HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal EIR FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH No. 2015081020
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
LEAD AGENCY:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Contact: Ryan Stendell, Community Development Director
(760) 636-5860
CONSULTANT:
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL, INC.
3536 Concours Street, Suite 100
Ontario, CA 91764
Contact: Aaron Pfannenstiel,
Project Manager
(909) 918-2998
October 2016
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TABLE OF CONTENTS
Final EIR
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title Page
1.0 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................1
2.0 Responses to Comments ...............................................................................................................5
Comment Letters Received prior to October 3, 2016 Deadline
Comment Letter 1 – Desert Sands Unified School District .......................................................5
Comment Letter 2 – Airport Land Use Commission Riverside County .................................7
Comment Letter 3 – Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians ........................................9
Comment Letter 4 – Coachella Valley Water District ..............................................................11
Comment Letters Received after October 3, 2016 Deadline (Late Comments)
Comment Letter 5 – Holland and Knight ..................................................................................17
3.0 Errata ...............................................................................................................................................27
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE TABLE OF CONTENTS
Final EIR
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Final EIR
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and the City of Palm
Desert (City) policies for implementing CEQA, Michael Baker International Inc. has prepared the Final
Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) for the proposed University Neighborhood Specific Plan (UNSP),
proposed One Eleven Development Code (which includes policy guidance, development standards, and
design guidelines for the Highway 111 corridor), and the proposed City of Palm Desert 2015 General Plan
Update, which is an update to the City’s Comprehensive General Plan originally adopted on March 15,
2004.
The following is an excerpt from the CEQA Guidelines Section 15132:
“The Final EIR shall consist of:
(a)The Draft EIR or a version of the draft.
(b)Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary.
(c)A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR.
(d)The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and
consultation process.
(e)Any other information added by the Lead Agency.”
This Responses to Comments document, together with the original Draft EIR text include all of the above
required components to make up the Final EIR. Each comment letter is followed by the corresponding
response(s). A response is provided for each written and verbal comment raising significant environmental
issues, as received by the City during the Draft EIR public review period.
1.1 BACKGROUND
The City, as lead agency, has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed University
Neighborhood Specific Plan (UNSP), proposed One Eleven Development Code (which includes policy
guidance, development standards, and design guidelines for the Highway 111 corridor), and the proposed
2015 General Plan Update (together, the proposed Project; Project). The Project encompasses future
community development plans from now until 2040, and provides long-term planning guidelines for the
City‘s growing population and projected development.
The City is likely to grow from its current population of approximately 50,500 to a population of
approximately 61,000 by 2040. This growth is expected to include approximately 8,000 new households and
14,000 new jobs over the 25-year planning horizon.
The City determined that the update to the 2004 Comprehensive General Plan would clearly require
preparation of an Environmental Impact Report to address all aspects of the environmental analysis
resulting from the Project. As a result, the City did not prepare an Initial Study as permitted in Section
15060(d) of the CEQA Guidelines.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Final EIR
2
To determine the scope of the Draft EIR, the City prepared and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP)
for the proposed Project. Baseline conditions from which this Draft EIR evaluates impacts were established
at the time the Notice of Preparation (NOP) was released on August 5, 2015 and identified that the Draft
EIR would address focused environmental topics identified in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The content of the General Plan Update describes intended development and advised changes to be made
to the cityscape and community over the next 25 years. The proposed elements, with their respective goals
and policies, address a number of topics including Land Use & Community Character, Mobility, Health &
Wellness, Environmental Resources, Safety, Noise, and Public Services and Utilities. The City’s Housing
Element is current, has been certified by the state, and is not being included as a part of this update. The
NOP distributed on August 5, 2015, identified the following environmental issues that were addressed in
the Draft EIR:
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geological Resources
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use
Noise
Recreation
Transportation
A total of thirteen comment letters were received during the NOP comment period. Comment letters were
received from public agencies and tribal government agencies. The NOP and comment letters received
regarding the NOP are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. Overall issues raised by the public and
tribal government agencies during the NOP review period and at the public scoping meeting include the
following:
Recommendation to include information regarding planned water treatment facilities and
infrastructure and recently-adopted water quality goals and programs.
Request to have a Native American monitor present during implementation of projects associated
with the General Plan Update.
Concern regarding the generation of substantial amounts of solid waste that would be diverted to
landfills that are scheduled for closure during the planning horizon of the General Plan Update.
Concern regarding the clarity of the proposed land use designations map and request to revise the
map accordingly.
Recommendation to include language that allows for increased use of alternative fuel technologies
and related infrastructure.
Concern regarding airport land use compatibility.
The Draft EIR, with an accompanying Notice of Completion (NOC), was circulated to the State
Clearinghouse, trustee agencies, responsible agencies, other government agencies, and interested members
of the public for a 45-day review period as required by CEQA on August 19, 2016. The review period for
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 1.0 INTRODUCTION
Final EIR
3
the Draft EIR extended from August 19 to October 3, 2016. Shortly after releasing the Draft EIR for public
review and comment, City staff noticed that Table 25.18-2 “Downtown District Development Standards”
contained in Draft EIR Technical Appendix 3.0-2 (The One Eleven Development Code) overstated land use
intensities along the Highway 111 corridor. As a result, on August 24, 2016, the City recirculated Technical
Appendix 3.0-2 (The One Eleven Development Code) with the corrected Table 25.18-2, as well as corrected
minor typographical errors on pages 19, 27, and 28 of Technical Appendix 3.0-2, and initiated a 45-day
public review and comment period on the recirculated Technical Appendix 3.0-2. This comment period
extended from August 24 through October 7, 2016.
During the Draft EIR review period, the City received 4 comment letters from the following: 1) Desert Sands
Unified School District; 2) Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission; 3) Twenty Nine Palms Band
of Mission Indians; and 4) Coachella Valley Water District. After the close of the public review and
comment period on the Draft EIR, but before the close of the public review and comment period on the
recirculated Technical Appendix 3.0-2 (The One Eleven Development Code), the City received an
additional comment from the law firm Holland and Knight; however, this letter commented on the Draft
EIR and University Neighborhood Specific Plan, which exceed the scope of the recirculated Technical
Appendix 3.0-2. Response to substantive comments from these agencies/organizations are provided herein
and none of the comments provided raise significant new issues that would constitute significant new
information under CEQA.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
4
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
COMMENT LETTER NO. 1
Desert Sands Unified School District
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
5
Response No. 1
Patrick Cisneros, Director
This letter is from the Desert Sands Unified School District. It expresses a generalized concern regarding
impacts of development in the Project area on the school system, and reiterates that there is a development
impact fee required for payment by all new development projects. This comment is noted and the
requirement for payment of development impact fees is recognized in the Draft EIR Public Services and
Utilities section. Specifically, California Education Code Section 17620 authorizes school districts to levy a
fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against any development project for the construction or
reconstruction of school facilities, provided that the district can show justification for levying of fees.
Government Code 65995 limits the fee to be collected to the statutory fee (Level I) unless a school district
conducts a Facility Needs Assessment (Government Code Section 65995.6) and meets certain conditions.
These fees are adjusted every two years in accordance with the statewide cost index for Class B
construction, as determined by the State Allocation Board provides full mitigation for potential impacts of
development to schools.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
6
COMMENT LETTER NO. 2
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
7
Response No. 2
Ed Cooper, Director
This letter is from the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. The letter states that the ALUC has
no objections to the General Plan Update EIR or the conclusions made therein. It also recognizes that the
City understands the need to submit all projects located within the Airport Influence Area to the ALUC for
consistency review. Adherence to applicable policies within the General Plan will provide compliance with
these requirements on future developments in the Airport Influence Area. Specifically, Policy 6.5 in the
General Plan Safety Element requires proposed actions to be referred for review, determination and
processing by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission as provided by the Airport Land Use
Law. The Airport Land Use Commission office shall be notified and sent a Request for Agency Comments
for all new projects, and projects proposing added floor area or change in building occupancy type within
2 miles of the airport.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
8
COMMENT LETTER NO. 3
Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
9
Response No. 3
Anthony Madrigal, Jr., Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
This letter is from the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians. The letter states that the Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer (THPO) is not aware of any archaeological/cultural sites or properties that pertain to
the Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians.
