Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-16 Draft Minutes ••i�� —' ; MINUTES ,rye PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION \\ �,v TUESDAY — SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 ••. vrFo;1„troJY`J I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Tanner called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Members Present: Van Tanner, Chair Sonia Campbell, Vice Chair (arrived at 6:05 p.m.) Russ Campbell Connor Lamont Man Schmidt Members A None Staff auri Aylaian, Director of Community Development ob Hargreaves, Deputy City Attorney • oy, Ass�iate Transportation Planner 4G •ht, Landscape Manager "‘\ t41 Tonya oe Administrative Secretary III. PLEDG A IANCE v Commission ,Limon led in the pledge of allegiance. IV. 'Ap7oVALyr MINUTES Non V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Ms. Aylaian summarized pertinent September 11, 2008 City Council actions. VI. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None. MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 VII. CONSENT CALENDAR None. VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. A. Case No. TT 31676— CORNISHE OF BIGHORN, Applicant Request for a recommendation to the City Council to approve a tentative tract map known as Cornishe and certification of an Environmental impact Report for the subdivision of 11.87 acres into two home sites west of Indian Cove, a private street within the "Canyons at Bighorn Golf Club," south of Dead.Indian Creek, Mr. Phil Joy explained that this is a project that involves a federally listed endanger 'es and hillside development, so it was something that staff h zed ve ;carefully. The application was made over five ago. T showed how closely they had been looking at this pro He said i rief presentation and background on the wo Th required a nvironmental Impact Report (EIR) on this \ . prof ` d a consultant at the applicant's expense to prepare it. , They vii �Iso"�present and would go into further detail on some of the \ finer points the r. Joy sho „ a picture of the project site, noting that it is approximately acres adjacent to Bighorn Golf Club. He pointed out the location of the la° Pthat was really staff's biggest concern, Indian Cove, and the accent provided to the property. He explained that this is a hillside piece of property and the slopes on this property were approximately the same as The Canyons when that area was developed. There is a large rock outcropping and an identified ridge line; they made sure there was no development close to that area. To review the history of the project, Mr. Joy stated that originally the project known as Altamira was submitted to the City, and through 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 numerous revisions to that project, eventually a project was approved that showed a 400 to 600 yard buffer on that project with the 600 yards on the more sensitive side to the lambing pen. That was immediately challenged in court; we were sued by a variety of folks. Ultimately an agreement was reached where funds were provided and ultimately no buffer was going to be required at all on this project in the areas Mr. Joy identified on the map; however, he stated that when the project ed construction, the Department of Fish & Game stepped in and - d that the agreement was really void because they were not to it and the sheep belonged to the State of California at t They weren't federally listed. That resulted in a new project th t the. _ -yard buffer back on the project; instead of 600 yards it c own to 4 ds. Agreements were signed. He f as really important to that these agreements did not pertain t Cornish roperty. Thi" perty was not part of the Canyons at Bigh o p, was being pro'' sed on the Cornishe property at that time, so not put conditions on a piece of property where a • ;1 t was not proposed. It would stand on its own. Mr. Joy stated that this ulted •pli n five years ago on the subject piece of property. a ® e• . = e project is zoned five units per acre for most,of the . ra . Ther as a portion zoned Hillside Planned.tesidenta .At five ts per acre, initially 57 units were applied for; that was scaled down to units and that was what they eventually started the EIR process on. It t scaled back repeatedly and the EIR identified a'hilisde limited altern. ive that scaled it down to the two home s_' Th � e applicant prepared plans for that two home site project, which was 'e the Planning Commission now and that was re-circulated for comment ,through the EIR addition, the small volume before the Commission. e explained that the project basically consists of two home sites, leaving everything else by itself, and they would be identical to those home sites scattered r nd this neighborhood size wise with basically 20,000 square foot ping the map, Mr. Joy showed the existing and legal access to their property, but said when The Canyons developed, they provided another access, so the access to these lots would be through the access provided by Bighorn and would follow down inside the ravine area, quite a bit lower than the driveways coming up to the pad sites. The activity areas, swimming pool, etc., would be on the side of the lots away from the sheep pens. 3 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 Another point staff worked on with the applicant was that the garages would be facing toward the Institute, which they were very sensitive to, and the mitigation measures listed that these be sunken garages, or tucked under, so they would not be at the same height as the regular ground for the houses, but tucked underneath so that would help screen and get rid of a lot of the noise generated from any vehicular activity. Looking at the project, reviewing all the regio ns, he pointed out the best place to develop home sites on these a a said one contour was 840 and goes all the way up to 850; s an 830 contour; so conceivably they could have a lot at an elev" and the other would be approximately 830. The homesbeing prop' with elevations at 820 and 809, so they were qui ,. bit lower. On ,.: the applicant's intentions was to keep the lots as far away from th titute as they could, but also retain some ki ;G view look down the va . That was one of the considerations given.` Of the 11.87-acre p 10.4 acre "- it would be either undisturbed natural open space, ralized space. They were basically saying that of the entir o % of Id be open space and not including the driveways a roa Mr. Joy said the applicant i d to dev p these lots and sell them off. As potential buyers Come y would submit house plans. They would ` �, have to conform to all mitigationmeasures listed in the EIR and try to replicate the design standards ighorn. They would also go through the i 's Architectural Review Committee in meeting our hillside design \\\ rds. He explained that how they arrived at the proposal had a lot to do with theykind of used the existinghouse at the what was � eady dine; '\ �� , Institute as basis and it went from there. Seeing where these house tes couldlocated on that plan and trying to mitigate the project so that f the h � n activity would more or less be screened from the pens and v ldn't see what was going on at these houses. That was also a mitigationmeasure. Addressing some of the letters received on this project, yesterday staff received a letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service and they were requesting additional time to review this. On this letter they were requesting that we study relocating the driveways to the north part of the lots and staff looked at that previously in great detail. That would force these lots closer to the Institute and would probably involve a lot more grading because the area was really down in a ravine and was a natural 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 place to run the access street where it sunk down lower quite a bit. He also pointed out where the access would be for the other lot and stated that it would not be conducive. One of the important parts in the Fish and Wildlife Services letter was that approximately two weeks ago they came out with a listing where they are proposing that this site, and also the entire buffer area' be designated as critical habitat for the peninsular bighorn sheep. He believed the City would be responding to this because what we were told was that when the Institute was located at their facility, it was judged not to be bighorn habitat through their environmental assessment. Now they were coming back after this hearing was published for public hearing, after it was advertised, that's when they came back and said no, we're looking at this as critical habitat area. And that wasn't stated in the letter, but the City found out about it more or less. He thought that was important to note. To put things in perspective, he stated that they were out looking at the property again today, and it would still be two and a half football fields away from the lambing pens,the original buffer for Bighorn was 400 yards away, four football fields;`and now they were down to two and a half fields. That was still quite a significant distance. What they have tried to achieve with the hbeing closes, what`°could.they do to these house sites to make th impact ti the sheep. He ht they h y done quite a bit compared to the houses at Bighorn when were • d. First of all, during construction of the homes themsely rn. •rn are limited to no grading at all during • sea They could I do outdoor construction, just no grading. What.thy putmitigation on this project is that no construction period ik one g lambing season and they felt that was a very significant m i atiomeasure to be placed on these houses. Second, all g �g of the homes back up to the lambing pens have their activity areas, imming pis, etc., facing toward the lambing pens. This project is • condit*ed so that the swimming pool, activity areas, will be on the op•• teey ii a of the homes from the lambing pens so the homes themselveswould screen any kind of activity and the noise associated with those activities. Also, one existing Bighorn home sits at approximately 850 feet in elevation, while the home proposed for Cornishe would sit at approximately 820 feet in elevation. So that home is actually 30 feet higher than the proposed Cornishe homes and staff felt the height difference was very significant also. 5 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 One of the mitigation measures he alluded to before, and PCR would dive into those a little more thoroughly, is that there would be enough screen walls, mounding, planting and vegetation, things like that, so that all the human activity within eight feet of the ground would be screened and they wouldn't be able to see any kind of human activity at all at this project. They felt that was very significant also. The last point he wanted to provide clarifica •n had to do with the proposed Statement of Overriding Cons'. n ions contained in their packets. Some of the letters received a 't. One letter (from The Williams Lindberg Law Firm dated St:` •er 1 . ,a '08) stated that there would be significant impacts to th e• s-ep from t, •roject because a Statement of Overriding Consider. was being do � e way staff felt on this project was that they'v y;� gated this project 4 •h that there would be minimum or no i `t to the -ep and the ;' .tement of Overriding Considerations wa`fx •ein• e more or -ss in an overabundance of caution rather , ng that there will be impacts. This was similarly dos,' en proces ,The Canyons at Bighorn project. Staff felt that this prof ; itigated "•F3 -ath more or less and they put everything practical o is •' and it ready to be built without impacts to the