Water Code Section 10910(f) requires additional information when a groundwater basin is cited as the water supply source for a project, including a description of the basin, the rights of the PWS to use the basin, the overdraft status of the basin, any past or planned overdraft mitigation efforts, historical use of the basin by the PWS, projected use of the basin by the project, and a sufficiency analysis of the basin.
Description of the Aquifer
Groundwater is the principal source of municipal water supply in the Coachella Valley.2 CVWD serves domestic water to most of the developed portions of the Coachella Valley and along both sides of the Salton Sea in Imperial Valley.
The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, as described by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), is bounded on the north and east by non-water-bearing crystalline rocks of the San Bernardino and Little San Bernardino Mountains and on the west by the crystalline rocks of the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains.3 At the west end of the San Gorgonio Pass, between Beaumont and Banning, the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin boundary is defined by a surface drainage divide separating the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin from the Beaumont Groundwater Basin of the Upper Santa Ana drainage area.
The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin can be described as a giant tilted bathtub full of sand, with the high end at the northwest edge of the Coachella Valley near the community of Whitewater and the low end at the Salton Sea. The aquifer underlies the cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta, Indio, and Coachella, and the unincorporated communities of Thousand Palms, Thermal, Bermuda Dunes, Oasis, and Mecca. The Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin is sub divided into smaller subbasins based on different geologic characteristics. The subbasins, with their groundwater storage reservoirs, are defined without regard to water quality or quantity. They delineate areas underlain by formations that readily yield the stored water through water wells and offer natural reservoirs for the regulation of water supplies. Minor subareas have been delineated based
2 Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD), 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (June 2011), p. 4-4. 3 CVWD, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (June 2011), P. 4-9; CVWD, Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update (January 2012), P. 4-1.
12-796
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-5 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
on one of more of the following geologic of hydrologic characteristics: type of water bearing formations, water quality, areas of confined groundwater, forebay areas, groundwater divides and surface drainage divides.
CVWD obtains water from both the upper and lower Whitewater River Subbasins and the Mission Creek Subbasin. A common groundwater source, the Whitewater River Subbasin, is shared by CVWD, DWA, the cities of Indio and Coachella, Mission Springs Water District, Myoma Dunes Water Company, and numerous private groundwater users.
The Whitewater Subbasin includes four subareas: Palm Springs, Thermal, Thousand Palms, and Oasis.4 The Palm Springs Subarea is the forebay or main area of recharge to the subbasin, and the Thermal Subarea comprises the pressure or confined area within the basin. The Thousand Palms and Oasis subareas are peripheral areas having unconfined groundwater conditions. From a management perspective, the Whitewater River Subbasin is commonly divided into a west and east portion, with the dividing line extending from Point Happy in La Quinta to the northeast, terminating at the San Andreas Fault and the Indio Hills at Jefferson Street. The west portion of the Whitewater River Subbasin is defined generally as that portion of the Thermal Subarea west of this line including the Palm Springs Subarea, and the Thousand Palms Subarea.
Groundwater Storage
As shown in Table 5.15.1-1, Groundwater Storage Capacity of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, DWR estimated that the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin contained a total of approximately 39.2 million acre-feet of water in the first 1,000 feet below the ground surface, much of which originated from runoff from adjacent mountains. However, the amount of water in the aquifer has decreased over the years due to pumpage to serve urban, rural, and agricultural development in the Coachella Valley, which has withdrawn water from the aquifer at a rate faster than its natural rate of recharge.
4 CVWD, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (June 2011), p. 4-9; CVWD, Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update (January 2012), p. 4-3.
12-797
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-6 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.15.1-1
Groundwater Storage Capacity of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin Area Storage (acre-feet)
San Gorgonio Pass Subbasin 2,700,000
Mission Creek Subbasin 2,600,000
Desert Hot Springs Subbasin 4,100,000
Garnet Hill Subbasin 1,000,000
Subtotal 10,400,000
Whitewater River Subbasin
Palm Springs Subarea 4,600,000
Thousand Palms Subarea 1,800,000
Oasis Subarea 3,000,000
Thermal Subarea 19,400,000
Subtotal Whitewater River Subbasin 28,800,000
Total all Subbasins 39,200,000
Source: CVWD, Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit 2014- 2015. (April 2014). Table 1.
Groundwater Levels
Although water levels have been declining throughout most of the Subbasins since 1945, water levels in the southeastern portion of the Coachella Valley had risen until the early 1980s because of the use of imported water from the Coachella Canal and the resulting decreased pumpage in that area.5 The rate of groundwater level decline has increased since the early 1980s due to increasing urbanization and increased groundwater use by domestic water purveyors, local farmers, golf courses, and fish farms.
Since 2010, groundwater levels in the eastern portion of the Coachella Valley have risen due to recharge of Colorado River water at the Thomas E. Levy Recharge Facility.
The historic declining water table in the Whitewater River Subbasin led to a determination by CVWD and DWA that a management program is required to stabilize water levels and prevent other adverse effects such as water quality degradation and land subsidence within the west portion of the Whitewater River Subbasin. CVWD’s East and West Whitewater River Subbasin Groundwater Replenishment Programs are reducing declining water levels in this subbasin. Groundwater recharge in the West Whitewater River
5 CVWD, Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit 2014–2015 (Coachella, CA: CVWD, April 2014), 14. 12-798
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-7 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Subbasin began in 1973, and the benefits of recharge can be seen in recent groundwater-level measurements.
Water surface elevations in the western area of the Coachella Valley are highest at the northwest end of each subbasin, illustrating that regional groundwater flow is from the northwest to the southeast in the center of the Coachella Valley.
Groundwater Production
As illustrated in Table 5.15.1-2, Estimated Groundwater Production within the West Whitewater River Subbasin, total groundwater production within the West Whitewater River Subbasin CVWD Area of Benefit from all producers was estimated to 204,275 acre-feet in 2003. In 2013, total groundwater production within the West Whitewater River Subbasin from all producers was estimated to be 181,994 acre-feet.
Table 5.15.1-2
Estimated Groundwater Production within the West Whitewater River Subbasin Year Acre-Feet
2003 204,275
2004 212,700
2005 204,341
2006 213,850
2007 211,014
2008 210,693
2009 199,149
2010 182,823
2011 182,823
2012 183,108
2013 181,994
Source: CVWD, Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit 2014-2015. (April 2014). Table 2.
Groundwater Inflows and Outflows
Total inflows and outflows to the West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit for the year 2013 are summarized in Table 5.15.1-3, Annual Water Balance in the West Whitewater River Subbasin. The natural inflow of 36,000 acre-feet includes natural recharge and flow across Subbasin boundaries. The non-consumptive return of applied water is estimated at 63,698 acre-feet, which is 35 percent of the reported production of 181,994 acre-feet. The total inflow includes the natural inflow, the non- 12-799
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-8 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
consumptive return, and the 26,620 acre-feet of actual water replenished. Total outflow is the reported groundwater production estimate plus the 7,000 acre-feet of natural outflow. The annual balance is the total inflow less the total outflow for a loss of approximately 62,700 acre-feet of water in storage from the Subbasin.
During the last 10-year period, urban per capita water use has decreased as a result of ongoing conservation programs. In addition, imported water supplies have increased. As a result, the 2014 CVWMP Status Report showed that overdraft has not occurred between 2003 and 2013; and with continued implementation of 2010 CVWMP Update Programs, overdraft will be eliminated by 2021.
Table 5.15.1-3
Annual Water Balance in the West Whitewater River Subbasin Item Annual Calculation (acre-feet)
2013 Groundwater Production -181,994
Non-consumptive return 63,698
Natural Inflow 36,000
Natural Outflow -7,000
Groundwater replenishment 26,620
Annual balance -62,676
Source: CVWD, Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment, West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit 2014- 2015. (April 2014). Table 3.
Surface runoff and subsurface inflow are significant sources of recharge to the Whitewater River Subbasin. In addition, the Whitewater River spreading grounds northwest of Palm Springs receives Colorado River Aqueduct water and has a maximum capacity of 300,000 afy.6 Average historical natural recharge is approximately 49,000 afy. The Whitewater River spreading grounds recharged 61,200 afy in 1999. Average historical natural recharge is approximately 49,000 afy. Colorado River water is conveyed into the subbasin via the Coachella Canal, which also supplies recharge project facilities located in the southwestern part of the subbasin.7 DWR has calculated the storage capacity of the subbasin to be 28.8 million acre-feet.
Status of the Aquifer
6 Department of Water Resources, California’s Groundwater, Bulletin 118, Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin, Indio Subbasin (February 27, 2004).
7 CVWD, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (January 2012). 12-800
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-9 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Groundwater overdraft is manifested not only as a prolonged decline in groundwater storage but also through secondary adverse effects including decreased well yields, increased energy costs, water quality degradation, and land subsidence. The Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (CVWMP) 2010 Update defined overdraft as the calculated change in storage based on long-term hydrology and imported water deliveries.8
Based on the water balance information presented in Table 5.15.1-3, in 2013 the annual water balance for the West Whitewater River Subbasin was negative, providing an increase in the cumulative overdraft.9 The average rise in water levels observed in monitored wells in the West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit, from 2012 to 2013, was 1.1 feet.10 Imported water may offset groundwater overdraft in a particular year. However, on a long-term basis, water requirements are likely to continue to place demands on groundwater storage. It should be noted that overdrafting the groundwater basin allows poor water quality from irrigation return to replace fresh water storage. The previously described 2010 CVWMP Update outlines a plan to address long-term overdraft in the Coachella Valley.
CVWD recently prepared a 2014 CVWMP Status Report to evaluate the effectiveness of the 2010 CVWMP Update, including progress on eliminating overdraft; the report can be found in appendix D in Appendix H of the EIS. The 2014 CVWMP Status Report demonstrated that the 2010 CVWMP Update is working, and continued implementation of the programs in the 2010 CVWMP Update ensures that overdraft will be eliminated by 2021. During the last 10-year period, there has been no overdraft— mainly the results of increases in urban conservation and increases in imported water deliveries to the Coachella Valley. Water levels have increased in both the Palm Springs area and the East Valley.
However, water levels are still declining in the mid-Valley areas near Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, and Indian Wells. Groundwater levels in this area will continue to decline until full implementation of mid- Valley programs that reduce pumping. These mid-Valley programs include urban conservation to reduced urban demand 20 percent by 2020; source-substitution programs, including non-potable water system expansion to golf courses; Colorado River water treatment for municipal use; and additional recharge.
Overdraft Mitigation Efforts
CVWD has developed the 2010 CVWMP Update to comprehensively protect and augment the groundwater supply. The 2010 CVWMP Update Preferred Alternative reduces reliance on groundwater
8 CVWD, Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment (April 2014), 18. 9 CVWD, Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment (April 2014), 18. 10 CVWD, Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment (April 2014), 14. 12-801
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-10 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
sources by utilizing more Colorado River water, SWP water, and recycled water. The 2010 CVWMP Update also recommends that source substitution and conservation measures be implemented to reduce demands on the aquifer.
As previously mentioned, the 2010 CVWMP Update reaffirms a dedication to the goal of maintaining a reduced level of water consumption through 2036, and emphasizes cooperation with municipalities, local water agencies, and tribes in regional planning and implementation. As part of the 2009 comprehensive water package, the California Legislature adopted SBx7-7 (Steinberg), which mandates that California urban water agencies to achieve a 20 percent reduction in per capita water demand by 2020. This legislation will require Coachella Valley urban water users to increase conservation over and above the goal established in the 2002 Water Management Plan (WMP). CVWD domestic customers have reduced overall water use by more than 20 percent in the last eight years, despite increased growth, and CVWD officials do not anticipate the need to impose water restrictions or rationing.11 CVWD Landscape Ordinance
CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.1 requires a series of reduction methods, including requirements that new developments install weather-based irrigation controllers that automatically adjust water allocation. Additional requirements include setbacks of spray emitters from impervious surfaces, as well as use of porous rock and gravel buffers between grass and curbs to eliminate runoff onto streets. With the exception of turf, all landscaping, including groundcover and shrubbery, must be irrigated with a drip system. Also, the maximum water allowance 12 for landscaped areas throughout the CVWD service area has been reduced. This new reduction goal requires that developers maximize the use of native and other drought-tolerant landscape materials, and to minimize use of more water-intensive landscape features, including turf and fountains.
Source Substitution
Source substitution is the delivery of an alternate source of water to users currently pumping groundwater. The substitution of an alternate water source reduces groundwater extraction and allows the groundwater to remain in storage, thus reducing overdraft. Alternative sources of water include municipal recycled water from WRP-7, WRP-9, WRP-10, and the City of Palm Springs Wastewater
11 CVWD, “In Response to Statewide Drought, CVWD Reminds Residents to Reduce Water Use,” http://www.cvwd.org/news/news214.php
12 For design purposes, the upper limit of annual applied water for the established landscape area as identified in Division 2, Title 23, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 7, Section 702. It is based on an area's calculated evapotranspiration rate.
The estimated applied water for landscaping shall not exceed the maximum applied water allowance. 12-802
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-11 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Treatment Plant; Colorado River water, desalinated agricultural drain water, grey water, and reuse of water used in aquaculture.
Source substitution projects under the 2010 CVWMP Update Preferred Alternative include the following:13
• Canal water to agricultural groundwater users within Improvement District 1 (ID-1), • Desalted agricultural drain water for agricultural irrigation outside ID-1, • Canal water for golf course irrigation within ID-1,
• Additional recycled water to West Valley golf courses, • Direct delivery of SWP exchange water for West Valley golf course irrigation.
Examples of effective alternative source substitution efforts include the following:14 • CVWD has a recycled water system that delivers treated recycled water from six WRPs, three of which generate recycled water for irrigation of golf courses and large landscaped areas. Based on the most recent data from CVWD and DWA, recycled water usage in the Western Coachella Valley is approximately 11,700 afy.
• CVWD has completed construction of a 54-inch diameter pipeline to deliver Colorado River water to the Mid-Valley area for use with CVWD's recycled water for golf course and open space irrigation. A total of 45 golf courses within CVWD’s service area now use either recycled or canal water, or a combination of both. This reduces pumping from the groundwater basin for these uses. • CVWD has secured rights to the Colorado River and participated in the construction of the All- American Canal and the Coachella Canal. Beginning in the late 1940s, CVWD worked with the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and constructed a distribution system to deliver Colorado River water to the farms in the Lower Coachella Valley. This system delivered 245,894 acre-feet of Colorado River water in 2006 and increased deliveries to approximately 331,000 acre-feet in 2013. • CVWD recharges Coachella Valley groundwater basin with Colorado River water at three locations.
The largest recharge program is operated at the Whitewater River Recharge Facility. The Thomas E.
Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility recharges up to 40,000 afy in the East Valley.
13 CVWD, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (January, 2012). 14 CVWD, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (January, 2012). 12-803
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-12 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
• CVWD has secured rights to SWP water and negotiated exchange and advanced delivery agreements with the MWD to exchange CVWD's SWP water for MWD's Colorado River water source. The SWP exchange water is used to recharge the aquifer in the West portion of the Valley. This recharge program was started in 1972 and has replenished the aquifer with almost 3 million acre-feet of water.
• The 2010 CVWMP Update considers desalination of Canal water for municipal water supply (approximately 90,000 afy) and drain water from the Coachella Valley Storm Channel (up to 85,000 afy) for urban and agricultural use in the Valley as water supply options. Desalination of additional Colorado River water used for groundwater recharge (up to 100,000 afy in the West Valley) has been suggested by some stakeholders.
• CVWD has worked with an aquaculture farm and developed water efficiency programs that include water treatment and reuse.
Conservation Programs
CVWD is working with the cities in its service area to limit the amount of water that can be used for outdoor landscaping, and maintains an ongoing turf rebate program to encourage homeowners to replace turf areas with desert-friendly landscaping. As a result of the adoption of Statewide indoor water conservation measures requiring low-flush toilets, shower and faucet flow restrictors, and other devices, the amount of water used inside homes has been significantly reduced. In addition, in 2010 CVWD adopted water budget–based tiered rates to discourage excessive water use and implemented a “20 by 2020” urban water use reduction target. CVWD is also working with the golf course industry to reduce its water use. In 2014, CVWD began a partnership with the Southern California Golf Association and formed the Golf and Water Task Force to reduce overall golf course water use by 10 percent. Key activities being implemented are the establishment of water budgets to limit golf course groundwater pumping and a regionwide golf course turf reduction program. Given the large number of new communities being constructed, these conservation programs have reduced impacts of new development on the aquifer.
Aquifer Adjudication
The groundwater basin has not been adjudicated. CVWD shares a common groundwater source with other public water systems, including DWA, the Mission Springs Water District, the City of Coachella, the City of Indio, and the Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company. Other groundwater users include the Tribe, some individual residents, farmers, golf courses, businesses, and commercial facilities. DWA and CVWD both operate groundwater replenishment programs whereby groundwater pumpers (other than 12-804
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-13 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
minimal pumpers) pay a per acre-foot charge that is used to pay the cost of importing and recharging the aquifer.
Groundwater Sufficiency
The 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) projects that urban water demand by all users in the CVWD service area, except agriculture, will increase to 596,000 afy by 2015, and 689,400 afy by 2035.15 The total water demand from all users identified in the 2010 CVWMP Update, including agriculture, was reported to be 668,000 afy in 1999, is projected to increase to 719,100 afy by 2020, and may reach 885,400 afy by 2045.16 The 2010 CVWMP Update assumes continued growth in demand and sets forth how that growth will be served.
As shown in the 2014 Status Report, long-term supply programs may be reduced by a combined value of 70,000 afy in 2045 as a result of the approximately 14 percent reduction in demand. Programs that may be deferred or slowed based on this reduction include desalination of agricultural drain water, purchase of additional imported allocations, and conversion of non-potable water supplies to urban uses, except as necessary for full utilization of Colorado River water supplies.
A reduction in growth projections does not reduce the rate at which development of Colorado River water supplies occurs. These supplies, available through the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA), will continue to increase at an average rate of 5,500 afy through 2026. Therefore, the need for source substitution and recharge programs to utilize this supply is not affected by changes in population projections. Also, a reduction in growth projections does not reduce the need to implement conservation programs for existing and future customers.
Additional Water Sources
Groundwater provides the main water supply of water for users within the Coachella Valley. Additional water sources are considered as a supplement to groundwater in that they are used to recharge the aquifer, serve as a source substitution for groundwater, or are used for irrigation in other locations of the subbasin.
Colorado River Water
The Coachella Canal is a branch of the All-American Canal, which brings Colorado River water into the Imperial and Coachella valleys. The service area for Colorado River water delivery under CVWD contract
15 CVWD, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (July, 2011). 16 CVWD, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (January, 2012). 12-805
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-14 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
with the US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) is defined as Improvement District No. 1 (ID-1). Under the 1931 California Seven Party Agreement,17 CVWD has water rights to Colorado River water as part of the first 3.85 million acre-feet allocated to California. CVWD is in the third priority position along with the Imperial Irrigation District (IID). This priority is ahead of the 550,000 acre-feet allocation to MWD, which has the lowest priority of the California Seven parties.
However, California's Colorado River supply is protected by the 1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act, which provides that certain Colorado River supplies to Arizona and Nevada after 1968 shall be reduced to zero before California will be reduced below 4.4 million acre-feet in any year. It is estimated that this reduction is about 1.5 million acre-feet. This reduction together with the reduction by California agencies with lower priorities than CVWD results in reduction in excess of 2 million acre-feet in Colorado River water available to the Lower Basin States before the Colorado River supply available to CVWD are impacted. This assumes that the California agricultural agencies with rights to Colorado River water are using less than 3.85 million acre-feet.
Historically, CVWD has received approximately 330,000 afy of Priority 3a Colorado River water. Table
5.15.1-4, Annual CVWD Colorado River Diversions at Imperial Dam—1964 to 2013 (after measured Returns) contains the diversions of Colorado River water at Imperial Dam to CVWD for the period 1964– 2014. The 2003 QSA among some of the California Colorado River contractors resulted in a firm contractual obligation for the supply to CVWD.
Table 5.15.1-4
Annual CVWD Colorado River Diversions at Imperial Dam—1964 to 2013 (after measured Returns)
Year
Diversion Volume (acre-
feet) Year
Diversion Volume (acre-
feet)
1964 526,417 1989 359,419
1965 524,686 1990 322,625
1966 489,429 1991 331,821
1967 465,053 1992 359,419
1698 449,263 1993 369,685
1969 470,683 1994 317,563
1970 511,476 1995 309,367
1971 522,356 1996 318,990
1972 558,864 1997 326,102
1973 522,356 1998 326,697
17 Seven principal claimants include the Palo Verde Irrigation District, Yuma Project, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Irrigation District, MWD, and the City and County of San Diego. 12-806
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-15 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Year
Diversion Volume (acre-
feet) Year
Diversion Volume (acre-
feet)
1974 558,864 1999 333,810
1975 570,987 2000 342,871
1976 524,800 2001 329,367
1977 508,635 2002 331,107
1978 509,491 2003 296,808
1979 530,733 2004 318,616
1980 531,791 2005 304,768
1981 452,260 2006 329,322
1982 424,868 2007 311,971
1983 362,266 2008 299,064
1984 355,789 2009 308,560
1985 337,002 2010 306,141
1986 339,702 2011 309,348
1987 322,625 2012 329,576
1988 331,821 2013 331,137
Source: Records of releases of water through regulatory structures in accordance with Article V(A) of the Decree of the Supreme Court of the United States in Arizona v. California dated March 9, 1964.
The QSA was entered into and between CVWD, IID, MWD, and the San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA). The QSA quantifies distribution allotments of Colorado River water in California, including CVWD's Colorado River water rights, for the next 75 years. The agreements further provide for additional transfer of Colorado River water to CVWD from the IID and MWD. Under the QSA, the total Colorado River water ultimately available to CVWD is 444,000 afy, as shown in Table 5.15.1-5, Colorado River Deliveries to CVWD under the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA).
Table 5.15.1-5
Colorado River Deliveries to CVWD under the Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) Component
2010 Amount
(afy)
2045 Amount
(afy)
Base Allocation 330,000 330,000
1998 MWD/IID Approval Agreement 20,000 20,000
Coachella Canal Lining (to SDCWA) -26,000 -26,000
To Miscellaneous/Indian PPRs -3,000 -3,000
IID/CVWD First Transfer 12,000 50,000
IID/CVWD Second Transfer 0 53,000
MWD WWP Transfer 35,000 35,000
Total Less Diversion 368,000 459,000
12-807
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-16 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Component
2010 Amount
(afy)
2045 Amount
(afy)
Less Conveyance Losses -31,000 -31,000
Total Deliveries to CVWD 337,000 428,000
Source: CVWD, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (January 2012). Table ES-1.
Water from the Coachella Canal provides a significant supply source for the Eastern Coachella Valley area. In 1999, the Coachella Canal supplied over 60 percent of the water used in Eastern Coachella Valley area, but provided less than 1 percent of the water supply to the Western Coachella Valley area.
Most of the canal water was used for crop irrigation. In 1995, CVWD began operating the Dike No. 4 pilot recharge facility in the La Quinta area and has successfully demonstrated the efficacy of this site to recharge the aquifer. This facility, the Thomas E. Levy Groundwater Replenishment Facility, was expanded in 1998 and was put into operation in 2009. Recharge operations at the Thomas E. Levy Facility have caused groundwater levels to recover since mid-2009.18 Testing of the groundwater recharge facilities at Martinez Canyon has also yielded positive results.
Future development and associated increases in water demand, as well as quality concerns, are expected to increase use of Colorado River water for domestic purposes. Determining the best way to treat this water in order to substitute for and decrease the area's dependency on groundwater is an important objective of the CVWD WMP. Long-term water management plans for the Coachella Valley call for the treatment and distribution of as much as 32,000 acre-feet of Colorado River water for domestic use annually.19
Recent studies suggesting substantial changes in runoff may occur over the next century in the Colorado River Basin are of great concern to the region's water managers. The range of estimated impacts on Colorado River discharge has been from slight increases to a 45 percent decrease by midcentury. While this range of projections and associated hypotheses maybe of intellectual interest and stimulate scientific debate, to users and decision makers at the federal level, in the seven basin states, and, internationally, providing conflicting information on future conditions is a serious impediment to drought and climate change planning.
Extended droughts in the southwestern United States are believed to have occurred a number of times in the past 1,200 years. A study published in 2007 reconstructed Upper Colorado River flows at Lee Ferry
18 USGS, Land Subsidence, Groundwater Levels, and Geology in the Coachella Valley, California, 1993-2010 (2014). 19 CVWD, CVWD Press Release, Program Will Test Methods to Treat Imported Water for Domestic Use, (October 16, 2007). 12-808
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-17 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
(below Lake Powell) using tree-ring data for the period A.D. 762 to 2005. This study indicated that the Colorado River basin may have experienced two droughts extending for 60 to 80 years during the Medieval period, including a drought in the mid-1100s where the average flow over a 25-year period decreased by 15 percent. One of these droughts is believed to have caused the decline of the Anasazi culture in the Southwest. Several droughts having durations of 20 to 30 years are also inferred from the tree-ring data. Although basinwide inflows have exceeded water use over the past 100 years, the reconstructed hydrology suggests that the average flow at Lee Ferry might be 14.55 million afy, which is significantly lower than the 16.5 million afy allocated to Colorado River users.
CVWD will continue to monitor the supply conditions on the Colorado River, make adjustments to its operations as appropriate, and actively participate in efforts to augment the water supplies of Colorado River. Looking 20 years into the future and assuming a linear relationship, these studies would have a decrease in runoff in 2030 of between -10 to -35 percent. Reductions on these magnitudes would not impact CVWD’s rights to Colorado River water.
The source of water supply for the Project is the Whitewater River groundwater basin, which is recharged by other sources of water including the Colorado River water.
State Water Project Water
Purchases and Deliveries
CVWD and DWA are SWP contractors for the Whitewater River basin aquifer. The SWP includes 660 miles of aqueduct and conveyance facilities extending from Lake Oroville in the north to Lake Perris in the south. The SWP has contracts to deliver 4.1 million afy to 29 contracting agencies. CVWD's original SWP water right (Table A Amount) was 23,100 afy, and DWA's original SWP Table A Amount was 38,100 afy—for a combined Table A Amount of 61,200 afy. In 2004, CVWD purchased an additional 9,900 afy of SWP water from the Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, which brought CVWD's SWP allotment to 33,000 afy.
In addition, CVWD and DWA have also negotiated an exchange agreement with MWD for 100,000 afy of SWP Table A Amount. MWD has permanently transferred 88,100 afy and 11,900 afy of its SWP Table A Amounts to CVWD and DWA, respectively. This exchange agreement increases the total SWP Table A Amount for CVWD and DWA to 178,100 afy, with CVWD's portion equal to 126,350 afy. This agreement provides that CVWD and DWA generally receive this water from the SWP during wet years, which allows the two agencies to recharge the groundwater basin and operate a conjunctive use program, storing water in wet years and pumping the groundwater basin in dry years. 12-809
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-18 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
In the past, allocated SWP charges have been apportioned to CVWD and DWA based on production from the Whitewater River Subbasin Management Area. Since 2003/2004, allocated SWP charges have been apportioned to CVWD and DWA based on production from the combined Whitewater River Subbasin and Mission Creek Subbasin Management Areas. In 2013, DWA was responsible for approximately 25 percent of the combined water production within the Whitewater River and Mission Creek Subbasins.20 Therefore, the total SWP Table A Amount for CVWD and DWA is 194,100 afy, with CVWD's portion equal to 138,350 afy. Table 5.15.1-6, SWP Water Sources (afy), summarizes CVWD and DWA total allocations of Table A SWP water to be delivered when available.
Table 5.15.1-6
SWP Water Sources (afy)
Original
SWP
Table A
Tulare Lake Basin
2004 Transfer
Metropolitan
2003 Transfer
Tulare Lake Basin
2007 Transfer
Berrenda Mesa
2007 Transfer Total
CVWD 23,100 9,900 88,100 5,250 12,000 138,350
DWA 38,100 -- 11,900 1,750 4,000 55,750
Total 61,200 9,900 100,000 7,000 160,000 194,100
Source: CVWD, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (January 2012). Table 4-4.
SWP contractors make annual requests to DWR for water allocations and DWR makes an initial SWP Table A allocation for planning purposes, typically in the last month before the next water delivery year.
Throughout the year, as additional information regarding water availability becomes available to DWR, its allocation/delivery estimates are updated. Table 5.15.1-7, Department of Water Resources Table A Water Allocations, outlines the historic reliability of SWP deliveries, including their initial and final allocations for the past 12 years (2003 through 2014). The 2014 initial allocation of SWP water for CVWD is 6,918 acre-feet and DWA is 2,778 acre-feet, for a combined total of 9,696 acre-feet or 5 percent of the requested total.21 CVWD and DWA are allowed to schedule up to 20 percent of their allocated Table A to be delivered starting in June 2014.22
20 DWA, Engineer’s Report: Groundwater Replenishment and Assessment Program for the Whitewater River Subbasin 2014/2015, (April, 2014).
21 Department of Water Resources, State Water Project, Notice to State Water Project Contractors 14-08, November 19, 2013.
22 DWR 2014 State Water Project Allocation Scheduling Revision, May 30, 2014. 12-810
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-19 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.15.1-7
Department of Water Resources Table A Water Allocations Year Initial Allocation Final Allocation
2003 20% 90%
2004 35% 65%
2005 40% 90%
2006 55% 100%
2007 60% 60%
2008 25% 35%
2009 15% 40%
2010 5% 50%
2011 25% 80%
2012 60% 65%
2013 30% 35%
2014 5% -5%
Average 31% 61%
Source: California Department of Water Resources, “Notice to State Water Project Contractors.” (2014).
As noted previously, CVWD and DWA do not directly receive SWP water. Rather, CVWD and DWA have entered into an exchange agreement with MWD that allows MWD to take delivery of CVWD and DWA SWP Table A water. In exchange, MWD provides an equal amount of Colorado River water that MWD transports through its Colorado River Aqueduct, which crosses the Coachella Valley near Whitewater.
The advanced delivery agreement allows for advanced delivery and storage of water, thereby providing better and more efficient water management. As a result, water is not recharged in every year, but when SWP and exchange waters are available. The large storage capacity of the Coachella Valley aquifer and the large volume of water in storage allow CVWD and DWA to pump from the aquifer for a number of years without recharging and to recharge large amounts of water to refill the aquifer when the water is available.
Factors Potentially Impacting SWP Delivery Reliability
In the Draft 2013 State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report, DWR presents its method for calculating SWP delivery reliability, the factors affecting SWP delivery reliability, and the limitations to estimating future water delivery reliability. In the report, "water delivery reliability" is defined as the annual amount of water that can be expected to be delivered with a certain numeric frequency. SWP 12-811
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-20 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
delivery reliability is calculated using CALSIM II, a computer model jointly developed by DWR and USBR, which simulates operation of the Central Valley Project (CVP)/SWP system based upon 82 years of historic data. The annual amounts of SWP water deliveries are ranked from smallest to largest and a probability is calculated for each amount. These results are then displayed graphically as an exceedance plot and presented in tabular format. Based on information in the Draft 2013 State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report, the average long term reliability of future SWP Table A deliveries through 2029 is projected to be 62 percent.23
The amount of SWP water supply delivered to the SWP Contractors in a given year depends on the demand for the supply; the amount of rainfall, snowpack, runoff, water in storage, pumping capacity from the Delta; and legal constraints on SWP operation. There are three significant factors contributing to uncertainty in the delivery reliability of the SWP: possible effects from climate change and sea level rise, the vulnerability of Delta levees to failure, and greater operation restrictions imposed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in response to decreasing populations of endangered fish species.24 Each of these uncertainties is discussed below.
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise
Climate change is identified in the draft 2013 update of the California Water Plan (Bulletin 160-09) as one of the key considerations in planning for the State’s water management. California’s reservoirs and water delivery systems were developed based on historical hydrology and, under climate change; the past may no longer be a good guide for the future.
California's climate is expected to continue to change into the future. Mean temperatures are predicted to increase by 1.5 degrees to 5.0 degrees Fahrenheit by midcentury and 3.5 degrees to 11 degrees by the end of the century. These rising air temperatures are expected to continue to reduce snowpack, especially in low-elevation watersheds where more precipitation may fall as rain rather than snow.
Reduced snow pack is expected to lead to higher winter runoff and lower spring runoff. This could increase flooding during the winter and reduce river flows in the spring and summer, which may require water managers to evaluate the tradeoffs between flood protection and water supply. Future sea level rise estimates range from 4 to 16 inches by midcentury and 7 to 55 inches by the end of the century.
Higher sea levels could threaten the existing levee system in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Salinity intrusion into the Delta could also require increased releases of freshwater from upstream reservoirs to maintain compliance with water quality standards.
23 California Department of Water Resources, Bay-Delta Office, Draft State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report 2013. 24 California Department of Water Resources, Bay-Delta Office, Draft State Water Project Delivery Reliability Report 2013. 12-812
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-21 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
For the SWP, these climate changes have the potential to simultaneously affect the availability of source water, the ability to convey water, and users’ demands for water. This may exacerbate the existing mismatch in California between where and when precipitation occurs and where and when people use water.
Vulnerability of Delta Levees to Failure
Delta levees provide constant protection from flooding because much of the lands in the Delta are below sea level. Most Delta levees, however, do not meet modern engineering standards and are highly susceptible to failure. Levees are subject to failure at times of high flood flows, but also at any time of the year due to seepage or the piping of water through the levee, slippage or sloughing of levee material, or sudden failure due to an earthquake.
A breach of one or more levees and island flooding may affect Delta water quality and water operations.
Depending on the hydrology and the size and locations of the breaches and flooded islands, a significant amount of saline water may be drawn into the interior Delta from Suisun and San Pablo bays. At the time of island flooding, exports may be drastically reduced or ceased to evaluate the salinity distribution in the Delta and to avoid drawing higher saline water toward the pumps. The introduced salinity then could become dispersed and degrade Delta water quality for a prolonged period because of complex relationships between Delta inflows, tidal mixing, and the time taken to repair the breaches.
A large earthquake in the Delta causing significant levee failures and island flooding could lead to multiyear disruptions in water supply and significant water quality degradation. A worst-case scenario for water supply effects would be a moderate or large earthquake causing extensive levee failure in the late summer or fall of a dry year. A strong earthquake affecting the Delta could cause simultaneous levee failures on several islands, with these islands flooding simultaneously. Preliminary analysis indicates that some water may not be treatable by municipal agencies for many months due to high organic carbon concentrations. This would extend the period that Delta water supple would be unavailable for users.
Possible effects on SWP deliveries due to earthquakes include the following:
• there is about a 40 percent chance of 27 or more islands simultaneously failing during a major earthquake in the next 25 years;
• a moderate to large earthquake capable of causing multiple levee failures could happen in the next 25 years. Under such an earthquake, extensive levee failure would most likely occur in the west and 12-813
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-22 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
central Delta. Levee repairs could take more than 2.5 years and exports from the Delta could be disrupted for about a year with a loss of up to 8 million acre-feet of water; and • by 2050, the risk of island flooding from seismic events is expected to increase by 35 percent over 2005 conditions, if a seismic event has not occurred.
Federal ESA Litigation
In response to declining fish populations, the rules defined by the federal biological opinions issued under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for the operation of the SWP and Central Valley Project (CVP) in the Delta have become more and more restrictive. Litigation filed by several environmental interest groups (NRDC v. Kempthorne and Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations v. Gutierrez) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California alleged that the 2004 and 2005 biological opinions and incidental take statements inadequately analyzed impacts on listed species under the Federal ESA.
On May 25, 2007, Federal District Judge Wanger issued a decision on summary judgment in NRDC v.
Kempthorne, finding the USFWS’s biological opinion for Delta smelt to be invalid. The USFWS released a new biological opinion on the impacts of the State Water Project and Central Valley Project on Delta smelt on December 15, 2008. The MWD, the San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority, the Westlands Water District, the Kern County Water Agency, the Coalition for a Sustainable Delta and State Water Contractors, a California nonprofit corporation formed by agencies contracting with DWR for water from the State Water Project (the “State Water Contractors”), the Family Farm Alliance, and the Pacific Legal Foundation on behalf of several owners of small farms in California’s Central Valley filed separate lawsuits in federal district courts challenging the biological opinion, which the federal court consolidated under the caption Delta Smelt Consolidated Cases.
On December 14, 2010, Judge Wanger issued a decision on summary judgment finding that there were major scientific and legal flaws in the Delta smelt biological opinion. The court found that some but not all of the restrictions on project operations contained in the 2008 Delta smelt biological opinion were arbitrary, capricious, and unlawful. On May 18, 2011, Judge Wanger issued a final amended judgment directing the USFWS to complete a new draft biological opinion by October 1, 2011, and a final biological opinion with environmental documentation by December 1, 2013. Later stipulations and orders changed the October 1, 2011 due date for a draft biological opinion to December 14, 2011. A draft biological opinion was issued on December 14, 2011. The draft biological opinion deferred specification of a reasonable and prudent alternative and an incidental take statement pending completion of environmental impact review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The federal defendants and environmental interveners appealed the final judgment invalidating the 2008 Delta 12-814
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-23 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
smelt biological opinion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The State Water Project and Central Valley Project contractor plaintiffs, including MWD, have cross-appealed from the final judgment. Those appeals and cross-appeals are currently pending in the Ninth Circuit. On March 13, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court reversed Judge Wanger’s finding, which had invalidated the USFWS’s 2008 biological opinion. The Ninth Circuit Court upheld the scientific basis of the biological opinion. The Ninth Circuit Court affirmed the order that the Bureau of Reclamation must complete an EIS for implementing the Biological Opinion.
On February 25, 2011, the federal court approved a settlement agreement modifying biological opinion restrictions on Old and Middle River flows that would have otherwise applied in spring 2011. The settlement agreement expired on June 30, 2011. State Water Project and Central Valley Project contractors also moved to enjoin certain fall salinity requirements in the biological opinion that were set to become operable in September and October 2011. After an evidentiary hearing on the water contractors’ motion in July 2011, Judge Wanger issued a decision on August 31, 2011, modifying the fall salinity-related requirements in the biological opinion. The effect of the injunction was to reduce water supply impacts from the biological opinion’s fall salinity requirements. The federal defendants and the environmental interveners appealed the injunction on fall salinity requirements, but the federal defendants subsequently dismissed their appeal in October 2011. The environmental interveners’ appeal to the Ninth Circuit on the fall salinity requirement injunction is pending. The SWP and Central Valley Project contractors have moved to dismiss the environmental interveners’ appeal of the fall salinity requirement on the ground that the salinity requirement for 2011 has expired and is therefore invalid.
On April 16, 2008, in Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations v. Gutierrez, the court invalidated the 2004 NMFS’s biological opinion for the salmon and other fish species that spawn in rivers flowing into the Bay-Delta. Among other things, the court found that the no-jeopardy conclusions in the biological opinion were inconsistent with some of the factual findings in the biological opinion, that the biological opinion failed to adequately address the impacts of SPW and Central Valley Project operations on critical habitat, and that there was a failure to consider how climate change and global warming might affect the impacts of the projects on salmonid species.
The NMFS released a new biological opinion for salmonid species to replace the 2004 biological opinion on June 4, 2009. The 2009 salmonid species biological opinion contains additional restrictions on SWP and Central Valley Project operations. The NMFS calculated that these restrictions will reduce the amount of water the SWP and Central Valley Project combined will be able to export from the Bay-Delta by 5 to 7 percent. DWR had estimated a 10 percent average water loss under this biological opinion. Six lawsuits were filed challenging the 2009 salmon biological opinion. These various lawsuits have been 12-815
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-24 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
brought by the San Luis & Delta Mendota Water Authority, the Westlands Water District, the Stockton East Water District, the Oakdale Irrigation District, the Kern County Water Agency, the State Water Contractors, and the MWD. The court consolidated the cases under the caption: Consolidated Salmon Cases.
