The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutRes 99-34 CUP 99-3 and Final EIR March 1999 Cal State University San Bernardino TN/City of Palm Des �ity Council Hearing/4.22.99 Coachella Valley Campus/California State University-San Bernardino CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPAR,TMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT TO: City Council DATE: Apri122, 1999 CASE NO.: Master Plan for the California State University-San Bernardino Coachella Valley Campus,Conditional Use Permit No. 99-3, and Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No.:97111071) REQUEST: Approval of Master Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit, and Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Coachella Valley Campus of the California State University-San Bernardino APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert and California State University-San Bernardino I. BACKGROUND A.DESCRIPTION OF SITE: Phvsical Conditions at the Site The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive and extends to the north and east to Gerald Ford Drive, encompassing approximately 203 gross acres. The site is comprised of currently vacant desert lands, portions of which are located along the slopes of the Palm Springs Sand Ridge. The site extends northeast to the relatively flat valley floor. In the past, approximately 60 to 70% of the site was cultivated for grapes with lands also planted in tamarisk windrows to protect crops in cultivation. The grape cultivation has been abandoned and the tamarisk have thinned due to a lack of water. There are no structures on the site and limited dumping is in evidence. The subject property has recently been impacted by the contiguous development of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. The site is now fully accessible from major arterial roadways bounding it on all sides. Land Use and Zonin�; Designations The use of the subject property is regulated by three planning documents, the City General Plan, the North Sphere Speci�c Plan and the City Zoning Ordinance. Under the City General Plan most of the subject property, primarily in the southern portion, is currently designated as Low-Density Residential (3-5 du/ac). 1 TN/City of Palm Des `,ity Council Hearing/422.99 Coachella Valley Campus/California State University-San Bernardino The Low Density Residential designation is intended for detached single family homes on medium to large lots in standard subdivisions, although planned residential developments (PRDs) with attached units and shared common open space are also permitted. The northern portion of the site is designated Commercial-Industrial, which extends northward to the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way. This designation is equivalent to the City's Planned Community Development designation, which is also reflected in the City Zoning Ordinance. This designation is intended for master planned facilities, such as the proposed project. It makes provision for such uses as school sites, public and private recreational facilities, commercial and professional centers and industrial facilities. The applicability of the North Sphere Specific Plan is primarily as a policy document. Development proposals are required to demonstrate the availability of public services and facilities to support projects. Special attention is also to be given to uses and mitigation of potential land use conflicts that assure land use compatibility. Development agreements are also encouraged as a means of assuring compatibility while providing flexibility. Potential noise impacts associated with the I-10/Southern Pacific Railroad corridor are also compatibility concerns cited in the North Sphere Specific Plan, and are discussed in the EIR. B. ADJACENT LAND USE AND ZONING North: General Plan - Residential Study Zone, Commercial- Industrial and District Commercial Zoning - Commercial, Industrial South: General Plan - Low Density Residential Zoning - P.R.-5, P.R.-3 & P.R.-3.5 East: General Plan - Low Density Residential Zoning - R-1-M West: General Plan - Low Density Residential Zoning - P.R.-5 South of the subject property is the gated Desert Falls community, which extends south one mile to Country Club Drive. To the east is the 80 acre gated Emerald Desert Country Club development with 592 RV rental spaces and seven condominium units surrounding a golf course. Lands to the north are vacant, with the lines of the Southern Pacific Railroad and U.S. Interstate-10 occurring to the north and northeast of the site. Lands to the west are vacant, while lands to the southeast include Avondale and Palm Valley residential and golf course developments. 2 TN/City of Palm Des �ity Council Hearing/422.99 Coachella Valley Campus/California State University-San Bernardino The new Courtyard/Residence Inn by Marriott is under construction at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive and the Desert Willows golf course is located immediately further southwest. Nearly all lands south of Interstate-10, north of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Cook Street are currently vacant, although arterial roadways have been constructed in this area. The Interstate-10/Cook Street interchange has recently been completed just north of the subject property, connecting Cook Street with I-10 and Varner Road to the north. Lands north of Interstate-10 are also vacant but were once in cultivation. According to the City General Plan, lands north of the subject property are designated Residential Study Zone, Commercial-Industrial and District Commercial. The Wonder Palms Commercial Center project, approved in 1996, provides for highway-oriented commercial, professional office, industrial and mixed use development. Currently vacant desert lands west of the proposed project site, bounded by Frank Sinatra Drive on the south, Gerald Ford Drive on the north and Portola Avenue on the west, are designated Low Density Residential (3-5 du/ac). Lands immediately north of US Interstate-10 are under Riverside County jurisdiction. Land use designations for this area are established through the County's Western Coachella Valley Plan and include: 2A (5-8 dulac), 2B (2-5 du/ac), Specific Plan and Wildlife/Vegetation. The County General Plan also recognizes the North Star Ranch Specific Plan. Covering approximately 415 acres, the North Star Ranch project, located immediately north of Interstate-10, is approved as a mixed-use development with predominantly residential and supporting commercial uses providing a total of 1,522 dwelling units, 22 acres of commercial uses and 7.7 acres of nature preserve. The balance of the site is for roads, infrastructure and open space amenities. This project has not yet been developed. Densities of approved and built and unbuilt development projects in the vicinity are given in the table below: Surrounding Land Uses and Densities at Build Out Total Total Total No. of Units Acres DU/AC Emerald Desert Country Club 599** 80 3.18 Avondale Country Club 296 240 1.23 Desert Falls Country Club 1,020 435 2.34 Palm Desert Greens Country Club* 1,922 400 4.81 Baron's Financial Group 96 32 3.0 Rancho Portola 687 420 1.63 * Palm Desert Greens Country Club has a higher density,being a mobile home subdivision. ** Emerald Desert is principally an RV resort with spaces rented on limited stays of up to 180 days. Seven condominium units are also located within the project. 3 TN/City of Palm Des� ~ity Council Hearing/4.22.99 Coachella Valley Campus/California State University-San Bernardino C. PROJECT DESCRIP'1ZON The proposed Master Plan for the Coachella Valley Campus of California State University-San Bernardino encompasses 203± gross acres. Approximately 120 acres will be developed for classrooms and other college buildings and facilities, dormitories, physical education and associated facilities. Buildings will serve each of six schools, extended education programs, "distance learning" facilities, student commons, union and bookstore, an arena and aquatic center, physical plant and facilities, resource center and administration offices. The Master Plan provides for approximately 2,987,780 gross square feet at buildout. The balance of the site, approximately 80 acres, is taken up by on-site roads and drives, parking lots and structures, dedications of public rights-of-way, landscaped open space areas and water features, and ancillary on-site supporting facilities. Ba�c Development Components The following table breaks down the proposed Campus Master Plan into development components, including gross acreage being dedicated to each, and the gross square footage of building space to be developed in single and multi-story construction. pl�ning Areas Statistical Summary California State University/San Bernardino Coachella Valley Center Campus Component Gross Site Area Total Building (GSI+7 (Acres) Area Information & Public Safety 0.875 10,000 Coachella Valley Permanent Center 7.750 78,600 School of Education/Children's Center 3.125 364,450 School of Social & Behavior Sciences 2250 224,740 School of Natural Sciences 2.500 234,400 School of Engineering 2.500 95,930 School of Business 5.000 137,040 School of Humanities & University Studies 6.500 243,480 Extended Education 2.625 42,860 Commons, Student Union & Bookstore 4.625 174,270 Arena and Aquatic Center 26.000 214,290 Baseball Diamonds 32.000 -- Student Housing 13.500 385,700 Physical Plant 5250 74,570 President's Residence 1.875 5,710 Administration 1.500 102,700 Resource Center 2250 98,040 SubTotal 120.125 Acres 2,987,780 GSF Parking, Circulation & Open Space 82.875 Acres --- Total 203.00±Acres 2,987,780 GSF 4 � � � l � � �� '� N O � � � � o � W w f- '.� � � � � � � �a � oW �e � � '�Wa o� � � o � �� g �W � � �W W ;� a � � �g � a��W�~�� °� ��°- w °� � � w zz <� �p�p � e= � ��c��Fc7�n �°Fp° Wo� a� � � luul (Qj �a � W�i�W�SW��W� �cn U aF- "'�' � � LL LL LL LL LL LL d_ � � � � ' I—� � OOOOOOANaLLJ ��Fv W� a� � � � a � _!J_1JJJ�OegadS��UQ(�Q Q� � U � �WQ OCJVC�v��QYC1�__�� Y +' •n � OY UUU UU� �UQ��W �a .� il �J � �a � �n�ncn�iv�u�w�a�m�aa�a� N0- a � _ � a � o � �r-a � c�v�mm�a�a+orcvc+�a�nmt�� r�r r�r r r r � � � U v O � � �.--z — � ro � � � � � � � o ,�,i :`` � � 0 v� � �Q P � o�. O �' � � � � ��„� o� � � > � R, � � � � � � � � � � .� � � 0 � � � � � � � � � o � � � � � � � �O � � � � � � � o r --� � U U � p � O / O � � � ° O o .� o � � � o - Q � � � oO o � m � � � � � d � Z � � � �� o � 0 � O 03 � � � ❑ Q� � �at�s�oo� � .� a W � � F a � � � J TN/City of Palm Des� "ity Council Hearing/422.99 Coachella Valley Campus/California State University-San Bernardino The campus would be expected to support a peak student population of approximately 25,000 with up to 15,625 students expected to be on campus at any given time. By the year 2000, the campus is expected to host approximately 735 full-time equivalent students (FTES). Approximately 5,392 students (FTES) are expected to be in attendance by about 2005 and up to 25,000 (FTES) by the year 2020. The Master Plan calls for the eventual development of up to 1,200 units (beds) of on-campus student housing. Facilities for up to 12,860 parking spaces are also a part of this Master Plan. The subject property is located along three major arterial roadways and lies a short distance south of the Cook Street/LJS Interstate-10 interchange. Regional access to the site is excellent. The proposed Campus Master Plan provides for one major access along Frank Sinatra Drive and another along Cook Street. Four major access drives are proposed along Gerald Ford Drive. Additional but more limited access drives may be provided along these roadways as well. II. ANALYSIS: The proposed Coachella Valley Campus of the California State University-San Bernardino is a major development project that will have a far reaching effect on the City and the entire Coachella Valley. It is unique in that the City is the Lead Agency for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and is processing a Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit. However, the implementation of the project is expected to be regulated by the State Architect's Office. The City is currently negotiating a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) through the City Redevelopment Agency, which is expected to ensure a City role in reviewing the implementation of the Master Plan. Therefore, the City's processing of the Master Plan, CUP and EIR are meant to assure that the project is compatible with surrounding development and consistent with City development concerns. The City's review and analysis of the proposed Coachella Valley Campus has been focused through the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Draft report was completed in 1998 and transmitted to a full range of public and quasi-public agencies for review and comments. The EIR analysed a wide range of issues in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Some of the most important issue areas are briefly discussed below. Land Use Compatibilitv The proposed campus master plan describes a major, integrated university campus design, which includes classrooms, laboratories, administration and maintenance facilities, sports facilities and extensive parking and open space areas. The plan has been conceived in a manner that limits the potential for land use compatibility problems. The EIR sets forth mitigation measures that are designed to assure that implementation of the master plan is further reviewed and regulated to preclude land use compatibility problems as the campus builds out. 6 TN/City of Palm Desc 'ity Council Hearing/4.22.99 Coachella Valley Campus/California Staie University-San Bernardino Traffiic and Circulation The proposed campus will generate substantial traffic, which will be attracted to the site from throughout the entire Coachella Valley. The project's impacts are substantially limited by the site's location near the Interstate-10/Cook Street interchange and the existing and partially built out arterial roadways system surround the site. At buildout, the campus is expected to generate approximately 36,744 average daily trips; This trip generation estimate is quite conservative and does not take into consideration the use of public transit and other alternative modes of transportation that may substantially reduce daily traffic at the campus. Mitigation Measures A variety of roadway improvement measures (see below), both at the project site and on surrounding roadways, have been set forth in the EIR and will assure that affected roadways and intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS). However, the exact phasing of campus development is not known at this time and will depend upon the year to year increases in enrollment. For purposes of EIR analysis, it is assumed the the campus will buildout after the year 2010. The uncertainty of project phasing will require on-going monitoring of conditions on local roads and intersections to assure that on-site and area improvements are made in a timely manner. Specific mitigation measures that will reduce impacts from the project and other development to insignificant levels are presented below. Monterey Avenue @ Gerald Ford Drive ° Add a second north-bound left-turn lane ° Add a third north-bound thru lane ° Add a second south-bound left turn lane ° Add a third south-bound thru lane ° Permit one west-bound right turn overlap lane @ Frank Sinatra Drive ° Add a third north-bound thru lane ° Add a third south-bound thru lane ° Add a west-bound right turn lane Cook Street @ I-10 Fwy EB Ramps ° Add a third north-bound thru lane ° Add dual north-bound right turn lanes ° Add dual east-bound right turn lanes @ Gerald Ford Drive ° Add one north-bound left turn lane ° Add one north-bound right turn lane ° Add one south-bound left turn lane ° Add one south-bound thru lane ° Add two south-bound right turn overlap lanes ° Add two east-bound left turn lanes ° Add one east-bound right turn overlap lane ° Add two west-bound right turn overlap lanes @ Frank Sinatra Drive ° Add one north-bound thru lane ° Add one south-bound thru lane @ Country Club Drive ° Add one east-bound thru lane 7 TN/City of Palm Des� 'ity Council Hearing/422.99 Coachella Valley Campus/California State University-San Bernardino Gerald Ford Drive @ Frank Sinatra Drive ° Add one south-bound left turn lane ° Add one east-bound left turn lane ° Add one east-bound thru lane ° Add one west-bound thru lane Eldorado Drive @ Frank Sinatra Drive ° Add one east-bound left turn lane ° Add one east-bound thru lane ° Add one west-bound left turn lane ° Add one west-bound thru lane Most if not all of the mitigation measures have already been anticipated based upon current development trends and land use designations. Roadway and intersection improvements on streets adjoining the campus are expected to be made incrementally with the phased development of the campus. Other improvements must be anticipated based upon warrants and projections of future traffic. Bus stops and turnouts shall be planned in conjunction with the Sunline Transit Authority and shall provide such facilities both along major exterior streets (Cook Street, Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive) and within the campus itself. Project designers shall confer with the Authority and secure and apply, as appropriate, design standards for bus turnouts and stops. Access Drives and On-Site Roadwa�Improvements The seven access drives proposed in the Campus Master Plan include several located along or adjacent to curves on the subject arterial roadways. The EIR requires that access drives be further analysed to assure that adequate sight distances can be provided. Traffic signals are will be needed at the main access drive on Cook Street, the access drive on Frank Sinatra Drive, at the Sinatra and Gerald Ford intersection, and the major access drive located on Gerald Ford Drive and east of Cook Street. All interior streets and those intersecting with the public street system shall be redesigned to create intersections which meet at right angles to the greatest extent possible. The EIR also directs the applicant to reconsider the design of the interior circular roadway and access drives along curving portions of the public street system, or demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City and/or University that line of sight or sight distances are safe. If necessary, these portions of the master site plan shall be redesigned to eliminate any hazardous conditions identified during this analysis. The southerly-most Cook Street access drive proposed to service Phase I of the campus (Coachella Valley Permanent Center), shall be limited to a right turn in and right turn out only, and shall be provided with a deceleration lane as determined appropriate by the City Engineer. 8 TN/City of Palm Des; 'ity Council Hearing/422.99 Coachella Valley Campus/California State University-San Bernardino TUMF Program The City and CVAG have adopted and are implementing the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) as a means of financing planned regional transportation system improvements through the year 2010. The City has adopted an ordinance putting the TUMF program into effect. The ordinance imposes a fair-share traffic fee on new development, and is based upon findings of the 1987 Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study. According to Section 5(2): Exemptions of the ordinance, the Coachella Valley campus project is a public school and is therefore exempt from the TUMF program. The university has indicated that they are legally constrained from paying for off-site roadway improvements. Therefore, TUMF funding which would otherwise be provided by development on the subject property will not be forthcoming from the development of the campus. This situation is no different from that associated with the development of other public schools within the TUMF planning area but is larger in scale and focused in one location. Soils and Geolo�'v The subject property is located about three miles southeast of the San Andreas Fault and can be expected to be subject to strong ground shaking over the life of the campus. A portion of the site is also crossed by the Palm Springs Sand Ridge, an elevated ridge of wind-blown sand that will require special engineering and foundation design considerations. The site is also located in an area subject to high wind erosion. Due to the Master Plan level of project design, it is not possible to set forth highly specific mitigation measures to address the geotechnical conditions at the site. However, the EIR provides a variety of mitigation measures that directly address site constraints and hazards, as well as those which will assure an adequate analysis of each development phase and the provision of specific mitigation measures for each. Floodin�and Hydrolo�v The proposed campus site is located within the Mid-Valley Drainage Area, as defined by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). In response to anticipated flooding concerns, CVWD has designed the Mid-Valley Stormwater Channel system, a portion of which is planned immediately north of the subject property and immediately south of the Southern pacific Railroad right-of-way. At buildout of the Mid-Valley drainage area and without the bene�t of the proposed channel system, approximately 40 percent of the campus site could be inundated in a 100- year storm event. However, once constructed, the Mid-Valley Channel will remove the site from the 100-year inundation area. As with all development within the subject drainage area, the project will be required to retain 100 percent of the on-site runoff within the project boundaries. Until such time as the Mid-Valley Channel is constructed, any development within the potential inundation area will be required to provided elevated building pads sufficient to protect buildings. Other mitigation measures include participation in the construction of City Drainage Line 8-1 within the Cook Street right-of-way. 9 TN/City of Palm De� ;ity Council Hearing/4.22.99 Coachella Va11ey.Campus/California State University-San Bernazdino Biolo�ical R�esources Portions of the proposed campus site were previously developed with a vineyard and tamarisk windrows for protection; these have since been abandoned. The site harbors a variety of biological resources and habitat of varying quality. Sensitive resources occurring on site or expected to occur there include the federal threatened Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, the federal endangered Coachella Valley milk-vetch and a variety of other sensitive species. The subject property is located within the fee mitigation area for the fringe-toed lizard as set forth in the Habitat Conservation Plan for this species. In order to mitigate for impacts to biological resources, several mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR, which have also been discussed with the California Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The mitigation of impacts involves the payment of the $600 per acre fringe-toed lizard fee. Based upon an estimated site area of 203 acres, total fees that would be paid are approximately $121,800 and would be the total possible fee payment the project would be obliged to pay if made in a lump sum. An incidental "Take Permit" or consistency determination regarding same must be secured from the California Department of Fish and Game. No formal response to the Draft or Final EIR has been provided by the US Fish & Wildlife Service, which did meet with the City, its consultant and the University. Informally, the Service has indicated that it may wish to reserve the option of requiring the university to participate in the forthcoming Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Other mitigation measures set forth in the EIR are to include the avoidance of potentially invasive plants in the project landscape palette, which would also be designed to enhance on-site habitat. Other Environmental Concerns A cultural resources survey was conducted on the subject property, however no significant resources were found nor are any expected to occur there. An extensive air quality analysis was conducted on the proposed development, which examined the potential for dust generation, as well as emissions from stationary sources (natural gas and electricity) and vehicle emissions. A variety of mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR which are expected to reduce potential impacts below levels of significance. The subject property may be impacted by traffic noise generated on local streets and train noise generated by nearby Southern Pacific Railroad lines. Potential noise impacts associated with project construction were also addressed. Schools are considered sensitive receptors and the project was evaluated for its compatibility with the anticipated future noise environment. A variety of mitigation measures, including walls and/or other noise barriers along major roadways, appropriate construction materials and building set backs, are included in the EIR. Measures to mitigate potential noise impacts to the neighborhood during construction are also included. l0 TN/City of Palm Desc ity Council Hearing/4.22.99 Coachella Valley Campus/California Staie University-San Bernardino Summarp of Analpsis Based upon an assessment of the proposed California State University-San Bernardino Coachella Valley Campus Master Plan, the project is generally considered a positive contribution to the City, the Coachella Valley and the neighborhood in which it is proposed for development. Due to the conceptual nature of the Campus Master Plan, the project EIR includes requirements for subsequent review and approval of development details to preclude significant impacts from occurring. Regulation of Development The University and/or the City shall be responsible for the regulatory functions associated with development of the campus, including those set forth in the project EIR. The University has acknowledged that, to the extent permitted by State law, it will mitigate impacts to the environment consistent with the terms and conditions being set forth and ultimately established by an executed Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). This DDA is currently being negotiated between the California State University and the City Redevelopment Agency. While the DDA has not (at this writing) been completed, it is expected to include a provision for the establishment of a joint City/LTniversity Development Steering Committee (or equivalent), which will oversee the regulation and development of the Coachella Valley Campus. Other terms and conditions are expected to provide mechanisms to assure that EIR mitigation measures are implemented. Plannin�Commission Hearin� The City Planning Commission held a public hearing on the subject project on March 16, 1999. The applicant made a brief presentation and answered questions from Commissioners. Neither objections nor expressions of concern were made by the public. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the Campus Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit, and certification of the EIR. III. FIlVDINGS 1. A comprehensive Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 97111071) was prepared on the proposed project in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It has been determined that implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR will assure that the project will not result in any unmitigated adverse significant environmental impacts. 2. The proposed Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-3 for the Coachella Valley Campus of the California State University-San Bernardino is compatible with the neighborhood, the City and the region. li TN/City of Palm Des �ity Council Hearing/422.99 Coachella Valley Campus/California State University-San Bernardino 3. The proposed location of the university campus and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The proposed Coachella Valley Campus Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-3 are consistent with the City General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. IV. RECOMN�NDATION: Staff Rscomxnendation: A. City Council Certi�cation of the Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 97111071) for the Coachella Valley Campus Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit. B. City Council Adoption of the findings set forth in the Staff Report and Resolution. C. Adoption of City Council Resolution No. 99-34 , approving the California State University-San Bernardino Coachella Valley Campus Master Plan and associated Conditional Use Permit No. 99-3, subject to the mitigation measures set forth in the Project EIR. V. ATTAC��VVIEErTTS A. Draft Resolution B. Legal Notice C. Comments from City Departments And Other Agencies (also see Final EIR) D. Plans and Exhibits (see Campus Master Plan and Draft EIR) �°:�.TY COUNCI�C2IOZ1: D�IED " ':�;�;��..i V�`,11� �T�FR A ��:;:; -�-��,�.�.--�- 6-. r. � ..� .. ��TE �' ' , ,�, !�� m:�:.�,:%,�r,vu. +..�w.�""`YN. -.�0.. . `R'yS9M!PlC��1{T/bf��a.. „i.A w.J• „a��sm'�v. �:�SENT: � � „a. �.,..,..�,.. �:�'�`PPiTN`�'�'�""�"` r.r.� ,�„�.�,.�,., . <?��«f �.�'' �,�, }..1�� t � � �'k° � �ffii�: . , � 4.�.� �si. �;�..r��,,_ �,, � MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 B. Case No. CUP 99-3 - CITY OF PALM DESERT and CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY-SAN BERNARDINO, Applicants Request for approval of a Master Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit, and Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 971 1 1071 ) for the Coachella Valley Campus of the California State University-San Bernardino to be located on 204± acres at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive, also particularly described as A.P.N. 653-420-016, 37-300 Cook Street. Chairperson Jonathan advised that he sits on the Advisory Board for the Coachella Valley Campus and he discussed that position with the City Attorney and they had both concluded that since there was no financial interest and since his objectivity for the overall welfare of the community at large was not impaired, there was no need for him to abstain on this matter. He asked for staff's report. Mr. Drell explained that he would give a brief background and then turn it over to the university folks for a report. The City purchased approximately 200 acres at Frank Sinatra Drive and Cook Street for the purpose of facilitating the construction of a Cal State campus. The commission was given a copy of the master plan which was the result of a committee made up of University representatives, the City and some citizen representatives. The process took about 18 months. They came up with a general description of the academic program and plan and a master plan of the potential layout of the university. He indicated that ultimately, pursuant to a DDA with the Redevelopment Agency who owned the land, the property would be conveyed to the university. Actual development would only begin once the property was conveyed to the university and once it was conveyed the university by law would no longer be subject to specific land use controls by the city. His understanding was that the future land use and the specific details of the architecture and siting of each phase would be the subject of an advisory committee made up of representatives of the City and University which would be advisory to the President. He explained that the purpose of this process was because a project of this scope needed an environmental impact report and in order to have an environmental impact report there had to be a project. The project was defined as a conditional use permit. While the City still owned the land, the City still had control, and in the zone a university or 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 school was a conditional use. In addition to the report by the university representatives, also present was the consultant who completed the environmental impact report. The consultant's summary was distributed to commission. Dr. Peter Wilson was also present representing the university. For the record Mr. Drell stated that more than 300 legal notices were sent to residents of all the major residential developments in the vicinity and only 30 were returned as undeliverable, so most reached their destination. Staff also explained that the 300-foot radius was expanded to 500 feet. Chairperson Jonathan o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant for comments. DR. PETER WILSON, Dean of the Coachella Valley Campus of Cal State San Bernardino, addressed the commission and explained that also at the meeting was Mr. David DeMauro, the Vice President of Administration and Finance at the Cal State San Bernardino main campus and Mr. DeMauro was the Chair of the Master Plan Advisory Committee that Mr. Drell referred to earlier. Dr. Wilson gave the commission a brief background of the college's presence in the Coachella Valley and how they went about developing this campus. He indicated that they have been in the Valley since the mid 70's and they began offering external degree programs in the Coachella Valley in 1976. An external degree program was one that was self supported-- there were no state tax dollars in it so they pay the full cost and it turned out to be better and was just about as expensive as a private school education if they did it that way. As a comparison that was what UCR was talking about doing in Cathedral City. If they went forward with the plan to open their extended university center, they would be offering classes without state tax support so they would be full cost. They have been doing that since 1976. In 1983-84 they were approached by the President of the College of the Desert to ask about COD becoming a state university because the area wanted a state university campus, a four-year college degree program, for a long time. They were told to talk to Cal State San Bernardino since their service area included all of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, an area about the size of the state of Maine and populated about the same with lots of open space and concentrations of population. Eventually a branch campus opened in 1986 on College of the Desert property in a construction trailer. They currently had about 800 students. They have 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 grown every quarter over the last two years. Normally enrollment was high in the fall and dropped down the next two but they have grown every single quarter the last two years which indicated the demand. In 1991 he talked to various people in the city to discuss establishing a permanent branch campus which was what they were doing and that resulted in November of 1994 the signing of an MOU between the City of Palm Desert and the Board of Trustee of the California State University System to develop on land the City would set aside a permanent branch campus. It was unique in their experience for a state institution to get into a private-public partnership because the challenge that the chancellor of CSU gave them was to build it and they would find the money to operate it. So they embarked upon a major capital campaign to raise the necessary money to build the branch campus. The Master Plan was completed in March of 1997. They started a capital campaign in June of 1998 and received the first building naming gift, which kicked them off in June of 1997, and that S3 million gift was from the Mary Stewart Rogers Foundation. Since then they have received an additional 5800,000 in commitments and had proposals out for around S2 million more. They continued to talk with people and staged events to raise money to build the campus. This past April there was the R.D. and Joan Hubbard gift from the Hubbard Foundation. Last June they received a commitment from the chancellor's office in Long Beach for the allocation of operation funds. That was the challenge-- build it and they would find the money to operate it. This year they received a one time allocation of 5380,000 to go into their budget in addition to what they had and that would go into the permanent base budget next year and they would grow from that. It was an important part of the ingredients in the elements of developing this campus that they need to have the operating money if they were going to build this building and they have gotten that commitment. They started the architect selection process in January. They have interviewed five candidates. A recommendation was made to the President on whom to appoint and they were waiting for that appointment to take place to finalize the DDA with the City on the transfer of the land. Once they had that in hand they would hire the architect and begin the schematics on the buildings. The DDA approval process began last April and they reached agreement today on all the concepts that go into it and they just needed the attorneys to work out the final language. They wanted to do a CSU Board of Trustees agenda item in July that would include 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 the EIR, DDA, the Master Plan and some changes in paperwork associated with non major capital programs in CSU to get themselves on that schedule. It was a housekeeping detail and if everything went the way they hoped and expected, in September 2001 or January 2002 at the latest they would move in. When they started developing a master plan, they didn't want to just master plan the branch campus they wanted to master plan the whole university to build out what it might look like, realizing that master plans were just that. It was like the City's general plan that changed over time as needs emerged and they got a better idea of what they were doing and how they were doing it. The master plan would change, but at least it laid out the road pathways internally and the exits from the campus because it would also become the telecommunications hub for the campus and this would be a campus heavily invested in technology and telecommunications. They wanted to have a master plan for the 204 acres so they could make a determination of where the best place would be to put CVC. They didn't want the president of the campus and the senior officers 50 years from now wondering why they put CVC where they did. They wanted the backup of the master plan. He showed the location of the initial 40 acres where they would put the branch campus up in the southwestern corner of that piece of property. There had been some discussion of finishing Cook so that when someone drives up into Palm Desert they would see finished landscaping. They would be starting the initial facilities with the associated parking and determining what would go into each phase and what they planned on doing was putting in three buildings to form the initial branch campus. That gave them an idea of how they planned to break the space out as they go along realizing they would have to be somewhat flexible but also understanding that they need offices, student union kinds of space, distance learning facilities, computer labs, a book store, etc., in the first phase. What they would also need to have were classrooms. They might end up moving the offices into one location and concentrating classrooms in another, but this would give them an idea of how this would break out in terms of square footage. They were currently operating out of about 8,500 square feet at the College of the Desert with 800 students. Next quarter they would be borrowing 12 classrooms from Palm Valley, Palm Desert Middle School and five classrooms from College of the Desert to keep themselves going. They were bursting out of the space they had and they couldn't serve students adequately where they are so they 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 were exploring how to add classrooms on an interim basis. What they had planned here with the first facility would give them three times the space they have now. The second building and third building would add proportionately to it and they would end up with about 75,000 square feet that would be instructional space that would accommodate about 25,000 students when they were done. In the commission packets was a Coachella Valley Campus first building break down in terms of square feet and cost to give them a feeling of what they were looking at in terms of fund raising. The total project cost was about S 1 1 .8 million and that cost was offset by the land the City was donating to the university plus some funds the University was putting in for parking, student union space, the bookstore and equipment. The bottom line was they had to raise nearly $8 million. They had 53.8 million now banked and needed 54.2 to finish it and he was confident they would get that 54.2 million over the next six to 12 months. He felt the uniqueness of the venture made it interesting. The opportunity to bring a university campus, initially a branch campus of San Bernardino and ultimately a separate state university campus, CSU Palm Desert, to this region was exciting and it would be something that would have untold good consequences for this area forever. This was not something like a business that would die out or go away. Education was never going to stop being needed, it would just increase and grow out over time. He asked for any questions. He appreciated the City taking responsibility for the EIR in carrying it through and he had enjoyed working with them. Commissioner Finerty noted that the EIR indicated that the proposed structures would be six stories high and there was concern because that would be one of the highest buildings in the city and asked how firm that was. She understood that once the property became the state's, that the City really had no say other than through the committee that would be formed to address these issues. She asked if Dr. Wilson could comment on the necessity for the six story structures. Dr. Wilson explained that the initial branch campus would be one story. The land where the campus was being located sloped so what would be seen from the road was one story. What they would see from the other side down the hill would be two stories because there would be a drop off there. The discussions he had heard on how the campus 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 would be built out over time was that they would never be in a position to block views because they would build up as they went down so there would be a situation where if they were at the top of Frank Sinatra, the tall buildings would not be at that location, they would be down toward the bottom. The acreage was about 192 acres based on a recent survey that took place. They were always operating on 204± but it was going to be 192. For a California State University Campus it was in the mid range as far as acreage was concerned. Acreage for CSU campuses ranged from 100 acres at San Francisco State where they were now in the process of tearing down ten story buildings to build higher so they could accommodate students to San Bernardino which had about 440 acres. There was a fairly broad spectrum. They were planning to take this campus to 25,000 full time students. The Master Plan also makes a commitment to educate only half that number on that site. The rest of them would be educated in other parts of the valley and other parts of the world. Whether or not they needed to go to the six story buildings would depend on the growth and how things went, but they would definitely be built down lower so they would see an increase in height as they go down the hill and it was quite a drop off. Commissioner Campbell asked if the buildings would go through the City's architectural review process. Mr. Drell thought that as part of the process of the advisory group, as an adjunct to that it would go through ARC mainly because it would give the process the ability to get the opinions of four or five top professionals in the valley in terms of the architecture. He thought it would still be the City's goal to have the ability to comment on the buildings, it was just that the final authority would be different. Dr. Wilson added that the state university was a state agency governed by the Education Code and state law. The Education Code prohibited the university from turning control of its destiny to any local jurisdictions or any other body but the university itself. In the DDA they had to work hard at staying away from words that implied control by some other agency but also allowed for clear consultation and taking into consideration the desires of the local community. The way they handled that was to come up with a body they called the University Planning Development Committee which would be a group made up of nine members, four appointed by the Mayor and City Council of Palm 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 Desert, four appointed by the President of the University, and one appointed jointly by the City Council and President and that would be the Chair. That group would review all plans for the development of the university property, architectural drawings, etc., and would take those through a city process for consultation and comment in order to pass a document/plan out of that committee into the university process and two thirds of the members had to vote affirmatively. It was conceivable that a plan could get through that a majority of the community didn't care for but it was very unlikely because of the way it was structured and the review processes it had to go through. The fact of the matter was that the university was prohibited by state law from turning approval of its designs/developments over to local jurisdictions. They could not develop a campus here if that control language was there so they developed the mechanism to deal with it without having it. Commissioner Beaty asked if Dr. Wilson anticipated that at the completion of phase one they would have enough classroom space to accommodate the needs at that time or if they were already behind in building. Dr. Wilson felt that when they did the first phase and have the first facility up they would have sufficient room to accommodate the movement of the current operation to that site. They would have to construct the second building quickly to stay up with growth because he felt it would grow very rapidly once they moved. The other thing they were dealing with here was that 70% of their classes currently occurred in the evening. The average age of their student body was 36. Most worked full time and had families. It was a very non traditional group. Their experience was that as they added degree programs, especially if they added them during the day which was what they were starting to do, they would begin to attract a younger clientele that could go during the day and would use the facility more effectively. Right now they were pressed in the evenings after 6:00 p.m. and they had no room. Chairperson Jonathan noted that Dr. Wilson mentioned the name Cal State University Palm Desert and asked if that would be a certainty at some point. Dr. Wilson stated that it was very clearly spelled out in the DDA that at the point where the university indicates that it wants to change the 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 CVC status from a branch campus to an independent CSU campus, Palm Desert would be part of the name. There was no doubt about that at all and had their support--they had no argument with that at all. Chairperson Jonathan indicated that Dr. Wilson also mentioned that the DDA provided for a committee, a University Development and Planning Committee, and asked what would happen after the campus was essentially built out, if the committee would remain in existence. For example, if there was a driving range built in 30 years and lights were on after 10:00 p.m. and pointing the wrong way, if the City would have any ability to influence any of those kinds of possible occurrences. Dr. Wilson said he might have Mr. De Mauro address that because he was not as familiar with the main campus as he used to be, but at the home campus in San Bernardino there was a continual consultation process that takes place between the University and the City of San Bernardino, both on development that takes place immediately adjacent to the campus which was essentially City controlled and development that happens on the campus itself, especially if it was going to affect the environment outside the campus. He asked Mr. De Mauro if that was an accurate statement. MR. DAVE DE MAURO, 7930 Buckhorn in EI Cajon, said that the main campus had an agreement with the City of San Bernardino and he felt it was just as important to be a good partner with the City as well as having the legal agreements. They did whatever they could to address any concerns of the City. As an example, they just went before the Board of Trustees to update the master plan for the San Bernardino campus up to 25,000 students and they were having the mayor come to address their Board of Trustees in favor of the plan. Chairperson Jonathan understood that the well-meaning intent was there and knew it was well meaning but as far as the committee itself, he asked if it terminated at some point when development was substantially complete. Mr. De Mauro said it had no termination or sunset clause so it should continue in perpetuity. 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 16, 1999 Chairperson Jonathan indicated that might be the vehicle for creating that kind of collaboration between the University and the City. Dr. Wilson noted that master plans were like general plans in that they change over time. Mr. De Mauro mentioned that they just went to San Bernardino for an increase in the master plan there to 25,000 full time students. San Bernardino was at about 10,500 full time students and they were approved to 12,000 full time students now, so they went back to gaih the Trustees' approval as to where they would add buildings, what they would look like and so on out through 25,000 full time students. It was an ongoing process and the master plan that exists now, the 25,000 master plan, had a substantial number of changes from the one when the founding fathers created it back in 1963-64. It was an ongoing process that probably took 24 months to put the new one together. It was an adjustment to reality and to how needs changed and part of the advantage they had here that they didn't have in San Bernardino was that they have in writing a consultation process that they could exercise. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this matter. There was no one and Chairperson Jonathan closed the public hearing and asked for commission comments. Action: It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, approving the findings as presented by staff. Commissioner Finerty stated that she felt very comfortable with the review committee that had been set up. Chairperson Jonathan said it was exciting to see this getting closer and closer to reality. It would be a change and vast improvement to the quality of life to our community to see the Cal State CVC campus continue in its good progress. He called for the vote. Motion carried 5-0. It was moved by Commissioner Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Finerty, adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1916, recommending to City Council approval of a Master Development Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (SCH #971 1 1071 ) to allow development of a California State University Campus on 204± acres at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive. Motion carried 5-0. 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1916 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MASTER PLAN, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND CERTIFICATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) SCH# 971 1 1071 TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS ON 204 ACRES BOUNDED BY COOK STREET, FRANK SINATRA DRIVE AND GERALD FORD AVENUE, APN 653-420-016, 37-300 COOK STREET. CASE NO. CUP 99-3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16th day of March, 1999, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by City of Palm Desert and Cal State University-San Bernardino for approval of the above described project; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 97-18," in that an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared in conformance with current CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify recommending approval of the Master Plan, Conditional Use Permit and Certification of the Environmental Impact Report: 1 . A comprehensive Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared on the proposed project in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It has been determined that implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR will assure that the project will not result in any significant unmitigated adverse environmental impacts. 2. The proposed Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit for the Coachella Valley Campus of the California State University-San Bernardino is compatible with the neighborhood, the city and the region. 3. That the proposed location of the university campus and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The proposed Coachella Valley Campus Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit are consisted with the goals and objectives of the City General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1916 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as fotlows: 1 . That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That the Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit be recommended to City Council for approval. 3. That ths Environmental Impact Report for the Coachella Valley Campus of the California State University-San Bernardino be recommended for certification. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 16th day of March, 1999, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: BEATY, CAMPBELL, FINERTY, LOPEZ, JONATHAN � NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE � SABBY JON T AN, Chairperson ATTEST: � .. .r-�-� . PHILIP DRELL, cretary Palm Desert Pla ing Commission 2 TN/City of Palm Desert Coachella Valley Campus/California State University-San Bernardino CITY OF PAIIVI DESER,T DEPAR,TMENT OF CONIlIZUNPI'Y DEVELOPMENr ST�I�'F REPORT 7.'0: Planning Commission DATE: March 16, 1999 CASE NO.: Master Plan for the California State University-San Bernardino Coachella Valley Campus,Conditional Use Permit No.99-3,and Environmental Impact Report(State Clearinghouse No.:97111071) REQUES� Approval of Master Development Plan and Conditional Use Permit, and Certification of an Environmental Impact R,eport (EIR) for the Coachella Valley Campus of the California State University-San Bernardino APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert and California State University-San Bernardino I. BACKGROUND A.DESCRIP'iZON OF SITE: Phvsical Conditions at the Site The subject property is located at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive and extends to the north and east to Gerald Ford Drive, encompassing approximately 203 acres. The site is comprised of currently vacant desert lands, portions of which are located along the slopes of the Palm Springs Sand Ridge. The site extends northeast to the relatively flat valley floor. In the past approximately 60 to 70% of the site was cultivated for grapes, with lands also planted in tamarisk windrows to protect crops in cultivation. The grape cultivation has been abandoned and the tamarisk have thinned due to a lack of water. There are no structures on the site and limited dumping is in evidence. The subject property has recently been impacted by the contiguous development of Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive. The site is now fully accessible from major arterial roadways bounding it on all sides. Land Use and Zoning designations The use of the subject property is regulated by three planning documents, the City General Plan, the North Sphere Specific Plan and the City Zoning Ordinance. Under the City General Plan most of the subject property, primarily in the southern portion, is currently designated as Low-Density Residential (3-5 du/ac). 1 TN/City of Palm Desert Coachella Valley Campus/California State University-San Bernardino The Low Density Residential designation is intended for detached single family homes on medium to large lots in standard subdivisions, although planned residential developments (PRDs) with attached units and shared common open space are also permitted. The northern portion of the site is designated Commercial-Industrial, which extends northward to the Southern Paci�c Railroad right-of-way. This designation is equivalent to the City's Planned Community Development designation, which is also reflected in the City Zoning Ordinance. This designation is intended for master planned facilities, such as the proposed project. It makes provision for such uses as school sites, public and private recreational facilities, commercial and professional centers and industrial facilities. The applicability of the North Sphere Specific Plan is primarily as a policy document. Development proposals are required to demonstrate the availability of public services and facilities to support projects. Special attention is also to be given to uses and nzitigation of potential land use conflicts that assure land use compatibility. Development agreements are also encouraged as a means of assuring compatibility while providing flexibility. Potential noise impacts associated with the I-10/Southern Pacific Railroad corridor are also compatibility concerns cited in the North Sphere Specific Plan, and are discussed in the EIR. B. ADJACEN'r I.AND USE AND ZONING North: General Plan - Residential Study Zone, Commercial- Industrial and District Commercial Zoning - Commercial, Industrial South: General Plan - Low Density Residential Zoning - P.R.-5, P.R.-3 & P.R.-3.5 East: General Plan - Low Density Residential Zoning - R-1-M Wes� General Plan - Low Density Residential Zoning - P.R.-5 South of the subject property is the gated Desert Falls community, which e�ends south one mile to Country Club Drive. To the east is the 80 acre gated Emerald Desert Country Club development with 592 RV rental spaces and seven condominium units surrounding a golf course. Lands to the north are vacant, with the lines of the Southern Pacific Railroad and U.S. Interstate-10 occurring to the north and northeast of the site. Lands to the west are vacant, while lands to the southeast include Avondale and Palm Valley residential and golf course developments. 2 TN/City of Palm Desert Coachella Valley Campus/California s�ate University-San Bernazdino The new Courtyard/Residence Inn by Marriott is under construction at the southwest corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive and the Desert Willows golf course is located immediately further southwest. Nearly all lands south of Interstate-10, north of Frank Sinatra Drive and west of Cook Street are currently vacant, although arterial roadways have been constructed in this area. The Interstate-10/Cook Street interchange has recently been completed just north of the subject property, connecting Cook Street with I-10 and Varner Road to the north. Lands north of Interstate-10 are also vacant but were once in cultivation. According to the City General Plan, lands north of the subject property are designated Residential Study Zone, Commercial-Industrial and District Commercial. The Wonder Palms Commercial Center project, approved in 1996, provides for highway-oriented commercial, professional office, industrial and mixed use development. Currently vacant desert lands west of the proposed project site, bounded by Frank Sinatra Drive on the south, Gerald Ford Drive on the north and Portola Avenue on the west, are designated Low Density Residential (3-5 du/ac). Lands immediately north of US Interstate-10 are under Riverside County jurisdiction. Land use designations for this area are established through the County's Western Coachella Valley Plan and include 2A (5-8 du/ac), 2B (2-5 du/ac), Specific Plan and Wildlife/Vegetation. The County General Plan also recognizes the North Star Ranch Specific Plan. Covering approximately 415 acres, the North Star Ranch project, located immediately north of Interstate-10, is approved as a mixed-use development with predominantly residential and supporting commercial uses providing a total of 1,522 dwelling units, 22 acres of commercial uses and 7.7 acres of nature preserve. The balance of the site is for roads, infrastructure and open space amenii,ies. This project has not yet been developed. Densities in the surrounding vicinity are given in the table below: Surrounding Iand Uses and Densities at Build Out Total Total Total No. of Units Acres DU/AC Emerald Desert Country Club 599** 80 3.18 Avondale Country Club 296 2A0 123 Desert Falls Country Club 1,020 435 2.34 Palm Desert Greens Country Club* 1,922 400 4.81 Baron's Financial Group 96 32 3.0 Rancho Portola 687 420 1.63 * Palm Desert Greens Country Club has a higher density,being a mobile home subdivision. ** Emerald Desert is principally an RV resort with spaces rented on limited stays of up to 180 days. Seven condominium units are also located within the project. 