
Residential(VLDR) . Intensive equestrian and animal keeping uses are expected and encouraged _
- 1 Ac.Min.for SOI of City of Corona,Moreno Valley&Riverside;10,000 sq.ft.Min.for
projects adjacent to CD Foundation with clustered units;%Ac.Min.for all other areas
Low Density Residential SAC Min. • Single-family detached residences on large parcels
(LDR) • Intensive equestrian and animal keeping uses are expected and encouraged
• I Ac.Min.for SOI of City mf Corona,Moreno Valley&Riverside;10,000 sq.ft.Min.far
Projects adjacent to CD Foundation with clustered units;'/:Ac.Min.for all other areas
i_Iigr-F and Residential SAC Min. •One single-family residence with a minimum lot size of AC -
(RR) •Limited animal keeping and agricultural uses are allowed
rr Rural Mountainous l0 AC Min. •Single-family residential uses with a ndnimum lot size of l0 AC and limited animal keeping and
(RM) agriculture
70%areas of I0 Acres has step.of 25%or eater
Ruml Desert 10 AC Min. •Single-family residential uses with a minimum lot sin of 10 AC
- - (RD) .. •Allows limited animal keeping,agriculture,recreational,renewable energy uses,compatible
- --- resource devetomenI,and governmental and utility uses.
A - 'Vfyt4 �' Agriculture 10 AC Min. • Agricultural land including mw crops,groves,miseries,dairies,poultry farms,processing plants
(AG) and other related uses
• One single-family residence allowed per 10 acres
'pged.`$ygce:` Conservation N/A •The pmtectimm of open space for natural hazard protection,and natural and scenic resource
(C) poo.tvation.Existing agriculture is permitted
- Conservation Habitat N/A • Applies to lands conserved and managed in accordance with adopted Habitat Conservation Plans
(CH)
Water N/A • Includes bodies ofwader and natural drainage corridors
(W)
- _ - Recreation N/A . Rec¢alinnal uses including parks,toils,athletic fields,golf courses
(R) •Neighborhood parks am permitted within residential land uses
- Rural 20 AC Min. •One single-family residence allowed per 20 acres
(RUR)
" Mineral Resources N/A • Mineral extraction and processing facilities
- (MR) .Areas held io nerve for furore Mneml extraction and pru erxa mg
Community Center • Future Community Center,where there is a need toprotect other options for development while
-(Nota_- Oveday(CCO) Community Center cone tis pounc&
F°gns! pRw- Rural Village Overlay •A concentration of development of residential and commercial uses within areas of rural character
C°etr{'°e (RVO) • Allows uses and maximum density aFMedium Density Residential,Medium High Density
rggg5earsed'i¢- Residential and Commercial Retail
do )x^ -. Community • Allows Community Development land use designations to be applied in future within specified
Development(CDO) areas within other foundations while maintaining underlying foundation until CD uses are
appinved
Page 17 *FAR-Floor Area Ratio
RECEIVED
H
0 7 2003
cOMM11NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DONALD AND PATRICIA ROSBURG CHARLES AND SALLY SPARKS
........ *S'c".......................................................................................:.....................................
74074 Scholar Lane West 74129 Scholar Lane East
Palm Desert,CA 92211 Palm Desert,CA 92211
October 7,2003 _
City of Palm Desert
General Planning Commission
73-510 Fred Waring Dr.
Palm Desert,CA 92260
RE:University Village proposed land use plan
We of College View Estates II greatly oppose your plan for the University Village. The density
of apartments,condos and highdensity housing and professional buildings should be closer to the
college_
We strongly urge you to consider placing the green space plans closer to our existing homes and H 1
moving the proposed University village on the land between Portola and Cook
We feel that professional offices in front of College View Estates ll would impose a hardship on
residence including depreciation of property values,increases in traffic,light pollution and the
view and privacy that we paid for.
Thank for-your careful consideration to this matter.
Received Oct-01-03 10:32am From- Ta-CITY PALM DST EMRGY Page 02
ZESTABLISHED IN 1910 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058•COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(760) 398-2651 •FAX (760)398-3711
DIRECTORS: OFFICERS:
JOHN W.McFADDEN,PRESIDENT STEVEN B.ROBBINS.
PETER NELSON,VICE PRESIDENT GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
TELLIS CODEKAS JULIA FERNANDEZ,SECRETARY
RUSSELL KITAHARA October 16, 2003 DAN PARKS,ASST TO GENERAL MANAGER
PATRICIA A.LARSON REDWINE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS
File: 1150.06
Corporate Limits
Phil Drell
Community Development Director
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260 =
Dear Mr. Drell:
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Update for
the Comprehensive General Plan for the City of Palm Desert.
The District has received your request for comments dated September 16,2003, regarding
the above-mentioned project. Our comments are as follows:
1. Paragraph 1, page II-11, Water Quality, needs to be amended to read:
Some portions of the Coachella Valley groundwater basin are I 1
contaminated with increased levels of nitrate. Possible sources of this
nitrate contamination include the application of fertilizers on golf
courses and farms and effluent from septic tanks and wastewater
treatment plants.
2. Paragraph 5, page 1II-86, Groundwater Replenishment, needs to be amended to read,
"The facility,which began operation is 1995, and expanded in 1998, has successfully 12
recharged 12,685'acre-feet of water use as of August 2003."
3. Paragraph 2, page III-87, Groundwater Replenishment; needs to be amended to add,
13
"The San Diego Water Authority is also an agency listed in the Quantification
Settlement Agreement."
4. Paragraph 1, page.I11-89, Water Quality, needs to be amended to read, "Possible
sources of this nitrate contamination include the application of fertilizers on golf 14
courses and farms and effluent from septic tanks."
TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
Phil Drell -2- October 16, 2003
The District has no further comments.
If you have any questions please call Dan Charlton, Stormwater Engineer, extension 2316.
Yours ery y,
Steve Robbins
General Manager-Chief Engineer
DCaes\eng\sw\ocfleir-pd
u
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
_ -
� ,
i
i
4
I
i
i ,
I
i
f
e
i
i
i
i