On May 25, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs’ request for preliminary injunction in the Consolidated Salmon Cases, restraining enforcement of two requirements under the salmon biological opinion that limit exported water during the spring months based on San Joaquin River flows into the Bay-Delta and reverse flows on the Old and Middle Rivers. Hearings on motions for summary judgment in the Consolidated Salmon Cases were held on December 16, 2010. On September 20, 2011, Judge Wanger issued a decision on summary judgment, finding that the salmon biological opinion was flawed, and that some but not all of the project restrictions in the biological opinion were arbitrary and capricious. On December 12, 2011, Judge O’Neill (who was assigned to this case following Judge Wanger’s retirement) issued a final judgment in the Consolidated Salmon Cases. The final judgment remands the 2009 salmon biological opinion to the NMFS and directs that a new draft salmon biological opinion be issued by October 1, 2014, and that a final biological opinion be issued by February 1, 2016, after completion of environmental impact review under NEPA. On January 19, 2012, Judge O’Neill approved a joint stipulation of the parties that specifies how to comply with one of the salmon biological opinion restrictions that applies to water project operations in April and May of 2012. In January and February 2012, the federal defendants and environmental interveners filed appeals of the final judgment in the Consolidated Salmon Cases, and the SWP and Central Valley Project contractors filed cross-appeals.
Those appeals and cross-appeals are now pending in the Ninth Circuit. The original date for the oral argument was moved from February 10, 2014 to September 15, 2014 in anticipation of the March 2014 decision in the Delta Smelt Consolidated Cases appeal.
On November 13, 2009, the Center for Biological Diversity filed separate lawsuits challenging the USFWS’s failure to respond to a petition to change the Delta smelt’s federal status from threatened to endangered, and the USFWS’s denial of federal listing for the longfin smelt. On April 2, 2010, the USFWS issued a finding that uplisting the Delta smelt was warranted but precluded by the need to devote resources to higher priority matters. This “warranted but precluded” finding did not change the regulatory restrictions applicable to Delta smelt. For the longfin smelt litigation, a settlement agreement was approved on February 2, 2011. Under the agreement, the USFWS agreed to complete a range-wide status review of the longfin smelt and consider whether the Bay-Delta longfin smelt population, or any other longfin smelt population from California to Alaska, qualifies as a "distinct population" that warrants federal protection. On April 2, 2012, the USFWS issued its finding that the Bay-Delta longfin smelt population warrants protection under the ESA but is precluded from listing as a threatened or 12-816
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-25 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
endangered species by the need to address other higher priority listing actions. The review identified several threats facing longfin smelt in the Bay-Delta, including reduced freshwater Bay-Delta outflows.
The finding includes the determination that the Bay-Delta longfin smelt will be added to the list of candidates for ESA protection, where its status will be reviewed annually.
California ESA Litigation
In addition to the litigation under the Federal ESA, other environmental groups sued DWR on October 4, 2006, in the Superior Court of the State of California for Alameda County alleging that DWR was “taking” listed species without authorization under the California ESA. This litigation (Watershed Enforcers, a project of the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. California Department of Water Resources) requested that DWR be mandated to either cease operation of the SWP pumps, which deliver water to the California Aqueduct, in a manner that results in such “taking” of listed species or obtain authorization for such “taking” under the California ESA. On April 18, 2007, the Alameda County Superior Court issued its Statement of Decision finding that DWR was illegally “taking” listed fish through operation of the SWP export facilities. The Superior Court ordered DWR to “cease and desist from further operation” of those facilities within 60 days unless it obtained take authorization from the California Department of Fish and Game.
DWR appealed the Alameda County Superior Court’s order on May 7, 2007. This appeal stayed the order pending the outcome of the appeal. The Court of Appeal stayed processing of the appeal in 2009 to allow time for DWR to obtain incidental take authorization for the Delta smelt and salmon under the California ESA, based on the consistency of the federal biological opinions with California ESA requirements (“Consistency Determinations”). After the California Department of Fish and Game issued the Consistency Determinations under the California ESA, authorizing the incidental take of both Delta smelt and salmon, appellants DWR and State Water Contractors dismissed their appeals of the Watershed Enforcers decision. The Court of Appeal subsequently issued a decision finding that DWR was a “person” under the California ESA and subject to its take prohibitions, which was the only issue left in the case. The State Water Contractors and Kern County Water Agency have filed suit in State courts challenging the Consistency Determinations under the California ESA that have been issued for both Delta smelt and salmon. Those lawsuits challenging the Consistency Determinations are pending. The parties are continuing discussions of adjustments to the incidental take authorizations in light of the summary judgment ruling in the Delta Smelt Consolidated Cases and the Consolidated Salmon Cases, discussed under the heading Federal ESA Litigation, discussed previously.
The California Fish and Game Commission listed the longfin smelt as a threatened species under the California ESA on June 25, 2009. On February 23, 2009, in anticipation of the listing action, the California 12-817
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-26 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Department of Fish and Game issued a California ESA section 2081 incidental take permit to DWR authorizing the incidental take of longfin smelt by the SWP. This permit authorizes continued operation of the SWP under the conditions specified in the section 2081 permit. The State Water Contractors filed suit against the California Department of Fish and Game on March 25, 2009, alleging that the export restrictions imposed by the section 2081 permit have no reasonable relationship to any harm to longfin smelt caused by SWP operations, are arbitrary and capricious, and are not supported by the best available science. A decision was filed on March 13, 2014. The decision partially reversed, and partially affirmed, the district court’s judgment invalidating the 2008 biological opinion by the Department of Fish and Wildlife that concluded that the Central Valley and State Water Projects jeopardized the existence of the smelt and its habitat.25
State Water Project Operational Constraints
DWR has altered the operations of the SWP to accommodate species of fish listed under the ESAs. These changes in project operations have adversely affected SWP deliveries. The impact on total SWP deliveries attributable to the Delta smelt and salmonid species biological opinions combined is estimated to be 1 million acre-feet in an average year, reducing SWP deliveries from approximately 3.3 million acre-feet to approximately 2.3 million acre-feet for the year under average hydrology, and are estimated to range from 0.3 million acre-feet during critically dry years to 1.3 million acre-feet in above normal water years. SWP deliveries to contractors were reduced by approximately 285,000 acre-feet of water in calendar year 2011 as a result of pumping restrictions, with 135,000 acre-feet of export reductions in January and February, and 150,000 acre-feet in the fall. Despite operational restrictions in 2011, high flows from above normal precipitation in late 2010 and early 2011 reaching the Bay-Delta resulted in above average storage levels remaining in Lake Oroville through May 2012. As of January 2014, the storage levels remaining in Lake Oroville are 36 percent of total capacity as a result of well below average precipitation and snowpack levels.
Operational constraints likely will continue until long-term solutions to the problems in the Bay-Delta are identified and implemented. The Delta Vision process, established by then-Governor Schwarzenegger, was aimed at identifying long-term solutions to the conflicts in the Bay-Delta, including natural resource, infrastructure, land use, and governance issues. In addition, State and federal resource agencies and various environmental and water user entities are currently engaged in the development of the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan, which is aimed at addressing ecosystem needs and securing long- term operating permits for the SWP, and includes the Delta Habitat Conservation and Conveyance
25 United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, San Luis v. Jewell, 11-15871 (March 13, 2014). 12-818
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-27 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Program (DHCCP) (together, the “BDCP”). The DHCCP’s current efforts consist of the preparation of the environmental documentation and preliminary engineering design for Bay-Delta water conveyance and related habitat conservation measures under the BDCP. In July 2012, the governor and U.S. Interior Secretary outlined revisions and alternative proposals to the proposed Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). Subsequently, the California Natural Resources Agency released four draft chapters of the BDCP in March 2013. Most recently on December 9, 2013, the State released an updated BDCP, along with a draft EIR/Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for formal public review. The formal public review and comment period for the draft EIR/EIS was from December 13, 2013 through July 29, 2014.
Other issues, such as the decline of some fish populations in the Bay-Delta and surrounding regions and certain operational actions in the Bay-Delta, may significantly reduce MWD’s water supply from the Bay- Delta. SWP operational requirements may be further modified under new biological opinions for listed species under the Federal ESA or by the California Department of Fish and Game’s issuance of incidental take authorizations under the California ESA. Biological opinions or incidental take authorizations under the Federal ESA and the California ESA might further adversely affect SWP and Central Valley Project operations. Additionally, new litigation, listings of additional species, or new regulatory requirements could further adversely affect SWP operations in the future by requiring additional export reductions, releases of additional water from storage, or other operational changes impacting water supply operations. MWD has indicated that it cannot predict the ultimate outcome of any of the litigation or regulatory processes described previously, but believes they could have a materially adverse impact on the operation of the SWP pumps, MWD’s SWP supplies, and MWD’s water reserves. “Area of Origin” Litigation
Four SWP contractors located north of the SWP’s Bay-Delta pumping plant filed litigation against DWR on July 17, 2008, asserting that since they are located in the “area of origin” of SWP water, they are entitled to receive their entire contract amount before any water is delivered to contractors south of the Bay-Delta. If the plaintiffs are successful in this litigation, SWP water available to MWD in a drought period could be reduced by approximately 25,000 afy of a multiyear drought or by as much as 40,000 acre-feet in an exceedingly dry year. MWD and 12 other SWP contractors located south of the Bay-Delta filed motions to intervene in this litigation, which were granted on February 25, 2009. In May 2012, the parties reached an agreement, in principle, that plaintiffs will dismiss the action with prejudice and agree to certain limitations on asserting area of origin arguments in the future; in return, DWR and the interveners will agree to operational changes that will increase the reliability of plaintiffs’ SWP supplies at little or minimal cost to other SWP water contractors. The DWR completed and adopted a Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) in September 2013 for the SWP Allocation Settlement 12-819
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-28 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Agreements. The Final IS/MND which describes the potential environmental impacts as a result of the proposed changes to SWP operations determined there were no potentially significant impacts.
Surface Water
Surface water supplies come from several local rivers and streams, including the Whitewater River, Snow Creek, Falls Creek, and Chino Creek. Because surface water supplies are affected by variations in annual precipitation, the annual supply is highly variable. Since 1936, the estimated historical surface water supply has ranged from approximately 4,000 to 9,000 afy. Direct use of surface water is expected to be 3,400 afy in 2045.26
Recycled Water
Wastewater that has been highly treated and disinfected can be reused for landscape irrigation and other purposes; treated wastewater is not suitable for potable use. Recycled wastewater has historically been used for irrigation of golf courses and municipal landscaping in the Coachella Valley since the early 1960s. In addition, fish farm effluent is available in certain localized areas of the East Valley and is being recycled for reuse.
CVWD operates six water treatment plants, three of which generate recycled irrigation water for golf courses and large landscaped areas, thereby reducing demand on the groundwater basin. Currently CVWD is planning to expand recycled water use throughout the mid-valley.
Desalinated Drain Water
The Coachella Valley WMP 2010 Update reaffirms that a drain water desalination facility will commence operation between 2010 and 2015, building up to full diversion in 2063. Up to 11,000 afy of agricultural drain water may be desalted to a quality equivalent to Colorado River water and delivered for agriculture and other irrigation use. As a result of this program, approximately 13.6 mgd of drain water would be diverted and filtered prior to its desalination. The desalination facility is planned to have a 10 mgd capacity that would produce about 7.5 mgd of product water. Approximately 3.5 mgd of the flow would bypass desalination and will be blended with the product water to produce the desired quality.
Delivery of this water would begin at a rate of approximately 4,000 afy and is projected to reach 11,000 afy in approximately 15 years.27
26 CVWD, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (January, 2012). 27 CVWD, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (January, 2012). 12-820
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-29 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
A brackish groundwater treatment pilot study and feasibility study was completed in 2008. Reverse osmosis (RO) was recommended to meet water quality goals and provide additional flexibility in the level of water quality produced should the facility’s objectives change in the future. The recommended approach to brine management was to convey the RO concentrate via pipeline to constructed wetlands located at the north shore of the Salton Sea. This study concluded that agricultural drainage water can be treated for reuse as non-potable water and potentially as new potable water.
Permanent Water Purchases
CVWD purchases Table A Amounts from SWP contractors as they have become available and meet CVWD's needs. Additional purchases from the SWP and from others with water rights, mainly in the Central Valley of California, will be evaluated as they become available to determine whether they meet CVWD's needs. If they do, CVWD may purchase additional SWP water rights.
Summary of Primary and Additional Water Sources
Table 5.15.1-8, Existing CVWD Water Supply Table A Amounts Water Rights and Water Service Contracts, shows CVWD's existing water supply entitlements, rights and service contracts as discussed above.
Table 5.15.1-8
Existing CVWD Water Supply Table A Amounts
Water Rights and Water Service Contracts
Supply
Existing Supplies
(afy) Entitlement Right Contract Other Ever Utilized?
Groundwater Unspecified1 X Yes
Coachella Canal 459,0002 X Yes
SWP Exchange Water3 138,3504 X Yes
Recycled Water 14,000 X Yes
1 CVWD shares a common groundwater source that has not been adjudicated 2 As quantified in the Quantification Settlement Agreement between IID, MWD, and DVWD, October, 2003. 3 Imported SWP Exchange Water is not used as a direct water supply source, but rather is used to recharge groundwater supplies in the Coachella Valley.
4 Includes Original Table A Amount, Tulare Agreement, Berrenda Mesa Agreement, and MWD Agreement.
The UWMP 2010 projects that the percentage of water from each of the current water supply sources will change significantly by 2035, relative to 2010 conditions. Table 5.15.1-9, Summary of Historical and Projected Average Water Supply, shows the actual water supplies in 2010 as well as the projected water supplies from 1995 through 2035.
12-821
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-30 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.15.1-9
Summary of Historical and Projected Average Water Supply Year
Groundwater
Supply1
Colorado River
Water Supply2
SWP Exchange
Water3
Recycled
Water
Desalinated
Drain Water Total Supply
1995 66,600 285,929 45,214 11,100 -- 408,843
1996 50,700 289,726 100,376 11,520 -- 452,322
1997 52,400 281,179 83,407 12,550 -- 429,536
1998 71,100 281,714 99,729 13,657 -- 466,200
1999 53,800 282,021 70,446 13,397 -- 419,664
2000 71,000 282,781 56,161 13,289 -- 423,231
2001 73,000 272,741 3,242 12,923 -- 361,906
2002 76,500 280,845 26,912 13,289 -- 397,546
2003 78,600 245,069 3,177 13,903 -- 340,749
2004 73,400 238,456 16,167 14,831 -- 342,854
2005 85,100 282,000 46,000 15,300 -- 428,400
2010 106,700 318,000 62,000 23,100 4,000 513,800
2015 123,100 342,000 70,600 25,100 8,000 568,800
2020 123,700 379,000 70,100 26,500 8,000 607,300
2025 124,200 404,000 68,100 27,600 11,000 634,900
2030 123,200 429,000 66,500 28,300 11,000 658,000
Source: CVWD, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (July 2011). 1 CVWD Share of net groundwater inflow to Whitewater and Mission Creek Subbasins, shared with DWA Service Area and private pumpers. 2 Net water deliveries to Coachella Valley, excluding conveyance losses. 3 Anticipated average availability assuming MWD calls-back 50 percent of the time in dry years. 4 Modified version of CVWD UWMP 2010 Update to account for advanced deliveries, DWR SWP 2013 Draft Reliability Report, and reductions to associate with Longfin Smelt and other issues
Water Demand
Historical Water Use
Historical demands for water in the Coachella Valley are classified as urban and agricultural uses. Urban uses include domestic, industrial, and golf course use. Historical water demand for the Coachella Valley is presented below, in Table 5.15.1-10, Summary of Historical Water Demands in the Coachella Valley.
In 1999, water demand for the Coachella Valley was approximately 668,990 afy. By 2010, demands were approximately 600,665 afy.
12-822
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-31 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.15.1-10
Summary of Historical Water Demands in the Coachella Valley Component 1999 2005 2010
Agricultural
Crop Irrigation 332,500 283,100 298,600
Total Agricultural Demand 332,500 283,100 298,600
Urban
Municipal 202,900 205,400 192,200
Industrial 1,100 1,700 2,300
Total Urban Demand 204,000 207,100 194,500
Golf Course Demand 106,200 109,800 100,500
Fish Farms and Duck Clubs
Fish Farms 21,100 23,500 5,648
Duck Clubs 4,300 4,600 1,418
Total Fish Farms and Duck Clubs 25,400 28,100 7,065
Total Demand 668,990 628,100 600,665
Source: CVWD, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (January, 2012).Table 3-2. CVWD, 2014 Status Report for the 2010 CVWMP Update, (2014) Table 1.
Urban Demand
Historical water demands primarily include domestic, golf course, and agricultural uses. Although golf courses and agricultural lands represent a considerable water demand in the Coachella Valley, they are generally not served by CVWD’s domestic water system. Most agriculture users irrigate with water from the Coachella Canal System or groundwater sources. Golf courses irrigate with a combination of imported Coachella Canal water, groundwater, and recycled water.
As previously discussed, the urban and golf course water demands are reduced when compared to the 2010 CVWMP Update, while the agricultural demand is increased (see appendix D in Appendix H of the EIS). The water usage per meter is highly seasonal due to irrigation, varying by approximately 800 gallons per day per meter. However, on a yearly basis, water usage per meter has remained relatively constant between 2005 and 2010. An evaluation of wastewater flows per connection indicates an average wastewater flow of about 220 gallons per day per meter. From this, it can be inferred that outdoor usage including irrigation may represent about 80 percent of total water usage. 12-823
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-32 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
As shown on Table 5.15.1-10, the total urban demand for the Coachella Valley was approximately 204,000 afy in 1999 and approximately 194,500 afy in 2010. Total urban demand is projected to reach 419,300 afy by 2045.28
Municipal water use includes residential, commercial, governmental, and institutional demands in the Coachella Valley. Also included is on-farm domestic use in the Lower Valley. Three major domestic water purveyors, DWA, CVWD, and the Mission Springs Water District, serve water in the Western Coachella Valley. Four major domestic water purveyors serve the Eastern Coachella Valley: CVWD, the City of Coachella, the City of Indio, and Myoma Dunes Mutual Water Company. Small water users and some households are supplied by individual wells. Municipal use currently accounts for 99 percent of the total urban water demand.
Golf course irrigation is a significant use in the Coachella Valley. The first golf course in Western Coachella Valley was constructed in 1925. Golf-course demand in 1999 was approximately 106,200 afy, of which 77,700 afy is in the Western Coachella Valley and 28,500 afy is in the Eastern Coachella Valley.
Golf course demand in the Coachella Valley has increased from 106,200 afy in 1999 to 100,500 afy in 2010.
Industrial use is a minor portion (less than 1 percent) of the total water demand in the Coachella Valley.
The Colmac Mecca Biomass Cogeneration plant, located near Mecca in the Eastern Coachella Valley, generates 48 megawatts of power using wood and agricultural waste as fuel. Groundwater is used as the source of boiler feed and cooling water. Current industrial water use is estimated to be approximately 2,300 afy.
Agricultural Demand
The Coachella Valley has approximately 56,973 acres of land that are currently under agricultural production.29 CVWD has an agricultural irrigation water service area of 65,581 acres to which irrigation water may be delivered.30 Historical demands for water in the Coachella Valley are classified as urban and agricultural uses. Agricultural uses include crop irrigation, fish farming, greenhouses and duck clubs.
The Coachella Valley is known for its production of a variety of crops including citrus, table grapes, dates, and a variety of fruits and vegetables.
28 CVWD, 2014 Status Report for the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (2014), Table 1. 29 Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office, Coachella Valley Acreage and Agricultural Crop Report (2012). 30 CVWD, 2012-13 Annual Review (2014).
12-824
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-33 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Agricultural water demand increased dramatically from 1936 to the early 1960s, especially after Canal water became available. Since that time, demand has decreased slightly due to improved irrigation efficiency and development of agricultural land for urban uses, with variation due to weather and crop patterns. As of 1999, agricultural demand was 54 percent of the total Coachella Valley water demand.
The agricultural demand served by the CVWD from the Coachella Canal in the year 2012-2013 was 278,398 afy. Agricultural demand met by private groundwater production is approximately 83,700 afy.
Total agricultural demand for 2012-2013 was estimated to be about 283,605 afy.31 During the last 30 years, CVWD water deliveries for agricultural irrigation have decreased while the amount of cropped acres (including double cropping) has increased. Using the cropped acre and annual irrigation deliveries, CVWD water used for irrigation, on a per acre basis, has decreased over the last 30 years, and is currently about 4 acre-feet per acre annually.32 Fish Farms and Duck Clubs
Fish farming is a water-dependent agricultural enterprise that is attracted by the warm groundwater in the Eastern Coachella Valley. A variety of fish are grown in the Coachella Valley for the market, including striped bass, catfish, and tilapia. Fish farm operations range from earthen ponds to highly intensive tank systems using pure oxygen aeration. Approximately 1,000 acres of ponds are located in the Coachella Valley. Duck clubs provide ponded water to attract ducks and other waterfowl during their winter migration. The duck clubs are located north of the Salton Sea. The ponds are typically filled in late summer, and water levels are maintained until mid-winter. As presented in Table 5.15.1-10, water demand by duck clubs has decreased from 4,300 afy in 1999 to approximately 1,418 afy in 2010.
Future Water Demands
Average Year
Future population increase will result in a substantial increase in water deliveries. The projected water demands for the period 2015 through 2035 in five-year increments is listed in Table 5.15.1-11, Supply and Demand Comparison—Average Year (afy).
31 CVWD, 2012-13 Annual Review (2014).
32 USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, A Review of Agricultural Water Use in the Coachella Valley (May 2006), 6. 12-825
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-34 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.15.1-11
Supply and Demand Comparison—Average Year (afy)
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Water Supply Sources
Supplier-Produced
Groundwater
118,700 125,600 129,900 133,500 128,700
Treated Colorado River
Water
5,700 19,300 31,400 39,500 49,100
Untreated Colorado River
Water
1,300 11,100 26,300 39,000 54,800
Desalinated Agricultural
Drain Water
0 0 0 0 10,000
Supply Totals 125,700 156,000 187,600 212,000 242,600
Water Demand
Total Urban Water
Deliveries1
121,700 151,000 181,600 205,100 234,800
Domestic System Losses2 4,100 5,100 6,100 6,900 7,900
Demand Totals 125,800 156,100 187,700 212,000 242,700
Source: CVWD, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, (June 2011). Table 5-14. 1 Total urban deliveries calculated from CVWD UWMP 2010 Update Table 3-8 through Table 3-12. 2 Domestic system losses is assumed to be 3.2 percent of total water production, which is the average system water loss from 2006-2010.
Dry Water Years
Table 5.15.1-12. Supply and Demand Comparison—Single Dry Year (afy), shows CVWD’s projected urban water supplies and demands in a single dry year.
Table 5.15.1-12
Supply and Demand Comparison—Single Dry Year (afy)
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Water Supply Sources
Supplier-Produced
Groundwater
118,700 125,600 129,900 133,500 128,700
Treated Colorado River
Water
5,700 19,300 31,400 39,500 49,100
Untreated Colorado River
Water
1,300 11,100 26,300 39,000 54,800
Desalinated Agricultural
Drain Water
0 0 0 0 10,000
Supply Totals 125,800 156,100 187,700 212,000 242,700
12-826
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-35 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Water Demand
Total Urban Water
Deliveries1
121,700 151,000 181,600 205,100 234,800
Domestic System Losses2 4,100 5,100 6,100 6,900 7,900
Demand Totals 125,800 156,100 187,700 212,000 242,700
Source: CVWD, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, (June 2011). Table 5-15. 1 Total urban deliveries calculated from CVWD UWMP 2010 Update Table 3-8 through Table 3-12. 2 Domestic system losses is assumed to be 3.2 percent of total water production, which is the average system water loss from 2006-2010.
Table 5.15.1-13, Supply and Demand Comparison—Multiple Dry-Year Events (afy), shows CVWD’s projected urban water supplies and demand through 2035. As previously mentioned, groundwater production is driven by demand; therefore, supplies are equal to demand. According to the 2010 CVWMP Update, the aquifer and other sources of supply are adequate for a single dry year and also multiple dry years, for a 20-year period. Without replenishment, the decline in storage would be less than 0.5 percent of the basin storage each year.33
Table 5.15.1-13
Supply and Demand Comparison—Multiple Dry-Year Events (afy) 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
Multiple-Dry Year
First Year Supply
Supply Totals
Demand Totals
Difference
125,800
125,800
0 156,100
156,100
0 187,700
187,700
0 212,000
212,000
0 242,700
242,700
0 Multiple-Dry Year
Second Year Supply
Supply Totals
Demand Totals
Difference
125,800
125,800
0 156,100
156,100
0 187,700
187,700
0 212,000
212,000
0 242,700
242,700
0 Multiple-Dry Year
Third Year Supply
Supply Totals
Demand Totals
Difference
125,800
125,800
0 156,100
156,100
0 187,700
187,700
0 212,000
212,000
0 242,700
242,700
0 Source: CVWD, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, (June 2011). Table 5-16.
Future Conservation Efforts
Conservation measures can be applied to all water uses; however, in the Coachella Valley, the primary focus of water conservation is on municipal, agricultural irrigation, golf course irrigation, and fish farm uses. Water conservation measures are a key component of the 2010 CVWMP Update and are expected
33 CVWD, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, (June 2011). 5-8. 12-827
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-36 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
to decrease total water demand by approximately 7 percent by 2015.34 This level of reduction will be maintained through the remainder of the planning period. By 2035, water conservation is expected to reduce demands from Future Baseline conditions by about 66,000 afy.
CVWD prepared and adopted the 2010 CVWMP Update and the 2010 UWMP to manage water supplies and eliminate overdraft. These plans identify programs necessary to ensure reliable water supplies. The Project will participate in the CVWMP programs that are available to it, including compliance with the most current Landscape Ordinance in place at the time of development, conservation programs, outreach and education programs, and budget-based tiered water rates.
Municipal Conservation
CVWD has developed the 2010 CVWMP Update to comprehensively protect and augment the groundwater supply. The 2010 CVWMP Update Preferred Alternative reduces reliance on groundwater sources by utilizing more Colorado River water, SWP water, and recycled water. The 2010 CVWMP Update also recommends that source substitution and conservation measures be implemented to reduce demands on the aquifer.
The 2010 CVWMP Update reaffirms a dedication to the goal of maintaining a reduced level of water consumption through 2035, and emphasizes cooperation with municipalities, local water agencies, and tribes in regional planning and implementation. As part of the 2009 comprehensive water package, the California Legislature adopted SBx7-7 (Steinberg), which mandates that California urban water agencies to achieve a 20 percent reduction in per capita water demand by 2020. This legislation will require Coachella Valley urban water users to increase conservation over and above the goal established in the 2002 WMP.
Agricultural Conservation
The 2010 CVWMP Update reaffirms the goal of the 2002 CVWMP of reducing demand for crop irrigation by approximately 7 percent by 2015. Conservation would be maintained at this level for the remainder of the planning period.35
Agricultural conservation measures would consist of working with Valley growers to ensure that the most up-to-date irrigation practices are being employed.36 In addition to conversion from furrow
34 CVWD, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (January, 2012). 35 CVWD, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (January, 2012). 36 CVWD, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (January, 2012). 12-828
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-37 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
irrigation to drip irrigation, there are also refinements that can be made in existing drip irrigation management and design to improve distribution uniformity. Improvements include the use of buried drip systems, installation of pressure compensating emitters, and including more emitters per line.
Individual water use practices would be reviewed on a field-by-field basis, evaluating the unique characteristics of each field and crop type. Confidential reports would be provided to each grower indicating the general efficiency of each field and containing recommendations for improved efficiency.
The goal would be to improve regional irrigation efficiency from 70 to 75 percent.
Golf Course Conservation
Golf course conservation is expected to maintain a reduced level of water demand throughout the planning period to 2035. All new golf courses are required to implement significant water conservation measures, which would result in a 10 to 25 percent reduction in demand compared to use by existing courses.
Water Quality
Basinwide groundwater quality is difficult to characterize because groundwater quality varies with such factors as depth (or the screened interval of a water supply well), proximity to faults, presence of surface contaminants, proximity to the recharge basin, and other hydro-geologic or cultural features. A complete discussion of water quality may be found in Section 5.8, Hydrology and Water Quality.
Project Site
The Project Site includes a total land area of approximately 577 acres within the Reservation, and is currently vacant and uninhabited, and is not being utilized for agriculture or any other purposes. As such, there is no existing water demand on the Project Site. However, an existing 18-inch water main runs along all four boundaries of the Project Site (Ramon Road, Bob Hope Drive, Dinah Shore Drive, and Los Alamos Road). In addition, there is one existing well site along Los Alamos Road, and two existing well sites along Dinah Shore Drive. The existing water mains are within the Mission Hills Pressure Zone.
2. Regulatory Setting
Federal
Safe Drinking Water Act
The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 regulates the discharges of pollutants into “waters of the US” from any point or non-point source.
12-829
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-38 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
In 1972, the CWA was amended to prohibit the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The CWA focused on tracking point sources, primarily from wastewater treatment facilities and industrial waste dischargers, and required implementation of control measures to minimize pollutant discharges. The CWA was amended again in 1987 to provide a framework for regulating municipal and industrial stormwater discharges. In November 1990, the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) published final regulations that establish application requirements for specific categories of industries, including construction projects that encompass greater than or equal to 5 acres of land. The Phase II Rule became final in December 1999, thus expanding regulated construction sites to those greater than or equal to 1 acre. The regulations require that stormwater and non-stormwater runoff associated with construction activity which discharges either directly to surface waters or indirectly through municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s) must be regulated by an NPDES permit.
In the State of California, the program is administered by the local Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
State
California Water Quality Laws
Under California law, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) are responsible for implementing the federal CWA and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act).37 The Project Site is located within the purview of the Colorado River RWQCB (Region 7).
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act established the principal State program for water quality control.38 The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act also authorized the SWRCB to implement the provisions of the federal Clean Water Act. The act divided the State into nine RWQCB areas. Each RWQCB implements and enforces provisions of the Porter-Cologne Act and the CWA subject to policy guidance and review by the SWRCB. The Porter-Cologne Act requires each RWQCB to develop a Basin Plan for all areas within its region. The Basin Plan is the basis for each RWQCB’s regulatory programs.
37 California Water Code, (1969, as amended), Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. 38 California Water Code, Sections 13000 et seq., Porter-Cologne Act. 12-830
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-39 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
California Water Supply Laws
Assembly Bill 1881
Assembly Bill 1881 (AB 1881) was enacted in 2006 and added provisions relating to water conservation measures for Water Conservation in Landscaping to Government Code Sections 65591-65597, including Public Resources Code Section 25401.9 and Water Code Section 535. Section 25401.9 pertains to landscape equipment. The California Energy Commission has adopted performance standards for landscape irrigation controllers and moisture sensors. Water Code Section 535 pertains to the installation of separate water meters to measure the volume of water used exclusively for landscape purposes for all new connections involving property with more than 5,000 square feet of irrigated landscape and 15 or more service connections after January 1, 2008, except for single-family home connections and agricultural/livestock use.
2009 Comprehensive Water Legislation
In November 2009, four legislative bills (SBX7-1, SBX7-6, SBX7-7, and SBX7-8) and the supporting bond bill (SBX7-2), creating a comprehensive water package designed to meet California’s water challenges, were approved by Governor Schwarzenegger.39 The legislation establishes the governmental framework to achieve the co-equal goals of providing a more reliable water supply to California and restoring and enhancing the Delta ecosystem. The package includes requirements to improve the management of our water resources by monitoring groundwater basins, developing agricultural water management plans, reducing Statewide per capita water consumption 20 percent by 2020, and reporting water diversions and uses in the Delta. It also appropriates $250 million for grants and expenditures for projects to reduce dependence on the Delta if the bond issue is approved by the voters in the future.
The Safe, Clean, and Reliable Drinking Water Supply Act of 2010 (SBX 7-2) will likely come before the California voters in the future (November 2014). If enacted, it would provide funding for California’s aging water infrastructure and for projects and programs to improve the ecosystem and water supply reliability for California. The bond bill includes $2.25 billion for actions improving Delta sustainability.
These investments will help to reduce seismic risk to Delta water supplies, protect drinking water quality, and reduce conflict between water management and environmental protection.
39 Department of Water Resources, California Water Plan Update 2009, Volume 4, (December 2009). Reference Guide, Legislation, 2009 Comprehensive Water Package, Special Session Policy Bills and Bond Summary, (November 2009). 12-831
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-40 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Part of this comprehensive water package included SBX7-7 (Steinberg, Chapter 4, Statutes of 2009— Statewide Water Conservation). This bill creates a framework for future planning and actions by urban and agricultural water suppliers to reduce California’s water use. This bill requires the development of agricultural water management plans and requires urban water agencies to reduce Statewide per capita water consumption 20 percent by 2020. CVWD has included the provisions of SBX7- 7 in their 2010 UWMP and has reduced water demand by 20 percent since 2006.
Proclamation by the Governor of the State on Water Shortage To combat California's third consecutive year of drought, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, on February 27, 2009, proclaimed a state of emergency and ordered immediate action to manage the crisis.40 In the proclamation, the Governor uses his authority to direct all State government agencies to utilize their resources, implement a State emergency plan and provide assistance for people, communities and businesses impacted by the drought.
The Governor’s order directs various State departments to engage in activity to provide assistance to people and communities impacted by the drought. The proclamation • requests that all urban water users immediately increase their water conservation activities in an effort to reduce their individual water use by 20 percent; • directs the DWR to expedite water transfers and related efforts by water users and suppliers; • directs DWR to offer technical assistance to agricultural water suppliers and agricultural water users, including information on managing water supplies to minimize economic impacts and implementing efficient water management practices;
• directs DWR to implement short-term efforts to protect water quality or water supply, such as the installation of temporary barriers in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta or temporary water supply connections;
• directs the Labor and Workforce Development Agency to assist the labor market, including job training and financial assistance;
• directs DWR to join with other appropriate agencies to launch a Statewide water conservation campaign calling for all Californians to immediately decrease their water use; and
40 Proclamation of the Governor of the State of California, State of Emergency – Water Shortage, February 27, 2009. 12-832
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-41 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
• directs State agencies to immediately implement a water use reduction plan and take immediate water conservation actions and requests that federal and local agencies also implement water use reduction plans for facilities within their control.
In particular, the order directs that by March 30, 2009, DWR shall provide an updated report on the State’s drought conditions and water availability. According to the proclamation, if the emergency conditions have not been sufficiently mitigated, the Governor will consider additional steps. These could include the institution of mandatory water rationing and mandatory reductions in water use; reoperation of major reservoirs in the State to minimize impacts of the drought; additional regulatory relief or permit streamlining as allowed under the Emergency Services Act; and other actions necessary to prevent, remedy or mitigate the effects of the extreme drought conditions.
On January 17, 2014, California Governor Brown declared a drought state of emergency, and directed State officials to take all necessary actions to prepare for these drought conditions.41 State agencies, led by DWR, are in the process of executing a Statewide water conservation campaign, calling on Californians to reduce their water usage by 20 percent.
Urban Water Management Planning Act
The Urban Water Management Planning Act 42 (UWMPA) requires urban water suppliers that provide water for municipal purposes to more than 3,000 customers, or more than 3,000 afy of water, to prepare an UWMP. The intent of an UWMP is to assist water supply agencies in water resource planning given their existing and anticipated future demands. A UWMP must include a water supply and demand assessment comparing total water supply available to the water supplier with the total projected water use over a 20-year period. It is also mandatory that the management plans be updated every five years.
In recognition of the State requirements, CVWD completed an update of the UWMP 2010 Update in July 2011. Much of the data used in the UWMP 2010 Update was based on information in the 2005 CVWMP.
However, domestic water demand projections and SWP purchases and reliability were updated in the UWMP 2010 Update to reflect changes since 2005.
Water Supply Assessments
Requirements for the preparation of a WSA set forth in Section 10910 of the California Water Code (Code) in accordance with SB 610, which was enacted in 2001 and became effective January 1, 2002.
41 Office of the Governor, “Governor Brown Declares Drought State of Emergency,” http://gov.ca.gov/news.php?id=18368 . 42 Sections 10610–10657, Urban Water Management Planning Act. 12-833
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-42 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
The Code requires a WSA be prepared for any project, which would consist of one or more of the following:
• A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units • A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space
• A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space
• A mixed-use project that includes one or more of the projects specified above • A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than, the amount of water required by a 500 dwelling unit project
The proposed development is a “project,” as defined by Water Code Section 10912, and requires a WSA because it proposes over 500 housing units, more than 500,000 square feet of commercial space, and would employ more than 1,000 persons.
Section 10657 of the California Water Code requires cities and counties to request specific information on water supplies from the PWS that would serve any project that is subject to CEQA and is defined as a project in Water Code Section 10912. This information is to be incorporated into the environmental review documents prepared pursuant to CEQA.
Water Supply Verification
SB 221 was enacted in 2001 and became effective as of January 1, 2002. SB 221 amends Section 11010 of the Business and Professional Code, and Sections 66455.3 and 66473.7 and Section 65867.5 of the Government Code. SB 221 establishes the relationship between the WSA prepared for a project and the project approval under the Subdivision Map Act. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66473.7, CVWD must provide a written verification of sufficient water supply prior to the approval of a new subdivision.
A WSV is required prior to the approval of a tentative subdivision map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, or a development agreement for a subdivision of property of more than 500 dwelling units. The purpose of the WSV is to provide the legislative body of a city, county, or the designated advisory agency with written verification from the applicable public water purveyor that a sufficient water supply is available or, in addition, a specified finding is made by the local agency that sufficient water supplies are, or will be, available prior to completion of the project. Therefore, a WSV 12-834
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-43 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
is required since this project has over 500 housing units and is a “subdivision,” as defined by Government Code Section 66473.7.
Regional and Local
Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan The 2014 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP) presents an integrated regional approach for addressing water management issues through a process that identifies and involves water management stakeholders from the Coachella Valley. It is aimed at securing long- term water supply reliability within California by first recognizing the inter-connectivity of water supplies, then encouraging the development and implementation of projects that yield combined benefits for water supplies, water quality, and natural resources.
Coachella Valley water supplies are primarily obtained from: imported water supplied through the Coachella Canal and the Colorado River Aqueduct, as well as groundwater pumped from the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin. Population growth and changes in land use in the context of global climate change correspond to an increase in water demand and pressure on the existing water supply sources, including groundwater basins. The Coachella Valley IRWMP indicates that conservation efforts are critical to reduce water demand over the long term, and to reduce pressure on the groundwater supply.
Current water conservation efforts by various agencies have focused on urban use, agricultural irrigation, and golf course irrigation. IRWMP Objectives include:43 • Provide reliable water supply for residential and commercial, agricultural community, and tourism needs.
• Manage groundwater levels to reduce overdraft, manage perched water, and minimize subsidence. • Secure reliable imported water supply, including restoring/improving reliability of SWP supply and securing other imported water supplies.
• Maximize local supply opportunities, including water conservation, water recycling and source substitution, and capture and infiltration of runoff.
• Protect groundwater quality and improve, where feasible.
43 Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group, 2014 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, (February, 2014).
12-835
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-44 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
• Preserve and improve surface water quality by maintaining integrity of agricultural drainage systems, protecting the quality of natural runoff used for potable supply, and reducing pollution in stormwater runoff.
• Preserve the water-related local environment and restore, where feasible • Manage flood risks, including current acute needs and needs for future development. • Optimize conjunctive use of available water resources. • Maximize stakeholder involvement and stewardship in water resource management. • Address water-related needs of local Native American culture. • Address water and sanitation needs of disadvantaged communities, including those in remote areas. • Maintain affordability of water.