3 TN/City of Palm Desert Coachella Valley Campus/California�tate Univeraity-San Bernardino C. PRUJEGT DESCRIPZZON The proposed Master Plan for the Coachella Valley Campus of California State University-San Bernardino encompasses 203± acres. Approximately 120 acres will be developed for classrooms and other college buildings and facilities, dormitories, physical education and associated facilities. Buildings will serve each of six schools, extended education programs, "distance learning" facilities, student commons, union and bookstore, an arena and aquatic center, physical plant and facilities, resource center and administration offices. The Master Plan provides for approximately 2,987,780 gross square feet at buildout. The balance of the site, approximately 80 acres, is taken up by on-site roads and drives, parking lots and structures, dedications of public rights-of-way, landscaped open space areas and water features, and ancillary on-site supporting facilities. Basic Development Components The following table breaks down the proposed Campus Master Plan into development components, including gross acreage being dedicated to each and the gross square footage of building space to be developed in single and multi-story construction. Planning Areas Statistical Summary Califoriva State University/5an Bernardino Coachella Valley Center Campus Component Gross Site Area Total Building (�S� (Acres) Area Information & Public Safety 0.875 10,000 Coachella Valley Permanent Center 7.750 78,gpp School of Education/Children's Center 3.125 364,450 School of Social & Behavior Sciences 2250 224,74p School of Natural Sciences 2.500 234,4pp School of Engineering 2.500 95,930 School of Business 5.000 137,040 School of Humanities & University Studies 6.500 243,qg0 Extended Education 2.625 42,g6p Commons, Student Union & Bookstore 4.625 174,270 Arena and Aquatic Center 26.000 214,290 Baseball Diamonds 32.000 -- Student Housing 13.500 385,700 Physical Plant 5250 74,570 President's Residence 1.875 5,710 Administration 1.500 102,700 Resource Center 2250 98,040 �T� 120.125 Acres 2,987,780 GSF Parking, Circulation & Open Space 82.875 Acres --- Total 203.00±Acres 2,987,780 GSF � 4 � ¢�u � � z `; '" � � � � � � � W � W � W � � d �W � 0� CO � z � < W �� O� W � � � W � � 1(� U� � 'Z�� W �t � W � �ry I� > >� O��ZZ��V � 0 W Z� � y �F� c� Z � �d � .e= W��QOm��Fp o�j W�� Y� � � e 2< �WMZWmS��7` �¢f'� �6 [ � � U � WLLLLLL.LL{LlLWy�WC a(A V aN � � � � ►-� ¢ 0000000�<�J J��v W� S � < � Jp�Q JJ Jpd��d�8��<WOfAQ <z � C� � � ¢oW � OOSS�OZ <YmNV-�� WY .+ C� � � S� � UUUUUV��x�0 W yd � �I � W =a � N(Atl1fAtAtl1W <►-mxaa<¢ c �mp � v✓ ¢�a � t�vu�m�maso�atovam�• m a� ;� � T r r r T r r r T � � � � U � O w � o '" -�-z '� 'i�r � � � � � � o �r oe`` O � Q � � oQo O � � .� � �� o� C\�, � ¢ ; o, � / � ° •� � 0 � � � � O O N � � \ � �' � � � � o �� o � � � � � � � o � � UU 0 p � O / O 0 � � o 0 � � O � � ^ O Q � � � O o � m �I��7 O � � �i � O � m � �� O F-i C ❑ � �Zl 133k�1S HO00 m ry e M�r.� e � m E"� C. r � � � � � TN/City of Palm Desert Coachella Valley Campus/California State University-San Bernardino The campus would be expected to support a peak student population of approximately 25,000 with up to 15,625 students expected to be on campus at any given time. By the year 2000, the campus is expected to host approximately 735 full-time equivalent students (FTES). Approximately 5,392 students (FTES) are expected to be in attendance by about 2005 and up to 25,000 (FT'ES) by the year 2020. The Master Plan calls for the eventual development of up to 1,200 units (beds) of on-campus student housing. Facilities for up to 12,860 parking spaces are also a part of this Master Plan. The subject property is located along three major arterial roadways and lies a short distance south of the Cook Street interchange with US Interstate-10. Regional access to the site is excellent. The proposed Campus Master Plan provides for one major access along Frank Sinatra Drive and another along Cook Street. Four major access drives are proposed along Gerald Ford Drive. Additional but more limited access drives may be provided along these roadways as well. II. ANALYSIS: The proposed Coachella Valley Campus of the California State Univeraity-San Bernardino is a major development project that will have a far reaching effect on the City and the entire Coachella Valley. It is unique in that the City is the Lead Agency for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and is processing a Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit. However, the implementation of the project is expected to be regulated by the State Architect's Office. The City is currently negotiating a Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) through the City Redevelopment Agency, which is expected to ensure a City role in reviewing the impler3entation of the Master Plan. Therefore, the City's processing of the Master Plan, CUP and EIR are meant to assure that the project is compatible with surrounding development and consistent with City development concerns. The City's review and analysis of the proposed Coachella Valley Carnpus has been focused through the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Draft report was completed in 1998 and transmitted to a full range of public and quasi-public agencies for review and comments. The EIR analysed a wide range of issues in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Some of the m ost important issue areas are briefly discussed below. Land Use Com�atibility The proposed campus master plan describes a major, integrated university campus design, which includes classrooms, laboratories, administration and maintenance facilities, sports facilities and extensive parking and open space areas. The plan has been conceived in a manner that limits the potential for land use compatibility problems. The EIR sets forth mitigation measures that are designed to assure that implementation of the master plan is further reviewed and regulated to preclude land use compatibility problems as the campus builds out. 6 TN/City of Palm Desert Coachella Valley Campus/California State University-San Bernardino Tra�c and Circulation The proposed campus will generate substantial traffic, which will be attracted to the site from throughout the entire Coachella Valley. The project's impacts are substantially limited by the site's location near the Interstate-10/Cook Street interchange and the e�usting and partially built out arterial roadways system surround the site. At buildout, the campus is expected to generate approximately 36,744 average daily trips; This trip generation estimate is quite conservative and does not take into consideration the use of public transit and other alternative modes of transportation that may substantially reduce daily traf�ic at the campus. Mitigation Measures A variety of roadway improvement measures (see below), both at the project site and on surrounding roadways, have been set forth in the EIR which will assure that affected roadways and intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS). However, the exact phasing of campus development is not known at this time and will depend upon the year to year increases in enrollment. For purposes of EIR analysis, it is assumed the the campus will buildout after the year 2010. The uncertainty of project phasing will require on-going monitoring of conditions on local roads and intersections to assure that on-site and area improvements are made in a timely manner. Specific mitigation measures that will reduce impacts from the project and other development to insignificant levels are presented below. Monterev Avenue @ Gerald Ford Drive ° Add a second north-bound left-turn lane ° Add a third north-bound thru lane ° Add a second south-bound left turn lane ° Add a third south-bound thru lane ° Permit one west-bound right turn overlap lane @ Frank Sinatra Drive ° Add a third north-bound thru lane ° Add a third south-bound thru lane ° Add a west-bound right turn lane Cook Street C�I-10 Fwy EB Ramps ° Add a third north-bound thru lane ° Add dual north-bound right turn lanes ° Add dual east-bound right turn lanes @ Gerald Ford Drive ° Add one north-bound left turn lane ° Add one north-bound right turn lane ° Add one south-bound left turn lane ° Add one south-bound thru lane ° Add two south-bound right turn overlap lanes ° Add two east-bound left turn lanes ° Add one east-bound right turn overlap lane ° Add two west-bound right turn overlap lanes @ Frank Sinatra Drive ° Add one north-bound thru lane ° Add one south-bound thru lane 7 TN/City of Palm Desert Coachella Valley Campus/California State University-San Bernardino @ Country Club Drive ° Add one east-bound thru lane Gerald Ford Drive @ Frank Sinatra Drive ° Add one south-bound left turn lane ° Add one east-bound lef� turn lane ° Add one east-bound thru lane ° Add one west-bound thru lane Eldorado Drive @ Frank Sinatra Drive ° Add one east-bound left turn lane ° Add one east-bound thru lane ° Add one west-bound left turn lane ° Add one west-bound thru lane Most if not all of the mitigation measures have already been anticipated based upon current development trends and land use designations. Roadway and intersection improvements on streets adjoining the campus are expected to be made incrementally with the phased development of the campus. Other improvements must be anticipated based upon warrants and projections of future traffic. Bus stops and turnouts shall be planned in conjunction with the Sunline 14�ansit Authority and shall provide such facilities both along major exterior streets (Cook Street, Frank Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive) and within the campus itself. Project designers shall confer with the Authority and secure and apply, as appropriate, design standards for bus turnouts and stops. Access Drives and On-Site Roadway Improvements The seven access drives proposed in the Campus Master Plan include several locate� along or adjacent to curves on the subject arterial roadways. The EIR requires that access drives be further analysed to assure that adequate sight distances can be provided. Traffic signals are will be needed at the main access drive on Cook Street, the access drive on Frank Sinatra Drive, at the Sinatra and Gerald Ford intersection, and the major access drive located on Gerald Ford Drive and east of Cook 5treet. All interior streets and those intersecting with the public street system shall be redesigned to create intersections which meet at right angles to the greatest extent possible. The EIR also directs the applicant to reconsider the design of the interior circular roadway and access drives along curving portions of the public street system, or demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City and/or University that line of sight or sight distances are safe. If necessary, these portions of the master site plan shall be redesigned to eliminate any hazardous conditions identified during this analysis. The southerly-most Cook Street access drive proposed to service Phase I of the campus (Coachella Valley Pernaanent Center), shall be limited to a right turn in and right turn out only, and shall be provided with a deceleration lane as determined appropriate by the City Engineer. 8 TN/City of Palm Desert Coachella Valley Campus/California State University-San Bernardino TUMF Program The City and CVAG have adopted and are implementing the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) as a means of financing planned regional transportation system improvements through the year 2010. The City has adopted an ordinance putting the TUMF program into effect. The ordinance imposes a fair-share traffic fee on new development, and is based upon findings of the 1987 Coachella Valley Area Transportation Study. According to Section 5(2): Exemptions of the ordinance, the Coachella Valley campus project is a public school and is therefore exempt from the TUMF program. The university has indicated that they are legally constrained from paying for off-site roadway improvements. Therefore, TUMF funding �hich would otherwise be provided by development on the subject property will not be forthcoming from the development of the campus. This situation is no different from that associated with the development of other public schools within the TUMF planning area but is larger in scale and focused in one location. Soils and Geolo�,ry_ The subject property is located about three miles southeast of the San Andreas Fault and can be expected to be subject to strong ground shaking over the life of the campus. A portion of the site is also crossed by the Palm Springs Sand Ridge, an elevated ridge of wind-blown sand that will require special engineering and foundation design considerations. The site is also located in an area subject to high wind erosion. Due to the Master Plan level of project design, it is not possible to set forth highly specific mitigation measures to address the geotechnical conditions at the site. However, the EIR provides a variety of mitigation measures that directly address site constraints and hazards, as well as those which will assure an adequate analysis of each development phase and the provision of specific mitigation measures for each. Floodin�and Hydrolo�y The proposed campus site is located within the Mid-Valley Drainage Area, as defined by the CoachelYa Valley Water District (CVWD). In response to anticipated flooding concerns, CVWD has designed the Mid-Valley Stormwater Channel system, a portion of which is planned immediately north of the subject property and immediately south of the Southern pacific Railroad right-of-way. At buildout of the Mid-Valley drainage area and without the benefit of the proposed channel system, approximately 40 percent of the campus site could be inundated in a 100- year storm event. However, once constructed, the Mid-Valley Channel will remove the site from the 100-year inundation area. As with all development within the subject drainage area, the project will be required to retain 100 percent of the on-site runoff within the project boundaries. Until such time as the Mid-Valley Channel is constructed, any development within the potential inundation area will be required to provided 9 TN/City of Palm Desert Coachella Valley Campus/California State University-San Bernardino elevated building pads sufficient to protect buildings. Other mitigation measures include participation in the construction of City Drainage Line 8-1 within the Cook Street right-of-way. Biolo�ical R,esources Portions of the proposed campus site were previously developed and a vineyard with tamarisk windrows for protection; these have since been abandoned. The site harbors a variety of biological resources and habitat of varying quality. Sensitive resources occurring on site or expected to occur there include the federal endangered threatened Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, the federal endangered Coachella Valley milk-vetch and a variety of other sensitive species. The subject property is located within the fee mitigation area for the fringe-toed lizard as set forth in the Habitat Conservation Plan for this species. In order to mitigate for impacts to biological resources, several mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR, which have also been discussed with the California Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service. The mitigation of impacts involves the payment of the $600 per acre fringe-toed lizard fee and a $15,000 contribution to the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Total fees that would be paid are approximately $136,800 and would be the total possible fee payment the project would be obliged to pay if made in a lump sum. Other mitigation measures are to include the avoidance of potentially invasive plants in the project landscape palette, which would also be designed to enhance on-site habitat. Other Environmental Concerns A cultural resources survey was conducted on the subject property, however no significant resources were found nor are any expected ,to occur there. An exten"ve air quality analysis was conducted on the proposed development, which examined the potential for dust generation, as well as emissions from stationary sources (natural gas and electricity) and vehicle emissions. A variety of mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR which are expected to reduce potential impacts below levels of significance. The subject property may be impacted by traffic noise generated on local streets and train noise generated by nearby Southern Pacific Railroad lines. Potential noise impacts associated with project construction were also addressed. Schools are considered sensitive receptors and the project was evaluated for its compatibility with the anticipated future noise environment. A variety of mitigation measures, including walls and/or other noise barriers along major roadways, appropriate construction materials and building set backs, are included in the EIR. Measures to mitigate potential noise impacts to the neighborhood during construction are also included. Summary of Analysis Based upon an assessment of the proposed California State University-San Bernardino Coachella Valley Campus Master Plan, the project is generally considered a positive contribution to the City, the Coachella Valley and the lo TN/City of Palm Desert Coachella Valley Campus/California State University-San Bernardino considered a positive contribution to the City, the Coachella Valley and the neighborhood in which it is proposed for development. Due to the conceptual nature of the Campus Master Plan, the project EIR includes requirements for subsequent review and approval of development details to preclude significant impacts from occurring. R�ulation of Development The University and/or the City shall be responsible for the regulatory functions associated with development of the campus, including those set forth in the project EIR. The University has acknowledged that, to the extent permitted by State law, it will mitigate impacts to the environment conaistent with the terms and conditions being set forth and ultimately established by an executed Disposition and development Agreement (DDA). This DDA is currently being negotiated between the California State University and the City Redevelopment Agency. While the DDA has not been completed, it is expected to include a provision for the establishment of a joint City/LTniversity Development Steering Committee (or equivalent), which will oversee the regulation and development of the Coachella Valley Campus. Other terms and conditions are expected to provide mechanisms to assure that EIR mitigation measures are implemented. III. FINDINGS 1. A comprehensive Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 97111071) was prepared on the proposed project in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It has been determined that implementation of the mitigation measures set forth in the EIR will assure that the project will not result in any unmitigated adverse significant environmental impacts. 2. The proposed Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-3 for the Coachella Valley Campus of the California State University-San Bernardino is compatible with the neighborhood, the City and the region. 3. The proposed location of the university campus and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, welfare or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. The proposed Coachella Valley Campus Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-3 are consistent with the City General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 11 ZN/City of Palm Desert Coachella Valley Campus/California;,.,ete University-San Bernardino iv. RECONIIVIFNDATION: Staff R�ecommendation: . A. Recommendation to City Council the Certification of the � Environmental Impact Report (SCH # 97111071) for the Coachella Valley Campus Master Plan and Conditional Use Permit. B. Adoption of the findings set forth in the Staff Report and Resolution. C. .Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. recommending City Council approval of the California State University-San Bernardino Coachella Valley Campus Master Plan and associated Conditional Use Permit No. 99-3, subject to the mitigation measures set forth in the Project EIR. V. ATTAC � S A. Draft Reaolution B. Legal Notice C. Comments from City Departments And Other Agencies (also see Final EIR) D. Plans and Exhibits (see Campus Master Plan and Draft EIR) _ ` Reviewed and Approved By.__ � Philip Dreli � ��4� 04 peU� o a e 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NO. CUP 99-3 NOTICE IS HEREBY GiVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider an Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 9711071►, Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan for the proposed Coachella Valley campus of California State University San Bernardino to be located on 204� acres at the northeast corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive, also particularly described as A.P.N. 653-420-016, 37-300 Cook Street. Copies of the master plan and EIR are available for public review at the City of Palm Desert Department of Community Development at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, Califomia, 92260, and at the Palm Desert Library, 73-300 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260. � D1NAM • 5 �'� . f q < '9p �32.0 � S,or 2.6 � CD , G i R R. ��l,py� I-10 F1NY. �3.8 13.7 ��` 'yp a �� 1}.5 1.9 �� t.6 � Q 11.5 t.6 � SITE n ��.o L_____'J 10.3 1�.3 15.2 8.9 10.6 4.6 �� ~ � � 1D.1 � 11.4 � 22.♦ g o 3.9 � U J W 6.1 COUNTRY CLUB DR. 24.1 24.1 Z�.6 2 .1 �i n SAID public hearing will be held on Tuesday, March 16, 1999, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the proposed project and/or Environmental Impact Report is available for review in the Department of Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If you challenge the prc�posed actions in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues yau or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. PUBLI�H: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary February 16, 1999 Palm Desert Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNlA 92260-2578 � TELEPHONE(760)346-D671•FA7C(780)341-7098•httpJ/www.palm-dqertorg CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE _ NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF THE DRAFI'ENVIROIVMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE COACIiELLA VALLEY CAMPUS OF THE CALIFOIZIVIA STATE UNIVERSITY-SAN BERNARDINO NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Draft Environmental Impact Report(Draft EIlt)for the proposed Coachella Valley campus of California State Univecsity-San Bemardino is available for public review and comment. The university campus project is proposed on 204±acres located at the northeast comer of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive in the City of Palm Desert,Riverside County. The City of Palm Desert is the Lead Agency for this Draft EIR. Copies of the DraB EIR are available for public review at the City of Paltn Desert Planning Department in City Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert,CA 92260,and at the Palm Desert Library,73-300 Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert,CA 92260. Written comments on the Draft EIR may be submitted until the close of business on September 18,1998 to Mr.Phil Drell,Community Development Director,City of Palm Desert,73-510 Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert,CA 92260. �Tentative dates for public hearings are Tuesday,October 20,1998,before the Palm Desert Planning Commission ''�►d Thursday,Novembet t2, 1998,before the Palm Desert City Council. Public hearings will be held in the City Council Chamber at the Palm Desert City Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert, CA 92260. Persons wishing to speak at the public hearings should contact the City Clerk at(760)346-0611. If you challenge the proposed actions in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearings described in tius notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission(or City Council)at,or prior to,the public hearings. PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL,Secretary August 6,8,and 11, 1998 Palm Desert Planning Commission MEMO CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS�CITY CLERK DATE: Apx�.16,1999 TO: CITY OF PALM DESERT STAFF MEMBERS FROM: RACHELLE KLASSEN,DEPUTY CITY CLERK SUBJECT: CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 22 1999 - PUBLIC HEARING ITEM A - G�L STATE UrTIVER5ITY S�N BERNARDINO-COACHELLA VALLEY G�MPU5 Due to the voluminous nature of the following components of the subject staff report, they have been provided only to the City Council, City Manager, City Attomey, RDA Executive Director, and Director of Public Works : 1)Final Environmental Impact Report; 2)Final Draft-Master Plan; and 3)Draft Environmental Impact Report. These items aze available in our office for viewing, or if you need,we will be happy to make a copy of the item(s)upon your request. Thank you for your understanding of our desire to conserve time and resources. � � rdk CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: PHILIP DRELL, DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DATE: APRIL 14, 1999 SUBJECT: APRIL 22, 1999 PUBLIC HEARING ITEM FOR CAL STATE UNIVERSITY Attached are copies of the Master Plan, Draft Environmental impact Report and Final Environmental Impact Report. These documents pertain to the April 22, 1999 public hearing item. Due to the extensiveness of the documents, we felt it would be appropriate to distribute them to you early. Please bring these documents with you to the April 22, 1999 council meeting when the item will be discussed. ILIP D ELL DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /tm �Mem\calstat.cc) o." j�G�.�h.� PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk�s F>>>ng stamp (2015.S.C.C.P) ,t;: � � � � � —< � .,_� r a_, rn � �.� STATE OF CALIFORNIA " County of Riverside �l' C- ' ' ----------------------------------�--------- rn �,,. I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Proof of Publication of the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen ______________________________________________ years,and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, rvai i i o County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been cmr oF Pa�M t�sEp7- LE6AL NOTICE adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the CasE No. CUP gs-3 Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of ; NOTiCE tS HEREeY GIVEN that a pubiic hearing' will be held•before the Palm Desert City Councii to California under the date of March 24,1988.Case consider an Environmental Impact Report (SCH Number 191236;that the notice,of which the rvo. s�i�o�i), Conditional Use Permit and Master Plan tor the pro sed Coachella Veile campu§of' annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller Cafifornia st�te ei�niversity san Bernard�no to�se io- than non pariel,has been published in each regular catetl on 20a+- acres at tne northeast corner of Cook Street and Frank Sinatra Drive, als4 p��u- and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any larly de$Cribed as A.P.N. 853-42p-b'9Q', �37-300 supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: coorc 5treet. Copies of tt,e master ptan and EiR are available for pubiic review at the City of Palm Desert Department of. Communi�y�pevaiop�� at April9th i 73-510'Fred Waring Drive, Palm D�sert, C;qi(}prr�ia -------------------------------------------------------- i 92260. and at the Pafm Desert Library. 73-30d Fred Waring C>riv�, Palm Desert, C81ifoM�a, 92F60. � SAIO public hearing will be heitl on Thu►sdey,April 22, 1999, at 7;00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at ---------------------------------------------------------------- the Paim Des+Brt Civic Center, 73-510 Fred 1�1t�ring Drive, Paim Desert California, at which time and place all interested persong are invlted to attend All in the year 1999 and be heard. Written comments concerni�g aft items covered by thls pubiic hearing notice sh�l1 be accepted up to the date of the tleeti IrSfv�- I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the mation concmmm9 tne;Rroposed r �,"�j,a,�„_ foregoing is true and correct. �+ronmentei Impact.iieport is avaPar�e for rsv�eN,tn the Departrttont of Gommuhky deve�p�p $t the 9th above ad�dr$as between the 15ours o#B:(10�am.a�d Dated at Palm S rin s California this--------------da 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. If yo�{chalieh�e P g � Y the proposed actions in court, yo4 may be Nr�7ited April to raisin only those issues you or at�neqno etae of----- - -,1999 � raised a�the ublic hearing �� in �is no- ------------------------------- ' tice, ot in w�en correspohdence ddlv�eeed t0 the /� �-�p � City Councii at,or pnor to the public h�aNng� 1/`-�C.�(..��./t.X,_� • SHEILA t'i. f'31LtIGAN� Gi�r Cl�rk City of Paim Desert, C�Iifiprriia --------------------------------------�--------- -------------- �PUB: Aoril 9. 1999 Signature - --� ` . _ r . T 4� � FINAL � ErJVIROrJ]VIENTAL IMPACT � � REPORT FOR TI� California State University San Bernardino Coachella Valley Campus Master Plan (SCH No.97111071) Prepareci for City of Palm Desert 73-510 F�ed Waring Drive Palm Desert,CA 92260 PrePax�eci BY r � ` \�� Te�'ta Nova Planning&Reseax�h,Ina� 400 S.Farrell Dr.,Ste B-205 Palm Springs,CA 92262 ,,�, , � . . CITY OF PALM DESERT RNERSIDE COIJNTY,CALIFORIVIA � FINAL � � ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH#97111071) FOR TI� Q��°��u� �°�°�°�°� ��I��°Il°� �� I�I��I�� C��C�� C��L�� I�'� �a�n FOR CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PAT�VI DESERT,CA 92260 PREPARED BY TERRA NOVA PLANNING&RESEARCH,INC. 400 SOUTH FARRELI.,B-205 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92`L62 March 1999 ' ' TN/City of Palm Desert CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIB � Response To Comments on DEIR FINAL EIR RESPONSE TO CONIlV�NTS ON DRAFT ENVIIi,ONMEN'rAL IlVII'ACT REPORT FORTI� CALIFORNIt�STATE UNNERSITy SAN BERNARDINO COACHELLA VALLEY CAMPUS MA.STER PLAN . MARCH 10, 1999 CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA STATE CT.F.ARTNGHOUSE NO.97111071 • AGENCY CONIlVIIIVTS✓RESPONSE TO CONIlVIIIVTS The Response to Comments on the Draft EIR for the California State University - San Bernazdino Coachella Valley Campus Master Plan has been prepared in accordance with Sections 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 agency comments and subsequent responses. Section II contains the full tegt of commenting agency correspondence. SECTION L• AGENCIES/PAR.T'IES PAGE A. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 5 B• South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 29 C. Coachella Valley Water District � D. California Department of Transportation 33 E. Imperial Irrigation District �} F. California Department of Fish and Game �,5 G. California State University-San Bernardino 39 . SECTION II: � A. Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) B. South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) C. Coachella Valley Water District D. California Department of Transportation E. Imperial Irrigation District F. California Department of Fish and Game G. California State University-San Bernardino H. Southern California Gas Company I. Southern California Edison Company J. Palm Springs Unified School District 3 . , TN/City of PaTm Desert' CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIIt Response To Comments on DEIR ' SECTION I RESPONSE TO CO1��V�1'i5 The following comments were received on the Draft EIR transmitted to various public agencies and interested parties. These coniments concern aspects of the DEIR, including clarification of information, limits of University Campus Master Plan project description, and similar issues. The following responses have been prepared to address issues raised in the agency/interested party comments. 4 � � - TN/City of Palm Desert CSSB/CV Center Campus F�IR Response To Comments on DEIR A. SOUTHERN CALIFORIVIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNIV�1VTg A-1. Commen� The Draft EIR only partially addresses the relationship of the proposed project to applicable regional plans as required by Section 15125 [b] of Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmentacl Quality Act. Appropriate discussion in Section 1.D. (Summary of Project Proposals/Comparison with Other Plans) 'is lacking of the consistency of the project with applicable regional plans, specifically the Regional Transportation Plan and the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (which incorporates references to policies in the other regional plans). This is particularly disturbing since information was provided with our response to the Notice of Preparation on the project in our November 26, 1997 letter, and it was apparently ignored. There is a discussion of the relationship of the Project to SCAG's Regional Growth Forecasts on page I-4, but no discussion of the relationship to other RCPG and RTP policies. The Final EIR should address the relationships (consistency with core policies and support of ancillary policies) to SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and Regional Transportation Plan, 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. A-1. R,esponse: Comment noted. Please see responses to specific policies and SCAG staff comments below. The Growth Management Chapter (GMC) of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide contains a number of policies that are particularly applicable to the CSSB/CV Center Campus Project. a.Core Growth Management Policies A-2. Comment: 3.01 The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, wlzich are cxdopted by SCAG's Regional Council and that reflect Zocal plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. 5 �° . . � TN/City of Palm Desert CSSBJCV Center Campus FEIR Response To Commeats on DEIR � SCAG staff comments. As SCAG has designated . subregions, the Project is situated in the Coachella Valley Council of Governments subregion. The Draft EIR on page I-4 appropriately references SCAG's Coachella Valley Population, Household and Employment Forecasts and on page II-17 references SCAG's outdated population and employment forecasts. These forecasts have been superceded by the recently adopted RTP97 Final Baseline (April 16, 1998) � Population, Household and Employment forecasts for the Subregion and the disaggregation to City of Palm Desert. � SCAG 2000 20U6 2010 2015 20m0 CVAG �� . Forecasts Population 372,300 412,100 450,900 497,600 551,800 Households 122,500 135,500 151,900 168,600 187,200 Employment 149,200 164,900 183,800 203,900 220,400 SCAG 2000 2006 2010 2015 2Q2U City of Palm D�sert � Forecasts Population 29,900 31,900 33,700 35,700 38,000 Households 12,600 13,300 14,100 15,000 15,900 Employment 29,000 30,500 32,300 34,200 35,800 The Final EIR should reference the current SCAG forecasts on pages I-4 and II-17 of the EIR document. If these changes are made, the Project would be consistent with this core RCPG policy. A-2. Response: Comment noted. The current (April, 1998) Coachella Valley RTP97 Final Baseline Population, Household and Employment forecasts cited above are hereby incorporated by reference into the Project EIR. A-3. Commen� 3.03 The timing, financing, dnd location of pubtic faccilities, utility systems, and trcznsportation systerns shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's growth policies. s � � - TN/City of Palm Desert CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Comments on DEIR SCAG staff comments: The Draft EIR contains no information on development phasing and timing. SCAG's Standing Committee on Implementation has consistently stressed that Final EIR's for similar Projects should address the manner in which the proposed Project will be developed so that provision of . service to new housing units or jobs producing commercial, industrial or other uses will be staged or phased to help achieve greater jobs/housing balance within the jurisdiction and the Subregion. The Standing Committee on Implementation has previously expressed the concern that, in housing rich subregions, the housing will likely be co�structed first and the employment producing land uses may never materialize. Conversely, in jobs rich subregions, the employment producing of�ce buildings, shopping centers, schools or industrial buildings could be built first, and the housing components could be brought in much later, or never. The objective of a phasing or development staging plan would be to encourage the implementation of types of development that would address the jobslhousing balance issue and work toward the reduction of Vehicle Miles Traveled in the early phases or stages of development rather than leaving such uses until later (or allowing indefinite postponement). A phasing or staging plan for the Coachella Valley Campus is also essential to help evaluate the timing, financing, and Zocation of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems. The coordinated provision of these facilities and systems is of utmost importance in assuring that the construction of campus buildings and facilities does not proceed the construction of on and off-site public facilities, utility systems and transportation systems. The Final EIR should clearly de�ne development phasing and timing of campus component facilities, including structures, parking, open space and essential infrastructure. Based on the information in the Draft EIR we are unable to determine whether the Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. � £ 3 �� TN/City of Pal�t Desert ' , ' CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Responae To Comments on DEIR A-3. R�espons� The DEIR and the Master Plan for the California State ITniversity San Bernardino - Permanent Coachella Valley Off Campus Center describe the Project as being divided into three � phases. These phases, as described in page I-10 of the Draft EIR (DEIR), include Year 2000, at which time an approximately 40 acre site is planned to be under development and with 735 full-time equivalent students (FTES) expected to be in attendance. Phase II is targeted for the Year 2005, at which time approximately 5,392 students (FTES) are expected to be on campus. Phase III is targeted for the Year 2020, at which time enrollment is expected to reach approximately 25,000 students, with up to 15,625 students (FTES) on campus at any given time. � While the 40 acre Phase I of the Project is planned for development in the southwest corner of the development site (northeast corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Cook Street), the locations of the incremental buildout of the other phases have not been described in the project master plan. The backbone portions of major infrastructure serving the Project site are already constructed, including major arterial roadways and the Cook Street/Interstate-10 interchange (DEIR p.II-12). Major water lines, including 18 inch lines in the Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive rights-of-way, have already been installed and can serve all but the last phases of campus development (DEIR p.III-78). The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) currently has 12-inch and 18-inch sewer lines located in the Cook Street and Gerald Ford Drive rights-of-way, respectively. These lines convey waste water to the CVWD Reclamation Plant No. 7 located at Avenue 38 and Madison Street, which currently has a capacity of 2.5 million gallons per dayl. The CVWD has indicated that this plant has capacity to support the proposed Project now and in the future. Conditions of approval shall link necessary infrastructure improvements with phases of campus development. Conditions shall include the preparation of a Disposition, Development and Implementation Agreement (DDIA) to be entered into by the City and California State University-San Bernardino. Said DDIA shall define campus development thresholds, needed infrastructure, and financing responsibilities. 1 Correspondence,Comment Letter from the Coachella Valley Water District on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the California State University San Bernardino Coachella Valley Campus Master Plan,Attachment A. August 25, 1998.See Section II of this F'EIR. 8 � + , TN/City of Palm Desert CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Commenta on DEIR bAncillary Growth Manczgement Policies A 4. Comment: 3.04 Encourage local jurisdictions' efforts to achieue a baldnce between the types of jobs they seek to attract and housing prices. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR includes no � information on the number and types of jobs which will be required to support campus operations. No(r) is there any discussion of the availability of affordable housing within the project vicinity to support the types of jobs at the proposed campus. This information should be presented in the Final EIR. Based on the information in the Draft EIR we are unable to determine whether the Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. A 4. Response: The DEIR states that the project will generate 9,373 jobs at buildout, in the year 2020.. The number of jobs to be filled by full-time staff, part-time professionals, part-time students or full-time students cannot be definitively determined, and is likely to vary from year to year, depending on enrollment, programs offered, etc. Estimates provided by the University show that based on current programs at other facilities, employee breakdowns and associated annual salaries (in 1997 dollars) could be as follows: 1,500 Full Time Faculty($40,000-$85,000) 600 Part Time Faculty ($2,500-$3,500/course) 420 Full Time Managers/5upervisors ($35,000-$140,000) 1,540 Full Time ProfessionaUTechnical Staff($30,000-$80,000) 850 Full Time Administrative/Clerical ($18,000-$50,000) 450 Full Time Maintenance/Grounds Staff($18,000-$50,000) 3,823 Part 74me Student Jobs ($5.25-$10.00/Hr.) Although clearly the University will employ a wide range of persons, the estimates above provide general information only, and cannot be correlated to a calculation of household income and the potential for housing subsidy. It can be stated, however, that the part time faculty will be recruited from the existing population, and will represent existing regional residents who either work elsewhere or are retired. These persons will not require housing. The University may generate s '`'A„" TN/City of Palm Desert . . ' °CSSB/CV Center Campus F'EIR Response To Commenta on DEIR a need for affordable housing in clerical and maintenance staff households, but an exact number will depend greatly on the individual household composition at the time the employees are hired. It is incorrect to assume that all those employed by the college will require affordable housing. The campus will provide 1,200 on-site housing units at buildout. The City has a total of 27,013 . housing units (1997), and a 44.14% vacancy rate, indicating the high number of second or winter homes prevalent throughout the Valley. The City has traditionally been aggressive in encouraging growth, and has a particularly active Redevelopment Agency, which supports 745 restricted housing units. Plans are currently under way for an additional 390 � residential units restricted to very low, low and moderate income households. The strong growth reflected in Palm Desert's recent demographics can be egpected to continue, as can the provision of a range of housing in the future. As the campus project is developed, and specific needs identified, the City will be better able to deternaine what efforts, if any, are necessary to address any housing imbalance. A-5. Commen� 3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use which reduce costs on infrastructure construction and make better use of existing fdcilities. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR acknowledges that availability of domestic water, storm drainage and sewer service to the project is not an issue. These facilities are located in close proximity to the project. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. A-5. R�esponse: Comment noted. A-6. Commen� 3.08 Encourage subregions to define economic stractegy to maintain economic viability of the subregion, including the development and use of marketing programs, acnd other economic incentives, which support the dttainment of subregional godls and policies. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR only minimally addresses the economic aspects of the proposed project io � • . � TN/City of Palm Desert CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Comments on DEIK on page II-14. No objectives for the project are set forth in the Introduction and Project Description section, as . is typically included in an environmental document. The Final EIR should identify Project Objectives, including the relationship of the project to local or subregional economie strategies. Based on the infornaation in the Draft EIR we are unable to determine whether the Project is supportive of this � ancillary RCPG policy. A-6. Respons� The objectives of the Project are set forth in the master plan, and more specifically, the Institutional Mission Statement2. The following summarizes the objectives of the Project as set forth in the Project master plan. ' • Maintain programs similar to those on the home CSUSB campus and make productive use of its resources to develop partnerships with other regional educational and community institutions to establish CVC as a leader in innovative higher education. • The mission of CVC is to educate students in a nurturing, high quality, academically diverse and technologically advanced environment to deal with the challenges of a dynamic society. • Provide high quality, upper-division, graduate, and non-degree programs for a diverse student community. • Incorporate appropriate technologies and teaching methods in order to deliver state-of-the-art programs in a modern, distributed educational environment. • Provide interdisciplinaxy programs that prepare students for active citizenship and reflect present and future needs of the self, society, and the workplace. • Establish innovative and productive partnerships to enhance the quality of life and to sustain long-term regional growth. • Develop curricula that reflect adult life-long learning and critical pedagogy. 2 Master Pl n for the ifo ia tat iv rsitv.S�Bernar�no Perm�nent Coachella V�],gy Off-Camn,�x,,c • Center,Section 3,CVC Strategic Review.Prepared by California State University,San Bernardino. Mazch 1997. 11 ��, . • TN/City of Palm Desert � " CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Comments on DEIR • Create an educational environment conducive to student empowernaent as well as to effective faculty development and institutional governance and accountability. The following statement from the Project master plan should also be noted here: "The university recognizes that many prominent citizens as well as community and educational leaders in the Coachella Valley hope and ezpect that the branch center will one day receive full university status within The California State University system. The conditions surrounding the donation of 200 acres of land (40 of which are available for the construction of a branch campus) by the City of Palm Desert have been crafted with this end in mind. While it is impossible to predict when, or even if, this can reasonably be expected to occur, there is every reason to plan with this long-term goal in mind, at least in terna of branch campus facility design and layout and in regard to the development of a conceptual vision for the entire 200 acres." It is clear from the Project master plan that the intent of this document is to provide the basis for both the Coachella Valley Center campus and a master plan concept for the balance of the site. The long-term vision of the campus planners and the community is given a tangible, if conceptual, design program to allow for future detailed planning efforts on the balance of this site. The development of the California State University, San Bernardino Coachella Valley Campus project is part of a larger subregional economic strategy that views the development of upper-level university facilities in the valley as essential to the long-term economic viability of the subregion. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and the City of Palm Desert both view this campus as an essential component in strengthening and broadening the subregional economy and providing a key component of on- going marketing efforts. The City has already committed substantial economic incentives, including lands and incurred costs associated with facilitating planning and processing of the master plan, to help make the Project a reality. A-7. Comment: 3.09 Support local jurisdictions' efforts to minimize the 12 � _ , , TN/Citq of Palm Desert ' CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR, Response To Comments on DEIR cost of infrastructure dnd public service deliuery, and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and the provision of services. SCAG staff comments The Draft EIR identifies infrastructure and public service delivery facilities to serve the Project. These improvements reflect necessary extension of existing facilities or the construction new facilities, where none currently exist. Infrastructure is designed to minimize cost to the maximum extent. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. A-7. Response: Comment noted. • A-8. Comment: 3.10 Support locdl jurisdictions' actions to minimize red tape cznd expedite the permitting process to rr2aintain economic vitality and competitiveness. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR only addresses subjects that may have adverse environmental impacts. It is written in a concise manner, where all possible adverse impacts are mitigated. This will minimize red tape, and help maintain the economic vitality and competitiveness of the City of Palm Desert and the CVAG subregion. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. A-8. Response: Comment noted. A-9. Comment: 3.11 Support provisions and incentives created by local jurisdictions to attract housing growth in job rich subregions and job growth in housing subregions. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR does not address jobs/housing interrelationships within Palm Desert or the CVAG subregion. The project anticipates an anticipated 9,373 faculty and staff jobs at buildout. This will further exacerbate the imbalance of jobs over housing in the city and subregion. The Final EIR should discuss jobs/housing interrelationships and discuss efforts of the local jurisdictions to address this matter. Based on the information in the Draft EIR we are unable to determine whether the Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 13 TN/City of Pal�Desert ' ' CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Commeats on DEIR � A-9. Response: Comment noted. Please see the response to comment A-4, above. The Master Plan proposes a 22 year buildout, and the potential variables involved with campus employment are not available at this time. The buildout itself may not occur for up to 30 years or more, as has been the case with California State University in San Bernardino. The tinling of buildout will be entirely dependent on enrollment demands. As future development plans are submitted for the campus, the City will � be better able to quantify need and determine how that need can best be satisfied. A-10. Commen� 3.I2 Encourage existing or proposed locacl jurisdictions' programs aimed at designing Zand� 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 creczte opportunities for residents to walk and bike. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR acknowledges on page III-69 that tlie developer ma also implement a number of transportation strategies to mitigate emissions from vehicle trips. Most of the other air quality mitigation measures are stated as definitive shall statements rather than hopeful mav statements. The Final EIR should include the ten VMT reduction measures on page III-69 as requirements that the developer �hall comply with. Furthermore, the Final EIR should contain information on the potential number of transit dependent faculty, staff and students that would potentially utilize public transportation or ridesharing services. A prograrn to work with Sunline Transit to assure the provision of transit access to the campus should also be detailed in the Final EIR. The Draft EIR does not address the availability of bicycle routes in relationship to the proposed campus, not [nor] actions to be taken by the developer to provide for pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the campus, and to detail their coordination with adjacent off- campus facilities. The Final EIR should address these matters, and detail mitigation measures. General air quality control and mitigation measures number 5 on page III-69 (bicycle and trail facilities) 14 ' , . . TN/City of Palm Desert CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIft Response To Comments on DEIR and number 7 on page 68 (coordinated mass transit/shuttle services) begin to address the intent of this policy. The Project is partially consistent with this core RCPG policy. A-10. Response: As recommended by SCAG staff, the 10 trip reduction recommendations set forth on page III-69 of the Draft EIR are hereby amended to be prescriptive. That is, the university Project shall, rather than "may", implement these measures as part of overall trip reduction efforts. The potential number of transit-dependent faculty, staff and students is difficult to predict. Unlike other SCAG subregions, residential development in the Coachella Valley is widely distributed at relatively low densities. However, the Project's location on arterial roadways and proximity to the Cook Street/Interstate-10 interchange provide substantial opportunities for use of mass transit by students, faculty and support staff. The Project master plan assumes that private vehicle occupancy will average two per vehicle. The Draft EIR also directs the proj ect proponent to design and implement transportation demand management programs, including coordinated carpooling programs and off-peak shift and employee flex-time to encourage use of carpooling. Also, the "Public Transit" mitigation statement on page III-23 of the DEIR mandates integration of bus turnouts and other mass transit facilities along Project arterials and within the campus. These facilities are to be developed on a programmatic basis in consultation with the Sunline Transit Authority. Although the level of use has not been quantified, College of the Desert bus ridership is substantial3. The Authority expects to play a major role in providing mass transit facilities to the future campus. A-11.Comment: 3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions' plans that macximize the use of existing urbanized areas acccessible to transit through infill and redevelopment. SCAG staff comments. The Project represents a good 3 Personal communication,Leslie Grosjean,'hansportation Planner,Sunline'h�ansit Authority. November 11, 1998. 15 , TN/City of Palm Desert . , ' CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Comments on DEIR egample of infill development, however, the Draft EIR on page III-23 acknowledges that no consideration has been made for public or mass transit access to the campus. This is a major shortcoming of the campus master plan, and (h)as been noted previously, the matter should be apprapriately addressed in the Final EIR. Based on the infornaation in the Draft EIR, we are unable to determine whether the Proj ect is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. � A-11. Response: Comment noted. Please see response to the above comment. A-12. Commen� 3.14 Support local plans to increase density of future development located at strategic poir�ts ulong the � regional commuter rdil, tracnsit systems, dnd activity centers. SCAG staff con�ments. The project is a good example of a major activity center type use with good access to Interstate 10. As previously noted, there is no discussion of the project's relationship to existing or proposed transit systems. Based on the information in the Draft EIR, we are unable to determine whether the Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. A-12. Rrespons� As noted elsewhere by the commentor, the Draft EIft does in fact direct the Project proponent to coordinate with the Sunline Transit Authority to develop and implement a mass transit system that optimizes the use of the Sunline bus system for students and employees. Also, as cited in the response to comment A-10., above, ten trip reduction measures cited in the Draft EIR are herein made prescriptive. Also, please see the response to comment A-10., above. A-13. Comment: 3.15 Support local jurisdictions' stractegies to establish mixed-use clusters and other transit-oriented developments around transit stations and along trdnsit corridors. SCAG staff comments.The Draft EIR does not describe the existing transit system and its relationship to mixed-use and other transit-oriented development in the immediate vicinity of the proposed campus. The Final EIR should address this matter. Based on the information in the Draft EIR, we are unable to 16 • ' . , TN/City of Palm Desert �CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Comments on DEIR determine whether the Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. A-13. Response: Sunline Transit Authority has valley-wide responsibility for subregional mass transit, which at this time is limited to bus and van service powered by compressed natural gas. Sunline Transit does not currently provide service to the campus site, although the Authority has indicated that they can and will serve the campus4. Sunline is. a leader in ridership development and alternative fuels (CNG). The City, University and Sunline have and will continue to consult on the development of related materials and technologies. Transit strategies are also focused on bus ridership from students and staff: • Immediately north and northwest of the campus Project site is the approved but as yet unbuilt Wonder Palms Commercial Center. This project is located immediately adjacent to the south right-of-way of the Southern Pacific Railroad lines and includes lands at the southwest corner of Gerald Ford Drive and Cook 5treet. This mixed-use project includes lands designated for commercial, industrial, office park and mixed use development. When developed, the Wonder Palms project should provide substantial additional impetus to the extension and development of mass transit facilities. In conjunction with the proposed university campus, this development may emerge as a major activity and multi-modal transportation node. A-14. Comment: 3.18 Encour¢ge planned development in locactions ledst likely to cause adverse environmental impczct. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR acknowledges on pages M-1 through M-10 that all significant land use impacts will be mitigated. We do not concur that all adverse environmental impacts will be mitigated as stated in the Draft EIR (see previous and subsequent staff comments). The Project is partially supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. A-14. Response: There are few available sites in the Coachella Valley that are better situated to serve and with less environmental impact than the subject site. The extensive previous site disturbance, the site's clear contiguity with the expanded urban pattern, 4 Personal communication,Leslie Grosjean,Transportation Planner,Sunline 1Yansit Authority. November 11, 1998. 17 TN/City of Pai�Desert . , ' CSSB/CV Center Campus F'FIR Response To Commeats on DEIR and the ready availability of maj or transportation and other facilities and services all support the subject property for the proposed use. The Draft and Final EIR do mitigate all identified potentially significant impacts to levels of insignificance (please also see responses to previous and subsequent comments). A-15. Commen� 321 Encourage the implementation of ineasures aimed dt the . preservation and protection of recorded and unrecorded cultural resources acnd archaeologicdt sites. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR in Section III.G. (Cultural Resources) includes a proposec� approach for � mitigating archeological or historic resource impacts should they be identified during project development activities. The project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. A-15. Respons� Comment noted. A-16. Commen� 3.23 Encourczge mitigation meacsures t)zat reduce noise in certczin locations, measures acimed czt preservation of biological and ecologicdl resources, measures t)zat would reduce exposure to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to deuelop emergency response acnd recovery plans. SCAG staff comments. Noise impacts are appropriately addressed in Section I-3. (Noise). The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. A-16. Respons� Coinment noted. A-17. Commen� 3.24 Encourage efforts of local jurisdictions in the implementation of programs that increacse the supply and quality of housing and provide affordable housing as evaluated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR fails to address the availability of afFordable housing for faculty, staff and students, nor actions to be taken by the university or City of Palm Desert to assure the provision of afFordable housing. The Final EIR should address this is � � � TN/City of Palm Desert CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Comments on DEIR matter. Based on the information in the Draft EIR, we are unable to determine whether the Project is . supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. A-17. Response: Comment noted. Please see response to comment A-4. The City's Housing Element aggressively pursues affordable housing programs, through its Redevelopment Agency. Programs are under way to add to the City's very low, low and � moderate income housing stock. Data regarding the number of students who will reside at home, those who will come from other areas, and those employees who will require housing is not available at this time. As development proposals for individual components of � the 22 year buildout of the project are brought forward, the City will be better able to quantify need, if any, and determine adequate measures to meet that need. Given the long term potential for project completion, review of needs at the time they occur is most appropriate at this time. A-18. Comment: 327 Support local jurisdictions and other seraice providers in their efforts to develop sustainable communities and provide, equally to all members of society, accessible and effective seruices such as: public education, housing, health care, social services, recreational facilities, ldw enforcement, and fire protection. SCAG staff comments. Throughout the Draft EIR, references are made to provision of education , health care, social services, law enforcement and fire protection services. These facilities and services will help support the proposed project within the context of efforts to develop Palm Desert as a sustainable community. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. A-18. Response: Comment noted. A-19. Comment: The 1998 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) also has policies, all of which are core, that pertain to the CSUSB Coachella Valley Campus Master Plan project. The RTP links the RCGG goal of sustaining mobility with the goals of fostering economic development, enhancing the environment, reducing energy � is TN/City of Palm Desert ' ''CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Comments on DEIR 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 policies in the RTP are the following: 4.01 Transportation inaestments shall be based on SCAG's adopted Regional Performance Indicators. SCAG staff comments: The Draft EIR makes no reference to support of SCAG's Regional Performance Indicators and associated objectives pertaining to: Mobility - Transportation Systems should meet the public need for improved access, and for safe, comfortable, convenient and economical movements of people and goods. • Average Work Trip Travel Time in Minutes - 22 minutes • PM Peak Highway Speed - 33 mph • Percent of PM Peak Travel in Delay (All Trips) - 33% Accessibility - Transportation Systems should ensure the ease with which opportunities are reached. Transportation and land use rneasures should be employed to ensure minimal time and cost. • Work Opportunities within 25 minutes - 88% Environment - �ansportation Systems should sustain development and preservation of the existing system and the environment. (All Trips). � Meeting Federal and State Standards - Meet Air Plan Emission Budgets Reliability - Reasonable and dependable levels of service by mode. ( All Trips) • Transit - 63% • Highway - 76% Safety - Transportation Systems should provide minimal, risk, accident, death and injury. (All Trips). • Fatalities Per Million Passenger Miles - 0.008 20 . . TN/City of Palm Desert CSSB/CV Center Campus F�IR Response To Comments on DEIR • Injury Accidents - 0.929 Livable Communities.-1�ansportation Systems should facilitate Livable Communities in which all residents have access to all opportunities with minimal travel time. (All Trips) • Vehicle Trip Reduction - 1.5% • Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction - 10.0% Equity - The benefits of transportation investments should be equitably distributed among all ethnic, age and income groups. (All Trips) • Low-Income (Household Income $12,000) Share of Net Benefits -Equitable Distribution of Benefits Cost-Effectiveness-Maximize return on transportation investment. (All Trips) • Net Present Value - Maximum Return on Transportation Investment • Value of a Dollar Invested - Maximum Return on Transportation Investment The Final EIR should address the manner in which the Project is supportive of or detracts from the achievement of the aforementioned 8 general objectives. Based on the information provided, we are unable to determine whether the Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. A-19. R,esponse: A comprehensive project traffic study was prepared for the proposed project, was the basis for analysis in the Draft EIR, and was included in the technical appendices also found in the back of the Draft EIR. Being admittedly difficult to project the level of use of mass transit, the traffic study assessed potential impacts to the roadway system without any special mass transit consideration. Without any reliance on a weighting of trip generation, the impact analysis clearly demonstrates that the presented mitigation measures will keep impacts below levels of significance. With regard to compliance with SCAG's adopted Regional Performance Indicators,each of these is briefly discussed below. Also please see the project traffic study in the Draft EIR. Mobility: The proposed university campus project provides 21 �:. � , ,¢ TN/Citq of Palm Desert CSSB/CV Center Campus F�IR Response To Comments on DEIR excellent and immediate access to major arterial roadways and the US Interstate-10 corridor. Campus visitors should , generally be able to reach the campus in less than 22 minutes and PM Peak highway travel speeds should easily meet the 33 mph standard. We egpect that substantially less than a 33% PM Peak Travel Delay will result. Accessibility: Consistent with the above discussion on "mobility", the university project will be an important employment center in its own right. These job opportunities are well served by existing arterial and interstate highways that interconnect the subarea and the entire Coachella Valley. Environment: The proposed development represents an � eff cient and complementary land use, especially in relation to the use of roadway and other infrastructure. The project will substantially reduce travel miles and associated air pollutants. Again, EIR emissions are based on projected year 2020 buildout, but SCAQMD tables used to project most important emissions assume year 2009 technology. Given the relatively limited unmitigated impacts expected to result, we conclude that the application of the EIR mitigation measures and reasonably egpected improvements in technology will assure that the project meets applicable state and federal standards during and after buildout. While not itself a mitigation measure, the project may provide another important, additional academic platforna for energy and environmental research in the Coachella Valley. Reliability: The subject campus site is located within the service boundaries of the Sunline Transit Authority, which is widely recognized as a leader in systems management and the introduction of new, energy efficient and environmentally responsive technologies. The subject site has direct access to a highly developed subregional and region roadway system. The City of Palm Desert and other CVAG members have coordinated a backbone system of arterial and major roadways that will help assure reasonable and dependable levels of service for private and mass transit vehicles. Safety: There are clear and obvious aspects of the proposed campus project and the EIR, which provide empirical information suf�cient to characterize a heightened or diminished risk of accident, death and injury. The project traffic report utilized real world data and systems analysis, as 22 . . , TN/City of Palm Desert ' CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Comments on DEIR well as inputs from the City and the local CVATS transportation model. Based upon the results of this analysis a variety of specific mitigation measures are incorporated in the EIR. Major arterials and an interstate highway directly serve the site. Finally, the use is an educational institution, which should contribute a manageable traffic volume onto the local roadways. Livable Communities: Please see the above responses to this comment. Equity: Affordable and accessible centers of public higher education does more to address equity and opportunities than other land uses. The Project clearly meet this SCAG indicator. Cost-Effectiveness: Please see the above responses to this comment. A-20. Comment: 4.02 Transportation investments shall mitigate environmental impacts to an acceptable level. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR acknowledges in Section III.B. (Traffic/Circulation) various trans- portation impacts, and details the measures to mitigate these impacts on pages III-22 through III-25. Thirty roadway and intersection improvements, adjacent to and in the vicinity of the proposed project are identified in the Draft EIR (page III-22 and III-23) to mitigate adverse traffic impacts of the proposed campus development. The Draft EIR is lacking a schedule for construction of these improvements; assignment of responsibility for funding and constructing; and a formal assurance of commitment to construct the improvements. In consultation with the prepared[r] of the Draft EIR it was stated that some of the roadway and intersection improvements will be built by or costs funded in part by other developments in the vicinity of the campus. The Draft EIR states that the university is not bound to contribute to transportation improvement mitigation measures through CVAG's Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee. This being the case, it is imperative that the approach for constructing and financing essential transportation mitigation measures be detailed. The Final EIR should include a schedule for construction 23 . TN/City of Palm Desert � ` CSSB/CV Ceater Campus FyIR Response To Comments on DEIR of the 30 roadway and intersection improvements; acknowledge the parties responsible for funding and . constructing the improvements; and contain a formal assurance of commitment to construct the improvements. Based on the information provided, we are unable to determine whether the Proj ect is consistent with this core RCPG policy. A-20. Respons� It bears restating that the roadway/transportation infrastructure necessary to much of the proposed project is already constructed. Only limited additional improvements are needed to raise these roadways to buildout capacity. It is also difficult to predict the phasing of campus buildout. SCAG requests a schedule for construction of these remaining improvements and assignment of responsibility for funding and constructing. At the very least, the university will be responsible for mitigating direct impacts on the local roadway system, including improvements to adjoining arterial roads, installation of traffic signals, all internal street improvements, and possibly mitigations which are further removed from the campus. Substantial TUMF fees to fund other components of the local transportation system will come from future surrounding development, and funding from Measure A and other revenue streams may allow the City to continue to participate in funding regional transportation improvements. Taken together, the City is assured that improvements to serve these uses and development are also constructed in a timely manner. A-21. Commen� 4.04 Transportation Control Measures shdll be a priority. SCAG staff comments.The Draft EIR begins to address the extent to which the Project considers the implementation of Transportation Control Measures set forth in the South Coast Air Quality Management District AQMP as set forth in the subsequent two year segment of the Regional Transportation Improvement Program), including: • High Occupancy Vehicle projects and pricing alternatives, park and ride lots and intermodal facilities. • Transit improvements, urban freeway system management improvements, smart 24 . , , TN/City of Palm Desert CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Comments on DEIR corridors TSM programs, railroad consolidation programs, CMP-based demand management . strategies, vanpool programs, telecommunication facilities, demonstration programs, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. • Marketing . information services for employers and activity centers to encourage shared rides and transit use, and transit pass centers. General air quality control and mitigation measures number 5 on page III.69 (bicycle and trail facilities) and number 7 on page 68 (coordinated mass transit/shuttle services) begin to address the intent of this policy. The Project is partially consistent with this core RCPG policy. A-21. Response: Comment noted. The Project master plan indicates that average vehicle occupancy will be approximately 2.0 without the benefit of any special effort to coordinate student, faculty or support staff carpooling.� Bus service provided by Sunline Transit is expected to be a major sexvice provider with a high level of use. Inasmuch as "distance learning" using telecommunications and computer networks is a major feature of the planned instructional program, the campus has the net effect of already substantially reducing the on-campus student head count. A-22. Comment: 4.06 Implementing tracnsit restructuring, including Smart Slzuttles, freight improuements, aduanced transportation technologies, airport ground access and traveler informcztion services are RTP priorities. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR begins to address the extent to which the Project considers the implementation of transit restructuring, including Smart Shuttles, freight improvements, advanced transportation technologies, and traveler information services. General air quality control and mitigation measures number 5 on page III-69 (bicycle and trail facilities) and number ? on page 68 (coordinated mass transit/shuttle services) begin to address the intent of this policy. The Project is partially consistent with this core RCPG policy. 25 • TN/City of Palm Desert � CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Comments on DEIR A 22. Respons� To the egtent that the above citation is applicable to the _ proposed campus project and circumstances in the mid- Coachella Valley, the Draft EIR adequately addresses the issues raised in the comment. Also please see the above responses to SCAG's letter. A-23. Commen� 4.07 Projects proposed for the Regiondl Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) that do not indicate a reasonable phasing of construction between segments will not be approued. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR, as noted in our comments on SCAG policy 3.03, fails tb address the phasing of development and transportation improvements which may be proposed for inclusion in the RTIP. Based on the infornaation provided, we are unable to determine whether the Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. A-23. R.esponse: Unlike most circumstances surrounding a project of this scope, much of the transportation infrastructure needed to serve this project and regional development has already been constructed. There axe also possible opportunities for access to and use of the local rail system located immediately north of the proposed campus site. Transportation infrastructure phasing is therefore not a significant issue. A-24. Commen� The Air Quali Chapter (A(o?C) core actions that are generally applicable to the Project are as follows: 5.07 Determine specific programs and associated actions needed (e.g., indirect source rules, enhanced use of telecommunicdtions, provision of community based shuttle services, provision of demand mandgement based programs, or vehicle-miles-traveled/emission fees) so that options to command and control regulations can be assessed. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR partially addresses the extent to which the Project considers the implementation of telecommunications, community based shuttle services, demand management based programs or vehicle-miles-traveled/emission fees. 26 , . , TN/City of Palm Desert ' CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Comments on DEIR General air quality control and mitigation measures number 5 on page III-69 (bicycle and trail facilities) � and number 7 on page 68 (coordinated mass transit/shuttle services) begin to address the intent of this policy. The Project is paxtially consistent with this core RCPG policy A-24. Response: Comment noted. Please also see the above responses related issues raised by the SCAG letter. � A-25. Commen� 5.11 Through the environmental document review process, ensure that plans at all levels of government (regional, air bdsin, county, subregional and local) consider dir quality, ldnd use, transportation and economic relationships to ensure consistency and minimize conflicts. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR addresses the matter of regional transportation and air quality modeling consistency on pages I-4 (Air Quality) and III-16 (Background/Other Development Traffic). Regional transportation/air quality impacts therefore would be mitigated. The transportation/air quality modeling does not assume any public transit benefits accruing to the Project in the modal split calculation, as noted on pages III-16 and III-23 of the Draft EIR. The Final EIR should include transit mode split assumptions for the campus, if the transit provisions inherent in mitigation measure number 7 on page III-68 are realized. The Project is partially consistent with this core RCPG policy. A-25. Response: Comment noted. As cited in relevant responses above, the Sunline Transit Authority , CVAG and the region have limited data that would make modal spit assumptions credible. In the present case, they become less important when all basic thresholds and other criteria of compliance already appear to be achievable. Enhanced use of carpooling and mass transit by students and others will further reduce project impacts. A-26. Commen� The Water Qualit�Chapter (WQC) core recommendations and policy options relate to the two water quality goals: to restore 27 ,��. , �. � TN/City of Palm Desert � CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Comments on DEIB 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. The core recommendations and policy options that are particularly applicable to Project include the following: 11.02 Encourage "watershed macndgement" programs and strdtegies, recognizing the primary role of local government in such efforts. �CAG staff comments. The Draft EIR in Sections II.F. (Hydrology) and III.D. (Hydrology) references a number of "watershed management" strategies and mitigation measures that have been incorporated in the Project. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. A 26. R,esponse: Comment noted. A-27. Commen� 11.07 Encourdge wdter reclamaction throughout the region where it is cost-effective, feasible, acnd appropriate to reduce reliance on imported water acnd wastewater discharges. Current administrative impediments to increased use of wastewater should be addressed. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR briefly addresses the potential use of reclaimed water on page III-79. It states that the Coachella Valley Water District will make reclaimed water available to the campus for all landscape applications. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. A 27. Response: Comment noted. 2s , TN/City of Palm Desert CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Comments on DEIR B. SOUTfi COAST AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT B-1. Commen� The Lead Agency should further identify any potential adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of project construction. In addition to the potential for fugitive dust emissions identified in Table III-18, construction related impacts typically include grading, earth loading/unloading, paving, architectural coatings, heavy-duty construction equipment, material transport trips and construction worker vehicle trips. The projected daily peak emissions should be representative of the number of hours in a workday, the number of hours of equipment usage, and the length of time for project completion, under a worst case scenario. All aspects of the project's construction and operation should be evaluated cumulatively for significant impacts. B-1. Response: The campus master plan does not provide the level of detail or projections on development phasing that would facilitate such an analysis. The principle pollutants of concern in the Coachella Valley are ozone and suspended particulates, which have been estimated in the Draft EIR based upon the the worst case/buildout scenario. An analysis of such emission components as architectural coatings and heavy-duty construction equipment shall be required, as determined necessary by the Lead Agency, through future CEQA reviews. Given the extended timeline for development, further CEQA analysis for each development component is being required. This approach will assure more refined impact analysis and mitigation prior to each phase of development. B-2. Comment: Based upon the information received regarding the proposed project, AQMD staff was unable to identify calculations that support the emissions estimates listed in Tables III-18; III-19; III-20; III-21; and III-22. Project specific calculations should be provided to facilitate corroboration of the results by the public. � B-2. Response: The tables set forth in the Draft EIR are the direct result of spreadsheets prepared implementing the various factors and variables required by the analysis. Verification of the analysis is easily done by using the factors and variables from the referenced calculation tables set forth in the SCAQMD's CEQA Air Qualitv Handbook, April 1993, with the data provided in Section III-H of the Draft EIR. 29 TN/City of Palm Desert , ' � '"�CSSB/CV Ceater Campus FrIR Itesponse To Comments on DEIR B-3. Commen� Page I-4 refers to the 1991 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Please note that the most currently adopted AQMP is the 1997 Plan. The 1997 AQMP has also been approved by the California Air Resources Board and forwarded to U.S. EPA as part of the State Implementation Plan revision. Although U.S. EPA has not taken approval action on the 1997 AQMP, this document should be referred to in the Final EIR. Copies are available through the AQMD's Public Information Center at (909)396-3600. B-3. Res�ons� Comment noted and hereby incorporated by reference into the Project EIR. B-4. Commen� Please clarify whether any of the initigation measures proposed are required by AQMD rules or regulations. Please be advised that when an air quality impact is determined to be significant, the AQMD egpects the mitigation measures proposed to go above and beyond air quality standards established by our rules and regulations, AQMD does not acknowledge compliance with our rules as a replacement for CEQA mitigation activities. It would be helpful for the Lead Agency to include a list of mitigation measures that distinguishes between AQMD regulations to be complied with and the CEQA mitigation measures proposed for reducing emissions below significance. B-4. R�sponse: Reasonably foreseeable phasing of project buildout is directly linked to continued urban growth in the Coachella Valley and vicinity. Air quality impacts are expected to be spread out over 20 years or more. Portions of the impact analysis set forth in the Draft EIR apply current efficiencies in energy and materials use. Application of the mitigation measures set forth in the Draft and Final EIR are expected to reduce construction and operations emissions, including emissions per mile and vehicle miles traveled. As cited in the Draft EIR and above responses, the Project is optimally located to serve the Coachella Valley, with strong transportation and other infrastructure efficiencies. B-5. Commen� Relative to the above comment, please specify all potential sources of emissions, appropriate mitigation measures, mitigation measure control efficiencies, and net emissions after application of mitigation measures. Net emissions should be compared side by side with AQMD significance thresholds. This information would be most beneficial if provided in a table format. 30 . . TN/City of Palm Desert CSSB/CV Center Caanpus FFIR, Response To Comments on DEIR B-5. R,esponse: Please see response to Comment B-1. In addition to major emitters which can be reasonable predicted at this time, there are several other potential emission uses that fall under some level of local to state regulation. These include the storage and use of fuels, chlorine and other chemical associated with pools and other equipment, as well as architectural coatings and other potential emitters of volatile organic compounds. 31 �� . TN/City of Palm Desert � � �CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR, Response To Comments on DEIR C. COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT C-1.Commen� Page II-14, adoption or amendment of a general plan or specific plan is not identified in the draft EIR and therefore, a water supply assessment (SB-901) is not required. C-1.R,espons� Comment noted. The proposed university campus project is being processed through the adoption of a Project Master Plan, � which has been determined to be consistent with the City General Plan and the North Sphere Specific Plan. C-2. Commen� Page III-46, under the heading "Mitigation Measures," Item No. 5 to be revised as follows: "Recycled water supplies may not be sufficient to meet all of the project's irrigation demands." C-2. R,esponse: Comment noted and hereby incorporated herein by reference. C-3. Commen� Page III-80, under the heading "Sewage Disposal Service" under the subheading "Ezisting Conditions," second paragraph to be revised as follows: "The sewage treatment plant serving this site and the vicinity is located at Avenue 38 and Madison Street Near the City of . Indio. The plant currently treats about 2.5 million gallons per day." C-3. Rsspons� Comment noted and hereby incorporated herein by reference. C-4. Comment: Page III-80, under the heading "Sewage Disposal Service" under the subheading "No. 3 Mitigation Measures," second sentence to be revised as follows: "Capacity is available at the Coachella Valley Water District Water Reclamation Plant No. 7 located at Avenue 38 and Madison Street near the City of Indio," C-4. R�esponse: Comment noted and hereby incorporated herein by reference. 32 , � , TN/City of Palm Desert CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Comments on DEIR D. CAI.IF'ORNIA DEPARTMENr OF TRANSPORTATION D-1.Commen� Due to the proximity of this proposal to our Interstate-10 (I-10) facility, please send copies of the following to this office at the earliest opportunity: Plot/Site Plan Depicting all existin�; and proposed facilities, structures, vegetation, adjacent streets (with centerlines and driveways), etc. and with a Vicinity Map. Also, this document shall depict the distance to the State right-of-way line from the project's northeasterly property line. Street Im�rovement Plans Depicting all existing and proposed striping, signing, signalization, curbs and driveways (graphically differentiated). Specifically at the I-10/Cook Street interchange. D-1.Response: Comment noted. The Project is a campus master plan that presents information on campus conceptualization and design, but which may vary to some degree from the building footprints and circulation plan shown in the Draft EIR. Current and future lane configurations, both at mid-block and at intersections of major roadways, are depicted and described in Appendix D, Tr�c Impact Analysis of the Draft EIR. The relationships of the site to Interstate-10 and other major roadways are also depicted in Appendix D. In response to CalTrans' concern about further review, the following mitigation measure is hereby incorporated into Section III-B. of the EIR: "Prior to City approval of subsequent Development Plans for Phase I portions of the Project, the City Engineer shall assure the preparation of master roadway and associated circulation plans for the project vicinity. Said plans shall be provided to CalTrans and shall provide the type of data and information set forth in the CalTrans DEIR comment letter dated August 20, 1998." D-2. Comment: Because construction is required at the intersection of Cook Street and I-10 as mitigation (page III-23 of DEIR), the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the District 8 Pernaits Office prior to beginning any work within the State right-of-way. D-2. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated by reference. 