Institute. He turned the presentation •z • the con ting firm, Mr. Greg Broughton from PCR, who also had so. . •eople with him who might want to speak. After hearing his presentation, y would all be open for questions. Staff asked if the public hearing nee.;Ito be opened. Ms. Aylaian said no, our consultants worked as an exten :•n of staff. Chairperson Tanner said he ;WO =• yvait to open the public hearing. Mr. Gregroughton with PCR Services Corporation explained that they , were obtained by the City a number of years ago to prepare the environmental documentation regarding what was at that time a very, very ferent project than what was before them now. It went through quite an different fro what he understood was well over 50 units originally, to 38, and" they evaluated that. The draft EIR identified a number of significant unmitf ble impacts due to that project They looked at a series of alternates, an eight-unit project, a four-unit project and they proposed a two-unit solution without a design or grading plan. That subsequently became, he believed, the basis of the origin of what is now called the new preferred alternative and the proposal that is before them. They prepared an evaluation of that alternative as an addition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report; that was circulated for public review and they obtained a considerable amount of comments on that, they prepared responses to all of those, etc. 6 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 Among those comments was a submittal by the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife Service which requested a sort of expansion of one of the mitigation measures and an exposition of it with regard to barriers that might be employed to provide barriers between what the sheep in the pen might be able to see and the visual activity zones themselves. Plainly on either of these lots it would be possible to build a structure where they have the activity area on the side of each home t is closest to the pen that well might be visible from within the pen - because they believe that the sheep are more sensitive to visualtimuli, the Service was interested in seeing an evaluation of wh riers could feasibly be designed and placed. That was a littl- difficult in ' case because they don't have actual home designs. Th ere told b City that on those pads at 809 and 820 feet respec,' they might b.e uch as 18 feet above that and for most of the • most of the visual 'ty that would occur as might be seen from"` in the pe E,, ost of that d be eight feet or less in height. So they to at a dication. What was being sho • display we ;. our section lines that they drew from the highest porn "z -n throug 'ts 1 and 2 and then to others that pick up a portion • . e • 11acce hich the most recent letter from the Fish and Wile - Se ..t wax; eceived today notes as greatest c• " He sho -• I " e and explained that what it was att • �o was ,,, e of rom the highest point and a dista igh up • he hill' 'de the pen looking down toward the lots. He a blow up :,` one in t r ' documents. They could see a portion of the na slops `' ercep , he view line that is connected from that iew poi _;• .f.. - wn to a point against where the house p e I ight feet higi. _ is line of sight happened to be intercepted �� by th .de notwithstanding that there have been excavations contemplated in'' r"• area. What that told them was that no wall in that particular are or b -r of any sort was needed. oing to linetwo, however, they could see where the excavation was osed a ,: et the line of sight down to the eight-foot point down to the structure needed to be some eight feet high in order to intercept that. That wasconsidered feasible. By barrier, they weren't trying to design it or trying to say it was a block wall, or it's a berm of natural material, or it's even got vegetation which might achieve the effect; it's a barrier of some form. Line 3 was a bit more complicated because it was trying to intercept the driveways that come from the cul-de-sac at the southern end of the access road and then the two driveways split from there on their way to Lots 1 and 2. What they could see was that the barriers, in order to have 7 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 the same effect, would be some 12.5 and 12 feet high respectively in order to achieve that. That was beginning to test the premise. On the other hand, that was the most conservative view because looking at an eight- foot position on this side of the driveway, most vehicles weren't that tall. The fourth one, which was really trying to pick up the question if it was possible at the westernmost end of the cul-de-sac to have one large barrier that would be high enough there to obstruct views of the entire access road and what might be of most concern might be the headlights of the folks coming home shining up the hill a they approach the cul-de-sac. The answer was essentially no, it would have to be=some 26-feet high he believed in order to shelter this entire area. It probably was simply impractical. It could shelter a good part of the cul-de-sad if it was a lesser height, but due to the alignment of the access road, It was probably impractical. Mr. Broughton said what they did in the final graphic was to identify where barriers might go and were indicated by dark lines. He said these could be quite successful in conjunction with whatever the built form of the units themselves might be. It could be V quite successful in screening activity and these areas. He believed that was feasible. He also thought they could get some goo. - ing with a series'of barriers here, but didn't think it was practic. .. - II of the activity that might be associated with this, all the v • -s comi ' f nd going and whatever other activity there might be fro =w of the p- ,.They could get a long way towards it, but he doubted code co � eF, •erfe .. concluded` at even with this kind of mitigation, that in view e s vity of the sheep, of the recognized listing of the sheep as Stat ` Fey , sensitive species, and due to the what is known, as \ well as whatis not wn about the sheep and their sensitivity, they were .1/4A recommend that t e City err on the side of conservative appraisal and at was whythey said even under all these circumstances they still think advisableto suggest that there could well be still a significant impact on ep in Pen. Ms. Ayian said that concluded staffs report. The recommendation was for approval of the proposed two-home subdivision and staff was available to answer questions, either from the consultant or the planner. Commissioner Schmidt asked if anyone knew the elevation of the pens. Mr. DeForge spoke from the audience and said 1,000 feet. 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 There were no other questions for staff or the consultant; Chairperson Tanner opened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the Commission. MR. PATRICK PERRY, 515 S. Figueroa Street in Los Angeles, said he was appearing on behalf of the owner of the property, Cornishe of Bighorn. He believed th. one or two of the Commissioners were here when the pf , first came before the x Planning Commission. At that time w ey were reviewing was a proposed four-lot subdivision. To • .- rough a little bit of the history of the project, and Mr. tou on some of it, the majority of the property is cur; y zoned P which allowed five units per acre, Planned ntial. There portion of the property zoned HPR, hi:: Planned Resident . , hich permits one unit per five acres.' oy allud that on Along the extreme eastern `" " a didn't necessarily agree with the location ) h - the line I - een drawn; he thought it was further toward but it h yet been determined exactly which portion ist. ills' ,- .nned ; idential. When the original analysis was pe ed - app t back when they first submitted this pro i ��, ` • ed that a total of 57 units could be develope• is prope , at least under the density limitation pursuant to oning. A plan was presented s equently which proposed 38 units and six separate structures They were multifamily residential condominium-type units.That was what was studied in the original ii ?raft Environmental Impact Report. One of the issues with that pa r cular configuration was that it required two means of access to the'',Property for Fire Department purposes. One of the means of access that was proposed was an existing easement of record which; es from the northern property boundary up through the r y fairway,bf the 14t" hole of the golf course at the Canyons at Bighorn pro* That was not received favorably by Canyons at Bighorn. So further consultations with them, he agreed to study a smaller project, and also they were concerned that they were proposing multifamily units; there are no multifamily units in their project. They felt it was not consistent with their development standards. He agreed to study an alternative which was eight single family residential home pads which would require only one means of access and they began discussions, negotiations, to effectively vacate / terminate his easement to the north in exchange for them allowing him an easement across their roads to gain access to his 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 property to the east. That was studied as an alternative in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. There was also an alternative in the original Draft Environmental Impact Report which was called the Hillside Limited Alternative which was proposed by the City which would have shoved all development up into the extreme northe corner of the property and it was determined that that would sult in any significant and avoidable impacts on biologi esources or any other category of impact. Subsequent to the circulatio, that DraftEnvironmental Impact Report, it became appar him that thereere remaining impacts or basically " is impacts assoc with any development that w . have than fiver , ' gle-family residential homes. At that 'nt t greed in order o eliminate that particular impact, to re number of pads to four. That was the project that came b the Planning Commission and City Council two years ago. They ertook additional discussions with City staff and with personnel a Canyons at Bighorn and understanding various other aspects project and impacts on the Institute and other aspects, they further reduced the p � •, at they were seeing new. Even though this project Its in fe impactS than what was studied previously, out of an y"bundance ; caution the City felt it was appropriate to re-circulate r parts 0 ative for public review and comments so that the ° .1 the public did have sufficient opportunity �������� to r this projec" d it was now coming before them again r a ear period of discussion, further analysis and review, a ofo Mr. Perry sai they felt this was an appropriate project, both in scopAtid in scale. It left approximately 10 acres of the property as and ped natural open space which they were prepared to eith place a conservation easement on or dedicate to a resource agency or an appropriate means of preserving that space. The end results in development of a little over two acres of the property. They have made the effort to push development as far to the northeast away from the lambing pen at the Bighorn Institute as they could and still have developable lots. They reviewed the correspondence received stating that any development within the 400-yard buffer that was originally established in connection with the approval of The Canyons project would not be acceptable and that all development should be placed outside the buffer. That only 10 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 included a small triangle in