The Coachella Valley IRWMP engaged the Valley’s tribal governments in order to better understand their critical water resources issues and needs. The following six Native American tribes in the region were engaged during outreach for the IRWMP:44
• Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Augustine Band of Mission Indians
• Cabazon Band of Mission Indians
• Morongo Band of Mission Indians
• Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
• Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians
Due to their historical presence in the Valley, tribes face specific issues and considerations with relation to the IRWMP. Native Americans are the original inhabitants of the Coachella Valley, having resided in the Coachella Valley for centuries. The water in the Coachella Valley has sustained these Native American people agriculturally, economically, culturally, and spiritually for a long period of time, as it still does today. Key issues on tribal lands include lack of adequate water and wastewater infrastructure,
44 Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group, 2014 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, (February, 2014).
12-836
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-45 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
particularly in East Valley areas. The Coachella Valley’s tribes are also concerned with protection of culturally significant native plant species and habitats, as well as culturally significant water resources on tribal lands. Establishing new relationships between the IRWMP program and local tribes will improve regional groundwater management. The Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group intends to collaborate with the local tribes on long-term water management planning to ensure that the water supply within the Coachella Valley is adequate for all users.45 Coachella Valley Water District
Coachella Valley Water Management Plan
CVWD released its 2010 CVWMP Update in January 2012 to continue to address the overdraft conditions in the Coachella Valley groundwater basin, and to ensure that CVWD and other water agencies in the Coachella Valley can reliably meet current and future water demands. CVWD recognizes the need to update the Plan periodically to respond to changing external and internal conditions.
The 2010 CVWMP Update is a 35-year blueprint for wise water management and the basis for all of the water district’s efforts to preserve the valley’s groundwater source, and calls for a multifaceted approach including:
• increased water conservation by all types of water users; • increasing the imported water supply from the Coachella Canal and SWP; • increasing the use of the imported supply and recycled water, instead of groundwater, for irrigation; and
• expanding groundwater replenishment efforts, especially in the east valley.
The 2010 CVWMP Update indicates that urban water use in 2009 was 14 percent less per customer than in 2003 and has shown a steady downward trend since 2003. Based on a review of available water usage data, Coachella Valley urban water users appear to have exceeded the 10 percent objective established in the 2002 WMP. Based on comparisons with 2000-2002 average water use per acre, agricultural water usage has varied from 2003 to 2008, but has generally declined about 9.9 percent. Therefore, Coachella Valley agricultural water users have exceeded the 7 percent objective established in the 2002 WMP.
45 Coachella Valley Regional Water Management Group, 2014 Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, (February, 2014).
12-837
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-46 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
The 2010 CVWMP Update reaffirms a dedication to the goal of maintaining a reduced level of water consumption through 2035, and emphasizes cooperation with municipalities, local water agencies, and tribes in regional planning and implementation. As part of the 2009 comprehensive water package, the California Legislature adopted SBx7-7 (Steinberg), which mandates that California urban water agencies achieve a 20 percent reduction in per capita water demand by 2020. This legislation will require Coachella Valley urban water users to increase conservation over and above the goal established in the 2002 WMP. The following are among some of the recommended conservation measures and activities outlined in the 2010 CVWMP Update for the board of directors to consider over the next 25 years in response to increased population growth and potential reductions in future SWP water reliability:46 • Continued implementation of the 2009 Valley-wide Landscape Ordinance (Ordinance 1302.1 Revised by Ordinance 1374)
• Installation of automated or “smart” water meters
• Extension of the Landscape Ordinance to include all landscaping regardless of size (current limit is 5,000 square-feet or larger for homeowner furnished landscaping) • Encourage existing golf courses to convert landscaping to meet the 2009 Landscape Ordinance, limiting turf to 4 acres per hole plus 10 acres for associated practice areas. • Implementation of water budget-based tiered water rates or other conservation based rates by other water agencies
• Further decreases in the water allocations for landscape irrigation consistent with good irrigation practices and desert landscaping
• Landscape retrofit rebates—i.e., economic incentives for replacing high water use landscaping, also known as “cash for grass”
• Restrictions on the total amount of turf allowed
• Mandated use of smart irrigation controllers by all customers • Audits of new development to assure continued compliance with the Landscape Ordinance • Plumbing retrofits for existing properties including mandatory retrofit (ultra low flush toilets, showerhead replacement, etc.) prior to sale of property
46 CVWD, 2013-14 Annual Review and Water Quality Report, Strategic Plan Guides Future Actions, (June 16, 2010) 3. 12-838
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-47 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
• Conservation rebates for high-efficiency clothes washers • Compliance with California Green Building Code Standards (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11, 2009)
• Water distribution system audits and loss reduction programs The 2010 CVWMP Update recognizes that groundwater capacity fluctuates, in order to make up the difference between the demand and the supply. The demand for groundwater has annually exceeded the limited natural recharge of the groundwater basin. Other than canal water for irrigation, recycled water and desalinated drain water, all water delivered to the end users is obtained from the groundwater basin. The Coachella Valley’s principal groundwater basin, the Whitewater River Subbasin, has a capacity of approximately 30 million acre-feet.
The 2010 CVWMP Update discusses that CVWD has many programs to maximize the water resources available to it including recharge of its Colorado River and SWP supplies, recycled wastewater, desalinated agricultural drain water, conversion of groundwater uses to Canal water and water conservation including tiered water rates, landscaping ordinance, outreach and education. The 2010 CVWMP Update and CVWD replenishment assessment programs establish a comprehensive and managed effort to eliminate the overdraft. These programs allow CVWD to maintain the groundwater basin as its primary water supply and to recharge the groundwater basin as its other supplies are available.
Urban Water Management Plan
CVWD completed the UWMP 2010 Update in July 2011, as required under California Water Code, Division 6, Part 2.6. Much of the data used in the UWMP 2010 Update was based on information in the 2005 CVWMP. However, domestic water demand projections and SWP purchases and reliability were updated in the UWMP 2010 Update to reflect changes since 2005. It is important to note that projected water demand and supply data, and water conservation programs in the UWMP 2010 Update, apply only to the CVWD service area, as opposed to the entire Whitewater River Subbasin.
A WSA is required to document the Project's planned future uses and to assess water demand associated with this Project. Water Code Section 10910(c)(2) states that if demand from potential future growth is accounted for in the most recently adopted UWMP, the water supplier may incorporate the requested information from the UWMP in preparing the WSA. CVWD water demand projections contained in the UWMP 2010 Update and 2010 CVWMP Update take into account the increased growth and increased intensity throughout their service area. The Project is within the service area covered by the 2010 CVWMP Update and the UWMP 2010 Update.
12-839
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-48 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Landscape Water Conservation Ordinance No. 1302.1
On July 17, 2007, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors declared a local emergency for Riverside County due to severe drought conditions and issued Ordinance No. 1302.1, an ordinance of CVWD establishing landscape and irrigation system design criteria. In accordance with Ordinance 1302.1, the provisions for new or rehabilitated landscapes apply to all new and rehabilitated landscaping for private, public, recreational, commercial and governmental development projects that require a permit and developer-installed landscaping in single-family tracts, five or more infill lots and multifamily projects.
The purpose of the landscape and irrigation system design criteria is to conserve water by establishing effective water efficient landscape requirements for newly installed and rehabilitated landscapes. It is also the intent of these criteria to implement the requirements of the State of California Water Conservation in Landscaping Act, Government Code Section 65591, et seq. It is the intent of CVWD to promote water conservation through climate appropriate plant material, efficient irrigation systems and to create a “Lush and Efficient” landscape theme through enhancing and improving the physical and natural environment.
As outlined in Ordinance 1302.1, project applicants are required to submit a landscape documentation package, which is required to include a water conservation concept statement; calculation of the maximum applied water allowance; calculation of the estimated applied water use; calculation of the estimated total water use; a landscape design plan; an irrigation design plan; a grading design plan; and a soil analysis (optional).
Agua Caliente Cahuilla Band of Indians
Agua Caliente Land Use Ordinance
The purpose of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Land Use Ordinance (“Tribal Land Use Ordinance”) is to provide standards and regulations to control land uses on Indian Reservation Lands, maintain and protect the Reservation’s unique natural and cultural resources, and to preserve the natural environment. Article VII, Landscaping Standards, of the Tribe’s Land Use Ordinance promotes the use of native, desert, and other drought tolerant plants to reduce water demand on the Reservation.
The landscape management practices identified in this article of the Tribal Land Use Ordinance ensure maximum water efficiency in comprehensive landscaping plans, irrigation plans, plant materials, decorative water features, and places limitations on turf material. 12-840
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-49 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Tribal Ordinance Controlling Pollutant Discharges into the Waters of the Reservation The purpose of this Tribal Ordinance is to regulate and control all pollutant discharges into the waters of the Reservation.47 Per this Ordinance, no pollutant discharges are allowed into the waters of the Reservation unless there is prior consultation with the Federal, Tribal, or State agency with jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act and/or the Safe Drinking Water Act, and if required, appropriate permit(s) are obtained.
Tribal Ordinance Regulating Use of Lands Within the Boundaries of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation for Public Utility Purposes
The purpose of this Tribal Ordinance is to regulate and restrict the use of lands within the exterior boundaries of the Reservation by public utility projects which do not directly benefit and serve the members of the Agua Caliente Band.48 The Ordinance includes pipelines, canals, aqueducts, and water lines within the realm of public utilities.
City of Rancho Mirage
The City of Rancho Mirage has complied with AB 1881 and with CVWD Ordinance No. 1302.1 with its water-efficient Landscape Ordinance in Chapter 7.02 (Valley-wide Water-efficient Landscaping) of the City of Rancho Mirage’s Municipal Code. This section of the City’s Municipal Code requires project applicants to submit a landscape documentation package, which is required to include a water conservation concept statement, calculation of maximum allowed water allowance (MAWA), calculation of the estimated applied water use, calculation of the estimated total water use, a landscape design plan, an irrigation design plan, a grading design plan, and a soil analysis (optional).
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Thresholds of Significance
In order to assist in determining whether a project would have a significant effect on the environment, the Tribe finds a project may be deemed to have significant impacts on water service if it would:
47 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, “Tribal Ordinance Controlling Pollutant Discharges into the Waters of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation,” http://www.aguacaliente.org/downloads/Ordinance24.pdf . 48 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, “Tribal Ordinance Regulating the Use of Lands Within the Boundaries of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation for Public Utility Purposes,” http://www.aguacaliente.org/downloads/Ordinance07.pdf . 12-841
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-50 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Threshold 5.15.1 Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts; or
Threshold 5.15.2 Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed.
2. Methodology
The available supplies and water demands for CVWD's service area were analyzed to assess the region's ability to satisfy demands during three scenarios: a normal water year, a single dry year, and multiple dry years. The service area for this analysis does not include the water provided by the Cities of Indio or Coachella, or the Myoma Dunes Water Company, Mission Springs Water District, or DWA.
The analysis of water resources and water supply is based upon the understanding of projected water supplies as developed by CVWD and used the WSA/WSV prepared for the Project (Appendix H) including estimates of available groundwater, Colorado River water, and SWP sources.
The WSA/WSV relies on the water supply and demand planning considerations established in the 2010 CVWMP Update, the 2014 CVWMP Status Report, the CVWD 2010 UWMP, and the Draft Delivery Reliability Report 2013.
Because groundwater production is driven by demand, CVWD assumes that supplies are equal to demand. This supply is considered reliable and does not vary in dry or multiple dry water years.
According to the 2010 UWMP, the aquifer and other sources of supply are adequate for a single dry year and also multiple dry years, for a 20-year period. Without replenishment, the decline in storage would be less than 0.5 percent of the basin storage each year.49 The 2014 Status Report recommendation is that population projections be reduced from 1,136,739 in 2045, as published in the 2010 CVWMP Update, to approximately 920,000, based on Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 2012 projections. This is approximately an 18 percent reduction in population in 2045 when compared to that of the 2010 CVWMP Update. The 2014 Status Report shows revised water demand projections compared to the 2010 CVWMP Update demand projections. The 2014 Status Report values were determined by revising the basis for the 2010 CVWMP Update population projections from Riverside County Center for
49 CVWD, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, (June 2011), 5-8. 12-842
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-51 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Demographic Research 2006 growth forecasts (RCP06) to SCAG RTP 2012 projections. While urban and golf course demands are reduced by 22 percent and 16 percent, respectively, agricultural demand is increased by approximately 13 percent. This agricultural demand increase results from a slower rate of agricultural land conversion to urban uses. Total reduction in 2045 water demands is approximately 14 percent. However, it is important to note that this is not an elimination of demand but a deferral of demand to later years. Buildout growth will occur over a longer period of time.
It is assumed that population growth associated with the Project is included in the population growth projections for the CVWD area. Therefore, it can be assumed that Project water demand is also included within 2010 UWMP growth projections. Since supply is driven by demand, it can be assumed that supply is also included within the 2010 UWMP growth projections, and therefore that adequate water is available to supply the Project. The following tables show Project Demand through 2022, at which point construction of the Tribal Planning Areas would be underway, through 2035.
Quantitative estimates of water supplies and demands were considered as part of the impact assessment. The Project’s water supply analysis included in this draft EIS is based upon the WSA/WSV, which is incorporated herein by reference and included as Appendix H.
The WSA for the Project focuses on the adequacy of groundwater and other alternative water sources to supply amounts of water sufficient to meet the water demands of the Project. Additional water sources are considered as a supplement to groundwater in that they are used to recharge the aquifer, serve as a source substitution for groundwater, or are used for irrigation.
Once available to the Project Site, the Project will utilize recycled water on site to supplement non- potable water demands. Additionally, the Project may also use drainage water (stormwater) contained on- site for reuse.
3. Project Design Features
The following Project Design Features (PDFs) are incorporated into the Project and would reduce impacts on the water supply. These features were taken into account in the analysis of potential impacts.
PDF 5.15.1-1 Development within the Active Adult Community shall include the extension of an 18- inch water main to Planning Area 8 from Point of Connection (POC) 5 at Ramon Road and future “A” Street Boulevard intersection within a mutually agreed upon easement along “A” Street Boulevard and Casino Drive to be established by Tribal Council and the developers of the Active Adult Community.
12-843
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-52 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
PDF 5.15.1-2 All connections of the Active Adult Community water lines to the existing 18-inch water line beneath Dinah Shore Drive (POC 1) and Los Alamos Road (POC 2 and 3 on Section 24 Specific Plan Figure 24, Conceptual Potable Water Plan) shall be consistent with Tribal, City standards if property is annexed, and/or Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) standards.
PDF 5.15.1-3 All connections of the Project water lines to the existing 18-inch water lines beneath Los Alamos Road, Ramon Road, Bob Hope Drive, and Dinah Shore Drive shall be consistent with the CVWD Development Design Manual.
PDF 5.15.1-4 All proposed water wells to be constructed within the Project Site shall be consistent with the CVWD Development Design Manual.
PDF 5.15.1-5 Application of Low Impact Design (LID) standards to all interior and exterior plumbing features, including low-flow toilets, low-gpm plumbing fixtures, and tankless water heaters.
PDF 5.15.1-6 Utilization of xeriscape planting principles and use of native and/or drought-tolerant plant materials that require little or no irrigation. Plants with similar water requirements should be grouped together, a technique known as hydro zoning. Decorative water features are to be designed to minimize water consumption and evaporation.
PDF 5.15.1-7 Automated, high-efficiency irrigation systems (such as bubbler irrigation and low-angle, low-flow spray heads) shall be installed to reduce water demand and use. Moisture sensors and other similar irrigation technology shall be utilized to ensure that landscaping is watered only as needed.
PDF 5.15.1-8 Minimize use of turf except within active outdoor recreation uses.
PDF 5.15.1-9 Grey and recycled water infrastructure should be integrated in the landscape design so that grey water, recycled water and/or collected rainwater can be used wherever feasible for landscape irrigation.
PDF 5.15.1-10 Reduced width streets (32 feet) that reduce impervious surfaces that generate run-off.
PDF 5.15.1-11 Retain and treat all stormwater on site from up to a 100-year storm event. 12-844
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-53 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
4. Project Impacts
Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts
Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas
Development of the Project is expected to increase demand for water service within CVWD service boundaries. As a result, additional water supplies would be required to accommodate the demands of the Project. Infrastructure improvements would be installed to support the development of the Project, including water and utility improvements. CVWD is the PWS for the Project Site and would provide water service for the Project.
The Project Site is located within a combination of the Mission Hills Pressure Zone and the Sky Mountain Pressure Zone. CVWD has agreements in place with a developer and the City of Rancho Mirage for the expansion of the Mission Hills Pressure Zone. These agreements obligate CVWD to design and construct a 3.2 million gallon reservoir and approximately 17,500 feet of 36-inch diameter domestic water transmission pipeline located on the north side of Interstate 10 (I-10) which would be constructed by CVWD.50 Although the Project would benefit from the Mission Hills Pressure Zone project outlined above, CVWD would need additional facilities to provide for the orderly expansion of its domestic water systems.
As shown on Figure 3.0-10, Conceptual Potable Water Plan, the conceptual potable water plan illustrates the location of existing and proposed domestic use water lines and up to seven well sites on site that would be provided within the Project Site. The on-site potable water lines would be a combination of 18-inch, 12-inch, and 8-inch lines. The proposed 18-inch water lines would serve the central, southern, and western portion of the Active Adult Community and all of the Tribal Planning Areas. The proposed 12-inch and 8-inch water lines would branch off the 18-inch water lines to supply the remaining areas of the Active Adult Community with potable water. Project Design Feature 5.15.1-1 provides an agreed upon easement for the construction of the proposed 18-inch water lines which would connect to Ramon Road. Project Design Features 5.15.1-2 and PDF 5.15.1-3 will ensure that the construction of the potable water lines at POC 1, 2, and 3 are consistent with Tribal standards, City standards if the property is annexed, and/or CVWD design standards. Similar to the 12-inch and 8-inch water lines, the 18-inch water line would be designed consistent with CVWD standards as identified in
50 CVWD, Letter to Mr. Bob Paradise concerning Section 24 Development: APN Nos. 673-120-023; 673-120-024; 673-120-025; dated March 14, 2013.
12-845
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-54 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
PDF 5.15.1-3. A total of seven well sites are proposed within the Project Site; four within the Active Adult Community and three within the Tribal Planning Areas. Project Design Feature 5.15.1-4 will ensure that all future wells developed on site would be constructed consistent with the CVWD Development Design Manual.
Project Design Features PDF 5.15.1-5 through PDF 5.15.1-11 require the use of LID interior and exterior plumbing fixtures, landscaping that requires little or no irrigation consistent with the Tribe’s Land Use Ordinance, high efficiency irrigation systems, use of grey and recycled water where feasible, less impervious surface area, and the retention of on-site stormwater to allow for groundwater infiltration.
The Project would, therefore, be consistent with the Tribe’s and CVWD water efficiency goals. As such, the Project would not require the construction of new water treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities which would cause significant environmental impacts. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
Have insufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed A WSA/WSV prepared for the Project is provided in Appendix H of this Draft EIS. The WSA/WSV relied on CVWD’s 2010 UWMP, 2010 CVWMP Update, the 2014 CVWMP Status Report, Coachella Valley Integrated Regional Water Management Plan, CVWD Engineer’s Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment for both the West and East Whitewater River Subbasin Areas, and the CVWD Annual Water Quality Report in 2014. The WSA/WSV was prepared in compliance with requirements of SB 610 and SB 221 and was reviewed and approved by CVWD. The Project would rely on groundwater as a water supply source for water demand.
Water Demand Estimate—Active Adult Community
General consumption estimates by land uses from standardized historical data are presented in the Section 24 Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment and Water Supply Verification (Appendix H) to calculate annual consumption. Using the Project-specific demand rates, the Active Adult Community would demand approximately 437 acre-feet of water per year, as identified in Table 5.15.1-14, Active Adult Community Estimated Water Demand. In accordance with the requirements of State 12-846
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-55 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
legislation,51 specific performance standards for indoor, landscape, and commercial, industrial and institutional uses have been used.
Table 5.15.1-14
Active Adult Community Estimated Water Demand
Water Demand Use afy
Residential Use 133.1
Clubhouse 3.1
Clubhouse-Restaurant 1.3
Open Space 299.5
Total 437.0
Indoor Demand
Potable water demand was calculated for all indoor uses based on Project-specific estimates. An interior residential model rate of 99 gallons per unit per day (gpud) has been used as an interior component for all new residential water sues within the Project Site.52 For Clubhouse uses, a demand factor of 0.096 gallons per square foot was used;53 for Clubhouse-Restaurant, a demand factor of 0.907 was used.54 Outdoor Demand
The Project proposes potable water sources for open space, requiring 299.5 afy of potable water, using a demand factor of 3.89 afy per acre. Initially, the Project would rely on groundwater for its outdoor irrigation demand. However, as previously described in PDF 5.15.1-9, the Project would gradually implement the use of recycled and grey water into landscape design, where feasible. The use of water would reduce the demand of the Active Adult Community on the groundwater basin.
51 SB 7-7 (Steinberg, Chapter 4, Statutes of 2009), Statewide Water Conservation, creates a framework for future planning and actions by urban and agricultural water suppliers to reduce California’s water use. For the first time in California’s history, this bill requires the development of agricultural water management plans and requires urban water agencies to reduce Statewide per capita water consumption 20 percent by 2020. Specifically, the bill requires urban water suppliers to utilize methods to achieve the required reduction. Among the methods that can be used include the use of performance standards for water use that are specific to indoor, landscape and commercial, industrial and institutional uses. 52 0.55 gpd/person x 1.80 person/unit = 99.0 gpd/unit. 53 Office building demand is established using prior accepted reference (rate of 35 gallons/year/square foot of office space as obtained from Commercial and Institutional End Used of Water, AWWA Research Foundation Table 6.18. 54 Restaurant domestic demand is established using prior accepted reference rate of 331 gallons/year/square foot of restaurant space as obtained from Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water, AWWA Research Foundation Table
6.16. 12-847
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-56 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Water Demand Estimate—Tribal Planning Areas
Table 5.15.1-15, Tribal Planning Areas Estimated Water Demand, identifies water demand for the Tribal Planning Areas would be 1,342.6 acre-feet of water per year, using the Project-specific demand rates.
Table 5.15.1-15
Tribal Planning Areas Estimated Water Demand
Water Demand Use afy
Non-Residential 1,050.3
Open Space 71.6
Residential Use 220.7
Total 1,342.6
Indoor Demand
Potable water demand was calculated for all indoor uses based on project-specific estimates in the same manner as for the Active Adult Community. An interior residential model rate of 163.35 gpud has been used as an interior component for all new residential water uses within the Project Site. For retail/commercial and office uses, a demand factor of 0.096 gallons per square foot was used; for restaurant uses, a demand factor of 0.907 was used. The Tribal Planning Areas would rely on groundwater for its potable water supply and would require a total of 1,050.3 afy for indoor uses.
Outdoor Demand
Using a demand factor of 3.89 afy per acre of Open Space, water demand proposed for Tribal Planning Areas outdoor use would be 71.6 afy. Initially, the Project would rely on groundwater for its open space and outdoor water demand. PDF 5.15.1-5 would direct development within the Project Site to gradually implement the use of recycled and grey water into landscape design, where feasible. The use of water would reduce the demand of the Tribal Planning Area on the groundwater basin.
Water Demand Estimate - Whole Project
As shown in Table 5.15.1-16, Projected Annual Project Demand (afy), when taken together the Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas would result in a total demand of 1,779.6 afy, which is approximately 0.7 percent of the CVWD projected total water demand for an average, dry year, or multiple dry water year in 2036.
12-848
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-57 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.15.1-16
Projected Annual Project Demand (afy)
Year Demand
Cumulative
Project Demand
Active Adult Community
Phase 1 (2017) 87.4 87.4
Phase 2 87.4 174.8
Phase 3 87.4 262.2
Phase 4 87.4 349.6
Phase 5 (2021) 87.4 437.0
Tribal Planning Area
2022 89.5 526.5
2023 89.5 616.0
2024 89.5 705.5
2025 89.5 795.0
2026 89.5 884.5
2027 89.5 974.0
2028 89.5 1,063.5
2029 89.5 1,153.0
2030 89.5 1,242.5
2031 89.5 1,332.0
2032 89.5 1,421.5
2033 89.5 1,511.0
2034 89.5 1,600.5
2035 89.5 1,690.0
2036 89.5 1,779.5
Note: Rounding results in 1,779.5 afy when compared to the unrounded number of 1,779.6 afy.
Analysis of Water Supply and Demand—Active Adult Community The available supplies and water demands for CVWD's service area were analyzed in the 2010 UWMP to assess the region's ability to satisfy demands during three scenarios: a normal water year, a single-dry 12-849
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-58 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
year, and multiple-dry years (see Appendix H). The following discussion presents the supply-demand balance for the various drought scenarios in the CVWD service area for the Project.
Table 5.15.1-17, Dry Water Year Supply and Demand Assessment—2017 to 2020, sets forth the supply and demand scenario, showing CVWD growth in water demand and the percentage the total supply and the percentage of the groundwater supply that would be utilized by the Active Adult Community annually between 2017 and 2020.
Table 5.15.1-18, Dry Water Year Supply and Demand Assessment—2021 to 2024, sets forth the supply and demand scenario, showing CVWD growth in water demand and the percentage of the total supply and the percentage of the groundwater supply that would be utilized by the Active Adult Community annually between 2021 and 2024.
The Active Adult Community would require an estimated 437 afy, or 196 gpcd, at buildout in 2022. This estimate is based on the demand rates previously noted and is consistent with the maximum water allowance requirements set forth in SBX 7-7, the CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.1, the Tribe Land Use Ordinance, the City Municipal Code, and CVWD demand estimates.
The Active Adult Community incorporates a number of features that reduce the overall water demand and provide for a reduction in use. These include a number of water conservation measures for both indoor and outdoor use for both residential and commercial development, as described in PDF 5.15.1-5 through PDF 5.15.1-11.
As previously discussed in the Methodology, the 2010 UWMP utilizes approved population projections from CVAG, which includes projections from buildout of the Project Site. CVWD’s 2020 urban water use target for urban water use is 473 gpcd.55 The Active Adult Community’s demand would be 196 gpcd, which is below the20 by 2020 per capita target of 473 gpcd necessary to manage the groundwater basin.
By 2022, the Active Adult Community would utilize 0.39 percent of the total CVWD water supply and
0.55 percent of the total groundwater supply for the CVWD, for which there would not be an increase in overdraft. Therefore, the Active Adult Community’s demand is within the CVWD 20 by 2020 target necessary to manage the groundwater basin.
55 Coachella Valley Water District, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, (June 2011). Table 3-7. 12-850
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-59 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.15.1-17
Dry Water Year Supply and Demand Assessment—2017 to 2020
Average
Water Year
2017
Single Dry
Water Year
2018
Multiple Dry Water Years
2018 2019 2020
Supply
Supplier-Produced Groundwater 121,421 122,806 122,806 124,206 125,600 Treated Colorado River Water 9,285 11,850 11,850 15,125 19,300 Untreated Colorado River Water 3,065 4,707 4,707 7,289 11,100 Desalinated Agricultural Drain Water 0 0 0 0 0
Total Supply 137,140 143,188 143,188 149,503 156,100
Project Water Demand 87.4 174.8 174.8 262.2 349.6
Percent of Total Supply 0.06 0.12 0.12 0.18 0.22
Percent of Groundwater Supply 0.07 0.14 0.14 0.21 0.28
Source: See Table 5.15.1-16 for supply growth rates and for annual Project water demand.
Table 5.15.1-18
Dry Water Year Supply and Demand Assessment—2021 to 2024
Average
Water Year
2021
Single Dry
Water Year
2022
Multiple Dry Water Years
2022 2023 2024
Supply
Supplier-Produced Groundwater 126,454 127,314 127,314 128,180 129,051 Treated Colorado River Water 21,272 23,447 23,447 25,843 28,484 Untreated Colorado River Water 13,190 15,674 15,674 18,625 22,132 Desalinated Agricultural Drain Water 0 0 0 0 0
Total Supply 161,969 168,059 168,059 174,378 180,935
Project Water Demand 437.0 526.5 526.5 616.0 705.5
Percent of Total Supply 0.27 0.31 0.31 0.35 0.39
Percent of Groundwater Supply 0.35 0.41 0.41 0.48 0.55
Source: See Table 5.15.1-16 for supply growth rates and for annual Project water demand.
Given that the Active Adult Community has an adequate supply of water from existing entitlements and resources, impacts would be less than significant.
12-851
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-60 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Analysis of Water Supply and Demand—Whole Project
Development of the Tribal Planning Areas is assumed to occur after the buildout of the Active Adult Community in 2022. Based on a 14-year buildout between 2023 and 2036, the average annual increase in demand would be 89.5 afy as illustrated in Table 5.15.1-16. To provide a conservative analysis of the Project's water demand, it is assumed that the Tribal Planning Area would build out in a linear fashion between 2022 and 2036. Table 5.15.1-16 also includes the cumulative Project total demand. The supply and demand methodology previously explained for the Active Adult Community also applies to the Tribal Planning Areas.
Table 5.15.1-18 sets forth the supply and demand scenario, showing CVWD growth in water demand and the percentage of the total supply and the percentage of the groundwater supply that would be utilized by the Project annually between 2021 and 2024.
Table 5.15.1-19, Dry Water Year Supply and Demand Assessment—2025 to 2028, sets forth the supply and demand scenario, showing CVWD growth in water demand and the percentage of the total supply and the percentage of the groundwater supply that would be utilized by the Project annually between 2025 and 2028.
Table 5.15.1-20, Dry Water Year Supply and Demand Assessment—2029 to 2032, sets forth the supply and demand scenario, showing CVWD growth in water demand and the percentage of the total supply and the percentage of the groundwater supply that would be utilized by the Project annually between 2029 and 2032.
Table 5.15.1-21, Dry Water Year Supply and Demand Assessment—2033 to 2036, sets forth the supply and demand scenario, showing CVWD growth in water demand and the percentage of the total supply and the percentage of the groundwater supply that would be utilized by the Project annually between 2033 and 2036.
The Project would require an estimated 1,779.6 afy, which is approximately 0.7 percent of the CVWD projected total water supply for an average year, dry year, or multiple dry water year in 2036. This estimate is based on the demand rates previously noted and is consistent with the maximum water allowance requirements set forth in SBX 7-7, the CVWD Landscape Ordinance 1302.1, the Tribe’s Land Use Ordinance, the City Municipal Code, and CVWD demand estimates. 12-852
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-61 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.15.1-19
Dry Water Year Supply and Demand Assessment—2025 to 2028
Average
Water Year
2025
Single Dry
Water Year
2026
Multiple Dry Water Years
2026 2027 2028
Supply
Supplier-Produced Groundwater 129,900 130,612 130,612 131,328 132,047 Treated Colorado River Water 31,400 32,876 32,876 34,421 36,039 Untreated Colorado River Water 26,300 28,457 28,457 30,790 33,315 Desalinated Agricultural Drain Water 0 0 0 0 0
Total Supply 187,700 192,317 192,317 197,048 201,896
Project Water Demand 795.0 884.5 884.5 974.0 1,063.5
Percent of Total Supply 0.42 0.46 0.46 0.49 0.53
Percent of Groundwater Supply 0.61 0.68 0.68 0.74 0.81
Source: See Table 5.15.1-16 for supply growth rates and for annual Project water demand.
Table 5.15.1-20
Dry Water Year Supply and Demand Assessment—2029 to 2032
Average
Water Year
2029
Single Dry
Water Year
2030
Multiple Dry Water Years
2030 2031 2032
Supply
Supplier-Produced Groundwater 137,771 133,500 133,500 134,475 135,456 Treated Colorado River Water 37,733 39,500 39,500 41,258 43,094 Untreated Colorado River Water 36,047 39,000 39,000 41,746 44,685 Desalinated Agricultural Drain Water 0 0 0 2,000 4,000
Total Supply 206,863 212,000 212,000 217,809 223,777
Project Water Demand 1,153.0 1,242.5 1,242.5 1,332.0 1,421.5 Percent of Total Supply 0.56 0.59 0.59 0.61 0.64
Percent of Groundwater Supply 0.84 0.93 0.93 0.99 1.05
Source: See Table 5.15.1-16 for supply growth rates and for annual Project water demand.
12-853
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-62 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.15.1-21
Dry Water Year Supply and Demand Assessment—2033 to 2036
Average
Water Year
2033
Single Dry
Water Year
2034
Multiple Dry Water Years
2034 2035 2036
Supply
Supplier-Produced Groundwater 136,445 137,441 137,441 128,700 129,640 Treated Colorado River Water 45,011 47,014 47,014 49,100 51,285 Untreated Colorado River Water 47,830 51,198 51,198 54,800 58,658 Desalinated Agricultural Drain Water 6,000 8,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Total Supply 229,908 236,708 236,708 242,700 249,329
Proposed Project Water Demand 1,511.0 1,600.5 1,600.5 1,690.0 1,779.5 Percent of Total Supply 0.66 0.68 0.68 0.70 0.71
Percent of Groundwater Supply 1.11 1.16 1.16 1.31 1.37
Source: See Table 5.15.1-16 for supply growth rates and for annual Project water demand.
The Project incorporates a number of features that reduce the overall water demand and provide for a reduction in use. These include a number of water conservation measures for both indoor and outdoor use for both residential and commercial development, as described in PDF 5.15.1-5 through PDF
5.15.1-11. As shown in Table 5.15.1-20, the Project would utilize approximately 0.71 percent of the total CVWD water supply and 1.37 percent of the total groundwater supply for the CVWD by 2036.
The Project’s total water demand estimate is approximately 1,780 afy; this total water demand corresponds to approximately 3.1 afy per acre which is within the average future water use per acre estimated in the 2010 CVWMP Update. As previously discussed in the Methodology, the 2010 UWMP utilizes approved population projections from CVAG which includes projections from buildout of the Project Site. CVWD’s 20 by 2020 target for urban water use is 473 gpcd.56 The Project’s total urban water use would be 277 gpcd, or 0.74 afy per residential dwelling unit. As such, the Project’s demand of 277 gpcd is below the 20 by 2020 per capita target of 473 gpcd necessary to manage the groundwater basin.
56 Coachella Valley Water District, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, (June 2011). Table 3-7. 12-854
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-63 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
In 2036, the Project would account for 1.6 percent of the total CVWD’s 2010 UWMP urban demand and approximately 0.3 percent of CVWD’s total potable and non-potable 2010 demand when compared to the urban water demands presented in Table 5.15.1-10. Given that the CVWD has an adequate supply of water from existing entitlements and resources and that the Project would demand less than 3 percent of groundwater supplies in 2036, Project impacts would be less than significant.
5. Cumulative Impacts
Future Water Demands
Regional development of residential, commercial, and industrial sites will result in an increased demand on the potable water supply. The entire Coachella Valley utilizes an underground aquifer for its water supply needs. Therefore, cooperation between regional communities and CVWD is required to prevent depletion of this water supply, as identified in the 2010 CVWMP Update.
The population of the CVWD service area is projected to increase up to 512,200 people by 2035.57 This population increase will result in a substantial increase in water deliveries. The projected water demands for the period 2010 through 2035 in five-year increments is shown in Table 5.15.1-22, Past, Current, and Projected Domestic Water Demand. As shown, the total estimated domestic water demand for the year 2035 will be 234,800 acre-feet.
Total Projected Water Uses
Table 5.15.1-23, Summary of Water Demands in the Coachella Valley, shows water uses for the CVWD service area for the period 2015 through 2045. CVWD estimates that the total projected water demand for all users will be 885,400 afy by the year 2045. This amount of water includes buildout of the Project (Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas), related projects, and other projects that will be developed by the year 2045.
57 CVWD, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (July, 2011). 12-855
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-64 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.15.1-22
Past, Current, and Projected Domestic Water Demand
Year Water Use
Single
Family
Multi-
Family Commercial Governmental Landscape Construction Total 2005 # Accounts
Deliveries (afy)
90,386
81,571
3,309
6,716
3,420
5,170
236
924
4,147
25,851
420
2,975
101,522
123,207
2010 # Accounts
Deliveries (afy)
92,863
59,902
3,610
8,629
3,821
4,841
377
1,023
5,142
28,994
188
920
106,018
104,309
2015 # Accounts
Deliveries (afy)
110,400
69,900
4,500
10,100
4,400
5,600
430
1,200
6,100
33,800
240
1,100
126,100
121,700
2020 # Accounts
Deliveries (afy)
138,900
86,700
6,000
12,500
5,400
7,000
530
1,500
7,600
42,000
290
1,300
158,700
151,000
2025 # Accounts
Deliveries (afy)
169,400
104,300
7,500
15,000
6,400
8,400
630
1,800
9,100
50,500
340
1,600
193,400
181,600
2030 # Accounts
Deliveries (afy)
194,900
117,800
8,500
17,000
7,400
9,500
730
2,000
10,600
57,000
390
1,800
229,500
205,100
2035 # Accounts
Deliveries (afy)
223,900
134,800
10,000
19,400
8,400
10,900
830
2,300
12,100
65,300
440
2,100
255,700
234,800
Source: CVWD, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (July, 2011). Table 3-8 through Table 3-12.
12-856
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-65 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.15.1-23
Summary of Water Demands in the Coachella Valley
Component 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
Agricultural
Crop Irrigation 281,300 267,300 251,200 235,200 219,100 203,100 187,100 Total
Agricultural
Demand
281,300 267,300 251,200 235,200 219,100 203,100 187,100 Urban
Municipal 224,800 254,600 287,100 319,400 351,700 384,200 417,000 Industrial 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300 2,300
Total Urban
Demand
227,100 256,900 289,400 321,700 354,000 386,500 419,300 Golf Course
Demand
106,200 111,800 111,800 124,081 130,300 136,500 142,600 Fish Farms and
Duck Clubs
Fish Farms 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500 8,500
Duck Clubs 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000
Total Fish Farms
and Duck Clubs
10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500
Total Demand 625,100 646,500 669,100 691,481 713,900 736,600 759,500
Source: CVWD, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (January, 2012). Table 3-2. CVWD, 2014 Status Report for the 2010 CVWMP Update, (2014) Table 1.
Non-Potable Water Usage Demand
Implementation of the 2010 CVWMP Update includes conversion of a portion of the non-potable groundwater pumping to canal water or recycled water to reduce groundwater overdraft. The 2010 CVWMP Update estimated the future demand for agricultural and other non-potable water use through 2035 that would be served by the CVWD. These demand estimates are shown in Table 5.15.1-24, Historical and Future CVWD Non-Potable Water Demand.
12-857
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-66 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.15.1-24
Historical and Future CVWD Non-Potable Water Demand
Year Agriculture Golf Course and Municipal Total
2005 283,000 22,800 305,800
2010 313,400 33,700 347,100
2015 279,700 59,300 339,000
2020 242,700 76,700 319,400
2025 222,300 91,900 314,200
2030 204,700 94,700 299,400
2035 184,000 99,600 283,600
Source: CVWD, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (July, 2011). Table 3-17.
Groundwater Recharge Demand
CVWD and DWA operate groundwater recharge programs in the West Whitewater River and Mission Creek subbasins. From 1973 through 2013, CVWD and DWA have replenished the Whitewater River and Mission Creek Subbasins with approximately 2,630,572 acre-feet (2,493,239 acre-feet to Whitewater River Subbasin and 137,333 acre-feet to Mission Creek Subbasin) of exchange deliveries (Colorado River water exchanged for SWP water).58 A recharge program is currently operating in the West Whitewater River Subbasin Area of Benefit. The West Valley Whitewater Recharge Facility has a recharge capacity in excess of 300,000 afy. Because this capacity is enough to capture the full SWP Table A amount with additional capacity for supplemental recharge, no recharge capacity expansion is required.59 Groundwater recharge in the Mission Creek Subbasin commenced in 2004 using SWP Exchange water.