However, the Tribe is requesting a copy of any cultural resource report that applies to the University
Neighborhood Specific Plan (UNSP). Regarding this request, it should be noted that a site-specific cultural
resources report was not completed as part of this UNSP Project because the majority of the project site is
already disturbed as a result of previous grading. In addition, the site is surrounded by existing
development on all sides. However, the cultural resources Technical Background Report (TBR) associated
with the Draft EIR describes the results of a citywide records search conducted as part of the General Plan
Update, which includes the UNSP area. A records search through the California Historical Resources
Information System (CHRIS) housed at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California,
Riverside, identified a total of 53 recorded cultural resources within the city. Of these, 17 are historic, 35,
are prehistoric, and 1 is multicomponent. Of these resources, none are listed in the California Register of
Historical Resources (CRHR) or the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The records search
indicated that a total of 50 cultural resource studies have been conducted within the city of Palm Desert
with the earliest listed study conducted in 1973. Of these, only three were conducted in the last five years
and are not considered out of date. According to information held at the EIC, approximately one-third of
the city has been included in a cultural resource study, leaving at least two-thirds of the city un-surveyed
for cultural resources, as shown in Figure 6-1 of the TBR.
Because physical conditions change over time and cultural resource assessments can become outdated,
cultural resource assessments for specific, individual project sites are conducted for developments which
are at a point in the planning process where they are considered to be reasonably foreseeable. Because no
development is proposed within the UNSP at this time, it is not feasible to conduct a site-specific survey.
However, individual future projects that are submitted to the City for development on the project site will
be required to comply with mitigation measures provided in Section 4.6, “Cultural Resources” of the Draft
EIR.
Specifically, implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.6-2a through MM 4.6-2d is required for future
projects that require excavation activity (e.g., clearing/grubbing, grading, trenching, or boring) into native
soil and that have the potential to exhibit native ground surface within or in the immediate vicinity of the
excavation footprint. These mitigation measures require project applicants to meet enforceable
performance standards through the preparation of a Phase I Assessment for archaeological resources and
consultation with local tribal agencies in accordance with AB 52. If resources are identified, they shall be
evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, the National
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
10
Register of Historic Places (if applicable), and/or a local listing and to determine whether the resource
qualifies as a unique archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA (Phase II Assessment). If the resources are
determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, appropriate mitigation
shall be developed and implemented to mitigate impacts to the resource.
In addition, archaeological construction monitoring and construction personnel awareness training shall
be conducted for development proposals that have a high potential to encounter previously unknown
buried resources during construction. If resources are encountered during construction, appropriate
treatment measures shall be developed to preserve the resource, with the preference being to preserve the
resource in place. If it is not feasible to preserve the resource in place, a program to remove or recover the
resource from the construction site shall be implemented. With these mitigation measures and compliance
with the above performance standards, any impacts to future cultural resources are anticipated to be less
than significant, as discussed in Section 4.6 of the Draft EIR, pages 4.6-7 through 4.6-9.
Additionally, the Environmental Resources Element of the City of Palm Desert General Plan contains goals
and policies intended to protect and preserve cultural and Native American resources and sites within the
Project area. Policy 9.3 requires notification of California Native American tribes and organizations of
proposed projects that have the potential to adversely impact cultural resources. Policy 10 requires
development to avoid archaeological and paleontological resources, whenever possible, and to minimize
and fully mitigate any impacts to such resources in the event that they cannot be avoided.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
11
COMMENT LETTER NO. 4
Coachella Valley Water District
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
12
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
13
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
14
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
15
Response No. 4
Steve Bigley, Director of Environmental Services
This letter is from the Coachella Valley Water District. The letter notes that the project lies within the study
area of the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update (Plan), the goal of which is to assure
groundwater basin sustainability. The letter reiterates that the elements and actions described in the Plan
shall be incorporated into the design of development associated with the project in order to maximize
sustainable water use and reduce the project’s negative impact on the Coachella Valley groundwater basin.
More specifically, the comment letter attaches and includes the District’s previously September 9, 2015
comment letter on the Notice of Preparation. The comments in that letter largely provide background
regarding water supply and the District’s various efforts to address water issues through various capital
and treatment projects. Those issues are addressed in the Draft EIR at pages 4.14-34 through 4.14-41.
The October 3, 2016 letter also provides suggested edits to the stormwater and sanitation discussions within
Draft EIR Sections 4.5, “Biological Resources,” 4.9, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” and 4.14, “Public
Service and Utilities”. These requested revisions are minor and editorial in nature and do not result in a
change to the respective impact determinations and analysis within the Draft EIR. These revisions have
been incorporated into the Draft EIR. Refer to Section 3.0, “Errata” below.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
16
COMMENT LETTER NO. 5
Holland and Knight
Comment Received After Close of Public Review Period
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
17
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
18
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
19
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
20
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
21
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
22
Response No. 5
Chelsea Maclean, Partner
Comment Received After Close of Public Review Period on the Draft EIR
This letter is from the law firm Holland and Knight dated October 7, 2016 on behalf of an unidentified
client. Although the letter recognizes the extended review period deadline of October 7, 2016, this extension
only applied to the Draft EIR Appendix Section that contains the One Eleven Development Code. Because
the comment letter appears to be commenting on issues outside of the One Eleven Development Code, all
comments contained in this letter are considered submitted after the close of the Draft EIR Public Review
period (October 3, 2016). Nonetheless, responses are provided below.