the very northeast corner, which was entirely within the streambed of Dead Indian Creek, approximately a quarter of an acre or 10,000 square feet in area. They felt that was not an economically viable alternative given the development costs and everything else associated with that, and the potential ability to sell that, it would not be possible to get any type of economic return and therefore, because that was economically unviable, being forced into developing on only that portion would result in a regulatory taking and would require payment of just compensation for the entire parcel. He stated that it was also significant to point out that in the Environmental Impact Report, as well as other studies that have been done in connection with this property, no impacts were ever identified with respect to free roaming sheep; the only impacts that have been identified were to the captive breeding herd that is maintained by the Bighorn Institute. The 400-yard buffer line was not established on the basis of any type of scientific consensus. There was a consortium of various" biologists who were consulted when The Canyons at Bighorn project came forward to opine as to what an appropriate limit would be in order to protect the breeding acti ' •f the Bighorn Institute `: The recommendations were zero feetfeetto a mile. Ultimately, the 400 yards was .blishe•_ the basis of a Settlement Agreement because of 4 igation thatrose after the approval of The Canyons at Bighorn 'ect H ° . o•y of the Settlement Agreement which provides s• , a` • - a Settlement Agreement signed by the NBight, nstitute, and'• the City, and by the then owners of the rnis�° Bighorn project, who are the current owners as well, ,y ' an e wa explain that in a moment, which specifically provides nonec of th- 'tigation measures or conditions of approval that applied to wha was then called the Altamira project would apply to this ' ct or development on this property except to the extent that those mitigation measures were identified in connection with a far development application; meaning that those mitigation asures do not apply to this property, that this property stands on its own in terms of impacts and potential mitigations, so there was no carryover and the Bighorn Institute agreed with that, as did the City. The owner of the property is a limited liability company that was established in 2003. The property was conveyed into a limited liability company at that time. The members of the limited liability company are the original owners of the property who purchased the 11 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 property in 1977. The Bighorn Institute established its operations in 1984 or 1986, so the ownership of the property predates the establishment of the Bighorn Institute; it predates the approval of The Canyons at Bighorn project, and the establishment of the buffer. This was something that was imposed over their objections at that time and was specifically recognized as something that did not apply to development on this property., Again, this was determined to not,, :._y suitable habitat for free roaming sheep. When the Bighor was first established, the Bureau of Land Management'"; ally eyed the property to the Bighorn Institute and con d an environmental assessment at the time and found t was appropri or the Bighorn Institute to establish it ` rations on its prop ecause that property was not suita bitat for b.bighorn sheep. = that time the Bighorn Institute has s lish t operations. The Canyons at Bighorn has developed a significantonion of its property. Now the US Fish and ' 'fe Service is ming back and saying oh, we think we need 1',.,tote all of t roperty within this buffer area as critical habit ,,ar t Q orn sh It seemed curious to them that when the e $ arers' nd ped it was not suitable habitat; now that t - i 4 �' e . R completely surrounding the property, somehow i �, akes it .; re suitable as bighorn sheep habitat. { Mr.,Perry stated that the' ,.re some issues related as well to the % grading that would take PI: e. Some of the impacts were identified; ofthem at least was trucks that would be haulingsoil into the pr ject and it was estimated that approximately just under 36,000 cum yards;of dirt would be moved in in order to be able to grade the"ids to what is proposed here. A portion of that, approximately 20%, was for the grading of the road. The remainder of that was largely going into the lower pad shown as Lot 2 simply to get it above in elevation where it will not be impacted by flood waters withinthe streambed. This was consistent with the surrounding z/01elopment. He had a drawing and pointed out Lot 2, and said it is at`an elevation of 809, the same height as the pad directly across the ravine, so it was consistent with the existing height. The idea was that because they were willing, notwithstanding the fact that 57 units could potentially be developed here, they were reducing the number of units down to two and making all the rest of the property available as natural open space. In order to achieve a higher economic return, they wanted to be able to achieve views from the pads. The access road was also moved around to the south. They 12 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 did look in one of the studies at putting the access road to the north of the property, or north of the pads. As Mr. Joy indicated, what that did was push the pads farther to the south and closer to the sheep pens. Right now the pads were no closer than 255 yards to the sheep pens. That is the same location or the same distance as the nearest residential structure to the sheep pens, which coincidentally happens to be the residence of the direct f the Bighorn Institute. They felt that if it was appropriate for a irector of the Bighorn Institute, it would be appropriate for t ' residential home sites as well. Every effort had been made, to, limit the cts to the extent feasible on the Bighorn Institute. They recognize; e importance of the Bighorn Institute, the work that they do in tryingincrease the wild herd of free-roaming bighorn sheep. All of the a ies, as Mr. Joy indicated, would be directed to the sides of the homes that are away from the sheep pens. So there would be a passive façade that will be actually located to the south and visible from the sheep pens: swimming pools,decks, outdoor terraces, and so forth, would have to be awaynd out of visible range of the sheep on the other side of the homes. They agreed that suitable visual screening that con berms, walls, vegetation, however they could achieve it, w ed such that it would limit the visibility of any activities this p'` rty from:. the sheep pens. There were further • itigations y agreed to and they also agreed with The Canyons Bighornhis project would be consistent with their architecturalith their landscape guidelines, that the \� \ rs of these h es, even though they are not on Canyons vyV�� high , roperty, would be subject to all the limitations imposed on „ the residents of the Bighorn Country Club project. Therefore, this`�would jus pear as an extension of that particular project. He seed that he was available for any questions and would apKeetate some opportunity to respond to any comments they mightreceive by members of the public. Commissioner R. Campbell understood that Palm Desert was not part of the agreement for 400 yards and Mr. Perry just stated they were. He asked for clarification. He understood that it was between Riverside (County) and The Canyons and Palm Desert was not a part of it. Mr. Perry said that was not his understanding. His understanding was that the City of Palm Desert was a party to the Settlement Agreement that established the 400-yard buffer. There was a 13 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 complicated series of transactions. At one time there wasn't a letter and there was an agreement that in fact that the Bighorn Institute was going to relocate its pen such that it would have the buffer entirely on its own property. That was vetoed by the Department of Fish and Game, and in fact there was originally a 600-yard buffer proposed. The 400-yard buffer was then established, again, with the restriction that it would not apply to development that's going to happen on this particular property that it' now the Cornishe at Bighorn property. He had a copy of the,-Settlement Agreement and he submitted it when he was here two years ago at the request of the Planning Commission at the time, so it is in the file and the City was a party to that particular Settlement Agreement. Commissioner R. Campbell thanked him. Commissioner Schmidt asked for clarification as to the road easements. She asked for the location of the one established in 1959. Mr. Perry identified it,on the plan as two dash lines that said existing 30-foot access easement for Instrument Number 90727 recorded 10/23/1959. He further clarified that it was the one that we h the Canyons golf course,across the 14th fairway. Commissioner Schmidt asked i it was still an existing easement. toy : Perry . They have agreed with The Canyons that in ea em to use this easement across their roa e y would term to that easement. Commis er idt said the other access that shows the cul-de-sac and Lot A went off t drawings. She asked where it went. Mr. P' indicated that it connected to Indian Cove, which is a cul- � c. a showed the location of the Cornisheproperty, the Indian \ de s ', �� .Cot 'ul-de-sac, and said there's an access easement that comes oss which would become the access road for this property. Commissioner Schmidt asked which of those went over the Dead Indian Creek. Mr. Perry explained that the one that would go over Dead Indian Creek would be the one to the north. Dead Indian Creek is directly to the north of the Cornishe property. They were right along the edge of the streambed. So by vacating this particular easement, or 14 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 terminating this easement, they would again be reducing the potential impacts on water flow in the creek and so forth, not only reducing impacts on the golfers on the golf course at The Canyons at Bighorn. Commissioner Schmidt asked for the location of the ravine that needed filling. Mr. Perry said it is along the eastern; on of the property along the access road. He confirmed th cts the Lot A proposal. There was a small ravine and troad = , d follow it and then terminate at a low point. The d to keep s low as possible to reduce the visibility from: sheep pens. H ght it was also important to recognize a visual studies thatre done that Mr. Broughton present T ere all pe med from tf ,. ' hest point within the sheep pen. T . oul cipate that the heep were not always going to congregatea highest point and the lower on the slope ere, the I � isible or the lower the screens would have to . ;. would al` courage the Bighorn Institute to the extent th theirproperty to effectively screen visual impacts, to -ct sc 4v. .n the wn property. He thought that would be an a � =�_ a on their part and something they;ymight even be a=.op - to contri• ate to. Again, they didn't want to disturb the sheepfr more than necessary. To the extent that barriers on the Institute •perty would be effective, they would be willing potentially to parts :•to in that as well. There were no other questions and Mr. Perry thanked the Commission. Chairperson Tanner said he would ask for testimony in FAVOR of the ,6,, project. Therewas no response. Chairperson Tanner asked for testimony OPPOSITION to the project, noting that he had three Requests to ak cards, nd started with them. He invited Mr. J. Craig Williams to coMt forwa MR. J. CRAIG WILLIAMS, 100 Bayview Circle, South