This program is jointly administered by CVWD and DWA with facilities constructed and operated by DWA. This program is expected to increase as groundwater extraction increases to meet projected growth. Table 5.15.1-25, Projected Groundwater Recharge Demand, shows the past and estimated groundwater recharge demand for the period 2005–2035.
58 DWA, Engineer’s Report: Groundwater Replenishment and Assessment Program for the Whitewater River Subbasin 2014/2015, (April, 2014).
59 CVWD, Coachella Valley Water Management Plan 2010 Update (January, 2012). 12-858
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-67 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 5.15.1-25
Projected Groundwater Recharge Demand
Year
Whitewater
Spreading
Facility
Levy Spreading
Facility
Martinez
Canyon
Spreading
Facility Indio
Mission Creek
Spreading
Facility Total
2005 165,600 4,000 800 0 24,700 195,100
2010 87,400 32,500 4,000 0 8,200 132,100
2015 72,300 40,000 4,000 5,000 9,900 131,200
2020 88,800 40,000 4,000 5,000 10,700 148,500
2025 78,000 40,000 20,000 10,000 10,700 158,700
2030 78,700 40,000 20,000 10,000 10,700 159,400
2035 82,000 40,000 20,000 10,000 11,100 163,100
Source: CVWD, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (July, 2011). Table 3-16.
CVWD has three WRPs that produced a combined total of nearly 15,000 acre-feet of recycled water in 2006, which was used to reduce the demand on the groundwater basin.60 In addition, DWA in partnership with CVWD operates a reclamation plant in Palm Springs and produced 3,000 acre-feet of recycled water per year, which also reduces the demand on the groundwater basin.
Future Water Supplies
In addition to water conservation and alternative water sources, CVWD and DWA will need to obtain additional water supplies to eliminate current and future overdraft due to buildout of future cumulative projects within the boundaries of the CVWD. Evaluation of many potential alternative supplies has identified four sources that will be augmented as part of the 2010 CVWMP Update. These sources are the Quantification Settlement Agreement, exchanges and transfers, recycled water, and desalinated agricultural drainage water. The steps to be taken to assure ample supplies of water are discussed below.
The future water supply during average years is summarized below in Table 5.15.1-26, Projected Average Future Water Supply—CVWD. The available supplies and water demand for CVWD’s service area were analyzed to assess the region’s ability to satisfy demands during three scenarios: a normal water year, single dry year, and multiple dry years. The tables in this cumulative analysis present the
60 CVWD, Water and the Coachella Valley, Recycled Water, http://www.cvwd.org/about/waterandcv.php . 12-859
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-68 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
supply-demand balance for the various drought scenarios for the 20-year planning period 2010 to 2030.
It is expected that the region will be able to meet 100 percent of its dry-year domestic water demand under every scenario.
Table 5.15.1-26
Projected Average Future Water Supply—CVWD
Year
Groundwater
Supply1
Colorado River
Water Supply2
SWP Exchange
Water3
Recycled
Water
Desalinated
Drain Water Total Supply
2010 106,700 318,000 62,000 23,100 4,000 513,800
2015 123,100 342,000 70,600 25,100 8,000 568,800
2020 123,700 379,000 70,100 26,500 8,000 607,300
2025 124,200 404,000 68,100 27,600 11,000 634,900
2030 123,200 429,000 66,500 28,300 11,000 658,000
Source: CVWD, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (July, 2011). 1 CVWD Share of net groundwater inflow to Whitewater and Mission Creek Subbasins, shared with DWA Service Area and private pumpers. 2 Net water deliveries to Coachella Valley, excluding conveyance losses. 3 Anticipated average availability assuming MWD calls-back 50 percent of the time in dry years. 4 Modified version of CVWD UWMP 2010 Update to account for advanced deliveries, DWR SWP 2013 Draft Reliability Report, and reductions to associate with Longfin Smelt and other issues
Table 5.15.1-27, Supply Reliability by Source shows the supply reliability for the CVWD supply sources during normal, dry, and multiple dry water year events. In general, all CVWD water supply sources can provide for 100 percent of the demand in the Coachella Valley for a substantial period of time.
Table 5.15.1-27
Projected Supply Reliability by Source
Supply Sources Normal Water Year Single Dry Year
Year 1
Multiple Dry Years
Year 2 Year 3
Groundwater 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Colorado River Water 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Recycled Water 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Desalinated Drain Water 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: CVWD, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, (June 2011).
CVWD will have sufficient water supplies for related projects. Again, as explained above, population projections utilized in the 2010 CVWMP Update are provided by regional SCAG and CVAG projections.
Variations in supply and demand during dry and multiple dry years are expected to be minimal due to 12-860
5.15.1 Water Service
Meridian Consultants 5.15.1-69 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
the water supply planning and projects undertaken by CVWD. In addition, CVWD is required to prepare UMWP every five years to ensure that adequate water supplies exist for future growth. Therefore, based on the above analysis, and the analyses set forth in CVWD’s 2010 UWMP and the Project WSA/WSV, the total projected water supplies available to CVWD over the 20-year period, including normal, single dry, and multiple dry years, is sufficient to meet the projected water demand of the Project, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and industrial uses, in accordance with the requirements of SB 610. Accordingly, cumulative water supply impacts are less than significant.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
No Mitigation Measures are required.
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Project Design Features PDF 5.15.1-1 through PDF 5.15.1-11 and compliance with the existing regulations would reduce potential impacts associated with water service to less than significant.
Cumulative impacts would also result in less than significant impacts to water service.
12-861
Meridian Consultants 5.15.2-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
5.15.2 SEWER
This Section of the Draft EIS evaluates the potential for the Project to impact the local sewer system and Water Reclamation Plant (WRP) No. 7 (WRP-7) operated by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD).
See Section 9.0 for terms, definitions, and acronyms used in this Draft EIS.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Existing Conditions
Sewer Service Systems
The Project Site is within the service boundary of CVWD for wastewater conveyance and treatment. Six WRPs provide, receive, and treat wastewater in the CVWD service area. Most of the communities within the CVWD service area receive sanitation service from one of these plants. Of CVWD’s six WRPs, three are equipped to treat wastewater to meet State standards for non-potable water for irrigation. Septic tanks serve the remaining areas. The Project Site would be in the service area of WRP-7, which is located at Avenue 38 and Madison Street in North Indio. The plant is a 5.0 million gallon per day (mgd) secondary treatment facility with current tertiary treatment capacity of 2.5 mgd. The tertiary treated wastewater is used for irrigation of golf courses in the Sun City area. The average annual flow is currently 2.11 mgd (2,400 afy). Recycled water not used for irrigation is percolated at on-site and off-site ponds. A plant expansion is currently under design that will increase the plant capacity to 7.5 mgd.
Growth is expected to increase WRP-7 flows to 9,200 afy without additional conservation.
Existing 15-inch sewer lines are located beneath Los Alamos Road and Ramon Road. The sewer line beneath Ramon Road transitions to an 18-inch sewer line that crosses underneath the Union Pacific Railroad and Interstate 10 (I-10) northeast of the Project Site, and then east along Varner Road to connect to WRP-7. CVWD has determined that this sewer line is currently at maximum capacity.
Storm Drainage Systems
All storm water systems are maintained by CVWD and Riverside County Flood Control within the Coachella Valley. Existing storm water drains are located at the southwest corner of Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road, along Ramon Road west of Bob Hope Drive, along the north side of Dinah Shore Drive, and along the west side of Bob Hope Drive. These flows drain into stormwater protection channels in the regional area, including the channelized Whitewater River, or into small retention basins south of Ramon Road.
12-862
5.15.2 Sewer
Meridian Consultants 5.15.2-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
2. Regulatory Setting
Federal
In 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act)1 was amended to prohibit the discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The Clean Water Act focused on tracking point sources, primarily from wastewater treatments plants and industrial waste dischargers, and required implementation of control measures to minimize pollutant discharges. In 2011, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (“Tribe”) received an exemption from NPDES Permit requirements from the USEPA because those portions of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation (“Reservation”) under Tribal jurisdiction (i.e. areas outside of the Land Use Agreements) do not qualify for maintaining permit coverage.
State
Regional Water Quality Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) are the principle State agencies with primary responsibility for the coordination and control of water quality. In the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act2 (Porter-Cologne), the California legislature declared that the “state must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of the waters in the state from degradation.” Porter-Cologne grants the boards authority to implement and enforce water quality laws, regulations, policies, and plans to protect the State’s groundwater and surface waters.
The Porter-Cologne Act directs each RWQCB to develop a water quality control plan (basin plan) for all areas within its region.3 The Project is located within the Colorado River Basin Region of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, which provides guidelines for sewage disposal from land developments. The guidelines provide an explanation of the principle statutory authority and administrative procedures under which the Regional Board will fulfill its responsibilities to protect against pollution, nuisance, contamination, unreasonable degradation of water quality, and violation of water quality objectives, as each may occur from the disposal of sewage from land developments.
1 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Clean Water Act), 33 USC Sections 1251-1387, October 18, 1972, as amended. 2 State Water Resources Control Board, “Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act,” California Water Code, Division 7.
Water Quality, effective January 1, 2008.
3 California Water Code Sec. 13000 et seq.
12-863
5.15.2 Sewer
Meridian Consultants 5.15.2-3 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
State Water Quality Control Board Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ 4 was adopted by the State Water Quality Control Board on May 2, 2006.
This order provides federal and State agencies, municipalities, counties, districts, and other public entities waste discharge requirements for sanitary sewer systems.
Title 22
The California Water Code requires the Department of Health Services (DHS) to establish water reclamation criteria. In 1975, the DHS prepared Title 22 to fulfill this requirement. Title 22 regulates production and use of recycled water in California by establishing three categories of recycled water:
• primary effluent, which typically includes grit removal and initial sedimentation or settling tanks; • adequately disinfected, oxidized effluent (secondary effluent), which typically involves aeration and additional settling basins; and
• adequately disinfected, oxidized, coagulated, clarified, filtered effluent (tertiary effluent), which typically involves filtration and chlorination.
In addition to defining recycled water uses, Title 22 also defines requirements for sampling and analysis of effluent and requires specific design requirements for plants.
Tribe
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Tribal Building and Safety Code As adopted from the CBC, the purpose of the Tribal Building and Safety Code is to provide standards and regulations to control minimum building safety standards of all buildings and structures on the Reservation. These standards are intended to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public related to any potential building hazards. All building permit approvals from the Tribe are based upon this Code.
Tribal Ordinance Controlling Pollutant Discharges into the Waters of the Reservation The purpose of this Tribal Ordinance is to regulate and control all pollutant discharges into the waters of the Reservation. Per this Ordinance, no pollutant discharges are allowed into the waters of the Reservation unless there is prior consultation with the Federal, Tribal, or State agency with jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act and/or the Safe Drinking Water Act, and if required, appropriate permit(s) are obtained.
4 State Water Resources Control Board, Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ, Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems, adopted May 2, 2006.
12-864
5.15.2 Sewer
Meridian Consultants 5.15.2-4 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Local
Coachella Valley Water District
CVWD is the wastewater (sanitation) service provider for a good part of the Coachella Valley. CVWD provides domestic water, wastewater (sanitation), non-potable water (recycled wastewater and Colorado River water), irrigation/drainage, and stormwater and groundwater management services to a major portion of the Coachella Valley. CVWD service area is approximately 1,000 square miles, mostly within the central and eastern Coachella Valley in Riverside County, but also extends into Imperial and San Diego counties. CVWD is governed and regulated under the Regional Board and is subject to its policies and regulations regarding proper wastewater disposal techniques.
CVWD Standards and Guidelines
CVWD developed standards and design guidelines, which include the CVWD Development Design Manual (DDM).5 The DDM provides comprehensive procedural and technical requirements for the planning, design, and construction of CVWD service infrastructure required for new development.
CVWD Sanitation and Irrigation and Drainage Rules and Regulations6 are incorporated into the DDM, and they provide general provisions and standards for the development of wastewater systems in CVWD. CVWD Standard Specifications for the Construction of Sanitary Sewer Systems7 are also incorporated into the DDM; these provide specification standards for the development of new wastewater systems within the CVWD service area. Additionally, construction methods, materials and disposal of products would also be subject to current standards established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Regional Water Quality Control Board and any other local, State, or federal agencies having authority in their respective jurisdictions.
CVWD Sanitation Fees
CVWD Ordinance No. 1373 requires new developments to pay for capital construction costs for new sanitation facilities through the Sanitation Capacity Rate (SCR). Wastewater flows are calculated on a case-by-case basis and are expressed in terms relative to the discharge of an EDU. The SCR was created
5 Coachella Valley Water District, Development Design Manual for Domestic Water, Sanitation, Stormwater, Irrigation/Drainage and Non-Potable Water, January 2014. 6 CVWD, Development Design Manual for Domestic Water, Sanitation, Stormwater, Irrigation/Drainage and Non-Potable Water, Appendix I and K, Regulations Governing Sanitation Service, January 2014. 7 Coachella Valley Water District, Development Design Manual for Domestic Water, Sanitation, Stormwater, Irrigation/Drainage and Non-Potable Water, Appendix I and K, Standard Specifications for the Construction of Sanitary Sewer Systems, January 2014.
12-865
5.15.2 Sewer
Meridian Consultants 5.15.2-5 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
as a funding mechanism for the construction of wastewater collection system and wastewater treatment infrastructure.
City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code
New construction within the City of Rancho Mirage (“City”) is subject to Title 3, Chapter 28 and Chapter 29, Section 145 and Title 13, Chapter 13.05, Section 13.05.010 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code, which set policy for the requirement of an imposed tax on new construction to support the increased demand for public services and infrastructure improvements, such as sewer, drainage facilities and required on-site retention.8
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Thresholds of Significance
In order to assist in determining whether a project would have a significant effect on the environment, the Tribe finds a project may be deemed to have a significant impact to sewer service and storm drain facilities, if it would:
Threshold 5.15.2-1 Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Threshold 5.15.2-2 Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
Threshold 5.15.2-3 Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
2. Methodology
Analysis was conducted using wastewater flows as provided in the CVWD Water Management Plan and the CVWD Development Design Manual. These flows were used to determine the amount of wastewater that would be generated by the Project. Based on these flows, the existing sewer line west of Cook Street within Varner Road would need to be upgraded to handle additional sewage flows upstream of this location. In addition, a preliminary Synthetic Unit Hydrograph was used to determine
8 City of Rancho Mirage, Municipal Code, accessed at http://www.qcode.us/codes/ranchomirage/ . 12-866
5.15.2 Sewer
Meridian Consultants 5.15.2-6 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
the retention volume needed to accept 100 percent of the stormwater runoff within the Project Site of the 100-year governing event.
3. Project Design Features
The following Project Design Features (PDF) are applicable to development within the Project Site and would reduce the potential sewer impacts of the Project. These features were taken into account in the analysis of potential impacts.
Implementation of Project Design Features PDF 5.15.1-1 through 5.15.1-9, provided in Section 5.15.1, Water Service, shall require the applicant to incorporate water conservation measures into the design of the Project.
PDF 5.15.2-1 Development within the Active Adult Community shall include the extension of a 12 inch sewer line from Point of Connection (POC) 4 at Ramon Road and the future “A” Street Boulevard intersection within a mutually agreed upon easement along “A” Street Boulevard and Casino Drive to be established by Tribal Council and the developers of the Active Adult Community.
PDF 5.15.2-2 All connections of the Active Adult Community sewer lines to the existing 15-inch sewer line beneath Los Alamos Road (POC 1, 2, and 3 on Section 24 Specific Plan Figure 24, Conceptual Master Sewer Plan) shall be consistent with Tribal, City standards if property is annexed, and/or CVWD standards.
PDF 5.15.2-3 All connections of the Project sewer lines to the existing 15-inch sewer lines beneath Los Alamos Road and Ramon Road shall be consistent with the design standards of the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Development Design Manual.
PDF 5.15.2-4 Development within the Project Site shall use linear bioswales, landscaped with native or drought-tolerant grasses, and smaller scale bio-retention cells in surface or subsurface storage areas where feasible.
PDF 5.15.2-5 Development within the Project Site shall use tree box filters as “mini-retention areas,” where feasible.
PDF 5.15.2-6 Development within the Project Site shall use permeable interlocking concrete pavers in parking courts, where feasible.
12-867
5.15.2 Sewer
Meridian Consultants 5.15.2-7 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
PDF 5.15.2-7 Development within the Project Site shall use pervious concrete and asphalt for other paved areas, where proper maintenance can be achieved.
4. Project Impacts
Exceed Wastewater Treatment Requirements
Active Adult Community
CVWD uses a peak flow factor of 250 gallons per day per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) to determine wastewater generation. Based on the number of EDUs determined for the Active Adult Community, the Active Adult Community is expected to generate 0.3015 mgd of wastewater, as identified in Table
5.15.2-1, Wastewater Generation of the Project. This is considered a very conservative assumption because active adult communities typically have much lower occupancy rates than the traditional neighborhoods that form the basis for the 250 gallons per day assumption (approximately 1.8 persons per household versus 3.3 persons per household in traditional neighborhoods).
Table 5.15.2-1
Wastewater Generation of the Project
Building Type Equivalent Dwelling Units Rate (gpd) Daily Wastewater (mgd) Active Adult Community
Residential 1,200 250 0.3
Clubhouse 6 250 0.0015
Subtotal 0.3015
Tribal Planning Areas
Residential 1,206 250 0.3015
Commercial 1,311 250 0.3278
Subtotal 0.6293
Total 0.9308
Source: MSA Consulting, Section 24 Specific Plan, Table 4: Water Demand Table, 2014.
WRP-7’s existing secondary treatment capacity is 5.0 mgd and tertiary treatment capacity of 2.5 mgd.
The average annual flow at WRP-7 is 2.11 mgd. The Active Adult Community wastewater flow would increase the existing average annual flow by approximately 14 percent to 2.4115 mgd. The Active Adult Community increase to WRP-7’s secondary treatment capacity would be within the existing secondary treatment capacity of the treatment plant. Furthermore, the Active Adult Community’s increase would be within WRP-7’s tertiary treatment capacity.
12-868
5.15.2 Sewer
Meridian Consultants 5.15.2-8 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Tribal Planning Areas
As identified in Table 5.15.2-1, the Tribal Planning Area would generate 0.6293 mgd which would be treated at WRP-7. The Tribal Planning Areas wastewater flow would increase the existing average annual flow by approximately 30 percent to 2.7393 mgd. The Tribal Planning Area increase to WRP-7’s secondary treatment capacity would be within the existing secondary treatment capacity of the treatment plant. However, the Tribal Planning Area’s increase would exceed WRP-7’s existing tertiary treatment capacity. The CVWD 2010 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) identifies that the treatment capacity of WRP-7 would increase as buildout of the CVWD service area occurs and indicates that WRP-7 would have the capacity to treat 7.5 mgd of wastewater.9 The Tribal Planning Areas are projected to build out by 2035, and as such, WRP-7 is expected to treat 7.5 mgd. Accordingly, available treatment capacity would be provided and impacts would be less than significant.
Combined Project
As identified in Table 5.15.2-1, the Project would generate 0.9308 mgd which would be treated at WRP-
7. The Project wastewater flow would increase the existing average annual flow by approximately 44 percent to 3.0408 mgd. The Project increase to WRP-7’s secondary treatment capacity would be within the existing secondary treatment capacity of the treatment plant. However, the Project’s increase would exceed WRP-7’s existing tertiary treatment capacity. The CVWD 2010 UWMP identifies that the treatment capacity of WRP-7 would increase as buildout of the CVWD service area occurs and indicates that WRP-7 would have the capacity to treat 7.5 mgd of wastewater.10 The Project is projected to build out by 2035, and as such, WRP-7 is expected to treat 7.5 mgd. Accordingly, available treatment capacity would be provided and impacts would be less than significant.
The Project is in jurisdiction of the Colorado River Basin RWQCB, which issues NPDES permits for non- Tribal projects the area. Treatment of water at WRP-7 currently meets secondary and tertiary standards, allowing treated wastewater not used as recycled water to be discharged into percolation pools and used for irrigation. Accordingly, the impacts would be less than significant.
9 CVWD, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, page 4-23 (2013). 10 CVWD, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, page 4-23 (2013). 12-869
5.15.2 Sewer
Meridian Consultants 5.15.2-9 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Require New Wastewater Drainage Facilities
Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas
The conveyance system for the Project’s wastewater would be designed to be congruent with the CVWD’s wastewater master plan, as identified by the Section 24 Specific Plan. As shown on Figure 3.0- 11, Conceptual Sewer Plan, the on-site wastewater collection system for the Active Adult Community would connect proposed 8-inch sewer lines to the existing 15-inch sewer line within Los Alamos Road.
The proposed 8-inch sewer line would serve the southern and western portion of the Active Adult Community. Project Design Feature PDF 5.15.2-2 and PDF 5.15.2-3 will ensure that the construction and connection of the 8-inch sewer lines at POC 1, 2, and 3 are consistent with Tribal, City and/or CVWD design standards. The proposed 12-inch sewer line would connect to the existing 15-inch sewer line within Ramon Road and serve the central and northeastern portion of the Active Adult Community and the Tribal Planning Areas. Project Design Feature PDF 5.15.2-1 provides an agreed upon easement for the construction of the proposed 12-inch sewer lines which would connect to Ramon Road. Similar to the 8-inch proposed sewer lines, the 12-inch sewer lines would be designed consistent with CVWD standards as identified in PDF 5.15.2-3. All on-site sewer lines will gravity feed to the existing sewer lines.
However, as previously discussed in Subsection A.1 Existing Conditions, CVWD has indicated that the sewer line beneath Varner Road east of Cook Street which serves WRP-7 is currently at capacity. As such, the Project would potentially result in significant impacts on CVWD’s existing sewer system.
Mitigation Measure MM 5.15.2-1 requires that prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, that the individual development proponent provide its fair share contribution to upgrade the existing sewer line within Varner Road east of Cook Street. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant.
Require New Storm Water Drainage Facilities
Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas
Development of the Project will incorporate a conceptual storm water drainage plan, as described in Section 3.0 Project Description and identified in Figure 3.0-12, Conceptual Drainage Plan. The Project is designed to provide 15 retention basins within the Active Adult Community and up to 11 retention basins within the Tribal Planning Areas for a total of 26 retention basins. Retention basis will be a maximum of 5-feet deep with maximum slopes of 5 to 1 unless control methods are incorporated.
Project Design Features PDF 5.15.2-4 through PDF 5.15.2-7 identify water facilities which would connect to the water retention basins as well as reduce the flow of on-site storm water into the retention basins. 12-870
5.15.2 Sewer
Meridian Consultants 5.15.2-10 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
The Active Adult Community would have the capacity to retain 40.98 acre-feet of stormwater runoff and the Tribal Planning Areas would have the capacity retain 51.18 acre-feet of stormwater runoff, for a total capacity of 92.16 acre-feet. The conceptual plan would accept 100 percent of the 100-year flood event generated on site to maintain existing on-site runoff volumes. Accordingly, the Project would maintain existing storm water runoff rates into the existing storm drain system. Impacts would be less than significant.
5. Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts related to wastewater and stormwater conveyance and/or treatment would occur when new development would require the use of the same existing facilities as the Project. A cumulative increase in wastewater and/or stormwater flow could cause significant impacts to the existing offsite conveyance systems and to WRP-7. The CVWD 2010 UWMP identifies the projected increase in total wastewater flows to all treatment plants in the service area.11 These projected increases in wastewater flows would require expansion of water treatment facilities. Proposed projects within Riverside County would be required to undergo environmental review to determine if:
1. the existing CVWD wastewater infrastructure system would have adequate capacity to provide service to the related projects, and
2. the related project would need to develop a wastewater infrastructure conveyance system or wastewater treatment plants within their boundaries to provide adequate service to their inhabitants.
All new projects to be implemented in the area would be required to complete environmental analysis per CEQA, and to disclose and analyze any potentially significant impacts on wastewater and/or stormwater services. As noted in the Project impact analysis, the sewer line along Varner Road east of Cook Street is currently at capacity. Related projects would exceed the capacity of this sewer line which would result in potentially significant impacts. Therefore, the Project would mitigate this impact to less than significant through payment of the existing connection fees, or their equivalent. Accordingly, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
11 CVWD, 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, page 4-23 (2013). 12-871
5.15.2 Sewer
Meridian Consultants 5.15.2-11 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
In addition to the Project Design Features identified in Section B.3 above, the following Mitigation Measure would reduce impacts on the CVWD sewer system.
Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas
MM 5.15.2-1 Prior to the issuance of the first occupancy permit, individual project proponents shall pay applicable fees, or provide equivalent funding, to CVWD to update the sewer line beneath Varner Road east of Cook Street, as requested by CVWD, and to cover the Project’s fair share from the cumulative need to expand WRP-7.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 5.6-7, provided in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, would also require individual project proponents to provide evidence of water efficient irrigation systems to the appropriate Planning Department to reduce water demand impacts, and consequently, impacts on the sewer system.
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Project Design Features PDF 5.15.2-1 through PDF 5.15.2-4 and Mitigation Measures MM 5.15.2-1 and MM 5.6-7 would reduce impacts on the CVWD sewer system to less than significant. 12-872
5.15.3 SOLID WASTE
This Section of the Draft EIS evaluates the potential for the Project to impact the capacity of local landfills and transfer stations. This Section also discusses the active landfills, transfer stations, and diversion and recycling programs that currently serve regional solid waste disposal service needs. See Section 9.0 for terms, definitions, and acronyms used in this Draft EIS.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
1. Existing Conditions
Solid Waste Services
The Riverside County Waste Management Department (RCWMD) is responsible for the efficient and effective landfill disposal of non-hazardous county waste. To accomplish this, the RCWMD operates six active landfills and administers a contract agreement for waste disposal at the private El Sobrante Landfill. RCWMD also oversees several transfer station leases, as well as a number of recycling and other special waste diversion programs.
All of the active landfills currently located in Riverside County are rated as Class III landfills according to Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). Such landfills only accept nonhazardous, municipal solid wastes. Franchise solid waste collection companies are granted permits to collect commercial and residential waste throughout unincorporated Riverside County under Riverside County’s general operating authority. As part of its long-range planning and management activities, RCWMD also ensures that Riverside County has a minimum of 15 years of capacity, at any time, for future landfill disposal.
Solid waste not dumped directly in a landfill is deposited temporarily in several transfer stations throughout Riverside County. The region’s transfer stations play a vital role in accommodating throughput to landfills, serving as collection and separation points for solid waste and recyclables.
Transfer stations also help reduce traffic congestion and provide flexibility for hauling waste to distant landfills or processing plants outside the region when appropriate. Solid waste services are provided by Burrtec Waste and Recycling Services (Burrtec). Solid waste is transported to one of three landfills and/or the Edom Hills Transfer Station. The Edom Hills facility is closed for receiving solid waste but is used for transferring and processing of materials.
• El Sobrante: The local service areas for the El Sobrante Landfill typically include cities/communities within southwestern Riverside County, as well as multiple jurisdictions within the counties of Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and San Diego. Located near the center of the highly populated western third of Riverside County, according to Waste Management, Inc., the landfill’s operator, it processes approximately 43 percent of Riverside County’s annual waste. This landfill is open 311 Meridian Consultants 5.15.3-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014 12-873
5.15.3 Solid Waste
days per year, has a permitted daily capacity of 5,000 tons per day, a current design capacity of 52.3 million tons, an average intake of 2,201 tons per day, with an estimated landfill closure date of 2045. • Lamb Canyon: This landfill receives waste from the entire Coachella Valley through the Edom Hill and Coachella Valley Transfer Stations. Land Canyon is open 311 days per year, has a permitted daily capacity of 5,000 tons per day, a current design capacity of 15.6 million tons, an average intake of 1,703 tons per day, with an estimated landfill closure date of 2021. • Badlands: As a regional disposal facility, the landfill is also permitted to receive waste from the cities and unincorporated communities of the Coachella Valley in the eastern portion of Riverside County.
This landfill is open 310 days per year, has a permitted daily capacity of 4,000 tons per day, currently design capacity is approximately 17.6 million tons, has an average intake of 1,667 tons per day, with an estimated landfill closure date of 2024.
• Edom Hills Transfer Station: The Edom Hill Transfer Station processes an average of 1,500 tons per day, with a maximum permitted capacity of 3,500 tons per day.1 The Project Site does not currently generate any solid waste. The City of Rancho Mirage (“City”) which is adjacent to the Project Site, generated approximately 24,700 tons in 2013. The majority of this waste was disposed of at the Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill.2
2. Regulatory Setting
Federal
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) was enacted in 1976 and is the principal federal law in the United States governing the disposal of solid waste and hazardous waste. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) oversees waste management regulation pursuant to Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Under RCRA, however, states are authorized to carry out many of the functions of the federal law through their own hazardous waste programs and laws, as long as they are at least as stringent (or more so) than the federal regulations. Thus, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) manages the State of California’s solid waste and hazardous materials programs pursuant to USEPA approval. 1 Riverside County Waste Management Department, Riverside County Nondisposal Facility Element, (2009), Table A-4; Riverside County Waste Management Department, Solid Waste Facility Permit, Edom Hill Transfer Station, May 2011. 2 CalRecycle, Disposal Reporting System, Disposal during 2013 for Rancho Mirage, http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/Reports/DRS/Destination/JurDspFa.aspx , accessed June 2014.
Meridian Consultants 5.15.3-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-874
5.15.3 Solid Waste
State
CalRecycle (formerly California Integrated Waste Management Board) Post-closure use of waste disposal sites, including landfills, are governed by the State of California via regulations set forth under Title 27.3 These include criteria for all waste management units, facilities and disposal sites.
As provided for under Subchapter 5, Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance,4 dischargers (e.g., landfill operators) who are implementing final closure of a new or existing classified solid waste management unit (unit) or are implementing complete final closure of a portion of a solid waste landfill (incremental closure) shall comply with the required provisions. The discharger shall carry out both mandatory closure and normal closure which the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) finds meets all applicable requirements. Classified Units shall be closed according to an approved closure and post closure maintenance plan which provides for continued compliance with the applicable SWRCB- promulgated standards for waste containment and precipitation and drainage controls, and the monitoring program requirements, throughout the closure period and the post closure maintenance period. Relative to the applicable State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) promulgated requirements, the post closure maintenance period shall extend as long as the wastes pose a threat to water quality; for Units concurrently regulated by RWQCB and by other State agencies (including the agents of such agencies), RWQCB’s finding that the waste in the Unit no longer poses a threat to water quality shall release the discharger only from the need to comply with the SWRCB-promulgated portions of this title, for that Unit.
Assembly Bill 939
Assembly Bill (AB) 939 (Chapter 1095, Statutes of 1989), the Integrated Waste Management Act, requires, among other things, every California city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills by the year 2000. In addition, AB 939 requires each county and incorporated cities to prepare a Source Reduction and Recycling Element for its jurisdiction, identifying waste characterization; source reduction; recycling; composting, solid waste facility capacity; education and public information; funding; special waste (asbestos, sewage sludge, etc.); and household hazardous waste in addition to a countywide siting element specifying areas for transformation or disposal sites to provide capacity for solid waste generated in the jurisdiction that cannot be reduced or recycled for a 15-year period. 3 Title 27, Environmental Protection, Division 2, Solid Waste, Chapter 3, Criteria for All Waste Management Units, Facilities and Disposal Sites.
4 Title 27, Environmental Protection, Division 2, Solid Waste, Chapter 3, Criteria for All Waste Management Units, Facilities and Disposal Sites, Subchapter 5, Closure and Postclosure Maintenance, Section 21190 – Postclosure Lane Use.
Meridian Consultants 5.15.3-3 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-875
5.15.3 Solid Waste
California’s 75 Percent “Recycling” Goal
On October 6, 2011, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 341 establishing a State policy goal that no less than 75 percent of solid waste generated be source reduced, recycled, or composted by 2020, and requiring CalRecycle to provide a report to the Legislature that recommends strategies to achieve the policy goal by January 1, 2014. The bill also mandates that local jurisdictions implement commercial recycling by July 1, 2012.
Local
Riverside Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan
The Riverside County Waste Management Division (RCWMD) over sees solid waste activities in the County. The Riverside Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) outlines the goals, policies, and programs the County of Riverside and its cities would implement to create an integrated and cost-effective waste management system that complies with the provisions of AB 939 and its diversion mandates.5 The CIWMP is composed of the Riverside Countywide Summary Plan and the Riverside Countywide Siting Element, a Source Reduction and Recycling Element (SRRE), a Nondisposal Facility Element (NDFE), and a Household Hazardous Waste Element (HHWE) for the County and each provides information with regard to solid waste and hazardous waste disposal and recycling.
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indian Land Use Ordinance The purpose of this Ordinance is to provide standards and regulations to control land uses on Agua Caliente Indian Reservation (“Reservation”) Lands, to maintain and protect the Reservation’s unique natural and cultural resources, and to preserve the natural environment. In addition, the Tribal Land Use Ordinance also contains provisions for solid, hazardous, and toxic waste collection and disposal from construction, renovation, and reclamation sites.
City of Rancho Mirage Municipal Code
New construction within the City of Rancho Mirage is subject to Title 7, Chapter 7, Section 7.07.060,
7.07.070, and 7.07.080 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code, which set policies for the requirement of a construction and demolition debris plan, reporting, and onsite practices related to solid waste.6 5 Riverside County, Riverside Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, dated September 1996, approved by CalRecyle (formerly CIWMB) September 1998.
6 The City of Rancho Mirage, “Municipal Code,” accessed at http://www.qcode.us/codes/ranchomirage/ .
Meridian Consultants 5.15.3-4 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-876
5.15.3 Solid Waste
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. Thresholds of Significance
In order to assist in determining whether a project would have a significant effect on the environment, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (“Tribe”) finds a project may be deemed to have a significant impact to solid waste, if it cannot:
Threshold 5.15.3-1 Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs.
Threshold 5.15.3-2 Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
2. Methodology
Information regarding the current intake and capacity of each facility was gathered to determine if the existing transfer stations and landfills in Riverside County could accommodate solid waste generated by the proposed Project. Analysis was conducted using solid waste generation rates provided in the County of Riverside Draft General Plan Environmental Impact Report to determine generation of solid waste by the Project.
3. Project Design Features
The Project does not include any features specifically related to solid waste.
4. Project Impacts
Served by a Landfill with Sufficient Capacity to Accommodate purposed Project Construction of the Project would generate waste materials. A majority of the construction waste would be readily recyclable materials such as wood, concrete, metals, and soil. This material will be collected on site in accordance with the Tribe’s Land Use Ordinance and the City’s Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance and sent to the Edom Hills Transfer Station. Therefore, the impact of waste generated during the construction of the Project would be less than significant.
Active Adult Community
The Active Adult Community is expected to generate 465 tons of solid waste per year, as identified in Table 5.15.3-1, Solid Waste Generation of the Project. This waste would be diverted to either the Edom Hills Transfer Station or would directly be delivered to the Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill.
Meridian Consultants 5.15.3-5 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014 12-877
5.15.3 Solid Waste
Table 5.15.3-1
Solid Waste Generation of the Project
Building Type Units Rate Solid Waste (tons/year)
Active Adult Community
Residential 1,200 du 0.41 tons per du 429.0
Clubhouse 15,000 sq. ft. 2.4 tons per 1,000 sq. ft. 36.0 Subtotal 465.0
Tribal Planning Areas
Residential 1,206 du 0.41 tons per du 494.5
Commercial 3,138,600 sq. ft. 2.4 tons per 1,000 sq. ft. 7,532.6 Subtotal 8,027.1
Total 8,492.1
Source: County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521, Public Review Draft, March 2014, Table 4.17-N.
Abbreviations: du = dwelling units; sq. ft. = square feet Note: The solid waste generation rates do not take into account required solid waste reductions.
The permitted daily maximum capacity for the Edom Hills Transfer Station is 3,500 tons per day. The permitted maximum daily capacity of the Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill is 5,000 tons per day. The Active Adult Community would contribute 1.3 tons of solid waste per day, or less than 1 percent of remaining daily capacity, to the Edom Hills Transfer Station, which averages 1,500 tons per day of solid waste. It should be noted that the generation of solid waste does not take into account solid waste reduction requirements. The 1.3 tons of solid waste would then transfer to the Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill, which has a permitted daily capacity of 5,000 tons. The Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill is expected to remain open through 2020, therefore, only a portion of the Active Adult Community would generate solid waste which would be delivered to Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill.
The next landfill available to accept solid waste from the Edom Hills Transfer Station would be the El Sobrante Landfill, which has an estimated closure date of 2045. The El Sobrante Landfill has a permitted daily capacity of 5,000 tons per day with an average intake of 2,201 tons per day. The Active Adult Community would contribute less than one percent of the remaining daily intake permitted at El Sobrante Landfill. Since there is adequate daily intake capacity at existing landfills, impacts would be less than significant.
Tribal Planning Areas
The Tribal Planning Areas are expected to generate 8,021.1 tons of solid waste per year, as identified in Table 5.15.3-1. This waste would be diverted to either the Edom Hills Transfer Station or would directly be delivered to the El Sobrante Landfill.
Meridian Consultants 5.15.3-6 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014 12-878
5.15.3 Solid Waste
The Tribal Planning Areas would contribute 25.8 tons of solid waste per day, or 1.3 percent of remaining daily capacity, to the Edom Hills Transfer Station, which averages 1,500 tons per day of solid waste. It should be noted that the generation of solid waste does not take into account solid waste reduction requirements. The 25.8 tons of solid waste would then transfer to the El Sobrante Landfill, which has a permitted daily capacity of 5,000 tons. The El Sobrante Landfill has a permitted daily capacity of 5,000 tons per day with an average intake of 2,201 tons per day. The Tribal Planning Areas would contribute approximately 1 percent of the remaining daily intake permitted at El Sobrante Landfill. Since there is adequate daily intake capacity at existing landfills, impacts would be less than significant.
Combined Project
The Project is expected to generate 8,429.1 tons of solid waste per year, as identified in Table 5.15.3-1.
This waste would be diverted to either the Edom Hills Transfer Station or would directly be delivered to the El Sobrante Landfill.
The Project would contribute 27.1 tons of solid waste per day, or 1.4 percent of remaining daily capacity, to the Edom Hills Transfer Station, which averages 1,500 tons per day of solid waste. The 27.1 tons of solid waste would then transfer to the El Sobrante Landfill, which has a permitted daily capacity of 5,000 tons. The El Sobrante Landfill has a permitted daily capacity of 5,000 tons per day with an average intake of 2,201 tons per day and an estimated closure date of 2045. The Project would contribute approximately 1 percent of the remaining daily intake permitted at El Sobrante Landfill. Since there is adequate daily intake capacity at existing landfill, impacts would be less than significant.
Although adequate capacity exists for the near term, the Project would generate solid waste that would require disposal, thus decreasing the capacity of existing permitted landfills. However, there is adequate capacity and expansion potential within the regional landfill system to accommodate the solid waste expected to be generated by the Project. Closure dates of landfills for the existing landfills are estimates and subject to change depending on the actual tonnage that is received prior to their estimated closing date. Expansion potential exists at other nearby landfills in Riverside County. Therefore, while the Project would increase demand for waste disposal services, with mitigation, impacts would be less than significant.
Comply with all Regulations Related to Solid Waste
Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas
Mitigation Measures MM 5.15.3-1 through MM 5.15.3-6 would require that each individual development proponent implement a waste diversion program in an effort to reduce solid waste impacts on existing landfill capacities, similar to the State’s waste diversion goal of 75 percent as Meridian Consultants 5.15.3-7 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014 12-879
5.15.3 Solid Waste
identified by State law (SB 1016 and AB 939). The Project would be required to divert up to 75 percent of its operational solid waste by 2020. Since the Project would implementation mitigation similar to regulations set forth in the CIWMP and other local and State regulations, impacts would be less than significant.