This letter contains one opening statement and nine separate comments, only one of which is applicable to
the Draft EIR (comment 2 below). The remainder of the comments (comments 3 through 10 below) are
specific to the language of the University Neighborhood Specific Plan (UNSP) component of the project.
1)Opening statement: This comment states that “the original review period was scheduled to close
on October 3, 2016, but that the Draft EIR was re-circulated, extending the review period until
October 7, 2016.” However, this is inaccurate. The 45-day review period for the Draft EIR ran from
August 19 through October 3, 2016. The 45-day review period for the recirculated Technical
Appendix 3.0-2 ran from August 24 through October 7, 2016. This latter review period ending on
October 7, 2016 is applicable only to Draft EIR Technical Appendix 3.0-2 (Highway 111
development code), and not the remainder of the Draft EIR. The review period for the Draft EIR
ended on October 3, 2016. Therefore, this comment letter is considered untimely.
2)Comment 1: This comment notes a typo in Draft EIR Table 4.16-1, “Population & Employment
Growth Estimate” regarding the UNSP area, which states there are “1,67” households for the UNSP
area. The comment requests correction to “2,618” dwelling units. The correction has been
incorporated. Refer to Section 3.0, “Errata” below.
3)Comment 2: This comment recommends revisions to Figure 2.3 and Table 2.1 of the UNSP in order
to more clearly delineate the division of property ownership. The recommended revisions have
been incorporated into the UNSP.
This comment applies to the UNSP component of the project only and does not apply to the Draft
EIR; therefore, this revision is not included in the Draft EIR errata. This revision will not result in
new potentially significant impacts beyond those identified in the Draft EIR because the revision
does not result in any change or reallocation of dwelling units within the planning areas. Instead,
this revision merely better describes and clarifies the types of housing units that are allowed within
this designation within the UNSP, and which were the basis for the environmental review within
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
23
the Draft EIR. It should be noted that this does not permit a change in the types of housing products
that are allowed in the UNSP, just further clarifies property ownership in the plan area.
4)Comment 3: This comment requests clarification of the description of the Neighborhood Medium
designation zone within the UNSP to allow for a range of attached housing products that is not
limited to rental apartments. The recommended revision has been incorporated into the UNSP. It
should be noted that this does not permit a change in the types of housing products that are
allowed in the UNSP, instead this just expands on the descriptions of the allowed development
types within this particular designation.
This comment applies to the UNSP component of the project only and does not apply to the Draft
EIR. This revision will not result in new potentially significant impacts beyond those identified in
the Draft EIR because the revision does not result in a change of the allowed housing product types.
Instead this revision merely clarifies the types of housing units that are allowed within this
designation, and which were the basis for the environmental review within the Draft EIR.
5)Comment 4: This comment recommends revisions to the UNSP development standards in order to
improve marketability of buildout, and several tables are included with recommended revised
development intensities, lot sizes, building configurations, etc. However, revisions to certain
development standards such as density reductions and modification of roadways, if implemented,
may result in greater environmental impacts than those identified in the UNSP. Therefore, the
following revisions have been incorporated into the UNSP for those development standards that
are not likely to result in greater environmental impacts; the revised version of the UNSP will be
presented to Planning Commission and City Council. The remainder of the requested development
standard revisions would likely result in greater environmental impacts, and therefore, have not
been incorporated into the UNSP.
Table 4.2, Subsection A) Decreased minimum lot depths for NL, NM zones;
Table 4.2, Subsection B) adjusted rear setbacks for lots without alleys in the NM zone;
Table 4.2, Subsection E) Increased width of secondary massing in the NC zone;
Table 4.3, Subsection G) Increasing the allowable encroachment into the public ROW for
zones NL, NM; and
Table 4.3, Subsection “Sign Type” table was updated to clarify where “signs” would be
permitted by zone.