Tower, Suite 330 in Newport Beach, California, informed the Planning Commission that he is a member of the Bighorn Institute Board of Directors. He was also its attorney. He thought perhaps Mr. Campbell might be pleased to know that he was one of the people that drafted the Settlement Agreement with the City and the Institute and Altamira. At the time, he worked for Mr. Perry's law firm: Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble & Mallory, and he would talk 15 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 about that a little bit later because he had some concerns about that. But it was in 1992, he believed, when he was last in these chambers and he marveled then, as he marveled again, at the beautiful mural that sat behind them and looked up into the mountains, because that was Palm Desert to him and always has been. In the 20-some years he has been coming out here, as a member of the Institute's Board after he was its attorney, it had always caused him to love this place and'hopefully retire out here once he got done practicing law in Newport Beach. Since he began to talk to them about the history a while ago, he would talk to them briefly about a number of issues, but starting a little bit with the history. At the time when the Institute was formed in 1982, the sheep were listed as a State endangered species controlled by the California Department of Fish and Game. And back in 1998, they were listed as a federally endangered species. So there are two regulatory agencies that control the Institute. They have a memorandum of understanding which they operate under with the California Department of Fish and Game, and they have a Section 10-A permit from the United States Fish & Wildlife Services. Both of those agencies supervise their work and provide comments to them in the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Tomove for rd, there was an extended lawsuit. Of the people in is room, perhaps only Mr. Joy, Mr. DeForge and he himself were the only three people in this room who were here back in 1992 when that lawsuit was going on. The City was sued by the developer, Altamira, as as the Institute for the Institute's speaking as he was doing today, against this project. They essentially , ,\\ beatback that lawsuit as a slap lawsuit that was brought by the developer to prevent their speaking to the Commission. The court 4 sustained their side and they entered into the Settlement n Agreement. Mr. Williams said they were correct that the City agreed to the 400- 014 buffer. Mr. Perry was partially correct that the Agreement exempts the Del Gagnon property. What was known at the time was that the Del Gagnon property, subject to a later application by Del Gagnon for this, but as far as the Institute, the County, which was also sued, and the City was concerned, they all agreed that there would be a 400-yard buffer. That decision came as a result of approximately a year of consultations among 29 different biologists. He added that one of those, or two or three of those biologists, included biologists that were appointed by Altamira, the 16 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 predecessor to Canyons at Bighorn. So it was not a solely one- sided event. Those discussions took the course of a year and ranged from a mile to less than a mile, and ultimately agreed upon a minimum buffer of 400 yards to protect the lambing pen. There wasn't much discussion, and hadn't been much discussion, in either the Draft or the Final Environmental Impact Report the ram pen, which was located slightly to the south west of the lambing pen. It is a seven- acre pen; it is higher than the lambing penof :There are presently two rams in the pen. During the rut period, some of the ewes are moved to the ram pen and one of the rams is moved to the lambing pen for breeding purposes. As they knew, the Institute is a captive breeding program that is known as a recovery center approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. It is a treasure to the Coachella Valley. There are less than ten Federally-sanctioned recovery centers for endangered species in the entire United States. Several of them, not surprisingly, are located in California: San Diego, Catalina and Palm Desert. They should be proud that the recovery center has sustained this species for generations to come. In t se of the Institute's proceedings, those 29 biologists all e 400 yard buffer would be in place as a protection the lam pen. They had some concerns for the sight lines -L.C. resented ght because the sight lines were taken without the efit of to the pen itself. If they had been in the pen, wh j' n't 6'' � f them had and he himself had not in fact \\ haul een on there "` 20 years, but he had seen it. There is a be he top of the pen and there is a sight line from the right h side..: he pen that they would only know if they had been ins �f they 4�- Those sight lines were not analyzed in the Draft EnvihStrenta Impact Report or the Final Environmental Impact Repo In addition, there was no sight line analysis from the ram en,wh ch is equally the reason for the 400-yard buffer. He thought that was something that needed to be considered. They heard from Mr. Joy that the Fish and Wildlife Service has requested a continuance, and he again would request a continuance of the decision tonight for a couple of reasons. First, from a practical stand point; the public notice was issued on September 3, 2008. This hearing is September 16. That is 13 days. He believed the City ordinance, and the City Attorney could correct him if he was wrong, but he believed it required at least a 21-day 17 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 notice period and he believed comments for a Final Environmental Impact Report required a 30-day comment period. Mr. Williams stated that he submitted written comments earlier this afternoon to Mr. Joy. Unfortunately, they didn't make it to the Commission. He submitted a copy (see attachment). He said it wasn't his intent to go over those commentsdepth tonight and he would entrust them to their reading, be they comment on the Final Environmental Impact Report a issues they see there. So in that event, because of theed time period from a practical stand point, he thou.I-if was , ropriate for them to spend the time to read the fo so pages he combination of the Institute and himself this afternooF vsubmit to them tonight. He hoped they get here earlier and their packets earlier, and he a olo i ° it didn't The Fish and Wildlife Services � -d in the end of that letter, has on August 28, 44 -r recently a st a few days before the public notice was p ssued a y; ••osed rule designating the property, the en p ` of Cor -, as a critical endangered habitat, which on f Id p` de any development on the property. Surpr `•I ,T � • 'raft Environmental Impact Reports take this ki at de, and he was going to call it cavalier and he was 3 one to use a lot of adjectives, but it was a little frustrating because . says that the Fish and Wildlife Service has propounded these t gs the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report calls landscape designations of critical habitat for the sheep,, That was quite like saying that it's okay to build in the Joshua Tree National Park because it contains a lot of acres right a ong the edge where no one ever goes and they could stick a couple of homes in there because it was kind of just a landscape designation. It seemed to him to be a bit incongruous to say on the %• one f d that they have to comply with the law, but on the other hand choose which laws they were going to disregard. of ig back to the sight lines, Mr. Williams said there were a couple of problems with the Environmental Impact Reports beyond the fact that they are not sighted properly from the pens, they don't use the right basis for the decision. If they looked at the map that was up on the screen, the map says that the sheep are three feet high. They are about three feet high at shoulder, but not three feet high at eye height. They were substantially higher than that, so the sight line was not actually correct from that standpoint. And the impact reports don't mention the fact that sheep have eyesight that is 18 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 equivalent to using binoculars for humans, about eight times our eyesight. They can see a lot farther. Their hearing is actually a lot better than ours as well. The 29 biologists who met for approximately a year, one of the reasons they required the buffer was because of the hearing of the sheep. They specifically disclaimed Altamira's proposal to build a wall and said it wouldn't work, that it would actually frighten the shee „even more and stress them more because they couldn't see what they heard. So blocking the view with a wall didn't cut it then and doesn't cut it now. The issue that Mr. Perry raised about not understanding why at the time the Institute got its patent from the. Bureau of Land Management not designating the property as critical habitat or even sheep habitat at the time was largely because nobody surveyed it, nobody knew--there was_no one there at the time looking at it over an extended period of time. So there was a surveyor that came out and looked at it and said 'tE ere was no environmental impact because there are no sheep thee. The Institute has been there over the years and has seen sightings on it. The Institute is not the one who designated it critical habitat that was Fish and Wildlife Service. In fact, they didn't even know that this designation on Au R this proposed rule to designate that entire property as o c. ' ; they found out from Mr. Perry surprisingly enough. -y didn't` "' out from Fish and Wildlife Service. a Willi d that Mr. Perry also raised the issue of c• KK; ® °. at the developer has been there on that proproVr ong before Institute and long before Altamira. At the e, b in the early 90's when the Institute was battling it out Alta ,was owned by Del Gagnon and the map company. Perhaps Mr hm rry could clear the issue up, but what he thought was id*restm:was that Mr. Perry didn't mention, which was how much he Del Gagnon's and the map company presently own in that LLC that has been formed and what the percentage of inte is, whether they have controlling interest or non-controlling est. If they don't have the controlling interest, then the question becomes what due diligence was done by the new investor to find out whether the buffer was in place there before or not. As far as the condemnation was concerned, he wasn't sure that it was an issue for the City as much as an issue for the federal government. They are the ones that are designating it as critical habitat so it can't be developed. They get their advice from the City Attorney and he could advise them on that issue on whether it was 19 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 something the City needed to worry about or if it was something the federal institute needed to worry about. Mr. Perry also made some noise about the Institute house being about 240 yards away from the pen. Having been to that house himself and knowing the restrictions that are in place, he could tell them that there is no one who would want to live there and no one who would want to buy that house given the restrictions the Institute places on the use of that house. It's there as part of, hopefully, a research facility and hospital that they plan to build on it for;!lousing purposes, but not for the purposes of...there's no poo �outside, there's virtually no cars that come up to it, and the use of it was tightly controlled and it is used as a point for watching,the sheep, and also for keeping trespassers off the