Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/7/2009 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.B. ;OFppLMspQ CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 1 4� DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES c'9R/FOR % MEMORANDUM Ebate: December 31, 2008 a••� To: City Council From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Servic` Subject: Section 14 Master Plan Final Supplemental Envi nmental Impact Report The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Section 14 Master Plan was previously distributed to the City Council. If you need a replacement copy, please contact me at 760-323-8269 or craig.ewing@palmsprinas-ca.gov. or ITEM 1eA + CITY OF -PALM SPRINGS CALIFORNIA LIFORNIA FINAL --. SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (SCH NO. 1997061005) • FOR THE SECTION 14 MASTER DEVELOPMENT-P°LAN/ SPECIFIC PLAN Prepared By • CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Development Services 3200 East Tsthquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 and L J TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH, NC." • 400 South Farrell-Drive,B-205 Palm Springs,CA 92262 September 22;2008 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS s CALIFORNIA FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL EIR (SCH No. 1997061005) • FOR THE SECTION 14 ` MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN/ SPECIFIC PLAN Prepared By CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Development Services 3200 East Tahgnitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, C.A.92262 r and r 1 -� TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RE,SEARCH, INC.® 400 South Farrell Drive, B-205 Palm Springs, CA 92262 September 22, 2008 r • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Comments September 22,2008 • FINAL SEIR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE • DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SECTION 14 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN • SEPTEMBER 22, 2008 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 1997061005 AGENCY COMMENTS/RESPONSE TO COMMENTS • The Response to Comments on the Draft Supplemental EIR for the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan has been prepared in accordance with Section 15088, 15089 and 15132 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The following agencies and interested parties have commented on the Draft SEIR. Please note that Section I contains • verbatim comments from agency and other interested parties, and subsequent responses. Section II contains the full text of commenting agency correspondence. SECTION I: Page Commenting Agencies/Parties and Responses 3 A. Law Offices of Babalc Naficy 4 B. Arlene Smith 23 C. California Department of Toxic Substances Control 26 * SECTION II: Commenting Agencies/Partics Letters 30 A. Law Offices of Babak Naficy B. Arlene Smith C. California Department of Toxic Substances D. SunLine Transit Agency E. Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District F. California Native American Heritage Commission * G_ Southern California Association of Governments Page 2 • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SrlR Response to Comments September 22,2008 FINAL SEIR • SECTION 14 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN SECTION I RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The following verbatim comments were received on the Draft Supplemental EIR transmitted to various public agencies and interested parties_ These comments concern aspects of the Draft SEIR, including clarification of information, adequacy of analysis, and similar issues. Related comments may occasionally be combined to allow one response to address these related questions. The following • responses have been prepared to address issues raised in the agency/interested party comments. • • • • • Page 3 • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Comments September 22,2008 A. BABAK NAF ICY, ESQ. A.X. Comment: "The SEIR fails to honestly and adequately disclose the reason for it preparation. The SEIR misstates the purpose and impetus for its creation. At ES-1, the SEIR r claims that the Citydecided to undertake additional stud and analysis for the Y Y Specific Plan's potential impact on water supplies in light of the 2005 adoption of an urban Water Management Plan (JWMP) by Desert Water Agency (WA). SEIR Chapter 1 further perpetuates this fiction. What the SEIR fails to acknowledge and address is the fact that the SEIR is being prepared as a result of N a Settlement Agreement between the City of Palm Springs and Dr. Jane Smith in the case of Smith v. City of Pallas Springs. Pursuant to his Settlement Agreement, Dr. Smith agreed to dismiss her suit against the City and the City agreed to prepare an SEIR to address the water supply issues related to the implementation of the Section 14 Specific Plan. Footnote 8 claims that the preparation of the * SEIR had commenced prior to the Settlement Agreement between Dr. Smith and the City, which only required the City to prepare a Water Supply Study. This is inaccurate, as the Agreement also clearly required preparation of an SEIR to address water supplies for the Section 14 Specific Plan. The idea of preparing a so-called Water Supply Study was not a requirement of Dr. Smith, it was a * condition that the City added on its own. The text of the WSS further discredits the SEIR's claim because it does not include any references to the Settlement Agreement. Instead, the Water Supply Study explains that it was prepared in conjunction with the preparation of the SEIR. The SEIR must be revised to clearly and honestly explain why the SEIR is being prepared. It is axiomatic that the EIR is the heart of CEQA and has been called a document of accountability_ Here, the City has not explained in good faith the reason for preparing the SEIR. The SEIR disingenuously claims the SEIR was necessitated by the adoption of DWA's 2005 UWMP. The SEIR does not elaborate why the adoption of a UWMP, which must be accomplished by all water agencies not less frequently than every five years, forced the City to prepare an SEIR. CEQA Guideline 15063 and 15062 describe the circumstances that necessitate the preparation of a Supplemental EIR. Typically, a subsequent EIR is required if new information becomes available or the project's circumstances could conceivably require the preparation of an SEIR_ Certainly, the SEIR's oblique reference to the DWA's 2005 adoption of an UWMP, without more, does not qualify as "new information." Suffice it point out that the City has undertaken the preparation of an SEIR only for Section 14, it has not prepared an SEIR for any other project within the City. This failure underscores the dishonesty of the SEIR's claim that its preparation was triggered by the adoption of the 2005 UWMP." A.I. Response: This comment is inaccurate. The SEIR makes reference to the Settlement Agreement in footnote 8 on page I-11. In order to correct the reference to the Page 4 • • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Commenns September 22,2008 timing of the commencement of the SEIR and the Settlement Agreement, footnote • 8 is bereby revised to state: "Prior to the City's commencement of this SEIR, the City entered into a Settlement Agreement in the Jane Smith v. City of Pahn Springs (Case No. INC 042895) litigation- Pursuant to this agreement, the City agreed to prepare a Water Supply Study consistent with a specific scope of work referenced as an attachment to the agreement. This SEIR includes all components • of this scope of work." In addition, in order to emphasize the relationship between the Settlement Agreement and the commencement of the SEIR, the following modifications are hereby made as noted in the following paragraphs. On page 1-11 the first paragraph is hereby augmented to include: "In addition the City of Palm Springs entered into.a Settlement Agreement (Jane Smith v. City of Palm Springs Case No. INC 042895) in which the City agreed to reevaluate the reliability of water resources available for development as proposed in the Section 14 Specific Plan." On page I-I1 the first sentence of the second paragraph is hereby revised to state: "In light of the Settlement Agreement and recent IJtiVMI', additional study and analysis of the Specific Plan's potential impacts on water resources, specifically water supply, is required to ensure that future development within Section 14 will • have a reliable long term water supply." The last sentence of paragraph two on page I-II is hereby revised to state: "The City has determined that an SEIR that `supplements' and bolsters the 2004 EIR/EIS's analysis of water resources impacts is the appropriate mechanism to resolve any lingering uncertainty, including those issues identified in the 2007 Is Settlement Agreement in the Jane Smith v. City of Palm Springs (Case No- INC 042895) litigation, surrounding the ability of the local water purveyor to serve future development projects within Section 14". A.2. Comment: "Finally, it should be noted that the Settlement Agreement required the City to prepare an SEIR for the whole of the Section 14 Specific Plan, not just the unbuilt portion of the project. The SEIR.however, considers availability of water supplies only for the unbuilt portion of the project. The SEIR should be revised to consider the water supply necessary to supply the Section 14 Specific Plan as described in the original EIR/EIS-" • A.2. Response; The comment is incorrect. The SEIR identifies the estimated water demand for both the whole of Section 14 development, as well as for the remaining development within Section 14 Specific Plan area. In addition to citing the total 4,515 acre-feet of demand estimated in the original EIR/EIS for Section 14 at buildout, independent analyses and calculations were also conducted for the • subject Draft SEIR to verify and confirm the estimate. One method DWA uses to calculate mixed-use development demand is by applying a generalized demand factor of 575 gallon per capita resident per day, Page 5 • • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Comments September 22,2008 which DWA, has found serves to generally account for all uses. Based upon the Section 14 projected permanent population of 5,1231 at buildout, total unweighted demand in Section 14 at buildout would total 3,298t acre-feet. With the application of the 35% non-consumptive return factor, total demand calculated by this method is projected to be 2,144- acre-feet. • For comparison purposes, the Draft SEIR also analysed actual annual peak demand numbers for the period from 2000 through 2006. Using the highest annual demand year during this period (2004) and the 472.4t acres of development that had occurred by that time, the Draft SEIR concluded that according to DWA data, "The average per acre consumption of development within Section 14 for the existing 472.4 acres of development is 3.3 acre-feet per acre." The actual consumption number is slightly lower, being 3.25 acre-feet per acre. If w this baseline is used to calculate Section 14 buildout demand, it results in a total demand of approximately 2,112 acre-feet. This demand estimate corresponds very well to the 2,144 acre-feet of total Section 14 buildout demand reached by the per capita population method. These estimates also correspond well to the more conservative estimate calculated for the subject SEIR, which estimates a total maximum credible demand for the remaining developable 177.8t acres of 1,097 • acre-feet (177.8 acres X —6.15 ac-ft). This would raise the total maximum credible demand for all of Section 14 at buildout to 2,634i acre-feet by conservative per acre demand estimate of 6.15 acre-feet per acre of development, as compared to the actual rate of demand in Section 14, which is 3.25 acre-feet per acre_ Therefore, under the considerably more conservative demand method • used in the subject Draft SEIR, total demand of Section 14 development at buildout would be 1,881t acre-feet less than the demand estimated in the 2004 EIR/EIS. The.City recognizes that the SEIR analyzed water availability based upon build- out of 177.8 acres of the Specific Plan as opposed to 222.8 acres, which was the contemplated development in the original Specific Plan and EIR/EIS. Because 45 acres has already been built-out and were currently consuming water, the City included this water consumption in the "baseline" condition. Moreover, the City performed CEQA review of each project prior to approving this development. Nonetheless, the City has revisited the analysis in the SEIR to assess whether the SEIR's conclusion about the availability of water would be any different if an additional 45 acres were included in the demand estimates. Based on the demand factor of 3.3 acres feet per acre of development, which is based on the • consultant's review of actual water demand records for Section 14, the additional water demand from 45 acres of development would be approximately 149 acre 1 Draft EIR/EIS for the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan.Adopted/Certified 2004. Pagc 6 • • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Comments September 22,2008 • feet per year- If this demand is combined with the estimated demand of 177.8 acres, which would be approximately 590 acre feet, the remaining Specific Plan water demand for the subject 222-8 acres of Section 14 would be 739 acre feet per year. Regardless of whether the Specific Plan's estimated demand is 590 or 739 acre • feet per year, DWA has sufficient water supplies to accommodate this additional demand. This is evidenced by the substantial water supply that remains in the groundwater basin as a back up water supply source should DWA's other water supply sources be reduced. Even under a long term multiple dry year scenario (2010-2013) where DWA only receives 50% of its SWP entitlement, • approximately 4.28 million acres feet would remain in storage in the groundwater basin.2 Accordingly, even if the additional 149 acre feet of demand is added to the SEIR's underlying demand estimate for the Specific Plan, there would be more than adequate water supplies to accommodate this additional demand- 40 A.3. Comment: "The SEIR is defective as an informational document because it fails to identify and discuss the legal standards for adequacy of water supply analysis under CEQA, which was articulated by the California Supreme Court in Vineyard Area Residents v. County of Sacramento. • This SEIR is concerned solely with the adequacy of water supplies For the Section 14 Specific must contain a good-faith and reasoned analysis of the identified water supplies, including an analysis of the reliability of the projected supplies. If the SEIR cannot establish the reliability of the identified supplies with confidence, the SEIR must identify alternatives water supplies that could be used to meet the • project's water demand. These principles were articulated by the California Supreme Court in the seminal Vineyard decision, (2007) 40 Ca1.4th 412, 427. The SEIR here violates Vineyard because its analysis of water supplies is not reasoned and in good faith, and because it fails to identify alternative supplies despite the uncertainly of the identified water supplies.". • A.3. Response: The City disagrees with the contention that the SEIR's analysis of water supply impacts is defective. First, there is no requirement in CEQA that the EIR identify any specific standards from CEQA case law regarding the proper scope of analysis of a particular environmental impact. • Second and as discussed in more detail below, the SEIR's analysis of water supply impacts comports with the principles that the California Supreme Court articulated in the case, Vineyard Area Residents v. County of Sacramento, (2007) 40 Cal. 4th 412 that is referred to in the comment. As a threshold matter, the + Vineyard Area Residents case involved a CEQA challenge to the adequacy of a 2 Note that this 50%assumption about future SWP deliveries is conservative and well below both the actual historical SWP deliveries to all water purveyors(87%over a 20 year period)(See Table 11-7 below)and D WR's projected deliveries through 2027 of between 66%and 69%, Page 7 • • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Comments September 22,2008 water supply impacts analysis for a project that is substantially larger than the Section 14 Specific Plan. In that case, the project entailed virtually a new City consisting of 22,000 new residential units for as many as 60,000 people, schools, parks, office and commercial uses on 6,000 acres. The project had an estimated water demand of 22,000 acre feet at build-out. The Supreme Court concluded that the EIR adequately analyzed the project's short term water supply, but failed to adequately analyze long tern impacts. While the City acknowledges the general applicability of the Vineyard Area Residents case, the proposed Specific Plan contemplates a fraction of the development and estimated water demand that was contemplated by the project in • the Vineyard Area Residents case. The projected build-out of the Specific Plan has an estimated water demand of 590 acre feet (based on 177.8 acres of remaining development) or 739 acre feet (based on 222.8 acres of development if the 45 acres of existing development is included in the demand estimates). (SEIR, p. ITT-14). The following discussion repeats verbatim in italics the four principles for an adequate water supply impacts analysis that were addressed in Vineyard Area Residents and explains how the SEIR's analysis complies with these principles: • First, CEOA's informational purposes are not satisfied by an E1R that simply ignores or assumes a solution to the problem of supplying water to a proposed land use project. Decision makers must, under the law, be presented with sufficient facts to `evaluate the pros and cans of supplying the amount of water that the [project]will need. ' This hi A principle is based on the case, Santiago County Water Dist. v. County of Orange, 118 Ca1.App_3d 818, 825 (1981). In Santiago, Santiago Water District, which the EIR identified as the water purveyor for a mining project, sued the County of Orange on the grounds that the EIR failed to adequately address the impacts of supplying water to the project, which required between 12,000 and 15,000 gallons per day. The Court agreed with the water district because the EIR * improperly concluded that the water district bad available capacity to serve the project despite several comment letters from on the EIR stating otherwise. The Court further held that even if the district did have adequate supplies, the EIR needed to include far more analysis and factual support for that conclusion instead of just a brief statement to that effect. 0 Unlike the EIR in the Santiago case, the SEIR does not simply conclude without any factual support or analysis that the water purveyor, the Desert Water Agency, has adequate capacity to serve future development within Section 14. Instead, the SEIR's conclusion that a sufficient water supply exists for this project is based on DWA's adopted Urban Water Management Plan and other information. The • SEIR includes a comprehensive, fact filled, 26-page analysis that documents in detail the anticipated water supplies to serve the project. The SEIR identifies and describes the Desert Water Agency's water supply sources, which include surface water, natural groimdwater, imported water, and • Page 8 • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Comments September 22,2009 recycled water. The SEIR also analyzes the project's impact on this water supply * based on a number of different scenarios, including an extended period of dry years. The SEIR further analyzes the collective regional and local water demand, including demand on the primary source of water serving the Coachella Valley, the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin and its various sub-basis. • Second, an adequate environmental impact analysis for a large project, to be built and occupied over a number of years, cannot be limited to the water supply for the first stage or the first few years. While proper tiering of environmental review allows an agency to defer analysis of certain details of later phases of long-term linked or complex projects until those phases are up for • approval, CEQA's demand for meaningful information `is not satisfied by simply stating information will be provided in the future. ' This principle stems from the case, Stanislaus Natural heritage Project v. County of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal. App. 4th 182. In Stanislaus, the County approved an EIR for a specific plan consisting of six golf courses, swim and tennis facilities, a • hotel and executive conference center, a winery, vineyards, a research campus, municipal facilities, a "town center," shops and offices, and five "villages" containing a total of 5,000 residential units on 29,500 acres. Build-out of the Specific Plan was envisioned over a 25 year period_ The EIR concluded that the first 5 years build-out consisting of a fraction of the proposed uses would only require about 1,200 acre feet per year and could be accommodated. However, at build-out, the L1R concluded that the project would require approximately 13,000 acre feet of water per year, but that no water supply was available beyond the 1,200 acre feet need to accommodate the first mini-phase of the development_ The EIR generally identified some possible future water supplies, but nothing was • confirmed. Instead, the EIR deferred analysis of significant environmental effects of supplying that water with the understanding that any such effects would be addressed in a later EIR to be prepared after the project was approved. The Court found that this deferred analysis violated CEQA. The SEIR does not limit its analysis of water supply impacts to the first years of build-out under the Section 14 Specific Plan. Instead, the SEIR analyzes whether sufficient water supplies will be available at full build-out of Section 14_ Moreover, the SEIR does not simply state in a sentence or paragraph that DWA has sufficient supplies to serve Section 14 build-out. This conclusion is based on substantial evidence in the record, including a Water Supply Study that is based on a comprehensive review of existing adopted Urban Water Management Plans. • Third, the future water supplies identified and analyzed must bear a likelihood of actually proving available; speculative sources and unrealistic allocations (`paper water) are insufficient bases for decision-making under CEQA. An EIR for a land use project must address the impacts of likely future • water sources, and the EIR's discussion must include a reasoned analysis of the circumstances affecting the likelihood of the water's availability. The SEIR does not rely solely on"paper water" as a source of the available water supply to serve future build-out the Specific Plan. The term "paper water" first Page 9 • • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Comments September 22,2008 appeared in CEQA case law in the context of a lead agency's reliance on maximum State Water Project water entitlements to serve a developmert project even thought the State Water Project has never been able to actually deliver the maximum entitlement. A prime example of such a case is Santa Clarita Organization for Planning the • .Environment v. County of.Los Angeles (2003) 106 Cal, App. 4th 715 ("SCOPE"), In the SCOPE, the County certified an EIR and approved a large residential and commercial project for which Castaic Lake Water Agency was the water purveyor. The EIR's analysis of whether there would be any cumulative water supply impacts assumed that Castaic would receive its fill SWP entitlement, which was substantial_ however, the SWP has not been fully constructed and there are huge discrepancies in what is promised to be delivered to agencies participating in the SWP and what is actually and historically delivered. In SCOPE, the Court concluded that the EIR's analysis of water supply impacts was inadequate because it assumed 100% of Castaic's SWP entitlement_ • In this case, the SEIR's assumption about projected future State Water Project deliveries is not based on "paper water" that has no likelihood of ever being delivered. Instead, the SEIR reasonably relies on DWA's historical and actual SWP deliveries and then conservatively assumes that less SWP water will be delivered rather than average historical deliveries. As stated on Page III-10 of the SEIR: "Water purveyors make annual requests to DWR for water allocations and DWR makes an initial State Water Project water allocation for planning purposes, typically in the last month before the next water delivery year. As additional information regarding water availability becomes available to DWR throughout the year, DWR updates its estimates. Over the past 20 years (1987 through 2006) State Water Project water deliveries have averaged 87% of water purveyors' allocations. The California Department of Water Resource's 2008 Draft State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report estimates that average reliability of future State Water Project Table A deliveries through 2027 will range from 66% to 69%. However, the Desert Water Agency used a conservative estimate in their 2005 Urban Water Management Plan and assumed that they would receive 63% of their State Water Project allocations through 2030." In addition and more importantly, DWA's has the benefit of vast reserves of an unadjudicated and underlying groundwater storage basin to address any potential water shortage or further reduction in SWP deliveries. DWA presently has access to water that is currently stored in the Palm Springs Sub-area of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin (see Draft SEIR, pp.s III-8 — III-9)_ As noted in the EIR., DWA generally withdraws more water from the groundwater basin that the natural and imported water that recharges the basin. (See SEIR, p. 11I-8, Table III- 5). As summarized in Table 111-5, DWA has contributed to a cumulative overdraft of approximately 218,700. However, the SEIR estimates that approximately 4.4 million acre feet of water currently remains in the basin. The Palm Springs Sub- area represents a very real source of water that is available to DWA and new development within its service area boundary_ • Page 10 • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Comments September 22,2008 While the SEIR identifies potential future sources of water supply, acquiring these sources is not essential to ensuring an adequate water supply is available for this project. While acquisition of these additional sources would allow for an overall reduction in pumping of the Palm Springs Sub-area, there is currently sufficient storage in the groundwater basin to accommodate the water demands of this project even if DWA SWP allocation pursuant to its exchange agreement with 0 MWD is reduced to a level that is below the assumed long term allocation. Therefore, these additional sources are not essential to the EIR's conclusion that the project's water demand can be adequately served by DWA and existing water supply sources. Finally, where despite a full discussion it is impossible to confidently determine that anticipated future water sources will be available, CEQA requires some discussion of possible replacement sources or alternatives to use of the anticipated water, and of the environmental consequences of those contingencies. .The law's informational demands may not be met, in this context, simply by ' providing that future development will not proceed if the anticipated water supply fails to materialize. But when an EIR snakes a sincere and reasoned attempt to analyze the water sources the project is likely to use, but acknowledges the remaining uncertainty, a measure for curtailing development if the intended sources fail to materialize may play a role in the impact analysis. In this case, it is possible to "confidently determine that anticipated future water sources will be available." In this case, the SEIR's conclusion about the adequacy of the water supply to serve Section 14 is based on substantial evidence. Specifically, the SEIR relies upon the expert opinion of its consultant Terra Nova set forth in the Water Supply Study, which in turn is based on a thorough review 41 and analysis of pertinent Urban Water Management Plans of the two most significant water purveyors in the Coachella Valley, the DWA and the Coachella Valley Water District_ Each of these agencies has documented their ability to serve projected growth within each of its service area boundaries. Section 14 is a relatively small area within DWA's overall service area and its demand represents a small percentage of the overall projected long term demand within its service area. Each UWMP identifies and discusses, in detail, the available water supply sources to serve long term projected demand and assesses water availability based on several different scenarios, including a prolonged dry period or drought. The WSS incorporates this data and the SEIR summarizes the information. 0 In addition, as noted above, DWA may pump from the 4A million acre feet remains in the basin to address any potential deficiencies in State Water Project water. As noted in the SEIR, "...during years of delivery shortfall (dry years) DWA would extract additional needed supplies from groundwater in storage to meet demand projections. This temporary over extraction replaces State Water Project supplies that are diverted in dry years." (SEIR p. III-20). Notwithstanding the conclusions of the SEIR, WSS, and the applicable UWMPs regarding the adequacy of the existing water supply to serve projected long term water demand, the SEIR identifies additional sources of water supply that are 0 Page I I • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Comments September 22,2009 • being planned by the DWA. (See Water Supply Study (Appendix B of the SEIR), page IV-2). The SEIR relies on the Water Supply Study which provides: "To further reduce the impacts of development on groundwater supplies, DWA has implemented the use of tertiary (third stage) treated wastewater for golf course, landscape and other irrigation purposes. DWA operates a 10.0 trillion gallon per day waste water treatment facility in Palm Springs, with plans to expand the 1 facility to 15.0 million gallons per day. This reclamation plant is expected to ultimately provide 17,000 acre-feet per year of recycled water within DWA's Service Area. While tertiary water from this plant is not currently available to the project site, it will help relieve demand for potable groundwater elsewhere in the Palm Springs Subarea and the Whitewater River Subbasin." (see WSS, Table 11-3, • p. II-11 and p. II-13) And finally, as stated on page 111-21 of the SETR, DWA also plans to purchase additional water from the SWP when it becomes available_ Purchase of additional SWP water may involve purchases on the spot market, as well as the purchase of additional long-term supplies of Table A water_ While the SEIR identifies • DWA's plans to acquire additional water, it is important to note that even without these additional water purchases, DWA has adequate water supplies to serve Section 14 and cumulative development within its service area. These additional water purchases would provide additional water sources, but these purchases are not essential to ensure the reliability of long term water supply. r A.4. Comment: "The SEIR fails to adequately and realistically discuss the available water supplies. The SEIR fails to adequately discuss the reliability of State Water Project (SWP) • deliveries Imported Water. According to SEIR, "the total State Water Project allocations for CVWD and DWA are expected to reach 194,100 acre-feet per year by 2010, with DWA's portion equal to 55,750 acre-feet per years," (p. III-6). This claim is also repeated in Table 111-3, at p.III-5. The SEIR fails to explain that these "table A" • allocations, however are unreliable "paper water" which cannot be regarded as reliable water supplies. The SEIR must explain and discuss the so-called "paper water" problem, which has been extensively discussed in several published opinions, including SCOPE v. City of Santa Clarita (2003) 106 Cal. App_4th 715, 722 ("The SWP, however, has never been completed and the state cannot deliver • 4.23 maf[million acre feet] of water annually. The entitlements represent nothing more than hopes, expectations, water futures or, as the parties refer to them, `paper water.' Actual, reliable water supply from the SWP is more is more in the vicinity of 2 to 2.5 maf of water annually. Consequently, there is a huge gap between what is promised and what can be delivered.")" A.4. Response: Please see Response A.3. Also, while the SEIR discloses what DWA's total SWP entitlement, which is 55,750 acre-feet per year, the SEIR assumes that DWA will not obtain its full entitlement. As noted in footnote "(3)" of Table III-2, which summarizes the long term DWA Water Supply sources, DWA assumed the • Page 12 City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response ro Comments September 22,2008 . delivery of approximately 65% of DWA's anticipated SWP entitlement. Table 111-2 identifies 2010, 2015, 2025, and 2030 "Imported Groundwater" of SWP deliveries ranging from 37,800 to 33,650, not the maximum entitlement of 55,750, which is referenced on p. III-6.. In addition, it should be noted that while the SEIR and associated Water Supply 0 Study are based on the most current and reliable water resource data, primarily the DWA 2005 Urban Water Management Plan and Engineer's Report, the SEIR and WSS also consider the December 2007 DWR's 20 year SWP reliability estimates, which take into account all practical and rational data that is currently available, including dry years, wet years, levee failures, impacts to biological resources, and 0 climate change (also see WSS Sections II-E & F; also see Sections III-B & C) This report was published in late December, 2007 and a summary published on January 22, 2008, both release dates coming after the November 7, 2007 initial DWR announcement that reduced Table A allocations based on the Kempthorne decision. 46 A.5. Comment: "According to the Table 111-2, entitled Desert Water Agency Water Supply Sources, DWA's water supplies include an estimated 35,800 (2005) to 33,650 (2030) AFX of imported SWP water supplies. Note (3) explains that these projections are based on the assumption that on average, 65% of SWP 'fable A allocations will actually be delivered. Ibid. The rationale for making this 0 assumption is not explained. The SEIR does not offer an adequate analysis in support of this assumption, and ignores the current environmental and legal issues that make the 65% reliability assumption unrealistic. The SEIR virtually ignores the current reality of water supplies in Califortua. Owing to a prolonged drought, environmental concerns in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta, global warming, among other reasons, the future of water supplies in California is extremely bleak." A.5. Response: See Response A.3. and A.4 above. The reliability of SWP deliveries are well documented in the SEIR and the associated Water Supply Study. As noted on pages III-10 and I1I-17, the average SWP reliability of water deliveries in the 0 DWR Draft SWP Delivery Reliability Report released December 20, 2007 accounted for drought, climate change, and the impacts associated with the environmental concerns associated with the fish populations in the Sacramento/San Joaquin river delta. A.G. Comment: It is interesting that neither the SEIR nor the DWA 2005 UWMP contain a table describing the actual historical SWP deliveries. A.6. Response: This comment is inaccurate. DWA SWP water deliveries are based on DWR SWP allocations. Page III-10 of the SEIR states: "Over the past 20 years (1987 through . 2006) State Water Project water deliveries have averaged 87% of water purveyors allocations_" This information is illustrated in the following table found on page 3 "De arrmont of Water Resources Draft State Water Project Delivery Reliability Re o prepared b the California P J rY Y P rt°'A P Y Department of Water Resources Delta Bay Office,December 20,2007, Page 13 City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Comments September 22,2008 11-16 of the Water Supply Study(SEIR Appendix B). Although the information in this table does not state the actual "volume" of water deliveries, the percentages do indicate the magnitude of historic water deliveries over the past 20 years. Table 11-7 DWR Table A Water Allocations (1987-2006) _ Year Initial Allocation ,final Allocation 1987 100% 100% 1988 100% 100% 1989 100% 100% 1990 100% 100% i 1991 85% 30% 1992 20% 45% 1993 10% 100% 1994 50% 50% • 1995 40% 100% 1996 40% 100% 1997 70% 100% 1999 40% 100% 1999 55% 100% 2000 50% 90% 2001 40% 39% 2002 20% 70% 2003 20% 90% 2004 35% 65% 2005 40% 90% 2006 55% 100% 20 Year Average 63% 87% Source: State of California Department of Water Resources, Water Contract Branch within the State Water Project Analysis Office,Notices to State Water Contractors, 1987--2006. A.7. Comment: "In November 2007, some two months before the release of the Draft SEIR DWR announced an initial estimate of 25% deliveries of Table A allocations in 2008. See, State Water Contractor ("SWC") November 26, 2007 Press Release, attached hereto as Attachment 1. According to SWC press release, DWR estimates that in 2008, it will be able to deliver only 25% of requested deliveries of Table A allocations. The SEIR does not disclose or discuss this fact." A.7. Response: Comment noted, please see Response A.3. As stated on Page 111-10 of the SEIR, "...DWR makes an initial State Water Project water allocation for planning purposes, typically in the last month before the next water delivery year. As additional information regarding water availability becomes available to DWR throughout the year, DWR updates its estimates. Over the past 20 years (1987 through 2006) State Water Project water deliveries have averaged 87% of water purveyors' allocations. The California Department of Water Resource's 2007 • Page 14 • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Comments September 22,2008 . Draft State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report estimates that average reliability of future State Water Project Table A deliveries through 2027 will range from 66% to 69%." Because demand for water resources is analyzed and averaged over a 20 year period, the initial allocations for the 2008 SWP deliveries are not directly applicable. w however, as discussed on pages III-10 through 111-12 of the SEIR, the causes for the reduced initial DWR Table A Allocation estimates in November 2007 were due to the potential water reductions associated with reduced snow pack and concern for fish populations in the Sacramento/San Joaquin river delta. As noted on pages III-10 and III-17, the average for reliability of water deliveries in the DWR Draft SWP Delivery Reliability Report released December 20, 2007, accounted for drought, climate change, and the impacts of the pelagic organism decline, including delta smelt, in the Sacramento/San Joaquin river delta. And finally, it should be noted that subsequent to DWR's initial State Water Contractor Press Release in November 2007 as referenced in Comment A_7., DWR issued a subsequent State Water Contractor Press Release on February 1, 2008 that increased SWP allocations by 10% (to 35%) due to increased water availability.' A.S. Comment: "The SEIR's discussion of factors that could affect the reliability of SWP water supplies is woefully inadequate. The SEIR's discussion of environmental factors that can result in cutbacks on deliveries from the Delta include only a mention of the NRDC v. Kempthome, which has resulted in 30% reduction in SWP deliveries. The SEIR creates the impression that these reductions will likely be temporary and will not result in any permanent cutbacks. III-10. ("next year and possibly longer.") The SEIR is missing the point of the cutbacks. These cutbacks were ordered by the judge as a means to protect the delta smelt from extinction until the State Dept. of Fish and Game (DFG) has completed a Biological Opinion assessing the impact of the operation of the SWP on the delta smelt. There is ample evidence to suggest that the Biological Opinion will conclude that the operation of the SWP has a profoundly adverse impact on the delta smelt. Although Delta smelt populations are affected by a variety of factors, the Kempthorne decision acknowledged that: "delta smelt have been increasingly subject to entrainment, upstream or reverse flows of waters in the Delta and San Joaquin River, and constriction of low salinity habitat to deep-water river channels of the interior Delta." (Id.) The BiOp acknowledges that these final adverse effects are"primarily a result of the steadily increasing proportion of river flow being diverted from the Delta by the Projects, and occasional drought." (Id. (emphasis added).)p. 15. It is therefore likely that long-term or permanent cutbacks will be required in the * operation of the SWP to save the delta smelt from extinction. The SEIR fails to consider the long-term impact on SWP water deliveries that will likely 4 "Notice to State Water Project Contractors, 2008 State Water Project Allocation Increase," prepared by the State of California Department of Water Resources,February 1,2008. Page 15 • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Commen s September 22,2008 result from implementing mitigation measures to reduce the adverse impacts on the delta smelt." A.S. Response: Please see Response A.3. through Response A.6. The SEIR fiilly discloses the Kempthorne decision and its potential affect on water reliability. Moreover, the DWR report was published after the Kempthome decision on the delta smelt and the SWP reduction order and considers the impact of the Kempthome decision on future reliability. A.9. Comment: "The SEIR also completely ignores the Department of Water Resources's ("DWR") ongoing programmatic environmental review of the so-called Monterey r Plus Amendments, www.des.water.ca.gov/mitigation_ restoration_Brach/rpmi_sectin/projects/E1R_index.efm. As explained more fully below, the DWR's was ordered to undertake review of the Monterey Amendments by the Court of Appeal's seminal decision in Planning and Conservation League v. DWR (2000) 83 Cal. App. 4th 894, which set aside a local water agency's faulty environmental assessment of the original Monterey Amendments program. The Monterey Plus Amendments would fundamentally change the rules DWR must follow for allocating State Water Project (SWP) supplies during surplus and shortage (article 18), and approving permanent new agriculture-to-urban water transfers (article 53) including the transfers to CVWD * and DWA. The original (pre-Monterey) SWP contracts make "agricultural" water subject to drastic first cutbacks in water-short years, thereby creating a cushion for existing urban users in time of drought, but also disabling transferred agricultural water to reliably serve permanent subdivisions.I The Monterey Amendments would r delete that limitation. DWR's pending decision-making may therefore profoundly affect whether transferred agricultural water allocations can reliably support inhabitants of permanent subdivisions. Because DWR's review of the Monterey Plus Amendments is ongoing, the water transfers authorized pursuant to Monterey Amendments, including the 100,000 AFY table A allocations referenced on page III-5, are available only on an interim basis. This information was omitted from the SEIR. The SEIR also fails to note that in the course of its environmental review of the Monterey Plus Amendments, the DWR is considering implementing several alternatives that would eliminate the recent transfer of Table A allocations to DWA and CVWD. Table 11-1 of the Monterey Pius Draft EIR shows the various alternatives DWR is considering with respect to the Table A Transfers that were approved on an interim basis under the original Monterey Amendments. A copy of Table 11-1 is attached hereto as Attachment 4. Table 11-I shows that three of the five alternatives considered involve total elimination of the Transfers to the DWA and CVWD. The SEIR must clearly discuss the possibility that these Table A transfers could be set aside or considerablyxeduced by DWR." Page 16 • • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Comments September 22,2008 . A.9. Response: The comment incorrectly describes the relationship between the proposed Monterey Plus Amendments and the CVWD and DWA SWP transfers. The purchase of 100,000 acre-feet (11,900 acre-Feet to DWA and 88,100 acre-feet to CVWD) referenced on page III-5 of the SEIR is unrelated to the Monterey Plus Amendments and therefore would not be affected by this future DWR action. As stated on page 6-18 of the Monterey Plus Draft EIR (October 2007), the r "Metropolitan Water District of Southern California transferred 88,100 acre-feet of Table A amount to the Coachella Valley WD and 11,900 acre-feet of Table A amount to Desert WA. These transfers were a result of the Quantification Settlement Agreement, an agreement on how water from the Colorado River will be shared. These transfers are also unrelated to the Monterey Amendment and • were assumed to occur under all scenarios examined in this EIR (baseline, proposed project and alternatives to the proposed project)." The only DWA water deliveries that may be reduced as a result any of the Alternatives in the Monterey Plus Draft EIR would be water transfers in 2010 from the Tulare Water Storage District of 1,750 acre-feet and the Berrenda Mesa Water District of 4,000 acre-feet (see Table 111-3 in the SEIR). The reduction of these deliveries would still result in substantial water supplies. These deliveries only represent approximately 10% of DWA's total Table A allocation and could only be reduced during dry water years. M Finally, at this point, it is unclear and uncertain, whether the DWR will, in fact, adopt one of the "no project" alternatives referenced in the comment. Moreover, the "no project" alternatives generally would not meet even the basic project objectives, which make it even more unlikely that DWR would implement one of these alternatives. Therefore, any conclusion about the impact of the Monterey Plus Amendments on the affected SWP transfers would be purely speculative. A.10. Comment: "The Effects of global warming on water supplies is not adequately discussed. The SEIR devotes about a page to the effects of global warming on water supplies. The SEIR's analysis of global warming on water supplies is anecdotal and scattered, and its conclusion not supported by analysis of evidence. The SEIR acknowledges that global warming can result in scarcity of potable water, but fails to cite any of the research and analysis conducted in California, including the position papers and other publication prepared by and for the state of California. • The emerging scientific consensus about the potential impacts of global warming on water supplies is frightening. A recent article in Science magazine ominously predicted that the evidence predicted "a coming crisis in water supply for the western United States_" A copy of the abstract of this article is attached as Attachment 5. 5 "Initial Environmental Study Negative Declaration for the Transfer of State Water Project Table A Water from Tulare Lake Basin Storage District to Coachella Valley Water District,"November,2003. Page 17 • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response io Commenis September 22,2003 The effect of global climate change on water supplies deserves much more discussion. Under the other hand, if the SEIR is incapable a detailed discussion of the issue, it must assume that the projected water supplies will be substantially compromised by global warming." A.10. Response: The City respectfully disagrees with comment that the SEIR's analysis of climate • change impacts is inadequate. The SEIR discloses information about Climate Change and its affect on water supply, which is based on and review of a collection of published literature on the subject. (SEIR, p. III-11 - III-12 and footnotes 22 through 29). The SEIR makes a deliberate and good faith effort to inform the City's decision-making bodies of Climate Change and its effect on • water supply. As it relates specifically to future Section 14 water supplies, the SEIR acknowledges that such water supplies could be affected by climate change and an overall reduction in available water resources. The difficultly with the analysis is predicting and quantifying the precise impacts on Section 14 and DWA's ability to supply water to this project. r The EIR also makes a good faith effort to analyze the potential effects of climate change on the ability to serve Section 14, but appropriately notes that it would be speculative to try to predict actual water reductions that would impact DWA and its ability to serve this project. • Climate change is a statewide problem that the appropriate regulatory agencies are attempting to incorporate into water planning practices. For example, the Department of Water Resources is currently preparing the California Water Plan 2009. The California Water Plan provides a framework for water managers, legislators, and the public to consider options and make decisions regarding • California's water future. The Plan, which is updated every five years, presents basic data and information on California's water resources including water supply evaluations and assessments of agricultural, urban, and environmental water uses to quantify the gap between water supplies and uses. The Plan also identifies and evaluates existing and proposed statewide demand management and water supply augmentation programs and projects to address the State's water needs. As part of that process, a Climate Change Technical Advisory Group has been assembled to discuss how climate change science can be best incorporated into the 2009 Water Plan. Ultimately, the 2009 Water Plan will include a climate change science section that may provide guidance to local water purveyors on • incorporating climate change science into its own local planning documents- At this point, however, no methodology has been established to quantify climate change impacts on local water supplies- Notwithstanding the speculative natures of assessing climate change impacts on local water supply reliability, the long-term reliability of future SWP water •' supplies for southern California are guided by the SWP Delivery Reliability Reports released every two years by the California Department of Water Resources. The most recent version of this report was released in December 2007 and used in the preparation of the Section 14 SEIR and Water Supply Study. • Page IS • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Comments September 22,2008 • As described on pages III-10 and 111-17 of the SEIR, the Draft SWP Delivery Reliability Report takes into account all practical and rational data that is currently available that may impact water resources, specifically including climate change and global warming (Chapter 4 and Appendix B State Water Project Operation Simulations), as well as dry years, wet years, levee failures, and • impacts to biological resources.6 In addition, the relationship between climate change and water resources is evaluated on pages 111-11 and III-12 of the SEIR_ A.11. Comment: The Impacts on Groundwater are not adequately discussed. • The SEIR fails to adequately describe the current overdraft state of Coachella Valley and DWA's groundwater resources. In the Coachella Valley, groundwater levels began declining in the late 1920s due to extensive pumping. Since 1948, imported water supplies have been brought into this area from the Colorado River via the Coachella Canal. These surface ! water deliveries have enabled decreased pumping of groundwater in the southeastern portion of the valley and have thus helped recharge the basin. As a result, groundwater levels rose in this part of the valley until the 1980s. Since then the groundwater levels have again declined because of urban development and increased groundwater pumping. -- California Water Plan Update, 2005, Ch. • 11, Colorado River Hydrologic Region, at page 11 A. (http://www.waterplan.waler.ca.gov/dots/cw[i2005/vp;3/v3cji 1/pdo. The SEIR estimates that by the end of 2006, the 'Upper Whitewater River sub- basin was 680,000 AF in overdraft. 