This comment applies to the UNSP component of the project only and does not apply to the Draft
EIR. It should be noted that the amount of developed area within the UNSP will remain the same.
Although the development standards have been modified, the amount of disturbed area associated
with development will not change, therefore no additional impacts associated with air quality or
greenhouse gas emissions would occur. Further, no land uses will change as a result of these
revisions and these revisions will not result in additional development over what was analyzed in
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
24
the EIR, therefore no change in impacts associated with traffic will occur. Finally, although very
minimal changes in setbacks and massing would occur, adherence to the design guidelines of the
UNSP would prevent any aesthetic impacts. Therefore, these revisions will not result in new
potentially significant impacts beyond those identified in the Draft EIR.
6)Comment 5: This comment requests clarification that there may be separate schedule and phasing
plans for each City-owned property and each privately-owned property due to infrastructure that
has already been constructed for the privately-owned property. The recommended revisions have
been incorporated into the UNSP.
This comment applies to the UNSP component of the project only and does not apply to the Draft
EIR. This revision will not result in new potentially significant impacts beyond those identified in
the Draft EIR because the revision does not result in any changes to the overall content of the
schedule and phasing plans, but rather, separation of the individual plans for each City-owned
property and each privately-owned property. The phasing described in the UNSP is the City’s best
assumption of the most logical buildout for this area. However, there is no development proposed
at this time, and until an application for development is submitted, the City has no control over
which properties develop first. At the scale of environmental analysis conducted in this Draft EIR,
development of particular properties out of sequence of the proposed phasing plan would not alter
the impacts analyzed because with any proposed development, the Specific Plan requires that
adequate infrastructure is in place to support the proposed development and that all Specific Plan
and EIR requirements are met, which reduces impacts to less than significant levels. These
activities will occur during the subsequent discretionary review required at the time of submittal
of a development application and will comply with all applicable mitigation measures (such as,
Mitigation Measure 4.5-1, which requires preparation of a biological resources report and 4.6-1
which requires a cultural resource study at the time of development.) within the Draft EIR.
7)Comment 6: This comment requests deletion of the “Development Plan” Section 6.8(B) since the
corresponding procedures under the Municipal Code were repealed by Ordinance No. 1303 in
February 2016 to reflect new specific plan requirements. The recommended deletion has been
incorporated into the UNSP.
This comment applies to the UNSP component of the project only and does not apply to the Draft
EIR. This revision will not result in new potentially significant impacts beyond those identified in
the Draft EIR because the revision involves a minor update to reflect consistency with new
specific plan requirements.
8)Comment 7: This comment recommends correction of a typo of the maximum development yield
and density transfers on page 6-12, from 1,290 dwelling units to 2,618 dwelling units. The
correction has been incorporated into the UNSP.
It should be noted that this comment applies to the UNSP component of the project only and does
not apply to the Draft EIR. The accurate number of dwelling units proposed in the UNSP is 2,618
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Final EIR
25
dwelling units. Therefore, this revision will not result in new potentially significant impacts
beyond those identified in the Draft EIR since the revision involves correction of a typo and not an
actual change in the proposed number of dwelling units.
9)Comment 8: This comment recommends clarification of a statement regarding density transfers on
page 6-12, replacing “cannot” with “can” in the following statement: “Requests by Neighborhood
Builder(s)/Developer(s) for density transfers between neighborhoods may be submitted for City
consideration and approval, subject to prior authorization by the Master Developer. Any approval
by Planning Director for density transfer between neighborhoods cannot exceed the potential
maximum of each individual planning area, providing that the maximum total development
potential of the entire project is not exceeded.” The word “cannot” has been replaced with the word
“may” in this portion of text within the UNSP.
This comment applies to the UNSP component of the project only and does not apply to the Draft
EIR. This revision will not result in new potentially significant impacts beyond those identified in
the Draft EIR because the revision does not result in a change in the maximum total development
potential of the entire UNSP area. The maximum total development potential of the UNSP area
would still not be exceeded as a result of allowing density transfers to exceed the potential
maximum of each individual planning area.
10)Comment 9: This comment requests that definitions be included for notable terms used globally
throughout the UNSP related to future approvals, i.e. “Project Clearance,” “Project Approvals,”
and “Individual Projects.” The definitions for these terms have been incorporated into the UNSP.