property. TO liken the uses that occur at the Institute's house on the property to the two houses that are going to be built, the uses aren't going to be the same. They don't hold parties there, they don't have music blaring outside, there's virtually no use that goes on outside the house. One of the concerns he had, in addition to the things mentioned in the letter he submitted to them, one of the concerns the Institute has is this kind of underlying thread that goes through the Draft Environmental' Impact Report and-the, Final Environmental Impact talkin to staff, that ultirnatel these twoparcels may R� � g� � Y annexe to or aught into or purchased by Canyons at ighorn. T ,; that seemed a pretty easy way to work their way nd this end, well this buffer doesn't apply to me, let me b *wink wink* later on I'm just going to sell it to ons at Bighornand now they have two houses inside the buffer. ds like a law firm might be at work here, but that was nt%;,; just him Lastly, 7Mr. Williams thought the thing that concerned the Institute ,e1 most ,he thought should trouble this body as well, is that conflict /2" of interest that he referenced earlier. This lawsuit was worked on by Alt atkins, the one that involved the City. Allen Matkins is the a firm that now represents the developer and represented the ghorn Institute during that lawsuit. He knew; he worked there. There are other lawyers who still work there who worked on this project who have what he considered to be attorney-client privileged information about communications with the Institute and the lawsuit. It troubled him, and they've raised it with Allen Matkins, with the developer, and have not received a satisfactory response. But it troubled the Institute that its former attorney is now directly opposite at advocating something that is not in the Institute's best 20 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 interests. He thought that should weigh into their consideration in approval of the project. The Fish and Wildlife Service asked them to continue this hearing for the purposes of further study from the stand point of the August 28 designation of critical habitat on this property. They didn't think they had been given enough notice to the o be able to comment on it appropriately, although they have: ided comments. They thought it would be appropriate to c e the hearing for a short period of time to allow some co with Fish and Wildlife Service. He noted that, and he ' tted he didn't read every single word, but read most o h reports; idn't see anything from the Fish and Game ; •ving the take rassment of a threatened species. So KK i was no permit or a val from the State at this point appr. • this pro' s . That's requ under the California Endangered S. s A ere is no approval from the United States Fish and Wil• g ce for the take or harassment of the sheep -r Section 1 nd they have not conducted a Section 7 co ° with the ° a and Wildlife Service for a permit to devel. e `° P . The .s no streambed alteration agreement in fro f the` �. he ffi i=•rnia Department of Fish and Genie. You s a "� �, �, ; t em dealing with a ravine, but there's no agree ish and rildlife Service in their letter to Commission said th. need to have a streambed alteration agreement under Califo - Fish and Game Code. It's not here. So despite the fact that th thing has been going on for five years ; in various iterations and moving around quite a bit, it appears that not all the homework has been done yet. So for those reasons and for me of the reasons in the letter he didn't specify to them tomtit because he would commend it to their reading, he requested that they not deny the project, but at least continue it. On a final note, and hopefully to end on a positive note, the very end of that letter says that the Institute will work with Cornishe and Bureau of Land Management, who they have a very good relationship with, to see if they can assist in a land exchange, a swap of property for property. Bureau of Land Management owns an awful lot of land. There's an opportunity here for that land to be put in a conservation easement that is open space to the City and for the developer to obtain equivalent value of land somewhere else that he could build on or do whatever they could do with it, but it's not the Institute's intent to stand there as a roadblock. It's their intent to ask them to consider all the issues before they make a 21 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 decision. They were also standing there with their hand out saying they will help. He believed that PCR has been to the Institute at least once, if not twice, and spoke with Mr. DeForge as the Director of the Institute. He said they have been very cooperative, provided data and information and was happy to continue that cooperation. He spoke to Mr. Perry maybe once, he made this offer, but it's still on the table and they were still happy to talk about it. Lastly, he would play the sympathy card. He gave them some photographs of what it is they were dealing with. The top photograph showed a ewe and a Iamb immediately after birth. If they looked closely at the top, photograph, they could see that the lamb was still wet in terms of the birth. So that's exactly what they are dealing with at the Institute and what they are trying to protect and he hoped they were as well. He thanked them. MR. GEORGE LINGENBRINK, 623 Indian Cove, stated that he is the direct neighbor to the Cornishe project. Until March or April of this year he hadn't heard about Coishe. His neighbors, who urged him to be part of this, informed him about the project. He received a copy of the report and voice ,'his concerns to Mr. Phil Joy. He co eak about the bighorn sheep. He heard a lot of things t g mitigation issues, yet in this report buried was the that th veloper wants to import 36,000 cubic yards of dirt. nY is concert; as not necessarily whether the property is divided i two, g four, five properties, that are, what they heard to go •r sale would refer to 36,000 compacted and 1 appear on e property. Thirty-six thousand (36,000) ` is when transported are 45,000 to 52,000 cubic yards. ' Thatusu represents uncompacted fill and when dirt gets tra rted f uncompacted. That means that about 4500 to 5200 truckloadshave to be imported right onto the property and y, drive o the property. That's about 10,000 to 11, 000 truckloads. That i*an operation that by itself will take months and all they've yyhearflere from his perspective is about all mitigation issues taken, there is more stress being put on the environment and most likely the bighorn sheep and of course the residents. He thanked them. MS. HOLLY ROBERTS, 76-947 Tricia Lane, stated that she represents the Bureau of Land Management. She is the Associate Field Manager for the Palm Springs Field Office. She said their mission is to insure multiple uses on public lands. They normally do not stand behind any Council on things dealing with private issues. 22 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 They were there because they were significantly concerned over the potential impact to the Bighorn Institute and all the work they and their partners have been trying to do to recover this species. Many many years ago they gave them (Bighorn Institute) a recreation and public purpose lease specifically to see if they could get captive breeding and research going that would allow many of their partners to see if they could reestablish and have sustainable levels of this sheep. They also believed that the evidence and data being gathered by the Bighorn Sheep Institute was virtually irrefutable in the value of those sheep, the lambing pens and the amount of recovery that is actually taking place in the field right now. She believed that all of the wildlife management agencies E; including Fish & Game and,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also stand behind that. They are seeing significant recovery in some areas. She started her career many years ago working with bighorn sheep on the Arizona strip district, including captive breeding in outside pens; nothing quite like this Institute, but the amount of success they were seeing is quite significant. They wanted to make sure that people understand that these animals are flighty, they are nervous-they are difficult to manage and they didn't want to see them habituated to humans and that activity. They supported fully the minimum 400-foot buffer to keep activity away from the. breeding pens. This was the third time that BLM has stood up to say what their concerns are over this project and they would be delighted to entertain any other resolution, including the exchange %that could helpsolve the impacts that have been identified for the P ; Institute. They were for development, but in a manner that was goal!,to recognize the needs of these sheep and not just on this instance, but in many instances to come as development continues in this valley. She wanted to leave them with two words that came out 'he document regarding impacts to the sheep: significant and unmittable. There wiatino one else wishing to speak. Chairperson Tanner asked the applicant for rebuttal comments. Mr. Patrick Perry, appearing on behalf of Cornishe of Bighorn, 515 S. Figuero in Los Angeles, said he had a few points he would like to make in response to the comments they had heard. The first one concerned the 400-yard buffer and the justification for that buffer. Again, he maintained that the buffer came about as a result of a legal settlement and not on the basis of scientific evidence. They 23 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 have materials that he submitted to them from Dr. Paul Krausman who is a professor of wildlife conservation at the University of Montana. He has been on the property, has surveyed the situation, is a recognized expert in bighorn sheep behavior, has reviewed all the documents that have been prepared in connection with this case and in his professional opinion, a 400-yard buffer is not justified on the scientific literature and opinion from having walked on the property was that placin otential home sites in the proposed location would be no f. impactful on the sheep than the homes that are outside t d buffer directly across the ravine. That those are just a le fact would be more visible. Mr. Perry maintained ctivities w ` e more visible on those homes because th t not have to t the mitigation measure that those activ e located on the o ,, le side of the house from the side t" a sheep uld be able' iew. They would be able to revie r. ;. a man's comme is at their opportunity. Mr. Perry state was the time he had heard that there were any issues`, sowith thepen. All of the issues had been the lambing en and ' the' ly thing they have ever heard from any of re the Bighorn Institute. With respect to potential mental i acts associated with that, he would leave that to Ci taff and the environmental consultant, as well as issues related`'"` the sight lines and whether they were taken in the appropriat location. The property owner didn't participate in those particu r sight line studies; those were done by j,� staff and their consultant, so he wasn't there to defend those. /:Ain, with the public notice issue, he would let staff discuss whether or not proper public notice was provided. He stated that contrary to what Mr. Williams said, a 30-day public comment period is noteequired for a planned environmental impact report. An environmental impact report needs to be made available to public agencies for ten days prior to hearing on a certification and he be /d that was done in this case. /i/i With respect to the rule on a critical habitat