HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeneral Plan Update - Final EIR 2016-OctFINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH No. 2015081020
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
LEAD AGENCY:
CITY OF
PATM DESERT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Contact: Ryan Stendell, Community Development Director
(760) 636-5860
CONSULTANT:
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, INC.
3536 Concours Street, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91764
Contact: Aaron Pfannenstiel,
Project Manager
(909) 918-2998
October 2016
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Final EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title
PAse
1.0 Introduction....................................................................................................................................1
2.0 Responses to Comments..............................................................................................................5
Comment Letters Received prior to October 3, 2016 Deadline
Comment Letter 1 — Desert Sands Unified School District.......................................................5
Comment Letter 2 — Airport Land Use Commission Riverside County.................................7
Comment Letter 3 — Twenty -Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians.. ...................................... 9
Comment Letter 4 — Coachella Valley Water District..............................................................11
Comment Letters Received after October 3, 2016 Deadline (Late Comments)
Comment Letter 5 — Holland and Knight.......................................................I.........................17
3.0 Errata..............................................................................................................................................27
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Final EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Final EIR
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of Palm
Desert (City) policies for implementing CEQA, Michael Baker International Inc. has prepared the Final
Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the proposed University Neighborhood Specific Plan
(UNSP), proposed One Eleven Development Code (which includes policy guidance, development
standards, and design guidelines for the Highway 111 corridor), and the proposed City of Palm Desert
2015 General Plan Update, which is an update to the City's Comprehensive General Plan originally
adopted on March 15, 2004.
The following is an excerpt from the CEQA Guidelines Section 15132:
"The Final EIR shall consist of:
(a) The Draft EIR or a version of the draft.
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary.
(c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR.
(d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and
consultation process.
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency."
This Responses to Comments document, together with the original Draft EIR text include all of the above
required components to make up the Final EIR. Each comment letter is followed by the corresponding
response(s). A response is provided for each written and verbal comment raising significant
environmental issues, as received by the City during the Draft EIR public review period.
1.1 BACKGROUND
The City, as lead agency, has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed
University Neighborhood Specific Plan (UNSP), proposed One Eleven Development Code (which
includes policy guidance, development standards, and design guidelines for the Highway 111 corridor),
and the proposed 2015 General Plan Update (together, the proposed Project; Project). The Project
encompasses future community development plans from now until 2040, and provides long-term
planning guidelines for the City's growing population and projected development.
The City is likely to grow from its current population of approximately 50,500 to a population of
approximately 61,000 by 2040. This growth is expected to include approximately 8,000 new households
and 14,000 new jobs over the 25-year planning horizon.
The City determined that the update to the 2004 Comprehensive General Plan would clearly require
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report to address all aspects of the environmental analysis
resulting from the Project. As a result, the City did not prepare an Initial Study as permitted in Section
15060(d) of the CEQA Guidelines.
1
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Final EIR
1.0 INTRODUCTION
To determine the scope of the Draft EIR, the City prepared and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP)
for the proposed Project. Baseline conditions from which this Draft EIR evaluates impacts were
established at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released on August 5, 2015 and identified
that the Draft EIR would address focused environmental topics identified in Appendix G of the State
CEQA Guidelines.
The content of the General Plan Update describes intended development and advised changes to be made
to the cityscape and community over the next 25 years. The proposed elements, with their respective
goals and policies, address a number of topics including Land Use & Community Character, Mobility,
Health & Wellness, Environmental Resources, Safety, Noise, and Public Services and Utilities. The City's
Housing Element is current, has been certified by the state, and is not being included as a part of this
update. The NOP distributed on August 5, 2015, identified the following environmental issues that were
addressed in the Draft EIR:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
■ Geological Resources
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use
■ Noise
• Recreation
• Transportation
A total of thirteen comment letters were received during the NOP comment period. Comment letters
were received from public agencies and tribal government agencies. The NOP and comment letters
received regarding the NOP are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Overall issues raised by the
public and tribal government agencies during the NOP review period and at the public scoping meeting
include the following:
■ Recommendation to include information regarding planned water treatment facilities and
infrastructure and recently -adopted water quality goals and programs.
■ Request to have a Native American monitor present during implementation of projects
associated with the General Plan Update.
• Concern regarding the generation of substantial amounts of solid waste that would be diverted to
landfills that are scheduled for closure during the planning horizon of the General Plan Update.
• Concern regarding the clarity of the proposed land use designations map and request to revise
the map accordingly.
• Recommendation to include language that allows for increased use of alternative fuel
technologies and related infrastructure.
• Concern regarding airport land use compatibility.
The Draft EIR, with an accompanying Notice of Completion (NOC), was circulated to the State
Clearinghouse, trustee agencies, responsible agencies, other government agencies, and interested
04
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Final EIR
members of the public for a 45-day review period as required by CEQA on August 19, 2016. The review
period for the Draft EIR extended from August 19 to October 3, 2016. Shortly after releasing the Draft EIR
for public review and comment, City staff noticed that Table 25.18-2 "Downtown District Development
Standards" contained in Draft EIR Technical Appendix 3.0-2 (The One Eleven Development Code)
overstated land use intensities along the Highway 111 corridor. As a result, on August 24, 2016, the City
recirculated Technical Appendix 3.0-2 (The One Eleven Development Code) with the corrected Table
25.18-2, as well as corrected minor typographical errors on pages 19, 27, and 28 of Technical Appendix
3.0-2, and initiated a 45-day public review and comment period on the recirculated Technical Appendix
3.0-2. This comment period extended from August 24 through October 7, 2016.
During the Draft EIR review period, the City received 4 comment letters From the following: 1) Desert
Sands Unified School District; 2) Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission; 3) Twenty Nine Palms
Sand of Mission Indians; and 4) Coachella Valley Water District. After the close of the public review and
comment period on the Draft EIR, but before the close of the public review and comment period on the
recirculated Technical Appendix 3.0-2 (The One Eleven Development Code), the City received an
additional comment from the law firm Holland and Knight; however, this letter commented on the Draft
EIR and University Neighborhood Specific Plan, which exceed the scope of the recirculated Technical
Appendix 3.0-2, Response to substantive comments from these agencies/organizations are provided
herein and none of the comments provided raise significant new issues that would constitute significant
new information under CEQA.
3
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Final EIR
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
COMMENT LETTER NO.1
Desert Sands Unified School District
°•�
Desert Sands Unified School District
r.,;
C800"Tow
41`40"V dPAm ROM •La Q7 Ca'-(m Q:: $• QW177:ibL• FAX 1700)77i4"W
WR AKT
0N%*D*F *OKA710% Uawl Mr Moo a C,,ah rrereq f�nr� h%@WW. IL, CGn rr
NRrIRrFO
St PUNTrr7li M70 0, Cw, Y.%a
roe �
FAC9Lnit1S"VK U
lYTiiR{ ti'
5epte-m er 12. 2016
Rvan Sl ndell
Director of Community Development
City of palm Desert
73.310 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Request for Comrtwnts: City of Palm Desert 2015 General Plan Update
Dear Mr. Seendell,
This is in response to your requt'st for input on the above referenced project" its effect
on public schools.
All actions toward commercial development will potentially result in an impact on our
school system. The District's ability to meet the educatiomai needs of the public with � 1
new schools has been seriously impaired in recent years by local, state and tedem
budget cuts that have had a devastating impact on the financing of new schools.
As you are aware, there is a school mitigation fee that is currently collected on all nett
development at the time building permits arc issued.
Please feel free to call me if you have further questions. 7 hank you.
Since
P trick Cisneros, Director
acilities Services
4
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
Response No. 1
Patrick Cisneros, Director
This letter is from the Desert Sands Unified School District. It expresses a generalized concern regarding
impacts of development in the Project area on the school system, and reiterates that there is a
development impact fee required for payment by all new development projects. This comment is noted
and the requirement for payment of development impact fees is recognized in the Draft EIR Public
Services and Utilities section. Specifically, California Education Code Section 17620 authorizes school
districts to levy a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any development project for the
construction or reconstruction of school facilities, provided that the district can show justification for
levying of fees. Government Code 65995 limits the fee to be collected to the statutory fee (Level 1) unless a
school district conducts a Facility Needs Assessment (Government Code Section 65995.6) and meets
certain conditions. These fees are adjusted every two years in accordance with the statewide cost index
for Class B construction, as determined by the State Allocation Board provides full mitigation for
potential impacts of development to schools.
5
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
COMMENT LETTER NO.2
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
ckwR
September 22. 2016
Srnen Hmamn
P rcm mragr
Mr. Eric Cela. Principal Planner
VHU CHA IUM
City of Palm Desert Community Development Department
sod Rry �
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert CA 92260
Cawsga*us
Arthur Ouwr
"'o' RE: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUIRED
Glen Hamm
Ferrer Jurisdiction Project Case City of Palm Desert 2015 General Plan Update E I R
JeM Lym
a mo Dear Mr. Ceja:
HU a Thank you for your latest correspondence of September 16, 2016
sswa Banos In response to your request, please be advised that while ALUC cannot state that the City's
Lake=_s..re General Plan Update (GPU) is consistent with our Bermuda Dunes Airport Land Use
Consistency Plan, (ALUC has not yet received a formal application submittal from the City
requesting review of its GPU for consistency) ALUC can state it has no objections to the
proposed Draft Environmental Impact Report for the City of Palm Desert 2015 General Plan
srArr Update or its conclusions. The City appears to understand and acknowledge the need to submA
Draw all individual projects in the Airport influence Area (AIA) to ALUC for consistency review
Ed Cnupar
7o+n cvew ALUC will remain ready to assist the City with a review of its GPU, as well as any other
P"F?, educational or technical assistance guidance for its projects wrthin the Bermuda Dunes Airport
81" sera,: Influence Area
0u*Af+raarom
rsi: a.*Pcw If you have any further questions. please contact Paul Rull, ALUC Urban Regional Planner IV, at
R-a"0"'o (951) 955-6893 or John Guerin, ALUC Principal Planner, at (951) 955-0982.
0n1sam
Sincerely,
--..,q
RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
d Coor, ALUC rector,/-
6
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Final EIR
Response No. 2
Ed Cooper, Director
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
This letter is from the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. The letter states that the ALUC
has no objections to the General Plan Update EIR or the conclusions made therein. It also recognizes that
the City understands the need to submit all projects located within the Airport Influence Area to the
ALUC for consistency review. Adherence to applicable policies within the General Plan will provide
compliance with these requirements on future developments in the Airport Influence Area. Specifically,
Policy 6.5 in the General Plan Safety Element requires proposed actions to be referred for review,
determination and processing by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission as provided by the
Airport Land Use Law. The Airport Land Use Commission office shall be notified and sent a Request for
Agency Comments for all new projects, and projects proposing added floor area or change in building
occupancy type within 2 miles of the airport.
7
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
COMMENT LETTER NO.3
Twenty -Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians
TWENTY-NINE PALMS BAND DE MISSION INDfANS
se liter 46-200 Harrison Place. Coachella, Cafizbmia . 92236. Ph. 760.863.2444. Fax. 760.863.2449
September 29, 2016
CERTIFIED MAIL # 7014 2870 0002 1518 6657
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Ryan Stend ell, Director of Community Development
City of PaIm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
Re- City of Palm Desert General Plan Update AB 52 Consultation
Dear Mr. Stendell:
In regards to consultation in compliance with AB 52 (California Public Resources Code §
2108,0.3.0) for the City of Palm Desert General Plan Update, the Tribal Historic Preservation
Office (THPO) is not aware of any archaeological/cultural sites or properties that pertain to the
Twenty -Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians. After reviewing the General Plan Update, we have
interest specifically in the University Neighborhood Specific Plan. This project area lies less than
1.5 miles from the Chemehuevi Traditional Use Area.
To further ascertain impacts the Tribe requests that you provide a copy of the cultural
resources report that appties to the University Neighborhood Specific Plan. Please do not
hesitate to contact the THPO at (760) 775.3259 or by email: TNPConsultation@29palmsbomi-
nsn.gov.
Please do not hesitate to contact the THPO at (7fi0) 775-3259 or by email;
TN?Consultation@29paimsbomi-nsp.gov.
Sincerely,
Anthon a gal, Jr.
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
cc: Darrell Mike, Twenty -Nine Palms Tribal Chairman
Sarah Bliss, Twenty -Nine Palms Tribal Cultural Specialist
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Final EIR
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Response No. 3
Anthony Madrigal, Jr., Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
This letter is from the Twenty -Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians. The letter states that the Tribal
Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) is not aware of any archaeological/cultural sites or properties that
pertain to the Twenty -Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians.
However, the Tribe is requesting a copy of any cultural resource report that applies to the University
Neighborhood Specific Plan (UNSP). Regarding this request, it should be noted that a site -specific
cultural resources report was not completed as part of this UNSP Project because the majority of the
project site is already disturbed as a result of previous grading. In addition, the site is surrounded by
existing development on all sides. However, the cultural resources Technical Background Report (TBR)
associated with the Draft EIR describes the results of a citywide records search conducted as part of the
General Plan Update, which includes the UNSP area. A records search through the California Historical
Resources Information System (CHRIS) housed at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University
of California, Riverside, identified a total of 53 recorded cultural resources within the city. Of these, 17 are
historic, 35, are prehistoric, and 1 is multicomponent. Of these resources, none are listed in the California
Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The records
search indicated that a total of 50 cultural resource studies have been conducted within the city of Palm
Desert with the earliest listed study conducted in 1973. Of these, only three were conducted in the last
five years and are not considered out of date. According to information held at the EIC, approximately
one-third of the city has been included in a cultural resource study, leaving at least two-thirds of the city
un-surveyed for cultural resources, as shown in Figure 6-1 of the TBR.