5. Cumulative Impacts
The Southern California Association of Governments projects that Riverside County buildout would continue to occur through the year 2035. While all the currently active landfills have estimated closure dates that predate the buildout year of 2035, except for the El Sobrante Landfill.
The Project and related projects would contribute to the cumulative amount of solid waste that is disposed of within the Riverside County landfill system. However, as discussed above, the Project in conjunction with other projects within the area would generate a total amount of waste that could be accommodated by existing landfills and would not contribute to cumulatively significant impacts to landfill capacity such that all landfills exceed their capacity. Therefore, due to available capacity and implementation of Mitigation Measures to reduce solid waste generation by 75 percent by 2020, impacts would be less than significant. In addition, related projects are also required to comply with applicable municipal codes. Cumulative impacts to the existing landfills resulting from waste generated by related projects are considered less than significant.
C. MITIGATION MEASURES
The following Mitigation Measures shall be implemented to reduce the Project’s solid waste impacts:
Construction
MM 5.15.3-1 Prior to implementing individual project approval, a Waste Recycling Plan (WRP) shall be submitted and approved by the appropriate Planning Department and provided to the appropriate Department of Building and Safety prior to the issuance of building permits.
At a minimum the WRP shall identify the materials (e.g., concrete, asphalt, wood, etc.) that would be generated by construction and development, the project amounts, measures/methods that would be implemented to recycle, reuse, and/or reduce the amount of materials, the facilities and haulers that would be utilized, and the targeted recycling or reduction rates to be achieved.
MM 5.15.3-2 Each individual project proponent shall recycle, reuse, and/or reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, the amount of construction and demolition materials (i.e., concrete, asphalt, wood, etc.) generated by development of the Project that would otherwise be Meridian Consultants 5.15.3-8 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014 12-880
5.15.3 Solid Waste
taken to a landfill. This diversion of waste must exceed a 50 percent reduction by weight. The Project shall complete a Construction and Demolition Waste form as evidence to ensure compliance. The reporting form must be approved by the appropriate Planning Department and submitted to the Department of Building and Safety prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy/final inspection.
Operation
MM 5.15.3-3 All commercial and residential refuse generated from the Project shall be delivered to regional transfer stations; any residual waste that these transfer stations could not accept shall be disposed of at the Lamb Canyon Landfill or El Sobrante Landfill or other locations as determined by the Riverside County Waste Management Department.
MM 5.15.3-4 The Homeowners Association established for the proposed development shall establish green waste recycling through its yard maintenance or waste hauling contracts. Green waste recycling includes such things as grass recycling (where lawn clippings from a mulching-type mower are left on the lawn) and on- or off-site composting. This measure shall be implemented to reduce green waste going to landfills. If such services are not available through the yard maintenance or waste haulers in the area, the HOA shall provide individual homeowners with information about ways to recycle green waste individually and collectively. Homeowners shall be notified of such in the CC&Rs.
MM 5.15.3-5 Prior to issuance of building permits for any multi-unit residential or commercial facilities, the project proponent shall obtain clearance from the applicable Waste Management Department to verify compliance with local jurisdiction requirements, including providing adequate areas for collecting and loading recyclable materials.
MM 5.15.3-6 Prior to implementing project approval, individual project proponents shall submit for review and approval to the appropriate Planning Department landscape plans that provide for the use of xeriscape landscaping and the use of drought tolerant low maintenance vegetation in all landscaped areas of the Project.
D. LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Mitigation Measures MM 5.15.3-1 through MM 5.15.3-6 would reduce all potential impacts on solid waste services to less than significant.
Meridian Consultants 5.15.3-9 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014 12-881
Meridian Consultants 6.0-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
This Section provides a comparative analysis of the environmental effects of alternatives to the Project.
This analysis has been prepared in accordance with the guidance provided by both the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives would be required by both NEPA and CEQA. The purpose of the alternatives analysis is to explain potentially feasible ways to avoid or minimize the significant effects identified for the Project.
Based on the guidance provided by both NEPA and CEQA, several factors are relevant for consideration in determining a reasonable range of alternatives to be analyzed in detail. These factors include: (1) the nature of the proposed Project and the significant impacts identified for the Project, (2) the ability of alternatives to avoid or lessen the significant impacts associated with the Project, (3) the ability of the alternatives to meet the objectives of the Project, and (4) the feasibility of the alternatives.
The State CEQA Guidelines provides guidance on determining a reasonable range of alternatives to a project for analysis. Under CEQA, analysis is provided for those alternatives that could feasibly meet most of the basic objectives of the Project. The factors considered when determining the feasibility of alternatives include site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the project proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to alternative sites.
A. SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES FOR ANALYSIS
As discussed above, one of the factors to be considered in determining a reasonable nature of alternatives to a proposed Project is the nature of the impacts of the project as proposed. Section 5.0, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this EIS concludes that all of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project will either not be significant or can be mitigated to a less than significant level, with the exception of certain air quality and noise impacts. Specifically, the proposed Project’s potentially significant impacts that can be mitigated to a less than significant level include: certain local and regional air quality emissions, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards, hydrology and water quality, on-site and off-site noise impacts, public services including fire protection, law enforcement, schools, and libraries, traffic, and utilities and service systems including water, sewer, and solid waste.
The analysis of the potential air quality impacts of the Project determined the Project would result in temporary air quality impacts during construction and from occupancy and use of the proposed residential and commercial facilities. Even with the incorporation of all feasible measures to reduce 12-882
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
these impacts, the amount of these emissions would remain above the numerical thresholds of significance identified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) used in the analysis of air quality impacts. Specifically, contribution of daily mass volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions during construction and operation of the Project, and if both the Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas are constructed concurrently, cumulative contribution of VOCs, NOx, and CO emissions to the air quality within the Salton Sea and South Coast Air Basins.
The analysis of the potential noise impacts of the Project-determined that short-term noise impacts during construction would be significant; and noise levels along certain streets would result in significant noise impacts to certain on-site uses from vehicle operations. Specifically, vehicular noise impacts along Los Alamos Road south of Ramon Road may cause a significant impact. Cumulative traffic increases within the Project Site would result in noise increases along Ramon Road (east of Los Alamos, west of Los Alamos, and east of Dal Vall Drive), Bob Hope Drive (north of Dinah Shore Drive, north of Ramon Road, and north of I-10 interchanges), and Rattler Road (north of Ramon Road).
Both NEPA and CEQA require consideration of a No Action or No Project Alternative, with the definition of this Alternative to be based on several factors, including consideration of what is likely to occur if the proposed Project is not approved.
Based on consideration of these factors, the Tribe identified several alternatives to the Project for analysis. If the Project is not approved, the site could remain in its current undeveloped state or, since both the City of Rancho Mirage (“City”) and Riverside County General Plans designate the site for residential and commercial development, development of the site could occur with the mix and intensity of uses identified in the City or County General Plans. In response to these circumstances, analysis is provided of the No-Project/No Development, City General Plan, and County General Plan alternatives.
Additionally, the range of alternatives analyzed considers changes to the type and intensity of the proposed land uses, including an alternative that considers development of single family homes in Planning Area 8 that are not restricted to residents aged 55 and above, and an alternative that reduces the intensity of all the proposed land uses by 25 percent.
B. ALTERNATIVES INITIALLY CONSIDERED BUT DETERMINED TO BE
INFEASIBLE
The Tribe also initially considered an alternative site for the Project in accordance with NEPA and CEQA.
As the primary objective of the Project is to develop a comprehensive master plan for Section 24 that is 12-883
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-3 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
complementary to the existing and planned uses on adjacent land located within the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation (“Reservation”), planning for development of alternative sites with the mix of residential and commercial uses proposed would not feasibly meet this basic Project objective. With regard to the broader objectives of the Tribe for the management and stewardship of Tribal Reservation lands, the Reservation does not contain any nearby sites with similar characteristics and no other nearby sites are available to the Tribe that would meet the underlying purpose of the Project to develop the mix of residential and commercial uses proposed. Any potential sites would need to be between 500 and 600 acres in size to accommodate the land use program proposed for the Project Site.
While the Tribe does own additional Reservation lands within the vicinity of the Project Site, these alternative sites either are already partially developed, not large enough in size to accommodate the proposed land use program, or consist of a mix of Tribal trust and Allottee ownership that would affect the ability to comprehensively plan and implement the project. In addition, other nearby alternative sites within the Reservation are not located within an area with similar proximity to existing and planned utility infrastructure, or are located in areas that may result in similar or more significant environmental impacts, or are located in other public service provider jurisdictions which would require additional negotiations for public services and utilities. Section 24 is located within the sphere of influence of the City of Rancho Mirage and the City’s General Plan calls for the preparation of a specific plan for Section
24. The Tribal Land Use Ordinance also calls for the preparation of a specific plan for the Project Site.
Furthermore, the development of an alternative site would not avoid the significant air quality and noise impacts identified for the proposed Project that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level.
Specifically, construction and operation-related emissions would likely occur regardless of the location since build out of the Section 24 Specific Plan would still occur under a similar schedule with the use of similar equipment and similar intensity of land uses, thus resulting in comparable significant and unavoidable air quality impacts. It is expected that if there were a suitable alternative site available, depending on the availability of off-site utility infrastructure, the nature and extent of other future development expected in the surrounding vicinity, and the presence of nearby noise-sensitive uses such as residences, the Project impacts associated with construction-related noise would also occur at another location. Project impacts would likely shift to the alternative site and could potentially be greater.
Based on the above, an alternative site is not considered feasible as it is not expected that the Tribe can reasonably utilize alternative Reservation lands that would provide for the design of the Section 24 Specific Plan. In addition, an alternative site would not avoid the significant impacts of the Project, nor would such an alternative meet the basic objectives of the Project, including development of tribal land 12-884
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-4 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
in Section 24, which is a unique location in relation to the existing Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa.
Therefore, this alternative has been eliminated from detailed consideration within this EIS.
C. ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED IN DETAIL
As discussed previously, the Tribe identified several alternatives for analysis in the EIS to determine if these alternatives could avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts of the Project and meet the basic Project objectives. The following objectives for the Project are listed in Section 3.0, Project Description. The objectives of the Project are to:
• Establish a vibrant, unified vision for the Project Site based upon a cohesive, complementary mix of land uses structured around a comprehensive set of circulation and infrastructure systems, and sensitivity to environmental sustainability issues.
• Promote the highest and best use of Reservation lands in order to maximize the economic development opportunities for the Tribe and its members, including Tribal land immediately adjacent to the existing Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa. • Plan for an appropriate mix of commercial, hotel, entertainment, office and residential uses, in order to meet the trade area’s growing demand and build in the flexibility to respond to changes in the market over time.
• Create a new mixed-use project that compliments the Tribe’s existing Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa located across Bob Hope Drive to create a regional destination development. • Apply planning and design solutions to create a unique and pleasant “sense of place” at multiple scales.
• Provide a range of contemporary housing concepts, including an “active adult” development, which will encourage residential opportunities that appeal to residents seeking shorter commutes to jobs, restaurants, and a broad selection of entertainment opportunities. • Implement a “Complete Streets” circulation concept that optimizes both vehicular and pedestrian/ bicycle modes of traffic, internalizes pedestrian activity to buffer it from the vehicular traffic along perimeter roadways, and establishes connectivity between land use activities featuring pedestrian- friendly and walkable spaces.
• Create a community with a focus on water conservation through design that supports groundwater recharge, minimizes stormwater runoff and incorporates drought-tolerant/low water landscaping that acknowledges the desert environment.
• Provide infrastructure that incorporates “readiness” for sustainable technologies, such as solar power generation and plug-in electrical vehicle charging connections/stations.
As discussed above, the alternatives selected for evaluation in this EIS, include:
1. Alternative 1 – No Project/No Development
2. Alternative 2 – City General Plan
12-885
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-5 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
3. Alternative 3 – County General Plan
4. Alternative 4 – Project with all Standard Residential Development
5. Alternative 5 – Reduced Intensity Alternative
A brief description of each of these alternatives is provided below, along with a discussion of the reasons why each alternative was selected for evaluation. More detailed descriptions of each of these alternatives are provided below, along with a discussion comparing the environmental impacts that would result from these alternatives with the impacts identified for the Project.
D. EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
1. Alternative 1—No Project/No Development
Alternative Description
Both NEPA and CEQA require consideration of a No Action or No Project alternative, with the definition of this alternative to be based on several factors, including consideration of what is likely to occur if the Project is not approved. As required by NEPA and CEQA, the analysis must examine the impacts that might occur if the Project Site is left in its existing condition, as well as what may reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the Project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, the Project Site would remain in its current and existing condition. The vacant undeveloped land would remain. These existing uses would continue and the existing environmental conditions would be maintained. The Project Site would retain its visual characteristics and the existing visual resources for the surrounding land uses would not be impacted.
None of the impacts associated with construction and operational activities would occur if the No Project/No Development Alternative was selected. No construction and operations related air quality emission impacts would occur, nor would construction related noise impacts, vehicle noise operations at Project buildout and under cumulative conditions.
Comparative Impact Evaluation
Aesthetics
Under the No Project Alternative, the existing visual character of the Project Site, which is currently undeveloped, would remain unchanged. The existing visual characteristics and quality of the surrounding Project Site would also remain unchanged under this Alternative. As the change in the visual character of the Project Site and the surrounding area that would result from the Project was determined to be less than significant, neither this Alternative nor the Project would result in significant 12-886
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-6 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
impacts. However, as no changes to existing conditions to the site would occur and the visual appearance of the site would remain as it is today, no impacts relative to aesthetic impacts would occur under this Alternative. Since no impacts would occur under this Alternative, impacts would be less than the Project.
Air Quality
Under Alternative 1, no construction activities or construction-related vehicle trips would occur; and the short-term emissions related to construction activities would be avoided.
Since the Project would not be built on the Project Site, the emissions generated by construction and operation of the Project would also be avoided. The significant unavoidable impacts related to construction emissions for VOC, operational emissions for VOC, NOx, and CO, would be avoided. As discussed in Section 5.2, Air Quality, these impacts are predominantly the result of architectural coating of all buildings and mobile source (vehicle trip) emissions from visitors to the non-residential land uses within the Tribal Planning Areas. This Alternative would result in less air quality impacts when compared to the Project, as it would avoid the potential for construction and operational emissions.
Biological Resources
Under the No Project Alternative, the existing biological character of the Project Site would remain unchanged. The Project Site currently provides some habitat suitable for foraging and nesting sensitive bird species, specifically the burrowing owl and loggerhead shrike.
The potential impact of the Project on the burrowing owl and loggerhead shrike was mitigated through payment of the Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan (THCP) fee and was determined to be less than significant. While impacts on biological resources would be less than significant under the Project, since no impacts would occur under this Alternative, impacts would be less than the Project.
Cultural Resources
Under this Alternative, the Project Site would remain in its current condition. The Tribe has specifically identified the Project as an area of concern for sensitive cultural resources. The Project involves grading of the Project Site that has the potential to disturb any subsurface cultural resources (historic or prehistoric) that might be present on the Project Site.
This Alternative does not involve any disturbance of subsurface soils and the potential disturbance to cultural resources would be avoided. Since this Alternative would not result in any possible impacts on cultural resources, impacts would be less than the Project. 12-887
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-7 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Geology and Soils
Alternative 1 would allow the Project Site to remain in its current condition, and no grading or development would occur. The potential for impacts related to loss of topsoil, sedimentation, erosion and landform alterations associated with construction of the Project were determined to be less than significant for the Project as proposed with the incorporation of the identified Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures.
Alternative 1 would not result in construction of the site, the temporary impacts associated with construction of the Project would be avoided under this Alternative. This Alternative would result in less geology and soils impacts when compared to the Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
No construction activities or construction related vehicle trips would occur with this Alternative, and accordingly greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) related to temporary construction activities would be avoided. As the Project would not be built or operated, GHGs from operation of the Active Adult Community and Tribal Planning Areas would also be avoided. As the Project would be built and operated in a manner determined to be consistent with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Updated Climate Change Scoping Plan (2014 Updated Scoping Plan), these emissions were determined to be less than significant. However, potential GHG impacts under this Alternative would be less than under the Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 1 would not introduce any potentially new hazardous materials related to the Project’s construction or operational activities. There would be no uses on site that would potentially create a hazardous risk to the public or environment or any activities that would inhibit any established hazard evacuation plan. Additionally, since no new residents, employees, or visitors of the site would be introduced onto the site, people would not be exposed to risks related to the Project Site’s close proximity to the I-10/Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) corridor. Therefore, this Alternative would result in less impacts than under the Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Under this Alternative, the Project Site would remain in its current condition, and no grading or development would occur. Existing stormwater flows across the Project Site would continue to occur and the existing hydrologic and drainage patterns would remain unchanged. Hydrology and water quality impacts during construction of the Project would not occur. Although the Project would incorporate Project Design Features and Best Management Practices to ensure that impacts associated 12-888
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-8 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
with hydrology during Project operation would be less than significant, impacts under this Alternative would not occur and thus would be less than the Project. Since the site is currently vacant and would remain so under this Alternative, Alternative 1 would not result soil erosion and sedimentation impacts.
Nonetheless, it is conservatively estimated that hydrology and water quality impacts would be less under this Alternative when compared with the Project.
Land Use and Planning
With the No Project Alternative, there would be no changes in existing land use conditions or in the local or regional land use planning and regulatory frameworks that currently govern the affected land area.
Accordingly, there would be no land use impacts. None of the objectives and community benefits of the Project would occur. There would be no development on Reservation land that might improve the Tribe’s and the surrounding jurisdictions’ economic base, nor would the site complement the existing pattern and scale of development in the City of Rancho Mirage (City). The No Project/No Development Alternative would not implement a key General Plan land use policy to expand the City’s urban limits into the City’s Sphere of Influence to provide a suitable site for a residential and commercial center providing good and services not presently available within the northern portion of the City.
Consequently, this Alternative would have negative impacts with respect to land use and planning, while the Project would have both positive and less than significant impacts.
This Alternative, like the Project, would not divide an established community and would have no effect on any habitat conservation plans.
Noise
No construction activities would occur with this Alternative, and potential temporary noise impacts from construction would be avoided. As this Alternative would not result in new development, there would be no increase in traffic. Consequently, the increase in noise levels along Los Alamos Road south of Ramon Road; along Ramon Road east of Los Alamos, west of Los Alamos, and east of Da Vall Drive; and along Bob Hope Drive north of Dinah Shore Drive, north of Ramon Road, and north of I-10 interchange; and Rattler Road north of Ramon Road identified for the Project and related projects would not occur. In addition, Alternative 1 would not include the introduction of stationary noise sources such as mechanical equipment, loading docks, or parking lots. Measures have been identified to mitigate all potential noise impacts identified for the Project. Nevertheless, impacts from noise would be less under this Alternative than under the Project.
12-889
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-9 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Population and Housing
The Project’s impact with regard to employment would be considered beneficial because it would provide employment opportunities to construction workers and permanent employment opportunities within the Project Site. Under this Alternative, no employment opportunities for construction workers or permanent employment opportunities would be generated because no on-site construction activities or development would occur. This Alternative would not result in construction- and operation-related employment impacts.
No residential units would be developed on the site under Alternative 1. As such, no new residential population would be introduced into the Project Site. Although the Project would have a less than significant impact on population growth, no impacts would occur under this Alternative and, as such, impacts would be less than under the Project.
Public Services
Under this Alternative, development of the Project Site would not occur and no new residents, employees, or visitors would be introduced to the Project area. There would be no increase in demand on local public services, such as fire and emergency services, law enforcement, schools, and libraries and payment of development impact fees to fund these services would not be required. The existing public services that support the local area would remain as is, thus no potential significant impacts on public services would occur under this Alternative. Although the Project will have no significant and unavoidable impacts on public services, under this Alternative, impacts would be less than under the Project.
Recreation
The No Project Alternative would not entail any development of the Project Site, thus the addition of new residents, employees, or visitors to the Project Site would not occur. Therefore, there would not be an increase in demand for park or recreational facilities or services and payment of parkland in-lieu fees, or an equivalent, would not be required. The existing parks and recreation services that support the local area would remain as is, thus no potential significant impacts on parks and recreation facilities would occur under this Alternative. Although the Project will have no significant and unavoidable impacts on parks and recreation facilities, under this Alternative, impacts would be less than under the Project.
Traffic and Transportation
Under Alternative 1, no short-term (construction) or additional long-term (operational) vehicle trips would be generated on roadways adjacent to the Project Site. The Project would result in less than 12-890
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-10 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
significant construction and operational impacts with implementation of Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures. However, Alternative 1 would avoid construction and operation related traffic impacts of the Project. Therefore, potential construction and operational impacts related to transportation and traffic would be less than those of the Project.
Utilities and Service Systems
Water Service
Under this Alternative, development of the Project Site would not occur. There would be no increase in demand on water supplies. No new demand on local groundwater supplies would occur and this Alternative would result in fewer impacts than those of the Project. Even though neither the Project nor this Alternative would result in a significant impact, impacts associated with this Alternative would be considered less than those of the Project.
Sewer
Under this Alternative, development of the Project Site would not occur. There would be no increase in demand on wastewater treatment. This Alternative would result in lesser impacts than those of the Project. Even though neither the Project nor this Alternative would result in a significant impact, impacts associated with this Alternative would be less than those of the Project.
Solid Waste
Under this Alternative, no development on the Project Site would occur. As such, no solid waste would be generated under this Alternative. Even though the Project will not have any significant impacts relating to solid waste, impacts under this Alternative would be less than under the Project.
Summary of Comparative Impacts
A summary comparison of impacts associated with the Project Alternatives is provided in Table 6.0-12, Comparison of Alternatives to Project. As described above, the No Project/No Development Alternative would eliminate the potentially significant impacts associated with construction- and operation-related air emissions and construction-and vehicle-related noise increases on local roadways. However, impacts related to land use would be greater as the economic employment opportunities would not occur on Reservation land. This Alternative would result in less impacts related to aesthetic, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, operation noise, population, public services, recreation, traffic, and utilities and service systems.
12-891
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-11 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Relationship to Project Objectives
While potentially significant impacts would be avoided with this Alternative, the following Project objectives would not be achieved with the No Project Alternative:
• Establish a vibrant, unified vision for the Project Site based upon a cohesive, complementary mix of land uses structured around a comprehensive set of circulation and infrastructure systems, and sensitivity to environmental sustainability issues.
• Promote the highest and best use of Reservation lands in order to maximize the economic development opportunities for the Tribe and its members, including tribal land immediately adjacent to the existing Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa. • Plan for an appropriate mix of commercial, hotel, entertainment, office, and residential uses, in order to meet the trade area’s growing demand and build in the flexibility to respond to changes in the market over time.
• Create a new mixed-use project that compliments the Tribe’s existing Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa located across Bob Hope Drive to create a regional destination development. • Apply planning and design solutions to create a unique and pleasant “sense of place” at multiple scales.
• Provide a range of contemporary housing concepts, including an “active adult” development, which will encourage residential opportunities that appeal to residents seeking shorter commutes to jobs, restaurants, and a broad selection of entertainment opportunities. • Implement a “Complete Streets” circulation concept that optimizes both vehicular and pedestrian/ bicycle modes of traffic, internalizes pedestrian activity to buffer it from the vehicular traffic along perimeter roadways, and establishes connectivity between land use activities featuring pedestrian- friendly and walkable spaces.
• Create a community with a focus on water conservation through design that supports groundwater recharge, minimizes stormwater runoff, and incorporates drought-tolerant/low water landscaping that acknowledges the desert environment.
• Provide infrastructure that incorporates “readiness” for sustainable technologies, such as solar power generation and plug-in electrical vehicle charging connections/stations.
2. Alternative 2—City General Plan
Alternative Description
This Alternative examines the impacts that would result from development of the Project Site with the type and intensity of land uses allowed by the City General Plan land use designations for the Project Site, as shown on Figure 4.0-6, City of Rancho Mirage Land Use Designation Plan, in Section 4.0, Environmental Setting. The City’s General Plan has a greater portion of the Project Site designated for residential development than the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan. The General Plan designates 414 12-892
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-12 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
acres for Medium Density Residential uses with a maximum allowed density of 4 dwelling units (DU) per acre, 39 acres of the Project Site as High Density Residential uses with a maximum allowed density of 9 DU per acre, and 80 acres as Community Commercial uses with a maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.35. The Community Commercial designation allows regional and community scale shopping centers and the definition states that hotels and motels may also be appropriate. For purposes of analysis, the residential development in this Alternative is not assumed to be age restricted, which is consistent with the City’s General Plan.
Table 6.0-1, Alternative 2 Land Use Summary, presents an estimate of the amount of residential and commercial development that would be allowed based on the City General Plan land use designations for the Project Site. The City’s General Plan considers the amount of land typically needed for streets and estimates the resulting amount of development based on the remaining amount of land. For the 457 acres designated Medium Density Residential, the estimate of the land available for residential development after accounting for the amount of land typically required for streets, rights-of-ways, and easements would be approximately 414 acres. The estimated number of residential units is based on applying the allowed 4 units per acre to 414 acres. For the smaller 40 acre area designated for High Density Residential uses, about an acre would be required for streets and 39 acres would be available for development. The estimated number of residential units is based on applying the allowed 9 units per acre to 39 acres. About 5 acres of the 80 acres designated for commercial uses would typically be required for streets and the estimate of commercial development is based on applying the 0.35 FAR to 75 acres.
Table 6.0-1
Alternative 2 Land Use Summary
Land Use Category Acreage Amount
Medium Density Residential 457 acres 1,656 units
High Density Residential 40 acres 351 units
Community Commercial 80 acres 1,143,450 square feet
A total of 2,007 residential units and approximately 1.15 million square feet of commercial development would occur with this Alternative as compared to the 2,406 residential units and approximately 3.1 million square feet of commercial development the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan would allow. This Alternative includes about 400 fewer residential units and 1.9 million square feet less of commercial development than the Project.
12-893
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-13 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Comparative Impact Evaluation
Aesthetics
The City’s General Plan limits commercial development to 80 acres on the southwest corner of Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive. The remainder of the site on Ramon Road would contain higher density multi-family residential development. The majority of the Project Site would be developed with lower- density single-family homes. Development of these uses would change the existing visual character of the Project Site, as would the Project. Both the Project and this Alternative would develop the majority of the southern portion of the Project Site along Dinah Shore Drive and Los Alamos Drive with single- family residential development and Ramon Road and the northern portion of Bob Hope Drive with commercial and other higher-intensity uses. This Alternative would result in the majority of Bob Hope Drive being developed with lower-intensity single-family residential development than the Project, which would develop higher-intensity commercial uses on Bob Hope Drive.
Alternative 2 would result in a similar grading, building, and landscape designs as the Project. While this Alternative would involve a different mix of land uses across the Project Site, it would result in a similar impact to visual character as would the Project.
Air Quality
Alternative 2 would involve similar construction activities to those associated with the Project, such as to grading of the site, installation of infrastructure, and construction of residential and commercial buildings. The estimated maximum daily construction emissions during Alternative 2 are listed in Table
6.0-2, Alternative 2 Worst-Case Construction Emissions (pounds/day). Similar construction assumptions were used as those of the Project including SCAQMD Rule 403 and 403.1 compliance for watering to minimize dust and requirements that construction equipment are equipped with Tier 4 interim off-road engines.
Alternative 2 would result in 255.3 pounds/day of VOC emissions generated during construction when compared to 260.2 pounds/day for the Project.1 VOC emissions would be incrementally reduced under this Alternative, but would still exceed SCAQMD significance threshold. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in slightly reduced but similar construction air quality impacts related to VOC emissions as those identified for the Project.
1 It should be noted that the construction emissions are based on the single maximum daily emission. Even though this Alternative would result in 50 percent fewer units and square footage; the amount of emissions generated from equipment during any one day would be slightly reduced when compared to the Project. 12-894
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-14 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 6.0-2
Alternative 2 Worst-Case Construction Emissions (pounds/day) Pollutant (pounds/day)
Source VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Year 2027
Maximum 255.3 38.8 132.7 0.3 19.4 6.1
SCAQMD
threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold
Exceeded? Yes No No No No No
Note: Refer to the data sheets in Appendix I, Alternative 2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling.
Abbreviations: CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = nitrogen oxide; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns; ROG = reactive organic gas; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; SOX = sulfur oxide.
The estimated emissions for the residential and commercial uses included in Alternative 2 are presented in Table 6.0-3, Alternative 2 Estimated Operational Emissions.
Table 6.0-3
Alternative 2 Estimated Operational Emissions
Pollutant (pounds/day)
Source VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM 2.5
Maximum 355.4 194.4 1,287.6 2.1 139.1 43.1
SCAQMD threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold exceeded? Yes Yes Yes No No No
Source: Refer to the data sheets in Appendix I, Alternative 2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling.
As indicated in Table 6.0-3, the operational emissions associated with Alternative 2 would exceed SCAQMD’s recommended operational emission thresholds for VOC, NOx, and CO. The primary source of NOx and CO from the residential and commercial uses would be the vehicle trips generated by the residential and commercial uses. Operation emissions generated under Alternative 2 would result in somewhat reduced emissions when compared to the Project for all sources; however, the amount of VOC, NOx, and CO emissions would still exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold. Alternative 2 would not avoid significant VOC, NOx and CO impacts. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in comparatively less air quality impacts than those under the Project, but would not avoid or substantially lessen to a level of less than significant the significant air quality impacts of the Project. 12-895
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-15 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Biological Resources
Under Alternative 2, the Project Site would result in similar grading and disturbance activities as those of the Project. Since this Alternative would result in development of the entire 577 acre Project Site, impacts to biological resources would be similar to those of the Project. There would be comparable impacts to sensitive habitat, sensitive plants, and sensitive wildlife, of which Mitigation Measures would be required in accordance with the requirements of the THCP. Under this Alternative, payment of the THCP fee would also be required in order to mitigate potential impacts to burrowing owl and loggerhead shrike. Both this Alternative and the Project would result in similar, less than significant impacts.
Cultural Resources
Alternative 2 would fully develop the entire 577 acre Project Site with a mixture of residential and commercial uses, as would the Project. This Alternative would have similar potential to uncover previously unknown archeological resources, fossils of paleontological importance, and human remains.
Appropriate mitigation during the construction phase would ensure that development would not result in significant impacts to potential cultural resources. Therefore, Alternative 2 would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources, and its impacts would be similar to those of the Project.
Geology and Soils
Alternative 2 would involve a reduction in total dwelling units and square footage of commercial uses when compared to the Project. However, construction would have comparable grading and excavating activities for the development of the mixture of residential and commercial uses and would result in similar impacts related to erosion and sedimentation on the Project Site. Any future development within the Project Site occurring as permitted by the City General Plan would have to comply with the California Building Code (CBC) requirements for seismicity, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils.
Similar to the Project, this Alternative would mitigate potential significant impacts associated with the existing soils and geology conditions of the site. Alternative 2 would be required to develop and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) along with all Project Design Features of the Project and Mitigation Measures pertaining to erosion control plans. For this reason, the geology and soils impacts of this Alternative would be similar to the Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 2 would involve construction activities similar to those associated with the Project. As stated previously, equipment use and vehicular travel related to construction activities and their respective emissions would be similar to that required for the Project. 12-896
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-16 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
The annual net GHG emissions associated with the construction and operation of Alternative 2 are provided in Table 6.0-4, Alternative 2 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The estimates represent emissions with incorporation of similar Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures as those identified for the Project.
Table 6.0-4
Alternative 2 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG Emissions Source
Emissions
(MTCO2e/year)
Construction (amortized) 747.7
Operational (mobile) sources* 21,182.0
Area sources 1,762.8
Energy 8,992.3
Waste 258.0
Water 1,304.0
Annual Total 34,246.8
Source: CalEEMod Emissions calculations are provided in Appendix I, Alternative 2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling.
Notes: Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations.
Abbreviations: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. *N2O emissions account for 0.86 MTCO2e/year.
As shown in Table 6.0-4, the operational GHG emissions for Alternative 2 would be 34,246.8 MTCO2e per year. Business as usual emissions for Alternative would be 42,204.5 MTCO2e per year. This Alternative includes about 400 fewer residential units and 1.9 million square feet less of commercial development than the Project. The primary GHG emission source is from mobile emissions traveling to and from the site. The commercial component generates a higher amount of trips to the site when compared to residential uses. Since this Alternative would generate fewer trips than under the Project, fewer GHG emissions would be generated under this Alternative. Alternative 2 would result in 11,653.2 MTCO2e per year fewer GHG emissions when compared to the Project. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts in regards to greenhouse gas emission impacts and would result in impacts similar under this Alternative to the Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 2 would result in grading and excavating activities across the entire Project Site similar to the Project. The temporary transport, storage, handling, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction of this Alternative would compare to those activities of the Project. As with the Project, the residential and commercial uses associated with the operational activities of Alternative 2 would involve 12-897
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-17 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
the limited use of potentially hazardous materials, which would be handled and disposed of in accordance with applicable standards and regulations.
The Project Site is not considered to be a hazardous materials site, nor would this Alternative involve any uses that would cause a significant hazard to those occupants on the site, similar to the Project. As the Project Site is not within an airport land use plan or within proximity to a private airstrip, this Alternative would not subject people to any potential safety hazards. This Alternative would involve similar road closures during construction, but appropriate Mitigation Measures would substantially reduce potential impacts related to impairment of operations of any emergency response plan. Fire hazards would not be associated with this Alternative, as with the Project, since the Project Site contains minimal vegetation that could pose any flammable hazards. Alternative 2 would incorporate similar Project Design Features as the Project that would reduce any foreseeable fire hazards on the Project Site. Therefore, this Alternative would result in less than significant impacts. Impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would be similar to those of the Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Similar to the Project, Alternative 2 would require the construction of new storm-drain systems, including retention basins used to retain the 100-year flood event. Construction activities under this Alternative would involve temporary surface water runoff and water quality impacts that would be considered to be potentially significant. However, implementation of Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures similar to the Project would minimize surface water runoff from the Project Site and reduce degradation of surface water runoff and water quality, in compliance with the NPDES Program. Development of the Project Site would increase the amount of impervious surfaces resulting in an increase of long-term surface water runoff. This Alternative would incorporate applicable Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features to ensure these impacts remain less than significant. Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in similar impacts to hydrology and water quality when compared to the Project.
Land Use and Planning
Implementation of Alternative 2 considers a mixture of residential and commercial uses permitted by the City’s General Plan land use designations. A total of 1,656 residential units and approximately 1.15 million square feet of commercial space would be developed on the Project Site compared to the 2,406 residential dwelling units and 3.1 million square feet of commercial as the Project. This would result in approximately 400 fewer residential units and 1.9 million square feet less of commercial development than the Project.
12-898
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-18 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Alternative 2 would not conflict or result in any consistencies with the goals, objectives, or policies of the Tribe’s Land Use Ordinance or City’s General Plan, as well with any polices established by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), and the Riverside County Land Formation Commission (LAFCo). Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts, similar to the Project.
Noise
Both Alternative 2 and the Project would include earthmoving activities during construction and would involve the use of heavy equipment, such as air compressors, backhoes, generators, excavators, pavers, rollers, and scrapers. While construction under this Alternative would be reduced in scale and duration, these construction equipment sources would cause significant noise impacts to both on- and off-site receptors. Implementation of various Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures under this Alternative would reduce these noise impacts; however, construction activities would still result in short-term significant impacts.
Operational vehicle trips associated with Alternative 2 would result in 25,110 fewer weekday trips when compared to the Project. Long-term operational noise generated by traffic under this Alternative would decrease when compared to the Project. This is due to the decrease in the amount of traffic generated by this Alternative. However, like the Project, this Alternative would not result in a decrease of 3 dB(A) in the noise levels on roadway segments adjacent to the Project Site, and therefore any decrease in roadway noise levels would not be noticeable. Impacts under this Alternative would be incrementally lesser than under the Project.
Population and Housing
Under Alternative 2, the site would contain approximately 400 fewer residential units and 1.95 million square feet less of commercial development than the Project. At 1.8 people per household, this Alternative would generate up to 3,611 residents, a decrease of 720 residents than the Project. While this Alternative would generate fewer people, there would be a comparable demand on the existing utility infrastructure that services the area. Even though neither the Project nor Alternative 2 would result in a significant impact, impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be similar to the Project.
Public Services
Fire Protection and Emergency Services
Both Alternative 2 and the Project would increase demand on the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) for fire protection and emergency services due to the development of various residential and commercial uses on the Project Site. While there would be a reduction in residential dwelling units and 12-899
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-19 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
total square footage for commercial uses under this Alternative, the removal of the 55 and above age restriction associated with the Project would result in a comparable amount of calls for service.
Construction of Alternative 2 would not obstruct emergency access to the site or surrounding areas nor would operational activities impair any response times since the site is located within an area currently serviced by the RCFD. Under this Alternative, all residential and commercial development would comply with the most current adopted fire and building codes and standards and all applicable development impact fees would be paid to the appropriate jurisdiction. Therefore, implementation of this Alternative would not result in the need for new or the physical alternation to any existing governmental facility in regards to fire protection and emergency services, and impacts would be less than significant.
Accordingly, Alternative 2 would have similar impacts to those of the Project.
Law Enforcement
Alternative 2, like the Project, would increase demand on the Riverside County Sherriff’s Department (Sheriff’s Department) for law enforcement services due to the development of various residential and commercial uses on the site. While there would be a reduction in residential dwelling units and total square footage for commercial uses under this Alternative, this Alternative would still create additional calls for service. Like the Project, this Alternative would also incorporate Project Design Features that would enhance security and access throughout the site to reduce needed service from the Sheriff’s Department. However, in order to accommodate the Alternative’s increased demand for services, the Sheriff’s Department would require additional officers to service the site. Mitigation Measures similar to the Project would require payment of development impact fees to the appropriate jurisdiction to reduce impacts to less than significant. Accordingly, Alternative 2 would have similar law enforcement impacts to those of the Project.
Schools
Alternative 2 would increase demand on the Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD) for school services due to the increase of school age residents associated with the removal of the 55 and over age restriction. With the increase in an unrestricted age population, more students are anticipated to be generated within the residential uses of this Alternative. As with the Project, Alternative 2 would fall within the attendance boundaries of PSUSD and would be serviced by the three schools of Sunny Sands Elementary, Nellie N. Coffman Middle, and Rancho Mirage High. There would be an increase in the number of students within PSUSD because the Project’s single-family and multi-family generation rates would be applied toward the Alternative’s medium density and high density residential uses. This Alternative would generate approximately 495 more students than the Project. The three schools that would service Alternative 2 are currently operating below their capacities and the addition of students generated by this Alternative would cause Sunny Sands Elementary to operate over its capacity. 12-900
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-20 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in potentially significant impacts. Impacts associated with Alternative 2 would result in greater impacts than the Project. However, payment of applicable impact fees would be paid to PSUSD to mitigate these impacts. Even though neither this Alternative nor the Project would result in significant impacts, impacts associated with this Alternative would be considered comparatively greater than the Project.
Libraries
Alternative 2, like the Project, would increase demand on the Rancho Mirage Public Library for library services. While this Alternative would involve a reduction in the total amount of residential dwelling units, the removal of the 55 and over age restriction would result in a greater introduced population, which would then create an increased demand for library services when compared to the Project. The Rancho Mirage Library has indicated that it currently has sufficient capacity to accommodate the growing demands of the City, including the Project. However, similar to the Project, this Alternative would require payment of applicable development impact fees to the appropriate jurisdiction.
Therefore, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts. Impacts under this Alternative would be considered similar to those of the Project.