by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife, he stated that was a recent proposal. It is a proposal and has not been adopted. This is not critical habitat. A representative of Cornishe at Bighorn appeared at the hearing last week that was conducted by Fish & Wildlife and testified in opposition to that orally. They intend to prepare written comments. As far as they are concerned, whether or not this becomes critical habitat is entirely 24 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 speculative at this point. It has not been ultimately approved and they don't know when it will be even if it were approved. Who owned the property at the time that it was originally purchased, there were three people: Del Gagnon, Guy Laliberte and Mario Pascucci. Del Gagnon sold out his interest at one point. They purchased the property together in 1977. Del Gagnon sold out his interest and the Limited Liability Company was formed in 2003. Guy Laliberte and Mario Pascucci remained members of the LLC. As two out of the three members, theystill had a controlling interest. They owned the property in "i 977 acid continued to own the property at the time that the buffer area was imposed over their objections and at the time that the Bighorn Institute was established. With all due respect to the Bighorn Institute and to the Bureau of Land Management, they understand that the work that the Bighorn Institute does is very important. The Bighorn Institute established itself in 1984 on property that it` knew was directly adjacent to property that was residentially zoned and planned for residential development. For the Bighorn Institute come in now and say, oka •cated here knowing that the property was designated • - residential development, however,14; , our very presence •ping to : lude that property owner from being able to develop s property,7 accordance with other laws applicable requirements uldn't know if he would go so far as to call it an y not something he believed a private \�,��,prop owner had ' right to do to another private property per eir view, if the Bighorn Institute feels that the presence oft se q# gomes will impact its operations, the Bighorn Institute shot. d relOCal its operations. The Bighorn Institute should not come and say, no, you can't develop your property because I am here.; *his is what he referred to as the Yertle the Turtle approach to lands se planning: I am lord of all that I see or all that my sheep se And. that was simply not an appropriate position, they feel, in t `"particular context. In terms of conflict of interest, Mr. Perry was not going to go into the issues related to legal conflicts of interest here. That was something they could discuss privately. It was something they examined and found not to be an issue from their perspective. Fish & Wildlife permits, they do not require a 10A permit from the Fish & Wildlife Service because they were not developing within 25 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 critical habitat. What is required here is a permit from the Army Corp of Engineers. There is a Section 7 consultation required before the Army Corp of Engineers could issue its permit. It had to go through Fish & Wildlife Service for a biological opinion. Fish & Wildlife Service does not have direct permitting authority here. They would be applying for an Army Corp of Engineers permit. They will be applying for a Fish & Game streambed alteration during that. He has been in contact with representatives in the Army Corp of Engineers and with representatives of :California Fish & Game. What they have said is he needed to get the approvals from the City before they would approve the permits. Therefore, they have not obtained those permits because of instructions they received from those permitting agencie .`' As far as offers to do a land exchange or some other accommodation, Mr. Perry stated that he has been working on this project for six years and this was the first time he has ever received an offer fro i e Bighorn Institute, the Bureau of Land Management • - else with respect to doing some land exchange or s• +odation. They were not prepared to continue this ite R night .re those possibilities. Yes, they were open And to• � he said. They did get an exploratory question U U.S. Fi & Wildlife if they would be willing to sell the pr• y. They responded positively, yes, they would consider that po ility, let's discuss it; he never heard back from them. That was thr m or four months ago. That was the only time they've ever' been as.roached. Yes, they would be willing to undertake those discussions, but they were not willing to continue her proceedings with respect to this. It has been six years and ;r the were finally here and were prepared to go forward at this time. With reSpect to Mr. Lingenbrink's comments, they were sensitive to impacW on the neighboring landowners. They understood that it is / a significant amount of dirt that is being brought in. As he explained ead Mr. Perry said they felt it was justified given what they are wing up on the property in terms of development potential. It is a temporary impact; yes, it would be a couple of months, maybe two and a half months, there will be truck trips going in and out passed these houses. The Canyons at Bighorn, and he spoke with representatives of the developer who moved over 700 million cubic yards of dirt in connection with that development; the development which includes Mr. Lingenbrink's home and the homes of the other neighboring landowners with respect to this property. They would be moving dirt for a couple of months. It was a temporary impact 26 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 and they would do everything they could to minimize that impact on the neighbors. Construction is a disruptive process by its very nature. They would do what they could to minimize those disruptions, but there would be some disruption. So they were sensitive and would do what they could. He believed that covered all the issues th were raised that were worth discussing. He was available for ; `: uestions and thanked them for their time. MR. J. CRAIG WILLIAMS, 100 B ew C South Tower, Suite 330 in Newport Beach, st. K that he n d to withdraw a statement. He said Mr. P ,. .. as correct on' ram pen. He'd been advised by the In " - not ever having in it himself, that there are no sigh from th ; .m pen to by operty. He apologized for his missta t a ,•� ted them to please consider that withdrawn as far as t ` was concerned. He thanked them. Ms. Aylaian stated tha • e to a• r^-ss a couple of issues. One was the legal noticing.,3 e be' at :. City Attorney wanted to address the inverse con• n �= i sm • then they would ask the consultant to please expla e of the itigation measures that have been identified for theimport' . -rations during grading. The legal notice was first publish in the Desert Sun on August 25, 2008, not on edSeptember e 3, and of general-th circulation ordinance requires that the notice be �� no fewer than ten days and no ,�;��' more than 30 days in advance of the public hearing. Mr. Hargreaves concurre.He looked at the notice issues and concluded that the notice was appropte. He hadn't seen the letter, but as far as he knew, the notice was aropriate. Mr. Hargreaves stated that the issue of inverse condemnation was somewhat Cmplicated, but stated simply, if a governmental agency be it the sortie_ Government or the City conditions a project in a way that renders that project economically infeasible then that particular agency is liable potentially for inverse condemnation. It was a rather complicated calculation. In this case, as they heard, this is the City's chance to entitle or condition a project. After this, it will go to the Federal government and the State government will have opportunities to issue permits and condition the project. As Mr. Perry stated, and in Mr. Hargreaves' experience, the Federal and State government will wait until the City acts first because they want to know what the project looks like 27 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 before they consider their streambed alteration permits and their 404 permits. If the City were to condition the project in such a way that is economically infeasible, the City would be potentially liable for inverse condemnation. If the City exercises in its own discretion and its own codes and feels the project is appropriate under its criteria and approves the project, then the Federal government and the State government get their opportunity to look at it pursuant to their own independent criteria and decide whether or not it meets their criteria and then they can condition and face that same inverse condemnation liability. With respect to the conflict of interest, he thought that was amongst the parties and wasn't really a City issue. Ms. Aylaian asked if Mr. Broughton would address some of the issues contained in the reports that are required mitigation measures for import during the grading operations. Mr. Greg Broughton said there were `couple of aspects regarding mitigation that he would like to address. One of the mitigation measures they proposed and recommended is that, recognizing that the amount of import that's proposed in order t€ create thepads, as well as the street or the access road about in the flood plain:requires,the import of a fairly large amount of -arly 36,000 cubic yards. And that would be noticeable within t , ' at Bighorn development. They recognized that, they were ; - °'itive tot, and so what they specified on page 11-12 of the Find ' Mitigati. easure IV.C-2, "Site preparation and grading of the site be deg � �_�• balance on-site to minimize new import of fill materials i e. Grading shall be restricted to that ary 1) reasonablevehicular access from the Indian Cove 2 sectl �� � ,f th anyons at Bighorn to access the residences, ) develo�r��\ t o �e�. �•osed building pad elevations, and 3) reasonable foundation cava To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation ding p ase, building height shall be permitted to allow one- "story above ished floor elevations no higher than 820 and 809 feet above sea * el on Lots 1 and 2, respectively." What they were recommending there was a serious exploration of what is feasible in the way of achieving this and presumably that would take subsequent study. As they knew, they had a grading plan proposed, they didn't have structures, and until they have designed architecture it was a little difficult to understand exactly what might come into play. That also applied with regard to the sight lines and the potential for barriers. He thought Mr. Williams mistook the intent of the sight lines they examined. The purpose of that was not to do a design study by any sense, but to test the premise could barriers be effective in this situation. He thought they satisfied 28 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 themselves that the potential for barriers to be effective does exist, but until, again, they have structural design, there's no point in trying to get specific. Mr. Broughton said Mr. Williams was correct that the topography of the pen is highly variable. Needless to say, they didn't try to take a sight line from every point within the pen that would have been infeasible. The detail Mr. Williams mentioned about the height of the.,sheep he thought was pretty close to moot. If they were talking about bighorn giraffe, there might be sufficient height to make a difference, but the" difference they were talking about might be a foot or two maximum above the three feet. Over that distance and over that heig,. w„ uld make very little difference whatsoever—inches, in fact. What commended is once architecture is proposed