Because physical conditions change over time and cultural resource assessments can become outdated,
cultural resource assessments for specific, individual project sites are conducted for developments which
are at a point in the planning process where they are considered to be reasonably foreseeable. Because no
development is proposed within the UNSP at this time, it is not feasible to conduct a site -specific survey.
However, individual future projects that are submitted to the City for development on the project site
will be required to comply with mitigation measures provided in Section 4.6, "Cultural Resources" of the
Draft EIR.
Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.6-2a through MM 4.6-2d is required for future
projects that require excavation activity (e.g., clearing/grubbing, grading, trenching, or boring) into native
soil and that have the potential to exhibit native ground surface within or in the immediate vicinity of the
excavation footprint. These mitigation measures require project applicants to meet enforceable
performance standards through the preparation of a Phase I Assessment for archaeological resources and
consultation with local tribal agencies in accordance with AB 52. if resources are identified, they shall be
evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, the National
9
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
Register of Historic Places (if applicable), and/or a local listing and to determine whether the resource
qualifies as a unique archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA (Phase II Assessment). If the resources
are determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, appropriate
mitigation shall be developed and implemented to mitigate impacts to the resource.
In addition, archaeological construction monitoring and construction personnel awareness training shall
be conducted for development proposals that have a high potential to encounter previously unknown
buried resources during construction. If resources are encountered during construction, appropriate
treatment measures shall be developed to preserve the resource, with the preference being to preserve the
resource in place. If it is not feasible to preserve the resource in place, a program to remove or recover the
resource from the construction site shall be implemented. With these mitigation measures and
compliance with the above performance standards, any impacts to future cultural resources are
anticipated to be less than significant, as discussed in Section 4.6 of the Draft EIR, pages 4.6-7 through 4.6-
9.
Additionally, the Environmental Resources Element of the City of Palm Desert General Plan contains
goals and policies intended to protect and preserve cultural and Native American resources and sites
within the Project area. Policy 9.3 requires notification of California Native American tribes and
organizations of proposed projects that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Policy
10 requires development to avoid archaeological and paleontological resources, whenever possible, and
to minimize and fully mitigate any impacts to such resources in the event that they cannot be avoided.
10
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
COMMENT LETTER NO.4
Coachella Valley Water District
Established In 1918 os a public age^cy
z
CAy0rPalmDQW
Coachella Valley Water District
OCT 0 6 2016
Direcror::
John F PoweL Ji . I madenl - Dtv, 3
Peter Nelson, Mee "slderJ - Dlv. 4 Roberl Cher ALSiitan nerd r
G. Patrick O'Dowd - Div- 1 SyFda Bermudez- Cierk o11he Board
Ed Pock -.Div. z October 3, 2016
C&Pulo R. Wrodo - Div. 5 Best Best A r6Vege1 U.P. Attorneys
File. 1150.06
Ryan Stcndcll
Director of Community Development
Planning Department
City of Palm Desert
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Mr. Stendell:
Subject: City of Palm Desert 2015 General Plan Update
Draft Environmental Imoact Rcoort (DL'IR)
Thank you for affording the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) the opportunity to review
the subject project (DEIR). CV WD provides domestic water, wastewater, recycled water,
irrigationldrainage, regional stormwater protection and groundwater management services to a
population of nearly 300,000 throughout the Coachel la Valley. CV WD submits the following
comments regarding your project.
Plcase refer to our comment letter submitted on the Notice of Preparation for the Draft EK
dated September 9, 2015 (see enclosed).
PlanrrirrL, and Suecial ProYrams comments:
The project lies within the study area of the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Platt
Update. The goal of the Plan is to assurc groundwater basin sustainabitity. Each new
development incrementally impacts the regions water supplies and the groundwater basin. The
elements of the Water Management Plan include supplemental imported water, source
substitution and water conservation. The Plan lists specific actions for reducing overdraft. An
example action would be to ensure that the City's landscape ordinance is followed. The elements
and actions described in the Plan shall be incorporated into the design of this development to
maximize sustainable water use and reduce the projects negative impact on the Coachella Valley
groundwater basin. tr
��piLfiO
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
Ryan Stendell 2 October 3, 2016
City of Palm Desert
Stormwater comments: w
The project area includes lands that receive regional stormwater protection by the Whitewater
River Storm Channel, Palm Valley Stormivater Channel System, and other facilities
operatedlmaintained by CV WD.'ihc project area includes areas that are subject to flooding from
local drainage, including along the Interstate-10 corridor and to the north thereof which are
subject to regional flooding. Flood protection measures for local drainage and regional flood
shall comply with Califomia Drainage Law and provide that stormwater flows are received onto
and discharged from a site in a manner reasonably compatible with p redeve lopment conditions.
Below are suggested edits to the Draft EIR: new text is underlined; deleted text has
stri'tlr�h�� abl:•.
EIR Section 4.5, page 4.5-17
Waters of the United States and the State: Jurisdictional waters of the United States and the
State, along with isolated wetlands, provide a variety of functions for plants and wildlife.
Wetlands and other water features provide habitat, foraging, cover, and migration and movement coRra
1
corridors For both special -status and common species. Waters in the Planning Area include the
Whitewater River Storm Channel: which runs west to east through the Coachella Vallev
iricludinthe center of Palm Desert and eventually flows out of the Planning Area and into the
Salton Sea. All other waterways in the Planning Area arc south of the Whitewater River 51orm
Channel and drain from the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto mountains. Waterways in the Planning
Area also include Palm Valley Stormwater Channel, Ramon Creck, Cat Creek, Dead Indian
Creek, F.bbens Creek, Grapevine Creek, and Carrizo Creek.
ELR Section 4.9, page 4.9-1
Surface Water; Limited surface water is available in the winter and spring months from the
Whitewater River Storm Channel, PaIm Valley Stormwater Channel, Ramon Creek, Bruce
Creek, head Indian Creek, and Cat Creek, as well as a number of smaller creeks and washes.
The majority of regional stormwater Eeeaf-st ee water is derived from runoff from the San
Bernardino and San Jacinto mountains, with lesser amounts from the Santa Rosa Mountains.
This runoff either percolates in the stream bcds or is captured in mountain -front debris basins
where it recharges the groundwater basin. According to the estimates developed for the 2010
Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (CVWMP) update, an average of approximately
44,00O acre-feet per year (AFY) of surface water recharges the Whitewater River subbasin.