111-7. The SEIR estimates the DWA's contribution to Palm Springs Subarea overdraft is 218,700 AF through 2006. • Based on sheer speculation and wishful thinking, the SEIR suggests that the historical trend towards greater overdraft conditions will be reversed in the next decades,just as public and private agencies continue to sound the environmental alarm bells, warning of the impending crisis in the environmental crisis in the Bay Delta and the dire effects of global climate change on water supplies in the and western United States." A.11. Response: This comment is incorrect. The analysis and conclusions of the Section 14 SEIR and Water Supply Study are based on a multitude of expert authorities in the field water resources in southern California, including the California Department of Water Resources, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, the Desert Water Agency, the Coachella Valley Water District, the US Geological Survey, the Association of California Water Agencies and the Colorado River Water Users Association (for a complete list of sources see Section X of the SEIR and Section V of the Water Supply Study). • G "Department of Water Resources Draft State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report," prepared by the California Department of Water Resources Delta Bay Office,December 20,2007. • Page 19 • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Comments September 22,2008 The current state of overdraft in the Coachella Valley and the DWA Service Area are documented in Section III.A_ of the SEIR. Page III-6 of the SEIR describes the regional water demand in the Coachella Valley and page III-7 identifies the total estimated cumulative overdraft in the Coachella Valley at 5.1 million acre- feet, with an estimated 31.4 million acre-feet of water remaining in storage, of which 4.4 million acre feet is the Palm Springs Subbasin. The local water demand and cumulative overdraft in the Subbasin for which the Section 14 Specific Plan is located is detailed in Table III-5 of the SEIR, and the contribution of DWA's withdrawals to the-cumulative overdraft is identified in Table III-6 of the SEIR. As documented on pages 111-22 through III- 26 of the SEIR, local agencies are Is responding to the overdraft conditions with mitigation measures that will reduce groundwater demand in the Coachella Valley and within Section 14. These include the required use of drought tolerant desert plants in landscaping plans, water efficient irrigation, and the reclamation of treated wastewater and utilization of non-potable water sources for irrigation uses. In addition to state, county, city and water district restrictions on development within Section 14, project developers shall also follow additional restrictions associated with a Tribal Landscape Ordinance, or similar, at which time such an ordinance is put into effect. A.12. Comment: "The SEIR did not include any discussion of the cumulative impacts of r groundwater overdraft. It must be revised to include a discussion of the biological impacts of the prolonged overdraft condition that has resulted and will continue from over-extraction of groundwater- In a report published by the Department of Fish and Game http://www.dfg.ca-gov/wildlife/WAP/does/report/cj8- colorado.pdf), it is explained that diversion of Colorado River water is one of the i primary threats to the remaining aquatic habitats. P.136. The DFG report explains that "In many locations, groundwater levels in riparian areas along the Colorado River have receded from historical levels of less than 3 feet to more than 10 feet blow the surface (Hayes 2004 pers. Comm.)." Ibid. "Thus groundwater decline and decreased flooding have stressed native riparian cottonwood and willow habitat, favoring the establishment of invasive tamarisk, which can withstand drier conditions and saltier soils (Briggs and Cornelius 1998, Poff et al. 1997). Tamarisk provides inferior wildlife habitat compared to native vegetation and now dominates the Colorado River's riparian areas." A.12. Response: This comment is incorrect. Section VIII of the SEIR, entitled "Growth Inducing • and Cumulative Impacts" discusses the cumulative impacts of Section 14 on water resources. As stated on page VIII-1, "The combined effect of buildout of the Specific Plan and other development projects in DWA's service area would result in an increase in water demand. In DWA's UWMP it was assumed that growth and new development would occur within its service boundaries, and the Specific Plan is one of several developments throughout Palm Springs that were accounted for in DWA's estimates. The UWMP was based on this growth occurring. The UWMP has also planned for potential reductions in SWP Page 20 0 • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Comments September 22,2008 deliveries through increased conservation requirements, increased use of recycled w water and or purchase of additional water supplies." Water demand within Section 14 and the Coachella Valley will not impact biological resources associated with the lower Colorado River, California, Nevada and Arizona are part of the Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation • Program (MSCP), which was developed between 1996 and 2004 with the purpose of, protecting the lower Colorado River environment while ensuring the certainty of existing river water and power operations; addressing the needs of threatened and endangered wildlife under the Endangered Species Act; and reducing the likelihood of listing additional species along the lower Colorado River.7 This is a 50-year plan designed to ensure that environmental resources are not impacted by water diversions and water/power projects along the Colorado River. A.13. Comment: "The SEIR also fails to discuss or even hint that the overdraft of the Whitewater Sub-basin has resulted in land subsidence in Coachella Valley. The study, whose results were reported in December 2007 (before the release of the SEIR). • According to the report, "the subsidence rates in many areas have more than doubled since 2000." The lead author of the study stated that "some water levels in 2005 were at the lowest levels in their recorded histories." This study deserves detailed analysis in the SE1R." A.B. Response: According to the referenced USCS study, the impacts are localized, with the nearest location approximately _ miles southeast of Section 14. It is Well documented that groundwater overdraft contributes to the problem, however, there is no evidence that DWA's provision of water to Section 14 would have a direct or cumulative subsidence impact. As the SEIR notes in Table 11I-5, DWA • actually contributed more water to the groundwater than it withdrew resulting a net surplus of water to the basin of 1,300 acre feet. Accordingly, while a cumulative overdraft condition has been well documented in the Coachella Valley, DWA and by extension future Section 14 development, would not have any cumulatively considerable impact on this overdraft condition. Therefore, Section 14 incremental demand on the regional water supply would not have any M direct or cumulative impact on any existing subsidence condition. This conclusion is further supported by the results of a ground subsidence study prepared for Desert Water Agency by the engineering firm of Kreiger & Stewart$ The subsidence study examined possible changes in elevation (with an accuracy rating of 0.09-+ feet) at more than 50 points within the DWA pumping areas and determined that there has been no significant ground subsidence in the DWA 9 "Lower Colorado River Multi-Species Conservation Program Final Programmatic Environmental impact • Statement/Environmental Impact Report, prepared by the US Department of the Interior, the US Bureau of Reclamation, the US Fisb and Wildlife Services, and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, December 17,2004. s 'Domestic Water System Subsidence Study",prepared by Kreiger& Stewart,Inc.May 2008,and staff report prepared for the Desert Water Agency Board,July 1,2008. Page 21 • • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Comments September 22,2008 region. Accordingly, the City did not identify this impact as a potentially significant impact that required further review and analysis in the SEIR_ A.14. Comment: Conclusion_ The SEIR is seriously flawed. Future drafts must include a forthright and accurate explanation for the preparation of the S1;IR. The SEIR must be revised to accurately reflect the current environmental and legal concerns that • could seriously affect the availability of water supplies, including SWP allocations. Finally, the SEIR must also include an accurate and thorough discussion of groundwater overdraft. A.14. Response: See Responses A.I through Response A.13 above. • M • • • • • Page 22 • • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Comments September 22,2008 B. ARLENE SMITH Comment 13.-1: On page ES-5 of Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan of Section 14 will not have a significant impact on local water supplies or on Desert Water Agency's ability to provide domestic water to Section 14 or the rest of its service area. - various analysis - Water Supply Study clearly indicate - safe - reliable - • resources for domestic water - available for - next 20 years and beyond. Is there any doubt in your mind that this statement has arrives at a proper conclusion. Response B.-1: The referenced section of the Section 14 Draft SEIR is the executive summary. More detailed analysis is presented in Sections II and III of the Draft SEIR on water resources and their management. A comprehensive Water Supply Study was prepared for this project and was included in Appendix B of the Draft SEIR. Also, please see responses to comments provided by the Attorney Naficy (Letter A in Section II of this Final EIR. 0 Comment 11-2: In the past, how long has it taken to replace aquifer overdraft? Response B.-2.: The commentator is referred to the Draft EIR Waster Supply Study, as well as Sections 11 and III of the Draft SEIR, provide an understanding of the history of groundwater overdraft and recharge in the Coachella Valley and the project area_ It also describes programs of the Desert Water Agency and its management partners to acquire and recharge the basin serving the Palms Springs area and the greater Coachella Valley_ In the few decades that ground water recharge has been underway, there is clear evidence of its effectiveness at increasing water in storage. In addition, while admittedly the aquifer has experienced overdraft, there presently remains an estimated 31.4 million acre-feet of water in the overall r Coachella Valley groundwater basin and 4.4 million acre feet of water in the Palm Springs Subbasin portion of the basin that is most affected by DWA pumping. AS noted in the SEIR, DWA does not rely exclusively on the groundwater basin to serve its customer, including Section 14, In fact, DWA relies in large part on imported water, which is used to recharge the basin and mitigate the overdraft r condition. In 2006, DWA did not contribute at all to the overdraft condition. Instead, its efforts resulted in a net surplus of water to basin. (SEIR, Fable III-5, p_ 111-8). Even assuming Section 14 sole source of water was the groundwater basin, the Section 14 water demand would represent XX% of the remaining storage over of the Coachella Valley groundwater basin and XX% of the 41 remaining storage of the Palm Springs Subbasin_ Also, please see responses to comments provided by the Attorney Naficy (Letter A in Section 11 of this Final EIR. Comment B:3.: If severe drought occurs, from whom could you purchase water. Response B.-3.: As described in the Draft SEIR and in detail in Appendix B, the Desert Water Agency and its water management partners have acquired water from a variety of sources_ The Coachella Valley is also a high priority contractor for Colorado River water, which further solidifies the reliability of Colorado River supplies- Page 23 r • Ciry of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Comments September 22,2008 The Water Supply Study also cited the latest State Water Project (SWP) reliability analyses and projections for the delivery of SWP water in 2008 and future years. Also, please see responses to comments provided by Attorney Naficy (Letter A in Section II of this Final Ea Comment B.4.: Does recycling remove all toxic elements? Ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon • monoxide, particulate matter under 10 microns, fine partic. 2.5 microns. Response B.4.: It is to clear to what aspect of the Draft SEIR the commentator is referring. The referenced pollutants are those of concern in air quality analyses. Air quality impacts of the project were assessed in the 2004 EIR/EIS. The findings were • summarized in Section II of the subject Draft SEIR_ Comment B.-5.: Our valley remains "severe 17" Mobile emissions = Fed & State Stationary emissions = construction, power plants, - oversight by South Coast Air Quality Management Dis. SCAQMD. • Response B:5.: Comment noted. please see Response B.-4, above. Comment B.-6.: How will 100 feet high buildings fare in severe earthquake? How will the Spa fare vs_ quake if liquefaction takes place? (The new 100 foot Spa hotel is to be located • on top of hot springs). Response B.-6.: The Spa hotel and other structures proposed for development in the Section 14 planning area are subject to subsequent environmental review, including detailed assessments of geotechnical conditions and potential hazards. The potential seismic safety hazards associated with development in Section 14 were assessed • in the 2004 EIR/EIS. The findings were summarized in Section II of the subject Draft SEIR. Comment B.-7.: Population: 46,754 - will increase_ Will need more affordable houses, more schools, more teachers, more parks, more buses, more bus stops, more nurses for • more emergency cases, response. More firemen, shorter response. Police do not have a standard ratio of officers per population. Response B:7.: Issues associated with land use and population growth, as well as Section 14 development impacts on affordable housing, schools, parks, police and fire, and other community amenities and services were full assessed in the in the 2004 EIR/EIS. The findings were summarized in Section II of the subject Draft SEIR. Comment B.-8.: What are the standards for height, width, buffer zones, density, for buildings? Noise? Where can 100 foot buildings be built? How many are allowed? Only six • corridors for scenic view? Response B:8.: Issues associated with development standards, as well as Section 14 development impacts on buffers and viewsheds, were full assessed in the in the 2004 E WE & The findings were summarized in Section 11 of the subject Draft SEIR. • Page 24 City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Comments September 22,2008 Comment B.-9: Historic sites enrich our city_ Open spaces enrich our souls. Response B.-9.: Comment noted. • • • • • e • • • Page 25 • • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Comments September 22,2008 C. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES CONTROL Comment C.-I: DISC recognizes that this is a citywide plan and therefore not site-specific. EIRs for future, site-specific plans should identify the current or historic uses at the project site that may have resulted I a release of hazardous waste/substances. Any future site-specific EIRs should identify the known or potentially contaminated sites within the proposed Project area. For all identified sites, the EIR should evaluate whether conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment. Following are the databases of some of the regulatory agencies. • • National Priorities List (NPL): A list maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA) • Envirostor (formerly CalSites): A Database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, accessible through DTSC's website • (see below) • Resource conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA. • Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites that is maintained by U.S. EPA. • Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both open + as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations. " Leaking Underground Storage tanks (LUST)/ Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups (SLIC): A list that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control Boards. • Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup sites and leaking underground storage tanks. • The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213)452-3908, maintains a list of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FURS). Response C.-1- Comment noted. The previous uses within Section 14 are well-known. Nonetheless, as part of the CEQA environmental review process, the City shall continue to consider and assess the potential for the disturbance or introduction of potentially hazardous or toxic materials into the environment as a consequent of buildout of Section 14_ Page 26 City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SE1R Response to Comments September 22,2008 • Comment C.2: Any future site-specific EIRs should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any site that may be contaminated, and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If necessary, DTSC would require an oversight agreement in order to review such documents. Please see comment No. 17 below for more information. Response C.-2.: Comment noted. In the event on-site contamination is identified, Phase 11 environmental site assessments shall be used to evaluate the contamination and provide a remediation plan, along with the identification of appropriate regulatory agencies. * Comment C.3.: Any environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation for a site should be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of any investigations, including any Phase I or 11 Environmental Site Assessment Investigations should be summarized in the document. All sampling results in which hazardous substances were .found above regulatory standards should be clearly summarized in a table. Response C:3.: Comment noted. Also, please see Response C.-2, above. Comment C.-4.: Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions overseen by the respective • regulatory agencies, if necessary, should be conducted prior to new development or construction. All closure, certification or remediation approval reports should be included in any site-specific EIRs. Response C:4.: Comment noted. Also, please see Response C_-2, above. • Comment C.-5.: If any property adjacent to a future project site is contaminated with hazardous chemicals, and if the proposed project is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated site, then the proposed development may fall within the "Border Zone of a Contaminated Property." Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to construction if the proposed project is within a Border Zone Property. Response C:5.: Comment noted. Also,please see Response C.-2, above. Comment C:6.: If buildings, other structures, or associated uses; asphalt or concrete-paved surface areas are being planned to be demolished, an investigation should be conducted for the presence of other related hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints or products, mercury, and asbestos containing materials (ACMs). If other hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints (LPB) or products, mercury or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities_ Additionally, the contaminants should be remediatod in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. • Response C:6.: Comment noted. Also,please see Response C.-2., above. • Page 27 • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SE1R Response to CommenLS September 22 2008 Comment C.-7.: Future project construction may require soil excavation or filling in certain areas. • Sampling may be required. If soil is contaminated, it must be properly disposed and not simply placed in another location onsite. Land Disposal Restrictions (LDRs) may be applicable to such soils. Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. • Response C.-7.: Comment noted. Also,please see Response C.-2, above. Comment C.-8.: Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during any construction or demolition activities. If it is found necessary, a study w of the site and a health risk assessment overseen and approved by the appropriate government agency and a qualified health risk assessor should be conducted to determine if there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. • Response C.-S.: Comment noted_ Also,please sec Response C.-2, above. Comment C.-9: If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the proposed operations of a project, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control law (California Health and Safety Code, • Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). Response C:9.: Comment noted_ Also,please see Response C.-2, above. Comment C.-10.: If it is determined that hazardous wastes are or will be generated and the wastes • are (a) stored in tanks or containers for more than ninety days, (b) treated onsite, or (c) disposed of onsite, then a permit from DTSC may be required. If so, the facility should contact DTSC at (714) 484-5423 to initiate pre-application discussions and determine the permitting process applicable to the facility. • Response C.-10.: Comment noted. Also, please see Response C.-2, above. Comment C:11.: If it is determined that hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should obtain a United Sates Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by contacting (800) 616-6942_ • Response C.-11.: Comment noted. Comment C.-12.: Certain hazardous waste treatment processes may require authorization from the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the ` requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA. Response C-12.: Comment noted. Also, please see Response C.-2, above. Page 28 • • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SS1R Response to Commenis September 22,2009 Comment C-13.: If project plans include discharging wastewater to a storm drain, you may be required to obtain, an NPDES permit from the overseeing Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Response C-.13.: Comment noted. Also,please see Response C.-2, above. • Comment C-14.: If project plans include discharging wastewater to a storm drain, you may be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the overseeing Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Response C-14.: Comment noted. Also,please see Response C.-2, above. • Comment C-15.: If during construction/demolition of the project, the soil and/or groundwater contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area would cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented_ „ Response C-15.: Comment noted. Also,please sec Response C.-2, above. Comment C-16.: If a site was used for agricultural, cattle ranching or related activities, onsite soils and groundwater might contain pesticides, agricultural chemical, organic waste or other related residue. Proper investigation, and remedial actions, if necessary, • should be conducted under the oversight of and approved by a government agency at the site prior to construction of a project. Response C-16.: Comment noted. There are no records of agricultural activity in Section 14. Also, please see Response C.