This comment applies to the UNSP component of the project only and does not apply to the Draft
EIR. This revision will not result in new potentially significant impacts beyond those identified in
the Draft EIR because this revision merely defines terms used in the UNSP.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 3.0 ERRATA
Final EIR
26
3.0 Errata
DRAFT EIR TEXT
Changes to the Draft EIR are identified below. The changes to the Draft EIR do not affect the overall
conclusions of the environmental document. These errata reflect minor City staff and agency initiated
technical questions to the Draft EIR. These clarifications and modifications are not considered to result in
any new or more severe impacts than identified in the Draft EIR, and do not warrant Draft EIR recirculation
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088.5. Changes are listed by page and where appropriate by paragraph.
Added or modified text is shown by underlining (example) while deleted text is shown by strikethrough
(example).
Section 2. Executive Summary, Table 2-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Pages 2-10 and
2-11)
Impact: 4.5-1 Impacts to Special-Status Species. Adoption and implementation of the General Plan update
would result in the loss or degradation of existing populations or suitable habitat of special-
status plant and wildlife species. However, adherence with the CVMSHCP and adoption
and implementation of General Plan policies and implementation actions would result in a
less than significant impact with implementation of mitigation.
MM 4.5-1 Pertaining to special-status species (identified in Tables 4.5-1, 4.5-2, and 4.5-3) with the
potential to occur in the Planning Area that are not part of the CVMSHCP:
Prior to the approval of grading plans for development associated with the General Plan
update, the project applicant(s) shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a biological
resources evaluation for private and public development projects in order to determine the
presence/absence of non-covered special-status plant species with the potential to occur in
and adjacent to (within 100 feet, where appropriate) the proposed impact area, including
construction access routes. It is required that such surveys be conducted at the proper time
of year when rare or endangered species are both evident and identifiable.
For projects in which special-status species are found, likely to occur, or where the presence
of the species can be reasonably inferred, the City shall require feasible mitigation of
impacts to ensure that the project does not contribute to the decline of affected special-
status species populations in the region to the extent that their decline would impact the
viability of the regional population. Before the approval of grading plans or any ground-
breaking activity for development associated with the General Plan update, the project
applicant(s) shall submit a mitigation plan concurrently to the CDFW and the USFWS for
review and comment. The plan shall include mitigation measures for the population(s) to be
directly affected. The actual level of mitigation may vary depending on the sensitivity of the
species, its prevalence in the area, and the current state of knowledge about overall
population trends and threats to its survival. The final mitigation strategy for directly
impacted plant species shall be determined by the CDFW and the USFWS through the
mitigation plan approval process.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to the approval of grading plans
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Palm Desert Planning Department
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 3.0 ERRATA
Final EIR
27
Section 2. Executive Summary, Table 2-1, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Page 2-13)
MM 4.6-2a For future projects that require excavation activity (e.g., clearing/grubbing, grading,
trenching, or boring) into native soil and that have the potential to exhibit native ground
surface within or in the immediate vicinity of the excavation footprint, project applicants
preparation of an archaeological study (Phase I Assessment) shall be required by Project
Applicants.
Timing/Implementation:During the environmental review process
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Palm Desert Planning Department
Section 4.5. Biological Resources, Environmental Setting (Page 4.5-17)
Waters of the United States and the State: Jurisdictional waters of the United States and
the State, along with isolated wetlands, provide a variety of functions for plants and
wildlife. Wetlands and other water features provide habitat, foraging, cover, and migration
and movement corridors for both special-status and common species. Waters in the
Planning Area include the Whitewater River Storm Channel; which runs west to east
through the Coachella Valley including the center of Palm Desert and eventually flows out
of the Planning Area and into the Salton Sea. All other waterways in the Planning Area are
south of the Whitewater River Storm Channel and drain from the Santa Rosa and San
Jacinto mountains. Waterways in the Planning Area also include Palm Valley Stormwater
Channel, Ramon Creek, Cat Creek, Dead Indian Creek, Ebbens Creek, Grapevine Creek,
and Carrizo Creek.
Section 4.5. Biological Resources, Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 (Page 4.5-23/24)
MM 4.5-1 Pertaining to special-status species (identified in Tables 4.5-1, 4.5-2, and 4.5-3) with the
potential to occur in the Planning Area that are not part of the CVMSHCP:
Prior to the approval of grading plans for development associated with the General Plan
update, the project applicant(s) shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a biological
resources evaluation for private and public development projects in order to determine the
presence/absence of non-covered special-status plant species with the potential to occur in
and adjacent to (within 100 feet, where appropriate) the proposed impact area, including
construction access routes. It is required that such surveys be conducted at the proper time
of year when rare or endangered species are both evident and identifiable.