L7
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Final EIR
Ryan Stendell
City of Palm Desert
Sanitation commenls:
EIR Section 4,14, page 4.14-27
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
October 3, 2016
Wastewater is conveyed through sewer trunk Iines generally ranging in sire from 8 to 42 4 to 24
inches, relying primarily on gravity flow. CV WD maintains two €fora sewer till stations within
the city boundaries. Effluent from the city is conveyed to CVW€7's Cook Street treatment plant
(WRP 10), which treats an average of 10 mgd and had a capacity of 18 mgd in 2014• Effluent
from Bermuda Dunes, Del Webb's Sun City, and other development north of Miles Avenue is
conveyed to the treatment plant located at Madison Street and Avenue 38 (WRP 7). This plant
treats approximately 2.5 mgd of wastewater and has a capacity of 5 mgd.
Wastewater Reclamation
CVWD, recognizing the need for other sources of water to reduce demand on groundwater,
entered the water reclamation field in 1967 and currently operates five qk. water reclamation
plants (WRPs) in the valley. Recycled water from two of these facilities (WRP 9 and WRP 10)
has been used for golf course and greenbelt irrigation in the Palm Dcscrt area for many years,
thereby reducing demand on the groundwater basin. However. CVWD closed WRP 9 in 2015. A
third facility (WRP 7), located north of Indio, began providing recycled water for golf course and
greenbelt irrigation in 1997.
If you have any questions please call Luke Stowc, Environmental Supervisor at (760) 398.2651,
extension 2545.
Friclosurell/as
Sincerely,
Steve Bigley
Director of Environmental Services
E-M!j NV 5VCs1ENVl201610C71CVWD wmmenuPD GPU DETR.dw
LA
►1
cnn!'d
1
R
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Final EIR
z
EstcUlshed in 1918 as n public agency
Coachella Valley Water District
Neclors:
John P, Powell, Jr., Rasfdunt em 3
Peter Nelw. Yce Pre7idenl - Div, d
G. Mask O'Davd - Dlv. t
Cnglo ROtvEstr - on. s September 9, 2015
Ms. Lauri Ayiaian
Community ]Development Director
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Ms. Aylaian:
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
oftws:
am 301not, (; n Cg MQrKKM
JUQ Femander. Board Secrelory
8esl Best & xrleger LLP. Momeys
File: 1150-06
►J
Subject: Notice of Preparation for the City of Palm Desert ---
2015 General Plan Update and Program Environmental Impact Renort
Thank you for affording the Coachella Valley Water District (CV1VD) the opportunity to review
and comment on the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the City of Palm Desert's (City) 2015
General Plan Update and Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR and `proposed project"),
CVWD provides domestic water, wastewater, recycled water, irrigation/drainage, regional
stormw'ater protection and groundwater management services to a population of nearly 3 00,0 00
throughout the Coachella Valley.
At this time, CVWD submits the following comments regarding the proposed project:
• Please address CVWD's 5-year Capital improvement Plan (as it relates to projccts within
or affecting the City). Please visit www.CV WD.ors to review the 5-Year Capital
Improvement Plan;
• El should note that CVWD is embarking an a multiyear construction program to
construct new infrastructure and facilities to treat Chromium-6 at a number of well sites;
• EIR should note that CVWD is investigating suitable locations for future surface water
treatment facilities and related infrastructure within the General PIan area; and
■ CVWD has adopted and periodically updates the Coachella Valley Water Management
Plan (CVWMP) located on our website www.CVWD.org. Each new development
contributes incrementally to the demand for existing and future water supplies. The goal
of the CV WMP is to prevent long-term overdraft. The CV WMP includes specific
programs that should be supported in a General Plan Update. Examples of programs
include importation of supplemental water supplies, recharge of groundwater basin, using
non -potable and recycled water for irrigation, and water conservation. Please incorporate
and address the CVWMP's goals and programs into the General Plan update and EIR to ,,tLe.
prevent long-term overdraft of the groundwater basin. za e
■Nr _ v�fl
cor:'r
I
14
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
Response No. 4
Steve Bigley, Director of Environmental Services
This letter is from the Coachella Valley Water District. The letter notes that the project lies within the
study area of the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update (Plan), the goal of which is to
assure groundwater basin sustainability. The letter reiterates that the elements and actions described in
the Plan shall be incorporated into the design of development associated with the project in order to
maximize sustainable water use and reduce the project's negative impact on the Coachella Valley
groundwater basin.
More specifically, the comment letter attaches and includes the District's previously September 9, 2015
comment letter on the Notice of Preparation. The comments in that letter largely provide background
regarding water supply and the District's various efforts to address water issues through various capital
and treatment projects. Those issues are addressed in the Draft EIR at pages 4.14-34 through 4.14-41.
The October 3, 2016 letter also provides suggested edits to the stormwater and sanitation discussions
within Draft EIR Sections 4.5, "Biological Resources," 4.9, "Hydrology and Water Quality," and 4.14,
"Public Service and Utilities". These requested revisions are minor and editorial in nature and do not
result in a change to the respective impact determinations and analysis within the Draft EIR. These
revisions have been incorporated into the Draft EIR. Refer to Section 3.0, "Errata" below.
15
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final FIR
COMMENT LETTER NO.5
Holland and Knight
Comment Received After Close of Public Review Period
Holland & Knight
50 California Street, Suite 20001 San Francisco CA 941111 T 415.743.69001 F 41S.743.6910
Holland 8 Knighl LLP I www hklaw.arm
Chelsea Madean
(415)743-5979
OWsea. madean@hklaw corn
October 7, 2016
(Sent via email: rsiendell(urih-ofoalmdesert.oreI
Ryan Stendcll
Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Re: Comments on General Plan Update & University Neighborhood Specific Plan Draft
Environmental Impart Report (SCH 9 2015081020)
Dear Mr. Stendell:
We thank you for the City's work on the General Plan Update, University Neighborhood
Specific Plan (UNSP) and associated Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR). On behalf
of a client, we appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the Draft FIR and underlying
planning documents. We note that the original review period was scheduled to close on October
3, 2016, but that the Draft EIR was recirculated, extending the review period until October 7,
2016,' We appreciate the City's consideration of the following comments:
t, Draft FIR Table 4.16-1 ]Population & Employment Growth Estimate]; The Population &
Employment Growth Estimate projects "1,67" households for the UNSP area. Since the
UNSP provides for 2,618 dwelling units (see UNSP, Table 2,1), this Draft E I R reference
appears to be a typo and request correction,
2, UNSP Figure 13 [Neighborhood Sub -Areas] and Table 2,1 ]Planned Development Potential
Sieb-Area]: We note that the UNSP acknowledges that the property subject to the UNSP is
owned both by the City and is privately owned. (See, e.g., UNSP, p. 6-3.) We recommend
revising Figure 2.3: Neighborhood Sub -Areas and Table 2.1: Planned Development Potential
Sub -Areas to better reflect the division of property ownership so that the allocation of
dwelling units in the bordering planning areas and i mp ternentat ion of the UNSP is more
clearly delineated. Specifically, we recommend replacing Figure 2,3 [Neighborhood Sub-
' CEQA.net entry for Gcocral Plan Update & University SpeciFic Plan Nail Elk, av ailabic ar
httn:,"u,ww.eeoan,K.ca.eoY/DocDesrrintion.asn"rk,ePK^705352 (accessed Oaober A, 2016).