33 `�r ;°: TN/City of Palmc Desert , . `-"'�''CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Comments on DEIR E. IlVIPERIAL IR,RIGATION DISTRICT E-1. Commen� Please replace the sentence : "IID has indicated that it has no facilities in Section 34, although a conduit was constructed and integrated into the Cook Street/Interstate-10 overpass." With: "IID has an overhead 12kv distribution line running north/south along the center of Section 34 from north of Interstate-10 to Frank Sinatra Drive. The distribution line then continues to the east, along the northern right-of-way of Frank Sinatra Drive. A conduit system was installed in the Cook Street/Interstate-10 overpass and continues along the eastern edge of Cook Street to the northern edge of Gerald Ford Drive. Here it turns to the east and continues along the northern right-of-way of Gerald Ford Drive for approximately 50' where the conduit system then stops. E-1. Respons� Comment noted and hereby incorporated by reference into the Project EIR. � E-2. Commen� Please replace the last sentence of the secondary paragraph (pages II-14 and III-82) with these sections with: "The IID does provide electrical service to the Emerald Desert Resort project." E•2. R,espons� Comment noted and hereby incorporated by reference into the Project EIR. E-3. Commen� While the technology exists to put 92KV sub-transmission lines underground, the IID does not presently have the technical expertise to install or maintain these systems. These underground transmission lines are approximately five times as expensive to install and maintain as overhead transmission lines. It would place an unfair burden on all of our existing customers if the costs for these underground systems were absorbed by the IID. Therefore, the installation and maintenance costs for any underground sub-transmission line desired by a City, County or developer will have to [beJ borne by that City, County, or developer. E-3. Response: Comment noted and hereby incorporated by reference into the Project EIR. 34 . .. _ TN/City of Palm Desert �SSB/CV Center Campus FFIR Response To Comments on DEIR F. CALIFORI�TIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME F-1. Comment: Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the lead agency to treat sensitive species as though they were listed, if the species meets the criteria for listing described in the section: The Department believes that the proposed project could further the decline of several sensitive species. These species must be treated as though they were listed and appropriate avoidance, mitigation and compensation for impacts need to be identified. Unavoidable impacts should lie mitigated through acquisition and protection, in perpetuity, of high quality biological habitat. F-1. Response: Comment noted. The mitigation plan set forth in Section III-F. of the Draft EIR provides for substantial off-site and on-site mitigation, which will reduce project impacts below levels of significance. These mitigation measures include payment of the $600 per acre mitigation fee for the Coachella Valley fringe- toed lizard, although as a public project, the proposed university may be considered exempt from payment of this impact fee. Approximately $122,000 will become available for the purchase of habitat that will benefit all potentially affected species. F-2. Comment: The Department has determined that the survey methodology reported in the Draf� EIR was inadequate for at least two of the sensitive species that potentially occur on the project site. Biological surveys for the Coachella Valley milk-vetch should have been conducted in the spring when the plant is visible and not in October when the plant would likely have been undetectable. The same is true for the flat-tailed horned lizard, whose presence would have been most detectable during spring and early summer. F-2. Response: Prior to the initiation of field surveys, the consulting biologist conferred with staff of the US Fish & Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish & Game regarding species of concern and special protocol that should be followed. As set forth in Section III-F. of the Draft EIR, detailed site surveys were conducted on-site and in the immediate vicinity. The area is also one well-known to the consulting biologist, who also provided biological research services for the Cook Street/Interstate-10 interchange and the Rancho Portola project located to the immediate west. 35 � . TN/City of Palm Desert ' ' 'R CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Comments on DEIR Habitat on the subject property has been extensively disturbed . as a consequence of extensive agriculture, adjacent arterial roadway construction, illegal dumping, hunting and other activities. The potential of the site to harbor the above cited sensitive species was fully disclosed in the DEIR and the Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis (See Appendix E of the DEIR). F-3. Commen� The Draft EIR proposes four biological mitigation measures to offset impacts to sensitive biological resources from the proposed project: (1) The voluntary payment of $121,800 in Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard fees (203 acres @ $ 600/acre) under the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP); (2) a $ 15,000 voluntary contribution to the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan; (3) the avoidance of invasive egotic plants in the project landscape plan; and (4) the use of drought resistant native plants in the landscape palette for the proposed project. While the payment of the $600/acre fee under the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard HCP would constitute adequate mitigation for the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, it would not necessarily provide any mitigation for the remaining five sensitive species. The HCP was developed to mitigate for impacts to only that species. If the project proponent can adequately demonstrate that the $121,800 will be used to acquire habitat that contains all of the sensitive species cited as potentially impacted by the proposed project, then the actual land acquisition may be construed to adequately mitigate for all of the sensitive species, - but only if this can be clearly shown prior to initiation of the project. F-3. Response: As cited in the Draft EIR, the proposed university campus project is exempt from the fee mitigation requirements of the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (CVFTL). Nonetheless, the City feels that the fees are appropriate to mitigate not only for the CVFTL but also for other sand-adapted species which may occur on the site. Consultation with representatives of the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) has established a consensus manner of mitigation that will satisfy the CDFG and is also egpected to meet the requirements of the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). Specifically, the City will agree that prior to the issuance of any building permits, the full CVFTL fee (approximately $121,800) set forth in the 36 TN/City of Palm Desert � ' , :SSBJCV Center Campus FEIB �teaponse To Comments on DEIR Draft EIR shall be provided to an independent agency acceptable to the CDFG and the Service. Said fees sha11 be used to secure off-site mitigation lands which are acceptable to the responsible agencies. F-4. Commen� Under Section 15370 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Department can not consider the contribution of $15,000 to the Coachella Valley MSHCP as mitigation of actual or potential project impacts to sensitive species. Although the Department is supportive of the development of the Coachella Valley MSHCP, it is not a completed plan and there are no guarantees that it will be completed. Payment of funds to a plan does not avoid the project impacts, does not minimize the project impacts through preservation and maintenance of habitat, nor does it compensate for project impacts by providing replacement habitat. CEQA case law (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino) has determined that a project cannot rely on mitigation measures that have not been fornaulated at the time of the project approvaL F-4. Respons� Comment noted. As clearly stated in the Draft EIR, the proposed voluntary payment of $15,000 has not been determined necessary to off-set project impacts and is not being offered as mitigation. This voluntary payment is being made to facilitate the development of the long-term, region-wide biological resource mitigation plan embodied in the Coachella Valley MSHCP. F-5. Commen� While the Department is supportive of the proposals to avoid the use of invasive, exotic plant species and to use drought resiatant native plants in the project landscape, these proposals are poorly developed at this point in the project and would not, in any event, constitute mitigation for impacts to the sensitive species cited above and their habitat. • F-5. Response: As cited in the Draft EIR and shown with aerial and ground level photos, the subject property has been substantially impacted by previous agricultural activity and other disturbance. Portions of the site have also previously been planted in tamarisk/salt cedar, and also harbor Russian thistle and other invasive, non-native plants. Mitigation measures and conditions of approval, which assure the use of native and other non-invasive planting materials, will allow the development of the site and its substantial open space areas to provide new and enhanced habitat for a variety of native bird 37 �' TN/City of Palm Desert � '�` �CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Commenta on DEIR and possibly small mammala species. While the mitigation i measure may not directly address impacts to sensitive species that do occur on-site, it does provide the basis for development that limits future impacts and enhances on-site habitat. F-6. Comment Impacts to the state-listed Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard will require the project proponent to obtain a California Endangered Species A'ct (CESA) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)/Incidental Take Permit under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code. CESA- MOU/Incidental Take Permits are issued to conserve, protect, enhance and restore state-listed threatened or endangered species and their habitats. Mitigation proposals for state-listed species should be of sufficient detail and resolution to satisfy the requirements under CESA. F-6. R�esponse: Comment noted and hereby incorporated by reference into the EIR. Not�Amended DEIIi,Biological Resources Mitigation Measures Also, please see �he following March 16, 1999 amendment to the DEIR, which refines the mitigation fee portion of that discussion and which were reviewed by the City Planning Commission. � � i i i 38 TN/City of Palm Desert C3SB/CV Center Campus DEI�2 Section III-Environmental Impacts Mitigation/Amended 3.16.99 Potentially positive direct and indirect impacts include the integration of large trees such as cottonwood, elm and fan palms, as well as native and habitat-enhancing shrubs and � groundcovers that may provide foraging and nesting habitat for resident and migratory species ' (see Mitigation Measures section below). 3. Mitigation Measures 1Vfitigation Fee The site is within the fee area established by the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard Habitat Conservation Plan(CVFTLHCP). At the time the HCP was developed, the subject property was privately owned and was included in the calculation of lands necessary to generate fees sufficient to finance acquisition of required habitat preserves. Since the CVFTLHCP egempts governmental projects from the fee, the proposed project is not required to participate in the lizazd fee program, resulting in an incremental funding shortfall. However, the project impacts other apecies not addressed in the CVFTLHCP, including the federally endangered Coachella Valley milk-vetch and other sensitive sand-adapted plants and animals and their habitat. In the absence of a complete HCP with specific mitigation ratios and criteria for the milk-vetch and other speciea of concern, there is precedent for agreements with the resource agencies for acceptance of the $600 per acre formula for the CVFTL as appropriate mitigation for these related sand-adapted species. These agreements were based upon a mutual acknowledgement that a more specific formula would entail duplication of the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MHCP) currently under development, and could be more costly to develop than the resulting mitigation program. Therefore, the payment of a $600 per acre fee is determined appropriate to mitigate impacts to the Coachella Valley milk-vetch and other sand-adapted species of concern for the entire area to be disturbed as a result of the project. Avoidance of Invasive Plants The project proponents and the City shall also assure that invasive,egotic plants are not used in the _ project landscape plan. Attachment 5 of the Biological Resources Technical Report found in the appendix of this EIR sets forth those plants identified by the California Esotic Plant Council,which shall be avoided due to their invasive nature. Habitat Enhancing Plant Palette The landscape palette for the proposed development shall include drought resiatant native plants, which also serve to provide enhanced wildlife habitat for permanent and seasonal birds and animals. No further mitigation measures are deemed necessary to mitigate impacts to biological resources associated with this project. Miti�ation Monitorin�LRePorting Pro�'am Pre-Construction 1. The sequence of payment shall be as established through a forthcoming MOA between the City, CSU, CDFG and USFWS, prior to issuance of any development permits for preservation of suitable habitat for the Coachella Valley milk-vetch and other sand-adapted species. Responsible Agency: City, CSU, CDFG, USFWS. III�2 3&A . . TN/City of Palm Desert CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Comments on DEIR G. CALIFORNIA STATE UNNERSITY SAN BERNAR.DINO G.1. Comment: As a State Agency, the California State University is not subject to the City's regulatory functions, as set forth in the Draft EIR. While we appreciate the efforts of the City to assure the proper and appropriate development of the subject property and the need to mitigate potential impacts, the University cannot be made subject to the City's regulatory authority. The EIR should be modified to reflect the regulatory and mitigation framework set forth in the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the California State University and the City of Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency. , G.1.R,esponse: With regard to the implementation of the Campus Master Plan and the Environmental Impact Report, the regulatory authority of the City and the California State University is understood by both parties. Both parties also agree that the EIR represents the prudent steps which must be taken in the course of campus development to preclude significant adverse impacts. Therefore, in the EIR where the regulatory authority of the City is stated, this reference is hereby changed throughout by reference to read "City and/or Califarnia State University". This change to the EIR shall not remove the appropriate and proper regulatory jurisdiction which otherwise rests with the City. The DDA will further define the regulatory responsibilities of the City and California State University. G2. Comment: The California State University is not subject to local municipal fees. Development and impact mitigation fees are discussed in several sections of the project EIR and the City is referenced as one of the regulating agencies imposing or collecting these fees. With regard to the payment of development or impact fees, the EIR should be modified to reflect the regulatory and mitigation framework set forth in the CSU/City DDA. G.2.Response: Comment noted. The development and impact mitigation fees set forth in the EIR include but are not limited to those established by regional government and through negotiations with state and federal agencies to mitigation impacts to public and natural resources. To the extent that the California State University is subject to the requirements of the California . 39 �f~�' TN/City of Palm Desert . °CSSB/CV Center Campus F�IR Response To Comments on DEIR Environmental Quality Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, and state and federal Endangered Species Act, these fees are part of the mitigation program for the project. G.3. Commen� Once the property is transferred to the California State University, it will be exempt from the levying or payment of property tax. References in the EIR regarding property taxes should be removed from the EIR,. G.3.Response: Comment noted. There are no references to property taxes in the Project EIR. G.4. Cammen� The EIR indicates that the subject property is located within the service districts of both Southern California 'Edison (SCE) and the Imperial Irrigation District (IID). The IID has indicated that the University will be required to purchase land for an off-site substation and pay for the construction of a transmission line to serve the campus. The University does not wish to be precluded from securing power from either provider, or in negotiating how service may be extended to the site, if necessary. The EIR should maintain or declare the university's flexibility in working with the service providers in this regard. G.4.Response: Comment noted. As noted in the EIR, both Southern California Edison and the Imperial Irrigation District have indicated that they are willing to discuss possible arrangements by which one or the other, or both of the two providers, may serve the site. The flexibility requested is already provided in the EII� and is reiterated herein. G.5. Comment: The EIR indicates the impact mitigation fees will be paid to address loss of habitat and impacts to biological resources. The California State University has specific powers implied by state law other than the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public resources Code 21004). Therefore, we believe that the CSU is not subj ect to the payment of these fees, whether voluntary or otherwise required by law. G.5.Response: The mitigation measures set forth in the EIR are designed to address impacts to sensitive biological resources egpected to result from development of the proposed campus. Identified species include those protected by federal and state law. It is not the role of the EIR to determine whether and to what extent the proposed development is immune from imposition of 40 . . TN/City of Palm Desert , CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Comments on DEIR impact fees. The California State University will be required to secure clearances, whether through the payment of fees, , purchasing of mitigation lands or through declared exemptions, from both the California Department of Fish and Game and the US Fish and Wildlife Service before developmen� can commence. . G.6. Comment: The California State University agrees and wishes to reinforce the conclusion of the Draft EIR that the CSU is exempt from the payment of the local Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). In addition, the EIR cites a variety of other mitigation measures, required both on-site and off-site, which will be necessary to assure that area roadways and intersections continue to operate at acceptable levels of service. While the CSU agrees that we will be responsible for on-site impact mitigation, the University has limited powers for mitigating off-site impacts. The Final EIR should clarify what constitute on-site mitigation measures, which should be the limit of the University's responsibilities. G.6.Response: For purposes of off-site versus on-site mitigation, on-site mitigation includes all internal roadways, as well as perimeter roadways and intersections directly serving and immediately adjacent to the campus site. On-site roadways include Cook Street, Gerald Ford Drive and Frank Sinatra Drive, as well as their intersections with each other and with roadways interior to the campus. Improvements, including but limited to, travel lanes, acceleration and deceleration lanes, turn lanes, signalization, median islands, access drives, and other improvements required to assure traffic safety and acceptable levels of service, and occurring on or within the on-site roadways system, are the responsibility of the California State University. G.7. Comment: The development of a University branch campus is an expensive proposition, which benefits the entire region and will, therefore, require the support of the local communities as well as the County. G.7.Response: Comment noted. G.8. Comment: The EIR appears to contradict itself with regard to the management of flooding and drainage issues. In one instance, the EIR requires the on-site retention or detention of stormwaters, while elsewhere the EIR states that runoff . 41 � �"`""t TN/City of Palm Desert . ` . """' CSSB/CV Center Campus FEIR Response To Commenta on DEIR generated on-site can be discharged from the site. These apparent contradictions should be addressed and the responsibilities of the University clarified. � G.8.Response: The proposed campus site is located within the Mid-Valley Stormwater Drainage Area, . as defined by the Coachella Valley Water District. As such, it is subject to certain � requirements regarding the management of on-site . . stormwater runoff. These include the requirement that all development within the drainage area, including the proposed campus, retain 100 percent of the 100-year storm runoff generated on-site. This requirement is a result of the need to control the size and cost of drainage facilities designed to protect properties within the drainage area. Runoff retained on-site may be discharged over a five day period after the storm(s) which generate the runoff have passed. The discharge of retained on-site runoff must be approved by the Coachella Valley Water District to assure that these discharges into future facilities do not ezceed channel and system capacities. 42 , . TNlCity of Palm Desert ' CSSBJCV Ceater Campus FEIR Response To Comments oa DEIR SECTION II COIVIlVIENT LETTERS ON T� DRAF'r ENVIItONMENrAL IIV�ACT REPORT The following comment letters were received on the Draft EIR transmitted to various public agencies and interested parties. These letters include comments related to the Campus Master Plan as well as the EIR. Comments restated in Section I are bracketed in this section and correspond to the comment numbers in Section I. 43 .. -�. � -�:��av�� SOUTNERN CALIFORNIA ;�? 16 1998 c�,a��r�iri�tr��o��s�:�aE�.,��.r�T September 14, 1998 CIiY Gh P:1.'.�t�.E;:E�r . �: ASSOCIATION of Mr. Philip Drell G O V E R N M E N TS Director of Community Deveiopment City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Mai�Office �: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 8i8 West Seventh Street California State University San Bernardino Coachella Valley Campus Master Plan-SCAG No. I 9800427 uth Floor Los Angetes,California Dear Mr. Drell: 90017-3435 , Thank you for submitting the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the t(zi3)z36-i800 California State University San Bernardino Coachella Valley Campus F c=13�Z36-ls�s . Master Plan to SCAG for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects," SCAG assists cities, counties and other agencies in reviewing projects and plans for consistency with regional plans. wwwscag.ta.gov �,:•°�dm�N'r°�,Bob g'^�ta.Gn°� The attached detailed comments are meant as administrative comments to Nonco.ia•RntY�ce Prtadent:Supv.tTwrioone �*�«��a�«�•� provide guidance for considerin�the proposed project within the context of our ��°,��`° ��`��` regional goals and policies. SCAG's policy level review will be initiated with �"�""°''"°''"�''`k°""`°'m`' the presentation of the proposed Califomia State University Ban Bemardino ��'��°��"��" Coachella Valley Campus Master Plan Project to SCAG's Community •Da.id DlWloo.�Cenw �°°°^°f��,�sY.�°^�h°�. Economic and Human Develo ment CEHD Cominittee on October 8, 1998 :��,•„�..�,��.� P ( ) ��°�'��-°`�°�•�^�• from 10:00 to 12:00 noon, at the SCAG office in Los Angeles. You are Dumond Bv•Bob 6�nka.ModoYia•&v�e . ��.<<m=�•��.�.�� cordially invited to attend this meeting and answer any questions of the elected cama«, •Fw n�.�.M�•we� �� •�� o�cial members of the CEHD Committee. If you have any questions Cene Danid+.Panmom�•Dou`Dnunmmd. lonp 8each•)oeo Fernm,Lot Aogb•Midud regarding the attached comments, please contact Bill Boyd at (213) 236-1960. �`"".�`'°8`�•''°`�"�°°'e�``"°°°• He will be contacting you concerning the specifics of the CEHD meeting. Rwh Galanrcc Los Mtdn • Eilr-� G�em, Gimd�le�Jukie Gold6ay.Im AnLda•Cwland Fiudanao, InQlewood • Mite Hetnandez Ic� Myeks • Macc Holdm, Wf Ansele • ��h Sincerely McGnhy.Dfnvnary•Bubva Nndd.Mhamha• 1 Cindy Nisokowski,Los Aoedes•pand Myas, � Palmdale • Ceorge Nakana.Tornnce • �am O'Gonnor.Law Mo�uu•(mnr Ompea,lopY ' �! . . &+c6•Beamce fioo.Pico N�a+•Mark Ridlry- --- .-- - Th�mus.Los�ngda•Diana PinQ.Quemoo�• Richud Riwd�n. lns M�•��. . DAVID STEIN �umpon•Rudy SvonnicA,la Mtdc•md W+chs.Icc Mgela�Riu Waltcn.los Mgda• Drnnu Wsshburn.Glauss+s•hW �.�� anager,�erformance Assessment and Implementation Passdm� �ounry o(Onntec Willum kemer. Orm`c , G,umv•Yire nrodac�.San qanrna•Ron laro. Wx Al�nuas•Art B�owe.Buena Puk•Hn De6ry, Ncwpon huh•Richard Diaun,lake Fo��• _ Clurlmr Fi��nkh�ama.l�Palrtu•�Bn Ptr�7;BR� . Counq ol Rl.ersid�lames Venakr Rrvvtide � County•Im 4ja.Beaum�m�•Dick Celly.PJm Dexn•Run lanrrtdge.Rivmtde•Md�ea Puya. Cu�ona•iWn IW6erts.Tanacvla Couo[�of Lo MrnudLix Iarr�Walk¢S�u Bernirdino County • 8i11 Aleiander, Rancho Cuomonga •Jim BiQley.7Wentynine p�Ims • Da.id Eshleman.kmt�na•lee Anq Guoa.Gand T<rta��e•l:..rnn Noreon-Rrry,Ouno Hilla•)olw S�ubuck,H�g6land Gouary of Ymmn:►udp Mikds.Yentura Couory• Andrew Foa.Thousand Oa� •lohn Mdton. Snu hula•TuniYuuny.Part Huarcmt e r��a w�a�r,�.f v,p�r �i i sise Philip Drell September 14, 1998 Page 2 CONIMENTS ON THE CSUSB COACHELLA VALLEY CA.I�IPUS MASTER PLAN DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION The Project involves the development of a 203 acre site in the City of Palm Desert as the Pemianent Coachella Valley Off-Carnpus Center of the California State University - San Bemardino. The site is bounded on the west by Cook Street, on the south by Frank Sinatra Drive, and on the north and east by Gerald Ford Drive (extended). Approximately 120 acres of the site will be developed for classrooms and other college buildings and facilities, dormitories, physical education and associated facilities. The Master Plan provides fo.r approximately 2,987,780 gross s�uare feet at buildout. The campus would be expected to support a peak student population of approximately 25,000 with up to 15,625 students expected to be on the campus at any given time. By the year 2000, the campus is expected to host approximately 735 full-time equivalent students, with attendance going up to 5,392 students by 2005 and 25,000 students by 2020. At buildout in 2020, approximately 9,400 faculty and staff would support campus functions. The Plan calls for the maximum development of 1,200 units of on-campus student housing and facilities for up to 12,860 parking spaces. 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 (adopted April 16, 1998), Air Quality (adopted October 1995), Hazardous Waste Management (adopted November 1994), and Water Quality (adopted January 1995) chapters (plan policies)constitute the core chapters. These core chapters respond direcdy to federal and state planning requirements. The core chapters constitute the base on which local govemments 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) policies are considered core policies and are incorporated by reference 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 govemment. Hence, they are entirely advisory and establish no new mandates or policies for the region. a� Bridge chapters include the Strategy and Implementation chapters, functioning as linlcs between the Core and Ancillary chapters of the_RCPG. Each of the applicable policies related to the proposed project are identified by numder and reproduced below in italics followed by SCAG staff comments regarding the consistency of the Philip Drell September 14, 1998 Page 3 Project with those policies. General SCAG Staff Comments The Draft EIR only partially addresses the relationship of the proposed project to applicable regional plans as required by Section 15125 [b] of Guidelines for Implementation of the � California Environmenta! Quality Act. Appropriate discussion in Section 1.D. (Summary of Project Proposals/Comparisonwith Other Plans) is lacking of the consistency of the project with applicable regional plans, specifically the Regional Transportation Plan and the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (which incorporates references to policies in the other regional plans). This is particularly disturbing since informadon was provided with our response to the Notice of Preparation on the project in our November 26, 1997 letter, and it was apparently A-1 ignored. There is a discussion of the relationship of the Project to SCAG's Regional Growth Forecasts on page I-4, but no discussion of the relationship to other RCPG and RTP policies. The Final EIR should address the relationships (consistency with core policies and support of ancillary policies) to SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and Regional Transportation Plan, 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 1. The Growth Management Chapter(GMCI of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide contains a number of policies that are particularly applicable to the CSSB/CV Center Campus Project. a. Core Growth Management Policies 3.01 The population, housing, and jobs forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG's Regiona _ Council and that reflect local plans and policies, shall be used by SCAG in all phases of implementation and review. SCAG staff comments. As SCAG has designated subregions, the Project is situated in the Coachella Valley Council of Govemments subregion. The Draft EIR on page I� appropriately references SCAG's Coachella Valley Population, Household and Employment Forecasts and on page II-17 references SCAG's outdated population and employment forecasts. These forecasts have been superceded by the recendy adopted A-2 RTP97 Final Baseline(April 16, 1998)Population,Household and Employment forecasts for the Subregion an��the disaggregationto City of Palm Desert. SCAG 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 CVAG - Subregion Forecasts Populadon 372,300 412,100 450,900 497,600 551,800 � Philip Drell September 14, 1998 Page 4 Households 122,500 135,500 151,900 168,600 187,200 Employment 149,200 164,900 183,800 203,900 220,400 SCAG 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 � City of Palm Desert Forecasts A-2 Population 29,900 31,900 33,700 35,700 38,000 �n�, Households 12,600 13,300 14,100 15,000 15,900 Employment 29,000 30,500 32,300 34,200 35,800 The Final EIR should reference the current SCAG forecasts on pages I-4 and II-17 of the EIR document. If these changes are made, the Project would be consistent with this core RCPG policy. 