For projects in which special-status species are found, likely to occur, or where the presence
of the species can be reasonably inferred, the City shall require feasible mitigation of
impacts to ensure that the project does not contribute to the decline of affected special-
status species populations in the region to the extent that their decline would impact the
viability of the regional population. Before the approval of grading plans or any ground-
breaking activity for development associated with the General Plan update, the project
applicant(s) shall submit a mitigation plan concurrently to the CDFW and the USFWS for
review and comment. The plan shall include mitigation measures for the population(s) to be
directly affected. The actual level of mitigation may vary depending on the sensitivity of the
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 3.0 ERRATA
Final EIR
28
species, its prevalence in the area, and the current state of knowledge about overall
population trends and threats to its survival. The final mitigation strategy for directly
impacted plant species shall be determined by the CDFW and the USFWS through the
mitigation plan approval process.
Timing/Implementation: Prior to the approval of grading plans
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Palm Desert Planning Department
Section 4.5. Biological Resources, Impacts and Mitigation Measures (Page 4.5-28)
Impact 4.5-6 A component of the MSHCP is Local Development Mitigation Fees (LDMF), which is a
funding source for the CVMHCP and is required for development activities to occur.
These fees are utilized to fund the minimization mitigation of impacts to certain special-
status species and habitats.
Section 4.6. Cultural Resources, Mitigation Measure 4.6-2a (Page 4.6-8)
MM 4.6-2a For future projects that require excavation activity (e.g., clearing/grubbing, grading,
trenching, or boring) into native soil and that have the potential to exhibit native ground
surface within or in the immediate vicinity of the excavation footprint, project applicants
preparation of an archaeological study (Phase I Assessment) shall be required by Project
Applicants.
Timing/Implementation:During the environmental review process
Enforcement/Monitoring: City of Palm Desert Planning Department
Section 4.6. Cultural Resources, Cumulative Impacts (Page 4.6-12)
Impact 4.6-5 Cumulative Effects on Historical Resources. Adoption and implementation of the General
Plan update in addition to anticipated future development in surrounding cities could
cause a substantial change in the significance of historical resources as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5. The loss of some historical resources may be prevented through
implementation of updated General Plan policies, the City of Palm Desert’s Cultural
Resources Prevention Committee, and preservation policies in other communities.
However, this would not ensure that these resources can be protected and preserved. This
impact is not considered cumulatively considerable.
Section 4.9. Hydrology and Water Quality, Environmental Setting (Page 4.9-1)
Surface Water: Limited surface water is available in the winter and spring months from the
Whitewater River Storm Channel, Palm Valley Stormwater Channel, Ramon Creek, Brace
Creek, Dead Indian Creek, and Cat Creek, as well as a number of smaller creeks and
washes. The majority of regional stormwater local surface water is derived from runoff
from the San Bernardino and San Jacinto mountains, with lesser amounts from the Santa
Rosa Mountains. This runoff either percolates in the streambeds or is captured in mountain-
front debris basins where it recharges the groundwater basin. According to the estimates
developed for the 2010 Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (CVWMP) update, an
CITY OF PALM DESERT
GENERAL PLAN UPDATE 3.0 ERRATA
Final EIR
29
average of approximately 44,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of surface water recharges the
Whitewater River subbasin.
Section 4.14. Public Services and Utilities, Water Supply and Service; Wastewater Service, Environmental
Setting (Page 4.14-27)
Wastewater and Sewers: Wastewater is conveyed through sewer trunk lines generally
ranging in size from 8 to 42 4 to 24 inches, relying primarily on gravity flow.
Wastewater Reclamation: CVWD, recognizing the need for other sources of water to reduce
demand on groundwater, entered the water reclamation field in 1967 and currently operates
five star water reclamation plants (WRPs) in the valley. Recycled water from two of these
facilities (WRP 9 and WRP 10) has been used for golf course and greenbelt irrigation in the Palm
Desert area for many years, thereby reducing demand on the groundwater basin. However,
CVWD closed WRP 9 in 2015. A third facility (WRP 7), located north of Indio, began providing
recycled water for golf course and greenbelt irrigation in 1997.
Section 4.16. University Neighborhood Specific Plan, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Population,
Employment and Housing, Table 4.16-1, (Page 4.16-18)
2040 Households: 2,6181,67