-2, above. • Comment C-17.: Envirostor (formerly CalSites) is a database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, and is accessible through DTSC's website. DTSC can provide guidance for cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight Agreement (EOA) for government agencies, or a Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) for private parties. For additional • information on the EOA please see www.dtse.ca.gov/SiteCleggup/Brownfields, or contact Ivlaryam Tasnif-Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at(714) 484-5489 for the VCA. Response C-17.: Comment noted. Also,please see Response C_-2, above. Comment C-18.: In future CEQA documents please provide complete e-mail address and agency web address, which contains the project information. Also, if a project title changes, please provide historical project title(s), • Response C-18.: Comment noted. Also,please see Response C.-2, above. Page 29 • City of Palm Springs/Section 14 Final SEIR Response to Comments September 22,2008 • FINAL SEIR SECTION 14 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN • SECTION II COMMENT LETTERS ON THE SECTION 14 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT • The .following comment letters were received on the ]draft SEIR transmitted to various public agencies and interested parties. Comments restated in Section I are bracketed in this section and correspond to the comment numbers in Section I. • • • • • Page 30 • • � � A LaWOfficesof Babak Naficy • `' March 3, 2008 l - Via Facsimile and US.Mail. Craig Ewing • Director of Planning Services City of Palm Springs ,32i')0 Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Fax(760)322-2760 • RE: Draft Supplemental EIR for the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan 569 Higuera•Suite C Dear Mr. Ewing, • Son Luis Obispo Please accept the following comments relative to the above-referenced SEIR_ California93401 1. The SEIR fails to honestly and adequately disclose the reasons for its Mulling Address preparation. ` P.O. Box 13723 • Son Luis Obispo The SEIR misstates the purpose and impetus for its creation. At ES-1, the Californio 93406 SEIR claims that the City decided to undertake additional study and analysis for the Specific Plan's potential impact on water supplies in light of the 2005 adoption ph: 805,593,0926 of an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) by Desert Water Agency (DWA). fox:sos.s93.o9a6- SEIR Chapter 1 further perpetuates this fiction. What the SEIR fails to * acknowledge and address is the fact that the SEIR is being prepared as a result of a Settlement Agreement between the City of Palm Springs and Dr. Jane Smith in the o6akncflcy®sncglobol,ncl case of Smith v. City of Palm Springs- Pursuant to this Settlement Agreement, Dr. Smith agreed to dismiss her suit against the City and the City agreed to prepare an SEIR to address the water supply issues related to the implementation of the Section 14 Specific Plan. Footnote 8 claims that the preparation of the SEIR had A 1 commenced prior to the Settlement Agreement between Dr. Smith and the City, which only required the City to prepare a Water Supply Study. This is inaccurate, as the Agreement also clearly required preparation of an SEIR to address water supplies for the Section 14 Specific Plan. The idea of preparing a so-called Water • Supply Study was not a requirement of Dr.,Smith, it was a condition that the City added on its own- The text-of the WSS further discredits the SEIR's claim because it does not include any references to the Settlement Agreement. Instead, the Water Supply Study explains that it was prepared in conjunction with the preparation of the SEIR. • The SEIR must be revised to clearly and honestly explain why the SEIR is being prepared. It is axiomatic that the EIR is the heart of CEQA and has been tE�� CEPAD • 1 MAR 112000 C Pilmea en nibs^o1We FOercee.�l�IP�teES called a document of accountability. Here, the City has not explained in good.faith the reason for preparing the SEIR_ • The SEIR disingenuously claims the SEIR was necessitated by the adoption of DWA's 2005 UWMP. The SEIR does not elaborate why the adoption Al of a UWMP, which must be accomplished by all water agencies no less frequently than every five years, forced the City to prepare an SEIR. CEQA Guideline * 15063 and 15062 describe the circumstances that necessitate the preparation of a Supplemental EIR_ Typically, a subsequent EIR is required if new information. becomes available or the projects circumstances change. The SEIR here does not bother to explain what new information or circumstances could conceivably require the preparation of an SEIR. Certainly, the SEIR's oblique reference to the DWA's 2005 adoptiou of an U4VMP,without more, does not qualify as "new • information." Suffice it to point out that the City has undertaken the preparation of an SEIR only for Section 14, it has not prepared an SEIR for any other project within the City_ This failure underscores the dishonesty of the SEIR's claim that its preparation was triggered by the adoption of the 2005 UWMP. • Finally, it should be noted that the Settlement Agreement required the City to prepare an SEIR for the whole of the Section 14 Specific Plan, not just the un- built portion of the Project. The SEIR,however, considers availability of water A 2 supplies only for the unbuilt portion of the project. The SEIR should be revised to consider the water supply necessary to supply the Section 14 Specific Plan as • described in the original EHUMS. 2. The SEIR is defective as an informational document because it fails to identify and discuss thelegal •standards for adequacy of water supply analysis under CEQA,whieb was articulated by the * California Supreme Court in Vineyard Area Residents v. County of Sacramento This SEIR is concerned solely with the adequacy of water supplies for the Section 14 Specific must contain a good-faith and reasoned analysis of the A 3 . identified water supplies, including an analysis of the reliability of the projected supplies. If the•SEIR cannot establish the reliability of the identified supplies with confidence, the SEIR must identify alternatives water supplies that could be used to meet the project's water demand. These principles were articulated by the California Supreme Court in the seminal Vinevard decision, (2007)40 Cal. 4" 412, 427. The SEIR here violates Vineyard because its analysis of water supplies • is not reasoned and in good faith, and because it fails to identify alternative supplies despite the uncertainty of the identified water supplies. 3. The SEIR fails to adequately and realistically discuss the available water supplies • A4 2 • • a. The SEIR fails to adequately discuss the reliability of State Water Project(SWP) deliveries Imported Water. • According to SEIR, "the total State Water Project allocations for CVWD and DWA are-expected to reach 194,100 acre-feet per year by 2010, with DWA's portion equal to 55,750 acre-feet per years." (p.IH-6). This claim is also repeated A 4 in Table III-3, at p. III-5. The SEIR fails to explain that these "table A" • allocations, however are unreliable "paper water" which cannot be regarded as reliable water supplies. The SEIR must explain and discuss the so-called "paper water"problem, which has been extensively discussed in several published opinions, including SCOPE v. City of Santa Clarita(2003) 106 Cal.App.4 h 715, 722 ("The SWP, however,has never been completed and the state cannot deliver 4.23 maf(million acre feet] of water annually. The entitlements represent nothing • more than hopes, expectations, water futures or, as the parties refer to them, 'paper water.'Actual,reliable water supply from the SWP is more in the vicinity of 2 to 2.5 maf of water annually. Consequently, there is a huge gap between what is promised and what can be delivered.") MEMEMEMEME • According to Table III-2, entitled Desert Water Agency Water Supply Sources,DWA's water supplies include an estimated 35,800 (2005) to 33,650 (2030) AFY of imported SWP water supplies. Note (3) explains that these projections are based on the assumption that on average, 65% of SWP Table A allocations will actually be delivered. Ibid. The rationale for making this A 5 • assumption is not explained. The SEIR does not offer an adequate analysis in support of this assumption, and ignores the current environmental and legal issues that make the 65% reliability assumption unrealistic. The SEIR virtually ignores the current reality of water supplies in California. Owing to a prolonged drought, environmental concerns in the Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta, global warming, • among other reasons, the future of water supplies in California is extremely bleak. It is interesting to note that neither the SEIR nor the D_WA.2005 UWMP A 6 contain a table describing actual historical SWP deliveries In November 2007,. some two months before the release of the Draft SEIR, DWR announced an initial • estimate of 25% deliveries of Table A allocations in 2008. See, State Water Contractors ("SWC")November 26,2007 Press Release, attached hereto as A 7 Attachment 1. According to SWC press release, DWR estimates that in 2008, it will be able to deliver only 25% of requested deliveries of Table A allocations- The SEIR does not disclose or discuss this fact. The SEIR's discussion of factors that could affect the reliability of S=P water supplies is woefully inadequate. The SEIR's discussion of environmental factors that can result in cutbacks on deliveries from the Delta include only a mention of the NRDC v. Kempthorne, which has resulted in a 30%reduction in A g SWP deliveries- The SEIR creates the impression that'these reductions will likely • be temporary and will not result in any permanent cutbacks. III-10. ("next year and possibly longer.") The SEIR is missing the point of the cutbacks. These 3 40 Y 5 . V cutbacks were ordered by the judge as a means to protect the delta smelt from extinction until the State Dept. of Fish and Game (DFG) has completed a Biological Opinion assessing the impact of the operation of the SWP on the delta 4 smelt. There is ample evidence to suggest that the Biological Opinion will conclude that the operation of the SWP P has a profoundly adverse impact on the delta smelt. Although Delta smelt populations are affected by a variety of factors, the * Kemptorne decision acknowledged,that A 8 "delta smelt have been increasingly subject to entrainment, upstream or reverse flows of waters in the Delta and San roaquin - River, and constriction of low salinity habitat to deep-water river channels of the interior Delta" (Id.) The BiOp acknowledges that these final adverse effects are "primarily a result of the steadily increasing proportion of river flaw being diverted from the Delta by the Projects, and occasional droughts." (Id. (emphasis added).) + P. 15. It is therefore likely that long-term or permanent cutbacks will be required in the operation of the SWP to save the delta smelt from extinction. The-SEIR fails to consider the long-term impact on S WP water deliveries that will likely result from implementing mitigation measures to reduce the adverse impacts on the delta smelt. The SEIR also completely ignores the Department of Water Resources's ("DWR') ongoing programmatic environmental review of the so-called Monterey Plus Amendments- 0 �vww.des.watei.ca_gov/mitigation restoration_branch/rprni_se.etioti/projects/EIR_i ndex-c£m. As explained more frilly below, the DWR's was ordered to undertake review of the Monterey Amendments by the Court of Appeal's seminal decision in Planning and Conservation League v. A 9 DWR(2000) 83 Cal., App. 4th 894, which set aside a local water agency's faulty environmental assessment of the original Monterey Amendments program. The Monterey Plus Amendments would fundamentally change the rules DWR must follow for allocating State Water Project(SWP) supplies during surplus and shortage (article IS), and approving.pennanent new agriculture-to-urban water 41 transfers (article 53) including the transfers to CVWD and DWA. The original (pre-Monterey) SWP contracts make"agricultural"water subject to drastic first cutbacks in water-short years, thereby creating a cushion for existing urban users in time of drought, but also disabling transferred agricultural 4 0 water to reliably serve permanent subdivisions.1 The Monterey Amendments would delete that limitation, DWR's pending decision-making may therefore profoundly affect whether transferred agricultural water allocations can reliably support inhabitants of permanent subdivisions. Because DWR's review of the Monterey Plus Amendments is ongoing, the water transfers authorized pursuant to Monterey Amendments, including the 1'00,000 AFY table A allocations referenced on page 111;5, are available only on an • interim basis. This information was omitted from the SBIR. A 9- The SEIR also fails to note that in the course of its environmental review of the Monterey Plus Amendments,the DWR is considering implementing several alternatives that would eliminate the recent transfer of Table A allocations to • DWA and CVWD. Table 11-1 of the Monterey Plus Draft EIR shows the various alternatives DWR is considering with respect to the Table A Transfers that were approved on an interim basis under the original Monterey Amendments_ A copy of Table 11-1 is attached hereto as Attachment 4. 'fable 11-1 shows that three of the five alternatives considered involve total elimination of the Transfers to the • DWA and CVWD. The SEa must clearly discuss the possibility that these Table A transfers could be set aside or considerably reduced by DWR_ b. The Effects of global warming on water supplies is not adequately discussed The SEIR devotes about a page to the effects of global warming on water supplies. The SEIR's analysis of global warming on water supplies is anecdotal and scattered, and its conclusion not supported by analysis of evidence. The SEER acknowledges that global warming can result in scarcity of potable water, but fails • to cite any of the research and analysis conducted in California, including the position papers and other publication prepared by and for the state of California. The emerging scientific consensus about the potential impacts of global warming on water supplies is frightening. A recent article in Science magazine ominously predicted that the evidence predicted "a coming crisis in water supply for the western United States." A copy of the abstract of this article is attached as A 10 Attachment 5. See PCL v. DWR, 83 Cal, App. 4th at p. 899, 900 (describing the "agriculture- first" cutback provision in article 18(a) of the SWP contracts, which the 1995 Monterey Amendments proposed to eliminate). This provision provides for cutbacks of up to 50 percent in any given year, and up to 100 percent in seven • consecutive years_ Under pre-Monterey contract terms, CVWD and DWA's transferred water would be expressly subject to these cutbacks. 5 0 • The effect of global climate change on water supplies deserves much more discussion. Under the other hand, if the SEIR is incapable a detailed discussion of • the issue, it must assume'that the projected water supplies will be substantially A IO compromised by global warning. C. The Impacts on Groundwater are not adequately discussed. 16 The SEIR fails to adequately describe the current overdraft state of Coachella Valley and DWA's groundwater resources. In the Coachella Valley, groundwater levels began declining in the late 1920s due to extensive pumping. Since 1948, imported water supplies have been brought into this area from the Colorado River via the Coachella Canal. These surface water deliveries have enabled decreased pumping of groundwater in the southeastern portion of the valley and have thus helped recharge the basin. As a result, • groundwater levels rose in this part of the valley until the 1980s, Since then the groundwater levels have again declined because of All urban development and increased groundwater pumping- California Water Plan Update,2005, Ch. 11, Colorado River Hydrologic Region, at page 11.4 Q=:/hvww.wateMl_an.water-ca-Qov/dots/cvipu2005/vo13/v3.chl l-pdf). The SEIR estimates that by the end of 2006, the Upper Whitewater River Sub-basin was 680,000 AF in overdraft. III-7. The SEIR estimates the DWA's contribution to Palm Springs Subarea overdraft is 21.8,700 AF through 2006. Based on sheer speculation and wishful thinking,the SEIR suggests that the historical trend towards greater overdraft conditions will be reversed in the next decades,just as public and private agencies continue to sound the environmental alarm bells, warning of the impending crisis in the environmental crisis in the Bay Delta and the dire effects of global climate change on water- supplies in the arid western United Sates. The SEIR did not include any discussion of the cumulative impacts of groundwater overdraft- It must be revised to include a discussion of the biological impacts of the prolonged overdraft condition that has resulted and will continue from over-extraction of groundwater. In a report published by the Department of A 12 0 Fish and Game http://www.dfa.ca,gov/wildlife/WAP/dots/repordch8- colorado. d , it is explained that diversion of Colorado River water is one of the 6 • primary threats to the remaining aquatic habitats. P. 13& The DFG report explains that"In many locations, groundwater levels in riparian areas along the Colorado River have receded from historical levels of less than 3 feet to more than A 12 10 feet below the surface (Hayes 2004 pers. comm.)." Ibid. "This groundwater decline and decreased flooding have stressed native riparian cottonwood and willow habitat, favoring the establishment of invasive tamarisk, which can withstand drier conditions and saltier soils (Briggs and Cornelius 1998,Poff et al. 1997). Tamarisk provides inferior wildlife habitat compared to native vegetation and now dominares the Colorado River's riparian areas." MMMMMJ The SEIR also fails to discuss or even hint that the overdraft of the Whitewater sub-basin has resulted in land subsidence in Coachella Valley. The study, whose results were reported in December 2007 (before the release of the A 13 SEIR). According to the report, "the subsidence rates in many areas have more than doubled since 2000." The lead author of the study stated that"some water levels in 2005 were at the lowest levels in their recorded histories." This study deserves detailed analysis in the,SEIR. MMMMMJ f Conclusion The SEIR is seriously flawed..Future drafts must include a forthright and accurate explanation for the preparation of the SEIR. The SEIR must be revised to A 14 M accurately reflect the current environmental and legal concerns that could seriously affect the availability of water supplies, including SWP allocations. Finally, the SEIR must also include an accurate and thorough discussion of groundwater overdraft. 40 Babak Naficy Attachment r 1: SWC Release "State Water Contractors Projected to Receive 25% of Requested Water in 2008" 2: Article "CA: Delta Crisis Could Affect Local Water Availability" (source: Coachella Valley Water District) 3: USGS Article "Study Finds Subsidence Continuing in the Coachella Valley" 4: DWR Monterey Plus Draft EIR,Table 11-1 5: Human-induced Changes in the Hydrology of the Westem United States, Barnett et al. (Abstract). A 7 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: CONTACT: November 26, 2007 Ann Newton (818) 760-2121 (310) 774-7639 cell State Water Contractors Projected To Receive 25% of Requested Water In 2008 Lowest Allocation in Years Further Strains Public Water Agencies Throughout California • Sacramento, CA —The initial allocation of water for the State Water Project (SWP) in 2008 will add to the growing challenges California's public water agencies are already facing, according to the State Water Contractors (SWC), an association of 27 public water agencies serving 25 million residents, farms and businesses throughout Northern, Central and Southern California. The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) announced on Monday that the SWP Contractors will receive only 25% of the amount of water requested for 2008, pending possible adjustments as the rain season unfolds. This allocation, compared with last year's 60%, is the lowest initial allocation since 2003 due to this year's continuing dry conditions. This allocation, combined with mounting impacts of the state's failing water delivery system, court-ordered cutbacks in water deliveries, a struggling ecosystem in the Sacramento San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) and climate change, will make it even more challenging for California's already over-taxed water supply. Even if hydrologic conditions improve through the early part of 2008 so that the allocation can be increased, these combined impacts will still have the potential to significantly impact many Californians. "After facing some of the most significant obstacles in terms of California's water supply and delivery system in 2007, this low initial allocation makes it all the more apparent that we will continue to face unprecedented challenges in the upcoming year," said Laura King Moon, assistant general manager of the State Water Contractors. "There are many uncontrollable factors, such as drought, that affect water supply reliability, but there are many factors we can control such as upgrading and maintaining our statewide infrastructure. Unless we make • necessary improvements to our state's crumbling water delivery system, in coming years we will only face increased risks to an already unstable system." Earlier this year, California's water agencies have had to overcome numerous hits to the statewide water supply. In late August, a federal court ordered a massive reduction in water supplies from the state's two largest water delivery systems, the SWP and the Central Valley Project (CVP), to protect an endangered fish species, the Delta smelt. The reduction could ! i State Water Contractors Projected To Receive 25%of Requested Water In 2008 Page 2 curtail up to 30% of statewide water deliveries from the Delta, potentially the largest court- ordered cutback in California history. Public water agencies throughout California will continue to assess the impacts of both the court-ordered cutback and the 2008 SWP allocation. Depending on local conditions, some agencies may have to implement water use restrictions and possibly rationing. • The Delta, California's water delivery hub, is in failing condition making it an increasingly unreliable pathway for delivering water to 25 million Californians, businesses and farms throughout the state. Aged and deteriorating levees, climate change effects, mounting regulatory uncertainties and a struggling ecosystem have combined to plague the Delta more so today than ever before. These unprecedented challenges need to be addressed responsibly and in a timely manner to avoid immeasurable damage to California's water supply, • environment, public health, statewide economy and infrastructure system. "The Delta's fragile condition puts the water supply for millions of California residents, farms and businesses at risk— placing our public health and statewide economy in jeopardy. If we don't improve the state's water conveyance system and infrastructure, we could be facing a • devastating scenario in coming years," added Moon. "The 2008 SWP allocations drive home the fact that we cannot take our water supply for granted_ We urge the Governor and the state legislature to decide upon a plan that fixes our state's water delivery system." f • The State Water Contractors is a non-profit association of 27 public agencies from Northern, Central and Southem California that purchase water under contract from the California State Water Project. Collectively the State Water Contractors deliver water to more than 25 million residents throughout the • state and more than 760,000 acres of agricultural lands. For more information on the State Water Contractors, please visit www.swc.ora. • • 1 • Water Quality& Indian Water � State Federal Corporate Municipal Finance Environment Resources News & Information r State News • Thursday, May 31,2007 CA: Delta Crisis Could Affect Local Water Availability Source: Coachella Valley Water Districl Coachella, CA - The shutting down today of water pumps more than 400 miles away could have serious consequences 0 for the Coachella Valley. There will be no immediate impact on the Coachella Valley stemming from the decision today by the state Department of Water Resources (DWR)to shut down State Water 19 Project(SWP) export pumps to protect an endangered species fish. Unless effective solutions to this and a myriad of other prob e' mms associate wt t ctroubled San iancisco-Sacramento-San Joaquin Bay-Delta(Delta) are M ound, however, the long-term ramifications could be sign icant, including delays to aii an eventual halt to new housing construction and other development throughout the Ccache U a a ey. • The State Water Project delivers water to more than 24 million residents throughout California and irrigates approximately 750,000 acres of farmland, primarily in the Central Valley. r Although Coachella Valley does not use SWP water directly for domestic, agricultural, recreational or other commercial purposes, Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and Desert Water Agency(DWA) rely heavily upon it to offset the use o groun water in the region. SWP 46 water is used to recharge th&aquifer at two facilities_ The aquifer is in a slate of overdraft, however, with more water being pumped out than returned annually through natural and artificial means. To reverse this