3.03 The timing,financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transponation systems shall be used by SCAG to implement the region's growth policies. SCAG staff comments: The Draft EIR contains no information on development phasing and timing. SCAG's Standing Committee on Implementation has consistently stressed that Final EIR's for similar Projects should address the manner in which the proposed Project will be developed so that provision of service to new housing units or jobs producing commercial, industrial or other uses will be staged or phased to help achieve greater jobs/housing balance within the jurisdiction and the Subregion. The Standing Committee on Implementation has previously expressed the concern that, in housina rich subregions, the housing will likely be constructed first and the employment producing :and uses may never materialize. Conversely, in jobs rich subregions, the employment producing office buildings, shopping centers, schools or industrial buildings could be built first, and the housing components could be brought in much later, or never. The objective of a phasing or development staging plan would be to encourage the implementation of types of development that would address the jobs/housing balance issue and work toward the reduction of Vehicle Miles Traveled in the early phases or A-3 stages of development rather than leaving such uses until later (or allowing indefinite postponement). A phasing or staging plan for the Coachella Valley Campus is also essential to help evaluate the timing, financing, and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transponarion systems. The coordinated provision of these facilities and systems is of utmost importance in assuring that the construction of campus buildings and facilities does not proceed the�construction of on and off-site public facilities, utility systems and transportation systenis. The Final EIR should clearly define development phasing and timing of campus component facilities, including structures, parking, open space and essential infrastructure. Based on the information in the Draft EIR we are unable to determine whether the Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. Philip Drell September 14, 1998 Page 5 � b. Ancillary Growth Management Policies 3.04 Encourage local jurisdictions'e,�`'ons to achieve a balance between the types of jobs they seek to attract and housing prices. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR includes no information on the number and types of jobs which will be required to support campus operations. No is there any discussion A'4 of the availability of affordable housing within the project vicinity to support the types of jobs at the proposed campus. This information should be presented in the Final EIR. Based on the information in the Draft EIR we are unable to determine whether the Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 3.05 Encourage patterns of urban development and land use which reduce costs on infrastructure construction and make bener use of existing facilities. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR acknowledges that availability of domestic water, A-5 storm drainage and sewer service to the project is not an issue. These facilities are located in close proximity to the project. The Project is supportive of ttus ancillary RCPG policy. 3.08 Encourage subregions to define economic strategy to maintain economic viability of the subregion, including the development and use of marketing programs, and other economic incentives, which support the attainment of subregional goals and policies. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR only minimally addresses the economic aspects of �he proposed project on page II-14. No objectives for the project are set forth in the A-s Introduction and Project Description section, as is typically included in an environmental document. The Final EIR should identify Project Objectives, including the relationship of the project to local or subregional economic strategies. Based on the information in the Draft EIR we are unable to determine whether the Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 3.09 Suppon local jurisdictions' e,,�`ons to minimize the cost of infrzstructure and public service delivery, and efforts to seek new sources of funding for development and the provision of services. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR identifies infrastructure and public service delivery A-7 facilities to serve the Project. These improvements reflect necessary extension of existing facilities or the con�ruction of new facilides, where none currently exist. I�frastructure is designed to m�n,m»e cost to the maximum extent. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 3.10 Suppon local jurisdictions' actions to minimize red tape and expedite the permitting � process to maintain economic vitality artd competitiveness. A-8 Philip Drell September 14, 1998 Page 6 SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR only addresses subjecLs that may have adverse A-8 environmental impacts. It is written in a concise manner, where all possible adverse Cont�d impacts are mitigated. This will �n�mi�e red tape, and help maintain the economic vitality and competitiveness of the City of Palm Desert and the CVAG subregion. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 3.11 Support provisions and incentives created by local jurisdictio;�s to anract housing growt in job rich subregions and job growth in housing subregions. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIIt does not address jobs/housina interrelationships within Palm Desert or the CVAG subregion. The project anticipates an anticipated 9,373 A-9 faculty and staff jobs at buildout. This will further exacerbate the imbalance of jobs over housing in the city and subregion. The Final EIR should discuss jobs/housing interrelationships and discuss efforts of the local jurisdictions to address this matter. Based on the inforination in the Draft EIR we are unable to determine whether the Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 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. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR acknowledges on page III-69 that the developer mav also implement a number of transportation strategies to mitigate emissions from vehicle trips. Most of the other air quality mitigation measures are stated as definitive �hall statements rather than hopeful � statements. The Final EIR should include the ten VMT reduction measures on page III-69 as requirements that the developer shall comply with. Furthermore, the Final EIR should contain information on the potential number of transit dependent faculty, staff and students that would potentially utilize A-10 public transportation or ridesharing services. A program to work with Sunline Transit to assure the provision of transit access to the campus should also be detailed in the Final EIR. The Draft EIR does not address the availability of bicycle routes in relationship to the proposed campus, not actions to be taken by the developer to provide for pedestrian and bicycle facilities within the campus, and to detail their coordination with adjacent off- campus facilities. The Final EIR should address these matters, and detail mitigation measures. General air quality c�Yntrol and mitigation measures number 5. on page III-69(bicycle a�zd trail facilities)and number 7 on page 68 (coordinated mass transidshuttle services)begin to address the intent of this policy. The Project is partially consistent with this core RCPG policy 3.13 Encourage local jurisdictions'plans that maximiZe the use of existing urbanized areas accessible to transit through infill and redevelopment. A-11 Philip Drell September 14, 1998 Page 7 SCAG staff comments. The Project represents a good example of infill development, however,the Draft EIR on page III-23 acknowledges that no consideration has been made A-11 for public or mass transit access to the campus. This is a major shortcoming of the �, campus master plan, and as been noted previously, the matter should be appropriately addressed in the Final EIR. Based on the infomiation in the Draft EIR, we are unable to determine whether the Project is supportive of this ancllary RCPG policy. 3.14 Suppon local plans to increase density of future development located at strategic points along the regional commuter rail, transit systems, and activity centers. SCAG staff comments. The project is a good example of a major activity center type use with good access to Interstate 10. As previously noted, ihere is no discussion of the A-12 project's relationship to existing or proposed transit systems. Based on the information in the Draft EIR, we are unable to determine whether the Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 3.1 S Suppon local jurisdictions'strategies to establish mixed-use clusters and other transit- oriented developments around transit stations and along transit corridors. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR does not descnbe the existing transit system and A 13 its relationship to mixed-use and other transit-oriented development in the immediate vicinity of the proposed campus. The Final EIR should address ttus matter. Based on the information in the Draft EIR, we are unable to determine whether the Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 3.18 Encourage planned development in locaiions least likely to cause adverse environmenta impact. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR acknowledges on pages M-1 through M-10 that A-14 all significant land use impacts will be mitigated. We do not concur that all adverse environmental impacts will be mitigated as stated in the Draft EIR (see previous and subsequent staff comments). The Project is partially supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. . 3.21 Encourage the implementation of ineasures aimed at the preservation and protection o recorded and unrecorded cultural resources and archaeological sites. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR in Section III.G. (Cultural Resources) includes a A-15 proposed approach tbr midgating azcheological or historic resource impacts should they be identified during project development activities. The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. . 3.23 Encourage mitigation measures that reduce noise in cenain locations, measures aimed at preservation of biological and ecological resources, measures that would reduce exposure A-16 � Philip Drell September 14, 1998 Page 8 to seismic hazards, minimize earthquake damage, and to develop emergency response and A-16 recovery plans Con�d SCAG staff comments. Noise impacts are appropriately addressed in Section I-3. (Noise). The Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 3.24 Encourage efforts of local jurisdictions in the implementation of programs that increase the supply and quality of housing and provide a,�j`ordable housing as evaluated in the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR fails to address the availability of affordable A-17 housing for faculry, staff and students,nor actions to be taken by the uni�cersity or City of Palm Desert to assure the provision of affordable housing. The Final EIR should address this matter. Based on the information in the Draft EIR, we are unable to determine whether the Project is supportive of this ancillary RCPG policy. 3.27 Suppon local jurisdictions and other service providers in their efj`'ons 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. A18 SCAG staff comments. Throughout the Draft EIR, references are made to provision of education, health care, social services, law enforcement and fire protection services. These facilities and services will help support the proposed project within the context of efforts to develop Palm Desert as a sustainable community. The Project is supportive of tnis ancillary RCPG policy. 2. The 1998 Regional Transportation Plan (RTPI also has policies, all of which are core, that pertain to the CSUSB Coachella Valley Campus Master Plan project. The RTP links the RCGG 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 tue relevant policies in the RTP are the following: 4.01 Transportation investments shall be based on SCAG's adopted Regional Performance Indicators. •A-19 SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR makes no reference to support of SCAG's Regional Performance Indicators and associated objectives pertaining to: Mobility- Transportation Systems should meet the public need for improved access, and for safe, comfortable,convenient and economical movements of people and goods. � • Average Work Trip Travel Time in Minutes- 22 minutes • PM Peak Highway Speed- 33 mph , � • Philip Drell September 14, 1998 Page 9 • Percent of PM Peak Travel in Delay (All Trips)- 33 90 Accessibility - Transportation Systems 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 25 Minutes- 88% Environment- Transportation Systems should sustain development and preservation of the existing system and the environment.(All Trips) • Meeting Federal and State Standards- Meet Air Plan Emission Budgets Reliability-Reasonable and dependable levels of service by mode. (All Trips) • Transit- 63% • Highway - 76% Safety-TransportationSystems should provide minimal,risk, accident,death and injury. (All Trips) • Fatalities Per Million Passenger Miles- 0.008 A-19 • Injury Accidents- 0.929 . Con�d Livable Communities- Transportation Systems should facilitate Livable Communities in which all residents have access to all opportunities with minimal travel time. (All Trips) • Vehicle Trip Reduction- 1.5% • VeYucle Miles Traveled Reduction- 10.0% Equity-The benefits of transportation investments should be equitably distributed among all ethnic, age and income groups. (All trips) • Low-Income (Household Income $12,000)) Share of Net Benefits - Equitable Distribution of Benefits Cost-Effectiveness-Maximize return on transportation investment.(All Trips) • Net Present Value- Maximum Rer�rn on TransportationInvestment • Value of a Dollar Invested--Maximum Return on Transportation Investment The Final EIR should address the manner in which the Project is supportive of or detracts from the achievement of the aforementioned 8 general objectives. Based on the information provided, we are unable to determine whether the Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. y 4.02 Transportation inv�stments shall mitigate environmental impacts to an acceptable level. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR acknowledges in Sectioa III.B. A 20. (Tra�c/Circulation)identifies various transportation impacts and details the measures to mitigate these impacts on pages III-22 through III-25. Thirty roadway and intersection , Philip Drell September 14, 1998 Page 10 improvements,adjacent to and in the vicinity of the proposed project are identified in the Draft EIR (page III-22 and III-23) to mitigate adverse traffic impacts of the proposed campus development. The Draft EIR is lacking a schedule for construction of these improvements; assignment of responsibility for funding and constructing; and a formal assurance of commitment to construct the improvements. In consultation with the prepared of the Drafr EIR it was stated that some of the roadway and intersection improvements will be built by or costs funded in part by other developments in the vicinity of the campus. The Draft EIR states that the university is not bound to A 20 contribute to transportation improvement mitigation measures through CVAG's �nt�d Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee. This being the case, it is imperative that the approach for constructing and financing essenrial transportation mitigation measures be detailed. The Final EIR should include a schedule for construction of the 30 roadway and intersection improvements; acknowledge the parties responsible �for funding and constructiBg the improvements; and contain a formal assurance of commitment to construct the improvements. Based on the information provided, we are unable to determine whether the Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. 4.04 Transportation Control Measures shall be a priority. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR begins to address the extent to which the Project considers the implementation of Transportation Control Measures set forth in the South Coast Air Quality Management District AQMP as set forth in the subsequent two year segment of the Regional TransportationImprovementProgram), including: � High Occupancy Vehicle projects and pricina alternatives,park and ride lots and intermodal facilities. • Transit improvements, urban freeway system management improvements, smart corridors TSM programs, railroa3 consolidation programs, CMP-based demand A-21 management strategies, vanpool programs, telecommunicarion facilities, demonstrationprograms, and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. • Marketing information services for employers and activity centers to encourage shared rides and transit use, and transit pass centers. General air quality control and mitigation measures number 5. on page III-69(bicycle and trail facilities)and number 7 on page 68 (coordinated mass transidshuttle services)begin to address the intent of this policy. The Project is partially consistent with this core RCPG policy 4.06 Implementing transit restructuring, including Smart Shuttles, freight improvements, advanced transponcrtion technologies, airport ground access and traveler information services are RTP priorities. � SCAG staff comments.. The Draft EIR begins to address the exteat to which the Project A 22 considers the implementation of �ransit restructuring, including Smart Shuttles, freight improvements, advanced transportation technologies, and traveler information services. General air quality control and mitigation measures number 5. on page III-69(bicycle and � ' � . . Philip Drell September 14, 1998 Page 11 trail facilities)and number 7 on page 68 (coordinated mass transidshuttle services)begin A� to address the intent of this policy. The Project is partially consistent with this core �d RCPG policy. 4.07 Projects proposed for the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP) that o not indicaie a reasonable phasing of construction between segments will not be approved. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR, as noted in our comments on SCAG policy 3.03, A 23 fails to address the phasing of development and transportation improvements which may be proposed for inclusion in the RTIP. Based on the information provided, we aze unable to determine whether the Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. 3. The Air Ouality Chapter IAOC) core actions that are generally applicable to 'the Project aze as follows: 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. � A 24 SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR partially addresses the extent to which the Project considers the implementation of telecommunications,comrnunity based shuttle services, demand management based programs or vehicle-miles-traveled/emissionfees. General air quality control and mirigation measures number 5. on page III-69 (bicycle and trail facilities) and number 7 on page 68 (coordinated mass transidshuttle services) begin to sddress the intent of this policy. The Project is partially consistent with this core RCPG policy.. � S.II Through the environmentat document review process, ensure that plans at all levels o government(regional, air basin, county, subregional and Ioca1) consider air quality, land use, transportarion and economic relationships to ensure consistency and minimize confiicts. SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIlt addresses the matter of regional transportation and air quality modeling consistency on pages I-4 (Air Quality) and III-16 (Background/Other Development Traffic. Regional transportation/air quality impacts A 25 therefore would be mitigated. The transportation/air quality modeling does not assume any public transit benefits accruing to the Proj�"ct in the modal split calculations,as noted on pages III-16 and III-23 of the Draft EIR. �The Final EIR should include transit mode split assumptions for the campus, if the transit provisions inherent in mitigation measure number 7 on page III-68 are realized. The Project is partially consistent with this core RCPG policy. � r Philip Drell September 14, 1998 Page I2 4. The Water Oualit,y Chapter (WOC) core recommendations and policy options reIate 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. The core recommendations and policy options that are particularly applicable to Project include the following: 11.02 Encourage "watershed mandgement"programs and strategies, recognizing the primary A 26 role of local government in such efforts. SCAG staff comments. The Draf[ EIR in Sections II. F. (Hydrology) and III. D. (Hydrology)references a number of "watershed management� strategies and mitigation measures that have been incorporated in the Project. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. 11.07 Encourage water rectamation throughout the re$ion 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. A 27 SCAG staff comments. The Draft EIR briefly addresses the potential use of reclaimed water on page III-79. It states that the Coachella Valley Water District will make reclaimed water available to the campus for all landscape applications. The Project is consistent with this core RCPG policy. Conclusions and Recommendations (1) As ^_oted in the staff comments, the proposed CSUSB Coachella Valley Campus Master Plan Project Draft Environmental Impact Report is consistent with or supports many of the core and ancillary policies in the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide. Based on the infor�ation in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, we aze unable to determine whether the Project is consistent with core policies 3.03, 4.01, 4.02 and 4.07 and supportive of ancillary policies 3.04, 3.08, 3.11, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15 and 3.24. Furthermore the Project is partially supportive of core policies 3.01, 4.04, 4.06, 5.07 and 5.11 and ancillary policies 3.12 and 3.18. (2) As noted in the General Staff Comments, the Final EIIt should address the relationships (consistency with core policies and support of ancillary policies) to SCAG's Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide and discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed project and applicable regional plans. (3) All mitigation measures;,-associated with the project should be monitored in accordance with AB 3180 requirements. � Philip Drell September 14, 1998 Page 13 SOUTHERN CALIFORi�1IA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNbfENTS Roles and Authorities THE SOiJTHERN CALIFOR1�iIA ASSOCIATION OF GOYERNMENTS is a Joint Powers Agency established under California Government Code Section 6502 et seq. Under federal and state law,the Association is designated as a Council of Governments(COG),a Regional Transportation Planning Agency(RTPA).and a Metropolitan Planning Organizadon(MPO).Among its other mandated roles and responsibilides,the Association is: • Designated by the federal government as the Region's Metropolitan PlanRing 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(�-(h), 49 U.S.C_§1607(fl-(g)et seq.,23 C.F.R.§450, and 49 C.F.R.§613. The Associadonis also the desigaatedRegional TransporwtioR PlanningAgency, and as such is responsible for both preparation of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Regional Transportation Improvement Pro,,P.ram (RTIP) under California Government Code Section 65080. • Responsible for developing the demographic projecdons and the integrated land use, housing, employment, and transportation programs, measures, and strategies portions of the South Coast Air Qr�ality Managernent Plan, pursuant to California Health and Safery Code Section 40460(ty)-(c). The Associarion is also designated under 42 U.S.C_§7504(a)as a Co-Lead Agenry for air qualiry planning for the Central Coast and Southeast Desert Air Basin District. • Responsible under the Federal Clean Air Act for determining Conformity of Projects,Plans and Programs to the State ImplementationPlan,pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§7506. • Responsible,pursuant to California Government Code Section 65089.2,for reviewing all Coagestios Management Plans (CMPs)for corrsistency with regional transportalioR plans required by Section 65080 of the Government Code. The Association must also evaluate the consistency and compau'bility of such programs within the region. • The authoriaed regional agency for IRter-Governmental Review of Programs proposed for federal financial assistance and direct development activities, pursuant to Presidential Executive Order 12,372 (replacing A-95 Review). • Responsible for reviewing, pursuant to Sections 15125(b) and 15206 of the CEQA Guidelines, ERviroRmental Impact Reports of pmjects of regional significance for consistency with regional plans. • The authoriaedAreawide Waste Treatment 1Kanagement PlanningAgency, pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §1288(a)(2) (Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Conuol Act) • Responsible for preparation of the Regional Housing Needs Assessmen� pursuant to California Government Code Section 65584(a). • Responsible(along with the San Diego Association of Governments and the Santa Bazbaza County/Cities Area Plannu�g Council)for preparing the Southern California Hatardous Woste ManagemeRt Plan pursuant to California Health and Safery Code Section 25135.3. � South �:oast . � ' • . . Alr Quality Management District . � , ; 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 (909) 396-2000 • http://www.aqmd.gov September 25. 1998 FAXED 9/2�/98 Mr. John J�riste City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Pa:r;.D�s�:t. CA 9?260 Deaz Mr. Driste: The South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the above mentioned project. The comments included are meant as guidance for the Lead Agency and should be incorporated into the final environmental document wherever possible. Pursuant to Public Resources Code, Section 21092.5, please provide the AQMD with written responses to all comments contained herein prior to the adoption of the final document. Please call Marie Ellingson, of my staff, at (909) 396-3297 if you have any � questions regardin�these comments. Sincerely. / `�J � . �� Lupe C. Valdez Deputy Executive O�cer P��bli� Aff3i*S 21�d Transpertati�n P:o�:ar.:s LCV:KH:ME RVC98�81304 Convol: (ceqacalstatecoach) Attachment � �,,, ATTACHMENT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY SAN BERNARDINO COACHELLA VALLEY CAMPUS • The Lead Agency should further identify any poteatial adverse air quality impacts that could occur from all phases of project construction. In addition to the potential for fugitive dust emissions identified in Table III-18, construction related impacts typically include grading, earth loading/unloading, paving, architectural coatings, heavy-duty construction equipment, material vansport trips and construction worker B.1 . vehicle trips. The projected daily peak emissions should be representative of the number of hours in a workday, the number of hours of equipment usage, and the . length of time for project completioq under a worst case scenario. Ail aspects of the project`s construction and operation should be evaluated cumulatively for significant impacts. . • � Based upon the information received regarding the proposed project, AQNID staff was unable to identify calculations that support the emissions estimates listed in �2 Tables III-18; III-19; III-20: III-21; and III-22. Project specific calculations should be provided to facilitate corroboration of the results by the public. � Page I-4 refers to the 1991 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Please note that the most cunently adopted AQMP is the 1997 Plan. The 1997 AQMP has also been approved by the Califomia Air Resources Board and forwarded to U.S. EPA as part of the State Implementation Plan revision. Although U.S. EPA has not taken � . approval actioa on the 1997 AQMP, this document should be referred to in the Final EIR. Copies are available through the AQMD's Public Information Center at (909) � � 396-3600. • Please clarify whether any of the mitigation measures proposed are required by . AQNID rules or regulations. Please be advised that when a.n a.ir quality. impact is deternuned to be significaat, the AQMD expects the mitigation measures proposed to go above and beyond air quality standazds estalilished by our rules and regulations. EiQNID does not acknowledge compliance with our niles as a replacement for CEQA � mitigation activities. It would be helpful for the Lead Agency to include a list of mitigation measures that distinguishes between AQMD regulations to be complied with and the CEQA mitigation measures proposed for reducing emissions below significance. • Relative to the abo� comment, please specify all potential sources of emissions, appropriate mitigation measures, mitigation measure control efficiencies, and net emissions after application of mitigation measures. Net� emissions should be � compared side by side with AQNID significance thresholds. This information would � be most beneficial if provided in a table format. � Y1 ATEq ESTABlISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC . .�CY ��STR1�� COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058•COACHELLA,CALIFORNIA 92236�TELEPHONE(760)398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS TELLIS COOEKAS,PRESIOENT TFIOMAS E.LEVY.GENERAL MANAGER•CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMONO R.RUMMONDS,VICE PRESIDENT All 11S t. Z S. 19 98 BERNARDINE SUTTON,SECREfARY JOHN W.MeFADOEN S OWEN McC00K 0.SSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER DOROTHY M.NICHOLS REDWINE ANO SHERRIIL,ATTORNEYS THEODOfiE 1.FISH File: 1150.06 RECEIVE� Philip Drell AUG 2 7 �99$ Director of Community Development C�OdMUNIIYG�{��ppAf�� ity of Palm Desert CRYOFPq�pEg�'��T 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert� California 92260 , Dear Mr. Drell: Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the California State University San Bernardino Coachella Vallev Campus Master Plan We have reviewed the draft environmental report for the above referenced project and we appreciate the opportunity to respond to this important document. Our comments can be found in the enclosed Attachment A. If you have any questions or require additional information please call Joe Cook� planning engineer, extensiun 292. Yours very truly, (.c1�-Y— C m Levy General Manager-Chief Engineer Enclosure/l/as .TEC:md\eng\sw\aug\csu TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY � . ATTACFII�IENT A 1. Page II-14. adoption or amendment of a general plan or specific plan is not identified in the draft EIA and therefore, a water supply assessment C-1 (SB-901) is not required. 