Recreation
Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in an increase in demand for parks and recreational facilities due to the increase in residents on the site. While there will be a decrease in the total number of residential dwelling units, there would be an increase in both children and overall residents introduced to the site as a result of the removal of the 55 and over age restriction. This increase in population would create a greater demand on the County and City’s existing parks and recreational facilities when compared to the Project. Like the Project, implementation of Alternative 2 would provide parkland and open spaces throughout the site for recreational opportunities of residents and those visiting the site. However, it is unlikely that the residential development would contain the same level of recreation as that proposed in Planning Area 8. On the other hand, this Alternative’s reduction in residential and commercial development on the site would involve the ability to integrate more space for recreational opportunities within the Alternative’s land use design. This increase in recreational opportunity on the site would help minimize the increased demand on existing County and City parks and recreational facilities as a result of the increased population generation. Applicable development impact fees would be paid to the appropriate jurisdiction to minimize recreational impacts. Additionally, these recreational facilities would be constructed concurrently with development of the Alternative and would contribute to overall construction impacts. Overall, Alternative 2 would result in less than significant impacts, similar to those of the Project.
12-901
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-21 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Traffic and Transportation
Alternative 2 would generate 25,110 fewer weekday trips, which is less than the 73,890 total trips that would be generated under full implementation of the Project. All intersections were determined to result in a level of service (LOS) D or better with the Project. Since impacts to study intersections associated with the Project would be less than significant with incorporation of various Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures, the impacts associated with Alternative 2 would also be less than significant. Even though the Project and Alternative 2 would not have any significant impacts relating to traffic, impacts under Alternative 2 would result in comparatively less overall traffic.
Utilities and Service Systems
Water Service
Alternative 2 would result in approximately 400 fewer residential units and 1.9 million square feet less of commercial space than the Project. Under this Alternative 2, 2,007 residential units and 1.15 million square feet of commercial space would correspond to a water demand of approximately 1,385.0 acre- feet per year (afy).2 The aquifer and other sources of supply are adequate for a single dry year and also multiple dry years for a 20-year period. Since the water demand associated with this Alternative is less than the Project’s water demand of 1,780 afy, Alternative 2 would result in reduced impacts to water service when compared to the Project. Even though neither the Project nor Alternative 2 would result in a significant impact, impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be comparatively less than the Project.
Sewer
Alternative 2 would have a total of 2,007 residential units and approximately 64 percent less commercial square feet than the Project. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) uses a peak flow factor of 250 gallons per day per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) to determine wastewater generation. Based on the number of EDUs for this Alternative (2,007 residential EDU and 472 commercial EDU), this Alternative would generate 0.62 million gallons per day (mgd) of wastewater, approximately 0.31 mgd fewer than the Project. Similar to the Project, wastewater generated by this Alternative would be treated at the water reclamation plant (WRP) No. 7. Accordingly, available treatment capacity would be provided and impacts would be less than significant under this Alternative. The Alternative’s sewage increase to the lines in the CVWD’s sewer capacity would be mitigated through payment of the sewer capacity increase fee, as required by the Project, and Alternative 2 impacts would be reduced to a less than significant
2 Residential units = 367.2 acre-feet per year (afy); Residential Open Space = 299.5 afy; Commercial Uses = 646.7 afy (average rate of 0.907 for restaurant and 0.096 for commercial uses was used); Commercial Open Space = 71.6 afy. 12-902
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-22 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
level. Even though neither the Project nor Alternative 2 would result in a significant impact, impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be less than those of the Project.
Solid Waste
Alternative 2 would have a total of 2,007 residential dwelling units and 1.15 million square feet of commercial development. Table 6.0-5, Solid Waste Generation of Alternative 2, indicates that this Alternative would generate 8,262.9 tons per year, which is 4,924.9 tons per year fewer than the Project.
In comparison to the Project, Alternative 2 would contribute 11.3 fewer tons of solid waste per day.
Table 6.0-5
Solid Waste Generation of Alternative 2
Building Type Units Rate Solid Waste (tons/year)
Residential 2,007 du 0.41 tons per du 822.9
Commercial 1,143,450 sq. ft. 2.4 tons per 1,000 sq. ft. 2,744.3 Total 3,567.2
Source: County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521, Public Review Draft, March 2014, Table 4.17-N.
Abbreviations: du = dwelling units; sq. ft. = square feet Note: The solid waste generation rates do not take into account required solid waste reductions.
There is adequate capacity and expansion potential within the regional landfill system to accommodate the solid waste expected to be generated by this Alternative or the Project. Closure dates of landfills for the existing landfills are estimates and subject to change depending on the actual tonnage that is received prior to their estimated closing date. Even though neither the Project nor Alternative 2 would result in a significant impact, impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be comparatively less than the Project.
Summary of Comparative Impacts
Alternative 2 would result in incrementally reduced impacts when compared to the Project with respect to operation related impacts to air quality, noise, demand for library services, recreation, traffic and transportation, hydrology and water quality, and utilities and service systems. Impacts related to Alternative 2 would be similar to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, land use and planning, population and housing, and fire and law enforcement services. Alternative 2 would result in greater impacts when compared to the Project on school services. No significant air quality or noise impacts would be avoided or substantially reduced to a level of less than significant by this Alternative. 12-903
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-23 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Relationship to Project Objectives
With the implementation of the City’s General Plan, Alternative 2 considers the reduction of the number of residential dwelling units (with the elimination of the 55 and over age restriction) and total square footage of commercial development on the Project Site compared to the proposed Project. While the Tribe’s goal would be met in regards to the development of a cohesive set of residential and commercial uses that are structured around existing infrastructure systems and available public services, Alternative 2 would not allow for an Active Adult Community as proposed by the Tribe. This Alternative would also not provide the highest and best use of Tribal Property as the majority of the site would be designated for residential uses as opposed to the more mixed commercial, resort, residential uses proposed by the Project. This Alternative would only provide for commercial uses west of the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa with residential uses along Bob Hope Drive south of the commercial uses as opposed to complimentary commercial and mixed uses along both Ramon Road and Dinah Shore Drive. No significant impacts would be avoided with this Alternative. Furthermore, the following Project objectives would not be achieved with this Alternative:
• Provide a range of contemporary housing concepts, including an “active adult” development, which will encourage residential opportunities that appeal to residents seeking shorter commutes to jobs, restaurants, and a broad selection of entertainment opportunities. • Plan for an appropriate mix of commercial, hotel, entertainment, office and residential uses, in order to meet the trade area’s growing demand and build in the flexibility to respond to changes in the market over time.
The following Project objectives would be partially met:
• Promote the highest and best use of Reservation lands in order to maximize the economic development opportunities for the Tribe and its members, including Tribal land immediately adjacent to the existing Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa. • Create a new mixed-use project that compliments the Tribe’s existing Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa located across Bob Hope Drive to create a regional destination development.
3. Alternative 3—County General Plan
Alternative Description
The County General Plan Alternative would allow for the development of the site according to the County of Riverside (County) General Plan, as shown on Figure 4.0-5, County of Riverside Land Use Designation Map, in Section 4.0, Environmental Setting. The County’s General Plan has a greater portion of the Project Site designated for commercial development than the Project as the General Plan designates 337 gross acres for commercial uses with a FAR of 0.35. The County’s General Plan considers 12-904
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-24 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
the amount of land typically needed for streets and estimates the resulting amount of development based on the remaining amount of land. For the 337 acres designated for Commercial Uses, the estimate of the land available for residential development after accounting for the amount of land typically required for streets, rights-of-ways, and easements would be approximately 252.75 acres. The 240 gross acres of residential development associated with Alternative 3 would only include Medium Density Residential uses at 5 dwelling units per acre.
Since the age restriction in the residential development land use designations would be removed for this site, the Medium Density Residential units will not be analyzed as an active adult community. The number of uses associated with the implementation of the County’s General Plan is shown in Table 6.0-6, Land Uses Proposed Under Alternative 3.
Table 6.0-6
Land Uses Proposed Under Alternative 3
Land Use Category Acreage Amount
Medium Density Residential 240 acres 1,200 units
Community Commercial 337 acres 3,853,427 square feet
A total of 1,200 residential units and approximately 3.9 million square feet of commercial development is allowed when compared to the 2,406 residential units and 3.1 million square feet of commercial development allowed under the Project. This results in a reduction of 1,206 fewer residential units (about a 50 percent reduction) and approximately 800,000 square feet more of total commercial square footage.
As with the Project, Alternative 3 would create a cohesive mixture of residential and commercial land uses with the incorporation of open space and recreational uses. This Alternative would still provide for restaurant and office/services and hotel uses within the commercial use designations. Even without the age-restricted component, the substantial reduction in residential uses would result in a reduction of direct population growth generated under this Alternative.
Comparative Impact Evaluation
Aesthetics
Under Alternative 3, the site would be developed with a greater portion of commercial uses compared to residential uses. The majority of the site would be developed with lower-density single-family homes within the central portion of the site along Los Alamos Road, similar to the Project. The portion of the 12-905
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-25 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
site would develop commercial uses along Ramon Road, similar to the Project. However, Dinah Shore Drive would contain commercial tourist development, which is a higher-intensity use than the Project.
Alternative 3 would result in a similar grading, building, and landscape design as the Project. While this Alternative would involve a different mix of land uses across the Project Site, due to the greater dedication of commercial uses verses residential uses along Dinah Shore Drive, it would result in a incrementally greater impact to the visual character of the site when viewed from the south to the north. Views of the surrounding scenic vistas would be comparable to views that would be accessible under implementation of the Project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts that would be incrementally greater than those of the Project.
Air Quality
Alternative 3 would involve similar construction activities to those associated with the Project. The estimated maximum daily worst-year construction emissions during Alternative 3 is listed in Table 6.0-7, Alternative 3 Worst-Case Construction Emissions (pounds/day). Similar construction assumptions were used, including SCAQMD Rule 403 and 403.1 compliance for watering to minimize dust and requirements that construction equipment are equipped with interim Tier 4 off-road engines.
Table 6.0-7
Alternative 3 Worst-Case Construction Emissions (pounds/day) Pollutant (pounds/day)
Source VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Year 2027
Maximum 341.6 59.7 225.1 0.5 30.9 9.0
SCAQMD
threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold
Exceeded? Yes No No No No No
Note: Refer to the data sheets in Appendix I, Alternative 3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling.
Abbreviations: CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = nitrogen oxide; PM10 = particulate matter less than 10 microns; PM2.5 = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns; ROG = reactive organic gas; SCAQMD = South Coast Air Quality Management District; SOX = sulfur oxide.
Construction of Alternative 3 would result in significantly higher VOC emissions of 341.6 pounds per day when compared to 260.2 pounds per day for the Project. The amount of VOC emissions would also exceed SCAQMD significance threshold when compared to the Project. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in greater significant construction air quality impacts, related to VOC, as compared to the Project.
The estimated emissions for the residential and commercial uses included in Alternative 3 are presented in Table 6.0-8, Alternative 3 Estimated Operational Emissions, and compared to the SCAQMD established operational significance thresholds.
12-906
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-26 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 6.0-8
Alternative 3 Estimated Operational Emissions
Pollutant (pounds/day)
Source VOC NOx CO SOx PM10 PM 2.5
Maximum 933.6 771.8 5,571.1 6.7 415.7 121.6
SCAQMD threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold exceeded? Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes
Source: Refer to the data sheets in Appendix I, Alternative 3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling.
As shown in Table 6.0-8, the operational emissions associated with Alternative 3 would exceed SCAQMD’s recommended operational emission thresholds for VOC, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM2.5.
Operation of Alternative 3 would result in similar significant VOC, NOx, and CO operation emission impacts. However, this Alternative would also result in significant PM10 and PM2.5 operation emission impacts not identified as significant under the Project. Therefore, impacts to air quality for Alternative 3 would be greater than those for the Project.
Biological Resources
Under Alternative 3, the Project Site would result in similar grading and disturbance activities as those of the Project. Since this Alternative would result in development of the entire 577 acre Project Site, impacts to biological resources would be similar to those of the Project. There would be comparable impacts to sensitive habitat, sensitive plants, and sensitive wildlife, for which Mitigation Measures would be required in accordance with the requirements of the THCP. Under this Alternative, payment of the THCP fee would also be required in order to mitigate potential impacts to burrowing owl and loggerhead shrike. Both this Alternative and the Project would result in similar, less than significant impacts.
Cultural Resources
Alternative 3 would fully develop the entire 577 acre Project Site with a mixture of residential and commercial uses, as would the Project. This Alternative would have similar potential to uncover previously unknown archeological resources, fossils of paleontological importance, and human remains.
Appropriate mitigation during the construction phase would ensure that development would not result in significant impacts to potential cultural resources. Therefore, Alternative 3 would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources, and impacts would be similar to those of the Project. 12-907
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-27 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Geology and Soils
While the mixture of residential and commercial land uses would be different than the Project, implementation of Alternative 3 would still result in comparable grading and excavating activities for the 577-acre site. This Alternative would result in similar impacts related to erosion and sedimentation on the Project Site. Any future development within the Project Site occurring as permitted by the existing County zoning would have to comply with the CBC requirements for seismicity, liquefaction, subsidence, and expansive soils, similar to the Project, which would mitigate potential significant impacts associated with the existing soils and geology conditions of the site. Alternative 3 would be required to develop and implement a SWPPP along with all Project Design Features of the Project and Mitigation Measures pertaining to erosion control plans. For this reason, the geology and soils impacts under this Alternative would be similar to the Project, and would be less than significant.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 3 would involve similar construction activities to those associated with the Project.
Construction equipment use and vehicular travel related to construction activities and their respective emissions would be similar to those of the Project.
The annual net GHG emissions associated with the construction and operation of Alternative 3 are provided in Table 6.0-9, Alternative 3 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The estimates represent emissions with incorporation of similar Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures as those identified for the Project.
Table 6.0-9
Alternative 3 Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GHG Emissions Source
Emissions
(MTCO2e/year)
Construction (amortized) 1,196.0
Operational (mobile) sources* 65,714.4
Area sources 966.1
Energy 19,027.2
Waste 671.9
Water 2,504.8
Annual Total 90,080.4
Source: CalEEMod Emissions calculations are provided in Appendix I, Alternative 3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling.
Notes: Totals in table may not appear to add exactly due to rounding in the computer model calculations.
Abbreviations: MTCO2e = metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions. *N2O emissions account for 2.67 MTCO2e/year.
12-908
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-28 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
As shown in Table 6.0-9, the operational GHG emissions for Alternative 3 would generate 90,080.4 MTCO2e per year. Alternative 3 would result in an additional 44,180.5 MTCO2e per year when compared to the Project. Assuming the residential and commercial uses included in Alternative 3 would include similar Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures as those identified for the Project, the GHG emissions would be reduced by approximately 41 percent from the business as usual scenario. The reduction in GHG emissions would exceed the 17 percent reduction in GHG emissions from business as usual consistent with the 2020 reduction goal and would exceed the 35 percent reduction by 2035 to meet the goals identified in the 2014 Updated Scoping Plan. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts in regards to greenhouse gas emission impacts by 2020 and 2035 and impacts under this Alternative would be similar, but comparatively greater than under the Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 3 would result in similar grading and excavating activities as would the Project due to the mixture of residential and commercial development on the 577-acre site. The temporary transport, storage, handling, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction of this Alternative would be comparable to those activities of the Project. While this Alternative involves a greater portion of the Project Site dedicated to commercial uses than residential uses, and thus a reduction of residents inhabiting the site, people would still be exposed to potential hazards. The residential and commercial uses associated with the operational activities of Alternative 3 would involve the limited use of potentially hazardous materials. There would be a greater proportion of hazardous materials associated with commercial development, such as industrial-level products, than hazardous materials associated within residential development, such as use of pesticides, paints, household cleaners, and landscaping products. The use, storage, and disposal of these hazardous materials would be handled and disposed of in accordance with applicable standards and regulations.
The Project Site is not considered to be a hazardous materials site nor would this Alternative involve any uses that would cause a significant hazard to those occupants on the site, similar to the Project. As the site is not within an airport land use plan or within proximity to a private airstrip, this Alternative would not subject people to any potential safety hazards. This Alternative would involve similar road closures during construction, and appropriate Mitigation Measures would reduce potential impacts related to impairment of operations of any emergency response plan. Fire hazards would not be associated with this Alternative, as with the Project, since the site contains minimal vegetation that could pose any flammable hazards. Alternative 3 would incorporate Project Design Features that would reduce any foreseeable fire hazards on the site. Therefore, this Alternative would result in less than significant impacts, and impacts to hazards and hazardous materials would be similar to those of the Project. 12-909
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-29 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Hydrology and Water Quality
Similar to the Project, Alternative 3 would require the construction of new storm-drain systems, including retention basins used to retain the 100-year flood event. Construction activities under this Alternative would involve temporary surface water runoff and water quality impacts that would be considered to be potentially significant. However, implementation of Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures similar to the Project would minimize surface water runoff from the Project Site and reduce degradation of surface water runoff and water quality, in compliance with the NPDES Program. Development of the Project Site would increase the amount of impervious surfaces resulting in an increase in long-term surface water runoff. Like the Project, this Alternative would incorporate applicable Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features to ensure these impacts remain less than significant. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in similar impacts to hydrology and water quality when compared to the Project.
Land Use and Planning
Implementation of Alternative 3 would develop the Project Site with a mixture of residential and commercial uses permitted by the County’s General Plan land use designations. A total of 1,200 residential units and approximately 3.9 million square feet of commercial space would be developed on the Project Site compared to the 2,406 residential dwelling units and 3.1 million square feet of commercial. This would result in an approximate 50 percent reduction in residential units and 800,000 square feet more of commercial development than the Project.
Similar to the Project, Alternative 3 would not conflict or result in any consistencies with the goals, objectives, or policies of the Tribe’s Land Use Ordinance or County’s General Plan, as well with any polices established by the SCAG, CVAG, and the LAFCo. Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts, similar to the Project.
Noise
Like the Project, Alternative 3 would include earthmoving activities during construction and would involve the use of heavy equipment, such as air compressors, backhoes, generators, excavators, pavers, rollers, and scrapers. While overall construction under this Alternative would be reduced in scale and duration, these construction equipment sources would cause significant noise impacts to both on- and off-site receptors. Implementation of various Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures under this Alternative would reduce these noise impacts; however, construction activities would still result in short-term significant impacts.
12-910
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-30 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Furthermore, operational activities with Alternative 3 would result in 14,670 more weekday trips when compared to the Project. Long-term operational noise generated by traffic under this Alternative would increase when compared to the Project. This is due to the increase in the amount of traffic generated by this Alternative. However, like the Project, this Alternative would not result in an increase of 3 dB(A) in the noise levels on roadway segments adjacent to the Project Site, so any increase in roadway noise levels would not be noticeable. The development of Alternative 3 would create an incremental increase in noise along area roadways, as compared to the Project. Therefore, impacts under this Alternative would be similar, but comparatively greater than the Project.
Population and Housing
Under Alternative 3, the site would contain approximately 1,206 fewer residential units and 800,000 square feet more of commercial development than the Project. The County’s average household size is
3.21 people per household. Thus, this Alternative would introduce up to 3,852 residents, which is 479 fewer residents than the Project. While this Alternative would generate fewer people, there would be a comparable demand on the existing utility infrastructure that services the area because the 577-acre site would be fully developed. Even though the Project and Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts, impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be similar to the Project.
Public Services
Fire Protection and Emergency Services
Alternative 3, like the Project, would increase demand on the RCFD for fire protection and emergency services due to the development of various residential and commercial uses on the site. Even with the removal of the 55 and above age restriction associated with the Project, this Alternative’s substantial reduction in residential dwelling units would result in a reduction of total residents introduced to the site. Therefore, the Alternative’s reduction of residential uses in combination with the increase in commercial development on the site would result in comparable amount of calls for service as would the Project. Construction of Alternative 3 would not obstruct emergency access to the site or surrounding areas nor would operational activities impair any response times since the site is located within an area currently serviced by the RCFD. Under this Alternative, all residential and commercial development would comply with the most current adopted fire and building codes and standards and all applicable development impact fees would be paid to the appropriate jurisdiction. Implementation of this Alternative would not result in the need for new or physically altered governmental facility in regards to fire protection and emergency services, and impacts would not be significant. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have similar impacts to those of the Project. 12-911
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-31 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Law Enforcement
Alternative 3, like the Project, would increase demand on the Sherriff’s Department for law enforcement services due to the development of various residential and commercial uses on the site. Even with the removal of the 55 and above age restriction associated with the Project, the Alternative’s substantial reduction in residential dwelling units would result in a reduction of total residents introduced to the site. Therefore, the Alternative’s reduction of residential uses in combination with the increase in commercial development on the site would result in a comparable amount of calls for service, as compared with the Project. Alternative 3 would also incorporate Project Design Features that would enhance security and access throughout the site to minimize needed service from the Sherriff’s Department. However, in order to accommodate the Alternative’s increased demand for services, the Sherriff’s Department would require additional officers to service the site. Mitigation Measures similar to the Project would require payment of development impact fees to the appropriate jurisdiction to reduce impacts to less than significant. Therefore, Alternative 3 would have similar law enforcement impacts to those of the Project.
Schools
Alternative 3, like the Project, would increase demand on PSUSD for school services. The removal of the 55 and over age restriction is anticipated to generate more students within the residential uses of this Alternative. As with the Project, Alternative 3 would fall within the attendance boundaries of PSUSD and would be serviced by the three schools of Sunny Sands Elementary, Nellie N. Coffman Middle, and Rancho Mirage High. This Alternative would generate 266 more students than the Project. The three schools that would service Alternative 3 are currently operating below their capacities and would continue to operate below capacity with the addition of students generated by this Alternative.
Payment of applicable impact fees to the PSUSD would mitigate for the increase in the number of students generated by this Alternative. Therefore, Alternative 3 would result in less than significant impacts. Alternative 3 would generate more students for the PSUSD, and thus impacts to school services and facilities would be greater than those under the Project.
Libraries
Alternative 3, like the Project, would increase demand on the Rancho Mirage Public Library. However, the reduced population of Alternative 3 would result in a decreased demand for use of library resources and facilities as compared to the Project. The Rancho Mirage Library has indicated that it currently has plenty of capacity and can accommodate plenty of growth, Project included. However, similar to the Project, this Alternative would require payment of applicable development impact fees to the appropriate jurisdiction. Therefore, since Alternative 3 would not result in the need for any new facilities 12-912
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-32 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
or expansion of the Rancho Mirage Public Library, Alternative 3 would not result in potentially significant impacts and would result in similar impacts under this Alternative to those of the Project.
Recreation
Implementation of Alternative 3 would result an increase in demand for additional parks and recreational facilities due to serve the Project. However, the reduced number of residential units in this Alternative would create a reduced demand on the County and City’s existing parks and recreational facilities when compared to the Project. Like the Project, implementation of Alternative 3 would provide parkland and open spaces throughout the site for recreational opportunities of residents and those visiting the site. This Alternative’s land use design, with a higher proportion of commercial uses to residential uses, would still involve the integration of open space and recreational facilities throughout the site. These recreational opportunities incorporated by Alternative 3, along with payment of applicable development impact fees to the appropriate jurisdiction, would help minimize any impacts on existing County and City parks and recreational facilities. Additionally, the on-site recreational facilities would be constructed concurrently with development of Alternative 3 and would be available to Project residents. Even though the Project will not have any significant impacts related to parks and recreation facilities, impacts associated with this Alternative would be similar to those of the Project.
Traffic and Transportation
Implementation of this Alternative would guide the development of tourist-oriented commercial, local serving retail and service uses, professional offices, entertainment, and hotel uses. Since the number of trips generated would be a function of the total size of the non-residential building gross floor space developed, Alternative 3 would be expected to generate 18.6 percent more non-residential trips on weekdays than the Project. Alternative 3 would generate 88,560 weekday trips, 14,670 weekday trips more than the Project. Impacts associated with the study intersections would be greater than the Project due to the increase number of weekday trips. However, with similar Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures as those identified for the Project, the traffic and transportation impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be less than significant. Even though the Project and this Alternative will not have any significant impacts relating to traffic, impacts under this Alternative would be comparatively greater than under the Project.
Utilities and Service Systems
Water Service
Alternative 3 would result in the construction of 1,200 residential units, along with 3.9 million square feet of commercial area. The water demand associated with this Alternative would be approximately 12-913
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-33 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
2,783.7 afy.3 The aquifer and other sources of supply are adequate for a single dry year and also multiple dry years for a 20-year period. Like the Project, this Alternative would require additional water infrastructure to serve the site. Since the water demand associated with this Alternative is greater than the Project’s water demand of 1,780 afy, Alternative 3 would result in greater impacts to water service.
Even though neither the Project nor Alternative 3 would result in any significant impacts, impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be greater than those under the Project.
Sewer
Alternative 3 would have a total of 1,200 residential and 800,000 additional commercial square feet, an increase of approximately 25 percent. The CVWD uses a peak flow factor of 250 gallons per day per EDU to determine wastewater generation. Based on the number of EDUs determined for this Alternative (1,200 residential EDU and 1,639 commercial EDU), this Alternative would generate 0.71 mgd of wastewater, approximately 0.22 mgd fewer than the Project. Similar to the Project, wastewater generated by this Alternative would be treated at the WRP No. 7. Accordingly, available treatment capacity would be provided and impacts would be less than significant under this Alternative. The Alternative’s sewage increase to the lines in the CVWD’s sewer capacity would be mitigated through payment of the sewer capacity increase fee, as required for the Project, and Alternative 3 impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Even though neither the Project nor Alternative 3 would result in a significant impact, impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be comparatively less than those of the Project.
Solid Waste
Alternative 3 would have a total of 1,200 residential units and 3.8 million square feet of commercial development. Table 6.0-10, Solid Waste Generation of Alternative 3, indicates that this Alternative would generate 9,740 tons per year, which is approximately 1,248 tons per year greater than the Project. As compared to the Project, this Alternative would contribute 4.2 greater tons of solid waste per day.
3 Residential units = 219.6 acre-feet per year (afy); Residential Open Space = 299.5 afy; Commercial Uses = 2,193.0 afy; Commercial Open Space = 71.6 afy.
12-914
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-34 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 6.0-10
Solid Waste Generation of Alternative 3
Building Type Units Rate Solid Waste (tons/year)
Residential 1,200 du 0.41 tons per du 492
Commercial 3,853,427 square feet 2.4 tons per 1,000 sq. ft. 9,248 Total 9,740
Source: County of Riverside Environmental Impact Report No. 521, Public Review Draft, March 2014, Table 4.17-N.
Abbreviations: du = dwelling units; sq. ft. = square feet Note: The solid waste generation rates do not take into account required solid waste reductions.
However, there is adequate capacity and expansion potential within the regional landfill system to accommodate the solid waste expected to be generated by this Alternative or the Project. Closure dates of landfills for the existing landfills are estimates and subject to change depending on the actual tonnage that is received prior to their estimated closing date. Even though neither the Project nor Alternative 3 would result in a significant impact, impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be greater than those of the Project.
Summary of Comparative Impacts
Alternative 3 would result in incrementally reduced impacts when compared to the Project with respect to the demand for library services, demand on recreational facilities, and sewer demand. Impacts related to Alternative 3 would be similar with respect to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, fire and law enforcement services. Alternative 3 would result in greater impacts in comparison to the Project with respect to aesthetics along Dinah Shore Drive, operational air quality emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, schools, traffic, water demand, and solid waste. The Project’s significant air quality and noise impacts would not be avoided or substantially reduced by this Alternative. It should be noted that this Alternative results in PM10 and PM2.5 exceeding the SCAQMD thresholds, which would not result from the Project.
Relationship to Project Objectives
With the implementation of the County’s General Plan, Alternative 3 considers the reduction of the number of residential dwelling units (with the elimination of the 55 and over age restriction) and an increase in the total square footage of commercial development compared to the Project. While the Tribe’s goal would be met in regards to the development of a cohesive set of residential and commercial uses that are structured around existing infrastructure systems and available public services, implementation of the County’s General Plan for the Project Site would not allow for as desirable a mix 12-915
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-35 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
of land uses, including an Active Adult Community. This Alternative would also not provide the highest and best use of Tribal Property because the southern edge of the site would be designated for commercial uses as opposed to the more compatible residential uses proposed by the Project. This Alternative would consist primarily of commercial uses, which would not offer an appropriate mix of uses on the Project Site. No significant impacts would be avoided or substantially reduced. Furthermore, the following Project objectives would not be achieved with this Alternative:
• Provide a range of contemporary housing concepts, including an “active adult” development, which will encourage residential opportunities that appeal to residents seeking shorter commutes to jobs, restaurants, and a broad selection of entertainment opportunities.
The following Project objectives would be partially met:
• Promote the highest and best use of Reservation lands in order to maximize the economic development opportunities for the Tribe and its members, including Tribal land immediately adjacent to the existing Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa. • Plan for an appropriate mix of commercial, hotel, entertainment, office and residential uses, in order to meet the trade area’s growing demand and build in the flexibility to respond to changes in the market over time.
• Create a new mixed-use project that compliments the Tribe’s existing Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa located across Bob Hope Drive to create a regional destination development.
4. Alternative 4—Project with all Standard Residential Development Alternative Description
This Alternative would include the proposed land use plan as identified in the Section 24 Specific Plan; however, the 55 and above age restriction associated with the 1,200 single family homes within Planning Area 8 would be removed. Therefore, none of the residential development land use designations will be analyzed as an active adult community. The Project would still be implemented with each of the eight Planning Areas with the same land uses as established by the Section 24 Specific Plan.
The commercial designated land uses within Tribal Planning Areas 1 to 7 would still provide for restaurant and office/services and hotel uses and a mixture of single- and multi-family residential dwelling units, and Planning Area 8 would still provide for single-family residential dwelling units.
Additionally, Alternative 4 would incorporate the 13 total acres of open space and recreational opportunities throughout the Project Site as established in the Section 24 Specific Plan, such as parks, walkways and jogging paths, enhanced streetscapes, courtyards, and plazas to provide gathering spaces for people shopping, eating, or just enjoying the atmosphere. A population increase is anticipated to 12-916
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-36 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
occur under this Alternative as a result of the removal of the 55 and older age restriction. Thus, there would be an increased demand for public services and utilities.
Comparative Impact Evaluation
Aesthetics
Alternative 4 would result in identical grading, building, and landscape design as the Project. Alternative 4 would also have identical impacts to the visual character of the Project Site, and views of the surrounding scenic vistas would not change. Therefore, as with the Project, Alternative 4 would result in less than significant aesthetic impacts.
Air Quality
Alternative 4 would involve similar construction activities to those associated with the Project, including grading of the site, installation of infrastructure, and construction of residential and commercial buildings. Equipment use and vehicular travel related to construction activities, and their emissions of criteria pollutants, would be similar to those for the Project.
The proposed land use plan, without age-restricted houses, would result in approximately 5,492 greater trips than the Project, or a 7 percent increase in vehicular emissions. This increase would incrementally increase operational emissions under this Alternative as compared to the Project. Similar to the Project, this Alternative would exceed the SCAQMD thresholds for VOC, NOx, and CO.
Biological Resources
Under Alternative 4, the Project Site would result in identical grading and disturbance activities as the Project and would have similar impacts to biological resources. There would be comparable impacts to sensitive habitat, sensitive plants, and sensitive wildlife, for which Mitigation Measures would be required in accordance with the requirements of the THCP. Under this Alternative, payment of the THCP fee would also be required in order to mitigate potential impacts to burrowing owl and loggerhead shrike. Both this Alternative and the Project would result in less than significant impacts.
Cultural Resources
Alternative 4 would fully develop the entire 577 acre Project Site with the identical land use plan of the Project. This Alternative would have similar potential to uncover previously unknown archeological resources, fossils of paleontological importance, and human remains. Appropriate mitigation during the construction phase would ensure that development would not result in significant impacts to potential cultural resources. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources.
Impacts would be similar to those under the Project.
12-917
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-37 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Geology and Soils
Alternative 4 would still involve the development of the 577-acre site with the same land use plan as proposed by the Project. The removal of the 55 and over age restriction in this Alternative would not affect any development plans of the site. Thus, this Alternative’s grading and excavation activities would be identical and would result in similar erosion and sedimentation impacts to those of the Project. Any future development within the Project Site, occurring as permitted by the Tribal Land Use Ordinance, would have to comply with the CBC requirements for seismicity, liquefaction, subsidence and expansive soils, which would mitigate potential significant impacts associated with the existing soils and geology conditions of the site. Alternative 4 would be required to develop and implement a SWPPP along with all Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures of the Project pertaining to erosion control plans. For this reason, the geology and soils impacts of this Alternative would be similar to the Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 4 would involve construction activities similar to those associated with the Project to grade the site, install infrastructure and construct residential and commercial buildings. As stated previously, equipment use and vehicular travel related to construction activities and their respective emissions would be similar to that required for the Project.
The proposed land use plan, without the age-restricted units, would result in approximately 5,492 more trips than would the Project, or a 7 percent increase in vehicular emissions. This increase would incrementally increase operational GHG emissions. Therefore, this Alternative would result in incrementally greater impacts than under the Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 4 would result in identical grading and excavating activities on the 577 acres and would implement the same land use plan on the 577-acre site as that proposed by the Project. The temporary transport, storage, handling, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction of this Alternative would be similar to the Project. Removal of the age restriction within Planning Area 8 would increase the number of residents exposed to potential hazards. The operational activities of Alternative 4 would involve the same limited use of potentially hazardous materials, such as industrial-level products within the commercial uses and pesticides, paints, household cleaners, and landscaping products with the residential uses. The use, storage, and disposal of these hazardous materials would be handled and disposed of in accordance with applicable standards and regulations.
The site where Alternative 4 would be developed is not considered to be a hazardous materials site nor would it involve any uses that would result in a significant hazard. As the site is not within an airport 12-918
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-38 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
land use plan or within proximity to a private airstrip, this Alternative would not subject people to any potential safety hazards. This Alternative would involve similar road closures during construction, and appropriate Mitigation Measures would reduce potential impacts related to impairment of operations of any emergency response plan. Fire hazards would not be associated with this Alternative, as with the Project, since the site contains minimal vegetation that could pose any flammable hazards. Alternative 4 would incorporate Project Design Features that would reduce any foreseeable fire hazards on the site.
Therefore, this Alternative would have less than significant impacts regarding hazards. Impacts would be similar to those under the Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Similar to the Project, Alternative 4 would require the construction of new storm-drain systems, including retention basins used to retain the 100-year flood event. Construction activities under this Alternative would involve temporary surface water runoff and water quality impacts that would be considered to be potentially significant. However, implementation of Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures would minimize surface water runoff from the Project Site and reduce degradation of surface water runoff and water quality, in compliance with the NPDES Program. Development of the Project Site would increase the amount of impervious surfaces resulting in an increase of long-term surface water runoff. This Alternative would incorporate applicable Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features to ensure these impacts remain less than significant. Alternative 4 would result in similar impacts to hydrology and water quality when compared to the Project.
Land Use and Planning
Implementation of Alternative 4 would develop the Project Site with a mixture of residential and commercial uses identical to the land use designations established by the Project. Thus, a total of 2,406 residential dwelling units and approximately 3.1 million square feet of commercial space would be developed on the Project Site.
Alternative 4 would not conflict or result in any consistencies with the goals, objectives, or policies of the Tribe’s Land Use Ordinance or City’s General Plan, as well with any polices established by the SCAG, CVAG, and the LAFCo. Similar to the Project, Alternative 4 would result in less than significant impacts.
Noise
Alternative 4 would include identical earthmoving activities during construction and would involve the use of heavy equipment, such as air compressors, backhoes, generators, excavators, pavers, rollers, and scrapers. Construction under this Alternative would have an identical schedule and operations, thus these construction equipment sources would cause significant noise impacts to both on- and off-site 12-919
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-39 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
receptors. Implementation of various Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures under this Alternative would reduce noise impacts; however, construction activities would still result in short-term significant and unavoidable impacts. Under Alternative 4, construction related noise would not avoid a significant impact and would result in similar impacts when compared to the Project.
Long-term operational noise generated by traffic under Alternative 4 would slightly increase due to the increase in vehicular trips when compared to the Project. Cumulative traffic noise increases within the Project area would continue under this Alternative along Los Alamos Road (south of Ramon Road and north of Dinah Shore Drive), Ramon Road (east of Los Alamos, west of Los Alamos, and east of Dal Vall Drive), Bob Hope Drive (north of Dinah Shore Drive, north of Ramon Road, and north of I-10 interchanges, and Rattler Road (north of Ramon Road). Therefore, Alternative 4 would create an incremental increase in noise along area roadways. This Alternative would be considered incrementally greater than those of the Project.
Population and Housing
Under Alternative 4, the Project Site would include a total of 2,406 residential units and 3.1 million square feet of commercial, identical to the Project. However, a population increase would occur under this Alternative as a result of the removal of the 55 and older age restriction The City’s average household size is 2.97 for multifamily residential units; thus, this Alternative would introduce up to 7,146 residents, an increase of 2,815 residents when compared with the Project. However, this Alternative would still be consistent with SCAG growth projections. Therefore, implementation of Alternative 4 would result in greater impacts than the Project, but impacts would still be less than significant.
Public Services
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
Alternative 4 would create an increased demand on RCFD for fire protection and emergency services due to the anticipated increase in population. While the residential and commercial uses within the land use plan of the Alternative would be identical to the Project, the removal of the 55 and above age restriction within Planning Area 8 would result in increased calls for service, because Alternative 4 would result in more residents on-site. Construction of Alternative 4 would not obstruct emergency access to the site or surrounding areas nor would operational activities impair any response times since the site is located within an area currently serviced by RCFD. Therefore, the increased demand for services associated with implementation of this Alternative may potentially result in the need for a new RCFD fire station or addition of more firefighting personnel for those stations currently servicing the site.
Under this Alternative, all residential and commercial development would comply with the most current 12-920
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-40 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
adopted fire and building codes and standards and all applicable development impact fees would be paid to the appropriate jurisdiction. Impacts under this Alternative would be greater than under the Project, but still less than significant.
Law Enforcement
Alternative 4 would create an increased demand on the Sherriff’s Department for law enforcement services due to the anticipated increase in population. While the residential and commercial uses within the land use plan of the Alternative would be identical to the Project, the removal of the 55 and above age restriction would result in increased calls for service, because Alternative 4 would result in more residents on-site. This Alternative would also incorporate Project Design Features that would enhance security and access throughout the site to minimize service from the Sheriff’s Department. However, in order to accommodate the Alternative’s increased demand for services, the Sheriff’s Department would require additional officers to service the site. Applicable development impact fees would be paid to the appropriate jurisdiction to help reduce impacts on the Sheriff’s Department. Even though the Project will not have any significant impacts relating to law enforcement, impacts under this Alternative would be greater than under the Project.
Schools
Alternative 4 would increase demand on PSUSD for school services. The removal of the 55 and over age restriction is anticipated to generate more students within the residential uses of this Alternative. As with the Project, Alternative 4 would fall within the attendance boundaries of PSUSD and would be serviced by the three schools of Sunny Sands Elementary, Nellie N. Coffman Middle, and Rancho Mirage High. There would only be an increase in the number of students associated with PSUSD’s single-family generation rates. This Alternative would generate approximately 459 additional students as compared to the Project. The three schools that would service Alternative 4 are currently operating below their capacities and the addition of students generated by this Alternative would cause Sunny Sands Elementary to operate over its capacity. Therefore, Alternative 4 would result in potentially significant impacts. Payment of applicable impact fees would also be paid to PSUSD for services for the increase in the number of students generated by this Alternative. Therefore, Alternative 4 would result in less than significant impacts after payment of mitigation fees. Even though the Project will not have any significant impacts relating to schools, impacts under this Alternative would be incrementally greater than under the Project.