condition the • two water agencies have been working diligently to increase their legal entitlements to SWP water. When combined, the entitlements of CVWD (121,100 acre-feet) and DWA (50,000 acre-feet) are greater than all but two other districts among 29 state water contractors. Two more agreements, still being finalized, go into effect in 2010, adding 17,250 acre-feet to CVWD's entitlement; 5,750 acre-feet to DWA. "Much of the recent development in the Coachella Valley has been deemed permissible despite aquifer overdraft because we have a comprehensive blueprint—the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan—in place to ensure that, though a variety of means, this growth does not prevent us from meeting current and future demand For water," said CVWD General Manager-Chief Engineer Steve Robbins. "An absolutely crucial component of this . plan is the use of imported water from the Colorado River, an amount pretty much etched in stone, and the State Water Project." The plan's implementation of domestic, golf course and agricultural conservation measures, use of alternative sources of water(canal water,recycled water) to groundwater and increased importation of water will enable the valley to eliminate aquifer overdraft and meet increased demand—but not without the State Water Project. • "Without State Water Project water over an as-yet-to-be-detenntne penod of time, aquifer overdraft of unacceptable levels would-be unavoidable and this water tstnet wou ave t e c otce ut to take whatever steps necessary to new consump ton o groundwater," said M Robbins. In a news release, DWR announced it would "stop pumping at State Water Project (SWP) facilities in the Delta to provide maximum protection for Delta smelt. This action r follows the observed entrainment of juvenile smelt between May 25 and May 31 at the Harvey O. Banks pumping plant facility." The status of the pumping plant has been uncertain For several months following an Alameda County's judge's ruling that facilities had to be shut down because DWR did not possess the permits necessary for the taking of the endangered Fish. DWR contended that the body of paperwork filed with both federal and state environmental agencies met fulfilled those requirements_ The judge r disagreed and gave DWR 60 days to comply. His decision is on appeal. Today's decision came following the rare discovery of a school of the Delta smelt in the immediate vicinity of the pumping plant. "`Drastic times call for drastic measures,' said DWR Director Lester Snow. `While there are clearly many factors at play in the current decline of smelt in the Delta, we must act on the one that is within our control. That is why DWR will stop pumping in the Delta as a preventative measure to protect endangered fish that are currently located near our • facilities."' In a news release from the State Water Contractors, that association's Assistant General Manager, Laura Icing Moon, announced"Today's move was a prudent and r preventative action to protect fish that were physically located near state pumping plants. However, not enough has been done to solve the Delta smelt puzzle—there is no conclusive scientific evidence that the pumps are responsible for the fish decline and, therefore, this action r alone will not bring back the species: We demand that the other responsible state agencies move quickly to consider those other stressors and immediately implement protective measures_ "California's major water artery has been temporarily shut r down, which will cause significant statewide impacts for people, farms and businesses." "The Delta is in crisis and has been in crisis for some time," said Robbins. "Perhaps this is a much-need wakeup r call, and officials in Sacramento will forget about party politics and develop a genuinely bipartisan approach to finding the answers we need—and need now—to some very, very difficult questions." 0 Because there are no aqueducts or pipelines to delivery SWP water to Coachella Valley, CVWD and DWA exchange their entitlements for a like amount of Colorado River water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California(MWD). If no SWP water is being delivered to r Southern California, however, it is extremely unlikely MWD would continue to divert Colorado River water into the Coac e a Valli Contact: • Dennis Mahr, dmahr(,r cvwd.ore, Ext. 2352 .Tack Porrelli, 'lporrelli(u)cvwd_org , Ext. 2355 Heather Engel, henhel cvwd.or , Ext_ 2353 More State News Search Lor more slnr•ies • Water Quality & Indian Water State Federal Corporate Municipal Finance Environment Resources r Copyright Co71999-2007 Stratecon Inc. All rights reserved. Terms of Use I Privacy Policy_I Disclaimer r r • r r • • USGS Home a Contact USGS Search USGS California Water Science Center Newsroom 0 ohome ©projects Opublications OGAMA ONAWQA O hazards Olinks ,contact awebcams Ma of stud area Study finds subsidence continuing in • the Coachella Valley i Office: California December Contact g16/278-3016 Water 17, 2007 3 n' Cell: 916/ Science Nickles 715-2253 Center View Pdf version of press release View report publication Water management and conservation critical to News Media Contact: reducing groundwater demands, CVWD says Jim Nickles U.S. Geological Survey I A new study by the U.S. Geological Survey 6000 J Street I confirms Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Sacramento CA 95819 1 concerns that land subsidence - or dropping land 916-278-3016 elevations - is occurring in areas of substantial 41 Events groundwater use throughout the Coachella Valley. Outreach and Education This study tells us our assumptions were correct and underscores the importance of eliminating Water Science Information I overdraft of the aquifer," said Steve Robbins, CVWD general manager-chief engineer. "With the Employment and Volunteer support of the community and the other water Ooportunites agencies in the valley, I'm confident we can take Directions and Locations the steps necessary to stabilize the groundwater levels for the future of the entire Coachella Our Customers Valley." Home The two agencies i I initiated the study in 1996 when it yr F, was first believed subsidence was occurring in the Coachella Valley. Scientists with the r„ USGS California Water Science Center used Global Positioning System (GPS) surveying and a satellite mapping • process known as interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR) to document the drops in elevation between 1996 and 2005. GPS measurements are taken on the ground at specific locations, or benchmarks, while InSAR provides . an areawide elevation-change map or snapshot. At all of the GPS benchmarks, some subsidence j occurred between 1996 and 2005. At three benchmarks, the drop was less than an inch, while at three others the subsidence was about a foot. At one benchmark, near the intersection of 54th Avenue and Jackson Street near Coachella, the one-foot drop in land-surface elevation happened from 2000 to 2005. i "The subsidence rates in many areas have more • than doubled since 2000," said fm.�. Michelle Sneed, USGS scientist and } lead author of the study. "All the subsiding areas are near sites where ground-water levels declined between 1996 and 2005, and some water levels in 2005 were at the lowest levels in their recorded histories." The research, which has cost about $790,000 since 1995, has been funded primarily by the USGS and the Coachella Valley Water District, with the city of Palm Desert contributing $17,000. Since the 1920s, groundwater has been a major source of agricultural, municipal, and domestic supply in the Coachella Valley, resulting in significant groundwater pumping that has • contributed to water-level declines of as much as 100 feet. The heavy groundwater use, in turn, has led to subsidence, which can disrupt surface drainage; reduce aquifer storage; cause earth fissures; and damage wells, buildings, roads and * utility infrastructure. i In 2001, CVWD addressed groundwater overdraft by adopting a comprehensive Water Management Plan (WMP) to act as a blueprint for water reliability. The WMP takes a three-tiered approach • to groundwater management: an increased imported water supply; promotion and assistance with conservation, and providing existing groundwater users an alternative source of water. CVWD planned and prioritized nearly 50 programs and projects for the WMP. Current WMP efforts aimed at keeping groundwater levels stable include construction of the $70 million Mid-Valley Pipeline, which will enable up to 50 golf courses to utilize a blend of recycled water and Colorado River water in lieu of groundwater, and the $40 million groundwater recharge facility south of • Lake Cahuilla. "Addressing declining water levels has always been a priority for the water district, which is why the Coachella Canal was built in the 19405 and • the Whitewater recharge ponds constructed in the 1970s," Robbins said. "As the Coachella Valley's popularity and prosperity continue, it's crucial that CVWD and other local water agencies continue making significant strides to ensure a reliable water supply." • The U.S. Geological Survey report, "Detection and Measurement of Land Subsidence Using Global Positioning System Surveying and Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar, Coachella Valley, California, 1996-2005," by Michelle Sneed, et al., • can be found on the Internet at the USGS California Water Science Center's Web site at http://ca.water.usgs.gov/. I • i USGS provides science for a changing world. For more information, visithttp://www.usgs.gov/. The California Water Science Center i (http://ca.water.usgs.gov/) has more than 130 scientists who bring a broad range of scientific disciplines to the study of modern water • management issues. CVWD http://www.cvwd.org is a public agency, governed by a five-member board of directors, that provides domestic and irrigation water, agricultural drainage, wastewater treatment and • reclamation services, regional stormwater I protection, groundwater management and water conservation across 1,000 square miles, primarily in Riverside County but also in portions of Imperial and San Diego counties. • ,I USGS Home Water Resources Biology Geography Geology Geospatial Accessibility FOIA Privacy Policies and Notices • U.S. DePartment of the,Interior I U.S. Geological Survey UISA gam, &E=;' URL: http:// ca.water.usgs.gov /news/release071217.htm1 Page Contact Information: gs-w-sadist www@usgs.gov ?mnc pw br. Page Last Modified: Tuesday, 18-Dec-2007 13:43:10 EST • • 11 Alfe TABLE 11-1 �`` TABLE A TRANSFERS (AF) ` - 6as'eltno/ ; Co1lrf OkdO;Gtld Cr: i .'PraP med, ' ApPlI&O W. ,,,-•,;.; - '_ ,•Nu'(P,r!djrsE3� ' - r:Np,PYoJecth. �.r,rN6PtojPt`- ;_Ne_R,ralect;,;::,::,.c ,Projecil. level&of' +' 7rair .Weror. Trap leiaa'' Alta,'enetiveia` ,;Afte�nktivq;2 :' + AI# r"riWtirie•i " " AlfemS,tlie• 4°: .,, liltem�tive%8: • 'Develd meet; KCWA Mojave WA 1 0 1 25,000 1 0 0 25,005 2003 2020 KCWA Alameda Co..Zone 7 1 0 1 7 000 0 0 7,0001 2003 2020 KCWA Alameda Co.,e Zone 7 0 15,000 0 0 15,00D 2003, 2020 KCWA Castaic Lak WA 0 41,000 0 0 41,000 2003,2020 KCWA Palmdale WD 1 0 1 4,000 0 0 4 000 2003 2020 KCWA Alameda Co , Zone 7 0 1 10,000 D 0 10,000 2003, 2020 KCWA Alameda Co. Zone 7 0 2,219 0 D 2,219 2003,2020 KCWA Napa Co, 0 4,025 0 0 4 025 2003,2020 KCWA Solana CountyWA 0 5,756 0 0 5,756 2003, 2020 KCWA Coachella VN/D I D D 0 0 12,000 2020 KCWA Desert WA 0 0 0 0 4A00 2020 Tulare LB WSD AVEK WA 3,D00 3,006 3,000 3,000 3 D00 2003,2020 Tulare LB WSD Dudle Rid e WD 3,973 3,973 3 973 3 973 3,973 2003,2C2D Tulare LB WSD Alameda Co., Zone 7 400 400 400 400 400 2003,2020 Tulare LB WSD County of Kings 5,000 5,000 5,0DD 5,00D 5,000 2003, 2020 Tulare LB WSD Coachella VWD 9,901 9,900 91900 9 9o0 9,900 2003 2020 y-- MWDSC Coachella VWD 88,100 88100 88 100 88 100 a8,10o 2020 �l MWpSC Desert WA 11,900 11,900 11,900 11,900 11,900 2020 1 Note 1 ThL Table A transfer Is a component of the Monterey AmondmonI Adlcie 53 KCWA cemmllmenI of 130 TAF of Table A transfers. Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2007 Monterey plus 11-8 A 7f Current Issue Previous Issues Science Express Science Products My Science About the Journal Home a Science Magazine n 22 February zoos� Barnett at al. pp 1080-1083 Perform your original search,science magazine western water supply, in Science ADVERTISEMENT Search 7, ;L1 Originally published in Science Express on 31 January 2008 Science 22 February 2008 Val.319.no.5866.pp.1080-1083DOI, 10 1126/science 1152538 REPORTS Human-Induced Changes in the Hydrology of the Western United States Tim P. Barnett,'* David W. Pierce,' Hugo G. Hidalgo,' Celine Bonfils,2 To Advertise Find Products Benjamin D. Santer,2 Tapash pas,' Govindasamy Bala,2 Andrew W. Wood,3 Toru Nozawa,4 Arthur A. Midn,2 Daniel R. Cayan,1,5 Michael D- Aettingerl,5 Observations have shown that the hydrological cycle of the western United States changed significantly over the last half of the 20th century. We present a regional, multivariable climate change detection and attribution study, using a high-resolution hydrologic model forced by global climate models, focusing on the changes that have already affected this primarily and region with a large and growing population. The results show that up to 60% of the climate related trends of river flow, winter air temperature, and snow pack between 1950 and 1999 are human-induced. These results are robust to perturbation of study variates and methods. They portend, in conjunction with previous work, a coming crisis in water supply for the western United States. • ' Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA- 2 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550, USA. 3 Land Surface Hydrology Research Group, Civil and Environmental Engineering, • University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA, 4 National Institute for Environmental Studies, 16-2, Onogawa, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8506, Japan- 5 U.S. Geological Survey, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA. 4 To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail- tbarnett-ul@ucsd.edy Read the Full Text The editors suggest the following Related Resources on Science sites: 0 In Science Magazine B _� J •��� c i�d crr cfc one Al s r ' 0 }Le — 4[jJJfiLuJ,-_ 1 vi— ,tom�_ .. _� ..c�. A • y i B 1 a� r B Z Q r � B a w tip B7 Iz 02, 7-)Y- alw B 8 ---- ------- B9 vta B 10 • I _y_ • - ,�� mkt 1 f .� _�•zt,Q,� ,_q�_f i ¢,�.�-'�,�i�� �'�1� - -.-EtVErs.. • • • �� I C Department of Toxic Substances Control a Maureen F.Gorsen, Director Linda 5.Adams 5796 Corporate Avenue Arnold Schwarzenegger Secretary for Cypress. California 90630 Gavemar nwonmental PrataCtion • February 27, 2008 Mr. Craig Ewing City of Palm Springs • Planning Department 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 DRAFT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE SECTION • 14 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN (SCH#1997061005) Dear Mr. Ewing; The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) has received your submitted Draft Supplemental Notice of Preparation and Initial Study (IS) of an Environmental Impact 0 Report (EIR) for the above-mentioned project. The following project description is stated in your document: "The city of Palm Springs has determined that a Supplemental EIR (SEIR) that"supplements" and bolsters the 2004 Final EIR/EIS's analysis of water resources impacts are the appropriate mechanism to address and resolve any lingering uncertainty surrounding the ability of the local water purveyor to • serve future development projects within Section 14". DTSC has the following comments on your EIR document; please address if applicable. DTSC recognizes that this is a citywide plant and therefore not site-specific. EIRs r for future, site-specific plans should identify the current or historic uses at the project site that may have resulted in a release of hazardous wastes/substances. 7r) Any future site-specific EIRs should identify the known or potentially contaminated sites within the proposed Project area, For all identified sites, the C I • EIR should evaluate whether conditions at the site may pose a threat to human health or the environment. Following are the databases of some of the regulatory agencies: National Priorities List (NPL):A list maintained by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA)_ • ^��s • e Pdnted on Recycled Paper Mr. Craig Ewing February 27, 2008 * Page 2 • Envirostor (formerly CalSites): A Database primarily used by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, accessible through DTSC's website 41 (see below). • Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS): A database of RCRA facilities that is maintained by U.S. EPA. w Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS): A database of CERCLA sites that is maintained by U.S.EPA, C 1 • Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): A database provided by the California Integrated Waste Management Board which consists of both open as well as closed and inactive solid waste disposal facilities and transfer stations. • Leaking Undergrol iid Storage Tanks (LUST) / Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanups (SLIC): A list that is maintained by Regional Water Quality Control Boards. • Local Counties and Cities maintain lists for hazardous substances cleanup sites and leaking underground storage tanks. • The United States Army Corps of Engineers, 911 Wilshire Boulevard, • Los Angeles, California, 90017, (213) 452-3908, maintains a list of Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). 3) Any future site-specific EIRs should identify the mechanism to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation for any Site that may be contaminated, 0 and the government agency to provide appropriate regulatory oversight. If C 2 necessary, DTSC would require an oversight agreement in order to review such documents. Please see comment No.17 below for more information. 4) Any environmental investigations, sampling and/or remediation for a site should 0 be conducted under a Workplan approved and overseen by a regulatory agency that has jurisdiction to oversee hazardous substance cleanup. The findings of C 3 any investigations, including any Phase I or II Environmental Site Assessment Investigations should be summarized in the document. All sampling results in which hazardous substances were found above regulatory standards should be ` clearly summarized in a table. • • Mr. Craig Ewing Februay 27, 2008 Page 3 5) Proper investigation, sampling and remedial actions overseen by the respective regulatory agencies, if necessary, should be conducted prior to new development C 4 • or construction. All closure, certification or remediation approval reports should be included in any site-specific EIRs_ 6) If any property adjacent to a future project site is contaminated with hazardous chemicals, and if the proposed project is within 2,000 feet from a contaminated site, then the proposed development may fall within the "Border Zone of a C 5 Contaminated Property." Appropriate precautions should be taken prior to construction if the proposed project is within a Border Zone Property. 7) If buildings, other structures, or associated uses; asphalt or concrete-paved surface areas are being planned to be demolished, an investigation should be • conducted for the presence of other related hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints or products, mercury, and asbestos containing materials (ACMs). If other C 6 hazardous chemicals, lead-based paints (LPB) or products, mercury or ACMs are identified, proper precautions should be taken during demolition activities. Additionally, the contaminants should be remediated in compliance with • California environmental regulations and policies. 8) Future project construction may require soil excavation or filling in certain areas. Sampling may be required. if soil is contaminated, it must be properly disposed and not simply placed in another location onsite. Land Disposal Restrictions C 7 (LDRs) may be applicable to such soils. Also, if the project proposes to import soil to backfill the areas excavated, sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. 9) Human health and the environment of sensitive receptors should be protected during any construction or demolition activities. If it is found necessary, a study of the site and a health risk assessment overseen and approved by the C 8 appropriate government agency and a qualified health risk assessor should be conducted to determine if there are, have been, or will be, any releases of hazardous materials that may pose a risk to human health or the environment. 10) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are, or will be, generated by the proposed operations of a project, the wastes must be managed in accordance with the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (Califomia Health and Safety C 9 Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5) and the Hazardous Waste Control Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Division 4.5). • • Mr. (.4g Ewing February 27, 2008 Page 4 11) If it is determined that hazardous wastes are or will be generated and the wastes are (a) stored in tanks or containers for more than ninety days, (b) treated onsite, or (c) disposed of onsite, then a permit from DISC may be required. If so, the C 10 facility should contact DTSC at'(714) 484-5423 to initiate pre-application discussions and determine the permitting process applicable to the fatuity. 12) If it is determined that hazardous wastes will be generated, the facility should obtain a United States Environmental Protection Agency Identification Number by C 11 * contacting (800) 618-6942, . 13) Certain hazardous waste treatment processes may require authorization from the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA). Information about the C 12 requirement for authorization can be obtained by contacting your local CUPA. r 14) If project plans include discharging wastewater to a storm drain, you may be required to obtain an NPDES permit from the overseeing Regional Water Quality C 13 Control Board (RWQCB). 15) If during construction/demolition of the project, the soil and/or groundwater C 14 contamination is suspected, construction/demolition in the area would cease and appropriate health and safety procedures should be implemented. 16) If a site was used for agricultural, cattle ranching or related activities, onsite sails 0 and groundwater might contain pesticides, agricultural chemical, organic waste or other related residue, Proper investigation, and remedial acticns,.if C 1s necessary, should be conducted under the oversight of and approved by a government agency at the site prior to construction of a project. 0 17) Envirostor (formerly CalSites) is a database primarily used by the California Departmerftf-Toxic--StrbstancesControl�nd-is-accessibte-throug[rE} SC`s website. DTSC can provide guidance for cleanup oversight through an Environmental Oversight Agreement (EQA) for government agencies, or a C 16 Voluntary Cleanup Agreement (VCA) for private parties. For additional * information on the EOA please see www.dtsc.ce.gov/SiteCleanup/Brownfields, or contact Maryam Tasnif-Abbasi, DTSC's Voluntary Cleanup Coordinator, at (714) 484-5489 for the VCA. 18) In future CEQA documents please provide complete e-mail address and agency C 17 web address which contains the project information. Also, if a project title changes, please provide historical project title(s). 