Anchorage I Atlanta I Austin I Boston I Charlotte I Chicago I Dallas I Denver I Fart Lauderdelie I HoL" on I JadiYOAvft I Lakatrnd
Los Angetes I Miami I New York I Orlando I Portland I San Francrsrn I Stamford I Tallahassee 1 Tampa 1 Tywm
Washington, O.C. I West Palm Beach
16
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Final EIR
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Areas] with a figure similar to the following, which better delineates the separate property
ownership. We recommend that Table 2.1. Planned Development Potential Sub -Areas is
revised to reflect the Sub -Areas as depicted in the figure below,
1
4
3. UNSP Page 4-4 [Neighborhood Medium]: The description of the Neighborhood Medium
designation explains that the zone provides for a "livelier neighborhood setting for housing
types that may include multi -family buildings up to 3 stories as well as attached and detached
single-family dwellings." We request clarification that this designation allows for a range of
attached housing products including townhomes and condominiums and that it is not limited
to rental apartments.
4. UNSP Tables 4.2 and 4.3 fDetielop►nenr Standards]: In order to improve the marketability
and viability of the UNSP build -out, we recommend revisions to the University
Neighborhood development standards as follows:
w
cont'd
3
4
1=
17
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Final EIR
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
w
Original Text From Specific Plan Proposed Revisions
n.r..l�ww rrrf•rusw.r.w�+�wawA.Mr.Itrw.al�Ya�as I II � 1 i i iY II h4 11 Y� i�i d� In ill 1.11 iI i rl l li b I. k _
.r.s w'ex �.*er+.w+n�w►+r..wr•n. /ry...q !'+`a.+.✓1 ��.��
...rVa�.rr4.�n+.w..r..rwr..I...rh..r• �yaY.lrr
W YW M [lY M ab
a lalr.���w
[ur�YlY�Yrrt
a v.rnr.� x v
r..uw..•...�.. d x +e is
4 •,. r.1..w... • r uevFp cc -, rr u
� h
l.wr•wAw.rarr r rt r w M N .MwfMY r�NfYpi{
1 �.rIM. �.Ihlw1�
a.�994f Mrw
�r..Fd 11
. tilr wld y
ar.Iw.r+r� .. a.f.rrr r t r
• rr •.. r A "� rCTaO[Rrr
wr Y\ aQ r W w •.-
r
•- ••�,•••• ♦ u„f . ro Nsr..% s.....,.r,w.��,.r e. ewrs y.. a. a-,n rww ra
IE ilk gilh Y bill
[rrrrY.�� ..r ara[ ..aae cs1.,t ale•..ar
.�� �.• enYrewwr.r..�l
�"""-•• s.w...n.rr rr..rr�
.. �.._ Wild, �.. .. ... w .w r. u. IN. r r
Lw
rs• .s- x`
� �I'.rrN.• a rwV.ry Cs��. C l* '2
wrn.► . ArnM'V�IrY ¢ C
. •+Iyr�. rwrar.r�iw..M..a� a4 ly. Y. 1/
.w ti�.l.�r r. �•. r-- �ro .. r e Mrw•wir� IS
•.M... •+w r../.11.
dd,
. rr• .�
[w..w.rl.w�fr.rr � a.c.rsw. s.ws,rt
• /w.1.�Y.i r+a+.[r i"a :! --. n�rrr qr<r�
Mu
. .} .. .i tr•:. ll Y.ffan riF�ir
1owe,
1�r tiV�^�.ir.drWa WET q'1.M.s Ytl.'{Y.a'V[NnYLak�n Yrr�-•--
r '� - ..4. F'hPY� iSrwrw�w.• r�
10nr1>rr47. a.r.d.—E-A-
s`E�F.w�
. •"�w.rvaw. �w.w �a yary..ry y�ree•�+a.rwdrr�IglrtA
_ .wH..•u....rw_wr
14. Fw emu• s+.�'+./1rr•wNY`.1MWKM[UPr�acruro •
3
18
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Final EIR
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
v
a
:
....,
s.w swM srra
e.r n.r srr
rnern ar.w
.urew
.-_. bw�.wr
-•ar srrc
a H.r- Mw�ir..r�r
�...:
awiasw.r
1Mrw+d4
awwn.y
ai
...-�.wrwrraw. wrn.r.dd nr.wwt.u. is
s�•rc
w.r:...r
erd.+w
v...w....�
s.rd..y.
�..�e..rrs
x
.YL......�16�.•..`..'�......�rw...c+...a
r... rww
ae.nr
.a..rvw
'__��,�,�
+.,r.•..+ .
• r .r•
r.Raw r..w
.. w<s.�rr
allow n. ve
.e tivs�r
r.avw r..r
w�rr.d
reRaw...A
.r ww a.ar
srwr.R• >,wa vr.-„e►V rw ir. svrmr
s.._.� �.... ..
... _
A -I
. rrr,..�a.� .i.,i "r: .n �.:�w
�:�:e
.ram
sw+gw'nr
■..e nrw a...r,
s,r rw. s...�
w..rwa
•+••• ., . -.. .• ,. - •...' •.. ..
.wrw
srasa we.v
7rr.+srw
wrar.Kw
ar ar.t.a �.'
se+.•w
s.�.we ar
sr.a.w
�r arK.+
ewes. w.r
arsrcww..
s�.arvr.
.e.rw..r
zsr.e ar►
r.nnwaw.
:ws�rewxw
zrr4 aew
s.rarw
ere.er ryr rw
r+rrv.w
snwr.a.r
ar a.E a.. �.r
fw.rrsws.w
arw.r ww,.
e�ewr wrw
a�M
Aer
r •1P'
r /m
a�.rarw. re,.. „... wG-.wa+..•. n.w.n r
w.+.r�rr�+.4r�vr•� n�aerlr,{w�r+ww rrn rw.M,�nr��
.wrrw n.r.rr�wr ua. ••rrrw......y.. wer R.i.g4r
drew .n r nrw
. r.wr. a...unw vw,..�� a.r,v..a•
rrwr.. av+rw
r.eww..r.h
1 ww..r.r tr.ry Gs« M•.#4�w. S•`ir.irq
♦arw++.w� U1K! Hlwa Uir.�L�
i owr.wr«
rin
�vrs�u� �s.rTr.0 •nrs�u xvrvr uwr
acw• ,low1 w•x sapl
v ,r nr w
a r,rd
•wr,w nawr
iy
+rtlr...r.w N� •i ''troy ii. fir � r.�.-�...-
4
w
conf'd
5
►J
W
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Final EIR
4w�+�rrgl.,r
N>w
1
STY
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
r rderrr
�.NSAr
r
r
2W
wrwrw.
x
r
I IN IN I
rrr b•.w/Mw4W
R.�wn�wwvrS M.w
�vr �1M
#�.