Libraries
Alternative 4, like the Project, would increase demand on the Rancho Mirage Public Library. The removal of age restriction and implementation of standard residential development would result in increased 12-921
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-41 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
population, which would then create an increased demand for library services when compared to the Project. The Rancho Mirage Library has indicated that it currently has sufficient capacity to accommodate the growing demands of the City, including the Project. Similar to the Project, this Alternative would require payment of applicable development impact fees to the appropriate jurisdiction. Therefore, Alternative 4 would not result in the need for any new facilities or the expansion of the Rancho Mirage Public Library. Even though the Project will not have any significant impacts relating to libraries, impacts under this Alternative would be similar to the Project.
Recreation
Implementation of Alternative 4 would result in an increase in demand for additional parks and recreational facilities as a result of the removal of the age-restricted units, which would increase population and create a greater demand on County and City existing parks and recreational facilities when compared to the Project. Since Alternative 4 would implement the same land use design plan as the Project, there would be the same 13 acres of allotted parkland and open spaces provided throughout the site for recreational opportunities. Applicable development impact fees would be paid to the appropriate jurisdiction to minimize recreational impacts. Additionally, the on-site recreational facilities would be constructed concurrently with development of Alternative 4, and would be available to Project residents. Nevertheless, Alternative 4 would have a comparatively greater impact on recreation facilities/parks than the Project, but less than significant.
Traffic and Transportation
The Project would generate a total of 73,890 total weekday trips with a trip generation rate of 3.73 trips per active adult unit. This Alternative would not include active adult units. Therefore, this Alternative would generate 8.31 trips per single-family unit. As such, this Alternative would generate 5,492 additional weekday trips, as compared to the Project. Since impacts to study intersections associated with the Project would be less than significant with incorporation of various Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures, the incremental increase of trips associated with this Alternative would not be significant. Even though the Project will not have any significant impacts relating to traffic, impacts under this Alternative would be incrementally greater than those under the Project.
Utilities and Service Systems
Water Service
12-922
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-42 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Alternative 4 would have the same number of residential units as the Project. Since this Alternative would have no age restriction, the demand factor would be 163.35 gallons per day for each equivalent dwelling unit. The water demand associated with this Alternative would be approximately 1,861.6 afy.4 This alternative would increase water demand by approximately 82 afy. The aquifer and other sources of supply are adequate for a single dry year and also multiple dry years for a 20-year period. The Project would result in a total water demand of 1,780 afy. Like the Project, this Alternative would require additional water infrastructure to serve the site. Given that neither the Project nor Alternative 4 would result in a significant impact, impacts associated with Alternative 4 would be incrementally greater than the Project.
Sewer
Alternative 4 would have a total of 2,406 residential dwelling units and 3.2 million square feet of commercial uses, similar to the Project. The CVWD uses a peak flow factor of 250 gallons per day per EDU to determine wastewater generation. Based on the number of EDUs determined for this Alternative, approximately 0.93 mgd of wastewater would be generated and then treated at WRP No. 7, similar to the Project. However, it should be noted that the active adult units would demand less water and, consequently, generate less wastewater. As a result, Alternative 4 would generate more wastewater than the Project. Accordingly, available treatment capacity would be provided and impacts would be less than significant under this Alternative. The Alternative’s sewage increase to the lines in the CVWD’s sewer capacity would be mitigated through payment of the sewer capacity increase fee, as required by the Project, and Alternative 4 impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Given that neither the Project nor Alternative 4 would result in a significant impact, impacts associated with Alternative 4 would be incrementally greater than the Project.
Solid Waste
Alternative 4 would have a total of 2,406 residential dwelling units and 3.1 million square feet of commercial space. Similar to the Project, this Alternative would generate 8,492.1 tons per year and contribute 27.1 tons of solid waste per day to the transfer station or nearby landfill.
However, there is adequate capacity and expansion potential within the regional landfill system to accommodate the solid waste expected to be generated by this Alternative or the Project. Closure dates of landfills for the existing landfills are estimates and subject to change depending on the actual tonnage
4 Residential units = 440.2 acre-feet per year (afy); Residential Open Space = 299.5 afy; Commercial Uses = 1,050.3 afy; Commercial Open Space = 71.6 afy.
12-923
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-43 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
that is received prior to their estimated closing date. Given that neither the Project nor Alternative 4 would result in a significant impact, impacts associated with Alternative 4 would be similar to the Project.
Summary of Comparative Impacts
Alternative 4 would result in similar impacts when compared to the Project. Incremental increases in impacts not identified as significant include air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, schools, libraries, recreation, traffic and transportation, and water demand. The significant construction noise impacts would be similar and the air quality impacts would not be avoided or substantially reduced by this Alternative, but rather, would be comparatively greater than the Project.
Relationship to Project Objectives
Alternative 4 considers the implementation of the land use plan of the Project with the only difference being the elimination of the age restriction within Planning Area 8. Commercial uses would remain, but the designation of the Active Adult Community as proposed by the Tribe would not be allowed under this Alternative. This Alternative would also not provide the highest and best use of Tribal Property as the residential uses would be limited to only single-family uses. While potentially significant impacts would be minimized with this Alternative, the following Project objectives would not be achieved with this Alternative:
• Provide a range of contemporary housing concepts, including an “active adult” development, which will encourage residential opportunities that appeal to residents seeking shorter commutes to jobs, restaurants, and a broad selection of entertainment opportunities.
5. Alternative 5—Reduced Intensity Alternative
Alternative Description
Alternative 5 considers implementation of the Project as proposed, with the intensity of all land uses reduced by 25 percent. As shown in Table 6.0-11, Land Use Summary Under Alternative 5, this Alternative would include the development of 900 residential dwelling units within Planning Area 8, 904 total residential dwelling units within Tribal Planning Areas 1B, 2B, 5, 6B, and 7B, 953,700 square feet of Resort Flex uses, 582,750 square feet of Retail uses, and 817,500 square feet of Mixed-Use Core uses.
12-924
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-44 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 6.0-11
Land Use Summary Under Alternative 5
Land Use Category Planning Area (PA) Amount
Active Adult Community PA 8 900 units
Multi-Family Residential PA 1B, 2B, 5, 6B, and 7B 904 units Resort Flex PA 1A, 4, and 7A 953,700 square feet
Retail PA 3 and 7A 582,750 square feet
Mixed-Use Core PA 2A 817,500 square feet
Under Alternative 5, the layout of the land uses would not change as compared to the Project. As a result of the 25 percent reduction of the amount of development on the Project Site, the construction duration of this Alternative would also be reduced. In addition, a reduction in the amount of residential dwelling units and commercial uses would reduce the amount of direct population growth and visitors that would be introduced to the Project Site, thus decreasing the demand for public services and utilities. While the acreage of open space and recreational uses required in accordance with the Section 24 Specific Plan would be reduced due to the decreased population generation, Alternative 5 would provide for an increased amount of open space and recreational opportunities. The 25 percent reduction in development on the 577 acre Project Site would allow for the ability to integrate more parks, walkways and jogging paths, enhanced streetscapes, courtyards, and plazas throughout the design of the site.
Comparative Impact Evaluation
Aesthetics
Under Alternative 5, the Project Site would be developed according to the land use plan of the Project with the intensity of residential and commercial uses areas reduced by 25 percent. This Alternative would change the visual nature of the Project Site, as would the Project, but the aesthetic changes would be of less intensity. Development of the Project Site in conformance with the Specific Plan’s development and design standards would not result in significant impacts to the visual character of the Project Site and the surrounding area. As the entire 577-acre site would still be fully developed, the aesthetic impacts of this Alternative would be similar to the Project, but to a less degree.
Alternative 5 would result in a similar grading, building, and landscape design as the Project. Thus, it would involve the same mix of land uses across the Project Site, just at a reduced intensity. Therefore, Alternative 5 would have less than significant impacts, similar to those of the Project. 12-925
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-45 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Air Quality
Construction activities (e.g., equipment use assumptions) under Alternative 5 would be similar to those of the Project on a daily basis. This Alternative would result in a reduced intensity of all residential and commercial uses by 25 percent.
Alternative 5 would reduce operational VOC emissions for the Active Adult Community to 80.1 pounds per day; however, like the Project, VOC emissions would exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 would remain less than significant. Operation impacts under this Alternative would be similar to the Project, albeit somewhat reduced, as a result of the reduction in residential units.
Alternative 5 would reduce construction VOC emissions for the Tribal Planning Areas to 94.4 pounds per day; however, like the Project, VOC emissions would exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds.
NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 would remain less than significant. Operational emissions for the Tribal Planning Areas would reduce VOC to 308.8 pounds per day, NOx to 164.4 pounds per day, and CO to 1,259.5 pounds per day. This Alternative would still exceed significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, and CO, similar to the Project, but the emissions would be incrementally reduced.
Overall, Alternative 5 would reduce construction VOC emissions for the Project to 195 pounds per day; however, like the Project, VOC emissions would exceed SCAQMD regional significance thresholds. NOx, CO, SOx, PM10, and PM2.5 would remain less than significant. Operational emissions for the Project would reduce VOC emissions to 415.4 pounds per day, NOx to 229.7 pounds per day, and CO to 1,648.2 pounds per day. Overall, Alternative 5 would result in comparatively less impacts than those under the Project; however, this Alternative would still exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for VOC, NOx, and CO.
Biological Resources
Under Alternative 5, the Project Site would result in similar grading and disturbance activities as would the Project. While this Alternative would involve a 25 percent intensity reduction, it would still result in development of the entire 577 acre Project Site. Thus, impacts to biological resources would be similar to those of the Project. There would be comparable impacts to sensitive habitat, sensitive plants, and sensitive wildlife, for which Mitigation Measures would be required in accordance with the requirements of the THCP. Under this Alternative, payment of the THCP fee would also be required in order to mitigate potential impacts to burrowing owl and loggerhead shrike. Both this Alternative and the Project would result in similar, less than significant impacts. 12-926
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-46 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Cultural Resources
Alternative 5 would fully develop the entire 577 Project Site with a mixture of residential and commercial uses, as would the Project. This Alternative would have similar potential to uncover previously unknown archeological resources, fossils of paleontological importance, and human remains.
Appropriate mitigation during the construction phase would ensure that development would not result in significant impacts to potential cultural resources. Therefore, Alternative 5 would result in less than significant impacts to cultural resources. Impacts would be similar to those of the Project.
Geology and Soils
Alternative 5 would still involve the development of the 577 acre site with the same land use plan as proposed by the Project. Thus, this Alternative’s grading and excavation activities would be identical and would result in similar erosion and sedimentation impacts to those of the Project. Any future development within the Project Site occurring as permitted by the Tribal Land Use Ordinance would have to comply with the CBC requirements for seismicity, liquefaction, subsidence, and expansive soils, similar to the Project, which would mitigate potential significant impacts associated with the existing soils and geology conditions of the site. Alternative 5 would be required to develop and implement a SWPPP along with all Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures of the Project pertaining to erosion control plans. For this reason, the geology and soils impacts of this Alternative would be similar to the Project.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Alternative 5 would involve construction activities similar to those associated with the Project to grade the site, install infrastructure and construct residential and commercial buildings. As stated previously, equipment use and vehicular travel related to construction activities and their respective emissions would be similar to that required for the Project.
As discussed in Section 5.6, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the operational GHG emissions for the Active Adult Community, Tribal Planning Areas, and overall Project are estimated to emit 8,879.4 MTCO2e per year, 39,326.1 MTCO2e per year, and 45,899.9 MTCO2e per year, respectively. Alternative 5 would reduce the number of residential uses, mixed-use, and retail in the Tribal Planning Areas by 25 percent which would result in significantly fewer GHG emissions of 6,659.5 MTCO2e per year, 29,494.6 MTCO2e per year, and 34,425 MTCO2e per year, respectively. Assuming the residential and commercial uses included in Alternative 5 would include similar Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures as those identified for the Project, the GHG emissions for the Active Adult Community, Tribal Planning Areas, and overall Project would be reduced by approximately 25 percent (smaller reduction than the Project), 43 percent (larger reduction than the Project), and 44 percent (larger reduction than the 12-927
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-47 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Project), respectively, from the business as usual scenario. Reduction in GHG emissions from the business as usual scenario would be consistent with the 2020 and 2040 GHG emissions reduction goals recommended in the 2014 Updated Scoping Plan, similar to the Project. Overall, Alternative 5 would incrementally reduce impacts compared to the Project.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
While Alternative 5 would result in a reduction in the intensity of uses on the 577-acre site, it would still involve similar grading and excavating activities as would the Project. The temporary transport, storage, handling, use, and disposal of hazardous materials during construction of this Alternative would compare to those activities of the Project, but at a reduced level. The residential and commercial uses associated with the operational activities of Alternative 5 would involve a reduced use of potentially hazardous materials, which would be handled and disposed of in accordance with applicable standards and regulations.
The site where Alternative 5 would be developed is not considered to be a hazardous materials site nor would involve any uses that would cause a significant hazard to those occupants on the site. As the site is not within an airport land use plan or within proximity to a private airstrip, this Alternative would not subject people to any potential safety hazards. This Alternative would involve similar road closures during construction, and appropriate Mitigation Measures would reduce potential impacts related to impairment of operations of any emergency response plan. Fire hazards would not be associated with this Alternative, as with the Project, since the site contains minimal vegetation that could pose any flammable hazards. Alternative 5 would incorporate Project Design Features that would reduce any foreseeable fire hazards on the site. Therefore, this Alternative would have less than significant impacts and impacts would be similar to those of the Project.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Similar to the Project, Alternative 5 would require the construction of new storm-drain systems, including retention basins used to retain the 100-year flood event. Construction activities under this Alternative would involve temporary surface water runoff and water quality impacts that would be considered to be potentially significant. However, implementation of Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures similar to the Project would minimize surface water runoff from the Project Site and reduce degradation of surface water runoff and water quality, in compliance with the NPDES Program. Development of the Project Site would increase the amount of impervious surfaces resulting in an increase of long-term surface water runoff. This Alternative would incorporate applicable Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features to ensure these impacts remain less than significant. Thus, 12-928
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-48 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Alternative 5 would result in similar impacts to hydrology and water quality when compared to the Project.
Land Use and Planning
Implementation of Alternative 5 would be developed with the identical mixture of residential and commercial uses as the Project, but with a reduced intensity of 25 percent. A total of 1,804 residential units and approximately 2.4 million square feet of commercial space would be developed on the Project Site compared to the 2,406 residential dwelling units and 3.1 million square feet of commercial space.
The difference would amount to 602 fewer residential units and 0.7 million square feet less of commercial uses.
Alternative 5 would not conflict or result in any consistencies with the goals, objectives, or policies of the Tribe’s Land Use Ordinance or City’s General Plan, as well with any polices established by the SCAG and the Riverside County LAFCo. Therefore, similar to the Project, Alternative 5 would result in similar less than significant land use impacts.
Noise
Alternative 5 would include earthmoving activities during construction and would involve the use of heavy equipment, such as air compressors, backhoes, generators, excavators, pavers, rollers, and scrapers. While construction under this Alternative would be reduced in scale and duration due to the reduced intensity of uses on the Project Site, these construction equipment sources would cause significant noise impacts to both on- and off-site receptors. Implementation of various Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures under this Alternative would reduce noise impacts; however, similar to the Project, construction activities would still result in short-term significant and unavoidable impacts.
Furthermore, operational activities of Alternative 5 would result in 25 percent fewer weekday trips when compared to the Project. Long-term operational noise generated by traffic under this Alternative would decrease when compared to the Project. However, this Alternative would not result in a decrease of 3 dB(A) in the noise levels on roadway segments adjacent to the Project Site, and therefore, any decrease in roadway noise levels would not be noticeable. Even though this Alternative would not avoid any significant impacts, impacts would be relatively less than those under the Project.
Population and Housing
Under Alternative 5, the Project Site would involve approximately 602 fewer residential units and 0.7 million square feet less of commercial development. This Alternative would generate 3,248 residents, 12-929
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-49 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
1,083 fewer residents than the Project. While this Alternative would generate fewer people than the Project, there would be a comparable demand on the existing utility infrastructure that services the area. Accordingly, implementation of Alternative 5 would result in similar, but comparatively less, impacts than those under the Project.
Public Services
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
Alternative 5 would increase demand on the RCFD for fire protection and emergency services. However demand would be less, as compared to the Project, and would in turn result in a decreased number of additional service calls, since there would be a reduction in the population on site. Construction of Alternative 5 would not obstruct emergency access to the site or surrounding areas nor would operational activities impair any response times since the site is located within an area currently serviced by the RCFD. Under this Alternative, all residential and commercial development would comply with the most current adopted fire and building codes and standards and all applicable development impact fees would be paid to the appropriate jurisdiction. Therefore, implementation of this Alternative would not result in the need for new governmental facilities in regards to fire protection and emergency services, and impacts would be less than significant. Alternative 5 would have reduced impacts compared to those under the Project, but both the Project and Alternative 5 would have less than significant impacts.
Law Enforcement
Alternative 5, like the Project, would increase demand on the Sheriff’s Department for law enforcement services. However, demand would be less, as compared to the Project, and would in turn result in a decreased number of service calls because there would be a reduction in the population on site. This Alternative would also incorporate Project Design Features that would enhance security and access throughout the site to minimize needed service from the Sheriff’s Department. Similar to the Project, implementation of Alternative 5 would require the Sheriff’s Department to provide additional officers to service the site. There would still be a payment of development impact fees to the appropriate jurisdiction to ensure impacts remain at a level of less than significant, similar to the Project.
Schools
Alternative 5, like the Project, would increase demand on PSUSD for school services. However, fewer students are anticipated to be generated due to the reduced intensity of residential uses. Like the Project, Alternative 5 would fall within the attendance boundaries of PSUSD and would be serviced by the three schools of Sunny Sands Elementary, Nellie N. Coffman Middle, and Rancho Mirage High. This 12-930
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-50 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Alternative would still implement the age-restricted community, which would not involve the addition of generated students. Thus, the increase in the number of students would result from the Project’s multi- family generation rates associated with the non-age restricted communities. This Alternative would generate approximately 48 fewer students than the Project. The three schools that would service Alternative 5 are currently operating below their capacities and would continue to operate below capacity with the addition of students by this Alternative. Payment of applicable impact fees would also be paid to PSUSD for services to ensure impacts remain less than significant Alternative, similar to the Project.
Libraries
Alternative 5, like the Project, would increase demand on the Rancho Mirage Public Library for library services. The 25 percent reduction of residential uses would result in a reduced introduced population that would utilize the Library, as compared, to the Project. The Library has indicated that it currently has sufficient capacity to accommodate the growing demands of the City, including the Project. However, similar to the Project, this Alternative would require payment of applicable development impact fees to the appropriate jurisdiction. Therefore, similar to those of the Project, Alternative 5 would not result in potentially significant impacts to libraries.
Recreation
Implementation of Alternative 5 would result in an increase in demand for parks and recreational facilities. However, demand on the County and City’s parks and recreational facilities would be less, as compared to the Project, since there would be reduction in residents on site. Like the Project, implementation of Alternative 5 would provide parkland and open spaces throughout the site for recreational opportunities of residents and those visiting the site. The Alternative’s reduced intensities of residential and commercial development on the site would allow more space for recreational opportunities within the Alternative’s land use design. This increase in recreational opportunity on the site would help minimize demand on existing County and City parks and recreational facilities.
Applicable development impact fees would be paid to the appropriate jurisdiction to minimize any recreational impacts. Additionally, these recreational facilities would be constructed concurrently with development of Alternative 5 to be available to Project residents. Under this Alternative, impacts would be less than significant, similar to those under the Project.
Traffic and Transportation
The Project would generate a total of 73,890 total weekday trips with approximately 2,630 weekday trips expected to occur between the different uses proposed within the Project Site using internal streets. Alternative 5 would reduce the number of residential units and other land uses by 25 percent 12-931
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-51 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
when compared to the Project. Since impacts to study intersections associated with the Project would be less than significant with incorporation of various Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures, the impacts associated with Alternative 5 would also be less than significant. Therefore, this Alternative would result in incrementally less traffic, but impacts would be less than significant, similar to the Project.
Utilities and Service Systems
Water Service
Alternative 5 would result in a total of 1,804 residential units, and 2,353,950 square feet of commercial space. Although reduced development intensity would lead to a 25 percent reduction in residential water use, landscaping water use would increase by 25 percent. Therefore, there would not be a direct 25 percent reduction in water demand when compared to the Project. Total water use under this Alternative would amount to approximately 1,517.0 afy.5 The aquifer and other sources of supply are adequate for a single dry year and also multiple dry years for a 20-year period. Since the water demand associated with this Alternative is less than the Project water demand of 1,780 afy, Alternative 5 would result in an incremental reduction in total water use, but would require the same extension of infrastructure. Even though neither the Project nor this Alternative would result in any significant impact, impacts associated with this Alternative would be relatively less than those of the Project.
Sewer
Under Alternative 5, the Project Site would be developed according to the Project’s land use plan, but with the intensity of residential and commercial uses reduced by 25 percent. This Alternative would generate 0.70 mgd of wastewater, approximately 0.23 mgd fewer than the Project, and wastewater generated by this Alternative would be treated at WRP No. 7. Accordingly, available treatment capacity would be provided and impacts would be less than significant under this Alternative. The Alternative’s sewage increase to the lines in the CVWD’s sewer capacity would be mitigated through payment of the sewer capacity increase fee, as required by the Project. Thus, Alternative 5 impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level. Even though neither the Project nor this Alternative would result in a significant impact, impacts associated with this Alternative would be considered less than those of the Project.
5 Residential units = 265.4 acre-feet per year (afy); Residential Open Space = 374.4 afy; Commercial Uses = 787.7afy; Commercial Open Space = 89.5 afy.
12-932
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-52 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Solid Waste
This Alternative would result in a reduced intensity of 25 percent when compared to the Project. Solid waste generated by this Alternative would total 6,369.1 tons per year. This waste would be diverted to either the Edom Hills Transfer Station or would directly be delivered to the Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill. This Alternative would contribute 20.3 tons of solid waste per day.
However, there is adequate capacity and expansion potential within the regional landfill system to accommodate the solid waste expected to be generated by this Alternative or the Project. Closure dates of landfills for the existing landfills are estimates and subject to change depending on the actual tonnage that is received prior to their estimated closing date. Even though neither the Project nor this Alternative would result in a significant impact, impacts associated with this Alternative would be considered less than those of the Project.
Summary of Comparative Impacts
Alternative 5 would result in an incremental reduction in air quality during operation of the Project.
Impacts related to Alternative 5 would be similar to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise. Alternative 5 does incrementally reduce identified population and housing, public services, recreation, traffic, and utilities and service systems. This Alternative does not avoid significant impacts nor reduce them to a level of less-than-significant.
Relationship to Project Objectives
Alternative 5 considers the implementation of the land use plan of the Project with the only difference being a 25 percent reduction in the intensity of residential and commercial uses throughout the Project Site. Many impacts would be incrementally reduced with this Alternative. However, the significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality and noise would not be avoided or reduced to a level of less than significant.
This Alternative would also not provide the highest and best use of Tribal Property as the site would likely result in reduced employment opportunities for the region, fewer economic development opportunities, and a reduced regional destination development. While the Reduced Intensity Alternative would include all the components of the Project, it would only partially meet all of the following Project objectives.
• Promote the highest and best use of Reservation lands in order to maximize the economic development opportunities for the Tribe and its members, including Tribal land immediately adjacent to the existing Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa. 12-933
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-53 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
• Plan for an appropriate mix of commercial, hotel, entertainment, office and residential uses, in order to meet the trade area’s growing demand and build in the flexibility to respond to changes in the market over time.
• Create a new mixed-use project that compliments the Tribe’s existing Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa located across Bob Hope Drive to create a regional destination development.
E. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
As previously discussed, analysis of a reasonable range of Alternatives is required by both NEPA and CEQA. The purpose of the Alternatives analysis is to explain potentially feasible ways to avoid or minimize the significant effects identified for the Project. Furthermore, State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires an EIR, or for this Project the EIS, to identify an environmentally superior Alternative among those evaluated in an EIR. As stated throughout this document, this Draft EIS is also complying with the State CEQA Guidelines for the purposes of environmental analysis.
A summary comparison of impacts associated with the Project Alternatives is provided in Table 6.0-12.
As indicated in Table 6.0-12, the first line compares the Alternative’s incremental increase, decrease, or results in similar impacts, to the Project’s identified impact. The second line below that comparison then compares the level of significance of the Alternative’s impact to the level of significance of the Project’s impact. Of the Alternatives considered in this Draft EIS Section, the No Project/No Development Alternative is environmentally superior to the other Alternatives, because this Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts identified for the Project.
According to the State CEQA Guidelines, if the No Project/No Development Alternative is identified as the environmentally superior Alternative, the EIS shall also identify an environmentally superior Alternative among the other Alternatives. Of the other Alternatives considered, Alternative 5, a 25 Percent Reduced Intensity Project, would be considered environmentally superior, because it would result in the greatest incremental reduction of the overall level of impact when compared to the Project.
Alternative 5 would reduce, but not avoid or reduce to a level of less than significant, the significant construction and operational air quality impacts related to VOC, NOx, and CO, and the construction impacts identified for the Project.
While the Reduced Project Density Alternative would include all of the components proposed by the Project, such components would be reduced under this Alternative. A reduction in the number of homes would result in a 25 percent reduction in the amenity package as the reduced number of homes would not be able to support the level of amenities offered by the Project. As such, the 25 Percent Reduced Intensity Alternative would not be as effective in meeting the Project’s purpose to create a regional 12-934
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-54 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
destination development that stimulates economic development opportunities for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians and the greater community.
This Alternative would develop all of the components proposed by the Project, this Alternative would be consistent with the objective to establish a vibrant, unified vision for the Specific Plan, and plan for an appropriate mix of commercial, hotel, entertainment, office and residential uses, in order to meet the trade area’s growing demand. However, since this Alternative would develop 75 percent of the Project and those amenities offered by the Project, this objective would not be achieved to the same extent as the Project.
Overall, the 25 Percent Reduced Intensity Alternative would not meet the Project’s purpose and the objectives that support the Project’s purpose to the same extent as the Project.
12-935
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-55 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Table 6.0-12
Comparison of Alternatives to Project
Environmental Issue
Area Project
Alternative 1—No
Project/No
Development
Alternative 2—
City General Plan
Alternative 3—
County General
Plan
Alternative 4—
Standard Residential
Development
Alternative 5—
Reduced Intensity
Aesthetics Less than
Significant
Less
(No impact)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Greater
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Air Quality Significant and
Unavoidable
Less
(No impact)
Less
(Significant and
Unavoidable)
Greater
(Significant and
Unavoidable)
Greater
(Significant and
Unavoidable)
Less
(Significant and
Unavoidable)
Biological Resources Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less
(No impact)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Cultural Resources Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less
(No impact)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Geology and Soils Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less
(No impact)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Less than
Significant
Less
(No impact)
Greater
(Significant by
2035)
Greater
(Less than
Significant)
Greater
(Less than Significant)
Less
(Less than
Significant)
Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less
(No impact)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Hydrology and Water
Quality
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Similar
(Less than Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
12-936
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-56 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Environmental Issue
Area Project
Alternative 1—No
Project/No
Development
Alternative 2—
City General Plan
Alternative 3—
County General
Plan
Alternative 4—
Standard Residential
Development
Alternative 5—
Reduced Intensity
Land Use and
Planning
Less than
Significant
Greater
(Less than Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Noise Significant and
Unavoidable for
Construction
Less than
Significant
vehicle noise
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation for
stationary noise
Less
(No impact)
Less
(Significant and
Unavoidable)
Less for Vehicle
noise
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Significant and
Unavoidable)
Greater for
Vehicular noise
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Significant and
Unavoidable)
Greater for Vehicle
noise
(Less than Significant)
Similar for
Construction
(Significant and
Unavoidable)
Less for Vehicular
noise
(Less than
Significant)
Population and
Housing
Less than
Significant
Less
(No impact)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Fire Protection and
Emergency Services
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less
(No impact)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Law Enforcement Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less
(No impact)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Schools Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less
(No impact)
Greater
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Greater
(Less than Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Libraries Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less
(No impact)
Less
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
12-937
6.0 Alternatives
Meridian Consultants 6.0-57 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Environmental Issue
Area Project
Alternative 1—No
Project/No
Development
Alternative 2—
City General Plan
Alternative 3—
County General
Plan
Alternative 4—
Standard Residential
Development
Alternative 5—
Reduced Intensity
Recreation Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less
(No impact)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Greater
(Less than Significant)
Similar
(Less than
Significant)
Traffic and
Transportation
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less
(No impact)
Less
(Less than
Significant)
Greater
(Less than
Significant)
Greater
(Less than Significant)
Less
(Less than
Significant)
Water Service Less than
Significant
Less
(No impact)
Less
(Less than
Significant)
Greater
(Less than
Significant)
Greater
(Less than Significant)
Less
(Less than
Significant)
Sewer Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less
(No impact)
Less
(Less than
Significant)
Less
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than Significant)
Less
(Less than
Significant)
Solid Waste Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Less
(No impact)
Less
(Less than
Significant)
Greater
(Less than
Significant)
Similar
(Less than Significant)
Less
(Less than
Significant)
12-938
Meridian Consultants 7.0-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
7.0 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS
As previously discussed in Section 1.0 Introduction, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (“Tribe”), acting as the Lead Agency for the planning and environmental review of this Project, has decided to prepare this EIS in compliance with both Tribal Environmental Policy Act (TEPA) and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including the State CEQA Guidelines. According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 [d], a project may foster economic or population growth, or additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in a geographical area if it meets any one of the following criteria below:1 • A project would remove obstacles to population growth. • Increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, causing significant environmental effects.
• A project would encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment.
CEQA does not consider growth inducement to be necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of significance to the environment. Typically, the growth-inducing potential of a project is considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in pertinent master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies. Significant growth impacts could also be manifested through the provision of infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels currently permitted by local or regional plans and policies.
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for a six-county region (Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties) and is charged by the federal government to research and prepare plans for transportation, growth management, hazardous waste management, and air quality. One of the many responsibilities mandated to SCAG by the State is the development of demographic projections, which are in Section
5.11, Population and Housing.
A. GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACT ANALYSIS
1. Remove Obstacles to Population Growth
Growth in an area may result from the removal of physical impediments or restrictions to growth, as well as the removal of planning impediments resulting from land use plans and policies. In this context,
1 California Public Resources Code, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15126(d).
12-939
7.0 Growth-Inducing Impacts
Meridian Consultants 7.0-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
physical growth impediments may include nonexistent or inadequate access to an area or the lack of essential public services (e.g., water service), while planning impediments may include restrictive zoning and/or general plan designations.
The Project is located in an area that contains established land uses and supporting infrastructure.
Construction of the Project may require the modification of off-site infrastructure and the development of on-site infrastructure in order to support the increased land use intensity associated with the Project.
Growth projections contained in the RTP/SCS are based on a compilation of county and local projections. RTP forecasts are then used in the formulation of regional plans dealing with regional air quality, housing, transportation/circulation, and other infrastructure issues. SCAG does not provide a specific methodology for establishing the consistency of a proposed project with its regional growth forecasts. However, the RCP contains policies that support the use of these forecasts in the preparation and review of local and regional plans and projects.
The proposed Specific Plan would account for approximately 1 percent of the anticipated increase in residents within the Coachella Valley between 2008 and 2035, which is consistent with the estimated growth projection for the CVAG subregion of SCAG (see discussion in Section 5.11 Population and Housing). The projected population increase that would be generated represents approximately 37 percent of the population growth projected in the City’s Sphere of Influence south of I-10 between 2014 and 2030. The population increase within the Project Site would account for approximately 13 percent of the City population increase between 2014 and 2030 as identified in the City’s 2005 General Plan. The Project would account for approximately 2 percent of the anticipated 144,000 housing units within the CVAG subregion between 2008 and 2035. As discussed in Section 5.11, SCAG projections for Reservation lands indicate that housing would grow by 4,386 units between 2020 and 2035. The Project would account for approximately 55 percent of growth on Reservation lands. The projected housing increase that would result from the Project would represent approximately 62 percent of the housing growth projected in the City’s Sphere of Influence south of I-10. The housing increase within the Project Site would account for approximately 14 percent of the City housing growth projected for the City between 2014 and 2030. According to SCAG projections, the number of employment opportunities is forecast to increase to 315,000 employment opportunities between 2008 and 2035, an increase of 140,000 employment opportunities. The Project would account for approximately 5 percent of the anticipated 140,000 employment opportunities within the CVAG subregion between 2008 and 2035. The Project’s population, housing, and employment opportunity projections would be consistent with the SCAG and City’s projections.
12-940
7.0 Growth-Inducing Impacts
Meridian Consultants 7.0-3 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
The City of Rancho Mirage (“City”) and County of Riverside General Plans both project housing and commercial growth within the Project Site. The general plans are master plans providing the framework by which public officials will be guided on making decisions relative to development within the Project Site. The implementation of land use policies will incrementally increase demands for public services, utilities, and infrastructure, and the need for medical, education, and recreation facilities.
An established transportation network exists in the surrounding area that offers regional and local access to the Project Site. Regional access to the Project Site would be provided by the I-10 Freeway.
Local access to the Project Site would be provided by Bob Hope Drive, Los Alamos Road, Ramon Road, and Dinah Shore Drive. Roadway improvements would be made as development occurs for each individual project, including the payment of fees equivalent to TUMF fees for identified roadway infrastructure projects in the western Coachella Valley.
The Project Site is bordered by the City of Rancho Mirage to the north, east, south, and west. Section 13 to the north has been zoned for commercial retail and resort uses; the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa and the Section 19 Specific Plan which includes planned mixed use, resort, and residential uses to the east; the Westin Mission Hills Resort to the south and commercial uses to the southeast; and the Westin Mission Country Club to the west.
The water, wastewater, electrical, and natural gas infrastructure required to support the Project would be available to the Project Site from surrounding streets. Potable water would be provided to the Project Site from the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). There are 18-inch CVWD potable water connections in the surrounding streets. Wastewater disposal from the Project Site would flow in an 8- and 12-inch gravity system that drains all sewage generated on the Project Site in a northerly direction to Ramon Road. The Project Site would contain storm drains within the Active Adult Community which would convey surface water runoff to the retention basins located in the southern and northern portion of the Active Adult Community. Retention basins would be located in the northeastern portion of each Planning Area within the Tribal Planning Areas.
Water and wastewater infrastructure upgrades are intended to meet Project-related demand. The new water and wastewater lines have been designed to provide for the Project and would not generate substantial capacity that would induce growth within the area. The 18-, 12-, and 8-inch water mains would connect to each of the eight Planning Areas. As such, the development of the potable water system would not induce growth within the immediate area.
Natural gas transmission infrastructure presently exists near the Project Site; however, infrastructure does not presently exist on the Project Site. During development of the Project, a natural gas line would 12-941
7.0 Growth-Inducing Impacts
Meridian Consultants 7.0-4 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
be constructed on site to connect to the existing Southern California Gas Company 6-inch-diameter gas main located beneath Dinah Shore Drive and with a 4-inch main located beneath Los Alamos Road. The Project Site currently has aboveground power lines that traverse the southern Project Site. The Project would connect to these existing power lines during on-site utility infrastructure improvements. Natural gas and electricity infrastructure upgrades are intended to meet Project-related demand. The new natural gas and electrical lines have been designed to provide for the Project and would not generate substantial capacity that would induce growth within the area. No growth-inducing impacts due to the connection of electrical and natural gas service lines would occur with the development of the Project.
In summary, the design and construction of roadways, water, sewer, electrical, and natural gas infrastructure needed to accommodate the Project would not induce growth within undeveloped areas surrounding the Project Site.
2. Tax Existing Community Service Facilities, Causing Significant Environmental Effects
A project would indirectly induce growth if it would increase the capacity of infrastructure in an area in which the public service currently met demand or would extend infrastructure to an area that was not previously served. Examples would be increasing the capacity of a sewer treatment plant or a roadway beyond the capacity needed to meet existing demand, or extending a water or sewer line to a project where other properties could also use that line extension.
As discussed in Section 5.12 Public Services, the Riverside County Sheriff Department (RCSD) opened a new station in 2012 in Palm Desert to serve the area of the Project Site, so additional police protection facilities would not be required. According to the RCSD, implementation of the Project is projected to require an increased demand for police protection services, such as an increased number of sworn officers servicing the Project Site. The Riverside County Fire Department, Palm Springs School District, and the Rancho Mirage Public Library all indicated that they are below capacity and are able to provide the Project Site with a sufficient amount of services and facilities. While the expansion of public services would primarily be provided to serve the needs of the Project, the increase in police services would also likely facilitate services of future growth within the area.
Construction of the Project would create an array of employment opportunities for the region, such as design, engineering, and construction-related jobs. This direct, growth-inducing effect for employment would last until the Project’s anticipated build-out by year 2035. The commercial aspect of the Project entails the development of approximately 3.2 million square feet of commercial, retail, office, restaurant, hotel, and entertainment uses. This increase in mixed-use development would stimulate a major new source of tax base for the region. As discussed in Section 5.11, development of the Project 12-942
7.0 Growth-Inducing Impacts
Meridian Consultants 7.0-5 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
would generate an estimated 6,822 jobs. With the provision of a total of 2,406 various residential units, the jobs/housing ratio for the Project would be 2.84 jobs per residence. New residents of the Project would also have available opportunities for shopping, entertainment, and employment outside of those offered by the Project. This would represent an increased demand for economic goods and services within the region. Therefore, the Project would not induce significant growth within the surrounding area.
3. Encourage and Facilitate Other Activities That Could Significantly Affect the Environment
A project would directly induce growth if it would remove barriers to population growth such as a change to a jurisdiction’s general plan and Zoning Ordinance that allowed new residential development to occur.
Urbanization of the Project Site could potentially influence continued development within adjacent properties by providing or extending roadways, extending water and sewer service, and extending energy services to the immediate area. Since the surrounding area is primarily vacant or rural-type properties, the infrastructure improved/expanded by the project could eliminate potential constraints for future development in this area. However, as previously mentioned, the Project Site is surrounded by existing development to the northeast, south, and west with approved land uses to the north and east. Development of the Project Site would not encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the environment.
The Project Site is currently under the jurisdiction of the Tribe. The Tribe has sovereign authority over the use and regulation of its land, thus the Project Site is not subject to City or County land use approval.
However, it anticipated that each of the Planning Areas would annex within the boundaries of the City of Rancho Mirage, upon authority of the Riverside LAFCo. Therefore, the Tribe would coordinate its land use decisions within the Project Site with those of the City and County in order to ensure jurisdictional consistency of goals, polices, and objectives.
Moreover, no changes to any of the Tribe’s building safety standards (i.e. building, grading, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, fire codes) are proposed or required to implement the Project. Project Design Features and Mitigation Measures have been identified in Sections 5.1 to 5.15 to ensure that subsequent subdivision maps and site-specific development projects comply with all applicable Tribal, City, and County plans, policies, and ordinances. Pressures to develop Section 13 and Section 19 to the north and east of the Project Site would be dependent upon regional economic conditions and market demands for housing, commercial office, and industrial land uses that are not directly or indirectly influence by the Project. Therefore, approval of the Project would not involve a precedent setting action 12-943
7.0 Growth-Inducing Impacts
Meridian Consultants 7.0-6 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
that would be applied to other properties and thereby encourage or facilitate growth that would not otherwise occur. Accordingly, the Project would not be considered growth inducing. 12-944
8.0 OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This Section provides a brief discussion of the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIS. This Section also discusses the significant irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the Project, including the use of nonrenewable resources, and primary and secondary impacts which generally commit future generations to similar uses. In addition, although not required, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (“Tribe”) has decided to prepare the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.1 Please see Section 9.0 for a glossary of terms, definitions, and acronyms used in the Draft EIS.