and they know whatll ey are trying to screen, a screening study be conducted to dete ;. ed what rts of barriers' should be appropriate, what they would rcomprised of, whether they would be solid or landscaping, etc. That d his remarks and he was available for question Commissioner Schmidt''-- ice.? # f; of theresidences in the Canyons built or proposed to be inside -t 406' ; • it oy replied that all of the homes within the Canyo •r. equired to stay outside the 400-yard area. c ommis Schmi• asked if there was any undeveloped property that c d come in after this that would have the same problem. Mr. Joy said r� s part of that project, the Canyons was required to provide a conserva easement available to the Department of Fish & Game for that 400-y d buffer area. So it was pretty much „� urlvlopable. Commissioner Schmidt said it was over. Mr. Joy concur Ms. Aylaian noted that if there were any questions the Commissioners might have;regarding the processing, either by the State or Federal agencies after it goes through the City approval, the consultant could address those as well. Commissioner Schmidt asked if the City did not act on this, then the Federal agencies that would be involved will not act because the City did not act. She asked if that was correct. Ms. Aylaian said yes. Commissioner R. Campbell wasn't sure where he would get the proper answer, but thought if he asked the question, he imagined the people out there would know which one should respond to it. One of his concerns he read in all the material, and he did spend some time doing that, but what he read in there was in one letter that stated that actually the 250 yards is 29 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 less of a concern as hikers out in the wild and they attempt to approach the sheep and he was told that was more unsettling than what this project would cause and he was told they normally don't move until you are about 200 yards from them and then at that point they will move. He asked if that was somewhat correct or if he was way off base. Ms. Aylaian indicated that generally it would be appropriate to ask questions of staff at this point if the public hearing was closed. Commissioner, Campbell thought the lady who had been involved in it could answer question, but it had to be staff. �' MR. STEVE NELSON, Director of Biological Services at PCR Services Corporation, One Venture Suite 11 rvine, Cali '__ , said the answer to that question depended on whoasked it of. On the things they found in their extensive researchd interviews with s experts and others knowledgeable about ' is that t re is actually a lot that everybody agrees on basedtheir 4 dotal observations or the empirical science that has been do animal. In some cases they'll have a report that theres no flighty`response by a sheep when someone approached within a tance, asomeone else would report that there was a flight resp e ? ey approached them and they were at a much greater distance` ,; n tha been able to find anybody that can say, and have itagreedody, that this is the distance that they will flee ''A hiker s g to illicita greater response in sheep than a home; that might be ly a function of habituation, quite frankly, that they don't flee 'when the is a home as opposed to on a trail someplace. �, CommissionerR. Campbell said that brought up something that he believedappend some time back. He thought it was during the drought and big rn sheep were drifting down into the Rancho Mirage area and to the City Hall no one seemed too terribly concerned about it other than they were afraid that cars or vehicles would be hitting the sheep. He had ���� o assume, because he never saw anything after on TV, radio or in the newspaper Wet after they satisfied their thirst and drifted back into the hill that there wasn't any adverse effect, which then made him wonder how muchof an effect these two homes were going to be if they do interact on occasion with humans, along with the people feeding him. It made it very difficult for them to make a decision and make a proper decision if that was even possible. Mr. Nelson completely understood that; he is a Planning Commissioner for the City of Diamond Bar and he was faced with this all the time. He pointed out that their documentation and conclusion was that the conservative thing to do here was to say that there remained potentially 30 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 significant adverse impacts due to the visual and noise effects that could spill over onto the pens. That is the conclusion they had come up with and that was what they put before them, not for them to decide whether that conclusion was correct or incorrect, that was what they came up with. Commissioner R. Campbell stated that he still had a bit of a problem with some of this because he was sure the sheep could hear the planes going over, the helicopters going over, they could hear traffic up and down Highway 74 and he thought that probably something that goes on on a daily they get accustomed to and he didn't think they felt threatened. He thought they felt threatened if they set something coming at them, something out of the ordinary. The homes being placed there would cause some problems, but not while the.lambs are there. And once the homes are there, then the possibility: exists that they would';become quite accustomed to whatever noise that is different between 400 yards and 250 might make. That was his concern. ,� Mr. Nelson wished he could say he wasght or wrong, but he couldn't. He could simply tell him what, the literate ' said; it is all over the map. Commissioner R. Campbell thanked him. Chairpers• er closed'the public hearing and asked for Commission commeL Co � sioner Li tt stated that she actually had an opportunity to go with '� � oy us. ,,,,,,,I; • opert}rand her concerns right off the bat when looking a ,• , • .e .. ing it is not within Bighorn and looking at ff r � f were that ttt� pad sizes were right against our hillside \�� ordin an. •, t against what they were trying to accomplish as far as yy� hillsidebuilding city. So immediately the pads she believed were too ��``,� large. Be 6 a shy sn t sure exactly where they would put the home ,�� sites, so she uldn't comment on that, but thought they would be taking a , � ok at the th��s that would affect what they ve promised our residents as s that side goes and start there. She could empathize with the co ' ns fArhe bighorn sheep and a really good point was brought up. If this is�s c6 a. critical area, why hasn't Fish & Game, why hasn't BLM, why hasn t the Bighorn Institute stepped in and bought this property. This has been going on a while. She was glad that at least had been brought up because she didn't think the City of Palm Desert should be running interference on that issue. But also with regard to that Environmental Impact Report, as far as sending it forward, as long as Cornishe, since it isn't part of Bighorn and doesn't fall under that agreement, it was hard to stand up and say they had to have a 400-foot buffer; it was just not part of it. She thought there was also a concern that it could end up under 31 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 Bighorn; in other words, they didn't want to allow a lesser buffer just so they could get the homes built and then fall under Bighorn. She had a huge problem with the pad sizes. Commissioner S. Campbell stated that at the time when the Bighorn Institute built their pen, they knew what the boundaries of the City of Palm Desert were going to be in that area, yet they cho to go ahead and build their pen very close to that boundary and it was; ptable at the time, but it was now no longer acceptable as it is. s far as this project was concerned, she was a Commissioner al 6 and thought that the developer had come down a long way f` the us homes they were trying to build to just two pads. Ac•: . .y the way`'° a pads would be stationed in that area, would be 4 ` ' well camoufla to the Bighorn Institute and the pens. She co f ":-d with Commission ss Campbell regarding to the sheep. The s ' are acc ed to all s oises. The traffic, the barking of dogs late a �•ht, ` asleep; theycould have a s. dog barking and hear it when .. .; g was silent. So they are accustomed to hum they are • r ; fed by humans at the present time. Also, if Mr. De . have hi e 255 yards away from the pens, she could see n s these • ; homes wouldn't be able to have the distance to the s. F y� Commissioner R. Campbellr ""d basica his comments were in his questions Chairperson Tanner stated that looked at this and spent quite a bit of time looking at what has been donne over the last, not just six years, but � iliaty,years prior to that also. He looked at a project that was proposed with ''demands put on for 37 homes and he, too, was a Planning Commissioner in 2006 when this project was brought before them, and the comments w re that there were too many homes for that particular area. It has come disoin to two homes. He was a little concerned about the lot size, but thought it was a give and take. He felt that the bighorn sheep are very valua the Coachella Valley and Palm Desert in particular, but he al oug'there could be a working relationship between the two homes that Wire;doing to be constructed and the bighorn sheep. So he would be in favor of the project going forward, and that was his motion. Commissioner R. Campbell seconded the motion. Commissioner Schmidt said she had some comments. It was a very complicated issue; it has been on the table for a long time. Commissioner Limont made the assumption that the property in question was available to buy, and she had a feeling maybe it wasn't available for some sort of trade. As a designer, she knew a little bit about land development and 32 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 developers and she was appalled that anyone would come in with a project for 70 units, or 38 units, or 10 units on that piece of ground. She saw two. Also as a designer she looked at that property and probably one home on it within the 400-yard minimum setback would work. But it was probably not economically feasible to the developers because it is an absolutely hideous site to develop; a ravine to get a road across and it was more like 70,000 cubic yards of dirt. She di 't think there was any landscape barrier that would do what the Insti,, ould like for shielding the sheep. The sheep are very used to wild:. such as the hundreds of coyotes they have up on that hill. She di ey were worried about the dogs, although they might be. She' n't f` continuance was in anyone's best interest on this. They,,,';', e been told_0 t and she heard it very clearly, so to her it was eit %" vote up or o✓ he reason she asked Van to let everyone else ; was because she 't quite sure, maybe she missed som.ethirn. 'ut she w : not be in a;_favor of this project as presented to them. S x•ug y e sake of getting everyone out of square one, they either appr• y urn it down, but don't continue it. She asked if they were-' rep , " se pubnotice was clearly the way it should have been. Mr. ` grea . ed he discussed it with Mr. Williams and he was still fi• ave proper public notice on this item. She thanked him �� zH Chairperson Tanner noted th'. ey had a motion and a second on the floor. He called for ,vote. Moti• ' arried 3-2 (Commissioners Limont and Schmidt voted no) It w' moved by Chairperson Tanner, seconded by Commissioner R. ,, Campbell approving the findings as presented by staff and adopting ,,,';� Planning mission Resolution No. 2486, recommending to City Council �� approval of Tentative Tract 31676, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3- (Commiss;, rs Limont and Campbell voted no). IX. MISCELLANEOUS None. X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES Commissioner S. Campbell reported that the meeting would be September 17. 