I fC.r. I
e 8rl.an
Ij II
lw�rrwr�r,rwnYwO�w
wYMM,lydY..w,w�iY,Yq.w��rr.�T^^r'.�yw_y.w -w,-
111.1ll l 11
AO RAa
N1►J>�
F�1
C
,yti�4lC
�«
11IN&W
Fuld
.YrtrA�F
.IIrM
lIF
5. UNSP Page 6-4 [Schedule and Phasing]: In the UNSP's discussion of implementation,
we request clarification that there may be separate "master developer(s)" for the City -
owned property and privately owned property. Similarly, we request clarification that
separate Phasing Plans may be submitted For each property. We urge that this
clarification is appropriate given that the properties are separately owned and since the
backbone infrastructure has already been installed for the privately owned property.
6. UNSP Page 6-9 [Detelopment Plats Review]: We request deletion of the "Development
Plan" Section 6,8(B) since the corresponding procedures under the Municipal Code were
repealed by Ordinance No. 1303 in February 2016 to reflect the new requitement for
specific plans to be adopted for properties within the Planned Community District (as is
the case with UNSP property).
5
:vn!C
6
7
P
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Final FIR
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
7. UNSP Page 6-12 [Maxlnium Development Yield and Density Transfers]: This page
provides that the maximum development yield for the areas subject to the UNSP is 1,290
dwelling units. We recommend correcting this typo to provide that the maximum
development yield is 2,618 dwelling units, as provided in Table 2.1.
8. UNSP Page 6-12 (Maximum Development Yield and Density Transfers]: We request
clarification to the following statement:
Requests by Neighborhood Builders)/Developer(s) for density transfers between
neighborhoods may be submitted for City consideration and approval, subject to
prior authorization by the Mastcr Developer. Any approval by Planning Director
for density transfer between neighborhoods cannot exceed the potential maximum
of each individual planning area, providing that the maximum total development
potential of the entire project is not exceeded.
It appears the word "cannot' should be replaced with the word "can', meaning that
density may be transferred between planning areas, provided that the maximum total
development potential of the entire project is not exceeded. Otherwise, it is unclear
under what scenario a density transfer could be approved if transfers cannot exceed the
potential of each individual planning area.
9. UNSP Globally: We request definitions For notable terms used throughout the UNSP
related to future approvals (i.e. "Project Clearance", "Project Approvals", "Individual 10
Projects"). Clarification of these terms will clarify processing under the UNSP going
forward.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
C"k,(41
Chelsea Macican
21
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
Response No. 5
Chelsea Maclean, Partner
Comment Received After CIose of Public Review Period on the Draft EIR
This letter is from the law firm Holland and Knight dated October 7, 2016 on behalf of an unidentified
client. Although the letter recognizes the extended review period deadline of October 7, 2016, this
extension only applied to the Draft EIR Appendix Section that contains the One Eleven Development
Code. Because the comment letter appears to be commenting on issues outside of the One Eleven
Development Code, all comments contained in this letter are considered submitted after the close of the
Draft EIR Public Review period (October 3, 2016). Nonetheless, responses are provided below.
This letter contains one opening statement and nine separate comments, only one of which is applicable
to the Draft EIR (comment 2 below). The remainder of the comments (comments 3 through 10 below) are
specific to the language of the University Neighborhood Specific Plan (UNSP) component of the project.
1) Opening statement: This comment states that "the original review period was scheduled to close
on October 3, 2016, but that the Draft EIR was re -circulated, extending the review period until
October 7, 2016." However, this is inaccurate. The 45-day review period for the Draft EIR ran
from August 19 through October 3, 2016. The 45-day review period for the recirculated Technical
Appendix 3.0-2 ran from August 24 through October 7, 2016. This latter review period ending on
October 7, 2016 is applicable only to Draft EIR Technical Appendix 3.0-2 (Highway 111
development code), and not the remainder of the Draft EIR. The review period for the Draft EIR
ended on October 3, 2016. Therefore, this comment letter is considered untimely.
2) Comment 1: This comment notes a typo in Draft EIR Table 4.16-1, "Population & Employment
Growth Estimate" regarding the UNSP area, which states there are "1,67' households for the
UNSP area. The comment requests correction to "2,618" dwelling units. The correction has been
incorporated. Refer to Section 3.0, "Errata" below_
3) Comment 2: This comment recommends revisions to Figure 2.3 and Table 2.1 of the UNSP in
order to more clearly delineate the division of property ownership. The recommended revisions
have been incorporated into the UNSP.
This comment applies to the UNSP component of the project only and does not apply to the Draft
EIR; therefore, this revision is not included in the Draft EIR errata. This revision will not result in
new potentially significant impacts beyond those identified in the Draft EIR because the revision
does not result in any change or reallocation of dwelling units within the planning areas. Instead,
this revision merely better describes and clarifies the types of housing units that are allowed
within this designation within the UNSP, and which were the basis for the environmental review
22
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Final EIR
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
within the Draft EIR. It should be noted that this does not permit a change in the types of housing
products that are allowed in the UNSP, just further clarifies property ownership in the plan area.
4) Comment 3: This comment requests clarification of the description of the Neighborhood Medium
designation zone within the UNSP to allow for a range of attached housing products that is not
limited to rental apartments. The recommended revision has been incorporated into the UNSP. It
should be noted that this does not permit a change in the types of housing products that are
allowed in the UNSP, instead this just expands on the descriptions of the allowed development
types within this particular designation.
This comment applies to the UNSP component of the project only and does not apply to the Draft
EIR. This revision will not result in new potentially significant impacts beyond those identified in
the Draft EIR because the revision does not result in a change of the allowed housing product
types. Instead this revision merely clarifies the types of housing units that are allowed within this
designation, and which were the basis for the environmental review within the Draft EIR.
5) Comment 4: This comment recommends revisions to the UNSP development standards in order
to improve marketability of buildout, and several tables are included with recommended revised
development intensities, lot sizes, building configurations, etc. However, revisions to certain
development standards such as density reductions and modification of roadways, if
implemented, may result in greater environmental impacts than those identified in the UNSP.
Therefore, the following revisions have been incorporated into the UNSP for those development
standards that are not likely to result in greater environmental impacts; the revised version of the
UNSP will be presented to Planning Commission and City Council. The remainder of the
requested development standard revisions would likely result in greater environmental impacts,
and therefore, have not been incorporated into the UNSP.
■ Table 4.2, Subsection A) Decreased minimum lot depths for NL, NM zones;
• Table 4.2, Subsection S} adjusted rear setbacks for lots without alleys in the NM zone;
■ Table 4.2, Subsection E) Increased width of secondary massing in the NC zone;
■ Table 4.3, Subsection G) Increasing the allowable encroachment into the public ROW for
zones NL, NM; and
• Table 4.3, Subsection "Sign Type" table was updated to clarify where "signs" would be
permitted by zone.
This comment applies to the UNSP component of the project only and does not apply to the Draft
EIR. It should be noted that the amount of developed area within the UNSP will remain the same.
Although the development standards have been modified, the amount of disturbed area
associated with development will not change, therefore no additional impacts associated with air
quality or greenhouse gas emissions would occur. Further, no land uses will change as a result of
these revisions and these revisions will not result in additional development over what was
23
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Final EIR
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
analyzed in the EIR, therefore no change in impacts associated with traffic will occur. Finally,
although very minimal changes in setbacks and massing would occur, adherence to the design
guidelines of the UNSP would prevent any aesthetic impacts. Therefore, these revisions will not
result in new potentially significant impacts beyond those identified in the Draft EIR.
6) Comment 5: This comment requests clarification that there maybe separate schedule and phasing
plans for each City -owned property and each privately -owned property due to infrastructure
that has already been constructed for the privately -owned property. The recommended revisions
have been incorporated into the UNSP.
This comment applies to the UNSP component of the project only and does not apply to the Draft
EIR. This revision will not result in new potentially significant impacts beyond those identified in
the Draft EIR because the revision does not result in any changes to the overall content of the
schedule and phasing plans, but rather, separation of the individual plans for each City -owned
property and each privately -owned property. The phasing described in the UNSP is the City's
best assumption of the most logical buildout for this area. However, there is no development
proposed at this time, and until an application for development is submitted, the City has no
control over which properties develop first. At the scale of environmental analysis conducted in
this Draft EIR, development of particular properties out of sequence of the proposed phasing
plan would not alter the impacts analyzed because with any proposed development, the Specific
Plan requires that adequate infrastructure is in place to support the proposed development and
that all Specific Plan and EIR requirements are met, which reduces impacts to less than
significant levels. These activities will occur during the subsequent discretionary review required
at the time of submittal of a development application and will comply with all applicable
mitigation measures (such as, Mitigation Measure 4.5-1, which requires preparation of a
biological resources report and 4.6-1 which requires a cultural resource study at the time of
development.) within the Draft EIR.
7) Comment 6: This comment requests deletion of the "Development Plan" Section 6.8(B) since the
corresponding procedures under the Municipal Code were repealed by Ordinance No. 1303 in
February 2016 to reflect new specific plan requirements. The recommended deletion has been
incorporated into the UNSP.
This comment applies to the UNSP component of the project only and does not apply to the Draft
EIR. This revision will not result in new potentially significant impacts beyond those identified in
the Draft EIR because the revision involves a minor update to reflect consistency with new
specific plan requirements.
8) Comment 7: This comment recommends correction of a typo of the maximum development yield
and density transfers on page 6-12, from 1,290 dwelling units to 2,618 dwelling units. The
correction has been incorporated into the UNSP.
24
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Final EIR
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
It should be noted that this comment applies to the UNSP component of the project only and
does not apply to the Draft EIR. The accurate number of dwelling units proposed in the UNSP is
2,618 dwelling units. Therefore, this revision will not result in new potentially significant impacts
beyond those identified in the Draft EIR since the revision involves correction of a typo and not
an actual change in the proposed number of dwelling units.
9) Comment 8: This comment recommends clarification of a statement regarding density transfers
on page 6-12, replacing "cannot" with "can' in the following statement: "Requests by
Neighborhood Builder(s)JDeveloper(s) for density transfers between neighborhoods may be
submitted for City consideration and approval, subject to prior authorization by the Master
Developer. Any approval by Planning Director for density transfer between neighborhoods
cannot exceed the potential maximum of each individual planning area, providing that the
maximum total development potential of the entire project is not exceeded." The word "cannot"
has been replaced with the word "may" in this portion of text within the UNSP.
This comment applies to the UNSP component of the project only and does not apply to the Draft
EIR. This revision will not result in new potentially significant impacts beyond those identified in
the Draft EIR because the revision does not result in a change in the maximum total development
potential of the entire UNSP area. The maximum total development potential of the UNSP area
would still not be exceeded as a result of allowing density transfers to exceed the potential
maximum of each individual planning area.
10) Comment 9: This comment requests that definitions be included for notable terms used globally
throughout the UNSP related to future approvals, i.e. "Project Clearance," "Project Approvals,"
and "Individual Projects." The definitions for these terms have been incorporated into the UNSP.
This comment applies to the UNSP component of the project only and does not apply to the Draft
EIR. This revision will not result in new potentially significant impacts beyond those identified in
the Draft EIR because this revision merely defines terms used in the UNSP.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 3.0 ERRATA
Final FIR
3.0 Errata
DRAFT EIR TEXT
Changes to the Draft EIR are identified below. The changes to the Draft EIR do not affect the overall
conclusions of the environmental document. These errata reflect minor City staff and agency initiated
technical questions to the Draft EIR. These clarifications and modifications are not considered to result in
any new or more severe impacts than identified in the Draft EIR, and do not warrant Draft EIR
recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088.5. Changes are listed by page and where appropriate by
paragraph. Added or modified text is shown by underlining (example) while deleted text is shown by
strikethrough (fie).
Section 2. Executive Summary, Table 2-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Pages 2-10
and 2-11)
Impact: 4.5-1 Impacts to Special -Status Species. Adoption and implementation of the General Plan update
would result in the loss or degradation of existing populations or suitable habitat of special -
status plant and wildlife species. However, adherence with the CVMSHCP and adoption
and implementation of General Plan policies and implementation actions would result in a
less than significant impact with implementation of mitigation.
MM 4.5-1 Pertaining to special -status species (identified in Tables 4.5-1, 4.5-2, and 4.5-3) with the
potential to occur in the Planning Area that are not part of the CVMSHCP:
Prior to the approval of grading plans for development associated with the General Plan
update, the project applicant(s) shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a biological
resources evaluation for private and public development projects in order to determine the
presence/absence of non -covered special -status plant species with the potential to occur in
and adjacent to (within 100 feet, where appropriate) the proposed impact area, including
construction access routes. It is required that such surveys be conducted at the proper time
of year when rare or endangered species are both evident and identifiable.