1 California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. CEQA Guidelines Section 15127 and 15128.
Meridian Consultants 8.0-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-945
8.1 EFFECTS NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT
As previously discussed in Section 1.0 Introduction, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (“Tribe”), acting as the Lead Agency for the planning and environmental review of this Project, has decided to prepare this EIS in compliance with the Tribal Environmental Policy Act (TEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines requires a brief description of any possible significant effects that were determined not to be significant and were not analyzed in detail within the environmental analysis. Therefore, this Section has been included in the EIS as required by CEQA. The discussion below presents the analysis of the effects related to agriculture and forestry resources and mineral resources not found to be significant. Any items not addressed in this Section were addressed in Section 5.0 Environmental Impact Analysis, of the Draft EIS.
A. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
Threshold: Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use.
The 577-acre Project Site is currently vacant and located within the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation (“Reservation”) in unincorporated Riverside County. The Project Site is designated as “Other Land” by the California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.1 The land surrounding the Project Site is designated as “Other Land” to the north and east, and as “Urban and Built Up Land to the west, south, and northeast. Implementation of the Project would not involve changes that would result in the conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to nonagricultural uses. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur.
Threshold: Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
The Project Site is designated as “Non-Enrolled” by California Department of Conservation, Conservation Program Support.2 The land surrounding the Project Site is designated as “Non-Enrolled Land” to the north and east and as “Urban and Built Up Land to the west, south, and northeast. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with a Williamson Act contract. 1 California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, “Riverside County Important Farmland 2010,” Sheet 2 of 3 (January 2012).
2 California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Conservation Program Support, “Riverside County Williamson Act FY 200/2009,” Sheet 2 of 3 (2012).
Meridian Consultants 8.1-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-946
8.1 Effects Not Found to Be Significant
The Project Site is zoned by the Tribe as Tribal Enterprise, Specific Plan, and Land Use Contract (Riverside County), as shown in Figure 4.0-4. The Project Site is also designated by the County of Riverside for Commercial Tourist, Medium Density Residential, and Commercial Retail, as shown in Figure 4.0-5.3 Additionally, since the Project Site falls within the City of Rancho Mirage’s Sphere of Influence, the Project Site is zoned for medium- and high-density residential and community commercial uses, as shown in Figure 4.0-6.4
The area surrounding the Project Site is characterized by features typical of the urban landscape, which include commercial and residential uses. The Agua Caliente Casino/Resort/Spa is located to the northeast, and the Westin Mission Hills Golf Resort & Spa located to the south and west of the Project Site. The land north and east of the Project Site is currently vacant. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract and no significant impacts to agricultural resources would occur.
Threshold: Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)).
As defined by the Public Resources Code Section 12220(g), forestland is land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species under natural conditions and that allows for management of one or more forest resources. Since there is minimal vegetative cover on the Project Site and the site is not zoned as forestland, the Project would not affect any forestlands as defined by the Public Resources Code.
A Timberland Production Zone is defined by the Government Code Section 51104(g) as an area that is zoned for the sole purpose of growing and harvesting timber. Because the Project Site does not contain any timber resources, nor is it zoned as timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production, the Project would not conflict with timberland or Timberland Production areas. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur to any forestry resources.
Threshold: Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
As previously discussed, the Project Site is not located within a forest area. Thus, the Project would not result in the loss of forestland or result in the conversion of forestland to nonforest uses. No significant impacts would occur.
3 Riverside County, Western Coachella Valley Area Land Use Plan (2003). 4 City of Rancho Mirage General Plan, “Land Use Element” (2005).
Meridian Consultants 8.1-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-947
8.1 Effects Not Found to Be Significant
Threshold: Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
As previously discussed, the Project Site does not contain any lands designated as Farmland or forestland and would not result in the loss of Farmland or forest land or the conversion of Farmland or forestland to nonforest use. Therefore, no significant impacts would occur.
B. MINERAL RESOURCES
Threshold: Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State.
There are areas within the County of Riverside containing mineral resources that are considered to have significant value to many industries within the region, such as deposits of clay, limestone, iron, sand, and aggregates.5 However, these deposits are only found within the surrounding hills and mountains to the north and south of the Project Site. As a result, the Project would not affect the availability of a known mineral resource. No significant impacts would occur.
Threshold: Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.
The Project Site and surrounding areas are characterized by features typical of the urban landscape and include various commercial and residential uses. According to the County of Riverside General Plan, the Project Site is designated within a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-3. MRZ-3 is defined as an area where it has been determined mineral deposits are likely to exist; however, the significance of these deposits is undetermined.6 Additionally, the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan indicates that there are no significant mineral resources within the City. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of locally important mineral resource recovery sites. No significant impacts would occur. 5 Riverside County, General Plan, “Multipurpose Open Space Element” (2008). 6 Riverside County, General Plan, “Multipurpose Open Space Element” (2008).
Meridian Consultants 8.1-3 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-948
8.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
As the EIS will be prepared in compliance with both the Tribal Environmental Policy Act (TEPA) and CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines state, “[u]ses of nonrenewable resources during the initial and continued phases of the project may be irreversible since a large commitment of such resources makes removal or nonuse thereafter unlikely.”1 Primary impacts and, particularly, secondary impacts (such as highway improvement that provides access to a previously inaccessible area) generally commit future generations to similar uses. Also, irreversible damage can result from environmental accidents associated with a project. Irretrievable commitments of resources should be evaluated to ensure that such current consumption is justified. Therefore, the purpose of this analysis is to identify any significant irreversible environmental effects of Project implementation that cannot be avoided.
Implementation of the Project would irreversibly commit approximately 577 acres of the vacant and undeveloped Project Site for residential, commercial retail, office, restaurant, hotel, and entertainment uses. The irreversible environmental changes of this urbanization include increased traffic volumes, incremental degradation of the regional air quality, additional noise created by traffic generated by inhabitants of the Project, incremental demands for public services and utilities, and changes to the visual environment that will not likely be reversed. Significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects associated with degradation of air quality and ambient noise will result from development, despite implementation of all Mitigation Measures, conditions of approval, Project Design Features, and local, State, and federal regulations.
Primary impacts will result from the consumption of nonrenewable resources during construction and operation of the proposed Project. Nonrenewable resources such as sand, gravel, and steel, and renewable resources such as lumber, will be consumed during Project construction. Energy, fossil fuels, oils, and natural gas will be irreversibly committed during construction. These same resources are used for vehicles and heating/cooling equipment during operations. The continued use of these resources associated with Project operations represents a long-term obligation. The energy consumed in developing and maintaining the site for urban use may be considered a permanent investment.
Construction of the Project would consume limited amounts of certain types of lumber; other raw materials in steel; metals such as copper and lead; aggregate materials used in concrete and asphalt such as sand and stone; water, petrochemical construction materials such as plastic; petroleum-based construction materials; and other similar slowly renewable or nonrenewable resources. Additionally, fossil fuels for construction vehicles and equipment would be consumed. In terms of Project operations, the following slowly renewable and nonrenewable resources would be required: natural gas and 1 California Public Resources Code, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Section 15126(c).
Meridian Consultants 8.2-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-949
8.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
electricity, petroleum-based fuels, fossil fuels, and water. The California Administrative Code regulates the amount of energy consumed by new development for heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting purposes. Nevertheless, the consumption of such resources would represent a long-term commitment of those resources.2
The commitment of resources required for the construction and operation of the Project would limit the availability of such resources for future generations or for other uses during the life of the Project.
However, continued use of such resources is consistent with the anticipated growth and planned changes on the Project Site and within the general vicinity.
The Project would also result in an increased commitment of certain public services to the proposed land uses, including the provision of police and emergency medical services, water supply services, wastewater treatment services, and solid waste disposal. However, as indicated in the respective sections of this EIS, impacts associated with these public services would be less than significant.
In addition, the Project would result in a long-term, irreversible change in the visual character of the Project Site. The nonurbanized character of the site would be transformed into residential/commercial development. Night lighting in the Project vicinity would incrementally increase as a result of the proposed development.
Project implementation will cause the average daily trips (ADT) to increase substantially when combined with ambient growth in the vicinity. The increased number of vehicles will contribute to the degradation of air quality. The Project air quality analysis indicates that impacts to air quality are significant, even after mitigation.
A secondary impact that results from increased traffic is an increase in ambient noise levels. Currently, the area surrounding the Project is developed with relatively medium to high ambient noise levels, with some existing street segments higher than 65 dB(A). Once the Project conducts roadway improvements and introduces Project traffic on those roads, the noise levels will increase, including along roadway segments next to existing sensitive receptors. Implementation of the Project, together with ambient growth and other cumulative projects in the vicinity, will result in significant areawide noise impacts.
Noise levels will remain higher permanently.
The Project’s contribution to State, national, and global greenhouse gases (GHG) emission inventories and the resultant effect on global climate change is evaluated on a cumulative basis. Secondary impacts result from fuel consumption in the form of air pollution, which both degrades air quality in general and contributes to the formation of GHGs that cumulatively affect global warming. Human activities 2 California Administrative Code, Title 24.
Meridian Consultants 8.2-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
12-950
8.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
associated with industrial/manufacturing, utilities, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors contribute to GHG emissions. While the Project would generate GHG emissions, its contribution was found not to be cumulatively considerable.
Meridian Consultants 8.2-3 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014 12-951
9.0 TERMS, DEFINITIONS, AND ACRONYMS
°C degrees Celsius
°F degrees Fahrenheit
AB Assembly Bill
Active Adult Community Planning Area 8
Administrator United States Environmental Protection Agency Administrator ADT average daily trips
AGO Attorney General’s Office
amsl above mean sea level
APN assessors’ parcel number
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATM automated teller machine
BAM best available mapping
BDCP Bay Delta Conservation Plan
bgs below ground surface
BLM GLO Bureau of Land Management General Land Office
BMP best management practice
BP before present
BTU British Thermal Unit
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Cal Fire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model (2013.2.2) Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CBSC California Building Standards Commission
C-C Community Commercial
CCAR California Climate Action Registry
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDE California Department of Education
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
Meridian Consultants 9.0-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014 12-952
9.0 Terms, Definitions, and Acronyms
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFC California Fire Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGS California Geological Survey
CH4 methane
CHEERS California Home Energy Efficiency Rating System
CHL California Historical Landmarks
CHP California Highway Patrol
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CITRC Cahuilla Inter-Tribal Repatriation Committee
City City of Rancho Mirage
CMA Congestion Management Agency
CMP Congestion Management Plan
CMS Congestion Management System
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
Conceptual Landscape Plan Provides guidelines for the treatment of areas within the Project Site, including the surrounding streets, parkways, development edges, project entries, and open space areas.
Conceptual Open Space The location of a portion of the open space to be provided in a manner that works with individual projects.
CPUC California Public Utilities Commission
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CRWQCB Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CVAG Coachella Valley Association of Governments
CVC California Vehicle Code
CVFED Central Valley Floodplain Evaluation and Delineation CVMSHCP Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan CVSC Coachella Valley Stormwater Channel
CVSIP Coachella Valley State Implementation Plan
CVWD Coachella Valley Water District
CWA Clean Water Act
Meridian Consultants 9.0-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014 12-953
9.0 Terms, Definitions, and Acronyms
dB(A) A-weighted decibel
DFIRM Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps
DHCCP Delta Habitat Conservation and Conveyance Program DHS Department of Health Services
DIF development impact fee
DOF California Department of Finance
DOSH Division of Occupational Safety and Health
DPM diesel particulate matter
DSUSD Desert Sands Unified School District
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DWA Desert Water Agency
DWR California Department of Water Resources
ECC Emergency Command Center
EDR Environmental Data Report
EDU equivalent dwelling unit
EIC Eastern Information Center
EIR environmental impact report
EIS environmental impact statement
EMT emergency medical training
ENERGY STAR certification performance standard set by EPA EOC Emergency Operations Center
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act EV electric vehicle
FAR floor area ratio
FCR Flexible Congestion Relief
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FIND Facility Information Detail
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FRA Federal Railroad Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
GLA gross leasable area
gpcd gallons per capita per day
gpm gallons per minute
GPS global positioning system
Meridian Consultants 9.0-3 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014 12-954
9.0 Terms, Definitions, and Acronyms
gpud gallons per unit per day
GWP global warming potential
HAZNET Hazardous Waste System/Facility and Manifest Data HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HCS Highway Capacity Software
HFE hydrofluorinated ethers
HHWE household hazardous waste element
HPLV high-pressure, low-volume
HSC Health and Safety Code
HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
HWCL Hazardous Waste Control Law
HWMP Hazardous Waste Management Plan
I industrial
I-10 Interstate 10
IID Imperial Irrigation District
IIS Indian Irrigation Service
INDIAN indian reservation (SWEETPS classification)
Industrial Age time period consisting of the previous 150 years IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
km kilometers
LAFCo Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission
Lead Agency Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
LED light-emitting diode
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LFPZ levee flood protection zone
LID low impact design
LOS level of service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LST localized significance thresholds
LUST leaking underground storage tank
MATES III Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study III
MAWA maximum allowed water allowance
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCL maximum contaminant level
MFR Multi-Family Residential (land use category)
MHFP Multi-Hazard Functional Plan
Meridian Consultants 9.0-4 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014 12-955
9.0 Terms, Definitions, and Acronyms
MHMP Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
MM mitigation measure
MMTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents MOU Memorandum of Understanding
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MS4 municipal separate storm sewer system
MSWD Mission Springs Water District
MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
MTR military training route
MU-N mixed use – neighborhood
MU-U mixed use – urban
MWD Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
MXD CORE Mixed-Use Core (land use category)
N2O nitrous oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program
NDFE nondisposal facility element
NEV Neighborhood Electric Vehicle
NF3 nitrogen triflouride
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NO nitrogen monoxide
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOA Notice of Availability
NOI Notice of Intent
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OCP organochlorine pesticide
OES Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
OHP California Office of Historic Preservation
OLED organic light-emitting diode
OPR Office of Planning and Research
OS open space – conservation
OS-R open space – residential
Park Master Plan Assesses the community’s local park needs to ensure sufficient Meridian Consultants 9.0-5 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014 12-956
9.0 Terms, Definitions, and Acronyms
recreational opportunities for residents.
Pb lead
PDF Project Design Features
PEIR program environmental impact report
PFC perflourocarbons
PHF peak hour factor
PM particulate matter
PM10 respirable particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
POC point of connection
PPV peak particle velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
PRD Planned Residential Development
Primary Access Access point in the Project area providing direct access to the site.
Project Site The 577-acre area within Section 24 designated for development of the Specific Plan
PSUSD Palm Springs Unified School District
PUC Public Utilities Commission
PVC polyvinyl chloride
PWS Public Water System
QSP/D Qualified SWPPP Practitioner/Developer
RCFCWCD Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District RCFD Riverside County Fire Department
RCIP Riverside County Integrated Project
RCLS Riverside County Library System
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission
RCTD Riverside County Transportation Department
RCWMD Riverside County Waste Management Department
Reservation Agua Caliente Indian Reservation
RESORT Resort Flex (land use category)
RETAIL Retail (land use category)
R-H High Density Residential
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
Right In/Out Access Access point in the Project Site providing one-way access to the site.
RivTAM Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model
R-M Medium Density Residential
Meridian Consultants 9.0-6 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014 12-957
9.0 Terms, Definitions, and Acronyms
RNCM Roadway Noise
RO reverse osmosis
ROG reactive organic gas
RRCDR Riverside County Center for Demographic Research
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategies RV recreational vehicle
RW recycled water
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Andreas Fault Zone a major structural geographic feature consisting of several northwest-trending right lateral strike slip faults that extend through the San Gorgonio pass along the San Bernardino Mountains and the Coachella Valley.
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
SCGC Southern California Gas Company
SCR sanitation capacity rate
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategies
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SF6 sulfur hexaflouride
SFR Single Family Residential (land use category)
Sheriff’s Department Riverside County Sheriff’s Department SHPO State Historic Preservation Office
SIP State Implementation Plan
SOI sphere of influence
SOx sulfur dioxide
Specific Plan Development of a portion of Section 24 located on the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation in unincorporated Riverside County
SRA source receptor areas
SRI Statistical Research, Inc.
SRRE source reduction and recycling element
SSAB Salton Sea Air Basin
SWEETPS Statewide Environmental Evaluation and Planning System SWP State Water Project
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
Meridian Consultants 9.0-7 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014 12-958
9.0 Terms, Definitions, and Acronyms
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
Synthetic Unit Hydrograph unit hydrograph for ungaged basins based on theoretical or empirical methods
TAC toxic air contaminant
TEPA Tribal Environmental Policy Act
THCP Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan
THPO Tribal Historic Preservation Office
TMDL total maximum daily load
TPH Total petroleum hydrocarbon
TPPS Transportation Project Prioritization Study
Tribal Planning Areas Planning Areas 1 to 7
Tribe Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
TUA Traditional Use Area
TUMF Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
UBC Uniform Building Code
UPRR Union Pacific Railroad
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
UST underground storage tank
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
UWMPA Urban Water Management Planning Act
VFPA Valley Floor Planning Area
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOC volatile organic compounds
WARP Wastewater Reclamation Plant
WCVAP Western Coachella Valley Area Plan
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WRCC Western Regional Climate Center
WRCOG Western Riverside Council of Governments
WRP water reclamation plan
WSA water supply assessment
WSV water supply verification
Meridian Consultants 9.0-8 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014 12-959
10.0 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (Tribe) with the assistance of Meridian Consultants LLC. Tribal staff, report preparers, and consultants are identified as follows, along with agencies and individuals that provided information used to prepare this Draft EIS.
A. LEAD AGENCY
The Tribe is the Lead Agency for this EIS.
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92264
(760) 699-6800
Planning and Development Department
Margaret Park, AICP, Director of Planning and Natural Resources Daniel Malcolm, AICP, Senior Planner
B. EIS PREPARERS
The following participated in the preparation of this document.
Meridian Consultants LLC
860 Hampshire Road, Suite P
Westlake Village, California 91361
805-367-5720
Tony Locacciato, Partner, Principal-in-Charge
Joe Gibson, Partner
Mark Austin, Partner
Chris Hampson, Project Manager
Christ Kirikian, Project Environmental Scientist
Candice Woodbury, Staff Planner
Jose Fernandez, Staff Planner
Jasmine Hayes, Staff Environmental Analyst
Lisa Maturkanic, Administrative/Publications Manager
Bryna Fischer, Editor
Tom Brauer, Graphics Coordinator
Meridian Consultants 10.0-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014 12-960
10.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted
Air Quality Dynamics
23150 Ostronic Drive
Woodland Hills, California 91367
(818) 703-3294
Bill Piazza, Principal
Biological Resource Specialists
Jim Cornett, Principal
Endo Engineering
28811 Woodcock Drive
Laguna Niguel, CA 92677
(949) 362-0020
Vicki Lee Endo, Traffic Engineer
Greg Endo, Traffic Engineer
Leighton and Associates, Inc.
75-450 Gerald Ford Drive, Unit #301
Palm Desert, CA 92211
(760) 776-4192
Brynn McCulloch, Project Geologist
Kristin Stout, Senior Project Scientist
Simon I. Saiid, Principal Engineer
Robert F. Riha, Senior Principal Geologist
Statistical Research, Inc.
21 W. Stuart Avenue
Redlands, CA 92374
(909) 335-1896
Kenneth M. Becker, M.A., RPA, Principal Investigator
Scott H. Kremkau, Ph.D., RPA, Senior Project Director
Meridian Consultants 10.0-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014 12-961
10.0 Organizations and Persons Consulted
C. AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS CONSULTED
The following agencies and individuals provided information used in the preparation of this EIS.
County of Riverside Fire Department
Ron Arbo, Chief, Strategic Planning
County of Riverside Sherriff’s Department
John Shields, Lieutenant, Rancho Mirage Police
Palm Springs Unified School District
Julie Arthur, Executive Director, Facilities Planning and Development Delia Diaz, Facilities Planning Clerk, Facilities Planning and Development Rancho Mirage Public Library
David Bryant, Library Director
Meridian Consultants 10.0-3 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014 12-962
Meridian Consultants 11.0-1 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
11.0 REFERENCES
The following documents and information were used in the preparation of this EIS:
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, “Tribal Ordinance Controlling Pollutant Discharges into the Waters of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation.” Ord. no. 24, amend. mo. 1. http://www.aguacaliente.org/downloads/Ordinance24.pdf .
Bean, Lowell J., and William M. Mason. Diaries & Accounts of the Romero Expeditions in Arizona and California, 1823-1826. Palm Springs, CA: Palm Springs Desert Museum, 1962.
Blake, William P. Reports of Explorations in California for Railroad Routes to Connect with Routes near the 35th and 32nd Parallels of North Latitude. 1857.
CA.gov. “California Military Land Use Compatibility Analyst.” http://cmluca.projects.atlas.ca.gov . May 19, 2014.
CAL FIRE. “Draft Fire Hazard Severity Zones.” http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/statewide /fhszl06_1_map.pdf.
California Administrative Code. Title 24.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. www.capcoa.org/ . January 2008; accessed June 10, 2013.
California Code of Regulation. Title 14, sec. 15000 et seq.
California Code of Regulation. Title 24, sec. 3501 et seq.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Conservation Program Support. “Riverside County Williamson Act FY 2008/2009.” Sheet 2 of 3. 2012.
California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. “Riverside County Important Farmland 2010.” Sheet 2 of 3. January 2012.
California Department of Transportation, Earthborne Vibrations. 1990.
California Energy Commission. Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004, Staff final report, CEC-600-2006-013-SF. December 2006.
California Environmental Protection Agency, Climate Action Team. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature. www.climatechange.ca.gov/climate_ action_team/reports/index.html. March 2006); accessed June 10, 2013. 12-963
11.0 References
Meridian Consultants 11.0-2 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
California EPA, California Air Resources Board. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective Sacramento, CA: CARB, 2005.
California Executive Order S-3-05. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/energy/ExecOrderS-3-05.htm . June 1, 2005; accessed June 10, 2013.
California Government Code. Sec. 65300.
California Health and Safety Code. Div. 20, ch. 6.95, art. 1.
California Health and Safety Code. Sec. 25124, Hazardous Waste Control.
California Office of Historic Preservation. Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. Sacramento:
California Office of Historic Preservation, 1995.
California Office of the Attorney General. The California Environmental Quality Act: Addressing Global Warming Impacts at the Local Agency Level. 2008.
California Public Resources Code, Title 14, div. 6, ch. 3, California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, sec. 15126(c).
California Public Resources Code. Sec. 2621.5.
California Public Resources Code. Sec. 2690–2699.6.
CARB. “Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling.”2008. www.arb.ca.gov/regact/idling/idling.htm , accessed September 30, 2012.
CARB. “California Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2000–2012—by Category as Defined in the Scoping Plan.” http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/tables/ghg_inventory_scopingplan_00-12_2014- 03-24.pdf. March 24, 2014; accessed May 20, 2014.
CARB. Climate Change Scoping Plan. A framework for change as approved December 2008. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/adopted_scoping_plan.pdf . December 2008; accessed June 10, 2013.
CARB. Expanded List of Early Action Measures to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions in California Recommended for Board Consideration. www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ejac/ghg_eamcommitteelist.pdf .
October 2007; accessed June 10, 2013.
CARB. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan: Building on the Framework Pursuant to AB 32.
CARB. “Climate Change Emission Control Regulations.” December 10, 2014.
City of Rancho Mirage General Plan. Ch. 7. 2006.
City of Rancho Mirage General Plan. Land Use Element. 2005. 12-964
11.0 References
Meridian Consultants 11.0-3 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Clean Water Act. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 33, sec. 402(p). 2008.
Code of Federal Regulations. Title 24, sec. 51. Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Criteria and Standards (revised April 1, 2004).
Count Unlimited, Inc. November 6, 2013
EPA. “Carbon Monxide: Health.” http://www.epa.gov/airquality/carbonmonoxide /health.html.
EPA. “Proposed Revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Nitrogen Dioxide.” Fact sheet. July 22, 2009. www.epa.gov/air/nitrogenoxides/pdfs/20090722fs.pdf .
EPA. A Comprehensive Analysis of Biodiesel Impacts on Exhaust Emissions. EPA420-P-02-001. Draft technical report. October 2002.
EPA. Nitrogen Oxides: Impact on Public Health and the Environment. Washington DC: Office of Air and Radiation, 1997. www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/reports/noxrept.pdf .
EPA. Ozone and Your Health. EPA-452/F-99-003 (1999), www.epa.gov/air/ozonepollution /pdfs/health.pdf.
EPA. Particle Pollution and your Health. EPA-452/F-03-001 Washington, DC: EPA Office of Air and Radiation, September 2003. http://epa.gov/pm/pdfs/pm-color.pdf .
Federal Highway Administration, Roadway Noise Construction Model (RCNM). Software ver. 1.1.
December 8, 2008.
Hendriks, Rudolf W. California Vehicle Noise Emission Levels. NTIS, FHWA/CA/TL-87/03. Sacramento:
California Department of Transportation, 1987.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, et al., eds. Cambridge, UK.: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
Jaeger, E.C. The North American Deserts. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1957.
Leighton and Associates, Inc. Phase I and Limited Phase II Environmental Site Assessment. February 2014. pp.9.
National Climatic Data Center. Climatic Summaries. Asheville, NC: 2013.
Native American Graves Protection and Reparation Act. United States Code. Title 25 sec. 3001 et seq. 1990.
12-965
11.0 References
Meridian Consultants 11.0-4 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Riverside County General Plan. “Multipurpose Open Space Element.” 2003. Figure OS-8, “Paleontological Sensitivity Resources Map.”
Riverside County. Western Coachella Valley Area Land Use Plan. 2003.
SCAG, RHNA Subcommittee. Table 5. May 2011.
SCAG. 2012 Adopted Growth Forecast (April 2012).
SCAQMD. Air Quality Analysis Guidance Handbook Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD, 2010. http://www.aqmd.gov/CEQA/hdbk.html .
SCAQMD. Air Quality Management Plan Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD, 2003. www.aqmd.gov /AQMD03AQMP.htm.
SCAQMD. “California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod).” Version 2013.2.2. 2013.
SCAQMD. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD: 1993.
SCAQMD. “Facility INformation Detail (FIND).” 2014. http://www.aqmd.gov/webappl/fim/default.htm .
SCAQMD. “Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds.” Fact sheet; accessed January 2014.
SCAQMD. “Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.” 2008.
SCAQMD. Final 2007 Air Quality Management Plan Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD, 2007. www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/07aqmp/index.html
SCAQMD. “Frequently Asked CEQA Questions.” 2010. http://www.aqmd.gov/home/regulations /ceqa/frequently-asked-questions.
SCAQMD. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventories for the Coachella Valley. Draft report. June 2011.
SCAQMD. Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the South Coast Air Basin (MATES III). Final Report.
Diamond Bar, CA: SCAQMD, 2008. 6-2.
SCAQMD. Regulatory Options for Addressing Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution Emission. White paper. SCAQMD board meeting, September 5, 2003, agenda no. 29, appendix D.
SCAQMD. Rule 1113. Architectural Coating (amended September 6, 2013).
Schaefer, Jerry. “The Challenge of Archaeological Research in the Colorado Desert: Recent Approaches and Discoveries.” Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 16 no. 1 (1994): 60–80. 12-966
11.0 References
Meridian Consultants 11.0-5 Section 24 Specific Plan Project 044-001-13 November 2014
Schultz, Sandra S., and Robert E. Wallace. “The San Andreas Fault.” Denver, CO: US Geological Survey, 2013. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq3/safaultgip.html .
United States Census Bureau, 2000.
US Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Community Planning and Development.
The Noise Guidebook (n.d.).
US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise. Springfield, VA: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, September 1980.
US Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment.
Transit and Vibration Impact Assessment. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. May 2006.
12-967
APPENDIX A
Notice of Intent and Comment Letters
12-968
1 Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed
Section 24 Specific Plan, Riverside County
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (“Tribe”) intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Section 24 Specific Plan in compliance with the Agua Caliente Tribal Environmental Policy Act (Tribal Ordinance No. 28). The Tribe is acting as the lead agency for the preparation of this EIS as the Section 24 Specific Plan area is located within the boundaries of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation.
The Specific Plan area is located within the Sphere of Influence of the City of Rancho Mirage as identified by the Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). Following action on the EIS and Section 24 Specific Plan by the Tribe, the Specific Plan area may be annexed to the City of Rancho Mirage. To facilitate compliance with CEQA by the City of Rancho Mirage, the Riverside LAFCO, and other agencies and to minimize duplication of the environmental studies and documentation, the Tribe will prepare the EIS in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Title 14 Section 15000 et seq.). Section 15221 of the CEQA Guidelines provides for the use of an EIS prepared in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines by public agencies required to comply with CEQA.
Project Location
The proposed Section 24 Specific Plan addresses the 577-acre portion of Section 24 bounded by Ramon Road on the north; Bob Hope Drive on the east; Dinah Shore Drive on the south; and Los Alamos Road on the west. The Specific Plan area is located immediately west of the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa; north and east of the Westin Mission Hills resort community, and northwest of the Desert Ridge Plaza shopping center. Figure 1 provides a regional location map and Figure 2 provides a project location map.
Project Description
The Tribe and Pulte Home Corporation/SCC Rancho Mirage Holdings LP (“Pulte/SCC”) are proposing the Section 24 Specific Plan to coordinate the planning and future development of the Specific Plan area, which consists of land under separate ownerships, including approximately 120 acres located on Ramon Road that is owned by the Tribe, approximately 97 acres located on Bob Hope Drive that is allotted to members of the Tribe and under contract to be acquired by the Tribe, approximately 40 acres located on the corner of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive that is allotted to members of the Tribe, and 320 acres located north of Dinah Shore Drive that is currently allotted to members of the Tribe and under contract to be acquired by Pulte Homes/SCC and developed as an active adult residential community for residents aged 55 and above.
The Section 24 Specific Plan would allow development of a mix of retail, entertainment, office, hotel and residential uses intended to complement existing and planned surrounding uses in the City of Rancho Mirage.
12-969
Regional Location Map
FIGURE 1
044-001-13
N
SPECIFIC PLANSECTION 24
SECTION 24 SPECIFIC PLAN
12-970
12-971
4 As shown in the proposed land use plan provided in Figure 3, the Section 24 Specific Plan would create eight Planning Areas and a circulation system planned to support the proposed uses. Commercial uses are proposed on Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive with residential uses proposed for the remainder of the Specific Plan area.
An active adult residential community, containing up to 1,200 units, is proposed on the 312 acres located north of Dinah Shore Drive in Planning Area 8. The Specific Plan will include development standards and design guidelines for this new residential community. Planning Area 8 will be the first portion of the Specific Plan area to develop, with full development anticipated to occur within 6-8 years.
No timeframes have been identified for development of the remaining Planning Areas, which are being programmatically planned at this time to coordinate streets and other infrastructure, and to ensure the comprehensive land use planning of the Specific Plan area in relation to existing and planned surrounding uses. The Specific Plan will include development and design standards for the Ramon Road, Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive frontages to promote compatibility with surrounding uses. The land uses that would be allowed by the proposed Specific Plan in Planning Areas 1-7 are described below.
The proposed Specific Plan will allow approximately 67 acres of multi-family residential development, at a density of up to 18 dwelling units per acre, in Planning Areas 1B, 2B, 5, 6B and 7B as shown in Figure 3.
Up to 1,206 multi-family residential units would be allowed by the proposed Specific Plan in these areas.
Retail commercial uses would be allowed in Planning Area 3, located on the corner of Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive and Planning Area 7A, located on the corner of Bob Hope Drive and Dinah Shore Drive.
The Specific Plan would allow development of up to 777,000 square feet (s.f.) of development on the 51 acres designated for retail commercial uses.
Resort flex uses, a mix of hotel, retail commercial and entertainment uses, would be allowed in Planning Areas 1A, 4 and 6A on Ramon Road and Bob Hope Drive. Up to 1,271,600 s.f. of retail commercial, hotel, and entertainment uses would be allowed on the 73 acres designated for resort flex uses.
Planning Area 2A, centrally located on Ramon Road, would be designated Mixed Use Core, with up to 1,090,000 million s.f. of development allowed on this 25 acres. This land use designation would allow a mix of uses, including community retail commercial uses, office, and attached residential units.
In total the Specific Plan would allow a maximum of 2,406 residential dwelling units and 3,138,000 million square feet of commercial development.
12-972
Proposed Land Use Plan
FIGURE 3
044-001-13
SECTION 24 SPECIFIC PLAN
12-973
6 A summary of the proposed land uses is provided in Table 1:
Table 1
Section 24 Specific Plan
Land Use Summary
Planning Land Use Size Proposed Proposed Amount of
Area Designation (Net Acres) Intensity/Density Development PA 1A Resort Flex 25 0.40 FAR 435,600 SF
PA 1B Multi-Family Residential 10 18 DU/Acre 180 DU
PA 2A Mixed Use Core 25 1.00 FAR 1,090,000 SF
PA 2B Multi-Family Residential 10 18 DU/Acre 180 DU
PA 3 Retail 26 0.35 FAR 396,000 SF
PA 4 Resort Flex 29 0.40 FAR 505,000 SF
PA 5 Multi-Family Residential 27 18 DU/Acre 486 DU
PA 6A Resort Flex 19 0.40 FAR 331,000 SF
PA 6B Multi-Family Residential 10 18 DU/Acre 180 DU
PA 7A Retail 25 0.35 FAR 381,000 SF
PA 7B Multi-Family Residential 10 18 DU/Acre 180 DU
PA 8 Active Adult Single Family Residential 312 4 DU/Acre 1,200 DU
Subtotal Net Acres 528 Acres
Street Right of Way 49 Acres
Total 577 Acres
Probable Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project
The EIS will include research, analysis and study of potential environmental effects related to the following topics:
• Aesthetics - the EIS will evaluate the changes to the visual character of the Project site and surrounding area, the obstruction of views, effects on ambient nighttime light levels and the creation of new sources of daytime or nighttime glare.
• Air Quality & Greenhouse Gases – the EIS will evaluate the impact of air quality and greenhouse gas emissions from construction and the new uses in accordance with the guidance provided by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidelines applicable to the Coachella Valley. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians is a member of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) and the assessment of potential greenhouse gas impacts will incorporate information from the regional greenhouse gas inventory for the Coachella Valley prepared by CVAG and the SCAQMD and address programs to reduce greenhouse gases, including the Coachella Valley Voluntary Green Building Program.
• Biological Resources – the EIS will evaluate potential impacts to biological resources present on the site based on biological resource surveys to identify vegetation communities and associated plant and wildlife species. Any special-status plant and wildlife species and sensitive habitats, including any wetland or other jurisdictional habitat will also be identified and addressed. 12-974
7 • Geology & Soils - the EIS will address the potential for impacts related to existing geologic and soils conditions based a geotechnical study of the site and the proposed grading. • Cultural Resources – the EIS will address the potential for impacts to cultural resources based on a cultural resource survey of the site.
• Hazards & Hazardous Materials - the EIS will address the potential for hazardous materials on the project site or in surrounding areas, and use of hazardous materials, to affect existing and planned uses. • Hydrology & Water Quality – the EIS will evaluate the changes to existing drainage patterns and water quality based on a hydrology study of the site and proposed project. • Land Use & Planning - the EIS will evaluate the consistency of the project with applicable local and regional land use plans and policies.
• Noise - the EIS will assess the potential for the proposed uses to be impacted by noise from the surrounding streets and other sources of noise in the surrounding area and for the proposed uses to create noise that would impact existing and planned surrounding uses. • Population & Housing – the EIS will address the consistency of the increase in population, housing and employment that would occur as a result of the project with adopted local and regional growth projections and applicable policies.
• Public Services – the EIS will address the need for police and fire protection, emergency medical, school, recreation services and facilities.
• Transportation & Traffic - the EIS will evaluate the potential for transportation and traffic impacts on local streets, state transportation facilities and transit services based on a traffic impact analysis study. • Utilities and Service Systems – the EIS will evaluate the potential impact of the new development proposed on water supply and water delivery facilities, wastewater collection and treatment facilities, and other utility services including electricity and natural gas facilities, and solid waste collection and disposal facilities.
12-975
8 Submission of Comments
The Tribe needs to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information relevant to your agency’s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed Specific Plan. Comments are also invited from all other interested parties.
A scoping meeting will be held on February 12, 2014 at the Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa, located at 32‐250 Hope Drive in Rancho Mirage to provide an additional opportunity to learn more about the project and provide comments on the possible environmental effects that should be studied in the EIS.
This meeting will be held in the Star AB Room at 4:00 and 7:00 PM.
All comments need to be provided by February 14, 2014 to:
Margaret Park, AICP
Director of Planning and Natural Resources
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Fax: (760) 699‐6822
Email: mpark@aguacaliente‐nsn.gov
Please provide the name, address and other contact information for a contract person at your agency who should receive future notices and correspondence related to this project.
Thank you for participating in the Tribe’s environmental review of this proposed project. 12-976
STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
320 WEST 4TH STREET, SUITE 500
LOS ANGELES, CA 90013
(213) 576-7083
January 22, 2014
Ms. Margaret Park
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, California 92264
Dear Ms. Park:
SUBJECT: SCH 2014011035 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Section 24 Specific Plan - NOI
The California Public Utilities Commission (Commission) has jurisdiction over the safety of highway- rail crossings (crossings) in California. The California Public Utilities Code requires Commission approval for the construction or alteration of crossings and grants the Commission exclusive power on the design, alteration, and closure of crossings in California. The Commission Rail Crossings Engineering Section (RCES) is in receipt of the Notice of Intent (NOI) for the proposed Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (AGBCI) Section 24 Specific Plan project.
The project area includes active railroad tracks. RCES recommends that the AGBCI add language to the Specific Plan so that any future development adjacent to or near the railroad/light rail right-of- way (ROW) is planned with the safety of the rail corridor in mind. New developments may increase traffic volumes not only on streets and at intersections, but also at at-grade crossings. This includes considering pedestrian circulation patterns or destinations with respect to railroad ROW and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mitigation measures to consider include, but are not limited to, the planning for grade separations for major thoroughfares, improvements to existing at-grade crossings due to increase in traffic volumes and continuous vandal resistant fencing or other appropriate barriers to limit the access of trespassers onto the railroad ROW.
If you have any questions in this matter, please contact me at (213) 576-7076, [email protected].
Sincerely,
Ken Chiang, P.E.
Utilities Engineer
Rail Crossings Engineering Section
Safety and Enforcement Division
C: State Clearinghouse
12-977
Via Email and U.S. Mail
January 27, 2014
Mr. Jeff L. Grubbe, Chairman
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92264
[email protected]
Ms. Margaret Park
Director of Planning and Natural Resources
5401 Dinah Shore Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92264
[email protected]
Ms. Cindy Scott, City Clerk
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
[email protected]
Mr. Randal Bynder, City Manager
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
[email protected]
Mr. Bud Kopp, Planning Manager
City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
[email protected]
Re: TEPA/CEQA and Land Use Notice Request for the Section 24 Specific Plan (SCH 2014011035; APNs 673120021, 22, 23, 24, and 25)
Dear All:
I am writing on behalf of the Laborers International Union of North America, Local Union 1184 and its members living in Riverside County (“LiUNA”), regarding the Section 24 Specific Plan (SCH 2014011035; APNs 673120021, 22, 23, 24, and 25), including all actions referring or related to the development of a mix of retail, entertainment, office, hotel, and residential uses on approximately 577 acres of land within the boundaries of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Reservation and adjacent to the City of Rancho Mirage, at or near Bob Hope Drive and Ramon Road in Rancho Mirage (“Project”). The Project includes a maximum of 1,200 units in an active adult residential community, 1,206 multifamily residential units, and approximately 3.14 million square feet of commercial development.
TEPA
We hereby request that the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (“Band”) send by mail and electronic mail to our firm at the address below notice of any and all hearings related to the Project held pursuant to the Band’s Tribal Environmental Policy Act (TEPA), 12-978
January 27, 2014
TEPA/CEQA and Land Use Notice Request for the Section 24 Specific Plan