0 • Mr, Craig Cawing February 27, 2008 • Page 5 If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Mr. All Shami, Project Manager, preferably at email: ashami@dtsc.ce.gov. His office number is (714)484-5472 and fax at (714) 484-5438_ Sincerely • Greg Holmes Unit Chief Southern.California Cleanup Operations Branch - Cypress Office cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research • State Clearinghouse P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044 state.clearinghouse@opr,ca.gov CEQA Tracking Center Department of Toxic Substances Control Office of Environmental Planning and Analysis 1001 1 Street, 22nd Floor, M.S. 22-2 Sacramento, California 95814 • gmoskat@dtsc.ca.gov C EQAm2056 • • • I N A N S 1 I A G f N C Y years of servirn , mEM9jkS: Desert sar springs Palm Springs Corhedral Crry Rancho Mrrege Serving the Desert Sine&7977 P.Irn Qeserr Indian Wens L.Quire. Indio C..chell. Rivrrddr C.., ' APublic Agency February 25, 2008 Mr. Craig Ewing, Director of Planning Services Department of Planning Services City of Palm Springs • 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Transmittal of the Draft Supplemental Impact Report (SCH No. 1997061005) for the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan • Dear Mr_ Ewing: This letter responds to your request for comments regarding the Section 14 Master Development Plan for the City of Palm Springs, SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) staff has submitted comments in response to the Draft Supplemental • Impact Report in the July 17, 2007 letter to the City. A copy of our comments dated July 17, 2007 is attached. Should you have questions or concerns regarding this letter, please contact me at 760-343-3456, ext. 162. • Sincerely, • Alfonso Hernandez Assistant Planner cc: C. Mikel Oglesby, General Manager Eunice Lovi, Director of Planning • Marcus Fuller, P.E., P.L.S. Assistant Director of Public Works/ Assistant City Engineer City of Palm Springs David Barakin, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer City of Palm Springs • 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms,Culifornio 92276 Phone 760-343-3456 Fax 760-343-3845 wwwsunline-org F Alf I ! A 611,11f Y .iro N S OYy<rt W u, t Palm Spring; Cathedral Clty Roneho MOugr Palm Oeynl Indlon Welli to Qvmm Indio Ceorhego Rlvuiide CounlY A Public Agency r July 17, 2007 Mr, Edward Robertson, Principal Planner Department of Planning City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Section 14 Master Development Plan Dear Mr. Robertson: The SunLine Transit Agency(SunLine) would like to thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Section 14 Master Development Plan. SunLine staff has reviewed the report and offers the following suggestions. ' r The project location is surrounded by four major intersections; Alejo Road, Ramon Road, Sunrise Way, and Indian Canyon Drive. SunLine currently provides direct bus service to the proposed project site along Sunrise Way and Ramon Road- Based on our review of existing transit amenities in the vicinity, SunLine has multiple existing r bus stops within the development plan, which offer service to Lines 111, 14, 23, and 30. Given this, we are not requesting inclusion of additional transit amenities at this time. These suggestions are offered for consideration to help encourage potential future r residents and customers of the proposed development use transit services provided in the community. Should you have questions or concerns regarding this letter, please contact me at 760-343-3456, ext. 162- r Sincerel , Ala so rnande ;, Assistant Planner cc: C. Mikel Oglesby, General Manager Eunice Lovi, Director of Planning David Barakin, Director of Public Works/ City Engineer r City of Palm Springs Margaret Park, AICP, Director of Planning Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians • 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail, Thousand Palms, California 92276 Phone 760-343-3456 Fax 760-343-3845 www.sunline-org + WARREN D. WILLIAMS 1995 MARICLx STREET General Manager-Chief EnVneer R NFRSIDE,CA 92501 931-955.1200 FAX 951.788.9965 www,lloodeontrot co.riversidexa.us • RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT February 14, 2008 • Mr. Craig Ewing • Director of Planning Services City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 • Dear Mr. Ewing: Re: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan This letter is written in response to the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for • the Section 14 Master Development Plan\Specific Plan_ The SEIR is being prepared in response to additional information associated with potential impacts to water resources. The proposed project is located on approximately 644 acres bounded by Alejo Road on the north, Ramon Road on the south, Sunrise Way on the east and Indian Canyon Drive on the west in the city of Palm Springs, Riverside County. • The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has no comments at this time. Thank you for the opportunity to review the SEIR. Please forward any subsequent environmental documents regarding the project to my attention at this office. Any further questions concerning this letter may be referred to Art Diaz at 951.955.4643 or me at 951.955.1233. i Very �truly yours, �/ • TERESA TU 4 Senior Civil Engineer c: TLMA Attn: David Mares • AD:mcv P8\117917 'IECNP E'D t,N1 n §TATF OF CALIFORNIA -- _ - _ 15ChwAl2Cnctluer�nve rnor NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION 915 CAPITOL MALL,ROOM 364 r SACRAM5.Wo.CA 95914 (916)653 51 - - Fax(916)657.5390 Web Site y4i4y„0gb Z,0 coo orma1L cis_hahc@pacbell.net February 19, 2008 * Mr. Caraig Ewing,Director of Planning Services CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 3200 EastTahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs,CA 92262 Re: SCH#1997051005:CEQA Notice of Completion•draft Supplemental Environmental Imoact Report(SEIR)for the • Section 14 Master Develo meat Plan/Specific Plan•City of Palm S rip s-Riverside CountV, California Dear Mr.Ewing: The Native American Heritage Commission is the state agency designated to protect California's Native American Cultural Resources. The California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)requires that any project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource,that includes archaeological resources,is a'significant effect' requiring the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)per the California Code of Regulations§15064.5(b)(c(CEQA guidelines). Section 15382 of the 2007 CEQA Guidelines defines a significant impact on the environment as"a substantial,or potentially substantial,adverse change in any of physical conditions witpin.an area affected by the proposed project, including...objects of historic or aesthetic significance." In order to comply with this provision,the lead agency is required to assess Whether the project will have an adverse impact on these resources within the'area of potential effect(APE)',and if so,to mitigate that effect. To,adequately assess the project-related impacts on historical resources,the Commission recommend$the following action: J Contact the appropriate California Historic Resources Information Center(CHRIS)for possible'recorded sites'in locations Where the development will or might occur.. Contact information for the Information Center nearest you is available from the State Office of Historic Preservation(916/653-7278)/htto.#/ o_hp.parks.ca gov.The record search will determine: • If a part or the entire APE has been previously surveyed for cultural resources. • If any known cultural resources have already been recorded in or adjacent to the APE. • If the probability is low, moderate,or high that cultural resources are located in the APE. If a survey is required to determine whether previously unrecorded cultural resources are present J If an archaeological inventory survey is required,the final stage is the preparation of a professional report detailing the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey. • The final report containing site forms,Site significance, and mitigation measurers should be submitted immediately to the planning department All information regarding site locations,Native American human remains, and associated funerary objects should be in a separate confidential addendum,and not be made available for pubic disclosure. The final written report should be submitted within 3 months after work has been completed to the appropriate regional archaeological Information Center. J Contact the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)for: " A Sacred Lands File (SLP)search of the project area and information on tribal contacts in the project vicinity that may have additional cultural resource information. Please provide this office with the following citation format to assist with the Sacred Lands File search request. US_GS 7.5-minute cluadranele citation with name, township. range and section: . - The NAHC advises the use of Native American Monitors to ensure proper identification and care given cultural resources that may be discovered. The NAHC recommends that contact be made with Native American Contacts on the attached list to get(heir input on potential project impact(APE). In some cases,the existence of a.Natve American cultural resources may,be known only to a local tribe(s). J Lack of surface evidence of archeological resources does not preclude their subsurface existence. • Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the identification and.evaluation of accidentally discovered archeological resources, per California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)§15064.5(f). .In areas of identified archaeological sensitivity, a certified archaeologist and a culturally affiliated Native American,with knowledge in cultural resources,should monitor all ground-disturbing activities. A culturally-affiliated Native American tribe may be the only source of information about a Sacred Site/Native American cultural resource. • Lead agencies should include in their mitigation plan provisions for the disposition of recovered artifacts, in consultation with culturally affiliated Native Americans. rL-:B 21� • J Lead agencies should include provisions for discovery of Native American human remains or unmarked cemeteries in their mitigation plans. • CEOA,Guidelines, Section 15064.5(d) requires the lead agency to work with the Native Americans identified by this Commission it the initial Study identifies the presence or likely presence of Native American human remains within the APE. CEGA Guidelines provide for agreements with Native American,identified by the NAHC,to assure the appropriate and dignified treatment of Native American human remains and any associated grave liens J Health and Safety Code§7050.5.Public Resources Code§5097.98 and Sec.§15064.5(d)of the California Code of Regulations(CEQA Guidelines) mandate procedures to be followed, including that construction or excavation be stopped in the event of an accidental discovery of any human remains in a location other than a dedicated cemetery until the county coroner or medical examiner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. . Note that§7052 of the Health&Safety Code states that disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony, J Lead agencies should consider avoidance, as defined in $15370 of the California Code of Regulations(CEQA Guidelines),when significanf-cultural_resources_are discovered duringtbe course_o_fproject planning and Implementation Please feel fr e t ntact me at(916)653-6251 if you have any questions. ncereellyy • e i5 ngle on Program Analys Attachment: List of Native American Contacts Cu: State Clearinghouse • • • • • Native American Contacts • Riverside County February 19, 2008 Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians John A. James, Chairperson Raymond Torres, Chairperson 084-245 Indio Springs Parkway Cahuilla PO Box 1160 Cahuilla Indio , CA 92203-$499 Thermal CA 92274 (760) 342-2593 (760) 397-0300 (760) 347-7880 Fax (760) 397-8146 Fax • Cahuilla Band of Indians Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Anthony Madrigal, Jr., Chairperson Ernest Morreo P.O. Box 391760 Cahuilla PO Box 1160 Cahuilla Anza , CA 92539 Thermal CA 92274 •tribalcouncilLacahu ilia.net maxtm@aol_com (951) 763-2631 (760) 397-0300 (951) 763-2632 Fax (760) 397-8146 Fax +Los Coyotes Band of Mission Indians Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians Katherine Saubel, Spokesperson John Marcus, Chairman P.O. Box 189 Cahuilla P.O. Box 609 Cahuilla Warner , CA 92086 Hemet , CA 92546 loscoyotes@earthlink.net srtribaloffice@aol.com (760) 782-0711 (951) 658-5311 •(760) 782-2701 - FAX (951) 658-6733 Fax Ramona Band of Mission Indians Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians Joseph Hamilton, vice chairman Mary Ann Green, Chairperson •P.O. Box 391670 Cahuilla P.O. Box 846 Cahuilla Anza , CA 92539 Coachella CA 92236 admin@ramonatribe.com (760) 369-7171 (951) 763-4105 760-369-7161 (951) 763-4325 Fax • This list Is current only as of the date of this document. • Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined In Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Cade and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code_ This list Is only applicable for contacting local Native American with regard to cultural resources for the proposed SCH#1997061005;CEQA Notice of Completion draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report(SEIR)for the Section 14 Master Development Plan/specific Plan;City of Palm Springs;Riverside County,California- • Native American Contacts r Riverside County February 19, 2008 Morongo Band of Mission Indians Cahuilla Band of Indians Cultural Resources-Project Manager Maurice Chacon, Cultural Resources 649750 Seminole Drive Cahuilla P.O. Box 391760 Cahuilla Cabazon , CA 92230 Serrano Anza , CA 92539 brut 755 morongo.org cbandodian@aol.com (951) 755-5200r323-0822-cell 06 (951) 763-2631 (951) 922-8146 Fax (951) 763-2632 Fax • Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Alberto Ramirez, Cultural Resources Coordinator P.O. Boxt 1160 Cahuilla Thermal , CA 92274 I1111cultural_monitor @ yahoo.com 760) 397-0300 (760) 275-2686-CELL (760) 397-8146 Fax 0Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Judy Stapp, Director of Cultural Affairs 84-245 Indio Springs Parkway Cahuilla Indio , CA 92203-3499 [weaver@cabazonindians.org (760) 342-2593 0(760) 347-7880 Fax Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians THPO Richard Begay, Tribal Historic Perservation Officer 95401 Dinah Shore Drive Cahuilla Palm Springs , CA 92264 ( 60)35a3096t 77 40 Ext 60(760) 699 6906 (760) 699-6925- Fax • • +This list Is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility a5 defined In Section 7050-5 of the Health and Safety Code,Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Cade and Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code. This list Is only applicable for contacting local Native American with regard to cultural resources for the proposed SCHA1997061005;CEQA ffotloe of Completion draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report(SEIR)for the Section 14 Master Oeveiopoment PlanrSpeclfle Plan;City of Palm Springs;Riverside County,California. 0 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA " February 8, 2008 ASSOCIATION of 1 GOVERNMENTS Mr.Craig Ewing Main Office Director of Planning Services City of Palm Springs 919 wear Seventh Street 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way 12th Floor Palm Springs, CA 92262 Los Angeles,California 90017-3435 RE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. 120080043 Section 14 Master Development * Plan/Specific Plan t(213)236-1300 r(213)236.1825 Dear Mr. Ewing: www;ca9 ca gov Thank you for submitting the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan for review and comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects and programs with regional plans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities Officers as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal laws and President regulations- Guidance provided by these reviews is intended to assist local Gary Ovio,San Bernardino County agencies and project sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment First Vice Prc,idcnt of regional goals and policies. Rlchard Oixcn,l•akc Knrc;t second Baldwin, President We have reviewed the Section 14 Master Development Plan/S ecitic Plan, HarryBaidwin,San Gabriel p P and have determined that the proposed Project is not regionally significant per Immediate Past Angeles en[ SCAG Intergovernmental Review IGR Criteria and California Environmental Yvonne B.Burke,Los Angeles County 9 ( ) Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15206). Therefore, the proposed Project Policy Committee Chairs does not warrant comments at this time. Should there be a change in the scope Adminurniion of the proposed Project, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and Rona Id O Lovendge,Riverside comment at that time. Community,Economic and Human elepmen[ Jon Edney,ey,pl Cen[ra A description of the proposed Project was published in SCAG's January 16-31, Energy and Environment 2008 Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse Report for public review and t r Debbie Cook,Huntington Beach w:ar�;.�.i.a• Transportation and Communications Alan O Wapner Ontario The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all correspondence with SCAG concerning this Project. Correspondence should be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 236-1857. Thank you- Sincerely, • LAVERNE JONES, lanning Technician Program Development and Evaluation Division Doe#143623The Regional Council is corn posed of 75 elected officials representing 187 cities,six counties, four County Transportation Commissions,and a Tribal Government representative within Southern California. ,tiro .n . tie I ��` `A`"' SA? City of Palm Springs V � Craig A. Ewing, AICP `' "�F Director of Planning Services Cot FOR MEMORANDUM DATE: December 8, 2008 TO: David Fi. Ready, City Manager FROM: Craig A. Ewing, Director of Planning Servi SUBJECT: Information on Potential Subsidence with i he ity of Palm Springs On December 3, 2008, the City Council continued the hearing on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (DSEIR) for the Section 14 Master Plan. Council member Weigel asked for a report on the potential for subsidence in the City's vicinity. Attached are the staff report, press release and executive summary prepared by the Desert Water Agency (DWA) in July 2008 on the matter. In brief, the DWA contracted with the engineering firm of Krieger & Stewart, Inc. to investigate if any ground subsidence in the Palm Springs area could be detected. The firm studied over fifty (50) well sites and other benchmarks in Palm Springs using Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) technology. The consultants concluded that all elevation changes were less than the margin for error of GPS technology (1 1/8 inch). Further, elevation changes at each of the benchmarks—both increases and decreases were detected — showed no discernable pattern of distribution. With no significant elevation changes and no clear pattern of activity, the DWA's engineering consultants concluded that no apparent subsidence has occurred in the area. Attached: 1. DWA staff report, July 1, 2008 2. DWA press release, undated 3. Benchmark Evaluation Report, November 2008; Krieger & Stewart. Inc. Item No. 1 . V . 7-B STAFF REPORT TO DESERT WATER AGENCY BOARD OF DIRECTORS JULY 1, 2008 RE: DESERT WATER AGENCY DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEM SUBSIDENCE STUDY Earlier this year, Coachella Valley Water District released a report that showed measurable subsidence in the eastern portion of the valley. The results of CVWD's report led us to conduct a similar study of our area, as excessive groundwater pumping can contribute to land subsidence under certain geological conditions, and land subsidence can have adverse impacts to both the aquifer and to overlying land use. DWA asked Krieger and Stewart Incorporated (K&S), engineering consultants, to study the elevations of our wells and City of Palm Springs benchmarks to determine if measurable subsidence had occurred. The study area also included county areas, parts of Cathedral City and the Mission Creek recharge basins. The study was conducted along with other work K&S is performing on our Domestic Water System General Plan Update. The data indicated that there has been no decrease in elevation over time in our area. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that no significant subsidence has taken place in the area. The study was conducted.by taking elevations of the sites and comparing them to historical data, some dating back to 1962, to determine if the elevations had changed. The historical data was established with ground surveying methods. This study compares historical elevations with satellite measurements. The comparison indicates we are within the margin of error. K&S used GPS receivers to make field observations, which were processed using National Geodetic Survey Online Position User Service—Rapid Static procedure. This procedure uses Latitude, Longitude and vertical positions for measurement. The process has an accuracy rating of plus or minus .09 feet (1 to 1/8 inch). Bob Krieger is with us today to answer any questions you may have about the report. �n,r•09hlturmmn .iPn� I' U Desert Water Agency D ES E RTPAT E R 1200 Gene Autry Trail Palm Springs,CA 92264 Contact:Katie Roark,760-323-4971 ext. 184 PALM SPRINGS,CA---Despite reports of sinking land down valley,Desert Water Agency has confirmed that land in the Palm Springs area has not seen a decrease in elevation over time. DWA hired Krieger and Stewart Inc.to conduct a study over several months in 2008.The results showed no significant subsidence in DWA's service area.Subsidence is the downward movement of the ground surface brought about by consolidation or collapse of the underlying sails. DWA is constantly monitoring its groundwater pumping, water levels and wells. DWA and Coachella Valley Water District use recharge basins at Whitewater and Mission Creek to refill the underground aquifer with water imported through the Colorado River Aqueduct. Although there was no evidence of subsidence in DWA's area,after CVWD's report for its area showed subsidence,DWA was asked by some to conduct a report. The difference between the areas is a result of the diverse geology in the Valley. The earth formations in the west consist of larger materials such as rocks,boulders,coarse gravel and sands,as opposed to fine sand,silt and clay material in the east. Fifty-two locations were studied including DWA wells and some City of Palm Spring benchmarks. Krieger and Stewart were able to tell if there bad been a change in elevation by comparing the locations to historical data,some of which dated back to 1962. If they were lower,that would have indicated subsidence, "It is essential that Desert Water Agency be aware of the activity happening in our underwater aquifer," said general manager Dave Luker."The aquifer is the main source of drinking water for the Coachella Valley and we have a responsibility to maintain it.We must closely watch the groundwater levels to ensure the valley's water supply.We learned from this study that our efforts are efficient and arc working to maintain the valley's water supply,but we must continue these efforts in the future." DWA also recorded some points for the first time in order to continue to use them for subsidence measurement in the future. Krieger and Stewart used global positioning receivers to make field observations.The observations were processed with the National Geodetic Survey Online Position User Service—Rapid Static procedure which uses Latitude,Longitude,metric and vertical positions.The data collected through these observations was then compared to historical elevation data to determine if there had been a change. This process has an accuracy rating of plus or minus.09 feet. Desert Water Agency is a public,non-profit agency and State Water Contractor serving a 325-square-mile area including parts of Cathedral City,outlying county areas,Desert Hot Springs and Palm Springs.An elected five-member board sets policy and represents the ratepayers. For more information,please contact Public Information Associate Katie Ruark at(760)323-4971 ext. 184orkruark0dwa.or . t; �I DESERT WATER AGENCY (760) 323-4971 POST OFFICE BOX 1710 .1200 GENE AUTRY TRAIL SOUTH 4pl PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 �I DESERT WATER AGENCY GPS CONTROL SURVEY APRIL 2008 AND FACILITIES BENCHMARKS 1962-2008 NOVEMBER 2008 Prepared By KRIEGER& STEWART, INCORPORATED ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS 3602 UNIVERSITY AVENUE RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 (951) 684-6900 p9p, F,-J �Ot+:PLGWpsG � qQ' 2 `cZ F c, �w5'4�rlGfc i p� N0.4Z922 m cc Naa7a1 * A•03/31 ,t Exp•09130/200 N'AN� CALIF�N\P iA6/blt 101-12.2L �' (101-12P2-BGNCHMARKS-1108) N BENCHMARK EVALUATION REPORT BENCHMARK EVALUATION REPORT This report contains a summary of the procedures and results of the GPS Control Survey performed by Krieger & Stewart at the request of Desert Water Agency (DWA). The survey was limited to the area within the DWA Service Area and was performed between January 10, 2008 and March 12,2008. A. PURPOSE OF SURVEY The primary purpose of this survey was to establish a current baseline of horizontal and vertical data for DWA well sites. This survey established horizontal control and verified elevations at DWA well sites that had existing survey control monuments and established new horizontal and vertical control monuments at DWA well sites which had no previous survey control. The secondary purpose of this survey was to check for possible ground subsidence within DWA's Service Area by comparing the newly established vertical baseline data with historical (record) data. B. SURVEY PROCEDURE Points were surveyed with Trimble dual frequency GPS receivers with a minimum fast static occupation time of 30 minutes and a 5.0 second data logging interval. During the field observation, field notes describing the survey control paint were prepared and site photos were taken of each survey control point. Where GPS observations on existing control points were not possible due to overhead and/or adjacent site obstructions, an eccentric point, measurable with a GPS receiver, was set and differential leveling methods were then used to establish the elevation of the existing obstructed point. GPS Survey observations were then post-processed utilizing the National Geodetic Survey (NGS) Rapid Static Online Positioning User Service (OPUS-RS). OPUS-RS solution reports provide computed values for latitude, longitude, metric NAVD88 vertical positions with estimated standard deviations, metric State Plane coordinates (CA Zone 6) along with computed convergence, point scale, and combination factors. All OPUS-RS reported metric values were converted to US Survey feet(I meter=3.280833 US survey feet). The NGS OPUS-RS Solution Reports contain a quality indicator, a normalized RMS (root mean square) factor, and standard -I- c it, deviations for all positions reported. These factors were evaluated and any points determined in be of questionable accuracy were re-measured and post-processed agaut. Due to the fact that most record elevations Cound for the existing survey control points were based on NGVD29 (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929), the OPUS-RS computed NAVD88 (North American Vertical Datum of 1988) elevations were converted to NGVD29 elevations using the NGS program VERTCDN 2.0 ' The NGS program VFRTCON 2,0, as described online, ".,.computes the modeled difference in orthometric heights between North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (VAVD88) and the 1 National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929 (NGVD29) for a given location as specified by latitude and longitude," "... the VFRTCON 2.0 model can be considered accurate at the 2.0 cm 1 (0.066 sft.) (one sigma level)".1 Based upon an average of the estimated standard deviations for the reported OPUS-RS data, the accuracy of the horizontal control was computed to be plus/minus 0.02 sft. The accuracy of the I vertical control is also based upon an average of the estimated standard deviations for the reported OPUS-RS data, but is also combined with the stated accuracy of the VFRTCON 2.0 datum conversion program. The accuracy of the vertical control was computed to be plus/minus 0.09 sft. C. SUBSIDENCE COMPUTATIONS The computed NGVD29 elevations at each survey control point were compared to NGVD29 record elevations (when available) of the points to obtain an indication of possible subsidence within the DWA Service Area. Record elevations for existing DWA well site control points were obtained from the Desert Water Annoy Facilities Bench Marks Octobcr 1994, prepared by Krieger& Stewart. These record elevations are dated from March 1962 to May 2003. wFor additional comparative purposes, a number of City of Palm Springs Benchmarks were also measured during the OPS control survey These elevations were also compared to record elevations as referenced in the Benchmark Atlas prepared by the City of Palm Springs. Record "National Geodetic Survey Height Conversion Methodology" prepared by Dennis Milbert, Ph,D., 05/12/1999, ://www.nas.noaa gov/TOOLSNertcon/vertcon.html, elevations for existing DWA well site control points were established using differential leveling methods from the City of Patin Springs Benchmarks. i D. SURVEY NOTES l DWA is located within a seismically active area of Southern California. Horizontal and vertical j crustal motion, including plate tectonics and earthquakes, will have caused variations in the J horizontal and the vertical positions over time between ground based record elevations and GPS computed elevations 2 In the future, when additional data is added to the survey presented hereon, Horizontal Time-Dependent Positioning (HTDP) software will be used to address that motion associated with drifting tectonic plates and earthquakes,3 This will allow DWA to update (or b4ckdate) coordinates from one epoch date to another epoch date, a process referred to as data homogenization. Well No. 17 and the Mission Creek Benchmark are not included in the analysis of the elevation differences due to their remoteness. City of Palm Springs Benchmarks 19-9 and V-3 were also not included because they appear to have been reset, disturbed, or the record data is otherwise clearly erroneous. E. STATISTICAL ANALYSTS AND CONCLUSION The average elevation difference of the 33 points that were measured and that had record elevations (excluding Well No. 17 and the Mission Creek Benchmark) was computed to be (-)0.14 feet, with a standard deviation of 0.1 I feet, indicating that the elevations of the survey control monuments measured by GPS for this program arc, on the average, approximately 0,14 feet lower in elevation than their record elevations. It is important to note that the accuracy of vertical control for the recent GPS readings, as previously mentioned, is plus/minus 0,09 feet. The accuracy of the record data is unknown, but likely to be of lesser accuracy than that of the recent GPS data. "Using the HTDP Software to Transform Spatial Coordinates Across Time and Between Reference Frames" by Richard A. Snay,primed in Survevina and Land Infemlatioo Systems.Vol. 59,No. 1, 1999,pp 15-25, "Horizontal Time-Dependent Positioning" by Richard A. $nay, printed in Professional Surveyor Ma azure. November 2003, -3- As shown on Figure 1 and Table 1, the difference between the GPS and record elevations is essentially randomly distributed spatially and there is no discernable correlation between the elevation difference and distance from the mountains. This would essentially rule out any effect of formation depth on the observed elevation differences. Ground surface subsidence, as a geophysical process, would be expected to cause decreasing ground surface elevations over time. Thu decreases would not necessarily be equal at all points f within the subsiding area (i e. differences in geology could result in differential subsidence); however, on average, elevations would be expected to decrease, not increase, over time. Therefore, if the calculated elevation differences set forth herein were caused by ground surface subsidence, then there should be a significant correlation between the observed elevation differences and the amount of time for said elevation differences to develop. To test the hypothesis that the elevation differences were caused by ground surface subsidence, the elevation difference was compared to the age of the record elevation for each point (excluding Well No. 17, the Mission Creek Benchmark, and City of Patin Springs Benchmarks 19-8 and V-3 for the reasons noted above). Least squares linear regression analysis of these data yields a trend line that actually indicates a statistical increase in elevation over time, with an R2 value of 0.17 (indicating a relatively wide "scatter" of the data points), i.c. the points with newer record elevations actually showed, on the average, more of a negative elevation difference than the points with older record elevations. If any significant ground surface subsidence had actually taken place as a process over time, the trend line would be expected to indicate a decrease in elevation over time. Since the data indicate the opposite, they cannot be said to support the subsidence hypothesis, and it would be rea!wnable to conclude that no significant subsidence in the study area has taken place. Most likely, the average decrease in elevation between the record elevations and the measured elevations is due to measurement error. Since the accuracy of the recent GPS measurements has been computed at plus or minus 0.09 feet, most of the contributing error is likely to reside in the record data. GPS Control Survey Monument data sheets containing measured and record control information are included in Section 11 of this report. -4- 4ALM Al of SAP' City ®f Palm Springs ti U N Office of the City Clerk °T•°unrsv'9� " 3200 E.fihquaz Canyon WAY • Palm Spring*>, California 92262 C, I FO[L\4�P Td: (760) 323-520 1 • Fax (760) 322-8332 • Web: www.palmsprmgs-Ca.,ov NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Regular Meeting of December 3, 2008, Public Hearing Item No. 1.A. FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FINAL SEIR) FOR THE SECTION 14 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN By a unanimous vote of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs the public hearing was continued to Wednesday, January 7, 2009, Council Chamber, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING State of California ) County of Riverside ) ss. City of Palm Springs ) I, James Thompson, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, certify this Notice of Continuance was posted at or before 6:30 p.m., December 4, 2008, as required by established policies and procedures. _ i ,dames Thompson City Clerk NOTICE OF CANT-Fiqal Suppl EIR 1-07-09 Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 fpA�M SA � Rey c u � M [ 4 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT �Oh�+`nU�C 1^IOVVL DATE: December 3, 2008 PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FINAL SEIR) FOR THE SECTION 14 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services SUMMARY The City Council will consider for certification Final SEIR for the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan prepared pursuant to a Settlement Agreement in the Jane Smith v. City of Palm Springs litigation (Case No. INC 042895) ("Smith Litigation"). A draft Notice of Determination has been prepared for this action. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony. 2. Adopt Resolution No. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE SECTION 14 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN." PRIOR ACTIONS: On March 31, 2004, the City of Palm Springs City Council approved the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan and certified the Final Environmental Impact Repo rt/EnvironmentaI Impact Statement ("EIR/EIS") for this project. The project and associated NEPA document were also approved by the Agua Caliente Tribe. On December 6, 2005, subsequent to the City Council's certification of the Final FIR/EIS, the Desert Water Agency ("DWA"), which supplies water the Section 14, adopted an Urban Water Management Plan ("2005 UWMP"). The 2005 UWMP provides updated information on the ability of DWA's to supply future development within its service area, which includes Section 14 and almost the entire City of Palms Springs. City Council Staff Report December 3,2008 Section 14 Specific Plan Final SEIR Page 2 of 9 In addition, in July, 2007, the City entered into a Settlement Agreement with Dr. Jane Smith to resolve the case Smith Litigation. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Dr. Smith agreed to dismiss her lawsuit against the City and the City agreed to prepare an SEIR to address the water supply issues related to the implementation of the Section 14 Specific Plan. STAFF ANALYSIS: In March 2004, the City of Palm Springs City Council approved the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan and certified the EIR/EIS. Section 14 is part of the Agua Caliente Tribe Reservation, which isbounded by Ramon Road on the south, Alejo Road on the north, N. Sunrise Way on the east and N. Indian Canyon Way on the west. In May, 2004, Dr. Jane Smith filed a lawsuit against the City alleging that the City failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the California Water Code when it approved the Master Development Plan/Specific Plan and certified the Final EIR/EIS. The primary allegation in the lawsuit was that the Final EIR/EIS did not adequately address the Master Development Plan/Specific Plan's impact on water supply. In July, 2007, the City and Dr. Smith entered into a Settlement Agreement whereby the City agreed to prepare a Supplemental EIR ("SEIR") that reanalyzed the Master Development Plan/Specific Plan's impact on water supply.ln accordance with the Settlement Agreement, City staff retained Terra Nova, an environmental consulting firm, to prepare the SEIR and a Water Supply Study ("WSS") to assess the adequacy of water supply sources to serve build-out of the Master Development Plan/Specific Plan. As the documents discuss in more detail, in 2005 and subsequent to the City Council's certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, the Desert Water Agency adopted the 2005 UWMP. The 2005 UWMP provides updated information on the ability of Desert Water Agency to supply water to future development within its service area, which includes Section 14 and almost the entire City of Palms Springs. Therefore, Terra Nova and the City have the benefit of a recent and comprehensive Urban Water Management that was adopted by the water purveyor for Section 14, for purposes of conducting its analysis of water supply impacts. Based on the 2005 UWMP and additional research and analysis, Terra Nova was able to quantify the potential impacts of Section 14 buildout on reasonably available water resources. Terra Nova's findings are included in the WSS, which was attached as an appendix to the SEIR. The SEIR relies upon the technical analysis provided in WSS and other information in the record of proceedings, including the technical reports and analysis that were reviewed and relied upon when compiling the WSS. This information provides the basis for the conclusion regarding the adequacy and reliability of water supply sources to serve build-out of Section 14 pursuant to the Master Development Plan/Specific Plan. The SEIR determined that adequate water +til City Council Staff Report December 3,2008 Section 14 Specific Plan Final SEIR Page 3 of 9 resources exist to accommodate future development within Section 14 and elsewhere in the DWA service area. The City prepared the SEIR to "supplement" and bolster the EIR/EIS' analysis of water resources impacts. The purpose of the SEIR is mainly to disclose additional information about the Specific Plan's water supply based on the most recent and up to date water resource data, including the 2005 UWMP. The SEIR also includes a brief discussion of the other environmental resources that were analyzed in the 2004 FEIR/EIS, but require no further analysis. Existing Conditions The Coachella Valley groundwater basin is a northwest-southeast trending sub-surface aquifer covering approximately 400 square miles, which generally extends from the community of Whitewater on the northwest to the Salton Sea on the southeast. The groundwater basin is bounded by the non-waterbearing rocks of the San Bernardino and Little San Bernardino Mountains on the north and northeast, and the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains on the south and southwest. Although the sediment fill is estimated to be approximately 20,000 feet thick, the water-yielding section extends only to depths of a few thousand feet. The total estimated groundwater storage capacity within the first 1,000 feet of the basin is approximately 36.5 million acre-feet- Demand for water in the Palm Springs Subarea, which is the basin serving Section 14 and most of the DWA service area, comes from both residential and commercial needs, and cannot be satisfied through local surface and groundwater supplies alone. Therefore, in order to assure an adequate supply of water and prevent adverse impacts associated with the depletion of groundwater reserves in the Palm Springs Subarea and throughout the Coachella Valley, a groundwater replenishment program has been implemented. Artificial groundwater replenishment began in the Upper Whitewater River Subbasin in 1973 and continues today, primarily through the import of surface water. The surface water replenishment program uses imported supplemental water from the Colorado River aqueduct in exchange for the DWA and CVWD contract entitlements for State Water Project ("SWP") water. In the Final SEIR's responses to comments, it is noted that, notwithstanding recent litigation that has required reduced SWP deliveries, DWA and CVWD SWP entitlements represent only a portion of its water supply sources. The Final SEIR ultimately concludes that despite potential reductions in SWP deliveries, DWA's water supply, which includes the groundwater basin, would still be adequate to serve the Master Development Plan/Specific Plan development. Limited additional artificial recharge is from the release of treated wastewater to spreading ponds and non- consumptive return of irrigation water. However, demand has frequently exceeded the recharged supply throughout the Coachella Valley over the past few decades. The cumulative effect has reduced the total estimated groundwater in storage in the Coachella Valley groundwater basin from 36.5 million acre-feet to approximately 31 million acre-feet. Over this same time period City Council Staff Report December 3,2008 Section 14 Specific Plan Final SEIR Page 4 of 9 the Palm Springs Subarea has experienced a net reduction in water storage of approximately 220,000 acre-feet, leaving a current estimate of water in storage in the Palm Springs Subarea at approximately 4.38 million acre-feet. To address overdraft, water districts and cities throughout the Coachella Valley are implementing a number of more stringent conservation requirements, including requiring higher water use fees, and increasing the use of alternative water sources and recycled water. These measures are aimed at bringing water demand and supply into balance. Desert Water Agency is a leader in this effort. Project Impacts Analysis of the Desert Water Agency's actual Section 14 consumption records over the past five years shows that existing consumption has reached 1,540 acre-feet per year. The Final SEIR calculated that the remaining development potential within Section 14 would result in an additional annual demand of 590 acre-feet (if 45 acres of development within Section 14, which has been approved since the Council adopted the Master Development Plan/Specific Plan, are excluded) or 739 acre-feet of water (if this development is included in the demand estimate). In order to provide a range of future water supply projections three water supply scenarios were analyzed, consistent with the methodology used to prepare Water Supply Assessments and Verifications as defined by Senate Bills 610 and 221, respectively. Under all scenarios, the SEIR and WSS concluded that the Master Development Plan/Specific Plan's water demand could be accommodated. The subject analysis also included a review of the 2005 UWMP, the 2007 California Department of Water Resources estimate of future SWP deliveries, and a reduced water supply scenario that provides a conservative estimate of future water deliveries based on the potential outcome of recent federal water resource litigation. Desert Water Agency's Urban Water Management Plan The 2005 UWMP was based upon an assumed consistent annual delivery of approximately 65% of its SWP allocation. This compares to the actual 20 year historic annual average delivery of approximately 87% of SWP allocation. The Desert Water Agency assumed a more conservative long-term delivery scenario despite the historically higher annual deliveries. Assuming Section 14 is built-out over the next 20 years, Section 14's total annual use would represent approximately 3% of the Desert Water Agency's annual estimated demand. The 2005 UWMP "normal water year" supply/demand analysis results in a net benefit (inflow) to the Palm Springs Subarea basin of approximately 60,000 acre-feet by 2030, substantially adding to groundwater in storage. Under the worst-case "multi-dry years scenario", the 20-year model projects a net decrease of groundwater in storage of approximately 74,100 acre-feet. As a result, the amount of water that would remain in storage in the Palm Springs Subarea at the end of the 20-year modeled period would range from approximately 4.28 to 4.44 million acre-feet. -�,4 City Council Staff Report December 3, 2008 Section 14 Specific Plan Final SEIR Page 5 of 9 Current SWP Delivery Projections To arrest the existing overdraft condition of the groundwater basin, DWA injects into the groundwater basin Colorado River water that is exchanged with the Metropolitan Water District for DWA's SWP entitlement. Accordingly, the amount of Colorado River water to inject into the groundwater basin depends on DWA's SWP allocation that fluctuates in any given year. As the SEIR addresses in more detail, recent court cases have affected the deliveries of SWP water to its contractors, including the Desert Water Agency. In December 2007, the State Department of Water Resources provided estimates of SWP delivery reliability analysis and has indicated to SWP contractors that they can safely assume a long term delivery average of 66% of their allocations notwithstanding the more dramatic recent reductions that have occurred as a result of the litigation. Utilizing these SWP projections, the 20-year supply/demand model for the Desert Water Agency's service area was run for several supply scenarios. In order to provide an even more conservative analysis for each of these projections, the analysis assumes that, in the first year of the 20-year model the Desert Water Agency will receive 35% of its allocation of SWP water, followed by four years at 50% of its allocation, and 66% of its allocation for the remaining years of the modeled period. Mitigation Measures The 2005 UWMP assumes continuing new development and growth in water demand. The Master Development Plan/ Specific Plan is one of several development areas throughout Palm Springs that were accounted for in Desert Water Agency's existing and future demand estimates. The 2005 UWMP has also planned for potential reductions in SWP deliveries through increased conservation requirements, increased use of recycled water and purchase of additional water supplies. In addition, the Section 14 Specific Plan includes design standards and guidelines that help Desert Water Agency increase water conservation and reduce consumption. Development in Section 14 will continue to adhere to existing and future conservation measures, and the project will be required to incorporate the latest water conservation technology to minimize water use. All development within Section 14 will be connected to the municipal sewer system and wastewater will be collected and recycled. Development within the Section 14 Specific Plan will also be required to pay fees to Desert Water Agency for the purpose of buying additional supplies of water for importation into the basin. These combined actions will assure that any impacts of the Section 14 Specific Plan on the groundwater basin will be less than significant. Alternatives Three alternatives to the Master Development Plan/Specific Plan were evaluated in the FIR/EIS. The EIR/EIS analyzed a General Plan/no project alternative, a more intense alternative, and a less intense alternative. Moreover, the City Council previously rejected these alternatives when it approved the Master Development Plan/Specific Plan in 2004. The Final SEIR (Section V.) reviews each of these previously analyzed City Council Staff Report December 3,2008 Section 14 Specific Plan Final SEIR Page 6 of 9 alternatives and updates the prior analysis based on the updated analysis of water supply impacts. The primary differences between these previously analyzed alternatives are the location and intensity of commercial and residential development within Section 14. The only alternative that could substantially lessen the water demand of the Master Development Plan/Specific Plan is the less intense alternative. However, this alternative did and still does not meet the primary objective of the Specific Plan, which is to provide a framework for future development within Section 14 that will promote economic self- sufficiency for the members of the Tribe, while supporting development of tribal government and infrastructure. In addition to the previously analyzed alternatives, the Final SEIR analyzed an alternative site alternative, which generally contemplates the development of an approximately 200 acre master plan on Indian lands located north of the 1-10 as opposed to Section 14. However, as noted in the Final SEIR, the "more exposed nature of these lands and increased sand and wind make such an alternative impractical." Moreover, the development of an equivalent project at an alternative site does not substantially lessen or avoid water supply impacts. Summary of Analysis Build-out of the Section 14 Specific Plan will not have a significant direct, indirect or cumulative impact on local water supplies or the Desert Water Agency's ability to provide domestic water to Palm Springs' Section 14, or the rest of its service area. The various supply/demand analyses in the Final SEIR and associated Water Supply Study clearly indicate that a safe and reliable range of resources for domestic water will be available for the next 20 years and beyond. The certification of the subject Final SEIR will satisfy the requirements set forth in the Settlement Agreement associated with this project. Environmental Review Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the Final SEIR focused on the availability of water supplies to serve the Master Development Plan/Specific Plan. That study concluded that adequate water supplies do and will exist to serve Section 14 and other development in the DWA service area. The project's potential water demand will also be minimized through the implementation of mitigation measures set forth in the Final SEIR. Potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from this project will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Fiscal Impact No fiscal impact has been identified. Findings of Fact Staff requests that the City make the following findings, as they are also set forth in the attached resolution, certifying the Section 14 SEIR: t � City Council Staff Report December 3,2008 Section 14 Specific Plan Final SEIR Page 7 of 9 1. That the SEIR has been prepared and processed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures and reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR/EIS as revised by the SEIR and finds that it adequately describes and addresses the environmental effects of the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan. 2. That the City determined, based on the circumstances set forth in Public Resources Code §21166 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations §15162, that a Subsequent EIR was not required; however, the City determined that a "Supplement" to the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement ("EIR/EIS") was required to update and expand the analysis of the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan's impact on water resources. The SEIR concluded that the EIR/EIS adequately assessed the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan's impact on all other environmental resources. 