33 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16, 2008 B. LANDSCAPE COMMITTEE Commissioner Limont indicated that the next meeting would be September 17. C. PROJECT AREA 4 COMMITTEE Commissioner Schmidt was unable to attend. Ms. Aylaian reviewed the issues before the committee. D. PARKS & RECREATION Chairperson Tanner provided:Information on the issues before the Parks & Recreation Commission. XI. COMMENTS Commissioner Schmidt complimented staff on this presentation. She knew hundreds of hours had to go into it and thought it was really well done. She wasn't sure Phil Joy could hear her, but she wanted him to know that. Ms. Aylaian said she would pass that along. XII. ADJOU,. It oved by missioner R. Campbell, seconded by Commissioner Schmr djour eeting by minute motion. Motion carried 5-0. The me O p.m. \\ LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary ATTES � �• VAN G. TANNER; ham' Palm Desert Plannin 'Commission /tm 34 THE WL, WILLIAMS LINDBERG LAW FIRM, PC. September 16, 2008 • Via Facsimile 760-341-0574 • Mr.Phil Joy,Associate Planner City of Palm Desert, Community Development Department 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Re: Comments on Final Environmental Impact Report on Cornishe of Bighorn Project Dear Mr. Joy: This law office has the pleasure of representing Bighorn Institute, a California non-profit research organization located in the County of Riverside, immediately adjacent to the proposed Cornishe of Bighorn Project. This letter communicates the Institute's comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report(FE1R) for Cornishe of Bighorn(#2004091012) and the City of Palm Desert's Staff Report (Staff Report) for the September 16, 2008 Planning Commission public hearing regarding.Cornishe of Bighorn(Case No. TT 31676) We remain adamantly opposed to the current plans for the Cornishe of Bighorn project. One of our main concerns is a shocking inaccuracy in the Executive Summary of the Staff Report(pg. 1)regarding to the captive herd, which incorrectly states, "The_sheep belong to the Bighorn Institute."The endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep is a public trust species and all of them, including those in the captive herd, are the property of the public and are under the management jurisdiction of the state and federal government. Bighorn Institute acts merely as caretakers of the captive herd. The Institute holds a federal 10(a)(1)(A)permit and has entered a Memorandum of Understanding with and operates completely under the supervision and direction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. We note, conversely,that the Cornishe of Bighorn developer does not hold these required permits, as discussed further below. I00 AM W CIRCLE • SOUTH TOWER,SUITE 330 NEWPORT BP.ACH,CA 92660-2934 TELEPHONE: 949.8 3 3.308 8 FACSIMILE: 949-83 3.3058 www.WLF-LA W.COM 1:1wdoxSdocA369\OOZ1I23617.DOC • JCAAICWMS@WLF-LAW.COM PLEASE VISIT OUR WBBLOG,WwW.MAYITPLEASETHECOURT.COM,FOR DAILY LEGAL NUM AND OBSERVATIONS THE • WLF WILL,IAMS LAW FI LINDRMBEPC,RG , • Mr. Phil Joy, Associate Planner . September 16,2008 Page 2 There is a continued, blatant disregard for the importance the captive herd has in the role of Peninsular bighorn sheep recovery. The FEIR recognizes that there are still significant, unmitigable impacts to the captive herd at Bighorn Institute with this project(FEIR pg. 11-4 and II-14). As such,we remain seriously concerned for the welfare of the federal- and state- chartered recovery program for the endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep and the captive herd at Bighorn Institute. Bighorn Institute has released 120 bighorn into the wild since 1985, and currently 67%of the San Jacinto Mountains population of bighorn consists of sheep either released from the Institute or offspring of captive-reared sheep. In 2002,the San Jacinto ewe group dropped to just 4 adult ewes and the herd was in serious danger of dying out. The state and federal wildlife agencies decided to start releasing captive-reared bighorn from the Institute there and now there are 12 adult ewes in the San Jacinto Mountains. An entire subgroup of wild bighorn could have been lost,had it not been for the captive breeding and wild population augmentation program at the Institute. The Staff Report alludes to the prospect that that Comishe of Bighorn will likely become the property of Canyons at Bighorn in the future. The Staff Report states that the home designs "would be subject to the design criteria contained within the EIR and those at Bighorn Country Club, even though it is not part.of that project yet"(Staff Report pg.4). That said,it looks like this proposed project is quickly becoming a way for Canyons at Bighorn to expand their property into the 400-yard buffer in violation of its agreement with the Institute. If the Comishe property becomes the property, of Canyons at Bighorn, then it must comply with all previous mitigation measures set forth for Canyons at Bighorn,which has a 400 yard buffer of no development. The City of Palm Desert and persons involved in Comishe of Bighorn arbitrarily, inexplicably and with no foundation decided on a 240.yard buffer based on the location of the conservation/housing facility at Bighorn Institute. The 400 yard buffer was derived at from a • panel of 29 bighorn sheep experts after several meetings,intense discussions and consideration of relevant scientific evidence. Indeed, experts appointed by, Canyons at Bighorn participated in making that decision, which'was ultimately adopted by the City. The buffer was not determined one day in an office amongst City planners and recent potential developers. We categorically reject the application of a 240-yard buffer to this project. We also take exception to the position taken in the FEIR that the Institute relocate its facilities. First,we note that the developer who purchased the property did so after the City had approved the 400-yard buffer and that buffer was of record in multiple City. documents, Since the developer purchased the property with this knowledge and conducted its own due diligence regarding the bona fides of the property,it cannot how be heard to complain as it does. Such pretensions must be disregarded. Further, as the City knows from the approval process during. F.lwdeAdoeM30100111 z36 t 7.VOC • THE WLF WILLIAMS LINL7BPC RMERG LAW FI , . • Mr. Phil Joy, Associate Planner September 16,2008 Page 3 • the Canyons at Bighorn project, Institute and other scientific experts earlier considered the same ' request but were unable to find comparable property to'relocate. More important, however, is the continuing success of the Institute's captive breeding program. It is unwise to fix something • that is not broken. In addition, every recovery program must have on-site facilities to operate. Because the Institute's nearly 300 acres.is not fenced off from public access, it has mandatory protocols in place to protect the endangered Peninsular bighorn,which include biologists living on property • to monitor the sheep,pens and access by occasional trespassers. There are also numerous other protocols that the Institute staff follows to reduce human disturbance for the facility. Bighorn Institute is not open to the public. The staff keeps all facility operations on the south and west side of the lambing pen, away from the most sensitive northeast side. The FEIR response to comments states"no empirical evidence has been presented which establishes thresholds at which impacts do not occur to bighorn sheep, and within which they do" (FEB.pg. N-43) with regard to a 240-yard buffer versus a 400-yard buffer. Bighorn sheep in the captive herd are endangered; they are not zoo animals. Offspring released from Bighorn ' Institute continue to help the recovery of this endangered species. That breeding program makes Bighorn Institute's program unique, and it has had the immense success over the years. The City cannot simply proceed on a hunch and approve this development with unsubstantiated and vague hopes that a 240-yard buffer is sufficient. The City should not turn the captive pens into an experiment. The captive breeding program, overseen by both state and federal experts, has been highly successful. Uninformed decisions such as the 240-yard buffer, made without scientific data,backup and consultation with these experts, should be rejected. In fact,several sheep • experts from the Peninsular Bighorn Recovery Team have submitted letters to the City encouraging the City to uphold the previously-approved 400-yard buffer. The Cornishe of Bighorn property has been designed as bighorn sheep critical habitat and on August 26, 2008, the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service published its proposed rule for revised critical habitat for bighorn sheep in the Peninsular ranges. The Cornishe of Bighorn property is designated as critical habitat(Federal Register RIN 1018-AV09). This designation now has a two-fold impact on bighorn,one from a"take"and"harassment"standpoint and the other from a habitat use standpoint. If Cornishe of Bighorn is included in the final designation for critical habitat, then it must first conduct a mandatory section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife.Service prior to the'issuance of any development permits. Given that the City and the developer now have formal notice of this critical habitat designation, it would be irresponsible to • .proceed further without first engaging in the mandatory section 7 consultation with the USFWS. . • J\wdoed...o6p10021123617.DOC THE A 1 WILLIAMS LINDa LAW FIRM. PC. Mr. Phil Joy,Associate Planner September 16,2008 Page 4 We also note that the State of California Department of Fish end Game has designated this species as threatened, and consequently, the developer must likewise consult with an obtain permits to develop from the California Department of Fish and Game. We see no evidence of this consultation or permit in the FEIR. We note,however,that CDFG supports the Institute's position, and requests that the City and Developer respect a 400-meter buffer, among other requirements. We encourage the City and Comishe of Bighorn to explore all possible alternative options for this property so it is not directly or inversely condemned,including other opportunities for land exchanges or conservation easements. We offer our services to assist with these alternative efforts. It is not Bighorn, Institute's intent to cause the property owners or the City undue financial hardship, but it is.the Institute's intent to maintain its continuing, strict biological ethic for the protection of this species and continue to work toward the recovery of this endangered species for all of the many citizens of Palm Desert,Riverside County, the greater Coachella Valley, and the United States. We appreciate the opportunity to present these comments to the City of Palm Desert. We sincerely hope the City takes these and our previous comments into serious consideration. Very truly yours, WLF j The Williams Lindberg Law Finn, PC ,..________tt, J. Craig Williams JCW/ cc: Members of the Board.of Directors of Bighorn Institute Jim DeForge, Executive Director, Bighorn Institute P.S. I would also like to correct a typographical en-or in my May 8,2008 letter to the City. I mistakenly wrote "230 years" instead of"240 yards" on page 2,point#2. I apologize fox-my error and any confusion it may have caused. I appreciate the opportunity.to correct the record. i J:\. 1.06...,6 910 02112 3 6 1 7,DOC