For projects in which special -status species are found, likely to occur, or where the presence
of the species can be reasonably inferred, the City shall require feasible mitigation of
impacts to ensure that the project does not contribute to the decline of affected special -
status species populations in the region to the extent that their decline would impact the
viability of the regional population. Before the approval of grading plans or any ground-
breaking activity for development associated with the General Plan update, the project
applicant(s) shall submit a mitigation plan concurrently to the CDFW and the USFWS for
review and Comment. The plan shall include mitigation measures for the population(s) to be
directly affected. The actual level of mitigation may vary depending on the sensitivity of the
species, its prevalence in the area, and the current state of knowledge about overall
population trends and threats to its survival. The final mitigation strategy for directly
impacted plant species shall be determined by the CDFW and the USFWS through the
mitigation plan approval process.
Timingllmplementation: Prior to the approval of grading plans
EnforcementlMonitoring: City of Palm Desert Planning Department
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
Final EIR
3.O ERRATA
Section 2. Executive Summary, Table 2-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Page 2-13)
MM 4.6-2a For future projects that require excavation activity (e.g., clearing/grubbing, grading,
trenching, or boring) into native soil and that have the potential to exhibit native ground
surface within or in the immediate vicinity of the excavation footprint, i t-cil'c= ■ .l' �r.�,
preparation of an archaeological study (Phase I Assessment) shall be required by Project
Applicants.
TiminglImptementation: During the environmental review process
EnforcementlMonitoring: City of Palm Desert Planning Department
Section 4.5. Biological Resources, Environmental Setting (Page 4.5-17)
Waters of the United States and the State: jurisdictional waters of the United States and
the State, along with isolated wetlands, provide a variety of functions for plants and
wildlife. Wetlands and other water features provide habitat, foraging, cover, and migration
and movement corridors for both special -status and common species. Waters in the
Planning Area include the Whitewater River Storm Channel. which runs west to east
through the Coachella Valley includine the center of Palm Desert and eventually flows out
of the Planning Area and into the Salton Sea. All other waterways in the Planning Area are
south of the Whitewater River Storm Channel and drain from the Santa Rosa and San
Jacinto mountains. Waterways in the Planning Area also include Palm Valley Stormwater
Channel, Ramon Creek, Cat Creek, Dead Indian Creek, Ebbens Creek, Grapevine Creek,
and Carrizo Creek.
Section 4.5. Biological Resources, Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 (Page 4.5-23/24)
MM 4.5-1 Pertaining to special -status species (identified in Tables 4.5-1, 4.5-2, and 4.5-3) with the
potential to occur in the Planning Area that are not part of the CVMSHCP:
Prior to the approval of grading plans for development associated with the General Plan
update, the project applicant(s) shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a biological
resources evaluation for private and public development projects in order to determine the
presence/absence of non -covered special -status plant species with the potential to occur in
and adjacent to (within 100 feet, where appropriate) the proposed impact area, including
construction access routes. It is required that such surveys be conducted at the proper time
of year when rare or endangered species are both evident and identifiable.
For projects in which special -status species are found, likely to occur, or where the presence
of the species can be reasonably inferred, the City shall require feasible mitigation of
impacts to ensure that the project does not contribute to the decline of affected special -
status species populations in the region to the extent that their decline would impact the
viability of the regional population. Before the approval of grading plans or any ground-
breaking activity for development associated with the General Plan update, the project
applicant(s) shall submit a mitigation plan concurrently to the CDFW and the USFWS for
review and comment. The plan shall include mitigation measures for the population(s) to be
directly affected. The actual level of mitigation may vary depending on the sensitivity of the
27
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 3.0 ERRATA
Final EIR
species, its prevalence in the area, and the current state of knowledge about overall
population trends and threats to its survival. The final mitigation strategy for directly
impacted plant species shall be determined by the CDFW and the USFWS through the
mitigation plan approval process.
TiminglImplementation: Prior to the approval of grading plans
EnforcementlMonitoring: City of Palm Desert Planning Department
Section 4.5. Biological Resources, Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Page 4.5-28)
Impact 4.5-6 A component of the MSHCP is Local Development Mitigation Fees (LDMF), which is a
funding source for the CVMHCP and is required for development activities to occur.
These fees are utilized to fund the mitk-gation of impacts to certain
special -status species and habitats.
Section 4.6. Cultural Resources, Mitigation Measure 4.6-2a (Page 4.6-8)
MM 4.6-2a For future projects that require excavation activity (e.g., clearing/grubbing, grading,
trenching, or boring) into native soil and that have the potential to exhibit native ground
surface within or in the immediate vicinity of the excavation footprint, ?rrj� pirRtc
preparation of an archaeological study (Phase I Assessment) shall be required by Project
Applicants.
TiminglImplementation: Doering the environmental review process
EnforcementlMonitoring: City of Palm Desert Planning Department
Section 4.6. Cultural Resources, Cumulative Impacts (Page 4.6-12)
Impact 4.6-5 Cumulative Effects on Historical Resources. Adoption and implementation of the General
Plan update in addition to anticipated Future development in surrounding cities could
cause a substantial change in the significance of historical resources as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5. The loss of some historical resources may be prevented through
implementation of updated General Plan policies, the City of Palm Desert's Cultural
Resources Prevention Committee, and preservation policies in other communities.
However, this would not ensure that these resources can be protected and preserved. This
impact is not considered cumulatively considerable.
Section 4.9. Hydrology and Water Quality, Environmental Setting (Page 4.9-1)
Surface Water. Limited surface water is available in the winter and spring months from the
Whitewater River Storm Channel. Palm Valley Stormwater Channel, Ramon Creek, Brace
Creek, Dead Indian Creek, and Cat Creek, as well as a number of smaller creeks and
washes. The majority of reeional stormwater luoal ■► Vw►ar :•rater is derived from runoff
from the San Bernardino and San Jacinto mountains, with lesser amounts from the Santa
Rosa Mountains. This runoff either percolates in the streambeds or is captured in mountain -
front debris basins where it recharges the groundwater basin. According to the estimates
developed for the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (CVWMP) update, an
28
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 3.0 ERRA4A
Final EIR
average of approximately 44,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of surface water recharges the
Whitewater River subbasin.
Section 4.14. Public Services and Utilities, Water Supply and Service; Wastewater Service, Environmental
Setting (Page 4.14-27)
Wastewater and Sewers: Wastewater is conveyed through sewer trunk lines generally
ranging in size from 8 to 42 4te 24 inches, relying primarily on gravity flow.
Wastewater Reclamation: CVWD, recognizing the need for other sources of water to
reduce demand on groundwater, entered the water reclamation field in 1967 and currently
operates five star water reclamation plants (WRPs) in the valley. Recycled water from two of
these facilities (WRP 9 and WRP 10) has been used for golf course and greenbelt irrigation in
the Palm Desert area for many years, thereby reducing demand on the groundwater basin.
However. CVWD dosed WRP 9in2015. A third facility (WRP 7), located north of Indio, began
providing recycled water for golf course and greenbelt irrigation in1997.
Section 4.16. University Neighborhood Specific Plan, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Population,
Employment and Housing, Table 4.16-1, (Page 4.16-18)
2040 Households: 2 6184,-67
RM