2. Page III-46, under the heading "Mitigation Measures, " Item No. 5 to be revised as follows: . � G2 '•Recycled water supplies may not be sufficient to meet all of the project's irrigation demands. " 3. Page III-80, under the heading "Sewage Disposal Service•' under the subheading "Existing Conditions, " second paragraph to be revised as follows: "The sewage treatment plant serving this site and the vicinity is � located at Avenue 38 and Madison Street near the City of Indio. The plant currently treats about 2.5 million gallons per day. " 4. Page III-80., under the heading "Sewage Disposal Service" under the subheading "No. 3 Mitigation Measures� " second sentence to be revised as follows: � G4 "Capacity is available at the Coachella Valley Water District Water Reclamation Plant No. 7 located at Avenue 38 and Madison Street near the City of Indio. " JBC:md\ong\aw�aug\c'u � sTATE OF CALlFORNIA-BUSINES3,1'R! 9RTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY � PETE WI�SON,GoNemw DEPARTMENT OF TRAN�PORTATION o�cre, �uw.an str�Er,ecn�ooR �:E�ES�,/ED SAN BERNARDINO,CA 92401-1�00 A'�� 2 4 1998 C�AIMUNITY 6EVELOP�fEhR DEPhA7AlENT C(iY OF PqI,M pESERT August 20, 1998 08-Riv-10-47.00 SCH 97111071 Mr. Phil Drell City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive ` Palm Desert,` CA 92260 Dear Mr. Drell: Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) C_ �_ T_ oa _h 1 1 a _am=�,c _ As a result of your conversation with Mr. Mike Sim of this office on August 19, 1998 , the Draft Environmental Impact Report was again reviewed. While some of the original requested • documents are not actually required, we still have the following concerns: • Due to the proximity of this proposal to our Interstate 10 (I-10) facility, please send copies of the following to this office at the earliest opportunity: —PT,OT�GTTF. PT.AN Depicting all existinq and pr�,posea facilities,. structures, vegetation, adjacent streets (with centerlines and driveways) , etc. and with a vicinity Map. Also, this document shall depict the distance to D-1 the State riglzt of way line from the project's northeasterly property line. -STRF.F.T TMPR�VF.MFNT PT.AN Depicting all existinq and re a� sed striping, signing, signalization, curbs and driveways (graphically differentiated) . Specifically at the I-10/Cook Street interchange. � � _ ' Mr. Phil Drell � Auqust 20, 1998 � _ Page 2 • Because construction is required at the intersection of Cook Street and I-10 as mitigation (page III-23 of DEIR) , the developer must obtain an encroachment permit from the D-2 District 8 Permits Office prior to beginning any work within the State riqht of way. The "Instructions" for the completion of a Caltrans encroachment permit, which wer ' sent in our previous letter, may be used for that purpose. The address and phone number are listed below: Office of Permits California Department of Transportation 464 West Fourth Street, S�h �'loor, MSo19 San Bernardino, CA 92401-1400 � (909) 383-4536 Additional comments and concerns may be expressed upon receipt of the. above-noted documents. If you have any questions, please ccntact Mike Sim at (909) 383-4808 or FAX (909) 383-5936. . Sincerely, LINDA GRIMES, Chief Office of Reqional Planning/ Forecasting/Public Transportation cc: Naidu Athuluru, Encroachment Permits - Riv. Co. Allyn Waggle, CVAG . .� �OWlR COACHELLA VALLEY POWER DIVISION 81-600 AVENUE 58 • P. O. BOX 1080 • LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA 92253-1080 TELEPHONE (760) 398-5854 • FAX (760) 391-5999 August 5, 1998 �ECElVES� � City of Palm Desert Attn: Mr. Philip Drell AUG 121998 73-510 Fred Waring Drive COAIAIUNITYGEYELOPµENTDEPHRTbiENT Palm Desert CA 92260 C�tY 0�PAIM DESEiiT Dear Mr. Drell, Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR) for the California State University San Bemardino Coachella Valley Campus Master Plan; between Interstate 10 and Frank Sinatra Drive, east of Cook Street; Palm Desert. Thank you for the opportunity to review this DEIR. The Imperial Irrigation District(District) would like to make a few corrections in the statements within this DEIR. Except for the last sentence of the second para�raph,the "Electrical Service"section on page II-14 is the same as � the "1. Existing Condirions"section on page III-82. The District does not take exception to this difference, however, there are some changes that need to be made within the second paragraph on both of these pages. Please r�place the sentence: - "IID has indicated that it has no facilities in Section 34, although a conduit was constructec� and in+earated into the Cook Street/Interstate-10 overpass." With: "IID has an overhead 12 kV distribution line ninning north/south along the center of Section 34 frorn north of Interstate 10 to Frank Sinatra Drive. This distribution line then continues to the east, E-i along the northem right-of-way of Frank Sinatra Drive. A conduit system was installed in the Cook Street/Interstate-10 overpass and continues along the eastem edge of Cook Street to the northem edge of Gerald Ford Drive. Here it turns to the east and continues along the northern right-of-way of Gerald Ford Drive for approximately 50' where the conduit system then stops. Mr.Philip Dtell -2- , Au�ust 5, 1998 Please replace the last sentence of the second paragraph with these sections with: "The IID does provide electrical service to the Emerald Desert E-2 Resort project." Please also check with Ms. Mary Drury of SCE regazding the statement in the second paragraph "(SCE) has an underground 12 kV distribution line located within the Cook Street right-of-way along the entire length of the subject property." There was a dispute approximately one year ago involving the electrical service to the traffic and street lights at the intersection of Interstate 10 and Cook Street. I believe that at that time, SCE did not have any distribution facilities within the azea. Of course, they may have installed a system since then. The District concurs with the remainder of the statements made on pages III-82 and III-83 in that the District will need the College to purchase a 2+acre substation site north of Interstate 10 and to construct the required distribution facilities from this site to the campus. Also,the issue regarding the construction of the 230 kV transmission line is,unfortunately, still within the court system. , A Developer's Information Letter is enclosed wluch specifies the IID's requirements. Among these requirements aze IID regulations which state the underground conduit and vault system (including any required street lightin� system)will be installed at the expense of the Owner/Developer/Contractor. These underground facilities will include padmount transformers (averaging three feet in width,length, and height)and padmount switches (approximately six feet in width and length and four feet in height). An azea approximately ten feet in radius around these facilities must be kept clear of shrubs ancl similaz landscape vegetation to insure the safety of IID personnel during maintenance and operation of the equipment. While the technology exists to put 92KV sub-transmission lines underground,the IID does not presently have the technical expertise to install nor maintain these systems. These undergound tran�mission lines aze approximately five times as expensive to install and maintain as overhead transmission lines. It would place an unfair burden upon all of our existing customers if the costs � for these underground systems were absorbed by the IID. Therefore, the installation and maintenance costs for any underground sub-transmission line desired by a City, County, or developer will have to bome by that City, County, or developer. Customers requiring a very lazge amount of power(in excess of 5 MVA) may have to purchase the power at sub-transmission or transmission voltage. In these instances, extra facilities may have to be installed by the customer to minimize their impact upon the electrical system. Customers requiring more than one electrical source for their service(throw-over service) will have to pay for the complete cost to provide that additional service. IID must have access at all times to its facilities for maintenance and emergency situations. If IID facilities are to be located within a gated community or secured area, provision must be made for access by IID personnel. ' ''Mr.Philip Drell -3- August 5, 1998 All electrical service panels must meet the requirements of the IID. Drawings must be submitted to our La Quinta office located at 81-600 Avenue 58,Post Office Box 1080, La Quinta, CA 92253. These customer panel drawings must show references to EUSERC (Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee)drawing numbers. The maximum current density allowable for copper bus is 1,000 amps per square inch and 750 amps per squaze inch for aluminum bus. ` If you have any questions regazding this matter, or if I can be of further assistance, please contact me at(760) 398-5818 or John Salas at(760)398-5834. Sincerely, �� c: THOMAS F. LYONS, JR., PE Senior Engineer CC: Michel Remington, IID Tom King,IID � Richazd Macknicki, IID � Juan Salas, IID Enclosure State of Califomia - The Resour" gency � _______ �_____ PETE'WILSON, Govemor !�G�ARTMENT OF Fls� AND GAiVlF., - � http://www.dfg.ca.gov September i�, 1998 RECEIVED SEP 21 1998 Mr_ Philip Drell ��,��r Director of Community Development CrtYOFPAWDE�ERT City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Drell: Draft Environmental Impact Report CSU San Bernardino Coachella Valley Campus Master Plan � Riverside County The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has r.eviewed the above-referenced project, relative to impacts to biological resources. The proposed groject is located in the northern portion of Palm Desert, Riverside County (Township 4 South, Range 6 Ea�t, SE 1/4 of Section 33 and the- SW 1/4 of Section 34) . The proposed project involves the development of � 120 acres of an agproximately 200-acre site for classrooms, dormitories and other college buildings and facilities. The remaining 80 acres will be used for on-site roads and drives, parking lots and structures, dedications of public rights-of-way, landscaped open space areas and water featu�es, and ancillary on-site supporting facilities. Department staff visited the site with the City of Palm Desert' s Consultinc� Planner, Mr. John D_ Criste, on Segtember 1Q, 1998_ The �roposed project site is located in potential habitat for a number of sensitive pZant and animal species, including the state-listed Endangered and federally-listed Threatened Coachella Va1'_ey fringe-toed Zizard ( [hna inornata) and the federally proposed Endangered Coachella Valley milkvetch (Astragalvs lentiginosus var. coache.Ilaej . Other sensitive species that may occur on the project site include, but are not limited to, : flat- tailed horned lizard (Phyrnosoma mcalli) ; Palm Springs ground squirrel (Spermophilus teritaudus chlorus) ; Palm Springs pocket mouse (Perognathus longintembris bangsi) ; and burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicular"ia) . Each of the above four species is designated as a California Species of Special Concern. All of the above species, with the exception of the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, are proposed for inclusion in the Coachella . Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) , presently under development by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments . C��oti•�w•�•� C��o�k'� �,U' ' e � �?��0. the above specie.� with the exception of th� �oachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, are proposed for inclusion in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) , presently under development by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. Section 15380 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires the lead agency to treat sensitive species as though they were listed, if the species meets the criteria for listing described in the section. The Department believes that the proposed project could further the decline of several sensitive F-i species . These species must be treated as though they were listed and appropriate avoidance, mitigation and compensation for impacts need to be identified. Unavoidable impacts should be � mitigated through �acquisition and protection, in perpetuity, of high quality biological habitat. The Department has determined that the survey methodology reported in the Draft EIR was inadequate for at least two of the sensitive species that potentially occur on the project site. Biological surveys for the Coachella Valley milkvetch should have been conducted in spring when the plant is visible and not in F-2 October when the plant would likely have been undetectable. The same is true for the flat-tailed horned lizard, whose presence would :have been most detectable during spring and early summer. The Draft EIR proposes four biologic�l mitigation measures to offset impacts to sensitive biological resources from the proposed project: (1) The voluntary payment of $121, 800 in Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard fees (203 acres @ $600/acre) under the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP� ; (2) a $15, 000 voluntary contribution to the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan; (3) the avoidance of invasive exotic plants in the project landscape p1an; and (4) the use of drought resistant native plants in the landscape palette for the proposed project. while the ga�m.ent Q� the $6QQlacre fee uzider the Goachella Valle� F-3 fringe-toed lizard HCP wouZd constitute adequate mitigation for the Coachella Va].ley fringe-toed lizard, it would not necessarily provide any mitigation for the remaining five sensitive species. The HCP was developed to mitigate for impacts to only that species. If the project proponent can adequately demonstrate that the 5121, 800 will be used to acquire habitat that contains all of the sensitive species cited as potentially impacted by the proposed project, then the actual land acquisition may be construed to adequ tely mitigate for all of the sensitive species, -- but on�y if .this can be clearly shown prior to initiation of the project. Under Section 15370 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Department can not consider the contribution of $15, 000 to the Coachella Valley F,4 MSHCP as mitigation of actual or potential project impacts to .. . .' sensitive specie��W� Although the Department '�` supportive of the development of the Coachella Valley MSHCP, it is not a completed � plan and there are no guarantees that it will be completed. Payment of funds to a plan does not avoid the project impacts, F� does not minimize the project impacts through preservation and �d maintenance of habitat, nor does it compensate for project impacts by providing replacement habitat. CEQA case law (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino) has determined that a project cannot rely on mitigation measures that have not been formulated at the time of project approval. While the Department is supportive of the proposals to avoid the use of invasive, exotic plant species and to use drought F� resistant native plants in the project landscape, these proposals are poorly 'developed at this point in the project and would not, in any event, constitute mitigation for impacts to the sensitive species cited above and their habitats. Impacts to the state-listed Endangered Coachella Valley fringe- toed lizard will require the project proponent to obtain a California Ezdangered Species Act (CESA) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) /Incidental Take Permit under Section 2081 of the California Fish and Game Code. CESA-MOU' s/Incidental Take F� Permits are issued to conserve, protect, enhance and restore state-;listed threatened or endangered species and their habitats. Mitigation proposals for state-listed species should be of sufficient detail and resolution to satisfy the requirements under CESA. The Department requests that, prior to finalizing the draft EIR, City staff ineet with the Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to resolve outstanding biological - mitigation issues. Please contact Mr. Glenn Black of the Department at (909) 597-5043 and Mr. Ken Cory of the Service at (760) 431-9440 to set up such a meeting. In summary, the Department does not object to approval of the proposed pro�ect, provided that adequate biological mitigation measures for impacts to Endangered or sensitive species can be identified and agreed upon prior to the issuance of a final EIR, The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Questions regarding this letter should be directed to Mr. Jim Dice, Plant Ecologist, at (760) 767-3384 or Ms. Sharon Keeney, Fishery Biologist, at (760) 347-3145. � Sincerely, � �1 urt Taucher Regional Manager CC: Mr. Ken Cory � U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad, California Mr. John Criste Terra Nova Planning & Research Inc. 400 South Farrell, Suite B-205 Palm Springs, California 92262 � ;�,i _. : CALIfsORNIA STAY�E YNIVeIiSITY ADMINI$TRAT70N AND FINAIvc:� iAN P�RNARDINq O!!!oe e� tbe Vte• Prs■idaat 5300 Uaiversity Par1�w�T,9w Barnasdino�CA�34pT•ZS87 (909) 880-6230 Februaty 22, 1999 Mr. Phil Drell • Dircctor of Community llcvclvpment Ciry oP Palrn Desert ?3-510 Fred Vvaring Drive • Palrn Desert, CA 92260-2578 R�: Commenls and Concerns Regsrdtng the Enviroamental Imp�ct R�pun fnr the Cua�hella Valley Campus ofCatlfornia State Ut�iversiry, 3an Bemardin� Dear Mr. Drcll: As discusseci in our recent rneeting, I am writing to elaborate on the uaiquc cuiwre of the projeec Master Plan for the abovc refcrenced project, whic4� is proposed for developmeat at the northeast cor..�r of Franlc Sinava U�ive and Conk Street. We appreciate this oppa�urtity to provide cnmrnents and express concerns regnrding the Environmental impaet Report{EIR). The Californie Stau University(CSt�is a State agency,is gov�raed by a Board of Trustees,and is subject ta the 5rate of Califomia Higl�r Education Coda �`hcrefore, ihe vareaus campuscs and properties o�the California State University are not subject to county or munieipai codes. However,as you krtow,the Coaaheila Valley Campus Niasta Plan of CSU,San 8anardino,is being planaed on lands currcntty owncd by thc�City. For many months,tha City and the University hav� been workin�on a Disposition and neveioprnent A�ent(DDA). This document will sct farth the terms and cond'etions of the vansfer of these lands to the University ated will establish proc�dures by which the City will partieipau in over�eing or regulating the devetopment oTthe campus. The management and operation of the CJniversity is regulaicd by California Government Code, which 1imi�ts the type and degree of rnitigation,gifts, and fees that th�University can pay in the course of develaping University property. Undcrstanding thz nccd to bridge the sd�regulating function of the CSU systero az�d the proper regu[atory concerns of the City,we wauld likc to make the fotlowing comments: �c�.�;a s�v„�:� �c�u.tl�eld•CJ+an�e!!rlcnd:•C�ivo•QOMledun X�+' �ru�O'�llO7oa'!'1a7�+d•Rumboldt•LonaD�ad�•l,ao M�e4�•lrarilJMe/land�y 1{[e�rsv poY•1�►ptk�i�j�e•lbnana•Saomnwa•30�Bs�a►dieo•8a.Diqt,•Sor PMowt�ao•Sa+Jar-Sanlaus�i�po•Sanllio�•Se+�a•�M�s Mr. Phil nret I February 22, !999 Pa�c 2 1. As a State agency,the Califomia 5tau Uaive�iry is not subject w the City's ragulatory functions,as set forth in the Diaft EIR. Whi1e we appreciate the efforts of the City to assure rhe proper asid aPl�l�� d�velopmtnt of tEse subject propertY aud the�teed to mitigate G-1 pot�nl.isi impacts,ihe UniversitY cac�not be made subject w the City's regulatory autharity. Thc EIR should bc modi��d to ra$cct tho rcgulatory and mitigation framswork stt forth tn the Disposition and Development A�eement betwe�n tlu C,alif'arnia State University and the City of Falm Desert Redevelop�aent Agency. 2. Thc Californi�Statc Univtcsity is not subject to 1oca1 municipel fees. Developme�nt ax►d impact mitigation fees azc discussed in several se�ctians of the project EIR and the City ts GZ ref�renced a�one of tk�e regulating agenaies imposing nr collecting these fees. With regard to the payrnent of development or impact fecs,the EIR should be modificd to rc[lcct thc reguiatory and mitigation framework set forth in the CSU/City DDA. 3. Once the property is transf�red t�the Cr�.liFomia State University,it willro e e��hould G3 levying or payment of property tax. Re�erences in the E1R rcgarding p p Y t,e removed from ths LI�Z. 4. '1'he EIR indicates that th� subject property is l�c:ated within the ser�►ice distriets of both Southern California Edison(SCE)2uid the Imperial Irrigation District(IID). The IID has indicated that the University�Il be required to purchase Iand f�r an off-site subslxtinn and � pay fnr the cortstruction of a transmission�Iiz►e tv serve the campus- 7he University does aoc �.ish to be procluded from securing power�om cithcr provider,or in negatiating how servic:e may be cxtcnded to tho site, if necessary. The Ellt should maintain or deciare the tJniversity's flexibility in warkin8 with che scrvice providcrs in this r�g+�rd• 5. The �IH �ndicates the imPact mitigat�°n fees will bc paid to address loss of habitat and impacts to biological resources. The California Statr.Univecsity t�as specific perwers impiied G5 by state law other than the Califomia Envir4nmenca!C2uality Act(CEQA, Fublic Resources Code 21 UU4). Therefore,we believe tbat the CSU is not subject to the paycnenc of thcse fe�s. wherher�oluntary nr otherwise requir�d b�law. 6. The Califarnia State University agrxs and wishcs ta reini'oree the eoz�clusion of the Dcaft EIR that the CSU is exencapt froai the PaYme"t af the totai'I'cansporration Uruform Mitigation Fee(TUM�). In addition,tho�1R citzs s variety of other mitigatioz►rneasures,recluired both on-site and off-site, which wiill be necessary to assure that area road�ways and ir�tersections � cantinue to aperate at accep�table levels of service. Whi1e the CSU agrees tha� it will be responsibte for on-site[mpact mitigation,the University has limit�d po�for mitigeting off-site impacts. The Fina!EIR should clarify what constitutes on-site mitigation measures, which should be the limit of the Utiversity's responsibilities. Mr_Phil Drel! - Fcbniary 22, 1999 Page 3 7. The developmeat of a Uaive�ty l�ca�tch c�cpus is au pcpettsive p�vposition,wbich becnefitS thc catirc r�gion and wIll.thcrefoer,require the su�pport of tha loc�al oommwtitics as well as G7 the County. 8. The E,iRR eppears to can�adict itself wtth regard to the manag�of flood[ng and drainage issues. In one i�s�nce,the EIR rcquires the on-siu retention or dc�ntioa of storm waters, while elsewhete t�u�it Sta�es that rim0�'gene�te�on-s3tC Ca�b�diSchaorged n+orn the slte_ G8 These apparent concrsdicricros shot�td be addressed and the responsibifities of du University clarified. Sincerel , � � �� David DcMauro � V ic�Pre�sid�nl for Achninistratian sud Financc , � The Gas Comvany� �.�r�d��?% S`� 211998 September 14, 1998 c;,„;„;�;;.;rrc��i.o�'�,:`:��`-'�;'^�r�;�a�fi crr o�P�t�a�F��ar 1 City of Palm Desert Community Development Southern Calitomia 73-510 Fred Waring Drive ce�c�Pam Palm Desert, CA .9ZZGO 1931 Lugonia Aurnt Redlaadr,C.4 Attention: Philip Dreli Mailing Addreu: Bar 3003 Re: D�aft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 97111071) for the R�d�Q„�,c., California State University San Bemardino Coachella Valley eampus 92373-0306 Master Plan Gas Co. Reference No. 98-225 Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above-referenced item. Please note that Southem Califomia Gas Company has facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed. Gas service to the project could be provided without any significant impact on the environment. The service would be in accocdance with the Company's policies and extension rules on file with the Califomia Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are made. You should be aware that this letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to serve the proposed project, but only as an informational service. The av2'.;ability of natural gas service, as set forth in this lette�, is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory policies. As a public utility, The Southem Califomia Gas Company is under the jurisdiction of the California Public Utilities Commission. We can also be affected by actions of federal regulatory agencies. Should these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the conditions under which service is available, gas servics will be provicled in accordance with revised conditions. Typicai demand use for. a. Residential (System Area Average/Use Per Meter) Yearl Single Family 799 therms/year dwelling unit Multi-Family 4 or less units 482 therms/year dwelling unit Multi-Fariaily 5 or more units 483 therms/year dwelling unit These averages are based on total gas consumption in residential units served by Southern California Gas Company, and it shouid not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes will use these amounts of energy. ,"'""� . . b. Commercial Due to the fact that construction varies so widely (a glass building vs. a heavily insulated building) and there is such a wide variation in types of materials and equipment used, a typical demand figure is not available for this type of construction. Calculations would need to be made after the building has been . designed. We have Demand Side Management programs availabfe to commerciaUndustrial customers to provide assistance in selecting the most effective applications of energy conservation techniques for a particular pr�ject. If you desire further infoRnation on any of our energy conservation programs, please contact our Commercial/Industrial Support Center at 1-800-GAS-2000. Sincerely, � . � Ronald E. Ree Technical Supervisor � "�-�' SOUfHERN CALIFORNIA , . _ a e' -- - �lary Drury - �:� E D i�S u IV Region;�l�na�er An fDISU:V l,�7F.K.�4TIU,�AL"'Cumpany _ RE�lE��4F_�' i�;=U 18 1998 September 17, 1998 ��;,+,;;��;�!T1��ir;;,;:;,;c�,,,;ir�.:rt� C(i'!G�"Yi::.N:=:.�iT Mr. Philip Drell n�re�+or ef Comr!�!��ity nevelorment City of Paim Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Paim Deserf, CA 92260 Subject: Draff Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 97111071)for the California State University, San Bernardino-Coachelia Valley Campus Master Plan Dear Mr. Drefl: Thank you for including the Southern California Edison Company (SCE) in the review process of the subject document. In reviewing the document,we notice that some of the information that SCE provided in the March 18, 1998 letters to Mr. Jon Criste (Terra Nova Planning 8� Research Inc.) from me in response to the Notice of Preparation of an Env��onmenfial Impact Report has been included in the Draff EIR. SCE has no additional comments. Please call me at (760) 202-4251 if you have any questions or need additional ;nfo�mc�ion. r ly. Mary Drury Region Manager � i61 UU Cathedral Cam�on Cathcdral Cit}.C,4 922i-F 76U-2U3--F351 Fax 760-202-=F 1 i6 °�, - ,-_-:-. , ' - , � - PALM SPRINGS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIC 333 SOUTH FARRELL DHI' PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262 •79 (760) 416-80 FAX (760j 416-80 WILLIAM E. DIEDRICH, Ph.D., Superintendent of School BOARD OF EDUCATION:DONALD T.AIKENS,PresideM—MEREDY SHOENBERCaEfl,Clerk LESUE DeMERSSEMAN,Membei—IWDREW GREEN,Member—MICHAEL McCABE,Member RECEIVED August 10, 1998 a�� 121998 PJ!r. Philip Drell ��'1'�EYEI.OPMElrTDEPNRTt�ItWT Director of Cornmunity Development ��P�DESEpT City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive • Paim Desert, CA 92260 Subject: Draft EIR-SCH No. 97111071-Califomia State University Mr. Drell, t have reviewed the Environmental Impact Report for the above-indicated project and find it will not have an impact on the school district. Portions of the project rnay also not be subject to statutory school fees since it is an agency of the State of Califomia. Sinc ; Witiiam J. Schmi , Director Facilities Planning and QeveloFment WJS:kIb C:�Fac 8 PIan�City_CountylCity of PD�Oraft EIR-SCH No.97111071 CSU.doc STAT�OF CAUFQRNIA � PETE WILSON.Csovemor Govemor's Offiee of Planning and Research � �. 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 � RECEIVEI� SEP 211998 � September 15, 1998 ��,�N�e��D�^�'� CtTY Q�PALld�7E5ERT PHT_LIP DRELL CITY OF PALM DESERT " 'I3-510 F'RED WARIrIG DRIVE P.�,LM DESERT, CA 92260 Subject: COACHELLA VALLEY CAMPUS/CAL STATE UNIVERSITY SAN BERNARDINO SCH #: 97111071 Dear PHILIP DRELL: � ' The State Clearinghouse has submitted the above named draft Environmental Impact Reoort (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period` is now closed and the comments froai the responding agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. On the enclosed Notice of Completion form you will note that the Clearinghouse has checked the agencies that have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure that your comment package is complete. If the comment package is not in order, please notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Remember to refer to the project's eignt-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly. ?lease note that� Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code, required that: °a responsible agency or ether public agency shaZl only make substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to be carried out or approved by the agency. " Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their comments with specific documentation. . These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. Should you need more information or clarification, we recommend that you contact the commenting agency(ies) . � This letter acknowledges that yo� have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Envirenmental Quality Act. Please contact at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questior.s regarding the environmental review process. Sincerely, . �� "' '' 'ANTERO A: RIVASPLATA Chief, State Clearinghouse ' Enclosures - cc: Resources Agency