3. Based upon the SEIR, the comments received thereon, and the entire record of proceeding relating to the SEIR and the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan update„ the City Council finds as follows: WATER SUPPLY (1) Facts: a. The SEIR analyzes water supply impacts in Section III. As noted in the SEIR, DWA presently relies on multiple water supply sources to serve water demand within its service area. These supplies include, underlying groundwater from the Palm Springs Subarea of the Upper Whitewater River Subbasin, surface water, imported Colorado River water pursuant to an Agreement with Metropolitan Water District to exchange DWA's State Water Project allocation, and recycled water- b. Regarding the local groundwater supply, in 1964 the California Department of Water Resources estimated that the Palm Springs Subarea had approximately 4.4 million acre-feet of water in storage. Since the Department of Water Resources' estimate approximately 50 years ago, demand has exceeded the recharged supply in the Palm Springs Subarea and has resulted in a net reduction in water storage of approximately 220,000 acre-feet, leaving a current estimate of approximately 4.18 million acre-feet of water in storage in the Subarea. c. Build-out of the Master Development Plan/Specific Plan would result in an additional annual demand of 590 acre-feet (if 45 acres of development within Section 14, which has been approved since the Council adopted the Master Development Plan/Specific Plan, are excluded) or 739 acre-feet of water (if this development is included in the demand estimate). City Council Staff Report December 3, 2008 Section 14 Specific Plan Final SEIR Page 8 of 9 d. The SEIR and the Water Supply Study conclude that DWA's has sufficient water supplies to serve this additional demand through at least 2030. The SEIR and WSS analyzed several different scenarios, ranging from a normal water year scenario to single and multiple dry year scenarios. Under each of these scenarios, the SEIR and WSS concluded that sufficient water supplies to serve build-out of the Master Development Plan/Specific Plan. The SEIR and WSS also utilized different assumptions regarding the availability of State Water Project in light of recent developments that resulted in across reductions of State Water Project water. Even under the most conservative scenarios that assume significantly less State Water Project water than has historically been allocated to DWA, DWA would have an adequate overall water supply to accommodate future demand within its service area, including Section 14. e. The SEIR also includes a comprehensive discussion regarding the significant water conservation measures that DWA, CVWD, and the City implement that will further reduce water demand in Section 14 and throughout the City and DWA service area. (See SEIR, Section III.C) In addition, the SEIR identifies general conservation measures that shall be imposed on all future development within Master Development Plan/Specific Plan area. Collectively, tehse regulations and mitigation measures will further reduce demand on water resources and minimize impacts. The mitigation measures identified in the SEIR have been incorporated into the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan pursuant to the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program- (2) Finding: a. The Master Development Plan/Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact on water supply. Nonetheless, the SEIR identifies additional mitigation measures that will further reduce water supply impacts and these measures are hereby adopted. 4. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified in the subject SEIR. 5. The Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of, rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history, or prehistory. 6. There is no evidence before the City that the Project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 18 City Council Staff Report December 3, 2008 Section 14 Specific Plan Final SEIR Page 9 of 9 7. The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the SEIR. 8. The Project will not result in impacts, which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the Project. 9. The Project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant unmitigated impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 10. The City Council has fully considered the Final SEIR and the comments received thereon. 11. The Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. 12. The location of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council decision is based upon is in the Palm Springs City Hall, Development Services Department, 3200 East Tahquitz Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262. 13. A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), which is incorporated in the Final SEIR, is hereby adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081.6 in order to assure compliance with the mitigation measures during Project implementation. cfwing,�6c1P Thomas Wilson( Direcfor of Planet Services Assistant City Manager, Dev't Services David H. Ready, 1 City Manager Attachments: 1. Draft/Final Supplemental EIR for Section 14 Specific Plan 2. Draft Resolution Certifying Section 14 Final SEIR RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS REPORT FOR THE SECTION 14 MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN (CASE NO.: STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 1997061005) WHEREAS, on March 31, 2004, the City Council of the City of Palm Springs ("City") approved the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan and certified the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIR/EIS") for this project; and, WHEREAS, on or about May 3, 2004, Dr. Jane Smith filed a Preemptory Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against the City challenging the City Council's approval of the Project and certification of the FEIR/EIS based on alleged violations of the California Environmental Quality Act, including, inter alia, alleged deficiencies in the FEIR/EIS' analysis of water supply impacts ("Section 14 Litigation"); and, WHEREAS, on or about July, 2007, the City entered into a Settlement Agreement with Jane Smith to resolve the Section 14 Litigation, which included a requirement that the City conduct further review and analysis of the Master Development Plan/Specific Plan's impact of water supply in a Supplemental EIR ("SEIR"); and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, the City has prepared the SEIR to disclose additional information and analysis regarding the Master Development Plan/Specific Plan's impact of water supply; and, WHEREAS, the City has prepared this SEIR in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., (CEQA Guidelines); and, WHEREAS, in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, all appropriate notices relating to the Final SEIR have been published in the Desert Sun and sent to the Office of Neighborhood Involvement to ensure that Dr. Smith, members of the public, and other public agencies received notice of the SEIR and had an opportunity to review and consider the SEIR; and, WHEREAS, on December 3, 2008, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the approval and certification of the SEIR; and at which hearing the Council received and considered a staff report, associated documents, and public testimony both oral and written; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make the following findings to certify said Final SEIR: 6o93a31 23 Resolution No._ Page 2 1. That the SEIR has been prepared and processed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures and reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the EIR/EIS as revised by the SEIR and finds that it adequately describes and addresses the environmental effects of the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan. 2. That the City determined, based on the circumstances set forth in Public Resources Code §21166 and 14 Cal. Code of Regulations §15162, that a Subsequent EIR was not required; however, the City determined that a "Supplement" to the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact ReporVEnvironmental Impact Statement ("EIR/EIS") was required to update and expand the analysis of the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan's impact on water resources. The SEIR concluded that the EIR/EIS adequately assessed the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan's impact on all other environmental resources. 3. Based upon the SEIR, the comments received thereon, and the entire record of proceeding relating to the SEIR and the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan update„ the City Council finds as follows: WATER SUPPLY (1) Facts: a. The SEIR analyzes water supply impacts in Section III. As noted in the SEIR, DWA presently relies on multiple water supply sources to serve water demand within its service area. These supplies include, underlying groundwater from the Palm Springs Subarea of the Upper Whitewater River Subbasin, surface water, imported Colorado River water pursuant to an Agreement with Metropolitan Water District to exchange DWA's State Water Project allocation, and recycled water. b. Regarding the local groundwater supply, in 1964 the California Department of Water Resources estimated that the Palm Springs Subarea had approximately 4.4 million acre-feet of water in storage. Since the Department of Water Resources' estimate approximately 50 years ago, demand has exceeded the recharged supply in the Palm Springs Subarea and has resulted in a net reduction in water storage of approximately 220,000 acre-feet, leaving a current estimate of approximately 4,18 million acre-feet of water in storage in the Subarea. C. Build-out of the Master Development Plan/Specific Plan would result in an additional annual demand of 590 acre-feet (if 45 acres of development within 609343.1 - - Cal Resolution No. Page 3 Section 14, which has been approved since the Council adopted the Master Development Plan/Specific Plan, are excluded) or 739 acre-feet of water (if this development is included in the demand estimate). d. The SEIR and the Water Supply Study conclude that DWA's has sufficient water supplies to serve this additional demand through at least 2030. The SEIR and WSS analyzed several different scenarios, ranging from a normal water year scenario to single and multiple dry year scenarios. Under each of these scenarios, the SEIR and WSS concluded that sufficient water supplies to serve build-out of the Master Development Plan/Specific Plan. The SEIR and WSS also utilized different assumptions regarding the availability of State Water Project in light of recent developments that resulted in across reductions of State Water Project water. Even under the most conservative scenarios that assume significantly less State Water Project water than has historically been allocated to DWA, DWA would have an adequate overall water supply to accommodate future demand within its service area, including Section 14. e. The SEIR also includes a comprehensive discussion regarding the significant water conservation measures that DWA, CVWD, and the City implement that will further reduce water demand in Section 14 and throughout the City and DWA service area. (See SEIR, Section III.C) In addition, the SEIR identifies general conservation measures that shall be imposed on all future development within Master Development Plan/Specific Plan area. Collectively, tehse regulations and mitigation measures will further reduce demand on water resources and minimize impacts. The mitigation measures identified in the SEIR have been incorporated into the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan pursuant to the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. (2) Finding: a. The Master Development Plan/Specific Plan would have a less than significant impact on water supply. Nonetheless, the SEIR identifies additional mitigation measures that will further reduce water supply impacts and these measures are hereby adopted.4. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant unmitigated impacts were identified in the subject SEIR. 5. The Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of, rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history, or prehistory. Resolution No. Page 4 6. There is no evidence before the City that the Project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 7. The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the SEIR. 8. The Project will not result in impacts, which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the Project. 9. The Project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant unmitigated impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 10. The City Council has fully considered the Final SEIR and the comments received thereon. 11. The Final SEIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. 12. The location of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council decision is based upon is in the Palm Springs City Hall, Development Services Department, 3200 East Tahquitz Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262. 13. A Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP), which is incorporated in the Final SEIR, is hereby adopted pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081.6 in order to assure compliance with the mitigation measures during Project implementation. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct, and constitute the findings of the City Council for this Final SEIR. 2. That it does hereby certify a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Section 14 Master Development Plan/Specific Plan for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Final SEIR, on file in the Development Services Department and attached hereto. 609343 1 .) 'a3 Resolution No Page 5 ADOPTED this 3`d day of December, 2008. David H. Ready, City Manager ATTEST: James Thompson, City Clerk 609343 1 4 Resolution No. Page 6 CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California 6093,131 _ j 5 City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2008 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chair Hochanadel opened Public Comments: The following persons spoke in favor of Item 3A. Case 3.3297: -Joy Meredith, Palm Springs, requested approval of the two ye6retime extension. -Norman Freedberg, Palm Springs, applicant for Case 3.3297;Item 3A, provided further details in reference to the length of years he's been ,in-business, monthly testing of equipment and the types of clientele. F` w - The following persons spoke in favor of Item 4C.,ga'se�5"1218: -Joy Meredith, Palm Springs, thanked the cityfor,consid ration of medicahcannabis and requested approval. • '^. -Lonny Swerdlow, Palm Springs, requested the use,be,�allowecl in the business district and not limited to the M-1/M2 zone. -Wes Rankins, Palm Springs, described his necessity to take,many medications and the side-effects associated with them- -Susan Smith, Banning, spoke of the difficulty`for,her,to travel long distances to obtain medical cannabis and the advantage of closeril'ocatioQfo'r'lier. ,-Lydia Smith Bannin O y g;-,?;;. lamed her m6dlcal necessity to take medications and the numerous side effects associated with them. -Roger Fisher, Desert Hot Springs, noted the benefits to the community and requested consideration to allov✓dispensaries,in commercial areas- -Mike Trevino, „Palm sprin'gs -spoke.,of ;his: need for medicinal cannabis due to his illness. -Atson , Reader, Palm::'Springs\''spoke against limiting the use in the M1/M2 zone and ef' asized the s`afety,of cat�iaa'brs. -John `Fazio, spoke of' the benefit of medical cannabis to treat depression and control anxiety -Brandon Yeager, Palm `'.:Desert, spoke of his visits to the existing dispensary and the guidelines.for patients; has not seen additional crimes committed due to these types of establishments"i, Robert Phillipsen, `Pal`' Springs, requested the Commission postpone their decision until the new administration settles in. -Stacy Hochanadel, Palm Springs, thanked the Commission for consideration of medicinal cannabis in a safe regulated manner. There being no further appearances, Public Comments was closed. L6 City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2008 PUBLIC HEARINGS: 4C. Case 5.1218 ZTA - An application by the City of Palm Springs to amend the Palm Springs Zoning Code relating to medical cannabis cooperatives and collectives as permitted uses in the M-1 and M-2 zones. (Project Planner: Craig A. Ewing, Director of Planning) Chair Hochanadel noted his abstention due to a fam ly-related conflict of interest and would not be participating in the discussion and vote:., Ha�left the Council Chamber at 3:11 p.m. ,`, ` Director Ewing provided background information';`a's µoutlined in thes'taff report dated November 12, 2008. Staff noted that there •a"re a number of federal..and state laws addressing the treatment of medical marijuarialthiat has created quite of bit.of confusion and cities are wrestling with the distribution and;,sale!6f'redical marijuana. Director Ewing provided an overview of the designated M1 agd,M2 zones located within the City limits. -. . ;,. Commissioner Ringlein noted the impoetance.of knowing if,eiWproblems have arisen with the existing dispensary at the Amadb,Center:'::°•, E ' Vice Chair Cohen opens_",d,thie-Public Hearing: -Raymond Bordeaw,cFalm Springs, explained,that he is a 22 year survivor of HIV and gave credit to medical"marijuaria;and provided -Odtails of purchasing street marijuana as opposed to state regulated marijuana ""�; :_.;c- Mark Cvetkoi.::Sari-,Jacinto;-' stated`'"'tha' t' by having these dispensaries available it remov6s'the criminal''elemen4sassociated with it. -Lynda' Stamer, La Quinta, spoke sof the side effects of dialysis treatment she is undergoing-and the ben4tsof medical marijuana. William IVlarquez, Cathedral 6ity, expressed appreciation for helping people out with term inaFil,lnesses. -Terrance Mil l4;:,MorongoiValIley, stated that the areas the dispensaries are located are safe and patroled`'by'the!:p'olice and used by people who need relief. -Ryan Raven, Riverside, said that by allowing medical marijuana it would reduce the crime level and finarticial gains by drug dealers. -Ben Warren, Palm Springs, spoke in support of medicinal marijuana dispensaries. -David Taylor, Palm Springs, spoke of the ease of obtaining drugs from physicians and is in favor of the dispensary. -Lance Caldwell, Palm Springs, spoke of how medical marijuana has helped him cope with his medical condition, There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of November 12, 2008 Commissioner Caffery felt that allowing dispensaries in the M1 zone could create problems, with less traveled areas, and suggested strict regulation of hours similar to drug stores or liquor stores through a conditional use permit. Commissioner Scott noted that locating in either a commercial or professional zone would be acceptable and suggested Option 2 to allow "by right" in the M1 and M2 zone with the possibility of amending in the future. =., Commissioner Conrad expressed concern that Option 2,woUld;.create non-conforming uses. Ms. Conrad felt they would be best to regtiiGe by dnditional use permit regardless of zone, thereby allowing the Commissipn`to retain discretion. Commissioner Ringlein concurred with Commissioners ,Conrad, Caffery and Scott and recalled in the past when she was working,in,a,building'Odjacent to the"dispensary on Amado and was never troubled, offended or worried;,rwheire.as, she has worried being at a liquor store. Ms_ Ringlein said she is in full agreement to allow dispensaries in the City by conditional use permit. Commissioner Donenfeld stated that he,-concurs with Cor ni_ss oner Scott on Option 2 and move it forward to the City Council W'% a fiiither'study on'"other alternatives. Commissioner ConradrLeiterated her preference to J!ove it forward subject to a conditional use permit rather than in keeping it in the manufacturing zone. Commissioner Ringleiri.,tWggested a compromise "by right" in the M-1 and M-2 zone and in any other zone subjectt:oLLa- iiditionaj use permit. Commissioner Caffery.`;,concurre'd with Ms. Ringlein "by right" in the M1/M2 zone and possibly include the.P-zone-,C'orrimissioner Conrad noted hesitation with operation in tfie W"Zone since the, established ones are non-conforming and felt that the P zone is best. Staff.,responded'y:,:that the existing establishments are currently illegal non- conforming andthat their future status is at the City Council's discretion. Commissioner DoOnfeld"expressed concern with making too many changes to the draft ordinance since,thl a City Council has ultimate jurisdiction and has given their recommendation. Commissioner Donenfeld noted his support to have the facilities for the community but did not feel this is a good public policy. M/SIC (Scott/Caffery, 6-0, 1 abstained/ Chair Hochanadel) To direct staff to prepare a resolution and draft ordinance and return to the Planning Commission based on: c of Springs Planning Commission Minutes «November az a -Option 2 -T allow medical cannabis cooperatives and collectives permitted inth 1, 2 and P zones "by Gnl and R conditional usepermit in all other non-residential zones including th development sta aaaelgkwthsrr n Chair Hmym+l re-entered thcmacam yr % +mPr %\x %w> %wx � - � �^ « �\ ^ }» /S CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION (a CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT James Thompson, City Clerk Meeting Date: December 3, 2008 Subject: Certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Section 14 Master Plan AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Kathie Hart, Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing will be published in the Desert Sun on November 22, 2008. 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Kathie Hart, CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Dolores Strickstein, Secretary, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive, on the exterior legal notice posting board and in the Office of the City Clerk on November 20, 2008. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. r VV Dolores Secretary o . NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION REPS Case MR PETE MORUZZI Section 14 Master Plan MODCOM AND PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE PHN for CC Meeting 11.19.08 HISTORIC SITE REP I I I PO BOX 4738 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-4738 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE VERIFICATION NOTICE 1 I 1 ATTN SECRETARY MRS.JOANNE BRUGGEMANS PO BOX 2743 506 W. SANTA CATALINA ROAD PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 MS MARGARET PARK AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS INDIANS I I I I 1 1 777 E TAHOUITZ CANYON WAY, #301 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 SPONSORS I I u i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS REQUEST BY THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS FOR CERTIFICATION OF A FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SEIR) FOR THE SECTION 14 MASTER PLAN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of December 3, 2008. The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of the hearing is to consider certification of a Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for the Section 14 Master Plan. The Section 14 Master Plan is an adopted Specific Plan for Section 14, a square-mile area of vacant and developed lands located within the Reservation of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and within the corporate boundaries of the City of Palm Springs. The project site has an area of 640 acres and is bound by Alejo Road to the north, Sunrise Way to the east, Ramon Road to the south, and Indian Canyon Drive to the west. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report has been prepared to review the environmental constraints and opportunities associated with the impacts to water resources associated with the Section 14 Master Plan. No change to the Section 14 Master Plan is proposed. REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents regarding this project are also available for public review at City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please contact the Office of the City Clerk (760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents. COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the public hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments may be made to the City Council by letter (mail or hand delivery) to: James Thompson, City Clerk 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. (Government Cade Section 65009[b][2]). An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Craig A. Ewing, Director, Planning Services Department at (760) 323-8245. Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, portavor [lame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Nadine Fieger (760) 323-8245. mes Thompson, City Clerk u)