CV Link EIR / SCH No. 2013111050 Coachella Valley Association of Governments Technical Appendices APPENDIX A Summary Report Notice of Preparation of a Program Environmental Impact Report (November 12, 2013) and Public Scoping Meeting (December 3, 2013) January, 2014 A-1 CV LINK PROJECT SUMMARY REPORT NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DECEMBER 3, 2013 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING Prepared for Coachella Valley Association of Governments Prepared by LSA Associates, Inc. 901 East Tahquitz Canyon, Suite B200 Palm Springs, CA 92262 (760) 416-2075 January 2014 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. C V LINK PROJECT JANUARY 2014 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING SUMMARY REPORT NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND DISTRIBUTION The Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued on November 12, 2012, and is included as Attachment A. The NOP was sent by registered mail to 126 entities; the distribution list is Attachment B. Six letters were returned, and no response was received from three entities. Digital copies of the NOP were later sent to four of the nine non-recipient/non-response groups. The comment period closed on Dec. 13, 2013. ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION An Environmental Scoping Meeting Announcement was sent to 943 property owners located within 100 feet of the proposed project. Fifty-nine announcements were returned as undeliverable. The Announcement is presented in Attachment C and the distribution list in Attachment D. ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING MEETING: COMMENTS/QUESTIONS The Scoping meeting was held on Tuesday, December 3, 2013, from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., in CVAG Conference Room 115, located at 73-710 Fred Waring Drive in Palm Desert. The meeting was attended by approximately 50 people (not including project staff). The meeting sign-in sheets are included in Attachment E. Exhibits of the proposed routes were on display, along with exhibits explaining the environmental process. A PowerPoint presentation by LeGrand Velez of LSA Associates, Inc., was followed by a question and comments period that lasted until approximately 7:40 p.m. (The presentation is included as Attachment F.) Then staff answered individual questions until 8:00 p.m. Three comment cards were submitted, which are included as Attachment G. The oral comments and questions were recorded; a summary of these comments is presented in Attachment H. COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS By regular mail and by email, comments were received from the 15 agencies and organizations listed below. These comments are presented in Attachment I. • Native American Heritage Commission • Governor’s Office of Planning and Research • City of Coachella Planning Department • U.S. Bureau of Reclamation • Morongo Band of Mission Indians • Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) • City of Palm Desert • Leadership Counsel for Justice and Responsibility • California Department of Fish and Wildlife 1 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. C V LINK PROJECT JANUARY 2014 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING SUMMARY REPORT The following agencies submitted comments after the close of the public comment period on December 13. These comments will nonetheless be fully addressed in the EIR. • Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District • City of Palm Springs • South Coast Air Quality Management District • Coachella Valley Water District • Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM PRIVATE CITIZENS Forty-two comments were received from private citizens. Of this total, 25 comments came from residents of two gated communities, and 17 comments were received from individuals outside of these communities. (The unaffiliated comments are presented in Attachment J.) Nine comments were received from residents of Mesquite Country Club in central Palm Springs and are presented in Attachment K. Sixteen comments were received from residents of the Four Seasons Community in north Palm Springs, which are presented in Attachment L. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Certain topics were mentioned repeatedly as concerns by different commenters. These general issues of concern are listed below. General Issues of Concern • Privacy: People with homes adjacent to the CV Link fear losing their privacy. In many cases, trail users will be able to look into people’s back yards. • Trespassing: Adjacent residences are concerned that greater public use of the levee will lead to people climbing over their fences and entering their properties. • Personal safety: Some people fear the trail will be a gathering place for people with bad intentions, who may physically harm trail users and adjacent residents. • Property safety: Commenters expressed concern that the trail will be a conduit for burglary and vandalism of private properties. • Emergency access: Concern was expressed about the ability of police and fire/paramedic services to access the CV Link facilities. • Maintenance and management: Several commenters would like to know who will do maintenance and how long-term facility management will be funded. They are concerned about maintenance expenses becoming a burden on already underfunded local agencies. • Lighting: Several commenters mentioned concerns about “light pollution” and nighttime trail use potentially leading to illicit activities. 2 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. C V LINK PROJECT JANUARY 2014 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING SUMMARY REPORT Specific Comments Specific comments from agencies and individuals are repeated below. These comments were selected because they were they either new, different, or more detailed actions from those already planned as part of the EIR process. City of Coachella Comments 1. In order to comply with CEQA guidelines, the CV Link Master Plan EIR should address the impacts of the entire project, including future segments to North Shore and Desert Hot Springs, not just the core project. (City of Coachella) 2. The EIR should assess noise impacts associated with neighborhood electric vehicles and after- hours use on sensitive receptors such as the neighborhoods north of Avenues 50 and 52. 3. The EIR should quantify the long-term improved air quality impacts resulting from reduced vehicle trips anticipated for commuter peak-hour traffic. Traffic efficiencies and related emissions reductions may be overstated due to the proposed route that does not directly connect Coachella to the West Valley (due to the northward loop in Indio). 4. The northward loop in Indio may discourage use for commuting purposes. A more direct surface- street connector using Jefferson Street, Avenues 50 and 52 could link Western Coachella, Vista Santa Rosa, and La Quinta Cove and to the West Valley. 5. A local tribe (presumably Twentynine Palms Band of Mission Indians) has expressed an interest in developing a cultural center on the south side of the Dillon Road bridge where the channel would be preserved in its natural habitat. 6. Avoid long expanses of blank surfaces to deter graffiti. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Comment 1. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) will need to review environmental documents and engineering drawings where the project crosses the Coachella Canal. Project improvements should be coordinated with the BOR Lands Office. City of Palm Desert Comments 1. The City of Palm Desert will be the lead agency for any segment of the CV Link that travels through the City’s boundaries. 2. Connector paths are as important as the main path. The EIR should analyze the connector path. “Treating connectors as if they do not exist at this point could be seen as disingenuous by the public.” 3. Design criteria may be in conflict with existing conditions. “An example: design criteria states whenever the ADT is over 10,000 a separated path is required. This would be cost prohibitive in several instances in Palm Desert.” 3 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. C V LINK PROJECT JANUARY 2014 PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING SUMMARY REPORT Southern California Association of Governments Comment 1. This is a model project in the context of the goals and strategies of the 2012 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The EIR should use a table format to demonstrate consistency with RTP/SCSD Goals. The EIR should also reference RTP/SCS strategies, reflect SCAG regional population forecasts, and utilize RTP/SCS Final Program EIR mitigation measures as guidance. Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability Comments 1. Alternatives analysis should include impacts and benefits to low-income communities, specifically disaggregated by race, income and geography, relative to access to transit, transportation and housing costs, lack of affordable housing, displacement, and public health factors such as air quality and chronic disease. 2. Conduct a Health Impact Assessment (HIA) as part of the EIR to study the health impacts on disadvantaged communities. 3. Consider an alternative to construct the full project, including Desert Hot Springs, Mecca and North Shore because these areas contain disadvantaged communities and communities of color. 4. The “no project” alternative should analyze the fiscal implications of CV Link funding not being allocated to other transportation projects in the Eastern Coachella Valley and Desert Hot Springs. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Comments 1. The Department opposes the elimination of watercourses and/or their channelization or conversion of subsurface drains. 2. Unavoidable impacts to the Western Burrowing Owl should be mitigated through acquisition and protection, in perpetuity, of high quality biological habitat. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation