Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter, Etc.Allen Matkins ivwtic. all enmatkiiis. c o m Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP Attorneys at Law 515 South Figueroa, 7"i Floor I Los Angeles, CA 90071-3398 Telephone: 213.622.5555 1 Facsimile: 213.620.8816 Patrick A. Perry E-mail: pperry@allenmatkins.com Direct Dial: 213.955.5504 File Number: F3263-002/LA804952.01 September 8, 2008 VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL Chairperson Van Tanner Vice Chairperson Sonia Campbell Commissioner Russ Campbell Commissioner Connor Limont Commissioner Mari Schmidt City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California Re: Tentative Tract Map No. 31676 Dear Members of the Palm Desert Planning Commission: This firm represents Cornishe of Bighorn ("Cornishe") in connection with its application for the above -referenced tentative tract map to subdivide approximately 12 acres of undeveloped property (the "Property") abutting the southern boundary of the City as shown on the map attached as Exhibit A. Cornishe filed its original tract map application in August, 2003. The original map contemplated the development of up to 57 dwelling units on four residential lots, which represented the maximum allowable residential density under the existing General Plan and zoning designations. When the City updated its General Plan in 2004, the General Plan land use designation for the Property was changed from Low Density Residential to Low Density Residential Study Zone, which would permit the City to establish the appropriate residential density for the Property through the pending tentative tract map review process. Cornishe was also informed at that time that 57 dwelling units would likely not be permitted to be developed on the Property. Cornishe accordingly revised its tract map application to reduce the number of dwelling units from 57 to 38, which would be located in seven multi -unit structures on five residential lots that would occupy approximately 5.3 acres of the site. The remaining 6.5 acres would remain undeveloped open space. Primary access to the Property was proposed to be provided by means of an existing 30-foot wide easement of record traversing Dead Indian Creek north of the Property. Secondary access was proposed to be provided by means of a 20-foot wide road connecting to Indian Cove to the east. Following submittal of the revised tract map, Cornishe had a number of discussions with representatives of the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn development, who expressed concerns regarding Los Angeles I Orange County I San Diego I Century City I San Francisco I Del Mar Heights Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP Attomeys at Law Chairperson Van Tanner September 8, 2008 Page 2 the use by Cornishe of the existing easement to access the Property from the north. Because the development of 38 units on the Property would necessarily require two means of ingress and egress to accommodate emergency access, Cornishe studied a number of possible configurations to reduce the proposed number of dwelling units on the Property in order to eliminate the requirement for two means of ingress and egress. A proposed eight -lot subdivision to be developed with single family homes was submitted to the Riverside County Fire Department for review in July, 2005. Fire Marshal David Avila reviewed the plans for the proposed eight -lot subdivision and determined that a single means of access would be sufficient as long as adequate hydrants are provided on -site, the buildings are fully sprinklered, and the access road does not exceed 1,300 feet in length and is at least 25 feet in width. A copy of Fire Marshal Avila's comments are attached as Exhibit B. Cornishe accordingly requested the City to review the proposed eight -lot subdivision as an alternative in the draft environmental impact report ("DEIR") that was prepared for the project pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). The DEIR was prepared for the project and circulated for public review and comment in December 15, 2005 through February 1, 2006. The DEIR stated that the project would result in significant impacts on air quality, biological resources, noise, and traffic. In an effort to decrease the environmental impacts identified in the DEIR, Cornishe further revised the tentative tract map to create four residential lots to be developed with single family homes. City Planning Department Staff also proposed a General Plan amendment and zone change to change the General Plan land use designation of the Property to Hillside Reserve, and to change the zoning designation of the Property to Hillside Planned Residential. The proposed General Plan amendment and zone change would restrict the allowable density on the Property to no more than two single family homes. The Planning Commission considered the proposed four -lot subdivision on February 21, 2006, March 7, 2006, and April 18, 2006. The City Council considered the proposed four -lot subdivision on February 23, 2006, March 9, 2006, and April 27, 2006. At the conclusion of its deliberations on April 27, 2006, the City Council continued further consideration of the proposed tentative tract map to a date uncertain. Cornishe subsequently engaged in further discussions with City Staff and representatives of the Canyons at Bighorn development and, on the basis of those discussions, further revised the tentative tract map to reduce the number of proposed residential lots from four to two. A copy of the revised map for the proposed two -lot subdivision is attached as Exhibit C. Cornishe submitted the revised tentative tract map to the City in November 2006. Although not legally required, the City undertook additional environmental review of the proposed two lot alternative pursuant CEQA. The potential environmental impacts of the proposed two lot alternative were evaluated in an Addition to the DEIR, which was circulated for public review and comment from March 28, 2008, through May 12, 2008. The proposed reduction in the number of residential units fully complies with the existing and proposed General Plan and zoning designations for the Property and, as set forth in more detail Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP Attomeys at Law Chairperson Van Tanner September 8, 2008 Page 3 below, will result in the reduction, if not the elimination, of many of the potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the DEIR. A. The Subdivision of the Cornishe Property into Two Residential Lots Will Substantially Reduce or Eliminate any Potentially Significant Impacts on the Environment. Traffic. The DEIR concludes that the traffic volume projected to be generated by the development of 38 residential units on the Property would not result in any significant impacts on the public street system, but that significant and unavoidable impacts would occur relative to the private roadways within the Canyons at Bighorn development. The DEIR also concluded, however, that the operational impacts on the private roadways within the Canyons at Bighorn development would be reduced to less than significant levels by reducing the number of residential units to be developed on the Property to nine townhouse/condominium units or five single family homes. The revised map proposes to subdivide the Property into two lots for the development of single family homes. The traffic impacts identified in the DEIR would therefore be eliminated under the proposed subdivision. 2. Air Quality. The DEIR concludes that even after the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, air quality impacts during the construction of the proposed 38 residential condominiums on the Property would exceed the regional thresholds of significance for nitrogen oxide emissions and the local thresholds of significance for particulate matter. The proposed two lot subdivision would eliminate much of the anticipated emissions due to the fact that only two residential units would be constructed instead of 38, and, unlike the construction of the 38 residential condominiums, it is not likely that construction of the two single family residences would occur simultaneously. Moreover, due to greater balance between the amount of cut and fill under the two lot configuration, less dirt will be required to be imported, thereby reducing the amount of emissions generated by truck traffic to and from the Property during grading operations. Construction air quality emissions are therefore substantially less for the two lot subdivision than for the 38 unit residential development. Construction of the two lot alternative would not exceed regional or local thresholds for particulate matter, and the amount of nitrogen oxide emissions, though still significant, would be reduced. 3. Noise. The DEIR generally concludes that the development of the proposed 38 residential condominium units on the Property will not result in any significant noise impacts except for possible effects on the captive population of Peninsular Bighorn Sheep maintained by the adjacent Bighorn Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP Attorneys at Law Chairperson Van Tanner September 8, 2008 Page 4 Institute. Potential noise impacts on the sheep are questionable, however, due to the absence in the DEIR of conclusive scientific evidence regarding the effect of anticipated noise on bighorn sheep. As an initial matter, the DEIR identifies the captive sheep population as a sensitive receptor for purposes of the noise analysis. According to the DEIR, the Noise Element of the City's General Plan identifies residences, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, and destination resort areas as noise sensitive land uses. The Noise Element of the General Plan does not identify captive animal populations as a noise sensitive land use. Yet, the DEIR, without explanation, states that operations at the Bighorn Institute are also considered noise sensitive. No criteria to support such a designation are set forth in the City's General Plan or any other source identified in the DEIR. Moreover, the only documentation provided in the DEIR regarding the sensitivity of bighorn sheep to noise seems to contradict this assumption. By way of example, the DEIR states on page 198 that most community noise sources have the majority of sound content in the mid to low frequency range. According to Figure 23 on page 199 of the DEIR, hearing in bighorn sheep is less sensitive than human hearing at low to mid range frequencies. Moreover, the DEIR states on page 214 that sheep are understood to be much less sensitive to audible stimuli than to visual stimuli. It is not possible to conclude on the basis of this evidence that bighorn sheep will have the same sensitivity to noise as humans occupying such noise sensitive receptors as homes, schools, and hospitals. In fact, it is clear that for most common noise sources, human hearing is more sensitive than that of sheep. Thus, the inclusion of the Bighorn Institute as a sensitive receptor is not supported in the DEIR or any of the information on which it relies. In addition to the lack of documentation for the characterization of the Bighorn Institute as a sensitive noise receptor, the DEIR inexplicably introduces unprecedented thresholds of significance that provide specific protections for the Bighorn Institute. Such thresholds of significance are completely unsupported by any scientific evidence. The special thresholds of significance invented to accommodate the Bighorn Institute provide that noise impacts would be considered significant under the following circumstances: • If construction activities would occur outside the allowable hours cited in the Palm Desert Municipal Code, or if earth work associated with site preparation and/or concrete work occur during the January through June lambing season and if the sum of these specific activities requires more than three months of elapsed time to complete. • If operational activities would exceed the ambient noise level by 3 dBA at the Bighorn Institute. All construction activities on the Property will fully comply with the allowable hours restrictions in the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and no construction activities will be allowed to take place from January through June. There is no explanation in the DEIR as to why the duration of construction for more than three months would result in significant noise impacts. The three month Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP Attorneys at Law Chairperson Van Tanner September 8, 2008 Page 5 limit on the duration of construction activities appears to be entirely arbitrary. Even if the three month restriction on construction activities were valid, it is likely that the site preparation, grading, and road construction for the proposed two lot subdivision could be completed in less than three months. Construction noise impacts could therefore be mitigated to a less than significant level. There is also no explanation in the DEIR as to why sound levels in excess of 3 dBA over ambient noise levels would result in a significant noise impact on the operations of the Bighorn Institute. Footnote 122 on page 210 of the DEIR states that no scientific data was discovered to support an incremental increase in noise level threshold specific to bighorn sheep. In the absence of any scientific data to support such an assumption, it is not possible to conclude that the sheep maintained by the Bighorn Institute will be adversely affected by noise generated by the proposed development of the Property. The conclusions in the DEIR regarding the potential impacts of the proposed development of the Property on the adjacent Bighorn Institute are therefore entirely without foundation. Even if there were some support for the identified noise impacts, such noise impacts would be substantially reduced due to the reduction of the scope of the proposed development from 38 residential units to two single family homes. 4. Biological Resources. The DEIR concludes that the potential impacts on sensitive plant or wildlife communities due to the development of 38 residential units on the Property can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The only potentially significant impacts on biological resources identified in the DEIR that cannot be fully mitigated affect the captive breeding program for Peninsular Bighorn Sheep maintained by the adjacent Bighorn Institute. The DEIR fails to establish, however, that impacts on the operation of the Bighorn Institute will necessarily adversely impact the status of the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. In the absence of such a connection, it is not possible to conclude that impacts on the operation of the Bighorn Institute equate to impacts on the bighorn sheep population as a whole. Moreover, mere proximity to the Bighorn Institute should not constitute an impediment to the development of privately owned property that otherwise complies with all applicable City development standards. Even if the operation of the Bighorn Institute were affected by development on adjacent property, it would be incumbent upon the Bighorn Institute to relocate to a more suitable location where it can carry out its activities undisturbed. All but approximately 1/ acre of the Property is located within a buffer area that was established in connection with the development of the Canyons at Bighorn development in 1991. The buffer area was designed to provide a 400 yard distance between development on the Canyons at Bighorn property and the lambing pen maintained by the Bighorn Institute as part of its captive breeding program. The 400 yard buffer was established as a legal compromise pursuant to a settlement agreement among the Bighorn Institute, the original developer of the Canyons at Bighorn project, and the owners of the Property regarding the development of the Canyons at Bighorn project. The Property was never a part of the Canyons at Bighorn project, and the owners of the Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP Attomeys at Law Chairperson Van Tanner September 8, 2008 Page 6 Property never agreed to forego development in order to accommodate the Bighorn Institute. It has always been understood by all parties that the Property could someday be developed for permissible uses. The location of the Property within the buffer area therefore has no bearing on the ability of the Property to be developed. The Bighorn Institute is a private organization which acquired the property that it occupies with full knowledge that the surrounding properties were planned and zoned for residential development. It has no more right to preclude development on adjacent property than any other private entity, regardless of the nature of its activities. Any incompatibility between the activities of the Bighorn Institute and the development of adjacent properties has been largely self-imposed by the Bighorn Institute. The property owned by the Bighorn Institute is located in unincorporated Riverside County adjacent to the southern boundary of the City of Palm Desert. The Cornishe Property is located in the City of Palm Desert immediately adjacent to the southern boundary of the City and the northern boundary of the property owned by the Bighorn Institute. The Bighorn Institute originally acquired its interest in the property it occupies pursuant to a lease from the federal Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") in 1984. A copy of the documents associated with the original lease are attached a Exhibit D. The Memorandum Appraisal Report prepared by the BLM in connection with the original lease of the property to the Bighorn Institute acknowledged that "the surrounding area is under general expansion and transition to higher value residential and commercial development." The findings adopted by the BLM in connection with its approval of the original lease provide as follows: All present and potential uses and users of the lands will be taken into consideration. All other things being equal, land classifications will attempt to achieve maximum future uses and minimum disturbance to or dislocation of existing users. All land classifications must be consistent with state and local government programs, plans, zoning, and regulations applicable to the area in which the lands to be classified are located to the extent such State and local programs, plans, zoning, and regulations are not inconsistent with Federal programs, policies, and uses, and will not lead to inequities among private individuals. On December 5, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 348.3098 changing the zoning designation of the Bighorn Institute's property from R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to N-A (Natural Assets). According to the Staff Report prepared by the Riverside County Planning Department in connection with the proposed zone change, the adjacent property located in the City of Palm Desert was zoned PR-5 (Planned Residential, 5 units per acre). According to the General Plan adopted by the City of Palm Desert in October, 1980, the land use designation for the Cornishe Property was, and has always remained, Low Density Residential. A copy of Ordinance No. 348.3098 and the associated Staff report are attached as Exhibit E. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP Attorneys at Law Chairperson Van Tanner September 8, 2008 Page 7 The Bighorn Institute clearly knew of the existing zoning of the surrounding property and took its property subject to such knowledge. The Bighorn Institute therefore knew when it acquired the property it now occupies that adjacent properties were zoned for residential development and would likely be developed for residential uses. The terms according to which the Bighorn Institute acquired its property similarly provide for the accommodation of existing and future users. The Bighorn Institute knowingly and deliberately located its operations in proximity to the urban boundary. The Bighorn Institute cannot now legitimately argue that its mere presence in such proximity should prohibit development on property that it neither owns nor controls. The two lots proposed to be developed on the Property are designed such that the single family homes to be constructed on the lots will be no closer than 240 yards from the lambing pen, which is approximately the same distance from the lambing pen as the house occupied by the Director of the Bighorn Institute. Moreover, according to information available on its website, the Bighorn Institute plans to construct new facilities on its own property, including offices, animal care units, research laboratories, and a museum education center. For the Bighorn Institute to seek to preclude development on adjacent property under these circumstances is accordingly disingenuous at best and may constitute a violation of the terms according to which it acquired its property in the first place. Even if the Bighorn Institute could establish a right to protect its activities from disturbance by adjacent property owners, there is no conclusive evidence that the proposed development of the Property will result in adverse impacts on the continued wellbeing of either free roaming or captive Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. The DEIR correctly concludes that the proposed development of the Property will not have an adverse impact on free roaming sheep populations because "current numbers of free roaming bighorn sheep in the area of the project are very low and may or may not have increased in recent years." Moreover, "the resources on the project site are of little importance to the sheep." Thus, "with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, development of the proposed project would not have a significant impact on the free -roaming Peninsular Bighorn sheep population." The Environmental Assessment prepared in connection with the original lease of the property to the Bighorn Institute similarly states as follows: The project area is located within the Santa Rosa Habitat Management Area which was established for the management of the State listed rare Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis). One of the primary concerns in finding a location for the holding pens was to minimize any impacts to the Santa Rosa herd. The applicant selected this location in consultation with BLM staff biologists because of its relative isolation from the rest of the range and easy access. There are no water sources located nearby and the ridge was not considered bighorn sheep habitat in the habitat map developed jointly by the BLM and [California Department of Fish and Game] for the Santa Rosa HMP (1980). No evidence of bighorn sheep use was observed on site. There are no other rare, threatened, endangered, or sensitive species known to occur on site. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP Attomeys at Law Chairperson Van Tanner September 8, 2008 Page 8 The only impacts identified in the DEIR on bighorn sheep are thus restricted entirely to the captive breeding herd maintained by the Bighorn Institute; however, even the impacts identified on the captive breeding herd are not clearly established, nor is it established with any certainty that adverse impacts on the captive breeding program amount to adverse impacts on the bighorn sheep as a species. The two primary impacts on the sheep identified in the DEIR are the possibility of stress and habituation in the captive breeding population due to the proximity of human contact. Statements in the DEIR with respect to these impacts are, however, less than conclusive, and it is not clear from the evidence presented that the proposed development of the Property will necessarily interfere with the ability of the captive sheep at the Bighorn Institute to continue to reproduce. The most definitive statements in the DEIR with respect to the effect of human presence on bighorn sheep reflect the lack of clear agreement among experts on the subject. The DEIR cites portions of the environmental impact report for the Altamira Country Club (now the Canyons at Bighorn) in which the opinions of various experts regarding the optimal size of the proposed buffer area to be established between the lambing pens on the Institute's property and the development of the adjacent residential project. Opinions ranged from no buffer area to a buffer area of up to one mile. Factors considered in the analysis included the predictability of the contact and the size and design of the pen. Thus, the captive sheep maintained by the Bighorn Institute appear to have adapted to maintenance staff servicing feed troughs and human movement within 100 yards of the pens in predictable routines. Human activity, including home construction, golf, and vehicular traffic at the edge of the existing 400 yard buffer, has apparently not interfered with the sheep's use of the portions of the pens from which the activity is visible, nor has it affected the suitability of the young produced in the pen for release into the wild. According to the Altamira EIR, The Living Desert maintains a successful captive breeding and reintroduction program for bighorn sheep notwithstanding the fact that approximately 160,000 people per year pass within 30 feet of the pen in which the sheep are kept. Evidence also indicates that sheep generally exhibit lower levels of stress where, as here, the sheep are above the disturbance rather than below it. Due to the uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of a buffer between the lambing pens on the Bighorn Institute's property and the development of the adjacent residential project, Cornishe contacted Dr. Paul R. Krausman, Boone and Crockett Professor of Wildlife Conservation at the University of Montana and a recognized authority on the behavior patterns of bighorn sheep, to analyze the potential impacts that the proposed project may have on the captive breeding population at the Bighorn Institute. Based on Professor Krausman's review of the DEIR, the proposed two lot alternative, and available literature, Professor Krausman has concluded that the concerns expressed regarding habituation of captive breeding herd due to the construction of two residences approximately 240 yards from the lambing pen are not supported by "any literature or data that even suggest that activities associated with he Project, as described, will cause habituation resulting in the failure of lambs to survive in the wild." Professor Krausman has further stated that he is "not aware of data that indicates a 400 yard buffer is necessary for successful captive breeding programs." Copies of letters received from Professor Krausman are attached as Exhibit F. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP Attorneys at Law Chairperson Van Tanner September 8, 2008 Page 9 Despite the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the potential impact of human presence more than 240 yards away, the DEIR concluded that potential impacts of the proposed development on the Property would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on the operations of the Bighorn Institute and proposed the following mitigation measures to reduce such impacts to the extent feasible: • Garage openings shall be oriented easterly away from the lambing pens to the maximum extent practicable. Site preparation and grading of the site shall be designed to balance on -site to minimize new import of fill materials to the extent feasible. Grading shall be restricted to that necessary for 1) reasonable vehicular access from the Indian Cove section of the Canyons at Bighorn to access the residences, 2) development of proposed building pad elevations, and 3) reasonable foundation excavations. To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations of 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. • The proposed residences shall be designed so that, to the maximum extent practicable, all activities and facilities associated with their occupancy, including indoor and outdoor residency, landscape and other maintenance, mechanical equipment, recreational facilities, etc., be located to the north of the residences or screened from view from the lambing pen by walls high enough to be effective. No construction activities should occur during the lambing season, which extends from January to June. • In order to minimize stress and disturbance to Peninsular bighorn sheep at the Bighorn Institute, no dogs shall be permitted on the project site, either as residents or as visitors. A permanent fence/and or wall shall be constructed around the developed parts of the project site to prevent free -roaming sheep from entering developed areas. The design and location of the fence and/or wall shall be developed in consultation with a biologist and the Bighorn Institute. No landscaping or surface water shall be allowed to occur outside the fence to prevent sheep from being attracted to the site and exposed to danger or human activity. The DEIR also provides an alternative to the proposed 38 unit project which considers the development of two single family dwellings on a reduced area of the Property. No information is provided in the DEIR regarding the size or configuration of the proposed lots, but the area to be occupied is located in the extreme northeastern corner of the Property, much of which cannot be developed because its lies within Dead Indian Creek. The proposed alternative is designed to reduce Allen Matkins Leek Gamble & Mallory LLP Attorneys at Law Chairperson Van Tanner September 8, 2008 Page 10 all potentially significant impacts of development on the Property to a less than significant level. Construction noise is considered to be less than significant because site preparation and concrete work would require less than three months to complete and because "sheep are known to be considerably less sensitive to unfamiliar sounds in their environment than they are to the sight of unfamiliar activity." Occupancy of the proposed dwellings would not have significant impacts on the sheep at the Bighorn Institute because the design of the proposed dwellings would "present a completely passive, as natural as feasible, appearance as seen from the pen, where normal residential activities within the dwelling and adjoining functional amenities would be screened from view in the pen by the design of the dwellings themselves. To the extent that certain activities such as normal vehicle access is visible, these would represent only a marginal, non -significant extension of these activities within the adjoining Canyons at Bighorn development, a condition to which the sheep are already habituating." Cornishe does not object to the implementation of the foregoing mitigation measures. As discussed above, the duration of the construction period will likely be less than three months. The dwellings would be designed to appear as natural as possible and would screen most normal residential activities. Any activities that would not be screened would be located on the portion of the Property farthest from the Bighorn Institute and would have no more impact than similar activities to which the sheep have already become habituated. Modifications to the project have thus rendered certain of the mitigation measures unnecessary, and the proposed reduction in the number of residential units should significantly reduce, if not completely eliminate, the potential adverse impacts of the proposed development of the Property on the operation of the Bighorn Institute. B. Failure To Approve Reasonable Development On the Property Will Result In a Regulatory Taking Of the Property For Which Cornishe Will Be Entitled To The Payment Of Just Compensation. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part that private property shall not be taken for public use without payment of just compensation. In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), the United States Supreme Court held that regulatory action that denies a property owner all economically beneficial or productive use of land is compensable as a regulatory taking. Here, the effect of prohibiting development on the Property in order to protect the operation of the adjacent Bighorn Institute will not only serve to deprive Cornishe of all economically beneficial use of the Property but will also constitute a taking of private property for private, rather than public, use. Only approximately '/ acre of the Property lies outside the buffer area that was established for the benefit of the Bighorn Institute. The 1/ acre that lies outside the buffer area cannot feasibly be developed because it lies entirely within Dead Indian Creek. That portion of the Property would accordingly be subject to repeated flooding on a periodic basis even if the necessary permits and approvals for such development could be obtained. In order to avoid a potential takings claim, Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP Attorneys at Law Chairperson Van Tanner September 8, 2008 Page 11 the City has proposed an alternative in the DEIR which considers the development of two single family dwellings on a reduced area of the Property. The proposed alternative in the DEIR is extremely speculative insofar as it does not provide a specific location or configuration of the proposed lots other than to place them in the extreme northeastern portion of the Property, much of which cannot be developed because it lies within the streambed of Dead Indian Creek as noted above. The proposed alternative provides few protections, if any, that would not be provided by the proposed two lot subdivision, and is clearly designed to do nothing more than appease the Bighorn Institute, which would be allowed to have input into the design. As stated above, the Bighorn Institute is a private organization. Any restriction on the development of the Property to benefit the Bighorn Institute would therefore necessarily violate the constitutional prohibition against the taking of property for private use. The following information is provided pursuant to the requirements of City of Palm Desert Ordinance No. 1104: Cornishe acquired the Property from Guy and Vanessie Laliberte, and Mario Pascucci in 2003. The Property was originally purchased by Guy and Vanessie Laliberte, Robert Del Gagnon, and Mario Pascucci for $25,000 in 1977, prior to the execution of the lease between the Bighorn Institute and BLM for the property currently occupied by the Bighorn Institute. The Property was transferred to Cornishe for approximately $673,200. Guy and Vanessie Laliberte and Mario Pascucci retained their interest in the Property as members of Cornishe. • Approval of the requested tentative tract map is necessary to permit development on the Property that would be precluded if the City were to designate the Property as part of the buffer area designed to protect the operations of the adjacent Bighorn Institute. • The current market value of the Property if developed for two lots for the construction of single family homes as proposed is at least $7,750,000, excluding site preparation and development costs. The market value of the property upon construction of the homes on the two lots has been projected to be in the range of $18 million. • Since its acquisition of the Property, Cornishe has expended approximately $3.18 million in predevelopment costs and interest on the Property. • The Property is subject to assessments in the amount of $345 per year. • The Property is currently undeveloped. Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP Attomeys at Law Chairperson Van Tanner September 8, 2008 Page 12 • The Property is proposed to be subdivided into two residential lots ranging from 1.17 to 1.35 acres in size for the development of single family homes. • If the proposed subdivision is denied and development is not permitted, the Property will have no economic value. • None of the Property will retain any economic value if the proposed development of the Property is denied. • The value of the Property will be reduced from $7,750,000 to nothing, thereby resulting in a loss of $7,750,000. The proposed two lot subdivision is designed to be sensitive to the existing landscape and compatible with surrounding uses. It effectively balances the firmly established rights of the Property owner with protection of the environment and will place one of the last remaining pieces of undeveloped property along the City's southern boundary into productive use. If developed as proposed, the Project will also result in the preservation of approximately eight acres of the property as protected open space. Denial of the requested subdivision will result in the deprivation of all economically viable use of the Property. You are therefore urged to approve the requested subdivision and permit the Property to be developed as proposed. Your careful attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. I am available to meet with you to discuss any questions or concerns you may have regarding the proposed development of the Property. In the meantime, please call with any questions or if I can provide further information with respect to the foregoing. Very truly yours, Patrick A. Perry PAP:Ivb Enclosures cc: Ms. Lauri Aylaian TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I.INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... I-1 II. SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... II-1 III. CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE NEW PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND DRAFT EIR ..........................................................................III-1 IV. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE NEW PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .......................................................................................................... IV-1 V. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT EIR ....................................... V-1 VI. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: NEW PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................. VI-1 City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page i LIST OF FIGURES FigurePage FEIR-1Visual Barrier Analysis: Cross-Section Line 1 ....................................................... IV-13 FEIR-2Visual Barrier Analysis: Cross-Section Line 2 ....................................................... IV-14 FEIR-3Visual Barrier Analysis: Cross-Section Line 3 ....................................................... IV-15 FEIR-4Visual Barrier Analysis: Cross-Section Line 4 ....................................................... IV-16 FEIR-5Prospective Visual Barrier Alignment .................................................................... IV-17 City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page ii LIST OF TABLES TablePage IV-1 List of Commentors ...................................................................................................... IV-2 V-1 List of Commentors from the Draft EIR ........................................................................ V-2 City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page iii J/!!J OUSPEVDUJPO I. INTRODUCTION This Final EIR has been prepared to investigate and identify expected environmental consequences as may be attributable to implementation the proposed Cornishe of Bighorn project, pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) contain the following: (a)The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft; (b)Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; (c)A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; (d)The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and (e)Any other information added by the Lead Agency. This Final EIR is intended to be a companion to the March 2008 New Preferred Alternative- an Addition to the Draft EIR, as well as the December 2005 Draft EIR, both of which are bound separately and part of this Final EIR. Pursuant to Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Palm Desert, as the Lead Agency, has reviewed all comments received during the 45-day review period for the New Preferred Alternative, which began on March 28, 2008 and ended on May 12, 2008, and those comments received during the 45-day review period for the Draft EIR, which began on December 19, 2005 and ended on February 1, 2006. In accordance with CEQA, copies of the original comment letters along with their respective responses are provided in Section IV, Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative, and Section V, Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR of this Final EIR. In addition, a table listing all of the commentors for the New Preferred Alternative document and for the Draft EIR, is provided in Table IV-1 and Table V-1 of the respective sections cited above. Any revisions to the New Preferred Alternative document and Draft EIR based on the comments received are contained in Section III, Corrections and Additions, of this Final EIR in revision mode text (i.e., deletions are shown with strikethrough and additions are shown with underline). City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page I-1 I. Introduction This Final EIR also provides a summary of the proposed project in Section II, Summary, as that which was provided in the New Preferred Alternative an Addition to the Draft EIR. The New Preferred Alternative is the result of subsequent revisions of the proposed project which was originally 38-units as analyzed in the Draft EIR. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, this Final EIR also presents the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) in Section VI, recommended for the New Preferred Alternative. This MMRP presents mitigation measures which are different from those that were recommended for the original project analyzed in the Draft EIR. The mitigation measures would be in place throughout all phases of the project, including during design (pre-construction), construction, and operations (post construction both prior to and post-occupancy)as well as the monitoring agency, the frequency of monitoring, and the actions indicating compliance with the mitigation measures to ensure that if the project is developed, all adopted mitigation measures are actually implemented, thereby minimizing identified environmental effects. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page I-2 JJ/!!T VNNBSZ II. SUMMARY A. INTRODUCTION In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15123, this Section of the Final EIR provides a brief description of the New Preferred Alternative and its evolution from the Original Project that was previously proposed; an identification of the significant effects associated with the New Preferred Alternative, the mitigation measures recommended for the New Preferred Alternative; the areas of controversy known to the lead agency; and issues to be resolved and whether and how to mitigate the significant effects. B. PROJECT LOCATION The project site is located within the City of Palm Desert, in an area with gentle desert hillsides cut by natural drainages with a natural rock outcropping at the westerly portion of the site. The northern boundary of the project site is formed by Dead Indian Creek, a broad alluvial drainage that qualifies as “jurisdictional waters of the U.S.” Bordering Dead Indian Creek to the north is the Canyons at Bighorn, an exclusive single-family residential community oriented to a golf course. The vacant lands directly to the south of the project site’s southern boundary are located in unincorporated Riverside County and owned by the Bighorn Institute (Institute), a non-profit organization dedicated to the conservation of the world’s wild sheep through research and education. C. PROPOSED PROJECT In response to comments received during the public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for Tentative Tract 31676, the applicant, Cornishe of Bighorn LLC revised the tentative tract map to create two residential lots to be developed with single-family homes. Similar to the Hillside Limited Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIR, the New Preferred Alternative would be limited to two single-family dwellings, 36 dwelling units less than the Original Project. The New Preferred Alternative would divide the project site into four lots consisting of Lots 1 and 2, and Lots A and B. The two single-family dwellings and their respective garages would be developed on Lots 1 and 2 which are approximately 1.17 to 1.35 acres in size, respectively. The two lots would be concentrated in the northeast corner of the project site, closest to the Indian Cove area of the Canyons at Bighorn community. Lot 1 would be graded to 820 feet above sea level and Lot 2 to 809 feet above sea level, respectively, similar to the pad elevations in the adjoining Indian Cove neighborhood within the Canyons at City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page II-1 II. Summary Bighorn. No designs for the two dwellings are available at this time, although each dwelling is presumed to be large, sized at approximately 10,000 square feet of useable interior space. Each dwelling unit would be one-story in height, and would comply with the architectural guidelines of the Canyons at Bighorn, in order to appear as a minor extension of the existing community. The third lot, Lot A, would be reserved for a 25-foot wide cul-de-sac that would connect to Indian Cove, allowing adequate access for emergency vehicles. All vehicular and pedestrian access to and from the two residences is proposed via this shared cul-de-sac road that would extend to the southeastern corner of the project site towards the garages of the proposed dwelling units. The fourth lot, Lot B, would be comprised of the remainder of the project site equal to approximately nine acres of unimproved open space. All improvements proposed would avoid sensitive habitat along Dead Indian Creek. The New Preferred Alternative is proposed as close as possible to the existing and future Indian Cove dwellings without entering the floodplain of Dead Indian Creek, and with ground disturbance no closer than 240 yards from the lambing pen at the Bighorn Institute or approximately the same distance that the nearest existing residence on the Institute property is situated from the lambing pen further to the west. Construction of the Preferred Alternative is expected to import fill soil in order to create building pads at elevations above the natural terrain. Site preparation is proposed with approximately 35,900 cubic yards of raw fill import. Grading would occur no closer than approximately 240 yards of the lambing pen at the closest point. No construction would occur stth 1 during the January 1 to June 30 lambing season. D. PROJECT BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED PLAN RESULTING FROM AGENCY AND COMMUNITY INPUT As discussed above, the project site is located within the City of Palm Desert, bordering Dead Indian Creek and the Canyons at Bighorn community to the north, and the Bighorn Institute, to the south. The Institute maintains a captive breeding and release program intended as a means of sustaining bighorn sheep population. Due to the sensitive nature of the bighorn sheep, a large opposition to development within the surrounding area is upheld by the Institute. However, as there is no empirical evidence to date that identifies thresholds of significance at which impacts would occur to bighorn sheep, impacts from development of the surrounding properties cannot be fully ascertained. Thus, to provide a conservative analysis, the New 1 Construction is defined as grading, excavation, framing, siding, roofing, landscaping, installation of doors and windows, and any interior work that utilizes pneumatic tools or compressors that would be located outside the proposed residences. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page II-2 II. Summary Preferred Alternative and the Draft EIR err in support of the bighorn sheep and consider impacts to be potentially significant where impacts cannot be feasibly mitigated to less than significant levels. Much of the controversy over development of the project site stems from conditions the City placed over development of the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn Community. In late 1991, the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community was approved by the City with the condition that a 400-yard buffer zone from the Institute’s 12-acre lambing pen be applied to the Canyons at Bighorn project only, excluding the project site. The buffer area was intended to reduce impacts of development on the Institute’s captive breeding program within the pen to less than significant levels. However, it is noted that this 400-yard buffer zone was reached via political consensus rather than from a biological consensus. In fact, the nearest homes built for the Canyons at Bighorn project are located at the edge of the 400-yard buffer zone. Thus, the 400-yard buffer zone that was established has since been the subject of controversy, and when applied to the subject property, includes virtually all of the project site, contributing to the contentious nature of the location and development of the project site. The original tract map of the Cornishe of Bighorn project was filed in August of 2003. The original tract map proposed the development of up to 57 dwelling units on four residential lots. When the City updated its General Plan in 2004, the General Plan land use designation for the property was revised from Low Density Residential to Low Density Residential Study Zone, to permit the City to determine the appropriate density for the property in conjunction with its consideration of the applicant's tentative tract map application. In response, the initial application was to provide 38 units, which was evaluated as the proposed project (the Original Project) in the Draft EIR. The 38-units were to be located in seven multi-unit structures on five residential lots occupying approximately 4.32 acres of the project site. The remaining undeveloped areas were intended to remain in perpetual open space. Access to the project site was to be provided via two access points, a 30-foot easement that would traverse Dead Indian Creek north of the property, and a 20-foot road connecting to the Indian Cove neighborhood within the Canyons at Bighorn community to the east. As an alternative to the Original Project, the applicant proposed an eight-lot single-family subdivision with access restricted to the east at Indian Cove. Impacts of the eight-unit alternative were evaluated in the Draft EIR as the Reduced Project Alternative. In addition, the City directed its consultant to include a two-unit alternative for analysis in the Draft EIR. Following the public review period on the Draft EIR, the applicant further revised the tentative tract map to create four single-family residential lots to be developed in an effort to reduce the Original Project’s environmental impacts identified in the Draft EIR to less than significant levels. In response to the comments received on the Draft EIR, the applicant, Cornishe of Bighorn LLC, explored smaller projects and in November 2006, submitted a newly revised tentative tract map for a two-lot alternative to the City, herein referred to as the New Preferred Alternative. The New Preferred Alternative provides specific lots, pad areas for each residence City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page II-3 II. Summary and associated garages as well as the grading necessary to create those pads. While a two-unit alternative, (the Hillside Limited Alternative) was evaluated in the Draft EIR, the New Preferred Alternative provided a specific configuration and preliminary site plan that was unavailable at the time of preparation of the Draft EIR. Furthermore, the Hillside Limited Alternative analyzed in the Draft EIR was found to be impracticable as the northeastern corner of the site identified for development was largely located within the floodplains of Dead Indian Creek, did not possess sufficient elevation to permit views of the Coachella Valley, and was not large enough to accommodate more than a single lot, all of which circumstances rendered the Hillside Limited Alternative economically infeasible. Although the City believed the Draft EIR complied with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines regarding the analysis of the Original Project, it circulated the New Preferred Alternative to augment the Draft EIR for public review and comment. E. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Unavoidable significant impacts can occur as a result of project impacts, cumulative impacts, and as a secondary effect from the implementation of a mitigation measure. Based on the analysis contained in the New Preferred Alternative document, the Cornishe at Bighorn project will result in the following significant and unavoidable environmental impacts: Regional construction air quality emissions for NOx; Biological impacts (during construction and operation) to captive adult sheep and born lambs in the lambing pen through visual and auditory habituation; Construction noise audible to the bighorn sheep at the Bighorn Institute could exceed the 3 month threshold; and Construction traffic to the Canyons at Bighorn Community. F. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Potential areas of controversy and issues to be resolved by the decision-makers include those areas where an unavoidable significant impact has been projected, as well as issue areas where concerns have been raised, primarily through the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process, indicating a level of controversy. For the Cornishe at Bighorn project, the areas of unavoidable significant impact are presented above. Issues raised during the NOP comment periods included impacts to biological resources, including sensitive plant and wildlife species, specifically the Peninsular Bighorn sheep at the Bighorn Institute. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page II-4 II. Summary G. ALTERNATIVES The CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to “describe the range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which will feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” The CEQA Guidelines direct that selection of alternatives be guided by a “rule of reason” that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. Alternatives were evaluated as part of the Draft EIR. As described in detail in Section V of the Draft EIR, three alternatives to the Original Project were identified, which included a No Project/No Build Alternative, a Reduced Project Alternative (Eight Single-Family Units), and a Hillside Limited Alternative (Two Single-Family Units). In addition, a New Preferred Alternative was also analyzed in the New Preferred Alternative document- an Addition to the Draft EIR. Based on an analysis of these alternatives, an environmentally superior alternative is identified. The four identified alternatives, as well as the identified environmentally superior alternative, are summarized below. No Project/No Build Alternative: The No Project/No Build Alternative assumes that the Cornishe of Bighorn Project would not be developed, and that the development of the project site with new uses and structures would not otherwise occur. Thus, the physical conditions of the site would remain as they are today and a reduced environmental impact would occur when compared with the proposed project. However, as the No Project/No Build Alternative would preclude development on the property, the Land Use, Design, and Economic project objectives that have been set forth by the project would not be met, leaving the project site with no economically viable use. Reduced Project Alternative (Eight Single-Family Units): The Reduced Project Alternative would develop eight single-family units, which is 30 dwelling units less than the Original Project. Under this alternative, the single-family dwelling units would generally be located within the same location as the larger townhome buildings proposed by the Original Project. Under this Alternative, the access road would occur exclusively via the Indian Cove neighborhood from the east similar to the New Preferred Alternative but different from the Original Project’s proposed 30-foot wide access road from the north. This roadway would be constructed similar to the New Preferred Alternative and would be approximately 25 feet in width. Recreational amenities would not be provided under this Alternative, different from the Original Project’s proposed pool and park.Furthermore, although this Alternative reduces impacts of the Original Project it does not meet the Land Use Planning, and Economic objectives of the project at this time, nor would it meet the project’s Resource Conservation Objectives. This Alternative would also result in greater adverse impacts on the environment than the New Preferred Alternative. Thus, this Alternative is considered but rejected. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page II-5 II. Summary Hillside Limited Alternative (Two Single-Family Units): The Hillside Limited Alternative would develop two single-family units, 36 dwelling units less than the Original Project. The two dwelling units would be developed in the northeastern portion of the project site, at a distance of approximately 300 yards from the closest point of the lambing pen. This Alternative was assumed to be designed to achieve a completely passive character that would appear as natural when seen from the lambing pen within the Bighorn Institute property as can be reasonably accomplished. Access would be provided from the east via the Indian Cove section of the Canyons at Bighorn Community. Although the assessment of this Alternative was based on very conceptual design parameters and did not have the benefit of any specific design studies, it was determined that if implemented it would reduce each of the Original Project’s unmitigable significant impacts to less than significant levels. It would also have less impact than the New Preferred Alternative. Mitigation barriers were not recommended relative to this Alternative to screen visibility on a driveway serving the two residences as no driveway alignment or residence design exists and because the impact was considered less than significant given the distance, the likely alignment and limited expected use. However, such mitigation barriers could be applied to this Alternative as with the New Preferred Alternative. The superior environmental consequences of this Alternative may be moot, however, as the Hillside Limited Alternative has been determined to be impracticable and infeasible. The feasibility of a two-lot alternative is dependent upon lots with sufficient size and with sufficient views of the Coachella Valley. Neither condition is met with this Alternative which has relatively little land area located above the floodplain of Dead Indian Creek and even there at elevations that provide no Valley views. New Preferred Alternative: (Two Single-Family Units with a preliminary site design):The New Preferred Alternative would be similar to the Hillside Limited Alternative as it would develop two single-family units, 36 dwelling units less than the Original Project. The units would develop less than half of the eastern portion of the project site, at a distance of approximately 240 yards from the closest point of the lambing pen to the project site. Similar to the Hillside Limited Alternative, the New Preferred Alternative would be designed to achieve a passive character similar to the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community. Access would also be provided via Indian Cove. As with the Hillside Limited Alternative, the New Preferred Alternative would result in considerably less environmental impact in all issue areas when compared with the Original Project. This reduced impact profile could be reduced even further if the amount of imported fill soils deemed necessary to raise the proposed pad heights sufficiently to provide Coachella Valley views from one-story residences therein could be substantively reduced. Subject to achievement of such views, mitigation to reduce the import has been recommended as feasible. The extent to which such mitigation may be feasible is not known. Therefore, the relative effectiveness of this mitigation also is not known. Construction of the New Preferred Alternative would result in significant regional air quality impacts during construction, biological impacts upon captive sheep in the lambing pen at the Bighorn Institute City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page II-6 II. Summary during and following construction, noise and traffic impacts on the private roads within the Canyons at Bighorn community during construction, all considerably less than the Original Project. In addition, the New Preferred Alternative would achieve the Land Use Planning, Design, and Economic objectives for the project. Environmentally Superior Alternative: Of the Alternatives analyzed for the Cornishe of Bighorn Project, the No Project/ No Build Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative as it reduces nearly all of the significant impacts that would occur under the New Preferred Alternative and the Original Project that was proposed to less than significant levels. However, this Alternative would not meet any of the Land Use Planning, Design, and Economic objectives established for the Cornishe at Bighorn project. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines requirement to identify an environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project Alternative, a comparative evaluation of the remaining alternatives indicates that the Hillside Limited Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. Implementation of the Hillside Limited Alternative would result in less environmental impact in all issue areas when compared with the Original Project and the New Preferred Alternative. As construction of the New Preferred Alternative would result in significant regional air quality impacts during construction, biological impacts upon captive sheep in the lambing pen at the Bighorn Institute during and following construction, noise and traffic impacts on the private roads within the Canyons at Bighorn community during construction, impacts of the New Preferred Alternative would be more when compared with the Hillside Limited Alternative. Although these impacts could be reduced if the amount of imported fill soils could be substantively reduced, the extent to which such mitigation may be feasible is not known. Therefore, the relative effectiveness of this mitigation also is not known. With the Hillside Limited Alternative however, development within the floodplains of Dead Indian Creek would occur, which would result in potentially significant hydrological impacts. Additionally, the Hillside Limited Alternative would not possess sufficient elevation to permit views of the Coachella Valley, and would not be large enough to accommodate more than a single lot. As the feasibility of a two-lot alternative is dependent upon lots with sufficient size and sufficient views of the Coachella Valley, neither condition is met with this Alternative. As such, the Hillside Limited Alternative does not meet the project’s Land Use Planning, and Economic objectives and is considered impracticable and infeasible. While the New Preferred Alternative would achieve the Land Use Planning, Design, and Economic objectives for the project, at the expense of greater environmental impact, it would be the environmentally superior project if feasibility is taken as an applicable consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page II-7 II. Summary H. SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS 1. Aesthetics a. Impacts The New Preferred Alternative would alter the natural appearance of less than half the area of the project site. The dwelling and landscape design for the two single-family residences would comply with the architectural guidelines for the Canyons at Bighorn, appearing as a minor extension of that community. With compliance with the Comprehensive General Plan policies and Code requirements and completion of design review by the City’s Architectural Review Commission, the New Preferred Alternative would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or surrounding area, notwithstanding the area required for site preparation and grading. Therefore, the impacts to on-site aesthetic resources would be less than significant. The New Preferred Alternative would not substantially affect views from the surrounding residential uses to the east and north or from public views across SR-74, a state scenic highway. Therefore, the New Preferred Alternative, well over 1,000 feet from the highway, would not substantively affect the scenic content of such views. Overall, aesthetic impacts under the New Preferred Alternative would be less than significant. However, mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that aesthetic impacts remain less than significant. As with the New Preferred Alternative, all related projects would be subject to the City’s project permit and approval process. Furthermore, each related project identified is located sufficiently distant from the project site as to have a minimal cumulative effect. As such, no significant cumulative impacts regarding aesthetics, views, and light or glare would occur. b. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure IV.A-1: All open areas not used for buildings, roadways, driveways, parking areas, or walkways shall be landscaped to reduce visibility of the project improvements from adjacent properties in accordance with a Landscape Plan to be prepared by a licensed landscape architect to the satisfaction of the Community Development/Planning Department. The Landscape Plan shall specify plant materials, heights upon planting or box sizes, and locations. Remaining existing natural landscape areas shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the Landscape Plan. Mitigation Measure IV.A-2: All night lighting installed within the project site shall be shielded and directed in a manner so that such lighting does not shine upwards or towards the lambing pen to the south of the project site and, thus, is generally not visible from the existing sheep pens. In addition, lighting shall not be a high glare type of lighting, shall be directed away from nearby residential uses, and shall be confined to the site. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page II-8 II. Summary c. Level of Significance After Mitigation As impacts of the New Preferred Alternative regarding aesthetics would be less than significant, implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would further ensure that aesthetic impacts remain less than significant. 2. Air Quality a. Impacts During construction, emission from the New Preferred Alternative would not exceed regional and local SCAQMD significance thresholds for ROC, CO, SO, PM, or PM. The X102.5 New Preferred Alternative would, however, exceed localized significance thresholds for NOx. As such, mitigation measures are proposed below to reduce NOx levels for the project. However, even with implementation of the mitigation measures, the New Preferred Alternative would result in exceedance of NOx threshold levels, resulting in significant construction air quality impacts. Utilizing SCAQMD localized significance thresholds (LST) for humans as an indicator of potential impacts upon the bighorn sheep during construction, the New Preferred Alternative would have less than significant impact on sheep in the nearby lambing pen. Operations of the New Preferred Alternative would not result in a significant impact, as emissions during the operational phase would be on the order of five percent of those forecast for the Original Project which were also determined to be less than significant. The results of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions calculated for the New Preferred Alternative determined that operational emissions would be less than one-tenth of its construction emissions, with impacts held to a level of statistical insignificance. The New Preferred Alternative would comply with the goals of the State of California as it would incorporate energy reducing features such as the installation of efficient appliances, fixtures, and infrastructure. As the New Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the underlying growth assumptions on which the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is based, the long term increase in emissions that would occur as a result of development of the project site would not be cumulatively considerable. b. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure IV.B-1: Water three times daily or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, as needed to reduce off-site transport of fugitive dust from all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces. Additionally, install AQMD approved track-out prevention devices for construction vehicles leaving the project site. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page II-9 II. Summary Mitigation Measure IV.B-2: All private streets shall be swept as needed during construction, but not more frequently than hourly, if visible soil material has been carried onto adjacent paved roads. Mitigation Measure IV.B-3: Construction equipment shall be visually inspected prior to leaving the site and loose dirt shall be washed off with wheel washers as necessary. Mitigation Measure IV.B-4: All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. Mitigation Measure IV.B-5: General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment to minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues shall have their engines turned off when not in use to reduce vehicle emissions. Construction activities should be phased and scheduled to avoid emissions peaks and discontinued during second-stage smog alerts. Mitigation Measure IV.B-6: To the extent possible, petroleum powered construction activity shall utilize electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel power generators and/or gasoline power generators. Mitigation Measure IV.B-7: On-site mobile equipment shall be powered by alternative fuel sources (i.e., methanol, natural gas, propane or butane) as feasible. Mitigation Measure IV.B-8: The Applicant shall, as feasible, install solar or low- emission water heaters that exceed the requirements of the national Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) and the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), to reduce energy consumption. Mitigation Measure IV. B-9: The Applicant shall, as feasible, install energy-efficient appliances (i.e., ENERGY STAR) to reduce energy consumption. c. Level of Significance After Mitigation Even with implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts of the New Preferred Alternative would exceed NOx threshold levels, resulting in significant construction air quality impacts. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page II-10 II. Summary 3. Biological Resources a. Impacts The New Preferred Alternative would not adversely affect sensitive communities, nesting habitat for sensitive birds, sensitive plant species, the barefoot gecko (Coleaonyx switaki), the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizi), the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), wildlife movement, nor free roaming specimens of the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnobates), as the site either does not provide such habitat or is well removed from the established ranges of the respective species. Impacts to wildlife movement would also be less than significant. Concern for impacts upon captive adult bighorn sheep and born lambs in the lambing pen on the Bighorn Institute property south of the project site has been a significant factor in developing a sequence of several previous alternatives, as well as the New Preferred Alternative. It is understood that the bighorn sheep are more responsive to visual stimuli than they are to audio stimuli. Site preparation for and construction of two large homes with subsequent landscaping would occur in plain view of the lambing pen. Such intense visual construction activities could be expected to significantly impact the bighorn sheep in the pen. As such, for the purposes of this document, construction is defined as grading, excavation, framing, siding, roofing, landscaping, installation of doors and windows, and any interior work that utilizes pneumatic tools or compressors that would be located outside the proposed residences. Following construction, the orientation of the access driveway from the Indian Cove neighborhood to the southerly side of two proposed residential lots dictates that all vehicular access must approach the lambing pen prior to approaching the two residences even though construction of the driveway would remain within the lower elevations of the project site with berms or walls along the alignment as necessary to reduce glare and views of on-coming traffic from the lambing pen. As no design information is available, it cannot be said that the two residences would be entirely oriented to the north, leaving entirely passive facades facing the lambing pen to the south. Thus, activity associated with normal residential occupancy, including vehicular arrivals and departures for occupants, visitors and guests, maintenance, mail delivery and other deliveries, as well as some of the associated outdoor activities and nighttime illumination of outdoor and indoor spaces can be presumed to be visible from the pen. The understanding of sheep behavior is not sufficiently refined to specify an activity level (i.e., 38 dwellings or two dwellings) at which the sheep’s response is activated. Therefore, it must be conservatively assumed that the New Preferred Alternative could still have the potential to significantly impact captive adult sheep and born lambs in the lambing pen through visual and, to a lesser degree, auditory habituation. Mitigation is recommended below to attempt to reduce this impact, although elimination of the impact is probably not possible given the proximity of the project site and the lambing pen in its current location. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page II-11 II. Summary The Cornishe of Bighorn project is one of 32 private projects that was analyzed for cumulative impacts and is covered in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). Under the CVMSHCP, any loss of habitat can be mitigated through a donation of public and privately owned land to the Reserve or through payment of fees for habitat restoration. Therefore, implementation of the New Preferred Alternative would not have a significant cumulative impact on naturally occurring plant and wildlife species. The cumulative impact on the Bighorn Institute would remain significant. Although the CVMSHCP has been fully approved by all affected local jurisdictions, formal adoption is not yet complete. Therefore, in the unlikely event the CVMSHCP is not adopted by the resource agencies prior to the Cornishe at Bighorn EIR certification, it is reasonable to assume that each of the 32 private projects would be approved with mitigations and conservation measures substantially similar to the ones proposed in the CVMSHCP. As such, the cumulative impacts would be the same, with or without the CVMSHCP. b. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure IV.C-1: Garage openings shall be oriented easterly away from the lambing pens to the maximum extent practicable. Mitigation Measure IV.C-2: Site preparation and grading of the site shall be designed to balance on-site to minimize new import of fill materials to the extent feasible. Grading shall be restricted to that necessary for 1) reasonable vehicular access from the Indian Cove section of the Canyons at Bighorn to access the residences, 2) development of proposed building pad elevations, and 3) reasonable foundation excavations. To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations no higher than 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. Mitigation Measure IV.C-3: The proposed residences shall be designed so that, to the maximum extent practicable, all activities and facilities associated with their occupancy, including indoor and outdoor residency, landscape and other maintenance, mechanical equipment, recreational facilities, etc., be located to the north of the residences or screened from view from the lambing pen by barriers high enough to be effective. Mitigation Measure IV.C-4: No construction activities, as defined in this document, should occur during the lambing season, which extends from January 1 to 2 June 30. If any construction activities should occur during the nesting season 2 For the purposes of this document, construction is defined as grading, excavation, framing, siding, roofing, landscaping, installation of doors and windows, and any interior work that utilizes pneumatic tools or compressors that would be located outside the proposed residences. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page II-12 II. Summary stst that extends beyond the lambing season (July 1 to August 31), all suitable habitat in the development/ disturbance area of the project shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist prior to removal. If any active nests are detected within a 300-foot buffer of the construction activity, a buffer of at least 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete or the nest has failed as determined by the biological monitor. Mitigation Measure IV.C-5: A biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey, per USFWS protocols, to ensure that no desert tortoises are affected by the project. If it is determined that tortoises may be affected, a desert tortoise conservation plan addressing the appropriate construction management and ongoing operational practices shall be prepared. Mitigation Measure IV.C-6: A pre-construction survey, conducted according to reserve agency protocols, shall be performed in order to ensure that no burrowing owls are affected by the project. If it is determined that burrowing owls may be affected, a burrowing owl conservation plan addressing the appropriate construction management and ongoing operational practices shall be prepared. Mitigation Measure IV.C-7: In order to minimize stress and disturbance to Peninsular bighorn sheep at the Bighorn Institute, no dogs shall be permitted on the project site, either as residents or as visitors. Mitigation Measure IV.C-8: A permanent fence and/or wall shall be constructed around the developed parts of the project site to prevent free-roaming sheep from entering developed areas. The design and location of the fence and/or wall shall be developed in consultation with a biologist and the Bighorn Institute. No landscaping or surface water shall be allowed to occur outside the fence to prevent sheep from being attracted to the site and exposed to danger or human activity. Mitigation Measure IV.C-9: In the event the CVMSHCP is adopted, the Applicant shall pay a Local Development Mitigation Fee if he/she chooses to avoid biological survey requirements, analysis of impacts and mitigation. The estimated Local Development Mitigation Fee is $5,730 per acre of development for the first year of plan implementation. (The average annual increase of the Local Development Mitigation Fee is projected at 3.29 percent.) City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page II-13 II. Summary c. Level of Significance After Mitigation With implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts of the New Preferred Alternative on biological resources would be reduced. However, it must be conservatively assumed that the New Preferred Alternative would still have the potential to significantly impact captive adult sheep and born lambs in the lambing pen through visual and, to a lesser degree, auditory habituation. Thus, impacts to biological resources during construction and operation of the project remain significant and unmitigable. 4. Cultural Resources a. Impacts The New Preferred Alternative would not disturb, damage, or degrade any potentially unique historic, archaeological or paleontological resources or sites and, therefore, would have no adverse impact upon such resources/sites. In the event any archaeological resources, historic resources, or traditional burial sites are unearthed or discovered, the New Preferred Alternative would be required to comply with the provisions and conservation measures set forth by CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. As such, impacts of the New Preferred Alternative would be less than significant. As with the New Preferred Alternative, all other related projects would be required to comply with the CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, cumulative impacts regarding historic, archaeological and paleontological resources would also be less than significant. b. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required as the New Preferred Alternative would not have adverse impacts regarding cultural resources. c. Level of Significance After Mitigation No mitigation measures are required as the New Preferred Alternative would have less than significant impacts on cultural resources. 5. Hydrology a. Impacts The New Preferred Alternative would introduce a relatively small amount of impervious surface areas on-site altering the site’s hydrology marginally. Runoff flows and volumes, and sediment loads would be increased slightly over existing conditions for ultimate discharge into City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page II-14 II. Summary Dead Indian Creek. The New Preferred Alternative would require permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CDFG, and Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board for the construction of the access road over the natural drainage channel along the site’s eastern boundary. However, no access roads are proposed across Dead Indian Creek. Therefore, impacts to “jurisdictional waters” would be reduced in comparison to the potential impacts of the Original Project. The project would also include on-site drainage improvements in accordance with City requirements. As such, with compliance with the applicable rules and regulations, impacts regarding hydrology and surface water quality attributable to the New Preferred Alternative would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Cumulative impacts regarding hydrology and surface water quality would also be less than significant with the New Preferred Alternative. Each related project would be required to comply with City, state, and federal requirements. In addition, each related project would be evaluated individually by the City to ensure adequate system capacity. As such, cumulative impacts regarding hydrology and surface water quality would be less than significant. b. Mitigation Measures The New Preferred Alternative would result in a less than significant impact regarding hydrology and surface water quality and no mitigation measures are required. c. Level of Significance After Mitigation No mitigation measures are required as the New Preferred Alternative’s impacts regarding hydrology and surface water quality would be less than significant. 6. Land Use and Planning a. Impacts The New Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning code. The project would appear as a minor extension of the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community and would be subject to Architectural Review by the City. Therefore, no adverse compatibility relationships with the adjoining residential land uses or the Bighorn Institute are predicted to occur and no division of community effects would ensue. The New Preferred Alternative’s impact on Land Use and Planning would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. As each related project would be required to comply with the City’s land use policies and zoning regulations, and as the location of the New Preferred Alternative would be located distant from other related projects, and no cumulative impacts would occur. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page II-15 II. Summary b. Mitigation Measures As discussed, the New Preferred Alternative would result in a less than significant impact regarding land use and no mitigation measures are required. c. Level of Significance After Mitigation No mitigation measures are required as the New Preferred Alternative’s impacts regarding land use would be less than significant. 7. Noise a. Impacts The New Preferred Alternative’s construction noise impacts at the nearest residential sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Due to the amount of proposed site preparation and grading, the earthwork and concrete work for two large residential homes and associated auxiliary structures would require more than three months to complete resulting in a likely significant construction noise impact on captive adult sheep and newborn lambs in the nearby lambing pen. Vibration impacts associated with construction would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. After construction, the occupancy and use of the two dwellings under the New Preferred Alternative would increase noise levels from on-site operations due to vehicular movement and normal occupancy of the premises relative to the existing conditions. However, the incremental increase in noise levels would be well below the 3 dBA CNEL significance threshold. Therefore, impacts to the existing and future sensitive residential receptors within the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community would be less than significant. Operational noise impacts upon bighorn sheep in the lambing pen would be less than significant. Nonetheless, mitigation measures are proposed below. As the New Preferred Alternative would result in a potentially significant noise impact during construction to the lambing pens in the Bighorn Institute, it is anticipated that the cumulative noise impacts would also remain potentially significant to the Bighorn Institute during construction. Cumulative roadway noise impacts would be significant, as buildout of the Canyons at Bighorn would exceed the 3 dBA CNEL incremental threshold by 4.5 dBA CNEL along Cahuilla Way, east of SR-74. The New Preferred Alternative would contribute to these cumulative noise levels resulting in significant cumulative noise impacts on Cahuilla Way. No other public or private roadway segments would result in a cumulative noise impact. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page II-16 II. Summary b. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts of the New Preferred Alternative. Please note that Mitigation Measures IV.C-1 through IV.C-3 are repeated here from Subsection 3, Biological Resources above. Mitigation Measure IV.C-1: Garage openings shall be oriented easterly away from the lambing pens to the maximum extent practicable. Mitigation Measure IV.C-2: Site preparation and grading of the site shall be designed to balance on-site to minimize new import of fill materials to the extent feasible. Grading shall be restricted to that necessary for: 1) reasonable vehicular access from the Indian Cove section of the Canyons at Bighorn to access the residences, 2) development of proposed building pad elevations, and 3) reasonable foundation excavations. To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations no higher than 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. Mitigation Measure IV.C-3: The proposed residences shall be designed so that, to the maximum extent practicable, all activities and facilities associated with their occupancy, including indoor and outdoor residency, landscape and other maintenance, mechanical equipment, recreational facilities, etc., be located to the north of the residences or screened from view from the lambing pen by barriers high enough to be effective. Mitigation Measure IV.G-1: Construction equipment shall be fitted with residential grade mufflers, where readily available in the construction equipment fleet that regularly serves the City of Palm Desert area. Prospective contractors shall demonstrate a good faith effort to locate such construction equipment for use throughout the duration of project construction. Mitigation Measure IV.G-2: To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of heavy equipment simultaneously. Mitigation Measure IV.G-3: Engine idling from construction equipment such as bulldozers and haul trucks shall be limited to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure IV.G-4: The construction staging area shall be located as far as feasible from sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measure IV.G-5: Construction activities shall be limited to between the st hours of 6:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday from July 1. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page II-17 II. Summary th through September 30 and between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., stst Monday through Friday from October 1 through December 31. On Saturdays, construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. No construction shall be allowed on Sundays, Federal holidays or during the January through June lambing season. Such limitation shall be placed as a condition on the grading permit in a manner meeting the approvals of the City Engineer and the Building Official. Mitigation Measure IV.G-6: Power maintenance equipment including leaf blowers, mowers, sanders, saws, and other similar equipment, shall not be used along the southern and western sides of the residences nearest the Bighorn Institute lambing pens. Mitigation Measure IV.G-7: Stationary equipment (i.e., pool machinery and HVAC equipment) shall be designed so as to be enclosed on all sides with sound attenuation treatment on the southern and western sides of the residences, nearest the lambing pens. In addition, mechanical equipment for the residences shall be located on the northern side of the buildings or screened from view from the lambing pen by barriers high enough to be effective. Mitigation Measure IV.G-8: Additional CC&Rs shall be developed that implement noise restrictions in the development and especially in the southwestern portion of the project site. These would include restrictions on fireworks, gas powered blowers, the use of loud vehicles and management of on-site celebrations or similar events. c. Level of Significance After Mitigation Even with implementation of mitigation measures, as construction for the New Preferred Alternative is anticipated to exceed the three month threshold at which exposure to construction noise can occur, construction impacts to the bighorn sheep in the lambing pen would be significant and unavoidable. 8. Transportation and Circulation a. Impacts Construction traffic associated with haul trucks importing fill soils would cause a short- term significant impact on private streets within the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community. The New Preferred Alternative’s import of 35,900 cubic yards is estimated with 64 haul truck trips per day resulting in an increase of 0.1 or more in the Traffic Intrusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index. A mitigation measure is recommended to reduce the amount of fill soils to be imported by the project to the extent feasible. However, the amount of haul truck trips City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page II-18 II. Summary alone that would be required to import even a somewhat reduced volume of fill to the project site via the Canyon’s private roadway system could be unexpected to the Canyons at Bighorn residents, and perceived as intrusive. As such, construction impacts to the Canyons at Bighorn community would be considered potentially significant. During operations, the New Preferred Alternative would involve a nominal incremental addition of 19 daily vehicle trips to existing or future private traffic on the Indian Cove, Rock Creek, Canyon Drive private roadway segments within the Canyons at Bighorn. This small increase on any existing/future private street volume of 90 or more vehicles per day would not cause an increase of 0.1 in the TIRE index. Therefore, during the operation of the New Preferred Alternative, less than significant impacts would occur along the private roadways within the Canyons community. As with the Original Project, traffic impacts of the New Preferred Alternative to the public roadway system would remain less than significant. Cumulative traffic impacts would be localized for all related projects and would affect areas immediately adjacent to or surrounding each particular project site. The nearest identified project is the remaining buildout of the Canyons at Bighorn community. As such, the ongoing construction of that project along with the New Preferred Alternative would result in potentially significant cumulative impacts during construction. No cumulative impacts are anticipated upon public roadway segments at roadway intersections operating at levels of service worse than LOS D. b. Mitigation Measures Mitigation IV.C-2 is proposed above in Subsection 3, Biological Resources, and is recommended to also reduce construction traffic impacts. The following below repeats the mitigation measure as presented above: Mitigation Measure IV.C-2: Site preparation and grading of the site shall be designed to balance on-site to minimize new import of fill materials to the extent feasible. Grading shall be restricted to that necessary for 1) proposed building pad improvement and reasonable vehicular access from the Indian Cove section of the Canyons at Bighorn to access the residences, 2) development of proposed building pad elevations, and 3) reasonable foundation excavations. To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations no higher than 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page II-19 II. Summary c. Level of Significance After Mitigation Even with implementation of mitigation measures, construction traffic impacts associated with the amount of fill to be imported cannot be ascertained to be reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore, the New Preferred Alternative would result in a significant and unavoidable impact regarding construction traffic to the Canyons at Bighorn private roads. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page II-20 JJJ/!!D PSSFDUJPOT!BOE!B EEJUJPOT!UP!UIF!O FX Q SFGFSSFE!B MUFSOBUJWF!BOE!E SBGU!FJS III. CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE NEW PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE AND DRAFT EIR This section of the Final EIR provides for changes to the New Preferred Alternative, as well as the Draft EIR that have been made to clarify, correct, or add to the environmental impact analysis for the Cornishe of Bighorn Project. Such changes result from public and agency comments received in response to the New Preferred Alternative- an Addition to the Draft EIR, and the Draft EIR, and/or new information that has become available since publication of both documents. Deletions are shown with strikethrough and additions are shown with underline. Such changes are indicated below under the appropriate document EIR section or appendix heading. A.CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE NEW PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE - AN ADDITION TO THE DRAFT EIR The following corrections and additions have been identified for the New Preferred Alternative - An Addition to the Draft EIR: II. Summary 1.Section II, Summary, page 6, change the third sentence under Section 1, Aesthetics as follows: With compliance with the Comprehensive General Plan policies and Code requirements and completion of design review by the City’s Architectural Review Commission, the New Preferred Alternative would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or surrounding area, notwithstanding the area required for site preparation and grading. 2.Section II, Summary, page 7, change the fourth sentence under Section 2.a, Air Quality - Impacts, as follows: As the New Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the underlying growth assumptions on which the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) is based, the long term increase in emissions that would occur as a result of development of the project site would not be cumulatively considerable. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page III-1 III. Corrections and Additions to The New Preferred Alternative and Draft EIR 3.Section II, Summary, page 8, change Mitigation Measure IV.B-1 as follows: Mitigation Measure IV.B-1: Water three times daily or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied, according to manufacturers' specifications, as needed to reduce off-site transport of fugitive dust from all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces. Additionally, install AQMD approved track-out prevention devices for construction vehicles leaving the project site. 4.Section I. Summary, page 9, change the first sentence in the second paragraph under subsection 3.a, Biological Resources - Impacts, as follows: Concern for impacts upon captive adult bighorn sheep and born lambs in the lambing pen on the Bighorn Institute property south of the project site has been a significant factor in developing a sequence of several previous alternatives, as well as the New Preferred Alternative. 5.Section I. Summary, page 9, change the fourth sentence in the second paragraph under subsection 3.a, Biological Resources - Impacts, as follows: Such intense visual construction activities would could be expected to significantly impact the bighorn sheep in the pen. 6.Section I. Summary, page 9, change the second to the last sentence in the third paragraph under subsection 3.a, Biological Resources - Impacts, as follows: Therefore, it must be conservatively assumed that the New Preferred Alternative would couldstill have the potential to significantly impact captive adult sheep and born lambs in the lambing pen through visual and, to a lesser degree, auditory habituation. 7.Section I, Summary, page 10, change the last sentence in Mitigation Measure IV.C-2 as follows: To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations of no higher than 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. 8.Section II, Summary, page 10, change Mitigation Measure IV.C-3 as follows: Mitigation Measure IV.C-3: The proposed residences shall be designed so that, to the maximum extent practicable, all activities and facilities associated with their occupancy, including indoor and outdoor residency, landscape and other maintenance, mechanical equipment, recreational facilities, etc., be located to the north of the residences or screened from view from the lambing pen by wallsbarriershigh enough to be effective. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page III-2 III. Corrections and Additions to The New Preferred Alternative and Draft EIR 9.Section II, Summary, page 11, change the first sentence in Mitigation Measure IV.C-4 as follows: Mitigation Measure IV.C-4: No construction activities, as defined in this document, should occur during the lambing season, which extends from January 1 to 106 June 30. 10.Section II, Summary, page 13, change the first sentence under Section 5.a, Hydrology - Impacts, as follows: The New Preferred Alternative would introduce a relatively small amount of impervious surface acres areason-site altering the site’s hydrology marginally. 11.Section II, Summary, page 13, change the third sentence under Section 5.a, Hydrology - Impacts, as follows: The New Preferred Alternative would require permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CDFG, and Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board for the construction of the driveway access road over the natural drainage channel along the site’s eastern boundary. 12.Section II, Summary, page 13, change the fourth sentence under Section 5.a, Hydrology - Impacts, as follows: However, no access roads are proposed across Dead Indian Creek. Therefore, impacts to “jurisdictional waters” would be reduced in comparison to the potential impacts of the Original Project. 13.Section II, Summary, page 13, change the last sentence in the paragraph under Section 5.a, Hydrology - Impacts, as follows: As such, cumulative impacts regarding hydrology and surface water quality would be less than significant. 106 For the purposes of this document, construction is defined as grading, excavation, framing, siding, roofing, landscaping, installation of doors and windows, and any interior work that utilizes pneumatic tools or compressors that would be located outside the proposed residences. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page III-3 III. Corrections and Additions to The New Preferred Alternative and Draft EIR 14.Section II, Summary, page 13, change the sentence in the paragraph under Section 5.c, Hydrology - Level of Significance After Mitigation, as follows: No mitigation measures are required as the New Preferred Alternative’s impacts regarding hydrology and surface water quality would be less than significant. 15.Section II, Summary, page 13, change the second sentence under Section 6.a, Land Use and Planning - Impacts, as follows: The project would appear as a minor extension of the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community and would be subject to Architectural Review by the City. 16.Section II, Summary, page 14, change the third sentence in the second paragraph under Section 7.a, Noise - Impacts, as follows: Therefore, impacts to the existing and future sensitive residential receptors within the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community would be less than significant. 17.Section II, Summary, page 15, change the first sentence in the third paragraph under Section 7.a, Noise - Impacts, as follows: As the New Preferred Alternative would result in a potentially significant noise impact during construction to the lambing pens in the Bighorn Institute, it is anticipated that the cumulative noise impacts would also remain potentially significant to the Bighorn Institute during construction. 18.Section II, Summary, page 15, change the last sentence in Mitigation Measure IV.C-2 as follows: To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations of no higher than 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. 19.Section II, Summary, page 15, change Mitigation Measure IV.C-3 as follows: Mitigation Measure IV.C-3: The proposed residences shall be designed so that, to the maximum extent practicable, all activities and facilities associated with their occupancy, including indoor and outdoor residency, landscape and other maintenance, mechanical equipment, recreational facilities, etc., be located to the north of the residences on orscreened from view from the lambing pen by wallsbarriershigh enough to be effective. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page III-4 III. Corrections and Additions to The New Preferred Alternative and Draft EIR 20.Section II, Summary, page 16, change the last sentence in Mitigation Measure IV.G-5 as follows: Such limitation shall be placed as a condition on the grading permit in a manner meeting the approval approvalsof the City Engineer and the Building Official. 21.Section II, Summary, page 16, change Mitigation Measure IV.G-6 as follows: Mitigation Measure IV.G-6: Power maintenance equipment including leaf blowers, mowers, sanders, saws, and other similar equipment, shall not be used along the southern and western side of the buildings residences nearest the Bighorn Institute lambing pens. 22.Section II, Summary, page 16, change Mitigation Measure IV.G-7 as follows: Mitigation Measure IV.G-7: Stationary equipment (i.e., pool machinery and HVAC equipment) shall be designed so as to be enclosed on all sides with sound attenuation treatment on the southern and western side of the residences, nearest the lambing pens. In addition, mechanical equipment for the residences shall be located on the northern side of the buildings or screened from view from the lambing pen by barriers high enough to be effective. 23.Section II, Summary, page 16, change the last paragraph on the page as follows: Even with implementation of mitigation measures, as construction for the New Preferred Alternative is anticipated to exceed the three months threshold at which exposure to construction noise can occur, construction impacts to the bighorn sheep in the lambing pen would remain be potentiallysignificant and unavoidable. 24.Section II, Summary, page 17, change the fourth sentence in the first paragraph on the page as follows: However, the amount of haul truck trips alone that would be required to import even a somewhat reduced volume of fill to the project site via the Canyon’s private roadway system wouldcouldbe unexpected to the Canyons at Bighorn residents, and perceived as intrusive. 25.Section II, Summary, page 17, change the fourth sentence in the second paragraph on the page as follows: As with the Original Project, Traffic traffic impacts of the New Preferred Alternative to the public roadway system would remain less than significant. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page III-5 III. Corrections and Additions to The New Preferred Alternative and Draft EIR 26.Section II, Summary, page 18, change the last sentence in Mitigation Measure IV.C-2 as follows: To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations of no higher than 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. IV. Evaluation of Impacts 1.Section IV, Evaluation of Impacts, page 35, change Mitigation Measure IV.B-1 as follows: Mitigation Measure IV.B-1: Water three times daily or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied, according to manufacturers' specifications, as needed to reduce off-site transport of fugitive dust from all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces. Additionally, install AQMD approved track-out prevention devices for construction vehicles leaving the project site. 2.Section IV, Evaluation of Impacts, page 41, change the last sentence in Mitigation Measure IV.C-2 as follows: To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations of no higher than 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. 3.Section IV, Evaluation of Impacts, page 41, change Mitigation Measure IV.C-3 as follows: Mitigation Measure IV.C-3: The proposed residences shall be designed so that, to the maximum extent practicable, all activities and facilities associated with their occupancy, including indoor and outdoor residency, landscape and other maintenance, mechanical equipment, recreational facilities, etc., be located to the north of the residences or screened from view from the lambing pen by wallsbarriershigh enough to be effective. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page III-6 III. Corrections and Additions to The New Preferred Alternative and Draft EIR 4.Section IV, Evaluation of Impacts, page 42, change the first sentence in Mitigation Measure IV.C-4 as follows: Mitigation Measure IV.C-4: No construction activities, as defined in this document, should occur during the lambing season, which extends from January 1 to 107 June 30. 5.Section IV, Evaluation of Impacts, page 52, change the last sentence in Mitigation Measure IV.C-2 as follows: To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations of no higher than 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. 6.Section IV, Evaluation of Impacts, page 52, change Mitigation Measure IV.C-3 as follows: Mitigation Measure IV.C-3: The proposed residences shall be designed so that, to the maximum extent practicable, all activities and facilities associated with their occupancy, including indoor and outdoor residency, landscape and other maintenance, mechanical equipment, recreational facilities, etc., be located to the north of the residences or screened from view from the lambing pen by wallsbarriershigh enough to be effective. 7.Section IV, Evaluation of Impacts, page 52, change the last sentence in Mitigation Measure IV.G-5 as follows: Such limitation shall be placed as a condition on the grading permit in a manner meeting the approvals of the City Engineer and the Building Official. 8.Section IV, Evaluation of Impacts, page 52, change Mitigation Measure IV.G-6 as follows: Mitigation Measure IV.G-6: Power maintenance equipment including leaf blowers, mowers, sanders, saws, and other similar equipment, shall not be used along the southern and western side of the buildings residences nearest the Bighorn Institute lambing pens. 107 For the purposes of this document, construction is defined as grading, excavation, framing, siding, roofing, landscaping, installation of doors and windows, and any interior work that utilizes pneumatic tools or compressors that would be located outside the proposed residences. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page III-7 III. Corrections and Additions to The New Preferred Alternative and Draft EIR 9.Section IV, Evaluation of Impacts, page 53, change Mitigation Measure IV.G-7 as follows: Mitigation Measure IV.G-7: Stationary equipment (i.e., pool machinery and HVAC equipment) shall be designed so as to be enclosed on all sides with sound attenuation treatment on the southern side of the residences, nearest the lambing pens. In addition, mechanical equipment for the residences shall be located on the northern side of the buildings or screened from view from the lambing pen by walls barriers high enough to be effective. 10.Section IV, Evaluation of Impacts, page 55, change the last sentence in Mitigation Measure IV.C-2 as follows: To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations of no higher than 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative 1.Section VI, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative, page 64, change Mitigation Measure IV.B-1 as follows: Mitigation Measure IV.B-1: Water three times daily or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied, according to manufacturers' specifications, as needed to reduce off-site transport of fugitive dust from all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces. Additionally, install AQMD approved track-out prevention devices for construction vehicles leaving the project site. 2.Section VI, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative, page 64, change Mitigation Measure IV.B-2 as follows: Mitigation Measure IV.B-2: All private streets shall be swept as needed during construction, but not more frequently than hourly, if visible soil material has been carried onto adjacent public paved roads. 3.Section VI, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative, page 64, change include in the Monitoring Phase under Mitigation Measure IV.B-7 the following: Monitoring Phase: Construction, Post-construction City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page III-8 III. Corrections and Additions to The New Preferred Alternative and Draft EIR 4.Section VI, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative, page 67, change the Monitoring Agency under Mitigation Measure IV.B-9 as follows: Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety 5.Section VI, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative, page 67, change the Action Indicating Compliance With Mitigation Measure(s) under Mitigation Measure IV.B-9 as follows: Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Approval by Design Review BoardDepartment of Building and Safety; Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy 6.Section VI, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative, page 68, change the last sentence in Mitigation Measure IV.C-2 as follows: To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations of no higher than 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. 7.Section VI, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative, page 68, change the last sentence in Mitigation Measure IV.C-3 as follows: Mitigation Measure IV.C-3: The proposed residences shall be designed so that, to the maximum extent practicable, all activities and facilities associated with their occupancy, including indoor and outdoor residency, landscape and other maintenance, mechanical equipment, recreational facilities, etc., be located to the north of the residences or screened from view from the lambing pen by wallsbarriershigh enough to be effective. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page III-9 III. Corrections and Additions to The New Preferred Alternative and Draft EIR 8.Section VI, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative, page 68, change the first sentence in Mitigation Measure IV.C-4 as follows: Mitigation Measure IV.C-4: No construction activities, as defined in this document, should occur during the lambing season, which extends from January 1 to 108 June 30. 9.Section VI, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative, page 70, change the Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure for Mitigation Measure IV.C-7 as follows: Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): QuarterlySemi-Annual compliance certification report by City of Palm Desert Department of Community Development 10.Section VI, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative, page 71, change the introductory sentence under subsection D. Noise as follows: Mitigation Measures for noise impacts include Mitigation Measures IV.C-1 through IV.C-43above, in addition to the following: 11.Section VI, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative, page 72, change the Monitoring Frequency for Mitigation Measure IV.G-2 as follows: Monitoring Frequency:Periodic field inspections, especially during the rainy season (October 15 through April December 31) 12.Section VI, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative, page 73, change the last sentence in Mitigation Measure IV.G-5 as follows: Such limitation shall be placed as a condition on the grading permit in a manner meeting the approval approvalsof the City Engineer and the Building Official. 108 For the purposes of this document, construction is defined as grading, excavation, framing, siding, roofing, landscaping, installation of doors and windows, and any interior work that utilizes pneumatic tools or compressors that would be located outside the proposed residences. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page III-10 III. Corrections and Additions to The New Preferred Alternative and Draft EIR 13.Section VI, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative, page 73, change Mitigation Measure IV.G-6 as follows: Mitigation Measure IV.G-6: Power maintenance equipment including leaf blowers, mowers, sanders, saws, and other similar equipment, shall not be used along the southern and western side of the buildings residences nearest the Bighorn Institute lambing pens. 14.Section VI, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative, page 74, change the first sentence in Mitigation Measure IV.G-7 as follows: Mitigation Measure IV.G-7: Stationary equipment (i.e., pool machinery and HVAC equipment) shall be designed so as to be enclosed on all sides with sound attenuation treatment on the southern and western side of the residences, nearest the lambing pens. In addition, mechanical equipment for the residences shall be located on the northern side of the buildings or screened from view from the lambing pen by walls barriershigh enough to be effective. B. CORRECTIONS AND ADDITIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR The following corrections and additions have been identified for the Draft EIR: I. Summary 1.Section I, Summary, page 19, change Mitigation Measure IV.C-6 as follows: Mitigation Measure IV.C-6: It is recommended that project construction be constrained so that no outdoor construction activities occur during the lambing season, which extends from February through MayJanuary 1 through June 30. IV.C. Biological Resources 1.Section IV.C, Biological Resources, page 114, change the third and second to the last sentence in the second paragraph as follows: The ram den pen is located approximately 1,500 feet to the southwest of the project site and encompasses approximately one acre. Due to the proximity and intervening topography between the ram den penand project site, the ram den penwould not be affected by development of the project site. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page III-11 III. Corrections and Additions to The New Preferred Alternative and Draft EIR 2.Section IV.C, Biological Resources, page 142, change the third sentence in the first paragraph as follows: The nearby Santa Rita Rosaand San Jacinto Mountains contain populations of less than two hundred individuals. 3.Section IV.C, Biological Resources, page 152, change the last sentence in the second paragraph as follows: A 1998-2002 2001study of 34 wild lambs being tracked using radio telemetry found that 43 percent of mortality was caused by direct or indirect effects of urbanization. 4.Section IV.C, Biological Resources, page 153, change the second sentence of the last paragraph as follows: It is currently the only suchThis MOU, as well as the Institute’s 10(a)(1)(A) permit with the USFWS, allows for the release of peninsular bighorn sheep. IV.E. Hydrology 1.Section IV.E, Hydrology, page 173, add the following footnote to the second to the last sentence of the second paragraph, and update the footnote reference numbers thereafter to reflect the added footnote: Opposite the proposed project site, Dead Indian Creek’s north bank has been graded to 106 form a linear levee for flood control purposes. 106. 100% Design Hydraulics Report, the Canyons at Bighorn, Tract Nos. 25296 and 28575, Dead Indian Creek Channel Improvements, Palm Desert, California; ASL Consulting Engineers, November 1997. 2.Section IV.E, Hydrology, page 176, change the third sentence in the second paragraph as follows: As mentioned above, the project would obtain U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CDFG, andCRBRWQCB, and Coachella Valley Water District permits for the construction of the site access roads and would comply with all applicable permit requirements. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page III-12 III. Corrections and Additions to The New Preferred Alternative and Draft EIR VIII. References 1.Section VIII, References, page 288, add the following reference to the top, consistent with the alphabetical order of the References list: ASL Consulting Engineers, 100% Design Hydraulics Report, the Canyons at Bighorn, Tract Nos. 25296 and 28575, Dead Indian Creek Channel Improvements, Palm Desert, California; November 1997. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page III-13 JW/!!D PNNFOUT!BOE!S FTQPOTFT!UP!UIF O FX!Q SFGFSSFE!B MUFSOBUJWF IV. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE NEW PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE This section presents the comments contained in letters submitted during the public review period for the New Preferred Alternative from federal and state agencies, as well as from organizations and private individuals. A list of commentors is provided in Table IV-1 on page IV-2. The letters are assigned a numeric identifier, as indicated in Table IV-1. Each comment that requires a response within the letters has been assigned a number. For example, the first comment in Letter No. 1 would be Comment No. 1-1, and the fourth comment in Letter No. 3 would be Comment No. 3-4. A response has been prepared for each comment within each comment letter. The response to each comment is then numbered to correspond with the respective comment: i.e., Response No. 1-1 and Response No. 3-4. A copy of each of the comment letters on the New Preferred Alternative is provided in this section of the Final EIR. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-1 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative Table IV-1 List of Commentors Letter Identifier Name of Commentor/Agency 1 Unites States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Palm Springs South Coast Field Office 690 West Garnet Avenue North Palm Springs, CA 92258-1260 2 Unites States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, CA 92011 3 Terry Roberts, Director Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 4 Dave Singleton, Program Analyst State of California Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 5 Mark C. Jorgensen, Superintendent State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Anza Borrego Desert State Park 200 Palm Canyon Drive Borrego Springs, CA 92004 6 Laverne Jones, Planning Technician Southern California Association of Governments Program Development and Evaluation Division thth Street, 12 Floor 818 West 7 Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 7 Alfonso Hernandez, Assistant Planner Sunline Transit Agency 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail Thousand Palms, CA 92276 8 The Williams Law Firm (Bighorn Institute) 100 Bayview Circle, South Tower, Suite 330 Newport Beach, CA 92660-2984 9 D. Wayne Brechtel Worden Williams (Sierra Club) 162 Stevens Avenue, Suite 702 Solano Beach, CA 92075 City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-2 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative Table IV-1 (Continued) List of Commentors Letter Identifier Name of Commentor/Agency 10 George Lingenbrink, President Libri Partners, Ltd. 14787 Lady’s Secret Drive P.O. Box 9856 Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 11 Oliver A. Ryder, Ph.D, Kleberg Associate Director/ Genetics Conservation and Research for Endangered Species Zoological Society of San Diego 15600 San Pasqual Valley Road Escondido, CA 92027-7000 12 Roland K. Burbank, DVM Desert Animal Hospital 4299 East Ramon Road, Palm Springs, CA 92264 13 Marcie Borchard 14 Mary K. Brown La Quinta High 79255 Westward Ho Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 15 Theresa A. Cox 16 Charles W. Jenner, DVM 10832 Los Alamitos Boulevard, Los Alamitos, CA 90720 17 Richard D. Johnson 625 Indian Cove Palm Desert, CA 92260 18 Lori Lombardo 19 Edward Nevin 20 Nancy Norton La Quinta High 79255 Westward Ho Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-3 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative Table IV-1 (Continued) List of Commentors Letter Identifier Name of Commentor/Agency 21 Joseph B. Patterson The Vintage Club 74-633 Arroyo Drive Indian Wells, CA 92210 22 Dr. Leland Shapiro, Director Pre-Veterinary Science Program Professor of Animal Sciences L.A. Pierce College 6201 Winnetka Avenue, Box 202 Woodland Hills, CA 91371 drcows@aol.com 23 Joseph Wallace 24 Richard & Doreen Yaeger 852 Mission Creek Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-4 LetterNo.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 1 Unites States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Palm Springs South Coast Field Office 690 West Garnet Avenue North Palm Springs, California 92258-1260 RESPONSE NO. 1-1 This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 1-2 For those responses to comments on the Draft EIR, please see Section V, of this Final EIR. The key role provided by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in support of the Bighorn Institute’s activities is noted and acknowledged. The BLM’s concerns about potential impacts of the proposed project on captive sheep at the Institute are also noted. RESPONSE NO. 1-3 This comment presents the BLM’s concerns regarding the potential impacts of the New Preferred Alternative on the bighorn sheep and reiterates the findings of impact of the New Preferred Alternative - an addition to the Draft EIR. No new environmental information is presented. As such, further response is not required. RESPONSE NO. 1-4 This comment of the BLM acknowledges the City’s objective to avoid the possibility of an inverse condemnation action, and to optimize the value of the site with residential uses consistent with the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Thus, the BLM recommends that all possible mitigation measures to reduce impacts to captive bighorn sheep at the Bighorn Institute be adopted. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision- makers for review during their deliberations on the project. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-7 LetterNo.2 3.2 3.3 3.3 )dpou/* 3.4 3.5 3.5 )dpou/* IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 2 Unites States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 92011 RESPONSE NO. 2-1 This comment introduces comments of the US Fish and Wildlife Service and indicates completion of review of the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR. RESPONSE NO. 2-2 This comment provides information regarding the Bighorn Institute and its role in augmenting the bighorn sheep population in the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. This comment also reiterates findings of the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR and the Draft EIR regarding bighorn sheep adaptive behavior. No new environmental information is provided. This comment is acknowledged. RESPONSE NO. 2-3 This comment reiterates and concurs with the findings of impact of the New Preferred Alternative-an Addition to the Draft EIR, as well as the Draft EIR. As indicated in those findings, the juxtaposition of the topography of the project site and the lambing area would provide unimpeded views of the proposed project site. However, it also provides unimpeded views of the adjacent housing units that are currently in development for the Canyons at Bighorn community, as such adjacent housing units are currently not screened from view from the lambing pen area. Alternatives are discussed in Section V of the Draft EIR, and summarized herein in Section II of this Final EIR. Mitigation measures were also considered that could feasibly reduce those impacts to bighorn sheep, while still meeting project objectives. In particular, the New Preferred Alternative identifies mitigation measures such as the provision of visual barriers that could effectively screen views of the proposed single-family residential units from the lambing pen to mitigate impacts as feasible. In addition, the mitigation measures recommend that the proposed single-family units be oriented to the north such that on-site activity during operations and corresponding views of these activities would be screened from view in the lambing pen. Although no specific design or form of screening has yet been selected, it is the intent that these visual barriers would be designed to screen the line of sight from the lambing area as indicated by the comment. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-11 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative In addition, a visual barrier analysis has been included in this Final EIR to assess how high visual barriers would have to be to effectively screen views from the lambing pen. For the analysis, four cross sections were prepared as shown in Figure FEIR-1 through FEIR-4, each of which provide line of sight views from two vantages within the lambing pen: one from one of the highest points on the ridge, and a second from a radius line located 400 yards from the nearest edge of the proposed development. The logic for the selection of the 400-yard radius stems directly from the 400-yard setback buffer zone imposed between the lambing pen and the adjoining Canyons at Bighorn development. The footprint of the maximum building envelope on each of the two proposed lots was determined based on the available building envelope in accordance with the zoning code, as well as the preliminary site plan that was provided by the Applicant. The structures are represented in the figures by green blocks with a height of 18 feet which is understood to be the maximum allowable building height on the project site by the City. The extent of activity was determined to be the remaining area within the graded building pads. The activities that need to be visually screened were presumed to be no higher than eight (8.0) feet. This is represented in the figures by a blue block. As the two residential structures are expected to be designed with northern orientation and passive façade facing the pen, visual screening of the structures was determined to be unnecessary. Furthermore, it was concluded that activity occurring on the north and east sides of the proposed residences would be sufficiently screened from view by the structures themselves. As such, the analysis focuses on obstructing those views of activity that would occur along the southern and western sides of the residences, nearest the lambing pen. The height that barriers would have to be to effectively screen views are represented in the figures by red blocks. As shown in Figures FEIR-1 through FEIR-5, obstruction of views from the lambing pen can be feasibly accomplished in large part. Figure FEIR-1, Cross Section Line 1, provides a sight line that crosses Lot 1 of the project.As shown therein, the sight line is obstructed by existing intervening natural topography. Therefore, no barrier would be necessary across this sight line. Figure FEIR-2, Cross Section Line 2, crosses portions of Lot 1 and Lot 2. As shown therein, a 7.5-foot barrier along the westerly boundary of Lot 1 would be required to obstruct views of activity occurring between the pen and residence there, and an 8.5-foot barrier could be needed atop the intervening berm between Lots 1 and 2 to completely screen views of activity on the southwest side of the Lot 2 residence, from the lambing pen. However, considering that a Lot 1 residence could all but completely screen such activity, it may be that the marginal value of a barrier in such a condition is moot. Figure FEIR-3, Cross Section Line 3, provides three lines of sight intersecting the driveways for Lots 1 and 2, and the access road in Lot A. As shown in this cross section, in order to effectively screen views from the lambing pen, a 12-foot barrier would need to be provided alongside the west side of each driveway, while a 17-foot barrier would be needed to effectively obstruct views of vehicles and associated headlights on that segment of the access road. As indicated in Mitigation Measures IV.C-3 and Mitigation Measure IV.C-8, a barrier could be comprised of berms, walls, or vegetation, or a combination of these. As designs of the two residences and associated activity areas do not presently exist, precise barrier design cannot be applied at this time. However, Figures FEIR-1 through FEIR-3 City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-12 5114:14914814714614514414314214113:1391381371361351341331321311 2991 2981 2971 2961 2951 2941 2931 2921 Sheep 2911 (3 ft/1 m) Gjhvsf!GFJS.2 Height of 28:1 2891 2881 2871 2861 2851 Dpsojtif!pg!Cjhipso 371!n361!n 2841 t h 2831 g i 2821 S 2811 f 27:1 o 2791 e 2781 n i 2771 L 2761 Sheep (3 ft/1 m) Height of 2751 2741 2731 2721 2711 t h 26:1 400-yards from Extent of Activity g 2691 i Nbyjnvn!ifjhiu!pg!cvjmejoh!fowfmpqfNbyjnvn!ifjhiu!pg!wjtjcmf!bdujwjuz S 2681 f 2671 o 2661 e 2651 obscures view Wjtvbm!Cbssjfs!Bobmztjt;!Dsptt.Tfdujpo!Mjof!2 n i 2641 L Natural topography 2631 2621 2611 25:1 2591 2581 2571 2561 2551 2541 2531 2521 2511 24:1 2491 2481 2471 2461 2451 2441 2431 2421 2411 23:1 2391 2381 2371 2361 2351 2341 2331 Lambing 2321 Pen Boundary 2311 22:1 2291 2281 2271 2261 2251 2241 8 ft/2.4 m 2231 2221 2211 21:1 2191 2181 2171 2161 Disturbance Extent 2151 2141 2131 2121 18 ft/5.5 m 2111 ::1 :91 :81 w :71 e i :61 V :51 p :41 u - :31 e :21 s o t :11 Ejtubodf!jo!gffu l h t Extent of Activity g 9:1 h C i g S i 991 e f S o e f 981 o e S 971 n e i n L Tpvsdf;!!QDS!Tfswjdft!Dpsqpsbujpo-!3119/ i 961 L 951 Structure Footprint LOT 1 941 931 921 911 8:1 891 881 871 861 851 Boundary Project Site 841 831 821 811 7:1 791 781 771 761 751 741 731 721 711 6:1 691 681 671 661 651 641 631 621 611 5:1 591 581 571 561 551 541 531 521 511 4:1 491 481 471 461 obscures view 451 Natural topography 441 431 LOT 1 421 Structure Footprint 411 3:1 Extent of Activity Disturbance Extent 391 381 371 361 351 341 331 321 311 2:1 291 281 271 261 251 241 231 221 211 :1 91 81 71 61 51 41 Boundary 31 Project Site 21 1 5114:14914814714614514414314214113:1391381371361351341331321311 Fmfwbujpo!jo!nfufst 5114:14914814714614514414314214113:1391381371361351341331321311 3136 361!n 351!n 3111 2:86 Sheep (3 ft/1 m) 2:61 Height of Gjhvsf!GFJS.3 2:36 2:11 2986 Dpsojtif!pg!Cjhipso 8 ft/ 2.4 m 2961 2936 Sheep (3 ft/1 m) Height of t 2911 h t g i h 2886 S g i f S o 2861 f 400-yards from e Extent of Activity o n i e 2836 L n i 8 ft/2.4 m L Nbyjnvn!ifjhiu!pg!cvjmejoh!fowfmpqfNbyjnvn!ifjhiu!pg!wjtjcmf!bdujwjuzQsptqfdujwf!cbssjfs!ifjhiu 2811 2786 Wjtvbm!Cbssjfs!Bobmztjt;!Dsptt.Tfdujpo!Mjof!3 2761 2736 t h g 2711 i S f 2686 o18 ft/5.5 m e 2661 n i L 2636 2611 Structure Footprint 2586 LOT 1 2561 2536 Disturbance Extent 2511 Lambing 2486 Pen Boundary 2461 2436 18 ft/5.5 m t 2411 h tg i h S g if Extent of Activity 2386 So f e o n i e L 2361 n i L 2336 2311 2286 2261 Fill 9 ft/2.7 m 2236 2211 2186 w e i V 2161 p u - 2136 e s o 2111 l C :86 e Ejtubodf!jo!gffu e S :61 8 ft/2.4 m :36 Tpvsdf;!!QDS!Tfswjdft!Dpsqpsbujpo-!3119/ :11 Extent of Activity 986 961 18 ft/ 5.5 m Structure Boundary Footprint Project Site 936 911 886 861 836 811 786 761 736 711 686 661 636 8 ft/2.4 m 611 LOT 1 Footprint Structure Extent of Activity 586 561 536 511 486 461 9 ft/2.7 m 436 LOT 2 411 Extent of Activity Structure Footprint Fill 386 361 336 311 286 261 236 211 86 61 36 Boundary Project Site 1 5114:14914814714614514414314214113:1391381371361351341331321311 Fmfwbujpo!jo!nfufst 5114:14914814714614514414314214113:1391381371361351341331321311 3111 2:86 2:61 2:36 Sheep (3 ft/1 m) Height of Gjhvsf!GFJS.4 2:11 2986 2961 Dpsojtif!pg!Cjhipso 2936 351!n 361!n351!n 361!n 2911 17 ft/5.2 m Sheep (3 ft/1 m) Height of 2886 2861 2836 400-yards from Extent of Activity at B1 2811 Nbyjnvn!ifjhiu!pg!cvjmejoh!fowfmpqfNbyjnvn!ifjhiu!pg!wjtjcmf!bdujwjuzQsptqfdujwf!cbssjfs!ifjhiu 2786 t h 2761 tg i h S Wjtvbm!Cbssjfs!Bobmztjt;!Dsptt.Tfdujpo!Mjof!4 g 2736 i f So f e 2711 o n i e L n 2686 i L 2661 2636 LOT A 2611 Disturbance Extent 2586 ACCESS ROAD Sheep (3 ft/1 m) Height of 2561 12.5 ft/3.8 m 2536 400-yards from 2511 Extent of Activity at B2 B1 2486 Lambing Pen Boundary 2461 of 8 ft/ 2.4 m LOT 1 2436 Extent Activity DRIVEWAY Extent of Activity 2411 8 ft/ 2.4 m 2386 2361 B2 t h Boundary 2336 tg Project Site i h S g 2311 i f S o f e 2286 o n i e L n i 2261 L 2236 2211 2186 2161 t h g 2136 i S 12 ft/3.7 m f o 2111 e t n w i h L e g i i :86 S V f o Ejtubodf!jo!gffu p e :61 n u i - L e s :36 o l of 8 ft/ 2.4 m C Tpvsdf;!!QDS!Tfswjdft!Dpsqpsbujpo-!3119/ :11 Extent LOT 2 Activity e e DRIVEWAY S 986 961 936 400-yards Lambing Pen from Edge of 911 886 861 Boundary Project Site 836 811 786 761 736 711 12.5 ft/3.8 m 686 661 B1 LOT 1 636 DRIVEWAY 611 586 LOT 2 Extent of Activity 561 w DRIVEWAY 12 ft/3.7 m e i V 536 p u - 511 e s Extent of Activity o l 486 C e 17 ft/5.2 m e 461 S 436 411 386 LOT A 361 ACCESS ROAD B2 336 Boundary Project Site Extent of Activity 311 286 261 400-yards from 236 Edge of Lambing Pen 211 86 61 36 1 5114:14914814714614514414314214113:1391381371361351341331321311 Fmfwbujpo!jo!nfufst 5114:14914814714614514414314214113:1391381371361351341331321311 3236 371!n361!n351!n 3211 3186 Gjhvsf!GFJS.5 3161 3136 Dpsojtif!pg!Cjhipso 3111 2:86 2:61 2:36 2:11 2986 2961 2936 Sheep (3 ft/1 m) Height of 2911 2886 Disturbance Extent Wjtvbm!Cbssjfs!Bobmztjt;!Dsptt.Tfdujpo!Mjof!5 Nbyjnvn!ifjhiu!pg!cvjmejoh!fowfmpqfNbyjnvn!ifjhiu!pg!wjtjcmf!bdujwjuzQsptqfdujwf!cbssjfs!ifjhiu 2861 9 ft/2.7 m Sheep (3 ft/1 m) 2836 Height of 26 ft/7.9 m 2811 2786 A1 2761 400-yards from 2736 Extent of Activity at A1 2711 2686 t 2661 h Sheep (3 ft/1 m) t g Height of i h 2636 S g i f S o 2611 f e o n i 2586 e L n i 2561 L 400-yards from Lambing Pen Boundary 2536 Extent of Activity at A2 2511 2486 2461 2436 2411 LOT A 2386 CUL-DE-SAC Extent of Activity 2361 2336 2311 2286 2261 2236 w 2211 e i V 2186 p Ejtubodf!jo!gffu u - 2161 e s o l 2136 t t h C h g i g i e S 2111 S f e f o o S e :86 e 8 ft/ n i n 2.4 m i L Tpvsdf;!!QDS!Tfswjdft!Dpsqpsbujpo-!3119/ L :61 :36 A2 :11 986 961 936 911 886 861 836 811 786 761 736 Boundary Project Site 711 686 661 26 ft/7.9 m 636 611 586 A1 561 536 511 LOT A 486 CUL-DE-SAC Extent of Activity 461 436 411 A2 386 361 Boundary 336 Project Site 311 286 261 236 400-yards 211 Lambing Pen from Edge of 86 Activity Extent of 61 36 1 5114:14914814714614514414314214113:1391381371361351341331321311 Fmfwbujpo!jo!nfufst Qspkfdu!Tjuf!Cpvoebsz Tusvduvsf!Gppuqsjou!)29(!Ifjhiu* Fyufou!pg!Bdujwjuz!)9(!Ifjhiu* Efwfmpqnfou0Ejtuvscbodf!Bsfb pg!uif!Qsfgfssfe!Bmufsobujwf 2 Qsptqfdujwf!Wjtvbm!Cbssjfs!Bmjhonfou UV 1 Tfdujpo!Mjoft!2!.!5 UV 3 UV 4 UV Gjhvsf!GFJS.6 Dpsojtif!pg!Cjhipso ± 2361236Gffu Qsptqfdujwf!Wjtvbm Tpvsdf;!Hpphmf!Fbsui-!3119<!QDS!Tfswjdft!Dpsqpsbujpo-!3119/ Cbssjfs!Bmjhonfou IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative illustrate that a system of barriers ranging in height from zero to 12 feet in combination with the residences can feasibly screen activity areas on Lots 1 and 2 as well as the use of the driveways from virtually all views within the lambing pen, and certainly from views in the pen that are closer than 400 yards away. A fourth cross section is provided from a different vantage point within the lambing pen in order to understand if screening of vehicular access along the road to the cul-de-sac may be possible. Effective screening of activity along this short access road would be challenging due to the alignment of the road, which is more or less parallel with the respective sight lines. Thus, a barrier at the top of the cul-de-sac (its southwest edge) up to 15 feet in height would screen activity within the cul-de-sac but would not screen activity further north on the access road. In view of the limitations of native plant materials with respect to height and density, barriers comprised of earthen berms six to eight feet high with hedged foliage above could be as high as 15 feet or so in total. However, to screen even half of the on-site segment of the access road between the cul-de-sac and the property line, a barrier would need to be some 26 feet in height to effectively screen vehicles at night from view in the pen. Effective visual barriers higher than 15 feet in the project setting are not considered feasible without introducing appreciable visual issues in their own right. However, a series of several short, but parallel barriers 12 to 15 feet high located perpendicular to the lines of sight and northwest of the road could screen visible roadway activity from some parts of the pen. This system of barriers in conjunction with those cited previously related to activity areas on Lots 1 and 2 and on the proposed driveways would substantively accomplish the intent to screen the visibility of on-site activity from the view of sheep in the pen. Figure FEIR-5 presents the prospective alignment at which the system of barriers could be provided to achieve screening of activity on-site. However, such a barrier system cannot be expected to completely screen all visible on-site activity from the pen. RESPONSE NO. 2-4 This comment acknowledges those mitigation measures that are recommended for the New Preferred Alternative as well as those that were recommended for the Original Project. However, the commentor recommends that the project be subject to further review under the Coachella Valley Multi- Species Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), as it is immediately adjacent to a Conservation Area. As noted on page 37 of the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR, while the CVMSHCP has been fully approved by all affected local jurisdictions, formal adoption is not yet complete. It was anticipated that the CVMSHCP was to be fully approved and permitted the first quarter of 2008, however to date, no formal adoption has taken place. The CVMSHCP’s Land Use Adjacency Guidelines are intended to avoid or minimize indirect effects from development adjacent to, or within Conservation Areas. Indirect effects are referenced as “edge effects” and include noise, lighting, drainage, intrusion of people into adjacent conservation areas and the introduction of non-native plants, or predators (i.e. dogs, cats, etc.), and does not apply to existing permitted land uses or development. While it is noted that these are guidelines only and that the City determines whether or not these guidelines are City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-18 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative applicable on a case-by-case basis, the proposed project would be required to conform with these land use adjacency guidelines. Mitigation Measures IV.C-1 through IV.C-9 which are recommended for the project are concurrent with these guidelines as they are intended to minimize indirect effects of the project by limiting when construction would occur, prohibiting dogs on-site, and by requiring that mechanical equipment and activities be screened from view or be located to the north of residences such that noise, lighting, and intrusion of predators, and etc. would be avoided. With the implementation of these recommended mitigation measures set forth for the proposed project, the project would be consistent with the land use adjacency guidelines. As such, no further response is required. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. With regard to the comment recommending avenues within and outside the Plan to pursue purchase of the property for conservation, this opportunity is still available. This comment will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-19 LetterNo.3 4.2 4.2 )dpou/* Mfuufs!Op/!4! )Dpoujovfe* )dpou/* 4.2 )dpou/* IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 3 Terry Roberts, Director Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 RESPONSE NO. 3-1 This comment acknowledges receipt of the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR by the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, and review of the document by those State agencies with jurisdiction over the project, in accordance with CEQA requirements. The attached Native American Heritage Commission letter is acknowledged and is included and responded to as Letter No. 4 in this Final EIR. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-24 LetterNo.4 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.4 )dpou/* 5.4 )dpou/* 5.4 )dpou/* IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 4 Dave Singleton, Program Analyst State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814 RESPONSE NO. 4-1 This comment explains the Native American Heritage Commission’s (NAHC) jurisdiction to review and comment on the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR in accordance with CEQA. As required by CEQA Guidelines §15064.5 (b)(c), a Draft EIR for the Cornishe of Bighorn project was prepared, and included an assessment of potential adverse effects on historical and archaeological resources within the “Area of Potential Effect” (APE). A detailed discussion is provided in Section IV.D, Cultural Resources, of the Draft EIR. RESPONSE NO. 4-2 As indicated on page 169 of the Draft EIR, PCR Services Corporation (PCR) conducted a cultural resource records search through the California Historical Resources Information System - South Central Coastal Information Center (CHRIS-SCCIC), Eastern Information Center (EIC), housed at the University of California Riverside. In addition, PCR reviewed the California Points of Historical Interest (PHI), the California Historical Landmarks (CHL), the California Register of Historic Places (CR), the National Register of Historic Places (NR), and the California State Historic Resources Inventory (HRI). Per the NAHC’s response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Draft EIR, PCR consulted with the NAHC to address specific concerns related to the project site. A field survey was also conducted to inspect the ground surface for prehistoric and historic artifacts and cultural features. Based on the results of the cultural resources record search, there were no recorded historic resources within the boundaries of the project area. Additionally, no recorded cultural resources were discovered during the field survey conducted for the project site. However, six cultural resources were recorded within a one-mile radius of the project area. Thus, the project could potentially encounter sub-surface archaeological resources during grading and construction activities at the site. RESPONSE NO. 4-3 As discussed in the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR, in the event that any archaeological resources, historic resources, or traditional burial sites are unearthed or discovered during the development of the project, the project would be required to comply with the provisions and conservation measures set forth by Section 21084.1 of the CEQA and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. With compliance with CEQA regulations and guidelines, the New Preferred Alternative would not disturb, damage, or degrade potential unique archaeological resources, or sites considered historic resources. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-29 LetterNo.5 6.2 6.3 6.4 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 5 Mark C. Jorgensen, Superintendent State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Anza Borrego Desert State Park 200 Palm Canyon Drive Borrego Springs, CA 92004 RESPONSE NO. 5-1 This comment introduces the commentor’s comments and presents the commentor’s relationship with the Bighorn Institute. This comment is acknowledged. RESPONSE NO. 5-2 Concerning the comment that no human disturbance should occur within 400 yards of the existing lambing pen; the Draft EIR reports the Institute’s assumption that habituation to distant human activity would lessen the survivability of young captive bighorn sheep after release. However, documented evidence is inconclusive regarding the threshold of disturbance that would be detrimental. For example, for more than a decade, the sheep have watched the creation of the Canyons at Bighorn community, just beyond the 400-yard buffer. Additionally, the Bighorn Institute Director’s own home was constructed approximately 240 to 250 yards from the breeding pen and even closer to the ram pen. It should also be noted that State Route 74 is 533 yards from the breeding pen and 430 yards from the ram pen. Nonetheless, as concluded in the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR, as well as the Draft EIR, impacts to bighorn sheep are concluded to be potentially significant. To clarify, an assemblage of 40 biologists and others having knowledge and familiarity with bighorn sheep were asked to opine as to a reasonable separation between ongoing human activity in a built environment and the lambing pens at the Bighorn Institute for the Altamira (now Canyons at Bighorn) Project. These biologists provided a wide range of opinions, varying from no separation to over one mile, though the Altamira EIR concluded that at least 600 yards of buffer would be appropriate. Notwithstanding this conclusion, a settlement agreement between the City, County of Riverside, the Bighorn Institute and Altamira cited a minimum of 400 yards. Thus, while the concept of a buffer is generally supported by "experts," no empirical evidence has been presented which establishes a specific buffer distance beyond which impacts do not occur, and within which they do. The comment regarding threats and proposals for encroachment is noted. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-31 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative RESPONSE NO. 5-3 This comment reiterates the findings of the New Preferred Alternative as well as the Draft EIR and does not provide new environmental information. With regards to those findings, both documents conclude there will be potentially significant impacts to captive sheep associated with the proposed project. However, as evidenced above, conclusive empirical evidence is not available that supports the statement that no human disturbance can occur within the 400-yard buffer without detrimental effects. Certainly, some level of activity, as evidenced at the Institute itself, can occur without significant effects. As such, there is no numerical distance that can be said with certainty that will not affect the bighorn sheep. Nonetheless, the New Preferred Alternative-an Addition of the Draft EIR, and the Draft EIR conservatively concludes that construction and operation of the proposed project would potentially have significant, unmitigable impacts upon captive sheep within the lambing pen. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-32 LetterNo.6 7.2 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 6 Laverne Jones, Planning Technician Southern California Association of Governments Program Development and Evaluation Division thth 818 West 7 Street, 12 Floor Coachella, CA 92236 RESPONSE NO. 6-1 This comment acknowledges receipt and review of the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and summarizes SCAG’s role as a regional planning organization. This comment notes that the proposed project is not considered regionally significant per CEQA. The comment does not raise new environmental information specific to the project, but is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-34 LetterNo.7 8.2 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 7 Alfonso Hernandez, Assistant Planner SunLine Transit Agency 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail Thousand Palms, CA 92276 RESPONSE NO. 7-1 This comment acknowledges receipt and review of the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR and provides a brief description of SunLine Transit’s nearest service routes, and services. The comment indicates that SunLine Transit Agency is not requesting inclusion of transit amenities for the proposed project development. This comment is acknowledged and no further response is required. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-36 LetterNo.8 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 9.: 9.21 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 8 The Williams Lindberg Law Firm (Bighorn Institute) 100 Bayview Circle, South Tower, Suite 330 Newport Beach, CA 92660-2984 RESPONSE NO. 8-1 This comment acknowledges receipt and review of the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR. Responses to the commentor’s previous comments on the Draft EIR are provided in Section V, Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR, of this Final EIR. RESPONSE NO. 8-2 This comment presents general concern regarding the impacts of the proposed development. The importance of the Bighorn Institute’s role in the recovery of Peninsular bighorn sheep is acknowledged and noted in the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR, as well as the Draft EIR. Largely, the Hillside Limited Alternative is rendered infeasible as it would not meet the project’s objectives to the same extent of the New Preferred Alternative. In particular, it would not meet the Land Use, Design, and Economic objectives of the project. In addition, there was no preliminary site plan available for the Hillside Limited Alternative, which is now available for the New Preferred Alternative. With regards to the building conditions associated with the parcel, the project site is currently split zoned with the largest part zoned Planned Residential 5 (PR) and the remainder of the site zoned Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) with a Special Study Overly (SSA). The zoning for the project site allows the development at a maximum, five single-family dwelling units per acre under the PR-5 zone, and a maximum of one dwelling unit for every five acres for the HPR zone. The SSA overlay requires a special or focused land use analysis (i.e, may require to provide a higher level of engineering and/or design analysis, or demonstrate compatibility with important environmental standards). As the project proposes development of density 0.17 dwelling units per acre, the project would be within the allowable densities of the City’s General Plan and City Code. Furthermore, mitigation measures are recommended such that the project would be designed to achieve a passive character, in accordance with the design guidelines set forth for the Canyons at Bighorn community. As such, the project would be consistent with the applicable rules and regulations set forth for the project site by the City.In addition, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, the project would be consistent with the CVMSHCP’s Land Use Adjacency Guidelines. Please refer to Response No. 2-4 above. Nonetheless, the comment regarding building issues associated with the project site is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-41 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative RESPONSE NO. 8-3 Please refer to Response No. 5-2 above concerning the comment that no human disturbance should occur within 400 yards of the existing lambing pen. As indicated therein, the Draft EIR reports the Institute’s assumption that habituation to distant human activity would lessen the survivability of captive born young after release. However, documented evidence is inconclusive regarding the threshold of disturbance that would be detrimental. For example, for more than a decade, the sheep have watched the creation of the Canyons at Bighorn, just beyond the 400-yard buffer. The Bighorn Institute Director’s own home was constructed approximately 240 to 250 yards from the breeding pen and even closer to the ram pen. It should also be noted that State Route 74 is 533 yards from the breeding pen and 430 yards from the ram pen. Thus, while the Draft EIR concludes there would be potentially significant impacts to captive sheep associated with the proposed project, conclusive empirical evidence is not available to support the statement that no human disturbance can occur within the 400-yard buffer without detrimental effects. Certainly, some level of activity, as evidenced at the Institute itself, can occur without significant effects. Nonetheless, the Draft EIR conservatively concludes that construction and operation of the proposed project would potentially have significant, unmitigable impacts upon captive sheep within the lambing pen. RESPONSE NO. 8-4 Please refer to Response No. 5-2 above. As discussed therein, the close proximity of the proposed project to the lambing pen at the Institute may have a potentially significant impact on the captive herd. As there is no biological consensus determined on the distance that human disturbance can occur without detrimental effects on the sheep, it is conservatively assumed that development of the project would result in significant impacts to the captive sheep even with mitigation measures. However, it is noted that there is no conclusive empirical evidence that supports that no human disturbance can occur within the 400-yard buffer without detrimental effects, as evidenced by Institute activities, which have occurred without significant effects. RESPONSE NO. 8-5 The project has been reduced from an original 38-unit project to two single-family residential dwellings, reducing the originally proposed project by half the size during disturbance, and by more than half the size relative to impacts that could occur as a result of operations of the 38-unit original project. Development of the land outside of the buffer would be infeasible as it would require development largely within the floodplain of Dead Indian Creek, does not possess sufficient elevation to permit views of the Coachella Valley, and was not large enough to accommodate more than a single lot, all of which would not meet the Land Use Planning, Design, and Economic objectives of the project and is thus, considered infeasible. The last comment concurs with the findings of impact of the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR. As such, no further response is required. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-42 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative RESPONSE NO. 8-6 As indicated on page 32 of the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR, the thresholds of significance used to determine impacts on the bighorn sheep (in the absence of better available information) were the same thresholds as those utilized for humans. Rather than regional SCAQMD thresholds, SCAQMD localized significance thresholds (LSTs) were used to analyze the project’s potential impacts to the bighorn sheep. As the project would not exceed SCAQMD LSTs, construction air quality impacts of the New Preferred Alternative on the bighorn sheep are also considered less than significant. No experiments are being conducted as a result of the project as there is no conclusive evidence to indicate that thresholds at which impacts would occur to bighorn sheep in response to NOx levels should be more conservative than those utilized for humans. RESPONSE NO. 8-7 This comment reiterates findings of impact of the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR. However, as noted in Response No. 2-2 above, while the New Preferred Alternative document as well as the Draft EIR have concluded significant and unavoidable impacts to bighorn sheep, no empirical evidence has been presented which establishes thresholds at which impacts do not occur to bighorn sheep, and within which they do. This comment does not introduce new environmental information. Therefore, no further response is required. RESPONSE NO. 8-8 This comment reiterates the conclusions of the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR regarding the Bighorn Institute’s contribution to sustaining the bighorn sheep population. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 8-9 This comment reiterates the conclusions of the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR regarding the Bighorn Institute’s contribution to sustaining the bighorn sheep population. However, as noted above, while the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR, as well as the Draft EIR have concluded significant and unavoidable impacts to bighorn sheep, no empirical evidence has been presented which establishes thresholds at which impacts do not occur to bighorn sheep, and within which they do. With regard to mitigation, the mitigation measures recommended in the New Preferred Alternative were developed based on their feasibility to reduce or eliminate impacts, and were provided in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15370. As indicated therein, “Mitigation” includes: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment; (d) Reducing or eliminating the City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-43 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environment. Thus the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR, and the Draft EIR have explored all feasible mitigation measures. Nonetheless, the comment requesting that in the event mitigation measures cannot fully eliminate all impacts is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 8-10 This comment requests that the City take into consideration the comments provided for the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR, as well as those comments on the Draft EIR. For responses to comments on the Draft EIR, please see Section V, Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-44 LetterNo.9 :.2 :.3 :.3 )Dpou/* IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 9 D. Wayne Brechtel Worden Williams (Sierra Club) 162 Stevens Avenue, Suite 702 Solano Beach, CA 92075 RESPONSE 9-1 This comment introduces the commentor’s relationship with the Sierra Club and comments on the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE 9-2 As discussed in Response No. 5-2, the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR and the Draft EIR itself conservatively assume that development of the project would result in significant impacts to the captive sheep even with mitigation measures as there is no biological consensus regarding the distance at which human disturbance can occur without detrimental effects on bighorn sheep. However, it is noted that there is no conclusive empirical evidence that supports that no human disturbance can occur within the 400-yard buffer without detrimental effects as evidenced by Institute activities, which have occurred without significant effects. The comment regarding the Institute’s efforts in sustaining the bighorn sheep population is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. The CEQA Guidelines require an EIR to “describe the range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which will feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” Per the City’s request, a two- unit alternative was analyzed in the Draft EIR identified as the Hillside Limited Alternative, which utilized the part of the lot that was outside of the 400-yard buffer zone. However, as discussed on page 1 of the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR, that Hillside Limited Alternative was found to be impracticable as it would largely develop within the floodplains of Dead Indian Creek, was not large enough to accommodate more than a single lot, and does not possess sufficient elevation to permit views of the Coachella Valley. Furthermore, the Hillside Limited Alternative would not have met the project’s Land Use Planning, Design, and Economic objectives. Thus, it was rendered infeasible. In addition, please refer to Response No. 5-2 above regarding the 400-yard buffer zone that was established for the Canyons at Bighorn Project, as the 400-yard buffer zone was not reached via biological consensus but rather by political consensus. The comment regarding the City required to select a feasible alternative is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-47 LetterNo.10 May 6, 2008 City of Palm Desert Mr. Phil Joy, Associate Planner 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 Regarding: Cornishe of Bighorn Project, State Clearinghouse Number 2004091012 Dear Mr. Joy, I am the closest owner of a residence to the proposed project. I have never, I repeat never received notice of the proposed project. My house is depicted in the “New preferred Alternative, an addition to the Draft Environment Impact Report”. I find it very hard to believe that this project was never brought to my attention even though its impact is greatest on me without the deliberate intentions of the City of Palm Desert or the 21.2 developer. The impact report and the entire project was brought to my attention by my neighbor, Mr. Richard Johnson. Here are my questions, concerns and problems that I have with the project: 1.)The 400 yard buffer zone for the Bighorn lambing pen, that everybody had to 21.3 abide by, is grossly violated. I had to stop my construction of my house by 3 months to abide by the rules and protect the endangered species of the Bighorn sheep. Does anybody care what this project does to them? If the site is not significant to the lambs why was my construction stopped? 2.)I am not adverse to construction in general but there is no need to import 35,900 cubic yards of dirt. I am absolutely and positively not going to stand by idly to see a naturally existing mountain artificially elevated for a few feet of view. The existing property is situated high enough to overlook all existing structures. The 21.4 additional enjoyment of higher or larger pads does not warrant any movements of dirt at the proposed scale. Please be notified hereby that I will, with all aspects of the law, fight this proposal as it stands now. You can contact me to discuss these issues at any time. Sincerely, George Lingenbrink Libri Partners, Ltd., President IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 10 George Lingenbrink, President Libri Partners, Limited 14787 Lady’s Secret Drive Rancho Santa Fe, CA 92067 RESPONSE NO. 10-1 As indicated in the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR, a Notice of Availability was provided to all organizations and members of the public who were on the City’s distribution list for the Draft EIR, and to those persons or organizations that had requested copies of the Draft EIR, and those who commented on the Draft EIR. In addition, a Notice of Availability, as well as the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR, was made available for the general public online on the City’s website. Copies of the Draft EIR and the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR were also made available for review at the City Hall, Community Development Department, and Riverside County Library, Palm Desert Branch. Thus, adequate notification has been provided by the City and no further response is required. RESPONSE NO. 10-2 As noted in the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR, in an effort to provide a conservative analysis, construction impacts to the bighorn sheep were determined to be significant and unavoidable as not enough information is available at this time to determine the levels at which impacts may occur to the bighorn sheep. In addition, consistent with those CC&R’s required for the construction of the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community, construction of the New Preferred Alternative would not occur during the lambing season. RESPONSE NO. 10-3 This comment presents general opposition to the project’s proposed necessary amount of soil import. As indicated in the New Preferred Alternative- an Addition to the Draft EIR, the required import of 35,900 cubic yards of fill would result in significant and unavoidable traffic impacts to those residents in of the Canyons at Bighorn Community during construction. Thus, a mitigation measure has been recommended to reduce the amount necessary of fill required for the proposed project, to the extent feasible. However, this undertaking may occur through several options, each of which would need to be further evaluated. Therefore, the extent to which impacts could be reduced is unknown. As such, the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR concluded that construction traffic impacts to the Canyons at Bighorn community would be significant and unavoidable. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-49 LetterNo.11 Conservation and Research for Endangered Species May 11, 2008 Mr. Phil Joy, Associate Planner City of Palm Desert, Community Development Department 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 RE: New Preferred Alternative, An Addition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Cornishe of Bighorn (#2004091012) Dear Mr. Joy: I am a conservation biologist and an associate director of Conservation and Research for Endangered Species (CRES) at the Zoological Society of San 22.2 Diego (ZSSD). I’m also a member of the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Recovery Team, and have conducted genetic research on peninsular bighorn sheep. The proposed, Revised Preferred Alternative for the Project contains significant unmitigated impacts: Captive propagation at the Bighorn Institute has been a tool for augmenting wild populations of bighorn sheep in the northern portion of 22.3 the peninsular ranges. A major reason that the efforts of the Bighorn Institute have been successful is because their captive breeding efforts are remote and isolated, minimizing human contact, both visually and acoustically. The designated buffer zone of 400 yards represented an agreement about the minimum distance between the Bighorn Institute pens and any future development activities. Encroachment on this buffer zone a priori, jeopardizes the intent and usefulness of the Bighorn Institute’s captive propagation efforts. 22.4 The opinions expressed here are my own and not necessarily those of the Zoological Society of San Diego. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Oliver A. Ryder, Ph.D. Kleberg Associate Director/Genetics Conservation and Research for Endangered Species Zoological Society of San Diego Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center for Conservation Research 15600 San Pasqual Valley Road Escondido, CA 92027-7000 USA (760) 747-8702 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 11 Oliver A Ryder, Ph.D, Kleberg Associate Director/Genetics Conservation and Research for Endangered Species Zoological Society of San Diego 15600 San Pasqual Valley Road Escondido, CA 92027-7000 RESPONSE NO. 11-1 This comment introduces the commentor’s association and role with the bighorn sheep recovery team. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 11-2 This comment reiterates findings of impact of the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR. The comment regarding the Bighorn Institute’s efforts to augment the wild populations of bighorn sheep is acknowledged and is discussed on page 2 of the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR. RESPONSE NO. 11-3 As noted in Response No. 9-2 above, the 400-yard buffer zone that was established for the Canyons at Bighorn Community was reached via political consensus rather than biological consensus. This is further discussed in Response Nos. 5-2, 5-3 and 8-4 above. As indicated therein, there is no conclusive empirical evidence that supports that no human disturbance can occur within the 400-yard buffer without detrimental effects, as evidenced by Institute activities, which have occurred without significant effects. As such, there is no numerical distance that can be said with certainty that will not affect the bighorn sheep. Nonetheless, the Draft EIR conservatively concludes that construction and operation of the proposed project would potentially have significant, unmitigable impacts upon captive sheep within the lambing pen. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-51 LetterNo.12 23.2 23.3 23.4 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 12 Roland K. Burbank, DVM Desert Animal Hospital 4299 East Ramon Road Palm Springs, CA 92264 RESPONSE NO. 12-1 This comment provides general opposition to the New Preferred Alternative and introduces the commentor’s relationship to the Bighorn Institute. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 12-2 This comment does not introduce new environmental information. For further discussion regarding the buffer zone, please see Response Nos. 5-2, 5-3, and 8-4 above. As indicated therein, the 400-yard buffer zone established was based on political consensus and not on biological consensus. Thus, there is no conclusive evidence that ascertains the distance at which impacts to bighorn sheep could or could not occur. RESPONSE NO. 12-3 The attached petition of concerned citizens is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. Additionally, this comment indicates support of the Bighorn Institute’s efforts and maintenance of the buffer area. This comment is also acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-55 LetterNo.13 24.2 24.3 24.4 24.5 24.6 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 13 Marcie Borchard RESPONSE NO. 13-1 This comment provides general opposition to the New Preferred Alternative and introduces the commentor’s relationship to the Bighorn Institute. No further response is required. RESPONSE NO. 13-2 As discussed in Response No. 9-2 above, a Hillside Limited Alternative was analyzed and found to be infeasible as the remaining land outside of the 400-yard buffer zone is largely located within the floodplains of Dead Indian Creek, would only allow development for one unit, and did not possess sufficient elevation to permit views of the Coachella Valley. Furthermore, as discussed in Response Nos. 5-2 and 8-4 above, the New Preferred Alternative would be located at a similar distance from the Bighorn Institute Director’s own home, which was constructed approximately 240 to 250 yards from the breeding pen and even closer to the ram pen. With regards to the construction activities in the 400-yard buffer, it is noted that this buffer zone was reached via political consensus and not through a biological consensus. As such, there is no numerical distance that can be said with certainty that will affect the bighorn sheep. RESPONSE NO. 13-3 Please refer to Response Nos. 5-2 and 8-4 above. As indicated therein, the Bighorn Institute Director’s own home was constructed approximately 240 to 250 yards from the breeding pen and even closer to the ram pen.Furthermore, the 400-yard buffer zone that was established for development of the Canyons at Bighorn community was reached via political consensus rather than from biological consensus. There is no empirical evidence to support the argument regarding the distance at which impacts to bighorn sheep could occur as a result of development. In addition, the project would be required to incorporate into project design features such that during operations, activity would face north, away from the lambing pen and the Bighorn Institute. The project would also be required to provide visual barriers between the project site and lambing pen such that sufficient screening would obstruct views from the lambing pen and prevent disturbance to the bighorn sheep at the Institute. RESPONSE NO. 13-4 This comment reiterates findings of impacts on the bighorn sheep as discussed in the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR. However, to clarify, the New Preferred Alternative document is not a “Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report.” Furthermore, it is noted that as discussed in Response Nos. 5-2 and 8-4 above, the findings of City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-57 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative impact were based on a conservative analysis as there are no thresholds available to determine impacts on sheep, and as there is no empirical evidence to suggest the distance that bighorn sheep will not be affected even with implementation of mitigation measures. The mitigation measures recommended for the New Preferred Alternative were developed based on their feasibility to reduce or eliminate impacts, and were provided in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines Section 15370. As indicated therein, “Mitigation” includes: (a) Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (b) Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation; (c) Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment; (d) Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and (e) Compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environment. Nonetheless, the comment requesting that in the event mitigation measures cannot fully eliminate all impacts that the project not be approved is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 13-5 This comment expresses general opposition to the New Preferred Alternative and notes that the Bighorn Institute’s captive breeding recovery program efforts are largely responsible for the repopulation of bighorn sheep in the Valley. The comment regarding allowing the bighorn sheep to be significantly impacted if the Cornishe of Bighorn project is approved as proposed is acknowledged, and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-58 LetterNo.14 25.2 25.3 25.4 25.5 25.6 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 14 Mary K. Brown La Quinta High 79255 Westward Ho Drive La Quinta, CA 92253 RESPONSE NO. 14-1 This comment provides general opposition to the New Preferred Alternative and introduces the commentor’s relationship to the Bighorn Institute. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 14-2 Please refer to Response No. 13-2 above. RESPONSE NO. 14-3 Please refer to Response No. 13-3 above. RESPONSE NO. 14-4 Please refer to Response No. 13-4 above. The comment requesting that in the event mitigation measures cannot fully eliminate all impacts that the project not be approved is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 14-5 Please refer to Response No. 13-5 above. The comment regarding allowing the bighorn sheep to be significantly impacted if the Cornishe of Bighorn project is approved as proposed is acknowledged, and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-60 Mfuufs!Op/!26 15-1 15-2 15-3 15-4 15-5 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 15 Theresa A. Cox RESPONSE NO. 15-1 This comment provides general opposition to the New Preferred Alternative and introduces the commentor’s relationship to the Bighorn Institute. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 15-2 Please Refer to Response No. 13-2 above. RESPONSE NO. 15-3 Please refer to Response No. 13-3 above. RESPONSE NO. 15-4 Please Refer to Response No. 13-4 above. The comment requesting that in the event mitigation measures cannot fully eliminate all impacts that the project not be approved is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 15-5 Please refer to Response No. 13-5 above. The comment regarding allowing the bighorn sheep to be significantly impacted if the Cornishe of Bighorn project is approved as proposed is acknowledged, and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-62 LetterNo.16 27.2 27.3 27.4 27.5 27.6 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 16 Charles W. Jenner, DVM 10832 Los Alamitos Boulevard Los Alamitos, CA 90720 RESPONSE NO. 16-1 This comment provides general opposition to the New Preferred Alternative and introduces the commentor’s relationship to the Bighorn Institute. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 16-2 Please refer to Response No. 13-2 above. RESPONSE NO. 16-3 Please refer to Response No. 13-3 above. RESPONSE NO. 16-4 Please refer to Response No. 13-4 above. The comment requesting that in the event mitigation measures cannot fully eliminate all impacts that the project not be approved is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 16-5 Please refer to Response No. 13-5 above. The comment regarding allowing the bighorn sheep to be significantly impacted if the Cornishe of Bighorn project is approved as proposed is acknowledged, and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-64 LetterNo.17 28.2 28.3 28.4 28.5 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 17 Richard Johnson 625 Indian Cove Palm Desert, California, 92260 RESPONSE NO. 17-1 The comment reiterating that a 400-yard buffer zone was established for the Canyons at Bighorn Community and that the same restrictions should be applied towards the proposed project as the environmental impacts of the Cornishe of Bighorn project would be the same is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision makers for review. However, it is noted that the 400-yard buffer that was established for the Canyons at Bighorn was established based on a political consensus that was reached, rather than a biological consensus. The same restrictions cannot be applied to the project as both projects are significantly different. For example, the proposed development of the Canyons at Bighorn Community was significantly larger with that project’s build-out set for a longer period of time than the Cornishe of Bighorn project. Thus, as the land utilized for the Canyons at Bighorn project was much larger, it did not face conflicts that limited where the development of residential areas could occur on that subject property. RESPONSE NO. 17-2 This comment reiterates findings of impacts of the New Preferred Alternative document and provides general opposition to the proposed project. No new environmental information is provided. This comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review. RESPONSE NO. 17-3 This comment concurs with findings of impacts of construction of the New Preferred Alternative to the adjacent private Canyons at Bighorn Community. With regards to the amount of soil required for import for the New Preferred Alternative, it is noted that mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the amount of fill import to the extent feasible. However as the extent to which this mitigation measure will reduce impact is unknown, the New Preferred Alternative - an Addition to the Draft EIR, identifies this impact as significant and unavoidable. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 17-4 This comment that no building permits should be allowed for development on the project site is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-66 LetterNo.18 29.2 29.3 29.4 29.5 29.6 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 18 Lori Lombardo RESPONSE NO. 18-1 This comment provides general opposition to the New Preferred Alternative and introduces the commentor’s relationship to the Bighorn Institute. No further response is required. RESPONSE NO. 18-2 Please refer to Response No. 13-2 above. RESPONSE NO. 18-3 Please refer to Response No. 13-3 above. RESPONSE NO. 18-4 Please refer to Response No. 13-4 above. The comment requesting that in the event mitigation measures cannot fully eliminate all impacts that the project not be approved is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 18-5 Please refer to Response No. 13-5 above. The comment regarding allowing the bighorn sheep to be significantly impacted if the Cornishe of Bighorn project is approved as proposed is acknowledged, and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-68 LetterNo.19 2:.2 2:.3 2:.4 2:.5 2:.6 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 19 Edward Nevin RESPONSE NO. 19-1 This comment provides general opposition to the New Preferred Alternative and introduces the commentor’s relationship to the Bighorn Institute. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 19-2 Please refer to Response No. 13-2 above. RESPONSE NO. 19-3 Please refer to Response No. 13-3 above. RESPONSE NO. 19-4 Please refer to Response No. 13-4 above. The comment requesting that in the event mitigation measures cannot fully eliminate all impacts that the project not be approved is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 19-5 Please refer to Response No. 13-5 above. The comment regarding allowing the bighorn sheep to be significantly impacted if the Cornishe of Bighorn project is approved as proposed is acknowledged, and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-70 LetterNo.20 31.2 31.3 31.4 31.5 31.6 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 20 Nancy Norton RESPONSE NO. 20-1 This comment provides general opposition to the New Preferred Alternative and introduces the commentor’s relationship to the Bighorn Institute. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 20-2 Please refer to Response No. 13-2 above. RESPONSE NO. 20-3 Please refer to Response No. 13-3 above. RESPONSE NO. 20-4 Please refer to Response No. 13-4 above. The comment requesting that in the event mitigation measures cannot fully eliminate all impacts that the project not be approved is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 20-5 Please refer to Response No. 13-5 above. The comment regarding allowing the bighorn sheep to be significantly impacted if the Cornishe of Bighorn project is approved as proposed is acknowledged, and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-72 LetterNo.21 32.2 32.3 32.4 32.5 32.6 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 21 Joseph B. Patterson The Vintage Club 74-633 Arroyo Drive Indian Wells, CA 92210 RESPONSE NO. 21-1 This comment provides general opposition to the New Preferred Alternative and introduces the commentor’s relationship to the Bighorn Institute. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 21-2 As discussed in Response No. 13-2 above. RESPONSE NO. 21-3 Please refer to Response No. 13-3 above. RESPONSE NO. 21-4 Please refer to Response No. 13-4 above. The comment requesting that in the event mitigation measures cannot fully eliminate all impacts that the project not be approved is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 21-5 Please refer to Response No. 13-5 above. The comment regarding allowing the bighorn sheep to be significantly impacted if the Cornishe of Bighorn project is approved as proposed is acknowledged, and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-74 LetterNo.22 From: Drcows@aol.com \[mailto:Drcows@aol.com\] Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2008 1:02 PM To: InformationMail Subject: Web Site Inquiry Mr. Phil Joy, Associate Planner City of Palm Desert, Community Development Department 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 Dear Mr. Joy: I am writing to oppose the New Preferred Alternative, An Addition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Cornishe of Bighorn (#2004091012). I am a resident of Simi Valley and have lived here for 24 years and a California resident for 55 years. 33.2 I am seriously concerned for the welfare of the captive herd of endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep at Bighorn Institute with this proposed project. The entire Coachella Valley’s population of bighorn will be affected if the captive breeding and wild population augmentation recovery program at the Institute is impacted. I adamantly oppose this development for the following reasons: 1.Cornishe of Bighorn should work to minimize impacts to the captive herd by considering the Hillside Limited Alternative, which utilizes the only part of their land that is outside of a 400 yard “buffer” surrounding Bighorn Institute’s property. Numerous bighorn sheep experts determined that a 33.3 minimum of 400 yards was a necessary distance between development and the captive herd at the Institute if the breeding and release program was to be successful. This New Preferred Alternative proposes building two houses at just 240 yards away from the ewe and lamb pen. That’s just half of the recommended distance. 2.The close proximity of the New Preferred Alternative (240 yards) to the ewe and lamb pen at the Institute will likely have a devastating effect on the captive herd. The side of the pen facing the Cornishe of Bighorn land is the area the ewes isolate away from disturbance to give birth. It is likely 33.4 that the birthing and rearing of lambs at the Institute could suffer if this development is allowed at such a close proximity. 3.This revised Draft Environmental Impact Report finds that even with the suggested mitigation measures, construction and operational impacts to the sheep remain “significant and unmitigable.” 33.5 This project should not be allowed to be developed if mitigation measures cannot fully eliminate all impacts to the captive herd at the Institute. I sincerely hope that the City takes these comments into serious consideration because there are bighorn sheep in this Valley largely due to the 120 bighorn sheep released from the Institute’s captive breeding recovery 33.6 program. This endangered species deserves a place in our community and the City will be allowing this species to be significantly impacted if Cornishe of Bighorn is approved as proposed. Sincerely, Dr. Leland S. Shapiro, Director Pre-Veterinary Science Program Professor of Animal Sciences L.A. Pierce College 6201 Winnetka Ave. Box 202 Woodland Hills, CA 91371 818-710-4254 drcows@aol.com http://www.piercecollege.edu/faculty/shapirls/Drcowsindex.html IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 22 Dr. Leland S. Shapiro, Director Pre-Veterinary Program Professor of Animal Sciences, LA Pierce College 6201 Winnetka Avenue, Box 202 Woodland Hills, CA 91371 RESPONSE NO. 22-1 This comment provides general opposition to the New Preferred Alternative and introduces the commentor’s relationship to the Bighorn Institute. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 22-2 Please refer to Response No. 13-2 above. RESPONSE NO. 22-3 Please refer to Response No. 13-3 above. RESPONSE NO. 22-4 Please refer to Response No. 13-4 above, discussing the conservative analysis used to determine impacts and the mitigation measures provided for the project. The comment requesting that in the event mitigation measures cannot fully eliminate all impacts that the project not be approved is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 22-5 Please refer to Response No. 13-5 above. The comment regarding allowing the bighorn sheep to be significantly impacted if the Cornishe of Bighorn project is approved as proposed is acknowledged, and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-76 LetterNo.23 34.2 34.3 34.4 34.5 34.6 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 23 Joseph Wallace RESPONSE NO. 23-1 This comment provides general opposition to the New Preferred Alternative and introduces the commentor’s relationship to the Bighorn Institute. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 23-2 As discussed in Response No. 13-2 above. RESPONSE NO. 23-3 Please refer to Response No. 13-3 above. RESPONSE NO. 23-4 Please refer to Response No. 13-4 above. The comment requesting that in the even t mitigation measures cannot fully eliminate all impacts that the project not be approved is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 23-5 Please refer to Response No. 13-5 above. The comment regarding allowing the bighorn sheep to be significantly impacted if the Cornishe of Bighorn project is approved as proposed is acknowledged, and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-78 Mfuufs!Op/!35 LetterNo.24 35.2 35.3 35.4 35.5 35.6 IV. Comments and Responses to the New Preferred Alternative LETTER NO. 24 Richard and Doreen Yaeger RESPONSE NO. 24-1 This comment provides general opposition to the New Preferred Alternative and introduces the commentor’s relationship to the Bighorn Institute. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 24-2 Please refer to Response No. 13-2 above. RESPONSE NO. 24-3 Please refer to Response No. 13-3 above. RESPONSE NO. 24-4 Please refer to Response No. 13-4 above. The comment requesting that in the event mitigation measures cannot fully eliminate all impacts that the project not be approved is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. 24-5 Please refer to Response No. 13-5 above. The comment regarding allowing the bighorn sheep to be significantly impacted if the Cornishe of Bighorn project is approved as proposed is acknowledged, and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page IV-80 W/!!D PNNFOUT!BOE!S FTQPOTFT!UP!UIF!E SBGU!FJS V. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO THE DRAFT EIR This section presents the comments contained in letters submitted during the public review period for the Draft EIR from federal and state agencies, as well as from organizations and private individuals. A list of commentors is provided in Table V-1 on page V-2. The letters are assigned an alpha identifier, as indicated in Table V-1. Each comment that requires a response within the letters has been assigned a number. For example, the first comment in Letter A would be Comment A-1, and the fourth comment in Letter C would be Comment C-4. A response has been prepared for each comment within each comment letter. The response to each comment is then numbered to correspond with the respective comment: i.e., Response A-1 and Response C-4. A copy of each of the comment letters on the Draft EIR is provided in this section of the Final EIR. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-1 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR Table V-1 List of Commentors from the Draft EIR Letter Identifier Name of Commentor/Agency A Unites States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Palm Springs South Coast Field Office 690 West Garnet Avenue North Palm Springs, CA 92258-1260 B Unites States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, CA 92011 C Department of the Army Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 532711 Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325 D Terry Roberts, Director Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 E California Department of Fish and Game 78078 Country Club Drive, Suite 109 Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 F Coachella Valley Water District P.O. Box 1058 Coachella, CA 92236 G Southern California Association of Governments thth 818 West 7 Street, 12 Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 H The Williams Law Firm (Bighorn Institute) 100 Bayview Circle, South Tower, Suite 330 Newport Beach, CA 92660-2984 I Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP (Cornishe of Bighorn) th 515 South Figueroa, 7 Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3398 J Worden Williams (Sierra Club) 162 Stevens Avenue Suite 702 Solano Beach, CA 92075 K Pat and Dick Johnson City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-2 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR Table V-1 (Continued) List of Commentors from the Draft EIR Letter Identifier Name of Commentor/Agency L Frank D. Whitehead 38-661 Lobelia Circle Palm Desert, CA 92211 M Richard and Doreen Yaeger 852 Mission Creek Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 N Center for Biological Diversity P.O. Box 549 Joshua Tree, CA 92252 City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-3 LetterNo.A A-1 A-2 A-3 A-3 Cont'd V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR LETTER NO. A Unites States Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management Palm Springs South Coast Field Office 690 West Garnet Avenue North Palm Springs, CA 92258-1260 RESPONSE NO. A-1 This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. A-2 The key role provided by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in support of the Bighorn Institute’s activities is noted and acknowledged. The BLM’s concerns about potential impacts of the proposed project on captive sheep at the Institute are also noted. As indicated in the comment, the expressed concerns of the BLM are consistent with the Draft EIR’s conclusion that impacts are significant and unavoidable, as stated on page 166 of the Draft EIR. RESPONSE NO. A-3 The Draft EIR prescribes all practicable mitigation measures to reduce impacts to captive bighorn sheep at the Bighorn Institute, including IV.A-2 (from the Aesthetics Analysis, page 74), IV.C-4 (from the Biological Resources Analysis, page 165), and IV.G-1 to IV.G-8 (from the Noise Analysis, pages 221 and 222). The reference to Mitigation Measure IV.G-9 was a typographical error in the Draft EIR; the correct reference is Mitigation Measure IV.G-8. This correction is hereby made in this Final EIR. The BLM’s recommendation that all possible mitigation measures to reduce impacts to captive bighorn sheep at the Bighorn Institute be adopted is noted and will be considered by City decision-makers during their deliberations on the project. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-6 LetterNo.B B-1 B-2 B-3 B-3 Cont'd B-4 B-5 B-6 B-6 Cont'd B-7 B-8 B-9 B-9 Cont'd B-10 B-11 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR LETTER NO. B Unites States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, CA 92011 RESPONSE NO. B-1 This comment regarding the US Fish and Wildlife Service and its mission under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956 is acknowledged. RESPONSE NO. B-2 The analysis in the Draft EIR regarding the Peninsular bighorn sheep was two-fold. As indicated in the Draft EIR, there is an extant wild population in the Santa Rosa Mountains that may be influenced by the proposed project. However, the numbers of free roaming bighorn sheep occurring on the site is not documented and the resources on-site are of little importance to the sheep. Therefore, it is anticipated that project impacts regarding the free-roaming bighorn sheep would not be significant. Furthermore, as part of mitigation the construction of a barrier would not allow sheep to enter the developed portion of the property. As such, impacts with regards to the free-roaming peninsular bighorn sheep would not be significant. On the other hand, the Bighorn Institute maintains a captive breeding program with captive sheep in a 30-acre pen that is partially exposed to the project site. As stated in the Draft EIR, the Bighorn Institute seeks to avoid stress in adults and habituation to human presence in the young. Implementation of the project would be expected to induce stress in the bighorn sheep that are currently captive due to project operations and the inability to flee from the pen. Furthermore, the young raised in the pen overlooking the project would be exposed to human activity and would likely experience habituation.Thus, the comment reiterates the findings of the Draft EIR, that significant impacts could occur with regard to the federally endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep that are captive. Impacts however, with regards to the desert tortoise are discussed in Section IV.B, Biological Resources, of the Draft EIR. As discussed therein, project implementation is not expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the desert tortoise due to the poor quality and limited amount of habitat on-site and the isolation of the project site from other major populations known in the region. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure IV.C-2 would be implemented requiring that a biologist conduct a pre-construction survey in accordance with USFWS protocols, to determine whether desert tortoises would be affected by the project. If it is City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-13 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR determined that tortoises would be affected, a desert tortoise conservation plan addressing the appropriate construction management and ongoing operational practices would be prepared. Therefore, with implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, impacts with regard to the desert tortoise would be less than significant. RESPONSE NO. B-3 On page 142 and in Figure 17 on page 143, the Draft EIR does declare that the project site is located partially within designated critical habitat for Peninsular bighorn sheep, as stated in the comment. It should also be realized that the designation of critical habitat for Peninsular bighorn sheep followed a “landscape” approach whereby large blocks of land that were believed to encompass constituent elements of habitat important to sheep were delineated. Such a designation does not mean that all land within delineated critical habitat necessarily supports constituent elements. As concluded on page 160 of the Draft EIR, Peninsular bighorn sheep occurrence on the project site is not documented and the resources on the project site are of little importance to maintaining free roaming bighorn sheep in the area. With regard to the Bighorn Institute, the Draft EIR concludes that potentially significant impacts on the captive population of bighorn sheep will result from construction and operation of the proposed project (page 166). It concludes that behavioral modification of the sheep, or habituation, may occur because of noise and visual impacts to the lambing pens during and after construction. It is not certain, however, that the success of the breeding project will be impacted. For many years, desert bighorn sheep have bred successfully and produced viable young while on public display at zoological parks in Dallas, Phoenix, Tucson and Palm Desert (telephone conversations with each facility, February 15, 2006). It is assumed that human activity in view of captive sheep would cause the animals to develop a tolerance for humans. As the Draft EIR reports (page 74), wild bighorn sheep are tolerant of urban settings as attested by their use of golf courses and city landscaping, yet still breed and socialize in wild herds. Concerning the comment that no human disturbance should occur within 400 yards of the existing lambing pen; the Draft EIR reports the Institute’s assumption that habituation to distant human activity would lessen the survivability of captive born young after release. However, documented evidence is inconclusive regarding the threshold of disturbance that would be detrimental. For example, for more than a decade, the sheep have watched the creation of the Canyons at Bighorn, just beyond the 400-yard buffer. The Bighorn Institute Director’s own home was constructed approximately 240 to 250 yards from the breeding pen and even closer to the ram pen. It should also be noted that State Route 74 is 533 yards from the breeding pen and 430 yards from the ram pen. A 2001 article in Conservation Biology (15(3)749-760) co-authored by Bighorn Institute Director, James DeForge, outlines the significant level of human interaction imposed on captive sheep by the workings of the Institute. Twice a day, all the sheep are observed to record their City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-14 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR behavior and is assumed that they can see the humans if the humans can see them. Annually, the sheep are captured and undergo a series of medical procedures. They are also fed and watered from troughs that must be replenished and cleaned within sight of the sheep. This exposure has not prevented the young raised in this setting from being deemed fit for release. The paper analyzes the survivability of lambs raised by their mother and those bottle fed and regularly handled by humans. It acknowledges that bottle feeding caused habituation to humans: “Overall survival of captive-reared (born) and wild-reared (born) sheep was similar. Average annual survival of yearling and adult captive-reared (born) bighorn combined during 1985-1998 did not differ from the survival of wild-reared (born) bighorn.” Thus, while the Draft EIR concludes there will be potentially significant impacts to captive sheep associated with the proposed project, conclusive empirical evidence is not available that supports the statement that no human disturbance can occur within the 400-yard buffer without detrimental effects. Certainly, some level of activity, as evidenced at the Institute itself, can occur without significant effects. Nonetheless, the Draft EIR conservatively concludes that construction and operation of the proposed project would potentially have significant, unmitigable impacts upon captive sheep within the lambing pen. RESPONSE NO. B-4 The Draft EIR recognizes and acknowledges the significant contribution the Bighorn Institute has made to sustaining wild populations of bighorn sheep (pgs 151-154). The captive breeding program is a recognized tool in the recovery of the bighorn sheep population in the San Jacinto and northern Santa Rosa Mountains. RESPONSE NO. B-5 This comment regarding the City and its responsibility with regard to the captive breeding program and facility is acknowledged. This comment does not introduce new environmental information and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. B-6 This comment's suggestion that the City consider an alternative of one single-family dwelling to be located in the northeast corner of the project site as close to the 400-yard buffer zone around the lambing pen is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the City's decision- makers for consideration. It is observed that this concept is comparable in logic to the Hillside Limited Alternative consisting of two single-family dwellings that was included in the Draft EIR at page 260 and was identified as the Environmentally Superior Alternative at page 269. Please also refer to Response to Comment B-3 above, particularly paragraphs 2, 3 and 4. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-15 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR RESPONSE NO. B-7 With regard to the Canyons at Bighorn project (previously, the Altamira Project) adjoining the project site to the east, north and west, an assemblage of 40 biologists and others having knowledge and familiarity with bighorn sheep was asked to opine as to a reasonable separation between ongoing human activity in a built environment and the lambing pens at the Bighorn Institute. These biologists provided a wide range of opinions, varying from no separation to over one mile, though the Altamira EIR concluded that at least 600 yards of buffer would be appropriate. Notwithstanding this conclusion, a settlement agreement between the City, County of Riverside, the Bighorn Institute and Altamira cited a minimum of 400 yards. This comment letter, itself, suggests that a ". . . minor deviation, if needed from the 400-yard buffer . . ." might be acceptable. Indeed, subsequent to the settlement agreement cited above, the Director of the Bighorn Institute built a rather large residence approximately 240 to 250 yards north of the lambing pen within the Institute grounds. Thus, while the concept of a buffer, some buffer, is generally supported by "experts," no empirical evidence has been presented which establishes a specific buffer distance beyond which impacts do not occur, and within which they do. Thus, decision-making cannot be informed by such empirical input. This relative uncertainty argues for conservative conclusion making as in the Draft EIR which determined that both the 38-unit project and the eight-unit Reduced Project Alternative would have significant, unmitigable impacts upon sheep in the lambing pen and that the two-unit Hillside Limited Alternative could only avoid similar construction and operational impact via implementation of fairly radical construction and design-based mitigation measures. RESPONSE NO. B-8 As regards a one-unit alternative located in the northeast corner of the site, entirely or just largely outside of a 400-yard buffer area from the Institute's lambing pen, the absence of empirical evidence supporting this particular buffer distance suggests that it may be little more than a reasoned 'best guess." Where the prospective survival of a species is at stake this is not sufficiently precise and argues that erring on the side of what is not known for sure is prudent. With this understanding, the commentor's suggestion that a one single-family residence properly placed would not have a significant impact is acknowledged, though it is noted that this has not been empirically supported and may not be correct. Thus, it cannot be argued that a one-unit alternative so located would not also have significant, unmitigable impacts. Furthermore, construction outside the 400 yard buffer zone would be within the floodplain of Dead Indian Creek, and would not meet the Land Use Planning, and Economic objectives of the proposed project and therefore would be infeasible. RESPONSE NO. B-9 The Draft EIR did not intend to declare a strict reliance upon the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). To clarify, the Draft EIR describes the purpose and intent of the CVMSHCP as City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-16 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR providing a proposed regional program to conserve biological resources in light of (region-wide) development impacts. Certainly, with the adoption of the CVMSHCP prior to certification of the Final EIR and approval of the project, any cumulatively significant impacts to biological resources can be assumed to be mitigated to a level less than significant. The point of discussions provided in the Draft EIR (pages 17 and 162-163), was that cumulative impacts to which the project would contribute are not expected to be significant with or without adoption of the CVMSHCP, for several reasons apparently not made clear in the Draft EIR. First, because of the process of preparing the CVMSHCP involves a region-wide consensus regarding resource conservation and management, it is reasonable to assume that this consensus will be manifested in the mitigation programs and conditions of approval for each of the 32 private projects that were analyzed for cumulative impacts in the Draft EIR. This was the primary point made on pages 17 and 162-163. Second, as stated on page 122 of the Draft EIR, the project site is not located within an area identified as a “Conservation Area” in the draft CVMSHCP. Therefore, based on existing and foreseeable baseline biological conditions in the region, the CVMSHCP preparers did not view the site as possessing habitat functions and values that are necessary to conserve and maintain biological systems in the region; and, it would follow that disturbances to the site would not contribute to significant cumulative habitat loss. Third, direct impacts to sensitive biological elements and individual species that could occur on-site are mitigated within the project itself. Specifically, mitigation is provided for direct impacts to nesting birds (IV.G-1), desert tortoise (IV.G-2), burrowing owl (IV.G-3), and free roaming bighorn sheep (IV.G-4 and IV.G-5). In summary, any loss of habitat due to the site’s disturbance is not considered to contribute to significant cumulative losses; and the potential direct loss of sensitive wildlife species or taxonomic groups is adequately mitigated. In view of this clarification, the second full paragraph on page 17 that contains the sentence in question shall be reworded to read as follows: “In the event the CVMSHCP is not adopted prior to the certification of the EIR and approval of the project, and with the exception of impacts to captive bighorn sheep at the Bighorn Institute, cumulative impacts to habitats and plant and wildlife species would remain at a level less than significant. This is due to the absence of impacts to habitat identified as necessary to conserve and maintain biological systems in the region; and, the adequate mitigation of direct impacts to sensitive species. As noted above, potentially significant adverse effects to captive and bred sheep within the Bighorn Institute are acknowledged. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-17 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR RESPONSE NO. B-10 The recorded presence of a breeding population of desert tortoise on the alluvial fan of Deep Canyon is noted on page 140 of the Draft EIR, as are the unrecorded sightings of desert tortoise and/or their sign east of the project site and at the BLM visitor’s center on page 141. The reader should note that the Draft EIR assessment did not assert desert tortoise do not occur in the surrounding area. The Draft EIR did report that the nearest recorded tortoise sightings are found 16.5 miles west and 16 miles northeast of the project site as documented in BLM and USFWS databases, respectively. On page 141, the Draft EIR is clear, however, about unrecorded sightings of desert tortoise nearby to the east of the project site and at the BLM visitor’s center. Regarding the Draft EIR’s statement that desert tortoise habitat on site is limited and of poor quality, no changes to this conclusion or the analysis of impacts are believed to be warranted. Some noteworthy experts (Stebbins and Luckenbach) have concluded that desert tortoises are not historically known from the floor of the Coachella Valley or lower mountain slopes west of the Salton Sea.In addition, actual recorded GIS data obtained from the BLM, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, and California Natural Diversity Database do not indicate the area surrounding the project site as being either within the range of the species or an area of many recorded sightings. Thus, it is most logical to conclude that the project site is relatively unimportant to regional populations of this species.It should be noted that such disagreement among experts is provided for in the CEQA environmental review process; and for the purpose of complying with CEQA, a pre-construction survey is felt to represent adequate mitigation. As stated in the comment, and concurred with, clearance surveys would be most appropriate to avoid death and injury to individual tortoises. Therefore, Mitigation Measure IV.G-2 shall be revised to read as follows: “A properly permitted biologist shall conduct a pre-construction clearance survey, per USFWS protocols, to avoid death and injury to individual tortoises.” Due to the relatively minor potential loss of what is believed to be poor quality habitat for the desert tortoise, the acquisition of replacement habitat is not felt to be warranted. If desert tortoise is found on-site during the pre-construction survey, it is acknowledged that the acquisition of replacement habitat may be incorporated into any required Federal Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting under Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act. In the event desert tortoise and/or burrowing owl are found on-site during the pre- construction surveys, all applicable state and federal laws, guidelines and conservation protocols will be followed. Should desert tortoise be found on-site during the preconstruction clearance survey, the following actions will be taken: The client shall notify the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Under their direction, as the lead agency, consultations as directed by Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act would be carried out with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-18 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR A formal conference with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) shall also be initiated, as directed by Section 2081 of the California State Fish and Game Code. A formal consultation will result in a Biological Opinion (BO) to be rendered by the USFWS. The opinion will make a “likely to jeopardize” or “not likely to jeopardize” finding for the action. The formal conference and subsequent consultations with CDFG will result in a State Fish and Game Code Section 2081 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The BO and 2081 MOU will provide conservation recommendations, the specifics of which cannot be known at this time. However, in general, these will include measures to monitor, minimize, and mitigate the potential impact. As part of these measures, it may be necessary to trap and relocate tortoises from the site. Mitigation for lost habitat may include replacement of acreage to be disturbed at a 1-to-1 ratio, or more. If a burrowing owl is found on site, the protocol developed by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium will be followed. Disturbance within 50 meters (approximately 55 yards) of an occupied burrow outside of the breeding season (September 1 through January 31) and 75 meters (approximately 82 yards) of a burrow during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31) will be avoided, if possible. If avoidance of disturbance is not possible, then passive relocation will be implemented. This will protect individual birds from harm. If offsite mitigation is deemed appropriate, the protocol specifies various ratios of mitigation for lost habitat. These will be complied with based on what habitat is lost and what is obtained for mitigation. RESPONSE NO. B-11 This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the City's decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-19 LetterNo.C C-1 C-2 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR LETTER NO. C Department of the Army Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 532711 Los Angeles, CA 90053-2325 RESPONSE NO. C-1 This comment declares that a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit may be required by the project, as was indicated within the list of necessary project actions cited in Section II. Project Description of the Draft EIR. RESPONSE NO. C-2 The conditions under which a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit may be required are understood and acknowledged as discussed on page 162 of the Draft EIR. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-22 LetterNo.D D-1 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR LETTER NO. D Terry Roberts, Director Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 RESPONSE NO. D-1 This comment acknowledges receipt of the Draft EIR by the State of California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit, and review of the Draft EIR by those State agencies with jurisdiction over the project, in accordance with CEQA requirements. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-27 LetterNo.E F.2 F.3 F.4 F.5 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR LETTER NO. E California Department of Fish and Game 78078 Country Club Drive, Suite 109 Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 RESPONSE NO. E-1 This comment acknowledges receipt and review of the Draft EIR and provides a brief description of the project. RESPONSE NO. E-2 The proximity of the proposed project to the lambing pens at the Bighorn Institute is acknowledged and was clearly noted on page 215 of the Draft EIR. With regards to construction activities and the 400-yard (the comment indicates 400 meters, though the actual buffer distance was expressed in yards) buffer, please refer to Responses B-3 and B-7, above. RESPONSE NO. E-3 As noted and/or cited in the footnotes on pages 105, 140 and 141 of the Draft EIR, the sources suggested in this comment were consulted during preparation of the Draft EIR. Please also refer to Response to Comment B-9 above. RESPONSE NO. E-4 The conditions under which a Streambed Alteration Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game is required are understood as discussed on page 162 of the Draft EIR. As shown in Figures 15 and 19 on pages 111 and 164 of the Draft EIR, both catclaw acacia-cheesebush habitat and creosote bush scrub-brittlebush scrub habitat will be impacted. As discussed on page 162 of the Draft EIR, mitigation is anticipated to include on-or-off-site replacement or in-lieu compensation at a ratio of no less than 1:1. Further details will be worked out at the time of application and approval of a Streambed Alteration Agreement. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-29 LetterNo.F F-1 F-2 F-3 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR LETTER NO. F Coachella Valley Water District P.O. Box 1058 Coachella, CA 92236 RESPONSE NO. F-1 This comment acknowledges receipt and review of the Draft EIR. The comment does not raise new environmental information specific to the project. RESPONSE NO. F-2 This comment is acknowledged and the second to the last sentence of the second paragraph on page 173 is hereby revised to include the following footnote: "100% Design Hydraulics Report, the Canyon at Bighorn, Tract Nos. 25296 and 28575, Dead Indian Creek Channel Improvements, Palm Desert, California; ASL Consulting Engineers, November 1997 " In addition, the reference within the added footnote is hereby added to the References section in this Final EIR as requested. Please refer to Section III., Corrections and Additions reflecting the added footnote in the References section. RESPONSE NO. F-3 This comment is acknowledged and “Coachella Valley Water District” is hereby added to agencies listed in the third sentence of the second paragraph of page 176 in this Final EIR. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-31 LetterNo.G G-1 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR LETTER NO. G Southern California Association of Governments thth 818 West 7 Street, 12 Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-3435 RESPONSE NO. G-1 This comment acknowledges receipt and review of the Draft EIR by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and summarizes SCAG’s role as a regional planning organization. This comment notes that the proposed project is not considered regionally significant per CEQA. The comment does not raise new environmental information specific to the project, but is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the decision-makers for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-33 LetterNo.H H-1 H-2 H-2 Cont'd H-3 H-4 H-5 H-6 H-6 Cont'd H-7 H-8 H-9 H-10 H-11 H-12 H-13 H-14 H-15 H-16 H-16 Cont'd H-17 H-17 Cont'd H-18 H-19 H-20 H-21 H-22 H-23 H-23 Cont'd H-24 H-25 H-26 H-27 H-27 Cont'd H-28 H-29 H-30 H-31 H-32 H-33 H-34 H-35 H-36 H-37 H-38 H-39 H-40 H-41 H-42 H-42 Cont'd H-43 H-44 H-44 Cont'd H-45 H-46 H-47 H-48 H-49 H-50 H-50 Cont'd H-51 H-51 Cont'd H-52 H-53 H-53 Cont'd V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR LETTER NO. H The Williams Law Firm (Bighorn Institute) 100 Bayview Circle, South Tower, Suite 330 Newport Beach, CA 92660-2984 RESPONSE NO. H-1 This comment acknowledges receipt and review of the Draft EIR. The comment does not raise new environmental information specific to the project. RESPONSE NO. H-2 The importance of the Bighorn Institute’s role in the recovery of Peninsular bighorn sheep is acknowledged and noted in the Draft EIR on pages 114, 153-154, and 165-166. RESPONSE NO. H-3 Please refer to Reponse to Comments B-3 and B-7, above, regarding the proposed project's close proximity to the lambing pen, and within the 400-yard Altamira (now Canyons at Bighorn) buffer from the pen. It is not correct to say that the Draft EIR ". . . fails to meet even the most basic evaluative criteria." Even though empirical evidence substantiating that sheep flee disturbances at any particular distance is inconclusive, even though a 400-yard buffer for the adjoining Canyons at Bighorn project was not based on a "study" but rather a survey in which 29 biologists provided widely varying inputs ranging from zero to over one mile, even though those inputs somehow were reduced to a single setback distance of 600 yards only to be subsequently negotiated down to 400 yards, and even though the Bighorn Institute's Director constructed his own home just approximately 240 to 250 yards from the pen, the Draft EIR concludes that the effects of constructing and operating the project in such proximity would have potentially significant impacts on captive and bred sheep in the lambing pen. RESPONSE NO. H-4 The potentially significant adverse impacts of the proposed project on the captive breeding program at the Bighorn Institute are acknowledged. A summary of the body of research and literature available on the subject of the impact of human activity on bighorn sheep is provided in the Draft EIR on pages 151-162. The Draft EIR preparers sought and received input on the subject directly from James DeForge, the Director of the Bighorn Institute, including in-person meetings, on several occasions during the preparation of the Draft EIR. That the Draft EIR took the concerns expressed in the comment seriously is evidenced by the Draft EIR’s conclusion on page 161 that “impacts to the sheep at the Bighorn Institute would be potentially significant.” Further, on page 166, in the last paragraph, the Draft EIR concluded that “after implementation of recommended mitigation, project impacts to the Peninsular bighorn sheep at City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-83 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR the Bighorn Institute are still considered cumulatively significant and unavoidable due to the potential of the close proximity of the proposed residential improvements and associated human activity to induce stress in adult sheep and habituation of young to human activity.” In other words, the concerns expressed in this comment and the conclusions contained in the Draft EIR are the same. RESPONSE NO. H-5 A complete citation of specific references to meetings, written correspondence, and telephone conversations with representatives from wildlife agencies and the Bighorn Institute was not provided in the Draft EIR. For the record, the Draft EIR preparers did seek input from these sources, as summarized below: Meeting with James DeForge, Director, and Aimee Byard at the Bighorn Institute, August 4, 2004. Several subsequent in-person meetings, written correspondences and telephone conversations with James DeForge. Mr. DeForge also provided input at the scoping meeting on September 28, 2004. Meeting with Peter Sorenson and Ms. Sandy Marquez, biologists with USFWS, on August 2, 2004. Telephone call/ meeting with Kevin Brenner, Biologist with California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), in September 2004. RESPONSE NO. H-6 The Draft EIR recognizes and acknowledges the significant contribution the Bighorn Institute has made in sustaining wild populations of bighorn sheep (pages 151-154), particularly in the face of declining Peninsular bighorn sheep population. RESPONSE NO. H-7 Please refer to Responses to Comments B-3 and B-7. In addition, the reader should note the analysis of impacts from light and glare on the Bighorn Institute (pages 72 and Mitigation Measure IV.A-2), and impacts of noise on the Institute (pages 213-214, 216-217, and Mitigation Measures IV.G-1 through IV.G-8). Also, note it is the conclusion of the Draft EIR that project- related impacts are potentially significant and unavoidable due in significant part to the close proximity of the proposed project to the Bighorn Institute's nearby lambing pen. The land use implications of the proposed project are discussed in detail in Section IV.F, Land Use, in the Draft EIR. There it was determined that the project was consistent with the site's General Plan Low Density Residential designation current at the time the Draft EIR was published. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-84 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR RESPONSE NO. H-8 The land use implications of the proposed project are discussed in detail in Section IV.F, Land Use, in the Draft EIR. There it was determined that the project was consistent with the site's General Plan Low Density Residential designation current at the time the Draft EIR was published. The Draft EIR also concluded that the project would not be consistent with the Hillside Residential Reserve designation then being considered in the City's recent General Plan Update, due to excessive density. However, the proposed project's density alone did not account for the conclusion that the project would have potentially significant impacts on Institute operations in the lambing pen. In fact, the Draft EIR concluded that a much less dense, eight- unit alternative would also have such potentially significant impacts because it could not be argued with certainty that any disturbance in relatively close proximity to the lambing pen would not adversely affect the sheep. In view of the highly sensitive and protected status of the Peninsular bighorn sheep, it was also concluded that such adverse impacts must also be considered potentially significant. RESPONSE NO. H-9 The project, as proposed and pursuant to CEQA, is the subject of the Draft EIR’s analysis. Despite the recommendation of 15 separate mitigation measures addressing project orientation, design and access, introduction of barriers, and an array of operational features, it was determined that the potential impact could not be mitigated given the density of the proposal and the site's proximity to the lambing pen. Based on the analysis, potentially significant adverse impacts to the Bighorn Institute’s captive breeding activities cannot be avoided, nor can the impacts be fully and feasibly mitigated under the proposed project. Therefore, these impacts are identified as potentially significant and unavoidable in the Draft EIR. Avoidance of this impact was also explored through alternatives which reduced the project's proposed density from 38 dwelling units to eight units, in one case, and to two units in another. Only the two-unit alternative was determined to reduce impact to a less than significant level, not due to the reduction in density but due to imposition of strict prohibition of any construction during the lambing season and a rather radical design condition that the structures present entirely passive facades toward the lambing pen and that they entirely screen view of activities of occupancy including maintenance from the lambing pen. The City decision-makers will take this finding under consideration when deliberating on the project’s fate. As such, the Draft EIR fully meets the expectations of CEQA as outlined in the comment. RESPONSE NO. H-10 Please refer to Response to Comment H-5 above. RESPONSE NO. H-11 As noted in Response to Comment H-9, the Draft EIR employed two strategies to explore reduction and/or avoidance of project impacts, both of which are expected and compliant with City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-85 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR CEQA: mitigation and alternatives to the proposed project. Mitigation measures are applied to the proposed project and are intended to modify aspects of the project which generate impacts. Mitigation generally respects the basic concept of what has been proposed, such as density and siting. In the case of the Cornishe at Bighorn project, 15 separate mitigation measures were recommended to modify the project's orientation, design and access, to introduce solid walls as visual barriers, to control nighttime lighting and the placement of mechanical equipment, among other things, all intended to reduce the project's potential to induce stress and habituation among captive sheep in the Institute's lambing pen. Mitigation was not proposed to address project density or its placement on the project site. It was determined in the Draft EIR that no combination of mitigation measures that left the project's basic size and siting intact could hope to reduce its predicted impact to less than significant levels. The role of alternatives is to explore more radical modifications in the development of the site than can be achieved via mitigation. Two alternatives examined the ability of reduced density, modified siting and very constrained design to minimize the project's impact on the lambing pen. An eight-unit program with more or less the same siting as the project was determined to have a similar impact as the project notwithstanding a substantial density reduction. A second alternative with only two single-family units, located in the northeast corner of the site as far from the lambing pen as possible, and designed so that, as seen from the lambing pen, new structures would appear entirely passive and would entirely screen activity around or within the structures from visibility in the lambing pen. This two-unit alternative was determined in the Draft EIR to reduce impact upon the lambing pen to less than significant levels, though it is acknowledged that disagreement among experts could occur around this conclusion. This rigorous combination of applied mitigation and consideration of alternatives that departed radically from the basic project concept is fully compliant with the expectations of CEQA and this comment is incorrect in suggesting otherwise. This comment is also incorrect in suggesting that ". . . public agencies must deny approval of a project with significant adverse effect when feasible alternative and mitigation cannot substantially lessen such effect." CEQA also affords an agency with the option of adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations where economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of a project are determined to outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15093(a)). RESPONSE NO. H-12 Indoor construction activities are not expected to use heavy diesel equipment such as trucks or tractors. Noise due to indoor construction activities would be generated from electrical equipment such as air compressors, saws, and hammers. Of the equipment used for indoor construction, an air compressor would be the loudest piece of equipment and is estimated to generate 81 dBA intermittently at a distance of 50 feet from the source. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-86 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR Structures built using conventional construction techniques and closed windows would reduce noise levels by approximately 20 dBA. Thus, outdoor noise levels would reach levels as high as 61 dBA at a distance of 50 feet from the source. However, noise levels diminish at a rate of approximately 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Thus, a noise level of 61 dBA at a reference distance of 50 feet would be about 55 dBA at 100 feet, and 49 dBA at 200 feet. The Bighorn Institute is located approximately 375 feet from the nearest point of potential indoor construction activity. Using the conservative industry standard sound attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance for point sources, construction noise levels at the Bighorn Institute would be as high as 43 dBA. As noted in the Draft EIR on V.F, Noise, Table 4, daytime ambient noise levels at the Bighorn Institute ranged from 40.1 to 40.9 dBA L eq. Thus, indoor construction-related noise levels would not be anticipated to exceed the 3-dBA L eq significance criterion at this sensitive location and noise impacts would be less than significant. The correction provided in this comment regarding the lambing season is noted. This correction is hereby made in this Final EIR. RESPONSE NO. H-13 If the Cornishe at Bighorn project or an alternative to the proposed project is approved by the City, the City will have the responsibility to enforce the implementation of each mitigation measure that is imposed. A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is usually the vehicle through which agencies track and enforce such implementation. RESPONSE NO. H-14 With regards to the fence discussed in Mitigation Measure IV.C-8, it is noted that the proposition of a fence or wall has been revised in the New Preferred Alternative to a “barrier”, to allow visual screening to occur through a combination of a berm, wall, or landscaping. The barrier design and exact location thereof, along with much of the infrastructure associated with the proposed project, has not been finalized. However, the fence will likely be placed just outside of the area to be disturbed, allowing sheep access to those portions of the property to remain in open space. The proposed barrier would be designed to keep the sheep from entering the developed area, in accordance with accepted wildlife management design guidelines and the input of state and federal wildlife agencies. Please refer to Figures FEIR-1 through FEIR-4 in this document for the projected necessary height of these barriers to effectivey screen visual activities on-site. With regards to the fence at the Bighorn Institute, it is understood that the Bighorn Institute’s concern for tunneling is to prevent predators from entering the lambing pen and not to prevent sheep from defeating the fence. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-87 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR RESPONSE NO. H-15 To clarify, the peak within the pen is 1,150 feet above sea level; and 319 feet above the proposed project site. The proposed barrier would be intended to hide pedestrian activity in the backyards of the residences that would occur close to the wall. It would not be intended to hide the entire development. It is agreed that the inclusion of a barrier that screens the entire project, including two- story structures, is impractical. As such, only the activity areas on-site would need to be screened from view to the extent feasible. The unavoidable visibility of the project from portions of the pen area, among other reasons, is the basis for finding that the project will result in potentially significant and unavoidable impacts. RESPONSE NO. H-16 The requirement for setbacks from active nests of non-threatened birds has its origin in compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Setback distances are established with considerations for the type of development activity, sensitivity of the species, existence of intervening topography that acts as a natural buffer, etc. The same types of considerations were made for the Draft EIR analysis as they relate to bighorn sheep at the Bighorn Institute. Based on these considerations, it was found that the project will result in potentially significant and unavoidable impacts to captive sheep at the Bighorn Institute (please refer to Response to Comment H-1). RESPONSE NO. H-17 It is doubtful whether an alternative consisting of one single-family dwelling in the northeast corner of the property, beyond the 400-yard buffer zone, would achieve the applicant's basic objectives for the proposed project. In particular, such an alternative's ability to "maximize the value of the site" is speculative. This part of the project site is quite small at approximately one-fifth of an acre, is located almost entirely within a flood plain and is at the lowest part of the property such that valuable views into the valley to the north would not be available. Moreover, it is not clear that such an alternative would in fact avoid the significant impact of the project due simply to a 400-yard setback from the lambing pen. As noted in responses to earlier comments, the buffer zone was recommended in the Altamira (now Canyons at Bighorn) EIR to be 600-yards. This was legally negotiated, not scientifically established, down to 400 years. Thus, it is not clear that such an alternative would have less impact than the Hillside Limited Alternative with two units that was evaluated in the Draft EIR. Please refer to Response to Comment B-9 above. RESPONSE NO. H-18 Any necessary corrections in the information provided in the Draft EIR, as well as typographical errors, are made in this Final EIR. The reader should note, however, that the City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-88 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR corrections or clarifications requested in the comment do not change the findings of the Draft EIR. RESPONSE NO. H-19 The correct lambing season, being January – June, is noted and hereby incorporated into the Final EIR. It was incorrectly cited in the Summary section of the Draft EIR, but was correctly cited elsewhere in the document. RESPONSE NO. H-20 The data provided in the comment are noted and hereby incorporated into this Final EIR. These data only serves to further support the importance of the Bighorn Institute’s role in maintaining wild sheep populations as already presented in the Draft EIR. RESPONSE NO. H-21 Contrary to the information provided in the comment, an article co-authored by James DeForge (Conservation Biology 2001, 15 (3): 749-760) states “In 1995 the program was redirected as a formal captive breeding program with the primary goals of safeguarding a sample of the Peninsular bighorn gene pool and producing stock for augmenting and reestablishing wild populations.” Here again, the importance of the Bighorn Institute’s captive breeding program remain as presented in the Draft EIR. RESPONSE NO. H-22 The typographical error, whereby the word “pen” reads as “den” three times on page 114 (not page 14 as cited in the comment) of the Draft EIR is hereby corrected in this Final EIR. No corrections are required to Figure 16, page 115 and Figure 24, page 205 of the Draft EIR. Neither figure delineates a relative size or configuration for the ram pen; both figures only indicate by label and “pointer” the location of the ram pen relative to the project site and the intervening lambing pen. RESPONSE NO. H-23 Please refer to Response to Comment B-9 and Response to Comment H-5 above. RESPONSE NO. H-24 The typographical error that resulted in the “Santa Rosa Mountains” being indicated as the “Santa Rita Mountains” one time on page 142 of the Draft EIR is hereby corrected in this Final EIR. The reader should note that other references to the Santa Rosa Mountains throughout the Draft EIR are correct. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-89 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR RESPONSE NO. H-25 The corrected dates for the Bighorn Institute’s lamb study is noted and is hereby changed from 1998-2002 to 1998-2001 in this Final EIR. RESPONSE NO. H-26 The sanctioning and permitting of the Bighorn Institute’s release of Peninsular bighorn sheep into the wild by the USFWS under a Section 10(a)(1)(A) permit is noted and is hereby made a part of this Final EIR. RESPONSE NO. H-27 The Project's potential consequences on the lambing pen on Bighorn Institute property to the south has been fully assessed and disclosed in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR reached the same conclusions as this commentor: Due to the project's proximity to, and visibility from (including nighttime lighting) the lambing pen, the project would be likely to induce stress in captive sheep and habitation in bred sheep, within the pen. Please refer to the reference on pages 69 and 71, Section IV.A, Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR and to Section IV.C, Biological Resources, and to Appendix C, Biological Resources Technical Report, as well as the conclusion of significance specific to nighttime lighting on page 72 of the Draft EIR. Please also refer to Responses to Comments B-3, H-3, H-5 and H-9 regarding project proximity to the lambing pen. RESPONSE NO. H-28 This comment is incorrect in declaring that "All increases in these criteria pollutants must be considered significant and must be mitigated." Following construction of the project, project operations would yield only small increments of the significance threshold. During construction, exceedances of thresholds would occur with regard to NO and PM, but not relative to ROC, X10 CO or SO where the project would also generate only small increments of the threshold. The X Draft EIR already imposed all feasible mitigation measures (see page 101 though 103 of the Draft EIR) and determined that such would not mitigate the impacts to less than significant levels due to the relatively close proximity of the project site to the lambing pen. Hantavirus Pulmonary Syndrome (HPS) is a potentially deadly disease humans can contract from coming into contact with infected rodents or their urine and droppings. The primary method of transmission is through breathing fresh aerosolized urine, droppings, saliva or nesting materials of rodent carriers of hantavirus. Deer mice, white-footed mouse, cotton and rice rats are the only known rodent carriers of hantavirus and are spread out throughout North and South America. White-footed mouse is the name for a group of species within the genus peromyscus, which includes the Deer mouse and which is widely distributed in California and City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-90 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 1 may be found in the Palm Desert area. Neither the Cotton rat (which range appears to be limited to the eastern portion of Imperial County) nor the Rice rat (southern United States) would be expected in the project area. Activity that places people in contact with rodent droppings or urine may increase the risk of hantavirus infection. Although the risk of infection is very low, rodent control around the home and taking special precautions before cleaning up rodent infested areas will greatly reduce the risk of infection. Also, travel to and within areas where hantavirus infection has been reported is not considered a risk factor for infection with HPS. A total of only 438 known cases of HPS have been identified in 30 states within the United States through early May 2006, with only two cases cited in the low desert regions of Southern California, which data reinforces the conclusion that the risk of infection is low. Moreover, this low risk does not appear to be uniquely associated with the project site, but rather may be almost uniformly present throughout the Palm Desert area and beyond and on neighboring properties such as Canyons at Bighorn and the Bighorn Institute. As such, this potential circumstance is not believed to represent a significant air quality issue in the context of the Cornishe at Bighorn project. RESPONSE NO. H-29 Soils in any environment, and dust that may be generated therefrom, are the product of the decomposition process of rocks and other harder geologic units. It is not credible to suggest that the 12-acre project site near the foot of the Santa Rosa Mountains has a geologically unique formation which if disturbed would produce unique soils and, hence, fugitive dust during construction. The Draft EIR analysis did not suggest the use of the Bighorn Institute’s captive sheep herd for experimentation. Rather, the Draft EIR, in accordance with CEQA, used the best available information in the reasonable extrapolation of thresholds for determining the significance of impacts to bighorn sheep. In this case, it was conservatively assumed that a threshold for sheep could be the same as the SCAQMD has established for humans, since sheep have roughly the same body mass and weight as humans. Experimentation would be required to verify that sensitivity to particulate matter generated during construction is substantially different for bighorn sheep than for humans and such experimentation is clearly inappropriate for a threatened species. As regards the relatively conservative conclusion of significance on sheep during construction in the lambing pen, exceedance of localized particulate matter was modeled in the Draft EIR for a receptor at a distance of only 100 feet from proposed construction activities (page 93 of the Draft EIR). The nearest part of the lambing pen is located approximately 1 Jameson, Jr., E.W., and H.J. Peters, 1988. California Mammals, Blakely: University of California Press. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-91 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 375 feet from the nearest point of potential construction activity, with the majority of the lambing pen and the entire ram pen located beyond 700 feet. Given this actual distance relationship, the relatively short term duration of the site preparation process during construction and given the frequent natural episodes of high winds and airborne particulate matter throughout the Coachella Valley, potential impacts on sheep could be less than significant. However, in the absence of superior information and significance criteria, the Draft EIR elected to err on the side of conservative assessment and found the impact to be potentially significant. RESPONSE NO. H-30 The Draft EIR provides thorough analyses for both the desert tortoise (pages 130, 133, 140 and 141, 149, 150 and 165) and Peninsular bighorn sheep (pages 114, 115, 130, 139, 142, 143, 149, 151-162, 165 and 166), including a description of baseline resource conditions, analysis of direct, indirect and cumulative impacts, recommendations for mitigation, and level of impact significance after all practicable mitigation. Similar analyses are presented in the Draft EIR for all other potentially affected biological resources as well. RESPONSE NO. H-31 This comment regarding desert tortoise sightings is very similar to Comment B-10. Please refer to Response to Comment B-10. RESPONSE NO. H-32 This comment regarding desert tortoise habitat is very similar to Comment B-10. Please refer to Response to Comment B-10. RESPONSE NO. H-33 The information presented in the Draft EIR regarding free roaming bighorn sheep was obtained from multiple sources cited in the references portion of the Biological Resources Assessment, Appendix C of the Draft EIR. These included 50 books, articles from scientific journals, transcripts from the proceedings of the Desert Bighorn Council, governmental publications, CNDDB, USFWS occurrences database, CVMSHCP, environmental assessments, and independent reports. In addition, the Draft EIR preparers sought and/or received their information from representatives of the CDFG, USFWS and James DeForge, Director of the Bighorn Institute. The Draft EIR’s assessment reflects an accurate compilation of this input. RESPONSE NO. H-34 The Draft EIR concurs with this comment with regard to the importance of maintaining movement corridors for bighorn sheep as well as all other species. As discussed on page 117 of the Draft EIR, Dead Indian Creek still has the potential to support large mammals that may access the site via Dead Indian Creek, despite development in the area to the north and east, State City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-92 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR Route 74 to the west and the Bighorn Institute to the west which is fenced off from the project site. What has not been documented and remains unsubstantiated, however, is the use of the project site and areas nearby by free roaming bighorn sheep. As discussed on page 152 of the Draft EIR, Turner notes that surveys in the 1970s failed to reveal evidence that sheep cross east of State Route 74 or use Dead Indian Creek wash. Surveys of the Canyons of Bighorn (Altamira) property for its 1991 EIR did not detect any use of that property by sheep. Certainly, with the creation of the captive herd of the Bighorn Institute and development of two golf courses in the area (Ironwood Country Club and Bighorn Country Club) in the 1980s and 1990s, there is an increased likelihood of wild sheep visiting the area and project site. However, no sightings of sheep on the project site have been made; and loss of potentially suitable habitat on site is not logically expected to have any effect on nearby free roaming sheep populations. Nor does the site exist along a potential travel route for sheep through the area.It is within a “dead end,” small potential habitat area that is isolated to the north by the Canyons at Bighorn, to the east by residential and infrastructure development, and to the south by fencing within and around the Bighorn Institute. RESPONSE NO. H-35 The Draft EIR does not suggest the project land and surrounding area is not suitable sheep habitat. On page 153, in the first full paragraph, the Draft EIR refers to the site as “potentially suitable habitat” for bighorn sheep. The Draft EIR analysis goes on to assess potential impacts to free roaming bighorn sheep and recommends mitigation to minimize impacts to the extent practicable. Please also refer to Response to Comments B-3 and H-34 above. As discussed in these responses, there are no inconsistencies in the information presented in the Draft EIR. RESPONSE NO. H-36 First, it should be understood that when assessing project-related impacts to free roaming sheep, the Draft EIR analyzed direct impacts of the project site itself (only approximately 12 acres) and indirect impacts to the area within 400 to 600 yards (depending on topography) of the project site boundaries. Keeping in mind 400 to 600 yards closely corresponds to the buffer previously negotiated to avoid impacts to the captive breeding herd at the Bighorn Institute, this distance was deemed to be a reasonable study area for this purpose. As such, the potentially impacted area includes residential and golf course development to the north and northwest, the lower undeveloped but narrow portion of Dead Indian Creek wash that lies between the site and Bighorn Golf Course to the northwest and west, the fenced lambing pen and the Bighorn Institute to the south and southwest, and undeveloped mountainous terrain only to the southeast. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-93 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR Second, the information presented in the comment indicates the sightings consisted of “a group of wild bighorn sheep on the mountain directly south of the project land,” and sheep “on the other side of the ridge.” Without more specific information as to where the cited sightings occurred, the relevance of these sightings in relation to the project cannot be determined. These sightings were not provided by James DeForge to the Draft EIR preparers when he was interviewed as part of the data gathering effort. In any case, based on the available information, including the sightings mentioned in the comment, the project is not expected to adversely affect free roaming bighorn sheep. Even if the sightings were made within 600 yards of the project, there are no known lambing areas and/or water sources in the study area that are critical to bighorn sheep populations; and movement from east to west through the Santa Rosa Mountains would not be interrupted. Concerning the lack of sightings in the area, it is more likely that bighorn sheep would be seen more often, if they frequent the area, due to almost continual human presence at and around the Canyons at Bighorn residential development and golf course, State Route 74, the BLM visitor’s center, and the Bighorn Institute. The sightings cited in the comment are not doubted; however, they do not add sufficiently to the understanding of sheep movements to warrant a full study for the purposes of the project EIR. RESPONSE NO. H-37 On page 142 and in Figure 17 on page 143, the Draft EIR does declare that the project site is located partially within designated critical habitat for Peninsular bighorn sheep, as stated in the comment. It should also be realized that the designation of critical habitat for Peninsular bighorn sheep followed a “landscape” approach whereby large blocks of land that were believed to encompass constituent elements of habitat important to sheep were delineated. Such a designation does not mean that all land within delineated critical habitat necessarily supports constituent elements. As concluded on page 160 of the Draft EIR, Peninsular bighorn sheep occurrence on the project site is not documented and the resources on the project site are of little importance to maintaining free roaming bighorn sheep in the area. Understanding that resources on the project site are not important to maintain the population of free roaming sheep, Mitigation Measure IV.C-5 is intended to keep free roaming sheep away from otherwise attractive artificial features such as water and landscaping within the project. RESPONSE NO. H-38 The designation of critical habitat over a wide ranging landscape does not mean that all land so designated in fact supports constituent habitat elements. Under CEQA, impacts may be determined to be adverse, but less than significant, or adverse and significant. In the case of the City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-94 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR proposed project, the loss of potentially suitable habitat for free roaming bighorn sheep is considered to be adverse, but less than significant. That is, the habitat on-site is not considered to be important or critical to free roaming sheep. It should also be noted that the taking of critical habitat may be permitted under the provisions of both Section 7 and Section 10 of the Federal Endangered Species Act. RESPONSE NO. H-39 The opinion expressed in this comment is noted and will be considered by City decision- makers during deliberations on the EIR and project approval. RESPONSE NO. H-40 This comment summarily alleges "inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the DEIR" which are cited in more detail in subsequent comments. Responses to these allegations are provided to the more specific, respective comments following. The Bighorn Institute's comment letter on the Altamira Draft EIR is also "incorporated by this reference" in this comment and it was attached to the commentor's letter. The Bighorn Institute's comment letter regarding the Altamira Draft EIR was dated June 27, 1991, and consisted of 17 pages of single-space copy citing the status of the bighorn sheep, the role of the Institute, differences in mission between the Institute and another facility, the Living Desert, the impacts of the Altamira Project, the resulting need for a minimum buffer distance of 600 yards (the letter's author indicates at page 12 that an "optimal buffer" would be a minimum of 800 yards), and specific mitigation. Attached to the letter are identical letters from the then nine members of the Bighorn Advisory Council stating their respective support for a minimum buffer of 600 yards. The background afforded by the attachment is interesting and appreciated. While it illustrates the continuity with which concern for captive bighorn sheep at the Institute and free roaming sheep has been held over time, it does not present new information nor add to the record regarding the proposed Cornishe at Bighorn project. This attachment to this comment will be forwarded to the City's decision-makers for consideration. For responses to the comments in the attachment, please refer to the Altamira Final EIR. RESPONSE NO. H-41 The proposed project construction area is located 125 yards from the lambing pen fence at its closest points. The Draft EIR found, based on all available information and the project as proposed, that the project will result in unavoidable significant adverse impacts to the captive breeding bighorn sheep herd due to its close proximity to the lambing pen on Institute property. The evolution of the 400-yard buffer zone imposed on the Canyon at Bighorn project is summarized in Response to Comment B-7. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-95 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR RESPONSE NO. H-42 The information presented in this comment with regards to bighorn sheep as a federally- listed endangered species was taken into consideration in the Draft EIR. Please refer to Section IV.C. Biological Resources on page 142 of the Draft EIR for further discussion. The opinions expressed in the comment are noted. As discussed in the Draft EIR, the project's impacts would be significant and unavoidable. The attached news release is noted and will be forwarded to the City's decision-makers for review. Analyses and conclusions in this Final EIR are consistent with the findings of the news release and agree that the Bighorn Institute maintains a vital captive breeding program to conserve the native bighorn population. The Draft EIR concurs with this comment. The captive herd should not be used for experimentation. As indicated in the Draft EIR, even with implementation of recommended mitigation measures, the proposed project could be expected to result in significant and unavoidable impacts upon the captive herd. As indicated in Section IV.C. Biological Resources, the Draft EIR concurs that the bighorn sheep are an endangered species and that captive breeding is essential to the survival of the species. As such, the Draft EIR concludes that impacts to the Bighorn Institute would be significant and unavoidable with regards to the operation of the project. RESPONSE NO. H-43 Please refer to Responses to Comments H-9, H-11 and H-12 regarding the adequacy of recommended mitigation, its effectiveness and whether prohibition of indoor construction activities during the lambing season would be appropriate. RESPONSE NO. H-44 This comment fails to acknowledge that the Draft EIR concluded that the project would result in unavoidable, significant adverse impacts to sheep, including those in bred sheep due to habituation, at the Bighorn Institute, precisely for the reasons stated in the comment. Under the proposed project development scenario, no practicable mitigation exists to fully mitigate such impacts. This is a disclosure made clear in the Draft EIR, as required by CEQA. RESPONSE NO. H-45 The recommendation expressed in the comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-maker for review and consideration. RESPONSE NO. H-46 In the practice of environmental documentation under CEQA, the term "cultural resources' conventionally includes three broad resource categories: historic resources, archaeological resource and paleontological resources. CEQA, itself, does not provide a City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-96 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR definition of "cultural resources," but the CEQA Guidelines provide a definition of "historic resources" in Section 15064.5(a) to include resources listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, resources included in a local register of historical resources, as well as "Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be an historical resource, provided the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be "historically significant" if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res. Code, § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, Section 4852) including the following: (A) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; (B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or (D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history." The inclusion of resources " . . . likely to yield information important to prehistory . . . " indicates that this definition includes archaeological resources. The California Department of Transportation defines the term "cultural resources" to mean ". . . any tangible or observable evidence of past human activity, regardless of significance, found in direct association with a geographic location, including tangible properties possessing 2 intangible cultural values." 2 California Department of Transportation, "Exhibit 4.2: National Register Definitions and Eligibility Criteria" Caltrans Standard Environmental References (SER), Environmental Handbooks, Volume 2: Cultural Resources, January 2004. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-97 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR While bighorn sheep may have iconic value as represented in municipal or commercial logos, within the realm of public art, or even as a symbol of native heritage, any and all bighorn sheep cannot be characterized as cultural resources within the meaning of the words as defined for and practiced within CEQA. Sheep have not been determined “. . . to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military or cultural annals of California . . .” by any Lead Agency nor by the City of Palm Desert. No living sheep is “…likely to yield information important in Prehistory or History.” Nor can any living sheep be considered ". . . tangible or observable evidence of past human activity… in direct association with a geographic location….” where the past human activity predates the life of the sheep in question. While the proposed project is predicted to have significant, unavoidable impact on captive live sheep at the Bighorn Institute as protected Biotic Resources, it will not also have impact on those same sheep as cultural resources because they are not cultural resources. RESPONSE NO. H-47 The proposed project would involve streambed alterations within Dead Indian Creek if only to construct a vehicular access to the project site. Such alterations would require appropriate permitting and consultation the regulatory agencies cited in the comment, at least two of which (Army Corps of Engineers and CDFG) are already aware of the project and did submit comments regarding the Draft EIR. The recommendation presented in this comment will be forwarded to the City’s decision-makers for consideration. RESPONSE NO. H-48 The Draft EIR concluded that the proposed project was consistent with the site's low density residential (R-L) General Plan designation with regard to density. The site Special Study Area overlay is applied to properties that due to location, topography or other special characteristics require focused evaluation, design and/or environmental sensitivity. Plainly, the site's proximity to the Bighorn Institute and its lambing pens is such a circumstance, and, clearly, the Draft EIR and this Final EIR have determined that the project as proposed could have significant, unavoidable impacts on Institute operations and could not coexist compatibly. While this conclusion is clear and has been underscored in this document many times, and while two- story townhouses may not be the same as large, single-family luxury homes (some of which may also be two stories), such townhouses are not necessarily incompatible with luxury homes. RESPONSE NO. H-49 The Draft EIR also concluded that the project would not be consistent with the Hillside Residential Reserve designation then being considered in the City's recent General Plan Update, due to excessive density. However, the proposed project's density alone did not account for the conclusion that the project would have potentially significant impacts on Institute operations in the lambing pen. In fact, the Draft EIR concluded that a much less dense, eight-unit alternative City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-98 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR would also have such potentially significant impacts because it could not be argued with certainty that any disturbance in relatively close proximity to the lambing pen would not adversely affect the sheep. In view of the highly sensitive and protected status of the Peninsular bighorn sheep, it was also concluded that such adverse impacts must also be considered potentially significant. RESPONSE NO. H-50 The comment accurately incorporates information derived and discussed in the Draft EIR’s noise assessment that concluded, “project construction noise impacts upon the Bighorn Institute would be significant and unavoidable.” RESPONSE NO. H-51 This comment is correct in that no feasible mitigation is available to reduce construction impacts to less than significant levels and still allow construction to proceed. Please also refer to Response to Comment H-12 above concerning indoor construction noise. The recommendation for no construction will be forwarded to the City's decision-makers for consideration. RESPONSE NO. H-52 The 400-yard buffer was imposed upon the Canyons at Bighorn project as a condition of approval. It has legal standing regarding that project. It does not have legal standing with regard to the proposed Cornishe at Bighorn project until and unless the City of Palm Desert elects to deny the application in favor of open space. Thus, it is not illegal for a project separate from the Canyons at Bighorn to propose vehicular access though portions of the buffer. Since the Bighorn Institute does not own or control any of the property within the portion of the buffer located within the Canyons at Bighorn development, it does not have the right to approve or deny grants of easements therein. The recommendation of “no construction” will be forwarded to the City’s decision-makers for consideration. RESPONSE NO. H-53 This comment does not raise or introduce new environmental issues on aspects, but does make administrative and procedural requests. Such requests will be forwarded to the City’s decision-makers for consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-99 LetterNo.I I-1 I-1 Cont'd I-2 I-3 I-4 I-5 I-5 Cont'd I-6 I-7 I-7 Cont'd I-8 I-9 I-10 I-10 Cont'd I-10 Cont'd I-11 I-12 I-12 Cont'd I-13 I-13 Cont'd I-13 Cont'd I-14 I-14 Cont'd I-14 Cont'd V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR LETTER NO. I Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP (Cornishe of Bighorn) th 515 South Figueroa, 7 Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3398 RESPONSE NO. I-1 This comment provides a brief history of the proposed project and its associated development application. For the record, the 38-unit proposal (Original Project) was the subject of the main body of the Draft EIR and the eight-lot subdivision was evaluated in the Draft EIR as the Reduced Project Alternative (Alternative 2). The four-lot subdivision for development of four single-family dwellings which was attached to this letter is understood to have amended the project application in favor of the four-lot subdivision, which as of this letter’s submittal became the proposed project. Subsequent to this submittal, however, on November 1, 2006, the applicant submitted a revised subdivision map for a two-lot project for improvement of a maximum of two single-family dwellings and has requested the City to amend the project application to address two lots as the New Preferred Alternative. Due to this most recent revision of the project, the responses to comments within this letter that refer to the prospective environmental implications of the four-lot subdivision do not directly evaluate the comment with reference to the four-lot subdivision and instead refer the reader to an analysis of the two-lot subdivision that has now become the proposed project. An analysis of the New Preferred Alternative was presented in the New Preferred Alternative- an Addition to the Draft EIR. In addition, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program was prepared and is contained in Section VI of this Final EIR, which also addresses the two-lot subdivision as the most recent and standing version of the proposed project. The two-lot subdivision is also the subject of the Summary in Section II of this Final EIR RESPONSE NO. I-2 Please refer to the discussion of Transportation and Circulation on pages 54-56 of Section IV, Evaluation of Impacts, in the New Preferred Alternative- an Addition to the Draft EIR document. RESPONSE NO. I-3 Please refer to the discussion of Air Quality on pages 29-36 of Section IV, Evaluation of Impacts, in the New Preferred Alternative- an Addition to the Draft EIR. RESPONSE NO. I-4 The Draft EIR, in accordance with CEQA, uses the best available information to reasonably extrapolate thresholds for determining the significance of noise impacts to bighorn City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-142 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR sheep. Key references used to prepare the assessment of potential impacts to the captive herd of bighorn sheep at the Bighorn Institute included 50 books, articles from scientific journals, transcripts from the proceedings of the Desert Bighorn Council, governmental publications, environmental impact reports, and independent reports. In addition, the Draft EIR preparers sought and/or received information on the subject from the CDFG, USFWS and the Bighorn Institute. Finally, the Draft EIR preparers considered the concerns registered by the 29 biologists who recommended widely varying minimum buffer distances between the Altamira (Canyons at Bighorn) project and the Institute’s lambing pens. By far, the majority of these sources concluded that human activity, including noise generated by that activity, had an adverse effect on bighorn sheep through stress and/or an alteration of normal behavior patterns. For example, elevated heart rates and modified behavior have been reported in bighorn sheep during their exposure to low flying jet aircraft (page 159 of the Draft EIR). This is not an uncommon reaction for wildlife in general, and across many taxonomic groups, to have in response to increases in ambient noise. As pointed out on pages 213 and 214 of the Draft EIR, current daytime average ambient noise levels at the Bighorn Institute are approximately 40 to 41 dBA Leg. It is projected that construction noise levels would be as high as 70 dBA over portions of the lambing pen. As shown in Figure 22 on page 196 of the Draft EIR, 40 dBA is the equivalent of a very quiet radio at home or quiet urban nighttime environment; 70 dBA is the equivalent of a vacuum cleaner at three feet or a power mower at 100 feet. Given that hearing in sheep is broadly comparable to hearing in humans (pages 198 and 199 of the Draft EIR), this difference between ambient and construction noise levels must be viewed as potentially significant, whether or not a scientific experiment specifically focused on Peninsular bighorn sheep has been performed to date (not to mention that such an experiment on a threatened species is not likely to be permitted). Again, the Draft EIR’s assessment is based on reasonably derived conclusions using the best available information. RESPONSE NO. I-5 Within the context of a CEQA assessment of potential impacts, the consideration of the operations of the Bighorn Institute as a noise-sensitive receptor is appropriate and warranted, regardless of whether it was addressed in the City’s General Plan Noise Element or not. The potential for significant noise impacts to the Bighorn Institute exists and, therefore, must be addressed pursuant to CEQA. In other words, the list of noise sensitive land uses/receptors contained in the City’s General Plan Noise Element is not exclusive of the need to identify and address other sensitive receptors on a project-by-project basis. Respectfully, the remainder of the comment focuses on statements in the Draft EIR that are presented out of context. On page 198, the Draft EIR does state that “most community noise sources have the majority of sound content in the mid to low frequency range,” and uses traffic noise as an example of this. However, the primary concerns for potential impacts to the Bighorn Institute are related to construction generated noise and long-term refuse service (pages 220 and City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-143 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR 221 of the Draft EIR; also note on page 216 that roadway noise is not identified as a potentially significant impact). In addition, the comment cites information and statements from Figure 23 on page 199 and on page 214 of the Draft EIR that sheep hearing is less sensitive than human hearing and that sheep are understood to be much less sensitive to audible stimuli than to visual stimuli. In context of the Draft EIR analysis, however, the Draft EIR states on page 198, “. . . the hearing of sheep is believed to be broadly comparable to human hearing” and the Draft EIR addresses a 30 dBA increase in noise during construction going from approximately 40 dBA to 70 dBA as explanation of why an extension of site preparation and concrete work beyond a period of three months should be considered significant. Given this understanding that sheep hearing is broadly comparable to that of humans, these increases must be considered to be significant. Please also refer to Response to Comment I-4 above. RESPONSE NO. I-6 The selection of the significance thresholds regarding construction noise grew out of the magnitude of the impacts themselves and the reality that construction impacts occur with shorter duration than ongoing operational impacts. In the case of the project evaluated in the Draft EIR, site preparation activities and concrete work would be expected to produce noise heard in the closest parts of the lambing pen as high as 70dBA, or roughly 30dBA above ambient levels. This increase would be equivalent with a 300 percent in loudness over existing ambient levels, which would be unmistakably noticeable, even if tolerable, by humans in any environment. In the absence of more precise data, bighorn sheep are presumed to be as sensitive to changes in the acoustic environment as are humans (Please refer also to the Responses to Comments I-4 and I-5 above.). While the maximum noise levels identified would not be expected to occur constantly, a 300 percent increase in loudness in what is presently a very quiet environment would be a very large increase. At question is at what duration would such effects become significant? Due to the fact that such a threshold did not already exist, one needed to be formulated that was respectful of the understood sensitivities of known sensitive receptors and of the legitimate interests of applicants. It was recognized that defining such a threshold, even with the guidance of the best available information, would be somewhat arbitrary – just as the definition of every other significance threshold employed since the enactment of CEQA in 1970 has been similarly arbitrary, including those that are used habitually in the practice of environmental documentation such as in traffic engineering. As applied to the Peninsular bighorn sheep, a federally protected and endangered species, it would be difficult to understand how a three-fold increase in loudness occurring regularly for three months or more would not be appreciated as a significant change in the existing environment. RESPONSE NO. I-7 Similar to the selection of a significance threshold regarding construction noise, a threshold for ongoing operational noise impacts upon bighorn sheep was selected with the assumption that sheep have generally comparable hearing to humans. An ongoing change in ambient noise levels of 3dBA or greater is audible to people with normal hearing and this level City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-144 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR was considered equally appropriate for sheep. Selecting a higher threshold did not seem justifiable given that information suggesting that sheep and humans have comparable hearing and the 3dBA threshold was already employed in the Draft EIR relative to nearby human exposures. At the same time, a reduced threshold was not supported by available information. Please also refer to the Responses to Comments I-4, I-5 and I-6 above. Please also refer to the discussion of Noise in Section IV., Evaluation of Impacts on page 49-53 of the New Preferred Alternative- an Addition to the Draft EIR. RESPONSE NO. I-8 In its assessment of potential impacts on the overall Peninsular bighorn sheep population, the Draft EIR relied on many sources, including federal and state wildlife agency personnel; independent experts; the literature; and James DeForge, Director of the Bighorn Institute. To a source, the importance of the Institute in maintaining the wild population was acknowledged. Since 1985, over 100 Peninsular bighorn lambs have been born at the Bighorn Institute, and 108 captive-reared or rehabilitated bighorn sheep have been released into the wild.This is a significant recovery effort, given the numbers of Peninsular bighorn sheep in the United States total only about 700 animals. As stated in the Draft EIR on page 113, when responding to the Altamira Country Club EIR, a USFWS representative stated, “The Institute’s program for the release of lambs is important in sustaining the population… The fact that the majority (in 1991) of the bighorn sheep in the northern Santa Rosa mountains are animals that were released from the Institute underscores the importance of the Institute’s functions to the survival of the bighorn sheep.” Also, it should be noted, as presented on pages 153 and 154 of the Draft EIR that the development of a captive breeding reintroduction and augmentation policy is a number two priority of the Recovery Plan for Peninsular bighorn sheep developed in 2000. Finally, it should be noted that the connection between the Institute’s activities and the wild population of bighorn sheep was implied during the establishment of the buffer for the Altamira project when at least nine of the 29 experts who convened on the matter in 1991 signed individual letters endorsing a buffer as a way to protect “the Bighorn Institute’s operations and the Peninsular bighorn sheep.” (emphasis added) The Bighorn Institute’s contribution to the recovery of the Peninsular bighorn sheep cannot be disputed based on the available information. The aspect of the comment that addresses possible relocation of the Bighorn Institute is noted and will be forwarded to the City’s decision-makers for consideration. RESPONSE NO. I-9 This comment regarding the relationship of the subject project site to the Canyons at Bighorn/Altamira project, the buffer area established for that project and how this property might someday be developed are noted and will be forwarded to the City’s decision makers for consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-145 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR RESPONSE NO. I-10 This comment asserting that the Bighorn Institute knowingly and deliberately located its operations in proximity to land in the City of Palm Desert that had been designated for future low density residential development is noted and will forwarded to the City’s decision makers for consideration. RESPONSE NO. I-11 This comment accurately summarizes information presented in the Draft EIR and is acknowledged as such. RESPONSE NO. I-12 The information provided in the comment is noted and will be made a part of the Final EIR. Information and discussions relevant to the comment may be found in Responses to Comments B-3, H.-4, H.-29, I-4 and I-5 above. Concerning the comparison of the Bighorn Institute to the Living Desert Museum, there is a dispute among experts as to the validity of the comparison. In a comment letter to the City, for the Altamira Country Club Project dated June 27, 1991, James DeForge cites several key differences: (1) The Living Desert Museum does not keep its bighorn sheep for the sole purpose of research, rehabilitation of captured lambs from the wild and release, as the Bighorn Institute does; (2) The Museum uses its bighorn pen for public display, unlike the Institute; and (3) to the knowledge of DeForge (as of the date of this letter), the Museum has not been successful in reintroducing sheep into the wild. In its attempt to address this issue, the Draft EIR received input from a wide number and variety of sources. Overwhelmingly, these sources expressed issues and concerns regarding the proximity of the proposed development to the lambing pen. Given the stated objectives and goals of the Institute to rear and release wild sheep into free roaming populations, it was clear that potentially significant impacts to the Institute’s activities could result from the project. This finding was made in compliance with CEQA where it is both recognized that experts can disagree and reasonable conclusions may still be drawn from the best available information. RESPONSE NO. I-13 This comment summarizes mitigation measures that were recommended in the Draft EIR to reduce the extent of impact that the 38-unit project would have had on operations at the Bighorn Institute, noting that the applicant does not object to the implementation of these measures. Please also refer to the summary of mitigation measures provided in Section II, Summary, of this Final EIR regarding the New Preferred Alternative. The comment reiterates the mitigation measures recommended to reduce impacts to the Institute’s bighorn sheep and activities, as they appear in the Draft EIR; and no response is needed. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-146 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR RESPONSE NO. I-14 This comment asserting that the City’s failure to permit reasonable development of the project site will result in a regulatory and compensatory taking of that property will be forwarded to the City’s decision makers for consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-147 LetterNo.J J-1 J-2 J-3 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR LETTER NO. J Worden Williams (Sierra Club) 162 Stevens Avenue Suite 702 Solano Beach, CA 92075 RESPONSE NO. J-1 With regard to potential impacts to the Bighorn Institute, 15 separate mitigation measures were recommended, including IV.A-2 (page 74 of the Draft EIR), IV.C-4 and IV.C-6 through IV.C-10 (pages 165 and 166 of the Draft EIR), and IV.G-1 through IV.G-8 (pages 221 and 222 of the Draft EIR). In any case, mitigation measures can only be "recommended" in an EIR and become enforceable when established as conditions of approval in conjunction with an action by the Lead Agency to approve a project. Alternatives to the proposed project were also evaluated in Section V. Alternatives of the Draft EIR to explore the potential of avoiding this impact altogether through different development concepts on the project site. In fact, one alternative was determined to have less than significant impact on the lambing pen. This alternative consisted of two single-family homes in the northeastern part of the property taking access from the east and designed so that the completed structures would have entirely passive façades facing south and would entirely screen the activities of residential occupancy including maintenance from visibility in the lambing pen. While not beyond the 400-yard buffer, the siting and design parameters in addition to the reduced density are believed to limit its impact more effectively than simple observance of the 400-yard setback. See also Response to Comments B-6, B-8, B-9, H-11, and H-17 regarding mitigation and alternatives. Furthermore, this alternative would result in construction within the floodplain of Dead Indian Creek, and would not meet the Land Use Planning, and Economic objectives of the proposed project and therefore would be infeasible. RESPONSE NO. J-2 Please note that page 272 of the Draft EIR refers to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(b) which states that “Where there are impacts that cannot be alleviated without imposing an alternative design, their implications and the reasons why the project is being proposed, notwithstanding their effect, should be described,” The Draft EIR is in compliance with this provision which is not premature. Alternatives were analyzed as indicated above in Response to Comment J-1, as were mitigation measures. RESPONSE NO. J-3 This comment acknowledges receipt and review of the Draft EIR. The comment does not raise new environmental information specific to the project. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-150 LetterNo.K K-1 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR LETTER NO. K Pat and Dick Johnson RESPONSE NO. K-1 Please refer to Response to Comments B-3, B-8 (third paragraph), B-6, H-30, H-34, H-35, H-36, and H.38 above, all of which address comments regarding potential project impact upon biological resources. The opinion that “no permits should be allowed” is noted and will be forwarded to the City's decision-makers for consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-152 LetterNo.L L-1 L-2 L-3 L-4 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR LETTER NO. L Frank D. Whitehead 38-661 Lobelia Circle Palm Desert, CA 92211 RESPONSE NO. L-1 For the purpose of clarification, the buffer distance is 400 yards, not 400 feet. Please refer to Responses to Comments H-1, H-4, H-7, H-9, H-41, and H.-43 above, all of which address comments regarding project impact on the Institute's lambing pen. The comment correctly describes the configuration of the proposed development in relation to the Bighorn Institute (see Figure 3 on page 40 of the Draft EIR). RESPONSE NO. L-2 The number of residents assumed to be generated by the proposed project in the Draft EIR is 80 (calculated at 2.1 persons per household and rounded upward to the nearest whole number). The potential for these residents to adversely impact the captive breeding bighorn sheep herd at the Bighorn Institute is acknowledged in the Draft EIR and here. RESPONSE NO. L-3 This comment concurs with the Draft EIR that the Bighorn Institute is dedicated to protecting the bighorn sheep and that construction and operation of the project could have significant, unavoidable impact upon captive and newborn sheep in the lambing pen. RESPONSE NO. L-4 This comment and the aforementioned issues referenced in this letter are noted and will be forwarded to the City's decision-makers for consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-154 LetterNo.M M-1 M-2 M-3 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR LETTER NO. M Richard and Doreen Yaeger 852 Mission Creek Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 RESPONSE NO. M-1 This comment regarding the Bighorn Institute and its ongoing efforts to preserve bighorn sheep is in concurrence with the Draft EIR and is noted. The comment regarding the developer’s purchase of the area will be noted and forwarded to the City's decision-makers for consideration. RESPONSE NO. M-2 The Draft EIR contains proposed mitigation measures that are disclosed under the subsection Mitigation Measure of each section in an effort to reduce significant environmental impacts to less than significant levels. However, as indicated in the Draft EIR, even with implementation of mitigation measures, the impacts of the proposed project regarding captive and newborn sheep in the lambing pen could remain significant and unavoidable. Section I, Summary, of the Draft EIR, also reiterates the mitigation measures which have been proposed for the project. In addition a Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program has been included in Section VI of this Final EIR, to reflect mitigation measures recommended for the New Preferred Alternative. RESPONSE NO. M-3 The comment regarding opposition to the project is noted and will be forwarded to the City's decision-makers for consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-156 LetterNo.N N-1 N-2 V. Comments and Responses to the Draft EIR LETTER NO. N Center for Biological Diversity P.O. Box 549 Joshua Tree, CA 92252 RESPONSE NO. N-1 This comment incorporates by reference the comments submitted on behalf of the Sierra Club. For responses to the Sierra Club letter, please refer to Responses to Comments J-1, J-2 and J-3 above. Mitigation measures were identified in the Draft EIR to reduce the amount of stress induced by visual stimuli and lessen the impact of human development on adult sheep in the Institute. This included the prohibition of dogs on the project site. However, as concluded in the findings of the Draft EIR, even with implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, stress to breeding females could occur. Additionally, young lambs raised in the pen overlooking the project would still be exposed to human activity and could experience habituation. Thus, impacts on the operations of the Institute would be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of mitigation. RESPONSE NO. N-2 As presented in Section V of the Draft EIR, Alternatives, alternatives were evaluated. Please refer to Response to Comments B-6, B-8, B-9, H-11 and H-17 as well as J-1 regarding alternatives and mitigation, and the 400-yard buffer. The last part of the comment expresses general opposition to the project until impacts with regards to bighorn sheep can be reduced to less than significant levels. This comment is noted and will be forwarded to the decision-maker for review and consideration. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page V-158 WJ/!!N JUJHBUJPO!N POJUPSJOH!BOE!S FQPSUJOH!Q SPHSBN O FX!Q SFGFSSFE!B MUFSOBUJWF VI. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: NEW PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, which requires adoption of a MMRP for projects in which the Lead Agency has required changes or adopted mitigation to avoid significant environmental effects. The City of Palm Desert (City) is the lead agency for the proposed Cornishe of Bighorn project and is, therefore, responsible for administering and implementing the MMRP. The decision-makers must define specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements to be enforced during project implementation prior to final approval of the proposed project. The primary purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the mitigation measures identified for the New Preferred Alternative- an Addition to the Draft EIR and any subsequent changes in the mitigation measures included in this document are implemented, thereby minimizing identified environmental effects. The MMRP for the New Preferred Alternative would be in place throughout all phases of the project, including during design (pre-construction), construction, and operations (post construction both prior to and post-occupancy). The Department of Community Development shall be responsible for administering the MMRP activities via staff, other City departments (e.g., Department of Building and Safety, Department of Public Works, etc.), consultants, and contractors. Furthermore, the Community Development Department will also ensure that monitoring is documented through reports and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The designated environmental monitor (e.g., City building inspector, project contractor, certified professionals, etc., depending on the provisions specified below) will track and document compliance with mitigation measures, note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to remedy problems. Each mitigation measure is cited within the environmental topic for which an impact needing mitigation has been identified (e.g., air quality or hydrology), with accompanying identification of: The enforcement agency; The monitoring agency; The monitoring phase (i.e., the phase of the project during which the measure should be monitored); o Pre-construction City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page VI-1 VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative o Construction* o Post-construction (prior to and post-occupancy) The monitoring frequency; and The action indicating compliance with the mitigation measure(s). A. AESTHETICS Mitigation Measure IV.A-1: All open areas not used for buildings, roadways, driveways, parking areas, or walkways shall be landscaped to reduce visibility of the project improvements from adjacent properties in accordance with a Landscape Plan to be prepared by a licensed landscape architect to the satisfaction of the Community Development/Planning Department. The Landscape Plan shall specify plant materials, heights upon planting or box sizes, and locations. Remaining existing natural landscape areas shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the Landscape Plan. Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Phase: Pre-construction and Post-construction Monitoring Frequency: Plan check review (landscape plan) and annually during project operation (maintenance) Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Issuance of building permits and compliance certification report submitted by the applicant Mitigation Measure IV.A-2: All night lighting installed within the project site shall be shielded and directed in a manner so that such lighting does not shine upwards or towards the lambing pen to the south of the project site and thus, is generally not visible from the existing sheep pens. In addition, lighting shall not be a high glare type of lighting, shall be directed away from the nearby residential uses, and shall be confined to the site. Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development * For the purposes of this document, construction is defined as grading, excavation, framing, siding, roofing, landscaping, installation of doors and windows, and any interior work that utilizes pneumatic tools or compressors that would be located outside the proposed residences. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page VI-2 VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase: Pre-construction and Post-construction Monitoring Frequency: Plan check review and final inspection Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Approval of site plans and issuance of Certificate of Occupancy B. AIR QUALITY Mitigation Measure IV.B-1: Water three times daily or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers, according to manufacturers’ specifications, as needed to reduce off-site transport of fugitive dust from all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces. Additionally, install AQMD approved track-out prevention devices for construction vehicles leaving the project site Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works Monitoring Phase: Construction Monitoring Frequency: Throughout construction during field inspection Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly compliance certification report submitted by project contractor Mitigation Measure IV.B-2: All private streets shall be swept as needed during construction, but not more frequently than hourly, if visible soil material has been carried onto adjacent paved roads. Enforcement Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works Monitoring Phase: Construction Monitoring Frequency: Throughout construction during field inspection Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly compliance certification report submitted by project contractor City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page VI-3 VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative Mitigation Measure IV.B-3: Construction equipment shall be visually inspected prior to leaving the site and loose dirt shall be washed off with wheel washers as necessary. Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works Monitoring Phase: Construction Monitoring Frequency: Throughout construction during field inspection Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly compliance certification report submitted by project contractor Mitigation Measure IV.B-4: All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase: Construction Monitoring Frequency: Throughout construction during field inspection Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly compliance certification report submitted by project contractor Mitigation Measure IV.B-5: General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues shall have their engines turned off when not in use, to reduce vehicle emissions. Construction activities should be phased and scheduled to avoid emissions peaks and discontinued during second-stage smog alerts. Enforcement Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase: Construction Monitoring Frequency: Throughout construction during field inspection City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page VI-4 VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly compliance certification report submitted by project contractor Mitigation Measure IV.B-6: To the extent possible, petroleum powered construction activity shall utilize electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel power generators and/or gasoline power generators. Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase: Construction Monitoring Frequency: Throughout construction during field inspection Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly compliance certification report submitted by project contractor Mitigation Measure IV.B-7: On-site mobile equipment shall be powered by alternative fuel sources (i.e., methanol, natural gas, propane or butane) as feasible. Enforcement Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase: Construction, Post-construction Monitoring Frequency: Field inspection Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly compliance certification report submitted by project applicant Mitigation Measure IV.B-8: The Applicant shall, as feasible, install solar or low- emission water heaters that exceed the requirements of the national Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) and the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), to reduce energy consumption. Enforcement Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Design Review Committee Monitoring Phase: Design Review City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page VI-5 VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative Monitoring Frequency: Pre-construction and Post-construction Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Approval by Design Review Board Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure IV. B-9: The Applicant shall, as feasible, install energy-efficient appliances (i.e., ENERGY STAR) to reduce energy consumption. Enforcement Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase: Design Review Monitoring Frequency: Pre-construction and Post-construction Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Approval by Department of Building and Safety; Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure IV.C-1: Garage openings shall be oriented easterly away from the lambing pens to the maximum extent practicable. Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase: Pre-construction Monitoring Frequency: Design Review Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Issuance of building permits and a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure IV.C-2: Site preparation and grading of the site shall be designed to balance on-site to minimize new import of fill materials to the extent feasible. Grading shall be restricted to that necessary for 1) reasonable vehicular access from the Indian Cove section of the Canyons at Bighorn to access the residences, 2) development of proposed building pad elevations, and 3) reasonable foundation excavations. To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page VI-6 VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative allow one-story above finished floor elevations no higher than 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works Monitoring Phase: Pre-construction, Construction Monitoring Frequency: Pre-construction and during grading activities Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Issuance of City building and grading permits Mitigation Measure IV.C-3: The proposed residences shall be designed so that, to the maximum extent practicable, all activities and facilities associated with their occupancy, including indoor and outdoor residency, landscape and other maintenance, mechanical equipment, recreational facilities, etc., are located to the north of the residences or screened from view from the lambing pen by barriers high enough to be effective. Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase: Design Review Monitoring Frequency: Pre-construction Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Issuance of building permits and Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure IV.C-4: No construction activities, as defined in this document, should occur during the lambing season, which extends from January 1 to * June 30. If any construction activities should occur during the nesting season stst that extends beyond the lambing season (July 1 to August 31), all suitable habitat in the development/ disturbance area of the project shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist prior to removal. If any active nests are detected within a 300-foot buffer of the construction activity, a buffer of at least 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete or the nest has failed as determined by the biological monitor. Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page VI-7 VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Phase: Pre-construction and Construction Monitoring Frequency: Field inspections prior to construction if during the st nesting season from February 15 to August 31 and during all times of vegetation removal Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Field inspection sign-off and issuance of certification report by biologist Mitigation Measure IV.C-5: A biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey, per USFWS protocols, to ensure that no desert tortoises are affected by the project. If it is determined that tortoises may be affected, a desert tortoise conservation plan addressing the appropriate construction management and ongoing operational practices shall be prepared. Enforcement Agency:US Fish and Wildlife Service Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Phase:Pre-construction Monitoring Frequency:Prior to commencement of construction Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Field inspection sign-off and issuance of certification report by biologist Mitigation Measure IV.C-6: A pre-construction survey, conducted according to reserve agency protocols, shall be performed in order to ensure that no burrowing owls are affected by the project. If it is determined that burrowing owls may be affected, a burrowing owl conservation plan addressing the appropriate construction management and ongoing operational practices shall be prepared. Enforcement Agency:US Fish and Wildlife Service Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Phase:Pre-construction Monitoring Frequency:Prior to commencement of construction Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Field inspection sign-off and issuance of certification report by biologist City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page VI-8 VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative Mitigation Measure IV.C-7: In order to minimize stress and disturbance to Peninsular bighorn sheep at the Bighorn Institute, no dogs shall be permitted on the project site, either as residents or as visitors. Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Phase:Post Construction Monitoring Frequency:Periodic Field Inspections Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Semi-Annual compliance certification report by City of Palm Desert Department of Community Development Mitigation Measure IV.C-8: A permanent fence and/or wall shall be constructed around the developed parts of the project site to prevent free-roaming sheep from entering developed areas. The design and location of the fence and/or wall shall be developed in consultation with a biologist and the Bighorn Institute. No landscaping or surface water shall be allowed to occur outside the fence to prevent sheep from being attracted to the site and exposed to danger or human activity. Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Phase:Pre-construction and Construction Monitoring Frequency:Prior to construction and periodic field inspections Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Compliance certification report by a qualified biologist Mitigation Measure IV.C-9: In the event the CVMSHCP is adopted, the Applicant shall pay a Local Development Mitigation Fee if he/she chooses to avoid biological survey requirements, analysis of impacts and mitigation. The estimated Local Development Mitigation Fee is $5,730 per acre of Development for the first year of Plan implementation. (The average annual increase of the Local Development Mitigation Fee is projected at 3.29 percent.) Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page VI-9 VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Phase:Pre-construction Monitoring Frequency:Prior to Project Approval Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Receipt/ Report of compliance by appropriate regulatory agency D. NOISE Mitigation Measures for noise impacts include Mitigation Measures IV.C-1 through IV.C-3 above, in addition to the following: Canyons at Bighorn Mitigation Measure IV.G-1: Construction equipment shall be fitted with residential grade mufflers, where readily available in the construction equipment fleet that regularly serves the City of Palm Desert area. Prospective contractors shall demonstrate a good faith effort to locate such construction equipment for use throughout the duration of project construction. Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Phase:Construction Monitoring Frequency:Periodic field inspections Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Periodic field inspection sign-off and quarterly compliance certification report by the applicant or contractor City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page VI-10 VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative Mitigation Measure IV.G-2: To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of heavy equipment simultaneously. Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase:Construction Monitoring Frequency:Periodic field inspections, especially during the rainy season (October 15 through December 31) Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Periodic field inspection sign-off and quarterly compliance certification report by contractor Mitigation Measure IV.G-3: Engine idling from construction equipment such as bulldozers and haul trucks shall be limited, to the extent feasible. Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works Monitoring Phase:Pre-construction and Construction Monitoring Frequency:Plan check review, periodic field inspections Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Issuance of building permit and Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure IV.G-4: The construction staging area shall be located as far as feasible from sensitive receptors. Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase:Construction Monitoring Frequency:Periodic field inspections Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Periodic field inspection sign-off and quarterly compliance certification report by contractor City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page VI-11 VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative Mitigation Measure IV.G-5: Construction activities shall be limited to between the st hours of 6:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday from July 1 th through September 30 and between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., stst Monday through Friday from October 1 through December 31. On Saturdays, construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. No construction shall be allowed on Sundays, Federal holidays or during the January through June lambing season. Such limitation shall be placed as a condition on the grading permit in a manner meeting the approvals of the City Engineer and the Building Official. Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works Monitoring Phase:Construction Monitoring Frequency:Plan check review, periodic field inspections Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Issuance of grading permit by City Engineer Mitigation Measure IV.G-6: Power maintenance equipment including leaf blowers, mowers, sanders, saws, and other similar equipment, shall not be used along the southern and western side of the residences nearest the Bighorn Institute lambing pens. Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Phase:Construction and Post-construction Monitoring Frequency:Periodic field inspections Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Periodic field inspection sign-off and annual compliance certification report by applicant Mitigation Measure IV.G-7: Stationary equipment (i.e., pool machinery and HVAC equipment) shall be designed so as to be enclosed on all sides with sound attenuation treatment on the southern and western side of the residences, nearest the lambing pens. In addition, mechanical equipment for the residences shall be located on the northern side of the buildings or screened from view from the lambing pen by barriers high enough to be effective. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page VI-12 VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: New Preferred Alternative Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase:Pre-construction and Post-construction Monitoring Frequency:Plan check review, periodic field inspections Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly compliance certification report submitted by applicant for three years after the conclusion of construction Mitigation Measure IV.G-8: Additional CC&Rs shall be developed that implement noise restrictions in the development and especially in the southwestern portion of the project site. These would include restrictions on fireworks, gas powered blowers, the use of loud vehicles and management of on-site celebrations or similar events. Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase:Construction and Post-construction Monitoring Frequency:Plan check review, periodic field inspections Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Periodic field inspection sign-off and quarterly compliance certification report by applicant for three years after the conclusion of construction E. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Mitigation Measure IV.C-2 above is also proposed to reduce potential transportation and circulation impacts of the Preferred Alternative. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 September 2008 Page VI-13 QDS!T BOUB!N POJDB 344!Xjmtijsf!Cpvmfwbse Tvjuf!241 Tboub!Npojdb-!DB!:1512 UFM!421/562/5599 GBY!421/562/638: FNBJM!jogpAqdsofu/dpn QDS!J SWJOF Pof!Wfouvsf Tvjuf!261 Jswjof-!DB!:3729 UFM!:5:/864/8112 GBY!:5:/864/8113 FNBJM!jogpAqdsofu/dpn O FX!Q SFGFSSFE!B MUFSOBUJWF- BO!B EEJUJPO!UP!UIF!E SBGU F OWJSPONFOUBM!J NQBDU!S FQPSU D PSOJTIFPG!C JHIPSO!Q SPKFDU Tubuf!Dmfbsjohipvtf!Op/!31151:2123 N BSDI!3119 O FX!Q SFGFSSFE!B MUFSOBUJWF- BO!B EEJUJPO!UPUIF!E SBGU F OWJSPONFOUBM!J NQBDU!S FQPSU D PSOJTIF!PG!C JHIPSO!Q SPKFDU Qsfqbsfe!gps; Djuz!pg!Qbmn!Eftfsu Efqbsunfou!pg!Dpnnvojuz!Efwfmpqnfou 84.621!Gsfe!Xbsjoh!Esjwf Qbmn!Eftfsu-!Dbmjgpsojb!:3371 Qsfqbsfe!cz; QDS!Tfswjdft!Dpsqpsbujpo 344!Xjmtijsf!Cpvmfwbse Tboub!Npojdb-!Dbmjgpsojb!:1512 UFM!421/562/5599 GBY!421/562/638: Tubuf!Dmfbsjohipvtf!Op/!31151:2123 N BSDI!3119 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I.PURPOSE OF CIRCULATING THE NEW PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE ...........1 II. SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................5 III. DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .............................19 IV. EVALUATION OF IMPACTS ......................................................................................25 V. COMPARISON OF THE NEW PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE’S IMPACTS WITH THE ORIGINAL PROJECT’S AND HILLSIDE LIMITED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE’S IMPACTS .......................................................57 VI. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: NEW PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE .....................................................................................62 VII. LIST OF PREPARERS ...................................................................................................76 City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page i PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress LIST OF FIGURES FigurePage 1Preliminary Site Plan of New Preferred Alternative ........................................................20 2Overlay of the New Preferred Alternative and the Hillside Limited Alternative .............21 3Incremental Views of the Valley from Project Site ..........................................................26 City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page ii PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress LIST OF TABLES TablePage a 1 Estimate of Unmitigated Regional Construction Emissions (pounds/day) ....................32 2 Construction and Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2009) ...................................34 3 Comparison of Impacts of the Preferred Alternative With Impacts of the Original Project ...............................................................................................................................58 4 Comparison of Impacts of the Preferred Alternative With Impacts of the Limited Hillside Alternative ...........................................................................................................60 City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page iii PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress J/!!Q VSQPTF!PG!D JSDVMBUJOH!U IF!O FX!Q SFGFSSFE!B MUFSOBUJWF I.PURPOSE OF CIRCULATING THE NEW PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE A. PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT In December 2005, the City of Palm Desert (City) published the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Cornishe of Bighorn Project. That project, herein referred to as the Original Project, would have developed 4.32 acres of the 12-acre project site with 38 condominium units. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review and comment for a period of 45 days ending on February 1, 2006. At the end of the review period, 14 comment letters were received by the City on the Draft EIR. In response to the comments received, the applicant, Cornishe of Bighorn LLC, explored smaller projects and has now filed a revised tentative tract map with two residential lots for single-family homes. This revised subdivision, hereafter referred to as the New Preferred Alternative, has the same tentative tract number as the earlier 38-unit Original Project. Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires lead agencies to recirculate an EIR or portions of an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR for review. While a two-unit alternative, (the Hillside Limited Alternative) was evaluated in the Draft EIR, the New Preferred Alternative now provides specific configuration and preliminary site plan that was heretofore and at the time of preparation of the Draft EIR, unavailable. Furthermore, the Hillside Limited Alternative analyzed in the Draft EIR was found to be impracticable as the northeastern corner of the site identified for development was largely located within the floodplain of Dead Indian Creek, did not possess sufficient elevation to permit views of the Coachella Valley, and was not large enough to accommodate more than a single lot, all of which circumstances rendered the Hillside Limited Alternative economically infeasible. While the City believes the Draft EIR complied with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines regarding the analysis of the Original Project, it is circulating the New Preferred Alternative to augment the Draft EIR so that the public will be informed and will have an opportunity to comment. As required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(f), the City will evaluate any such comments and responses included in the Final EIR together with responses to comments previously received regarding the Draft EIR, along with corrections and additions thereby necessitated. B. HISTORY OF THE PROJECT The project site is located within the City of Palm Desert, in an area with gentle desert hillsides cut by natural drainages with a natural rock outcropping at the westerly portion of the City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page 1 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress I. Purpose of Circulating the New Preferred Alternative site. The northern boundary of the project site is formed by Dead Indian Creek, a broad alluvial drainage that qualifies as “jurisdictional waters of the U.S.” Bordering Dead Indian Creek to the north is the Canyons at Bighorn, an exclusive single-family residential community oriented to a golf course. The vacant lands directly to the south of the project site’s southern boundary are located in unincorporated Riverside County and owned by the Bighorn Institute, a non-profit organization dedicated to the conservation of the world’s wild sheep through research and education. More specifically, the Institute maintains a captive breeding and release program intended as one means of sustaining the wild sheep population. The Bighorn Institute’s facilities, including offices, laboratories, biologist’s residences, and pens for the captive herd and bighorn rehabilitation, are located on nearly 300 acres of land within the California Department of Fish and Game’s (CDFG) Santa Rosa Mountains State Game Refuge. In late 1991, the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community was approved by the City with a condition that a 400-yard buffer zone from the Institute’s 12-acre lambing pen be applied to the Canyons at Bighorn Project only, excluding the project site. The buffer area was intended to reduce impacts on the Institute’s captive breeding program within the pen to less than significant levels. However, the 400-yard buffer zone, if applied to the subject property, includes virtually all of the project site. The original tract map of the Cornishe of Bighorn Project was filed in August of 2003. The original tract map proposed the development of up to 57 dwelling units on four residential lots. When the City updated its General Plan in 2004, the General Plan land use designation for the property was revised from Low Density Residential to Low Density Residential Study Zone, to permit the City to determine the appropriate density for the property in conjunction with its consideration of the applicant's tentative tract map application. In response, the initial application was to provide 38 units, which was evaluated as the proposed project (the Original Project) in the Draft EIR. The 38-units were to be located in seven multi-unit structures on five residential lots occupying approximately 4.32 acres of the project site. The remaining undeveloped areas were intended to remain in perpetual open space. Access to the project site was to be provided via two access points, a 30-foot easement that would traverse Dead Indian Creek north of the property, and a 20-foot road connecting to the Indian Cove neighborhood within the Canyons at Bighorn community to the east. As an alternative to the Original Project, the applicant proposed an eight-lot single-family subdivision with access restricted to the east at Indian Cove. Impacts of the eight-unit alternative were evaluated in the Draft EIR as the Reduced Project Alternative. In addition, the City directed its consultant to include a two-unit alternative for analysis in the Draft EIR. Following the public review period on the Draft EIR, the applicant further revised the tentative tract map to create four single-family residential lots to be developed in an effort to reduce the Original Project’s environmental impacts identified in the Draft EIR to less than significant levels. In November 2006, the applicant submitted a newly revised tentative tract map for a two- lot alternative to the City, herein referred to as the Preferred Alternative. The New Preferred City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page 2 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress I. Purpose of Circulating the New Preferred Alternative Alternative provides specific lots, pad areas for each residence and associated garages as well as the grading necessary to create those pads. C. OVERVIEW OF THE CIRCULATED DOCUMENT Consistent with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, this document is being made available for public review on March 28, 2008. A public review period of (45) days is being provided, in accordance with CEQA. The deadline for submittal of comments during the public review period is on May 12, 2008. The previously circulated Draft EIR is not being recirculated. During this period, the general public, agencies, and organizations may submit written comments on this document to the City. Pursuant to procedures set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(f)(2), reviewers are requested to limit their comments to the materials contained in this document. As required under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15087 and 15088.5(d), the City has sent a Notice of Availability, to all organizations and members of the public who were on the City’s distribution list for the Draft EIR, and to any additional persons or organizations that have requested copies of the Draft EIR, to those persons who commented on the Draft EIR. Copies of the Draft EIR and this document are available for review at: City Hall, Community Development Department 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Riverside County Library, Palm Desert Branch 73-300 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 All written comments on this document should be addressed to: Mr. Phil Joy, Associate Planner City of Palm Desert Community Development Department 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page 3 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress I. Purpose of Circulating the New Preferred Alternative After the close of the comment period, the City will consider all comments received regarding this Preferred Alternative as well as those previously received regarding the Draft EIR, and will prepare responses as required for inclusion in the Final EIR. The Final EIR, which will consist of the Draft EIR, including this document, comments on the Draft EIR, comments on this document, responses to comments, and any corrections and additions, will be considered by the City Council for certification if it is determined that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA. Following certification of the EIR, the City Council will consider the proposed project for approval. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page 4 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress JJ/!!T VNNBSZ II. SUMMARY In accordance with Section 15123 of the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) \[Title 14. California Code of Regulations. Chapter 3\], this section contains a brief summary of the New Preferred Alternative and its impacts. More detailed information regarding the project and its potential environmental effects are provided in Section IV, Evaluation of Impacts, in this document. Please refer to the Table of Contents for guidance. A. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The New Preferred Alternative is a revised two-lot subdivision, created by the applicant, Cornishe of Bighorn LLC, in an effort to reduce the environmental impacts of the Original Project. While a two-unit alternative, (the Hillside Limited Alternative) was evaluated in the Draft EIR, the New Preferred Alternative now provides a specific configuration and preliminary site plan that was heretofore and at the time of preparation of the Draft EIR, unavailable. The New Preferred Alternative would develop two single-family residences, 36 fewer than the Original Project. The two residences would be developed on two lots each with between 23,000 and 25,000 square feet of graded area, inclusive of garage space. Each residence would be one-story in height, with interior usable space of up to approximately 10,000 square feet. The graded pads would be at elevations of 809 feet above sea level (asl) and 820 feet asl, respectively, in order to provide views of the Coachella Valley. Vehicular access would be provided via a cul-de-sac driveway from the Indian Cove neighborhood to the northeast and would not traverse Dead Indian Creek. Although no conceptual design has been submitted, City’s standards as well as architectural features proposed for the two lots would comply with the architectural guidelines for the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn with the intention of appearing as a minor extension of that community. B. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY/ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED Potential areas of controversy and issues to be resolved by the City’s decision-makers relate directly to the project site’s close proximity to the lambing pen within the Bighorn Institute’s property immediately to the south, and to the site’s dependence on private streets within the adjoining Canyons at Bighorn community for access. Areas of unavoidable significant impact for the New Preferred Alternative include localized air quality impacts and City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page 5 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress II. Summary biological impacts affecting the Peninsular bighorn sheep at the Bighorn Institute, noise (construction and operation), and transportation/circulation (during construction). C. SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS 1. Aesthetics a. Impacts The New Preferred Alternative would alter the natural appearance of less than half the area of the project site. The dwelling and landscape design for the two single-family residences would comply with the architectural guidelines for the Canyons at Bighorn, appearing as a minor extension of that community. With compliance with the Comprehensive General Plan policies and Code requirements and completion of design review by the City’s Architectural Commission, the New Preferred Alternative would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or surrounding area, notwithstanding the area required for site preparation and grading. Therefore, the impacts to on-site aesthetic resources would be less than significant. The New Preferred Alternative would not substantially affect views from the surrounding residential uses to the east and north or from public views across SR-74, a state scenic highway. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative, well over 1,000 feet from the highway, would not substantively affect the scenic content of such views. Overall, aesthetic impacts under the New Preferred Alternative would be less than significant. However, mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that aesthetic impacts remain less than significant. As with the Preferred Alternative, all related projects would be subject to the City’s project permit and approval process. Furthermore, each related project identified is located sufficiently distant from the project site as to have a minimal cumulative effect. As such, no significant cumulative impacts regarding aesthetics, views, and light or glare would occur. b. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure IV.A-1: All open areas not used for buildings, roadways, driveways, parking areas, or walkways shall be landscaped to reduce visibility of the project improvements from adjacent properties in accordance with a Landscape Plan to be prepared by a licensed landscape architect to the satisfaction of the Community Development/Planning Department. The Landscape Plan shall specify plant materials, heights upon planting or box sizes, and locations. Remaining existing natural landscape areas shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the landscape plan. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page 6 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress II. Summary Mitigation Measure IV.A-2: All night lighting installed within the project site shall be shielded and directed in a manner so that such lighting does not shine upwards or towards the lambing pen to the south of the project site and, thus, is generally not visible from the existing sheep pens. In addition, lighting shall not be a high glare type of lighting, shall be directed away from nearby residential uses and shall be confined to the site. c. Level of Significance After Mitigation As impacts of the New Preferred Alternative regarding aesthetics would be less than significant, implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would further ensure that aesthetic impacts remain less than significant. 2. Air Quality a. Impacts During construction, emission from the New Preferred Alternative would not exceed regional and local SCAQMD significance thresholds for ROC, CO, SO, PM, or PM. The X102.5 New Preferred Alternative would, however, exceed localized significance thresholds for NOx. As such, mitigation measures are proposed below to reduce NOx levels for the project. However, even with implementation of the mitigation measures, the New Preferred Alternative would result in exceedance of NOx threshold levels, resulting in significant construction air quality impacts. Utilizing SCAQMD localized significance thresholds (LST) for humans as an indicator of potential impacts upon the bighorn sheep during construction, the New Preferred Alternative would have less than significant impact on sheep in the nearby lambing pen. Operations of the New Preferred Alternative would not result in a significant impact, as emissions during the operational phase would be on the order of five percent of those forecast for the Original Project which were also determined to be less than significant. The results of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions calculated for the New Preferred Alternative determined that operational emissions would be less than one-tenth of its construction emissions, with impacts held to a level of statistical insignificance. The New Preferred Alternative would comply with the goals of the State of California as it would incorporate energy reducing features such as the installation of efficient appliances, fixtures, and infrastructure. As the New Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the underlying growth assumptions on which the AQMP is based, the long term increase in emissions that would occur as a result of development of the project site would not be cumulatively considerable. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page 7 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress II. Summary b. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure IV.B-1: Water three times daily or non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied, according to manufacturers' specifications, as needed to reduce off-site transport of fugitive dust from all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces. Mitigation Measure IV.B-2: All private streets shall be swept as needed during construction, but not more frequently than hourly, if visible soil material has been carried onto adjacent paved roads. Mitigation Measure IV.B-3: Construction equipment shall be visually inspected prior to leaving the site and loose dirt shall be washed off with wheel washers as necessary. Mitigation Measure IV.B-4: All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. Mitigation Measure IV.B-5: General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment to minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues shall have their engines turned off when not in use to reduce vehicle emissions. Construction activities should be phased and scheduled to avoid emissions peaks and discontinued during second-stage smog alerts. Mitigation Measure IV.B-6: To the extent possible, petroleum powered construction activity shall utilize electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel power generators and/or gasoline power generators. Mitigation Measure IV.B-7: On-site mobile equipment shall be powered by alternative fuel sources (i.e., methanol, natural gas, propane or butane) as feasible. Mitigation Measure IV.B-8: The Applicant shall, as feasible, install solar or low- emission water heaters that exceed the requirements of the national Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) and the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), to reduce energy consumption. Mitigation Measure IV. B-9: The Applicant shall, as feasible, install energy-efficient appliances (i.e., ENERGY STAR) to reduce energy consumption. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page 8 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress II. Summary c. Level of Significance After Mitigation Even with implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts of the New Preferred Alternative would exceed NOx threshold levels, resulting in significant construction air quality impacts. 3. Biological Resources a. Impacts The New Preferred Alternative would not adversely affect sensitive communities, nesting habitat for sensitive birds, sensitive plant species, the barefoot gecko (Coleaonyx switaki), the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizi), the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), wildlife movement, nor free roaming specimens of the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnobates), as the site either does not provide such habitat or is well removed from the established ranges of the respective species. Impacts to wildlife movement would also be less than significant. Concern for impacts upon captive adult bighorn sheep and born lambs in the lambing pen on the Bighorn Institute property south of the project site has been a significant factor in developing a sequence of several previous alternatives, as well as the Preferred Alternative. It is understood that the bighorn sheep are more responsive to visual stimuli than they are to audio stimuli. Site preparation for and construction of two large homes with subsequent landscaping would occur in plain view of the lambing pen. Such intense visual construction activities would be expected to significantly impact the bighorn sheep in the pen. As such, for the purposes of this document, construction is defined as grading, excavation, framing, siding, roofing, landscaping, installation of doors and windows, and any interior work that utilizes pneumatic tools or compressors that would be located outside the proposed residences. Following construction, the orientation of the access driveway from the Indian Cove Neighborhood to the southerly side of two proposed residential lots dictates that all vehicular access must approach the lambing pen prior to approaching the two residences even though construction of the driveway would remain within the lower elevations of the project site with berms or walls along the alignment as necessary to reduce glare and views of on-coming traffic from the lambing pen. As no design information is available, it cannot be said that the two residences would be entirely oriented to the north, leaving entirely passive facades facing the lambing pen to the south. Thus, activity associated with normal residential occupancy, including vehicular arrivals and departures for occupants, visitors and guests, maintenance, mail delivery and other deliveries, as well as some of the associated outdoor activities and nighttime illumination of outdoor and indoor spaces can be presumed to be visible from the pen. The understanding of sheep behavior is not sufficiently refined to specify an activity level City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page 9 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress II. Summary (i.e., 38 dwellings or two dwellings) at which the sheep’s response is activated. Therefore, it must be conservatively assumed that the New Preferred Alternative would still have the potential to significantly impact captive adult sheep and born lambs in the lambing pen through visual and, to a lesser degree, auditory habituation. Mitigation is recommended below to attempt to reduce this impact, although elimination of the impact is probably not possible given the proximity of the project site and the lambing pen in its current location. The Cornishe of Bighorn project is one of 32 private projects that was analyzed for cumulative impacts and is covered in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). Under the CVMSHCP, any loss of habitat can be mitigated through a donation of public and privately owned land to the Reserve or through payment of fees for habitat restoration. Therefore, implementation of the New Preferred Alternative would not have a significant cumulative impact on naturally occurring plant and wildlife species. The cumulative impact on the Bighorn Institute would remain significant. Although the CVMSHCP has been fully approved by all affected local jurisdictions, formal adoption is not yet complete. Therefore, in the unlikely event the CVMSHCP is not adopted by the resource agencies prior to the Cornishe at Bighorn EIR certification, it is reasonable to assume that, each of the 32 private projects would be approved with mitigations and conservation measures substantially similar to the ones proposed in the CVMSHCP. As such, the cumulative impacts would be the same, with or without the CVMSHCP. b. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure IV.C-1: Garage openings shall be oriented easterly away from the lambing pens to the maximum extent practicable. Mitigation Measure IV.C-2: Site preparation and grading of the site shall be designed to balance on-site to minimize new import of fill materials to the extent feasible. Grading shall be restricted to that necessary for 1) reasonable vehicular access from the Indian Cove section of the Canyons at Bighorn to access the residences, 2) development of proposed building pad elevations, and 3) reasonable foundation excavations. To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations of 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. Mitigation Measure IV.C-3: The proposed residences shall be designed so that, to the maximum extent practicable, all activities and facilities associated with their occupancy, including indoor and outdoor residency, landscape and other maintenance, mechanical equipment, recreational facilities, etc., be located to the north of the residences or screened from view from the lambing pen by walls high enough to be effective. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page 10 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress II. Summary Mitigation Measure IV.C-4: No construction activities, as defined in this document, * should occur during the lambing season, which extends from January to June. If any construction activities should occur during the nesting season that stst extends beyond the lambing season (July 1 to August 31), all suitable habitat in the development/ disturbance area of the project shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist prior to removal. If any active nests are detected within a 300-foot buffer of the construction activity, a buffer of at least 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete or the nest has failed as determined by the biological monitor. Mitigation Measure IV.C-5: A biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey, per USFWS protocols, to ensure that no desert tortoises are affected by the project. If it is determined that tortoises may be affected, a desert tortoise conservation plan addressing the appropriate construction management and ongoing operational practices shall be prepared. Mitigation Measure IV.C-6: A pre-construction survey, conducted according to reserve agency protocols, shall be performed in order to ensure that no burrowing owls are affected by the project. If it is determined that burrowing owls may be affected, a burrowing owl conservation plan addressing the appropriate construction management and ongoing operational practices shall be prepared. Mitigation Measure IV.C-7: In order to minimize stress and disturbance to Peninsular bighorn sheep at the Bighorn Institute, no dogs shall be permitted on the project site, either as residents or as visitors. Mitigation Measure IV.C-8: A permanent fence/and or wall shall be constructed around the developed parts of the project site to prevent free-roaming sheep from entering developed areas. The design and location of the fence and/or wall shall be developed in consultation with a biologist and the Bighorn Institute. No landscaping or surface water shall be allowed to occur outside the fence to prevent sheep from being attracted to the site and exposed to danger or human activity. Mitigation Measure IV.C-9: In the event the CVMSHCP is adopted, the Applicant shall pay a Local Development Mitigation Fee if he/she chooses to avoid biological survey requirements, analysis of impacts and mitigation. The estimated Local Development Mitigation Fee is $5,730 per acre of * For the purposes of this document, construction is defined as grading, excavation, framing, siding, roofing, landscaping, installation of doors and windows, and any interior work that utilizes pneumatic tools or compressors that would be located outside the proposed residences. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page 11 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress II. Summary Development for the first year of Plan implementation. (The average annual increase of the Local Development Mitigation Fee is projected at 3.29 percent.) c. Level of Significance After Mitigation With implementation of the mitigation measures impacts of the New Preferred Alternative on biological resources would be reduced. However, it must be conservatively assumed that the New Preferred Alternative would still have the potential to significantly impact captive adult sheep and born lambs in the lambing pen through visual and, to a lesser degree, auditory habituation. Thus, impacts to biological resources during construction and operation of the project remain significant and unmitigable. 4. Cultural Resources a. Impacts The New Preferred Alternative would not disturb, damage, or degrade any potentially unique historic, archaeological or paleontological resources or sites and, therefore, would have no adverse impact upon such resources/sites. In the event any archaeological resources, historic resources, or traditional burial sites are unearthed or discovered, the new Preferred Alternative would be required to comply with the provisions and conservation measures set forth by CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. As such, impacts of the New Preferred Alternative would be less than significant. As with the Preferred Alternative, all other related projects would be required to comply with the CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, cumulative impacts regarding historic, archaeological and paleontological resources would also be less than significant. b. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required as the New Preferred Alternative would not have adverse impacts regarding cultural resources. c. Level of Significance After Mitigation No mitigation measures are required as the New Preferred Alternative would have less than significant impacts on cultural resources. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page 12 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress II. Summary 5. Hydrology a. Impacts The New Preferred Alternative would introduce a relatively small amount of impervious surface acres on-site altering the site’s hydrology marginally. Runoff flows and volumes, and sediment loads would be increased slightly over existing conditions for ultimate discharge into Dead Indian Creek. The new Preferred Alternative would require permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CDFG, and Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board for the construction of the driveway over the natural drainage channel along the site’s eastern boundary. However, no access roads are proposed across Dead Indian Creek. Therefore, impacts to “jurisdictional waters” would be reduced. The project would also include on-site drainage improvements in accordance with City requirements. As such, with compliance with the applicable rules and regulations, impacts regarding hydrology and surface water quality attributable to the New Preferred Alternative would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. Cumulative impacts regarding hydrology and surface water quality would also be less than significant with the Preferred Alternative. Each related project would be required to comply with City, state, and federal requirements. In addition, each related project would be evaluated individually by the City to ensure adequate system capacity. As such, cumulative impacts regarding hydrology and surface quality would be less than significant. b. Mitigation Measures The New Preferred Alternative would result in a less than significant impact regarding hydrology and surface water quality and no mitigation measures are required. c. Level of Significance After Mitigation No mitigation measures are required as the Preferred Alternative’s impacts regarding hydrology and surface water quality would be less than significant. 6. Land Use and Planning a. Impacts The New Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning code. The project would appear as a minor extension of the Canyons at Bighorn community and would be subject to Architectural Review by the City. Therefore, no adverse compatibility relationships with the adjoining residential land uses or the Bighorn Institute are City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page 13 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress II. Summary predicted to occur and no division of community effects would ensue. The Preferred Alternative’s impact on Land Use and Planning would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. As each related project would be required to comply with the City’s land use policies and zoning regulations, and as the location of the New Preferred Alternative would be located distant from other related projects, and no cumulative impacts would occur. b. Mitigation Measures As discussed, the New Preferred Alternative would result in a less than significant impact regarding land use and no mitigation measures are required. c. Level of Significance After Mitigation No mitigation measures are required as the Preferred Alternative’s impacts regarding land use would be less than significant. 7. Noise a. Impacts The Preferred Alternative’s construction noise impacts at the nearest residential sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Due to the amount of proposed site preparation and grading, the earthwork and concrete work for two large residential homes and associated auxiliary structures would require more than three months to complete resulting in a likely significant construction noise impact on captive adult sheep and newborn lambs in the nearby lambing pen. Vibration impacts associated with construction would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. After construction, the occupancy and use of the two dwellings under the New Preferred Alternative would increase noise levels from on-site operations due to vehicular movement and normal occupancy of the premises relative to the existing conditions. However, the incremental increase in noise levels would be well below the 3 dBA CNEL significance threshold. Therefore, impacts to the existing and future sensitive residential receptors within the Canyons at Bighorn would be less than significant. Operational noise impacts upon bighorn sheep in the lambing pen would be less than significant. Nonetheless, mitigation measures are proposed below. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page 14 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress II. Summary As the New Preferred Alternative would result in a potentially significant noise impact during construction to the lambing pens in the Bighorn Institute, it is anticipated that the cumulative noise impacts would also remain potentially significant to the Bighorn Institute. Cumulative roadway noise impacts would be significant, as buildout of the Canyons at Bighorn would exceed the 3 dB CNEL incremental threshold by 4.5 dBA CNEL along Cahuilla Way, east of SR-74. The New Preferred Alternative would contribute to these cumulative noise levels resulting in significant cumulative noise impacts on Cahuilla Way. No other public or private roadway segments would result in a cumulative noise impact. b. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts of the Preferred Alternative. Please note that Mitigation Measures IV.C-1 through IV.C-3 are repeated here from Subsection C, Biological Resources above. Mitigation Measure IV.C-1: Garage openings shall be oriented easterly away from the lambing pens to the maximum extent practicable. Mitigation Measure IV.C-2: Site preparation and grading of the site shall be designed to balance on-site to minimize new import of fill materials to the extent feasible. Grading shall be restricted to that necessary for: 1) reasonable vehicular access from the Indian Cove section of the Canyons at Bighorn to access the residences, 2) development of proposed building pad elevations, and 3) reasonable foundation excavations. To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations of 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. Mitigation Measure IV.C-3: The proposed residences shall be designed so that, to the maximum extent practicable, all activities and facilities associated with their occupancy, including indoor and outdoor residency, landscape and other maintenance, mechanical equipment, recreational facilities, etc., be located to the north of the residences on screened from view from the lambing pen by walls high enough to be effective. Mitigation Measure IV.G-1: Construction equipment shall be fitted with residential grade mufflers, where readily available in the construction equipment fleet that regularly serves the City of Palm Desert area. Prospective contractors shall demonstrate a good faith effort to locate such construction equipment for use throughout the duration of project construction. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page 15 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress II. Summary Mitigation Measure IV.G-2: To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of heavy equipment simultaneously. Mitigation Measure IV.G-3: Engine idling from construction equipment such as bulldozers and haul trucks shall be limited, to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure IV.G-4: The construction staging area shall be located as far as feasible from sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measure IV.G-5: Construction activities shall be limited to between the st hours of 6:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday from July 1. th through September 30 and between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., stst Monday through Friday from October 1 through December 31. On Saturdays, construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. No construction shall be allowed on Sundays, Federal holidays or during the January through June lambing season. Such limitation shall be placed as a condition on the grading permit in a manner meeting the approval of the City Engineer. Mitigation Measure IV.G-6:Power maintenance equipment shall not be used along the southern side of the buildings nearest the Bighorn Institute lambing pens. Mitigation Measure IV.G-7: Stationary equipment (i.e., pool machinery and HVAC equipment) shall be designed so as to be enclosed on all sides. In addition, mechanical equipment for the residences shall be located on the northern side of the buildings. Mitigation Measure IV.G-8: Additional CC&Rs shall be developed that implement noise restrictions in the development and especially in the southwestern portion of the project site. These would include restrictions on fireworks, gas powered blowers, the use of loud vehicles and management of on-site celebrations or similar events. c. Level of Significance After Mitigation Even with implementation of mitigation measures, as construction for the New Preferred Alternative is anticipated to exceed three months, construction impacts to the bighorn sheep in the lambing pen would remain potentially significant. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page 16 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress II. Summary 8. Transportation and Circulation a. Impacts Construction traffic associated with haul trucks importing fill soils would cause a short- term significant impact on private streets within the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community. The Preferred Alternative’s import of 35,900 cubic yards, is estimated with 64 haul truck trips per day resulting in an increase of 0.1 or more in the Traffic Intrusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index. A mitigation measure is recommended to reduce the amount of fill soils to be imported by the project to the extent feasible. However, the amount of haul truck trips alone that would be required to import even a somewhat reduced volume of fill to the project site via the Canyon’s private roadway system would be unexpected to the Canyons at Bighorn residents, and perceived as intrusive. As such, construction impacts to the Canyons at Bighorn community would be considered potentially significant. During operations, the New Preferred Alternative would involve a nominal incremental addition of 19 daily vehicle trips to existing or future private traffic on the Indian Cove, Rock Creek, Canyon Drive private roadway segments within the Canyons at Bighorn. This small increase on any existing/future private street volume of 90 or more vehicles per day would not cause an increase of 0.1 in the TIRE index. Therefore, during the operation of the Preferred Alternative, less than significant impacts would occur along the private roadways within the Canyons community. Traffic impacts of the New Preferred Alternative to the public roadway system would remain less than significant. Cumulative traffic impacts would be localized for all related projects and would affect areas immediately adjacent to or surrounding each particular project site. The nearest identified project is the remaining buildout of the Canyons at Bighorn community. As such, the ongoing construction of that project along with the New Preferred Alternative would result in potentially significant cumulative impacts during construction. No cumulative impacts are anticipated upon public roadway segments at roadway intersections operating at levels of service worse than LOS D. b. Mitigation Measures Mitigation IV.C-2 is proposed above in Subsection C, Biological Resources, and is recommended to also reduce construction traffic impacts. The following below repeats the mitigation measure as presented above: Mitigation Measure IV.C-2: Site preparation and grading of the site shall be designed to balance on-site to minimize new import of fill materials to the extent feasible. Grading shall be restricted to that necessary for 1) proposed building pad improvement and reasonable vehicular access from the Indian Cove City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page 17 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress II. Summary section of the Canyons at Bighorn to access the residences, 2) development of proposed building pad elevations, and 3) reasonable foundation excavations. To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations of 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. c. Level of Significance After Mitigation Even with implementation of mitigation measures construction traffic impacts associated with the amount of fill to be imported cannot be ascertained to be reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore, the New Preferred Alternative would result in a significant and unavoidable impact regarding construction traffic to the Canyons at Bighorn private roads. C. COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF THE NEW PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WITH THE ORIGINAL PROJECT AND HILLSIDE LIMITED ALTERNATIVE Implementation of the New Preferred Alternative would result in considerably less environmental impacts in all issue areas when compared with the Original Project. This reduced impact profile could be reduced even further if the amount of imported fill soils deemed necessary to raise the proposed pad heights sufficiently to provide Coachella Valley views from one-story residences therein could be substantively reduced. Subject to achievement of such views, mitigation to reduce the import has been recommended as feasible. The extent to which such mitigation may be feasible is not known. Therefore, the relative effectiveness of this mitigation also is not known. Construction of the New Preferred Alternative would result in significant regional air quality impacts during construction, biological impacts upon captive sheep in the lambing pen at the Bighorn Institute during and following construction, noise and traffic impacts on the private roads within the Canyons at Bighorn community during construction, considerably less than the Original Project but somewhat more when compared with the Hillside Limited Alternative. The New Preferred Alternative would achieve the Land Use Planning, Design, and Economic objectives for the project that the Hillside Limited Alternative, due to infeasibility, would not. In comparison, if it were feasible, the Hillside Limited Alternative would be more effective in achieving the stated Resource Conservation Objectives than the Preferred Alternative. As the New Preferred Alternative would optimize a balance between the Original Project and the Hillside Limited Alternative, it would meet most of the Applicant’s basic objectives for the Original Project and the City’s objectives for the property. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page 18 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress JJJ/E FTDSJQUJPO!PG!U IF!Q SFGFSSFE!B MUFSOBUJWF III. DESCRIPTION OF THE NEW PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE A. PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE In response to comments received during the public review period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for Tentative Tract 31676, the applicant, Cornishe of Bighorn LLC revised the tentative tract map to create two residential lots to be developed with single-family homes. Similar to the Hillside Limited Alternative evaluated in the Draft EIR, the Preferred Alternative would be limited to two single-family dwellings, 36 dwelling units less than the Original Project. The Preferred Alternative would divide the project site into four lots consisting of Lots 1 and 2, and Lots A and B, as depicted in Figure 1 on page 20. An overlay of the Preferred Alternative over the Hillside Limited Alternative has been included in Figure 2 on page 21 to provide a comparison of the location of development of the Preferred Alternative on the project site. The two single-family dwellings and their respective garages would be developed on Lots 1 and 2 which are approximately 1.17 to 1.35 acres in size, respectively. The two lots would be concentrated in the northeast corner of the project site, closest to the Indian Cove area of the Canyons at Bighorn community. Lot 1 would be graded to 820 feet above sea level and Lot 2 to 809 feet above sea level, respectively, similar to the pad elevations in the adjoining Indian Cove neighborhood within the Canyons at Bighorn. No designs for the two dwellings are available at this time, although each dwelling is presumed to be large, sized at approximately 10,000 square feet of useable interior space. Each dwelling unit would be one-story in height, and would comply with the architectural guidelines of the Canyons at Bighorn, in order to appear as a minor extension of the existing community. The third lot, Lot A, would be reserved for a 25-foot wide cul-de-sac that would connect to Indian Cove, allowing adequate access for emergency vehicles. All vehicular and pedestrian access to and from the two residences is proposed via this shared cul-de-sac road that would extend to the southeastern corner of the project site towards the garages of the proposed dwelling units. The fourth lot, Lot B, would be comprised of the remainder of the project site equal to approximately nine acres of unimproved open space. All improvements proposed would avoid sensitive habitat along Dead Indian Creek. The Preferred Alternative is proposed as close as possible to the existing and future Indian Cove dwellings without entering the floodplain of Dead Indian Creek, and with ground disturbance a minimum distance of 240 yards from the lambing pen at the Bighorn City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 19 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Description of the Preferred Alternative Institute or approximately the same distance that the nearest existing residence on the Institute property is situated from the lambing pen further to the west. The site is split-zoned with the largest part zoned Planned Residential-5 (PR) and the remainder (including a portion of proposed Residential Lot 2) is zoned Hillside Planned Residential (HPR) with a Special Study Area overlay. The combination of this zoning framework suggests that the ultimate development of this property would conform more closely with HPR expectations than PR. In the absence of design, the Preferred Alternative would be expected to conform to the purposes of the HPR zone. Specifically, the project would be expected to conform to the following three objectives: To encourage only minimal grading in hillside areas that relates to the natural contours of the land avoiding extensive cut and fill slopes that result in a padding or staircase effect within the development; Encourage architecture and landscape design which blends with the natural terrain to the greatest practical extent; Retain and protect undisturbed viewsheds, natural landmarks and features including vistas and the natural skyline as integral elements in development proposals in hillside areas. (Ord. 1046A § 3 (Exhibit B (part)), 2004) Construction of the Preferred Alternative is expected to import fill soil in order to create building pads at elevations above the natural terrain. Site preparation is proposed with approximately 35,900 cubic yards of raw fill import. Grading would occur no closer than approximately 240 yards of the lambing pen at the closest point. No construction would occur stth during the January 1 to June 30 lambing season. For the purposes of this document, construction is defined as grading, excavation, framing, siding, roofing, landscaping, installation of doors and windows, and any interior work that utilizes pneumatic tools or compressors that would be located outside the proposed residences. B. OBJECTIVES OF THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The following set of objectives for the Preferred Alternative are adopted from the objectives established in the Draft EIR for the Original Project with modifications intended to reflect evident changes in the Preferred Alternative’s siting and development intensity. Objectives for the Preferred Alternative are: City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page 22 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Description of the Preferred Alternative 1. Land Use Planning Objectives Site two residential lots on the subject property in a way that reasonably and feasibly addresses the environmental impacts of the Original Project; Incrementally accommodate projected regional growth in a location that is adjacent to existing infrastructure, urban services, transportation corridors, and employment centers; Concentrate development on the site to preserve regionally significant ecological areas and other natural open space while reducing landform alteration and maintaining the scenic views; and Provide development that is compatible with surrounding residential communities. 2. Design Objectives Have the project appear and function as a minor extension of the Canyons at Bighorn community; Ensure adequate separation from the Bighorn Institute lambing pen without encroaching into the floodplain of Dead Indian Creek; Restrict grading to that sufficient to provide adequate emergency and vehicular access and to raise Lots 1 and 2 to an elevation from which views of the Coachella Valley are readily available; Provide residential streets, access roadways, drainage facilities and other infrastructure consistent with City of Palm Desert municipal codes and design standards; Provide attractive architecture and landscaping that enhances the project site while complementing the surrounding desert landscape; and Provide a complementary outdoor lighting plan that promotes safety and avoids adverse lighting impacts on surrounding uses and biological resources. 3. Economic Objectives Create high value lots in a high value area of Palm Desert; City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page 23 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress III. Description of the Preferred Alternative Optimize the value of the site with residential uses consistent with the City of Palm Desert General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and with anticipated market demands; Provide housing which supports the economic future of the region in an area in which the necessary infrastructure is in place; and Avoid the possibility of an inverse condemnation action against the City. 4. Resource Conservation Objectives Provide open space in a manner that is compatible with the protection of significant natural resources; and Minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources through site design and development standards. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn SCH No. 2004091012 March 2008 Page 24 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress JW/!!F WBMVBUJPO!PG!J NQBDUT IV. EVALUATION OF IMPACTS A. AESTHETICS As the project area remains the same for the New Preferred Alternative as the Original Project, aesthetic resources, views, and light and glare conditions discussed for the Original Project in the Draft EIR remain the same. The Santa Rosa Mountains and the San Jacinto Mountains continue to provide a backdrop for the project site, as well as for the Palm Desert sector or the Coachella Valley floor. It is noted that the closest existing residence to the project site has changed since the publication of the Draft EIR, and is now located approximately 150 feet northeast of the project site, as part of the ongoing development of the Canyons at Bighorn community (Please see Photo 4 of Figure 3 on page 26). The goals and policies set forth in the regulatory framework cited in the Draft EIR including the City of Palm Desert General Plan and Municipal Code regarding aesthetics would apply to the Preferred Alternative. Furthermore, it is noted that no changes have occurred with regard to thresholds identified in the Draft EIR in evaluating the aesthetic impacts and thus the evaluation of impacts for the New Preferred Alternative remain the same. 1. Impacts Similar to the Original Project, the New Preferred Alternative would alter the appearance of the site from an undeveloped to a partially developed condition. The area of development on the project site would be substantially less than the Original Project and the design character would be substantially different.Site preparation and grading would affect less than half the area that would have been affected by the Original Project resulting in a considerably less developed area. As indicated in the description of the Preferred Alternative, the two proposed building pads would be graded at an elevation of 809 and 820 feet above sea level (asl), respectively. This would result in the New Preferred Alternative situated at a higher building pad elevation on-site than the Hillside Limited Alternative since that alternative entailed construction in the creekbed, comparable with the existing adjacent residential developments and the natural terrain. Photos comparing the views of the proposed building pad elevations on-site with views from lower elevations of the site are shown in Photos 1, 2, 3 and 4 in Figure 3 on page 26. Photo 1 is taken from the bottom of a small ravine on the project site located where the garages in the New Preferred Alternative are proposed at an estimated elevation of approximately 785 feet asl. As shown, as a result of the current topography of the site and the Canyons at Bighorn golf course, City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 25 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts intervening hills obstruct views of the Coachella Valley, limiting the value of views from the lower elevations. Photo 2 is taken from a higher elevation, specifically in the southern end of proposed Lots 1 and 2 estimated at an elevation of approximately 800 feet asl. As shown, views of the Coachella Valley are visible from this vantage point including the Canyons at Bighorn golf course to the north. Photo 3 is taken from the highest point of elevation of the proposed Lots, at the southern end of Lot 1 estimated at an elevation of approximately 810 feet asl. As shown therein, not only are views of the Coachella Valley visible from this vantage point, but also the homes to the west, the golf course to the north, and an overview of Indian Creek. Photo 4 is taken from the northern end of Lot 2, which is also situated at a lower elevation. As shown, views of the Canyons at Bighorn golf course to the north are immediately available, but the views of the Coachella Valley are extremely limited. As such, higher elevations are proposed in order to ensure the two residences with views of the Coachella Valley. Dwelling and landscape design for the two single-family residences would comply with the architectural guidelines for the Canyons at Bighorn. Furthermore, both residences would be subject to the Palm Desert Comprehensive General Plan policies and reviewed by the Architectural Commission. With compliance with Comprehensive General Plan policies and Code requirements and completion of design review by the Architectural Commission, the New Preferred Alternative would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or surrounding area. Therefore, the impacts to on-site aesthetic resources would be less than significant. The New Preferred Alternative would not substantially affect views from the surrounding residential uses to the east and north or from public views across SR-74, a state scenic highway. Views of the project from residences to the east or to the north would observe less site disturbance during construction and much less built form when compared with the Original Project or the eight-unit alternative analyzed in the Draft EIR. As previously discussed, the architectural character of the two single-family residences would be expected to suggest the New Preferred Alternative as a relatively minor extension of the Canyons at Bighorn community. Views of the New Preferred Alternative from the segment of SR-74 not already screened by intervening topography are either directed through and/or over existing Canyons at Bighorn golf course, residential and related street improvement along the highway or across the subject property to the Indian Cove section of the same development. In neither case would the Preferred Alternative, well over 1,000 feet from the highway, substantively affect the scenic content of such views. Similar to but substantially less than the Original Project, the New Preferred Alternative would introduce new sources of light and glare on-site, contributing incrementally to ambient lighting conditions in the surrounding areas. On-site lighting would include that necessary for City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 27 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts the use and security of the residents, consisting primarily of point light sources of low to medium brightness. Lighting at the project site would be shielded and directed away from adjacent residential uses in compliance with the provisions of the City’s Municipal Code and would not be expected to add significantly to cumulative local nighttime illumination. Glare would be produced as a result of windows, other reflective sources, and vehicles entering and exiting the project site. However, these would be screened from view, as the construction of the driveway would remain within the lower elevations of the project site with berms or walls along the alignment as necessary to reduce any light and glare impacts. Visual impacts of the New Preferred Alternative on nearby wildlife would also be similar to but substantially less than the Original Project. Further discussion is provided below in Subsection IV.C, Biological Resources of this document, and is addressed in detail in Appendix C, Biological Resources Assessment of the Draft EIR. Overall, aesthetic impacts under the New Preferred Alternative would be less than significant, and considerably less when compared with the Original Project. However, mitigation measures are recommended below to ensure that aesthetic impacts remain less than significant. 2. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure IV.A-1: All open areas not used for buildings, roadways, driveways, parking areas, or walkways shall be landscaped to reduce visibility of the project improvements from adjacent properties in accordance with a Landscape Plan to be prepared by a licensed landscape architect to the satisfaction of the Community Development/Planning Department. The Landscape Plan shall specify plant materials, heights upon planting or box sizes, and locations. Remaining existing natural landscape areas shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the landscape plan. Mitigation Measure IV.A-2: All night lighting installed within the project site shall be shielded and directed in a manner so that such lighting does not shine upwards or towards the lambing pen to the south of the project site and, thus, is generally not visible from the existing sheep pens. In addition, lighting shall not be a high glare type of lighting, shall be directed away from nearby residential uses and shall be confined to the site. 3. Level of Significance After Mitigation As indicated above, impacts of the New Preferred Alternative regarding aesthetics would be less than significant. Therefore implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would further ensure that aesthetic impacts remain less than significant. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 28 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts 4.Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts attributable to related projects regarding aesthetics, views, light and glare under the New Preferred Alternative would be similar to the Original Project. As indicated in the Draft EIR on page 73, with the exception of the Canyons at Bighorn project, most of the related projects in the vicinity are located sufficiently distant from the project site so as to have a minimal cumulative effect, if any, on aesthetics, views, light and glare. The New Preferred Alternative and all other related projects would be subject to the City’s project permit and approval process with mitigation set forth as appropriate, to comply with the applicable plans and regulations that support reasonable standards of development. The buildout of the remaining adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community would be subject to limited building heights, appropriately articulated architectural design, and sufficient natural open space areas and landscaping, respecting the area’s character and natural setting, as with the Preferred Alternative. As such, no significant cumulative impacts regarding aesthetics, views, light or glare would occur. B. AIR QUALITY Air quality impacts of the Original Project were addressed in accordance with the regulations and requirements that existed at the time including the Federal and State Clean Air Act, and the Southern California Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). However, since the preparation of the Draft EIR, a 2007 AQMP was adopted taking into account new planning and air quality modeling data. The most recent 2007 AQMP outlines the framework that is currently utilized in the preparation of air quality forecasts and consistency analyses. In addition to the updated AQMP, new air quality regulations and thresholds have been adopted since the preparation of the Draft EIR. Ambient air quality monitoring data collected within the region indicate pollutants such as carbon monoxide (CO) are now in attainment within the region, but that levels of particulate matter (PM) are now in non-attainment. As such, PM has been added to the South Coast Air 2.52.5 Quality Management District (SCAQMD) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) significance thresholds. In addition to the above, in June 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05, which established GHG emissions targets for the State, as well as a process to ensure that the targets are met. As a result of this executive order, the California Climate Action Team (CAT), led by the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), was City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 29 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts formed. The CAT published its report in March 2006, in which it laid out several recommendations and strategies for reducing GHG emissions and reaching the targets 1 established in the executive order. In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as AB32, into law. AB32 commits the State to the following: 2000 Statewide GHG emission levels to be achieved by 2010 (which represents an approximately 11 percent reduction from business as usual) 1990 GHG emission levels to be achieved by 2020 (25 percent below business as usual) GHG emissions to be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 To achieve these goals, AB32 mandates that CARB establish a quantified emissions cap, institute a schedule to meet the cap, implement regulations to reduce Statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources, and develop tracking, reporting, and enforcement mechanisms to ensure that reductions are achieved. Senate Bill (SB) 1368, a companion bill to AB32, requires the California Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and California Energy Commission (CEC) to establish GHG emission performance standards for the generation of electricity. These standards would also apply to power that is generated outside of California and imported into the State. There has also been activity at the federal level with respect to the regulation of GHGs. InMassachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (Docket No. 05–1120), argued November 29, 2006 and decided April 2, 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court held that EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and that EPA's reasons for not regulating did not fit the statutory requirements, and that Massachusetts had standing to raise the issues in federal court. As such, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the EPA should be required to regulate CO and 2 other greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. However, EPA has not yet developed a regulatory program for greenhouse gas emissions at this time. At present, there are no state or local agency greenhouse gas emission significance thresholds. AB32 did not set a significance threshold for GHG emissions, although the EPA, CARB or another agency may issue regulations at some point to set forth significance criteria for 1 California Climate Action Team. Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Legislature, 2006. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 30 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts CEQA analysis. In the interim, none of the CEQA Guidelines, the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan, or any other relevant source of authority for air quality impacts have set forth significance thresholds for GHG emissions. At this time there is no formal guidance for addressing GHGs pursuant to CEQA, and no standards available from regulating agencies to determine the significance of impacts associated with global climate change. Although no quantitative or qualitative thresholds of significance have been developed for air-borne emissions of GHGs, the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) has prepared a protocol for calculating and reporting GHG emissions from a number of general and industry-specific activities. This guidance has been used to address GHG emissions from the project. For purposes of this analysis, it is considered reasonable and consistent with criteria pollutant calculations to consider only the GHG emissions resulting from theincremental increase in usage of on-road mobile vehicles, electricity, and natural gas resulting from implementation of the project as project-related. In addition, since potential impacts resulting from GHG emissions are long-term rather than acute, GHG emissions are usually calculated on an annual basis. The discussion of the Preferred Alternative’s impacts on GHGs is discussed in detail below. 1. Impacts a. Construction Impacts As with the Original Project, construction activities could generate short-term emissions of air pollutants primarily from earthmoving activities, construction equipment and vehicular traffic. However, the amount of earthwork necessitated by site preparation for the New Preferred Alternative would be decreased substantially when compared with the Original Project. Site preparation would require approximately 36,000 cubic yards of soil import or fill compared to the import of 120,000 cubic yards required by the Original Project. With the decrease in amount of soil movement, the use of heavy-duty construction equipment and the amount of vehicle trips by construction workers traveling to and from the project site would be decreased as well as the duration, resulting in less air emissions. Mass daily emissions during construction for the New Preferred Alternative were compiled using URBEMIS 2002, an emissions estimation/evaluation model developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) that is partially based on SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook guidelines and methodologies. These results are presented in Table 1 on page 32. As shown therein, the New Preferred Alternative would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds for ROC, CO, SO, PM, or PM, but would exceed the regional thresholds for NOx X102.5 during construction. This compares with the Original Project which would also exceed the NOx threshold and PM emissions, though its emission levels were in almost all cases higher than the 10 Preferred Alternative. As such, mitigation measures are recommended below to reduce NOx levels for the Preferred Alternative. However, even with implementation of the mitigation City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 31 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts Table 1 a Estimate of Unmitigated Regional Construction Emissions (pounds/day) b StageROCNOCOSOPMPM XX102.5 Site Preparation (2 months) On-Site16 107 131 <1 62 16 Off-Site1 18 7 <1 <1 <1 Total17 124 138 <1 62 16 Building Erection/Finishing (6 months) On-Site13 67 84 <1 2 2 Off-Site<1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Total13 68 85 <1 3 2 Maximum Regional Emissions 17 124 138 <1 62 16 Regional Daily Significance Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 150 Over/(Under)(58) 24 (412) (150) (88) (134) Exceed Threshold? No Yes No No No No c —— Maximum On-Site Emissions 107 131 62 16 Localized Daily Significance Threshold— 708 6,776 — 89 28 Over/(Under)— (601) (6645) — (27) (12) Exceed Threshold?N/A N/A No No No No a Compiled using the URBEMIS 2002 emissions inventory model for consistency with the Draft EIR. Urbemis 2007 is available but would be expected to yield equal or lower results. The equipment mix and use assumption for each phase is provided in Appendix A of this document. b PM emissions estimates are based on compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust 10 suppression. c The Project site is located in SCAQMD Source Receptor Area (SRA) No. 30. These LSTs are based on the site location SRA and Project area that could be under construction on any given day. The nearest sensitive receptor is a residential area located adjacent and to the east. In regard to the LST look-up tables, the analysis assumes a two-acre site with a 200 meter receptor distance. Source: PCR Services Corporation, 2007. measures, the New Preferred Alternative would result in exceedance of regional NOx threshold levels, resulting in significant construction air quality impacts. As with the Original Project, construction impacts to the Bighorn sheep in the lambing pen were analyzed (in the absence of better available information) utilizing the same thresholds of significance as for humans. Therefore, SCAQMD localized significance thresholds (LST) rather than regional SCAQMD thresholds were used as an indicator of potential impacts. As discussed above, the New Preferred Alternative would exceed regional NOx threshold levels City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 32 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts during construction but not the SCAQMD LSTs. As such, construction impacts of the New Preferred Alternative on the Bighorn sheep would be less than significant. b. Operational Impacts In addition, operational emissions calculated in the Draft EIR for the Original Project would be similar for the New Preferred Alternative and would account for activities such as vehicular traffic, consumer products usage and energy consumption (electricity, natural gas, etc.). Such emissions would be on the order of five percent of that of the Original Project, comparable to the reduction in proposed density. As with the Original Project, emissions during the operational phase were determined to be less than significant and no mitigation measures were required. As such, the New Preferred Alternative would have a less than significant impact to sensitive receptors including the Bighorn sheep during post-construction operations, similar to, though substantially less than the Original Project. Via mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rules, no construction activities or materials are proposed which would create objectionable odors. Therefore impacts of the New Preferred Alternative regarding odors would be less than significant. c. Global Climate Change Emitting GHGs into the atmosphere is not in itself an adverse environmental effect. Rather, it is the increased accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere that may result in global climate change. The resultant consequences of that climate change can cause adverse environmental effects. The State has mandated a goal of reducing State-wide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, even though State-wide population and commerce is predicted to continue to expand. Due to the complex physical, chemical, and atmospheric mechanisms involved in global climate change, it is not possible to predict the specific impact, if any, to global climate change from one project’s relatively small incremental increase or decrease in emissions. Greenhouse gas emissions from construction and operational activities of the New Preferred Alternative were forecasted by developing a reasonable estimate of construction schedule and phasing, and applying published GHG emission factors. Mobile source emission factors were derived from EMFAC2007 and construction equipment emission factors were derived from OFFROAD2007. The results of GHG emissions for the New Preferred Alternative are presented in Table 2 on page 34. As shown therein, operational emissions of the New Preferred Alternative would be less than one-tenth of the construction emissions, decreasing to an impacts level of statistical insignificance. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 33 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts Table 2 Construction and Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2009) e Emission SourceCOE (Metric Tons) 2 Construction Maximum Annual 448 d 2004 Statewide Total 479,740,000 Net Increase as Percentage of 2004 Statewide Inventory 0.00000093% -7 = 9.3 x 10 Operation a On Road Mobile Sources 33 b Electricity 4 c Natural gas 2 Total 39 d 2004 Statewide Total 479,740,000 Net Increase as Percentage of 2004 Statewide Inventory0.000000081% -8 = 8.1 x 10 a Mobile source values were derived using EMFAC2007 in addition to the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol; Version 2.2, March 2007. b Electricity Usage Rates from Table A9-11-A, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993. c Natural Gas Usage Rates from Table A9-12-A, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, SCAQMD, 1993. d Statewide totals were derived from the CARB Draft California GHG Inventory, 2007. e All CO2E factors were derived using the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol; Version 2.2, March 2007. Sources: PCR Services Corporation, 2007. While it is not possible at this time to quantify the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions anticipated from the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures, the New Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the goals of the State of California. The project would be required to incorporate energy reducing features and mitigation measures such as installing appliances, fixtures, and infrastructure that use less energy and water such that the New Preferred Alternative would result in lower GHG emission rates when compared to current standards and practices and substantially lower than the Original Project. As such, the contribution to the cumulative impact of global climate change after mitigation would be considered less than significant. 2.Mitigation Measures As the New Preferred Alternative would result in NOx emissions exceeding the regional thresholds during construction, the mitigation measures identified below are cited to minimize its incremental impacts: City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 34 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts Mitigation Measure IV.B-1: Water three times daily or non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied, according to manufacturers’ specifications, as needed to reduce off-site transport of fugitive dust from all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces. Mitigation Measure IV.B-2: All private streets shall be swept as needed during construction, but not more frequently than hourly, if visible soil material has been carried onto adjacent paved roads. Mitigation Measure IV.B-3: Construction equipment shall be visually inspected prior to leaving the site and loose dirt shall be washed off with wheel washers as necessary. Mitigation Measure IV.B-4: All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. Mitigation Measure IV.B-5: General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment to minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues shall have their engines turned off when not in use to reduce vehicle emissions. Construction activities should be phased and scheduled to avoid emissions peaks and discontinued during second-stage smog alerts. Mitigation Measure IV.B-6: To the extent possible, petroleum powered construction activity shall utilize electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel power generators and/or gasoline power generators. Mitigation Measure IV.B-7: On-site mobile equipment shall be powered by alternative fuel sources (i.e., methanol, natural gas, propane or butane) as feasible. Mitigation Measure IV.B-8: The Applicant shall, as feasible, install solar or low- emission water heaters that exceed the requirements of the national Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) and the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), to reduce energy consumption. Mitigation Measure IV. B-9: The Applicant shall, as feasible, install energy-efficient appliances (i.e., ENERGY STAR) to reduce energy consumption. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 35 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts 3. Level of Significance After Mitigation As discussed above, the New Preferred Alternative would result in a significant air quality impact during construction due to NOxemissions exceeding regional SCAQMD significance thresholds. As such, mitigation measures included above are recommended to ensure that such incremental impacts would be reduced. However, even with implementation of the mitigation measures above, impacts of the New Preferred Alternative would exceed NOx threshold levels, resulting in significant construction air quality impacts. 4. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative air quality impacts with the New Preferred Alternative would be substantially less than the Original Project as discussed on pages 99 and 100 of the Draft EIR due to the reduction in density in the proposed action. As stated therein, potential cumulative impacts from localized emissions are a function of construction intensity and distance between the source and the receptor. The nearest sensitive receptors identified would be the residences within the Canyons at Bighorn community. However, as the majority of these homes are currently under construction and/or have been completed, it is anticipated that localized cumulative air quality impacts with the New Preferred Alternative would not occur. As with the Original Project, regional cumulative impacts are assessed differently and are based on SCAQMD’s AQMP forecasts for attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the Federal and State Clean Air Acts. As such, the analysis of cumulative impacts focuses on determining whether the project is consistent with the forecasted future regional growth. As the Preferred Project would be consistent with the underlying growth assumptions on which the AQMP is based, the long term increase in emissions that would occur as a result of development of the project site would not be cumulatively considerable. C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES The existing conditions of biological resources on-site have not changed since the preparation of the Draft EIR. As with the Original Project, the New Preferred Alternative would comply with the goals and policies set forth in the regional conservation plans cited in the Draft EIR including the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Community Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), and the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. It is City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 36 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts noted that since the publication of the Draft EIR, the CVMSHCP has been approved by the 2 participating cities and the County, but is awaiting further approval by the USFWS and CDFG. As indicated on page 122 of the Draft EIR, the project site is within the jurisdiction of the CVMSHCP, but not within an identified Conservation Area. Since the project remains outside of the CVMSHCP’s Conservation Area, the discussion regarding project compliance with the CVMSHCP remains the same for the New Preferred Alternative as the Original Project. In addition, although the CVMSHCP has been fully approved by all affected local jurisdictions, formal adoption is not yet complete. Therefore, for the New Preferred Alternative a mitigation measure has been included below to ensure project compliance with the CVMSHCP in the event it is adopted. No changes have occurred with regard to the thresholds identified in the Draft EIR in evaluating biological resource impacts of a project. Therefore, the same thresholds were used in the evaluation of biological resource impacts of the Preferred Alternative. Those impacts determined to be less than significant include impacts to biological resources that are relatively common or exist in a degraded or disturbed state, resulting in less valuable habitat, or impacts that do not meet or exceed the significance thresholds. Also, conclusions are based on conditions of species ecology and the resource’s regional distribution and status. 1. Impacts The New Preferred Alternative would reduce the area of development from approximately 4.32 acres with the Original Project to 2.8 acres, resulting in fewer impacts on existing on-site biological resources. Similar to the Original Project, the New Preferred Alternative would not adversely affect sensitive communities, nesting habitat for sensitive birds, sensitive plant species, the barefoot gecko (Coleaonyx switaki), the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizi), the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), wildlife movement, nor free roaming specimens of the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnobates), as the site either does not provide such habitat or is well removed from the established ranges of the respective species. Also, a larger part of the project site than in the Original Project, approximately nine acres would be preserved as undeveloped permanent open space. In addition, the New Preferred Alternative would not adversely affect sensitive plants and wildlife along Dead Indian Creek because improvements would be restricted from these sensitive areas. As with the Original Project, site preparation and grading of the project site would necessitate the removal of existing on-site, native vegetation including creosote bush-brittlebush scrub and catclaw acacia/cheesebush, neither of which represents sensitive plant communities. 2 It is anticipated that the CVMSHCP will be fully approved and permitted in the first quarter of 2008. Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, website, http://www.cvmshcp.org/, accessed December 18, 2007. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 37 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts However as indicated on page 148 of the Draft EIR, these native communities provide nesting habitat that could be used by common desert avian species. Nesting activity typically occurs st from February 15 to August 31 which would overlap with construction activities between July 1 st through August 31 followingthe lambing season. Therefore, to ensure that no active nests would be disturbed, Mitigation Measure IV.C-4 is recommended below to ensure that efforts would be made to schedule all vegetation removals between September 1 and December 31 to avoid the nesting season. In the event that vegetation removal activities must occur during the nesting season, the mitigation measure recommends that all suitable habitats be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist prior to removal. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measure would ensure that impacts to nesting birds are reduced to a less than significant level. As discussed on page 148 of the Draft EIR, no sensitive plant species were observed during the focused sensitive plant survey conducted in April 2005 and none are expected to occur within the project site due to the lack of suitable habitat. The focused sensitive plant survey encompassed the blooming period of all sensitive species with the potential to occur on site, with the exception of glandular ditaxis (Ditaxis claryiana). As a result, absence of glandular ditaxis cannot be ruled out. However, this species is a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 2 and potential impacts are not expected to threaten the regional population of this species if it occurs within the project site. Therefore, the potential removal represents an adverse, but less than significant impact. No impacts to any other sensitive plant species within the project site would occur. Several sensitive wildlife species have the potential to occur within the project site. As discussed on page 149 of the Draft EIR, the prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), a State Species of Concern was observed and may forage on or near the project site. Several other sensitive birds have the potential to forage on-site including the northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi), and golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). However, nesting habitat is not present within the project vicinity for these species. Other species that have the potential to occur on-site include the Crissal thrasher (Toxostoma crissal), Le Conte’s thrasher (Toxostoma lecontei), the southern yellow bat (Lasiurus cinerus), Palm Springs round-tailed ground squirrel (Spermophilus tereticaudus chlorus), and Palm Springs pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris bangsi). However, none of these species are protected by Federal or State listings as threatened or endangered and any loss of individuals would not threaten the regional populations. Therefore, removal of their habitat would represent an adverse, but less than significant impact to regional populations of these sensitive species. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 38 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts Implementation of the New Preferred Alternative is not expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the barefoot gecko, since the potentially suitable on-site habitat for this species that was identified is located outside the development footprint. While indirect impact through human activity can be expected, its impact would be less than significant due to limited real use of the site’s undeveloped open space and the very small fraction of such habitat that occurs on the project site. As with the Original Project, implementation of the New Preferred Alternative is not expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the desert tortoise due to the poor quality and limited amount of habitat on-site and the isolation of the project site from other major populations of desert tortoise known in the region. Furthermore, to ensure that impacts to desert tortoises are less than significant, mitigation has been recommended to conduct pre-construction surveys to ensure that no desert tortoises are present prior to construction activities. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, impacts to the desert tortoise would be less than significant. Implementation of the New Preferred Alternative is not expected to have a substantial adverse effect on the burrowing owl due to the poor quality and limited amount of habitat on-site as well as the isolation of the project site from other major populations known in the region. As indicated on page 150 of the Draft EIR, there is a low potential for this species to occur on-site. Therefore, project-related impacts are considered less than significant. Nevertheless, mitigation has been recommended to conduct pre-construction surveys to ensure that no burrowing owls are impacted by construction activities. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measure, impacts to burrowing owls would remain less than significant. Minor disturbances to local wildlife movement would occur on the project site during construction activities as a result of increased noise, light, loss of habitat, and other human- related impacts. However, in comparison to the Original Project, the New Preferred Alternative would not develop a road across Dead Indian Creek. Instead, the New Preferred Alternative would construct a driveway along the existing natural drainage on the project site’s eastern boundary. Therefore, the New Preferred Alternative would not interfere with Dead Indian Creek as a wildlife corridor. During operation, impacts would include increased ambient noise, increased ambient light, and pedestrian activities. However, these impacts are not anticipated to significantly affect regional wildlife movement. Landscaping with native plant species would facilitate the movement of avian wildlife and compensate for the removal of existing vegetation. Thus, impacts to wildlife movement would be less than significant. As discussed on page 160 of the Draft EIR, marginal habitat at low elevations such as the project site acts as a buffer between human activity and preferred habitat for the Peninsular bighorn sheep in the area. However, as the occurrence of Peninsular bighorn sheep on-site is not City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 39 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts documented, and as the current numbers of free roaming bighorn sheep in the project area are very low and may or may not have increased in recent years, the resources on-site are of little importance to the sheep and would not serve a significant purpose. Nonetheless, mitigation has been recommended to construct a fence and/or wall that would not allow sheep to enter the project site. In addition, mitigation is also recommended to prohibit all dogs, whether resident or visitor, on the project site. With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, development of the New Preferred Alternative would not have a significant impact on the free- roaming Peninsular bighorn sheep population. Concern for impacts upon captive adult bighorn sheep and born lambs in the lambing pen on the Bighorn Institute property south of the project site has been a significant factor in developing a sequence of several previous alternatives (38 unit-Original Project, eight-unit alternative, and the two-unit Hillside Limited Alternative), as well as the Preferred Alternative. The Bighorn Institute seeks to avoid stress to adult bighorn sheep and habituation to human presence in born lambs. It is understood that the bighorn sheep are more responsive to visual stimuli than they are to audio stimuli; that is, their flight mechanisms are triggered more by what they can see than by what they might hear. Since the sheep are located within a penned area, the sheep’s natural instinct to avoid or flee disturbance is constrained therein. Thus, stress to breeding females is a potential impact. Additionally, young raised in the pen overlooking the project would be exposed to human activity and could experience habituation, that is, become accustomed to human presence and associated activity, thereby undermining the sheep primordial defense or flight response. Although the New Preferred Alternative is greatly reduced in density and collective disturbance potential from the Original Project and would have far less human activity after construction is completed, the sheep would still be exposed to sufficient human activity to trigger the response. Therefore, impacts to the sheep at the Bighorn Institute would be potentially significant. Notwithstanding the fact that the New Preferred Alternative is proposed with only slightly more than five percent of the Original Project’s proposed intensity, its construction and subsequent occupancy would remain in plain view of the lambing pen, albeit 240 yards distant at minimum. Although only proposed for two single-family residences, site preparation and grading for the New Preferred Alternative is still proposed for roughly half of the area for which the Original Project would have required site preparation. Furthermore, although the amount of grading volume has been substantially reduced, as is the amount of import, the import of approximately 35,900 cubic yards would still necessitate approximately 2,816 truck loads with associated movements to and from the site. The construction of two large homes and subsequent landscaping would also occur in plain view of the lambing pen. Following construction, the orientation of the access driveway from the Indian Cove Neighborhood to the southerly side of two proposed residential lots dictates that all vehicular City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 40 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts access must approach the lambing pen prior to approaching the two homes even though construction of the driveway would remain within the lower elevations of the project site with berms or walls along the alignment as necessary to reduce glare and views of on-coming traffic from the lambing pen. As no design information is available, it cannot be said that the two residences could be entirely oriented to the north, leaving entirely passive facades facing the lambing pen to the south. Thus, activity associated with normal residential occupancy, including vehicular arrivals and departures for occupants, visitors and guests, maintenance, mail delivery and other deliveries, as well as some of the associated outdoor activities and nighttime illumination of outdoor and indoor spaces can be presumed to be visible from the pen. The understanding of sheep behavior is not sufficiently refined to specify an activity level (i.e., 38 dwellings or two dwellings) at which the sheep’s response is activated. Therefore, it must be conservatively assumed that the Preferred Alternative, though considerably less active than the Original Project, would still have the potential to significantly impact captive adult sheep and born lambs in the lambing pen through visual and, to a lesser degree, auditory habituation. Mitigation is recommended below to attempt to reduce this impact, although elimination of the impact is probably not possible given the proximity of the project site and the lambing pen in its current location: 2. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure IV.C-1: Garage openings shall be oriented easterly away from the lambing pens to the maximum extent practicable. Mitigation Measure IV.C-2: Site preparation and grading of the site shall be designed to balance on-site to minimize new import of fill materials to the extent feasible. Grading shall be restricted to that necessary for: 1) proposed building pad improvement and reasonable vehicular access from the Indian Cove section of the Canyons at Bighorn to access the residences, 2) development of proposed building pad elevations, and 3) reasonable foundation excavations. To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one- story above finished floor elevations of 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. Mitigation Measure IV.C-3: The proposed residences shall be designed so that, to the maximum extent practicable, all activities and facilities associated with their occupancy, including indoor and outdoor residency, landscape and other maintenance, mechanical equipment, recreational facilities, etc., be located to the north of the residences or screened from view from the lambing pen by walls high enough to be effective. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 41 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts Mitigation Measure IV.C-4: No construction activities, as defined in this document, should occur during the lambing season, which extends from January to June.* If any construction activities should occur during the nesting season stst that extends beyond the lambing season (July 1 to August 31), all suitable habitat in the development/ disturbance area of the project shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist prior to removal. If any active nests are detected within a 300-foot buffer of the construction activity, a buffer of at least 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete or the nest has failed as determined by the biological monitor. Mitigation Measure IV.C-5: A biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey, per USFWS protocols, to ensure that no desert tortoises are affected by the project. If it is determined that no tortoises are affected, no further action would be appropriate. If it is determined that tortoises may be affected, a desert tortoise conservation plan addressing the appropriate construction management and ongoing operational practices shall be prepared. Mitigation Measure IV.C-6: A pre-construction survey, conducted according to reserve agency protocols, shall be performed in order to ensure that no burrowing owls are affected by the project. If it is determined that burrowing owls may be affected, a burrowing owl conservation plan addressing the appropriate construction management and ongoing operational practices shall be prepared. Mitigation Measure IV.C-7: In order to minimize stress and disturbance to Peninsular bighorn sheep at the Bighorn Institute, no dogs shall be permitted on the project site, either as residents or as visitors. Mitigation Measure IV.C-8: A permanent fence/and or wall shall be constructed around the developed parts of the project site to prevent free-roaming sheep from entering developed areas. The design and location of the fence and/or wall shall be developed in consultation with a biologist and the Bighorn Institute. No landscaping or surface water shall be allowed to occur outside the fence to prevent sheep from being attracted to the site and exposed to danger or human activity. Mitigation Measure IV.C-9: In the event the CVMSHCP is adopted, the Applicant shall pay a Local Development Mitigation Fee if he/she chooses to avoid biological survey requirements, analysis of impacts and mitigation. The * For the purposes of this document, construction is defined as grading, excavation, framing, siding, roofing, landscaping, installation of doors and windows, and any interior work that utilizes pneumatic tools or compressors that would be located outside the proposed residences. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 42 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts estimated Local Development Mitigation Fee is $5,730 per acre of Development for the first year of Plan implementation. (The average annual increase of the Local Development Mitigation Fee is projected at 3.29 percent) 3. Level of Significance After Mitigation Similar to the Original Project, implementation of the mitigation measures above are anticipated to reduce impacts of the New Preferred Alternative on biological resources. However, as previously discussed, since the scientific understanding of sheep behavior is not sufficiently refined to specify an activity level (i.e., 38 dwellings or two dwellings) at which this endangered species response is activated, it must be conservatively assumed that the Preferred Alternative, though considerably less active than the Original Project, would still have the potential to significantly impact captive adult sheep and born lambs in the lambing pen through visual and, to a lesser degree, auditory habituation. This impact would be similar to that attributable to the closest existing residence on the Institute property. Thus, impacts to biological resources during construction and operation of the project remain significant and unmitigable. 4. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts to biological resources would be the same under the New Preferred Alternative as with the Original Project. The Cornishe of Bighorn project is one of 32 private projects that was analyzed for cumulative impacts and is covered in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) as discussed previously. The CVMSHCP provides a regional program to conserve biological resources by covering multiple species and habitats in light of development impacts. The CVMSHCP reserve design, and habitat restoration and management program would be sufficient to mitigate biological impacts to below a level of significance. Under the CVMSHCP, any loss of habitat can be mitigated through a donation of public and privately owned land to the Reserve or through payment of fees for habitat restoration. Therefore, implementation of the Preferred Alternative, which is adjacent to a residential community to the east and north, would not have a significant cumulative impact on naturally occurring plant and wildlife species. However, the cumulative impact on the Bighorn Institute would remain significant. Each breeding adult and newborn lamb would be exposed to a higher level of anthropomorphic disturbance than that existing before development of the project. As formal adoption of the CVMSHCP has yet to be completed, in the unlikely event the CVMSHCP is not adopted by the resource agencies prior to the Cornishe at Bighorn EIR certification, it is reasonable to assume that each of the 32 private projects would be approved with mitigation and conservation measures substantially similar to the ones proposed in the City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 43 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts CVMSHCP. As such, the cumulative impacts would be the same, with or without the CVMSHCP. D. CULTURAL RESOURCES Findings of the Draft EIR including the results of records searches, consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), and field survey conducted on-site remain the same for the New Preferred Alternative as with the Original Project. As the project area remains the same, the City’s Comprehensive General Plan’s designation of the project area as “high sensitivity for historic structures” remains the same for the Preferred Alternative. No changes have occurred with regard to thresholds since the publication of the Draft EIR. Thus, the evaluation of impacts regarding cultural resources for the Original Project remain the same to assess the impacts of the Preferred Alternative. 1. Impacts Since no historic, archaeological or paleontological resources were revealed in records searches or a systematic pedestrian survey of the property on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the New Preferred Alternative is not expected to have adverse impacts upon cultural resources. As discussed on page 171 of the Draft EIR, in the event that any archaeological resources are unearthed or discovered during construction, the New Preferred Alternative would implement the conservation measures required by law regarding the protection of these archaeological resources. These conservation measures include requirements as set forth in Section 21083.2 of the CEQA (Division 13, Public Resources Code). If it is determined that an archaeological resource is a historical resource, the provisions of Section 21084.1 of the CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 would be implemented. Furthermore, any discovery of traditional burial sites would also be treated in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). As such, with compliance with the rules and regulations discussed above, and in further detail on page 171 of the Draft EIR, the New Preferred Alternative would not disturb, damage, or degrade potential unique archaeological resources or archaeological sites considered historic resources. Impacts of the New Preferred Alternative regarding archaeological resources would be less than significant, as with the Original Project and no mitigation measures would be necessary. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 44 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts 2. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required as the New Preferred Alternative would not have adverse impacts regarding cultural resources. 3. Level of Significance After Mitigation As previously indicated, no mitigation measures are required as the New Preferred Alternative would not result in significant impacts regarding cultural resources. 4. Cumulative Impacts As with the Original Project, cumulative impacts of the New Preferred Alternative regarding cultural resources would be less than significant. Each of the related projects would be required to comply with the aforementioned regulations in the event that archaeological resources are found including CEQA Section 21083.2, 21084.1, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. Thus, cumulative impacts regarding archaeological resources remain less than significant. E. HYDROLOGY As the project site remains the same as that for the Original Project, there are no changes in the local and on-site hydrological conditions for the Preferred Alternative. The regulatory policies set forth in the Draft EIR would apply to the New Preferred Alternative including Sections 24.20 of the City of Palm Desert Municipal Code, the National Flood Insurance Act of 1986, Sections 401 and 402 of the Federal Clean Water Act, and Section 1600 of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Furthermore, no changes have occurred with regard to thresholds identified in the Draft EIR in evaluating hydrology impacts. Thus, the same thresholds for the Original Project were used to evaluate the impacts of the Preferred Alternative. 1. Impacts The New Preferred Alternative would introduce a relatively small amount of impervious surface area on the project site when compared with the Original Project, altering the site’s hydrology marginally. Runoff flows and volumes, and sediment loads would be increased slightly over natural conditions, but would remain well below that attributable to the Original Project. Drainage flows would be directed towards the street curb and gutter facilities City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 45 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts constructed as part of the access driveway for the residences and would also drain along the northern slopes of the site for ultimate discharge into Dead Indian Creek. As discussed on page 174 of the Draft EIR, Dead Indian Creek and an existing natural drainage channel along the project site’s eastern boundary are considered “jurisdictional waters” under regulation of the Federal Clean Water Act, Sections 404 and 401, and the California Fish and Game Code, Section 1600. Therefore, as with the Original Project, permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CDFG, and Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board (CRBRWQCB) for the construction of the driveway over the adjoining natural drainage channel would be required for the Preferred Alternative. No access roads are proposed across Dead Indian Creek for the Preferred Alternative, reducing impacts to “jurisdictional waters” when compared with the Original Project. Furthermore, as with the Original Project, the design and construction of the proposed on-site drainage improvements would be expected to comply with applicable provisions of the City’s Municipal Code Section 24.20 and the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) as required by the City Department of Public Works, including permitted grading, building pads, engineered slopes, and drainage devices. As such, with compliance with the aforementioned rules and regulations, impacts regarding hydrology and surface water quality attributable to the New Preferred Alternative would be less than significant and no mitigation would be required. 2. Mitigation Measures As discussed, the New Preferred Alternative would result in a less than significant impact regarding hydrology and surface water quality and no mitigation measures are required. 3. Level of Significance After Mitigation The Preferred Alternative’s impacts regarding hydrology and surface water quality would be less than significant. 4. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts of the New Preferred Alternative regarding hydrology and surface water quality would be less than significant. The New Preferred Alternative would result in less impermeable areas when compared with the Original Project as discussed above. As discussed on page 178 of the Draft EIR, all related projects would include specific design features to reduce impacts on surface water and hydrology, and the local stormwater drainage system, in accordance with City, state, and federal requirements. Furthermore, each related project would be evaluated individually to determine appropriate measures that address system capacity. Thus, City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 46 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts cumulative impacts regarding hydrology and surface water quality remain less than significant with the Preferred Alternative. F. LAND USE AND PLANNING The applicable land use designations for the project site, as well as plans, goals and policies regarding land use for the Original Project would apply to the Preferred Alternative, including the City of Palm Desert General Plan, the Riverside County Transportation Commission Congestion Management Program, the Southern California Association of Governments Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide, and the Southern California Air Quality Management District Air Quality Management Plan. As discussed above in Subsection B, Air Quality, an update to the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan was adopted in 2007. However, the policies set forth therein remain the same and would not affect compliance of the New Preferred Alternative regarding land use plans and policies. No changes have occurred with regard to thresholds identified in the Draft EIR in the evaluation of land use impacts and thus the same thresholds were used to analyze the impacts of the Preferred Alternative. 1. Impacts The project site is split-zoned with the largest part zoned Planned Residential-5(PR-5) and the remainder (including a portion of proposed Residential Lot-2) zoned Hillside Planned Residential (PR-H), with a Special Study Area (SSA) overlay. Based on this zoning designation, the project site would allow development of a maximum five single-family dwelling units per acre under the PR-5 zone and a maximum of one dwelling unit for every five acres for the PR-H zone. The New Preferred Alternative proposes the development of two dwellings over a gross 11.8 acres. As such, the New Preferred Alternative would develop the project site with a gross density of 0.17 dwelling units per acre, well below the allowable densities set forth in the City’s General Plan and zoning designations of the City Code. The combination of the zoning framework suggests the ultimate development of this property would conform more closely to PR-H expectations than the PR-5 designation. In the absence of an actual site design, the New Preferred Alternative is expected to conform to the purposes of the Hillside Planned Residential zone. Specifically, the project would be expected to conform to the following three objectives of Section 25.15.010 of the City Code: To encourage only minimal grading in hillside areas that relates to the natural contours of the land avoiding extensive cut and fill slopes that result in a padding or staircase effect within the development; City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 47 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts Encourage architecture and landscape design which blends with the natural terrain to the greatest practical extent; and Retain and protect undisturbed viewsheds, natural landmarks and features including vistas and the natural skyline as integral elements in development proposals in hillside areas. (Ord. 1046A § 3 (Exhibit B (part)), 2004) Implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.C-2 above would reduce the amount of fill and grading to the extent feasible during the construction of the Preferred Alternative. As previously indicated, the design of the project would conform to the architectural guidelines set forth for the Canyons at Bighorn community. Furthermore, prior to the issuance of any building or grading permit or land subdivision, the site plan would be subject to review by the City’s Architectural Review Commission and Planning Commission, as well as approval by the City Council. The New Preferred Alternative would retain and protect viewsheds as discussed in Subsection A, Aesthetics, and would provide approximately nine acres of open space. As previously discussed, the elevations of the two building pads would be graded to elevation heights of approximately 809 and 820 feet asl, and would not affect the existing natural skyline. As such, the New Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the City’s zoning code. Considering that only two detached single-family dwellings would be developed on the property, no adverse compatibility relationships with the adjoining residential land uses or the Bighorn Institute are predicted to occur and no division of community effects would ensue. The Preferred Alternative’s location adjacent to an existing golf course-oriented community and the amount of open space provided on-site is intended to foster a resort-like atmosphere, while respecting the open space nature of the vacant and protected lands to the south. Furthermore, the New Preferred Alternative would be designed to appear as a minor extension of the Canyons at Bighorn community. As such, impacts regarding land use and compatibility would be less than significant. Furthermore, because the proposed dwellings would be no closer to the lambing pen than the nearest existing residential dwelling on the Institute property, the New Preferred Alternative is not expected to be incompatible with the Bighorn Institute as a land use, notwithstanding the conservative assessment herein of potential biological impacts that could occur to the endangered bighorn sheep within the nearby lambing pen on Institute property. The Preferred Alternative’s impact on Land Use and Planning would be less than significant. As such, no mitigation measures would be required. 2. Mitigation Measures As discussed, the New Preferred Alternative would result in a less than significant impact regarding land use and no mitigation measure is required. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 48 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts 3. Level of Significance After Mitigation The Preferred Alternative’s impacts regarding land use would be less than significant. 4. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts regarding land use plans and regulatory framework under the New Preferred Alternative would be similar to the Original Project and would be less than significant. As discussed on page 194 of the Draft EIR, all related projects would be required to comply with relevant land use policies and zoning regulations. Furthermore, the location of the New Preferred Alternative would remain the same and would be located distant from the other related projects such that no cumulative impacts regarding the division of an established community would result. G. NOISE Despite the near completion of the Canyons at Bighorn community and resulting increased ambient noise levels, for a more conservative analysis, the recorded existing ambient noise levels discussed for the Original Project were utilized for the Preferred Alternative. No changes have occurred regarding the regulations for the analysis of noise impacts. Therefore, as with the Original Project, the New Preferred Alternative would comply with criteria, goals and policies set forth for noise levels in the Draft EIR including those set forth in Title 24 of Federal regulations, the City of Palm Desert General Plan Noise Element, and the City of Palm Desert Municipal Code. No changes have occurred to the thresholds identified in the Draft EIR to evaluate the noise impacts of a project and thus the same thresholds were used to assess the impacts of the Preferred Alternative, as discussed below. 1.Impacts a. Construction Relative to the existing conditions described in the Draft EIR, implementation of the New Preferred Alternative would result in increased noise levels during construction. Due to the reduction in the amount of construction when compared to the Original Project, construction noise levels would be substantially less than under the Original Project. As indicated on page 213 of the Draft EIR, the nearest sensitive residential receptor is located approximately 150 feet to the east of the project site. This receptor existed as a residential lot that was yet to be developed at the time of preparation of the Draft EIR. However, construction of the residence is City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 49 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts now nearing completion and is now the nearest existing sensitive residential receptor. The construction noise levels for the New Preferred Alternative would be as high as 77 dBA and would exceed the measured ambient noise levels of 46.5 dBA within the immediate vicinity of the project site. However, the increased noise levels in the vicinity of these adjacent residential uses would be temporary and intermittent, and would comply with Municipal Code noise regulations. As such, construction noise impacts of the New Preferred Alternative to the nearest residential sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Page 214 of the Draft EIR indicates that the threshold for identifying noise impacts to bighorn sheep is focused on the time of day and length of occurrence. Due to the amount of proposed site preparation and grading, and the need to bring all imported fill material in through a private adjoining community, the earthwork and concrete work for two large residential homes and associated auxiliary structures would likely require more than three months to complete resulting in a significant construction noise impact on captive adult sheep and newborn lambs in the nearby lambing pen. Notwithstanding, Mitigation Measure IV.C-2 is proposed which would reduce to the extent feasible the large proposed importation of fill soils. Therefore, it is conceivable that such site preparation and concrete activities could be completed in less than three months. In that case, a less than significant construction noise impact on the sheep in the lambing pen would be expected. As with the Original Project, no vibration-sensitive receptors are located within 25 feet of major construction activity. Furthermore, any vibration generated at the project site would not be perceptible within the lambing pen at the Bighorn Institute. Therefore, vibration impacts associated with construction would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. b. Operations The occupancy and use of the two dwellings under the New Preferred Alternative would increase noise levels from on-site operations due to vehicular movement and normal occupancy of the premises relative to the existing conditions. However, the incremental increase in noise levels would be well below the 3 dBA CNEL significance threshold. Therefore, impacts to the existing and future sensitive residential receptors within the Canyons at Bighorn would be less than significant, similar to but less than the Original Project. As discussed on pages 216 and 217 of the Draft EIR, project-related mobile noise levels associated with the Original Project would not exceed a maximum hourly L noise level of 30.1 eq dBA at the Bighorn Institute as measured at a distance of approximately 450 feet. The nearest on-site roadway under the New Preferred Alternative would be located no closer than 750 feet (250 yards) from the lambing pen at the Bighorn Institute, which is the same distance as the nearest existing residential dwelling on the Institute property. Mobile noise levels associated City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 50 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts with the New Preferred Alternative can therefore be expected to have a correspondingly less significant impact on the Bighorn Institute than those associated with the Original Project, which were considered to be less than significant. As further discussed on pages 216 and 217 of the Draft EIR, various noise events from vehicles (e.g., car alarms, car horns, door slams and tire squeals), refuse collection, and lawn maintenance activity associated with the Original Project could exceed daytime average ambient noise levels at the Bighorn Institute by more than 3 dBA as measured at a distance of approximately 450 feet, thereby resulting in a potentially significant impact. The nearest on-site noise events from vehicles, lawn maintenance, and refuse collection under the New Preferred Alternative would be located no closer than 750 feet (250 yards) from the lambing pen at the Bighorn Institute. Such noise events associated with the New Preferred Alternative can therefore be expected to have a correspondingly less significant impact on the Bighorn Institute than those associated with the Original Project and should be no greater than those associated with the activities at the nearest existing residential dwelling on the Institute property. The impacts of such noise events on the Bighorn Institute, though less than those associated with the Original Project, may nevertheless exceed the 3 dBA threshold and may result in a significant impact, notwithstanding the fact that such events would occur sporadically and for short durations and would be much attenuated through the presence of intervening structures such as proposed buildings, walls, and berms. As with the Original Project and as discussed on pages 218 and 219 of the Draft EIR, all stationary equipment associated with the New Preferred Alternative would not be anticipated to result in a significant change in ambient noise levels and would result in less than significant levels. New structures within the New Preferred Alternative would be located as far from the lambing pen as the nearest existing residential dwelling on the Institute property, at a distance of approximately 250 yards from the closest point. Thus, impacts to the bighorn sheep in the lambing pen would be less than significant. Nonetheless, mitigation measures are proposed below. 2. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts of the Preferred Alternative. Please note that Mitigation Measures IV.C-1 through IV.C-3 are repeated here from Subsection C, Biological Resources above. Mitigation Measure IV.C-1: Garage openings shall be oriented easterly away from the lambing pens to the maximum extent practicable. Mitigation Measure IV.C-2: Site preparation and grading of the site shall be designed to balance on-site to minimize new import of fill materials to the extent feasible. Grading shall be restricted to that necessary for 1) reasonable City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 51 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts vehicular access from the Indian Cove section of the Canyons at Bighorn to access the residences, 2) development of proposed building pad elevations, and 3) reasonable foundation excavations. To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations of 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. Mitigation Measure IV.C-3: The proposed residences shall be designed so that, to the maximum extent practicable, all activities and facilities associated with their occupancy, including indoor and outdoor residency, landscape and other maintenance, mechanical equipment, recreational facilities, etc., be located to the north of the residences or screened from view from the lambing pen by walls high enough to be effective. Mitigation Measure IV.G-1: Construction equipment shall be fitted with residential grade mufflers, where readily available in the construction equipment fleet that regularly serves the City of Palm Desert area. Prospective contractors shall demonstrate a good faith effort to locate such construction equipment for use throughout the duration of project construction. Mitigation Measure IV.G-2: To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of heavy equipment simultaneously. Mitigation Measure IV.G-3: Engine idling from construction equipment such as bulldozers and haul trucks shall be limited, to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure IV.G-4: The construction staging area shall be located as far as feasible from sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measure IV.G-5: Construction activities shall be limited to between the st hours of 6:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday from July 1 th through September 30 and between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., stst Monday through Friday from October 1 through December 31. On Saturdays, construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. No construction shall be allowed on Sundays, Federal holidays or during the January through June lambing season. Such limitation shall be placed as a condition on the grading permit in a manner meeting the approval of the City Engineer. Mitigation Measure IV.G-6:Power maintenance equipment shall not be used along the southern side of the buildings nearest the Bighorn Institute lambing pens. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 52 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts Mitigation Measure IV.G-7: Stationary equipment (i.e., pool machinery and HVAC equipment) shall be designed so as to be enclosed on all sides. In addition, mechanical equipment for the residences shall be located on the northern side of the buildings or screened from view from the lambing pen by walls high enough to be effective. Mitigation Measure IV.G-8: Additional CC&Rs shall be developed that implement noise restrictions in the development and especially in the southwestern portion of the project site. These would include restrictions on fireworks, gas powered blowers, the use of loud vehicles and management of on-site celebrations or similar events. 3. Level of Significance After Mitigation With implementation of the mitigation measures above, the New Preferred Alternative would reduce the noise impacts of the Preferred Alternative. However, as construction for the New Preferred Alternative is anticipated to exceed three months, construction impacts to the bighorn sheep in the lambing pen would remain potentially significant. 4. Cumulative Impacts With the Preferred Alternative, cumulative impacts would be similar to the Original Project. Cumulative noise impacts would be localized for all related projects and would thereby only affect areas immediately adjacent to or surrounding each particular project site. The nearest related project identified is the remaining buildout of the Canyons at Bighorn. As the New Preferred Alternative would result in a potentially significant noise impact during construction, it is anticipated that the cumulative noise impacts would remain potentially significant upon the Bighorn Institute. Cumulative roadway noise impacts following construction would be significant, as buildout of the Canyons at Bighorn would exceed the 3 dB CNEL incremental threshold along Cahuilla Way, east of SR-74 within the Canyons at Bighorn community. Although the New Preferred Alternative would contribute less than the 0.3 dBA noise levels identified for the Original Project, it would still contribute incrementally to cumulative noise levels resulting in significant cumulative noise impacts on Cahuilla Way. No cumulative noise impacts would result on other public or private roadway segments. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 53 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts H. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION The traffic conditions projected for the New Preferred Alternative follows closely the traffic projections for the Hillside Limited Alternative discussed in the Draft EIR. Therefore, the evaluation of traffic impacts resembles the traffic impacts discussed therein for the Preferred Alternative. As with the Original Project, the New Preferred Alternative would be subject to and would comply with the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, Riverside County Congestion Management Plan and Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program (TUMF). Furthermore, as the thresholds identified for the Original Project have not changed, the same thresholds were used for the analysis of traffic impacts below. 1. Impacts The New Preferred Alternative would result in substantially reduced construction traffic when compared with the Original Project due to the relative reduction in the amount of on-site grading and development. However, construction traffic associated with haul trucks importing fill soils would cause a short-term significant impact on private streets within the Canyons at Bighorn. As with the Original Project, the Preferred Alternative’s import of 35,900 cubic yards, is estimated with 64 haul truck trips per day resulting in an increase of 0.1 or more in the Traffic Intrusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index. It is noted that Mitigation Measure IV.C-2 is proposed above to reduce the amount of fill soils to be imported by the project to the extent feasible. However, the amount of haul truck trips alone that would be required to import even a somewhat reduced volume of fill to the project site via the Canyon’s private roadway system would be unexpected to Canyons at Bighorn residents, and perceived as intrusive. The New Preferred Alternative would result in a substantial reduction in both peak hour and daily trips when compared with the Original Project. Vehicular access would be provided from the east at Indian Cove via a cul-de-sac driveway that extends towards the southeastern corner of the project site. Accordingly, impacts to intersections and residential street segments would also be substantially less than that predicted for the Original Project. As with the Hillside Limited Alternative, the New Preferred Alternative would involve a nominal incremental addition of 19 daily vehicle trips to existing or future private traffic on the Indian Cove, Rock Creek, Canyon Drive private roadway segments within the Canyons at Bighorn. This small increase on any existing/future private street volume of 90 or more vehicles per day would not cause an increase of 0.1 in the TIRE index. Therefore, during operation of the Preferred Alternative, less than significant impacts would occur along the private roadways within the Canyons community under the Preferred Alternative, avoiding traffic impacts on the three private street segments of the Original Project. Parking for the New Preferred Alternative would be provided in accordance with the requirements of the City of Palm Desert Municipal Code. No significant blockage or significant City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 54 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts slow-down is anticipated along the private roads in Indian Cove, and primary emergency access to the Canyons development from the Mesquite Hills, east of SR-74, would be provided for the project site and would be maintained at all times including during project construction. As with the Original Project, the New Preferred Alternative would be subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) program administered by the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. As indicated on page 236 of the Draft EIR, the program imposes fees on development specifically to address transportation impacts on local arterials. The fees are then used for selected transportation improvement projects along the adopted arterial TUMF network. Payment of the TUMF fees would occur at the time of building permit issuance. Implementation of the New Preferred Alternative would not result in exceedance of the City’s level of service standards for any public roadway segments or intersections and would be subject to TUMF fees. Project traffic impacts to the public roadway system would remain less than significant. Overall, traffic impacts associated with the New Preferred Alternative would be less than the Original Project. However, as noted above construction traffic would be perceived as intrusive by the residents in the Canyons and thus would be considered significant and unavoidable. 2. Mitigation Measures Mitigation IV.C-2 is proposed above in Subsection C, Biological Resources, and is recommended to also reduce construction traffic impacts. The following below repeats the mitigation measure as presented above: Mitigation Measure IV.C-2: Site preparation and grading of the site shall be designed to balance on-site to minimize new import of fill materials to the extent feasible. Grading shall be restricted to that necessary for: 1) proposed building pad improvement and reasonable vehicular access from the Indian Cove section of the Canyons at Bighorn to access the residences, 2) development of proposed building pad elevations, and 3) reasonable foundation excavations. To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one- story above finished first floor elevations of 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. 3. Level of Significance After Mitigation With implementation of the mitigation measure above, construction traffic impacts would be reduced. However, as traffic impacts associated with the amount of fill to be imported cannot be ascertained to be reduced to less than significant levels, the New Preferred Alternative could City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 55 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress IV. Evaluation of Impacts result in a significant and unavoidable impact regarding construction traffic to the Canyons at Bighorn private roads. 4. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts of the New Preferred Alternative would be similar to the Original Project as discussed in the Draft EIR. Cumulative traffic impacts would be localized for all related projects and would largely affect areas immediately adjacent to or surrounding each particular project site. The nearest related project is the remaining buildout of the adjoining Canyons at Bighorn community. As such, the ongoing construction of that project along with the proposed Preferred Alternative, would result in potentially significant cumulative impacts during construction. No cumulative impacts are anticipated upon public roadway segments at roadway intersections operating at levels of service worse than LOS D. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 56 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress W/!!D PNQBSJTPOPG!U IF!O FX!Q SFGFSSFE!B MUFSOBUJWF“T!J NQBDUT X JUI!U IF!P SJHJOBM!Q SPKFDU“T!BOE!I JMMTJEF!M JNJUFE E FWFMPQNFOU!B MUFSOBUJWF“T!J NQBDUT V. COMPARISON OF THE NEW PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE’S IMPACTS WITH THE ORIGINAL PROJECT’S AND HILLSIDE LIMITED DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE’S IMPACTS The following comparison of impacts between the new Preferred Alternative and (1) the Original Project and (2) the Hillside Limited Alternative is intended to summarize the relevent conclusions presented in the Draft EIR and array them against comparable conclusions in this document relative to the Preferred Alternative. A. COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WITH THE ORIGINAL PROJECT A comparative summary of the environmental impacts attributable to the New Preferred Alternative and the Original Project, is provided in Table 3 on page 58. As shown therein, the implementation of the New Preferred Alternative would result in less environmental impacts for all the issue areas when compared with the Original Project. However, impacts of the New Preferred Alternative would still result in significant impacts to regional air quality during construction biological resources during construction and thereafter, construction noise, and construction traffic, notwithstanding the respective reduction in impact magnitude when compared to the Original Project. The New Preferred Alternative would have significant impacts to regional air quality during construction as it would exceed SCAQMD localized thresholds for NOx, whereas the Original Project would exceed regional thresholds for PM as well as localized thresholds for 10 NOx. In addition, if grading is implemented as proposed, construction noise impacts would result in potentially significant impacts to the captive sheep as construction activities would likely require more than three months to complete. Moreover, the impacts of various noise events on the Bighorn Institute may exceed the 3 dBA threshold. Furthermore, as the only access available for construction vehicles to the project site is through the Canyons at Bighorn community, the proposed import of 35,900 cubic yards for the New Preferred Alternative would result in significant impacts on the Canyons at Bighorn’s private roads. The potential of significance could be reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measure IV.C-2, which would reduce to the extent feasible the large import of fill soils and its associated impacts. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 57 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress V. Comparison of the New Preferred Alternative’s Impacts with the Original Project’s and Hillside limited Development Alternative’s Impacts Table 3 Comparison of Impacts of the Preferred Alternative With Impacts of the Original Project Preferred Alternative ab Issue Area Original project Impact (Preferred Two-Unit Alternative) Aesthetics Less Than Significant Less (less than significant) Air Quality Regional Construction Emissions Significant and Unavoidable Less (significant and unavoidable) Local Construction Emissions Significant and Unavoidable Less (less than significant) Regional Operation Emissions Less Than Significant Less (less than significant) Local Operation Emissions Less Than Significant Less (less than significant) Air Toxics Less Than Significant Less (less than significant) Biological Resources Nesting Birds Less Than Significant Less (less than significant) Sensitive Plant Species Less Than Significant Less (less than significant) Sensitive Wildlife Species Less Than Significant Less (less than significant) Big Horn Sheep Wild Sheep Less Than Significant Less (less than significant) Bighorn Institute Significant and Unavoidable Less (significant and unavoidable) Jurisdictional “Water of the US” Less Than Significant Less (less than significant) Hydrology Less Than Significant Less (less than significant) Land Use and Planning Less than significant Less (less than significant) Noise c Construction Significant and Unavoidable Less (potentially significant) c Operation Significant and Unavoidable Less (less than significant) c Traffic Noise Significant and Unavoidable Less (less than significant) c Other Operations Significant and Unavoidable Less (less than significant) Transportation/Circulation Construction Significant and Unavoidable Less (potentially significant) Operation Significant and Unavoidable Less (less than significant) a Indicates level of significance after mitigation. b If the impacts of the New Preferred Alternative are greater or less than the Original Project, the level of significance is indicated in parentheses. If the impacts of the New Preferred Alternative are similar to the Original Project, the level of significance is the same as the Original Project. c All of the significant and unavoidable noise impacts of the project are associated with the bighorn sheep within the lambing pen at the Bighorn Institute to the south of the project site. Source: PCR Services Corporation, January 2008. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 58 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress V. Comparison of the New Preferred Alternative’s Impacts with the Original Project’s and Hillside limited Development Alternative’s Impacts However, as it cannot be said with certainty that the amount of grading would be reduced sufficiently to reduce impacts to less than significant levels, impacts of the New Preferred Alternative on air quality, biological resources (the sheep within the lambing pen at the Bighorn Institute), noise, and traffic impacts to the Canyons at Bighorn community during construction, are considered significant even with mitigation. Nonetheless, as the New Preferred Alternative has been substantially reduced from the Original Project, impacts of the New Preferred Alternative would also be substantially less than the Original Project. The New Preferred Alternative would also achieve the Land Use Planning and Design Objectives set forth in the Draft EIR. However, as the economic value of the New Preferred Alternative is probably less than that of the Original Project, it probably would not achieve the Economic Objectives to the same degree. The New Preferred Alternative would be substantially more effective in achieving the stated Resource Conservation Objectives than the Original Project. As a result, the New Preferred Alternative may optimize a balance between the stated Economic and Resource Conservation Objectives. B. COMPARATIVE SUMMARY OF THE NEW PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WITH THE HILLSIDE LIMITED ALTERNATIVE A comparative summary of the environmental impacts attributable to the New Preferred Alternative and the Hillside Limited Alternative, is provided in Table 4, on page 60. As shown therein, the implementation of the New Preferred Alternative would result in similar environmental impacts for most of the issue areas when compared with the Hillside Limited Alternative. The New Preferred Alternative would be slightly larger than the Hillside Limited Alternative and would result in somewhat greater impacts regarding air quality, biological resources, construction noise, and construction traffic. As discussed above, the New Preferred Alternative would have significant impacts to regional air quality as it would exceed SCAQMD localized thresholds for NOx. In addition, if grading is allowed as proposed, construction noise impacts would result in potentially significant impacts to the captive sheep as construction activities would likely require more than three months to complete. Moreover, the impacts of various noise events on the Bighorn Institute may exceed the 3 dBA threshold. Furthermore, as the only access available for construction vehicles to the project site is through the Canyons at Bighorn development, the proposed import of 35,900 cubic yards for the New Preferred Alternative would result in significant traffic impacts to the Canyons at Bighorn’s private roads. The potential significance of this impact could be reduced with implementation of Mitigation City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 59 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress V. Comparison of the New Preferred Alternative’s Impacts with the Original Project’s and Hillside limited Development Alternative’s Impacts Table 4 Comparison of Impacts of the Preferred Alternative With Impacts of the Limited Hillside Alternative Hillside Limited AlternativePreferred Alternative ab Issue Area (2 Single-Family Units)(Preferred Two-Unit Alternative) Aesthetics Less than Significant Similar (less than significant) Air Quality c Regional Construction Emissions Less than Significant More (significant even with mitigation) Local Construction Emissions Less than Significant Similar (less than significant) Regional Operation Emissions Less than Significant Similar (less than significant) Local Operation Emissions Less than Significant Similar (less than significant) Air Toxics Less than Significant Similar (less than significant) Biological Resources Nesting Birds Less than Significant Similar (less than significant) Sensitive Plant Species Less than Significant Similar (less than significant) Sensitive Wildlife Species Less than Significant Similar (less than significant) Big Horn Sheep Wild Sheep Less than Significant Similar (less than significant) Bighorn Institute Less than Significant More (significant even with mitigation) Jurisdictional “Water of the US” Less than Significant Similar (less than significant) Hydrology Less than Significant Similar (less than significant) Land Use and Planning Less than Significant Similar (less than significant) Noise c Construction Less than Significant More (potentially significant even with mitigation) Operation Less than Significant Similar (less than significant) Traffic Noise Less than Significant Similar (less than significant) Other Operations Less than Significant Similar (less than significant) Transportation/Circulation c Construction Less than Significant More (potentially significant even with mitigation) Operation Less than Significant Similar (less than significant) a Indicates level of significance after mitigation. b If the impacts of the New Preferred Alternative are greater or less than the Original Project, the level of significance is indicated in parentheses. If the impacts of the New Preferred Alternative are similar to the Original Project, the level of significance is the same as the Original Project. c These significant and potentially significant impacts are associated with the construction truck traffic that would occur if the amount of fill/ grading would not be extensively reduced beyond that currently proposed. As this cannot be determined at this time, impacts are considered significant and potentially significant even with mitigation. Source: PCR Services Corporation, January 2008. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 60 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress V. Comparison of the New Preferred Alternative’s Impacts with the Original Project’s and Hillside limited Development Alternative’s Impacts Measure IV.C-2, which would reduce to the extent feasible the large import of fill soils and its associated impacts. However, since it cannot be said with certainty that the amount of imported fill and grading could be feasibly reduced to result in impacts of less than significant levels, impacts of the New Preferred Alternative on air quality, biological resources regarding the sheep within the lambing pen at the Bighorn Institute, noise, and traffic impacts to the Canyons at Bighorn during construction, are considered significant even with mitigation. As such, impacts of the New Preferred Alternative would still be somewhat more than with the Hillside Limited Alternative. The New Preferred Alternative would achieve the Land Use Planning, Design Objectives, and Economic Objectives set forth in the Draft EIR more than the Hillside Limited Alternative. In comparison, the Hillside Limited Alternative would be more effective in achieving the stated Resource Conservation Objectives than the Preferred Alternative. However, as the New Preferred Alternative would avoid the possibility of an inverse condemnation action against the City, the New Preferred Alternative may optimize a balance between the stated objectives in the Draft EIR and the new objectives set forth in this document. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 61 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress WJ/!!N JUJHBUJPO!N POJUPSJOHBOE!S FQPSUJOH!Q SPHSBN; Q SFGFSSFE!B MUFSOBUJWF VI. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM: NEW PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, which requires adoption of a MMRP for projects in which the Lead Agency has required changes or adopted mitigation to avoid significant environmental effects. The City of Palm Desert (City) is the lead agency for the proposed Cornishe of Bighorn Project and is, therefore, responsible for administering and implementing the MMRP. The decision-makers must define specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements to be enforced during project implementation prior to final approval of the proposed project. The primary purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the EIR and any subsequent changes in the mitigation measures included in this document are implemented, thereby minimizing identified environmental effects. The MMRP for the New Preferred Alternative would be in place throughout all phases of the project, including during design (pre-construction), construction, and operations (post construction both prior to and post-occupancy). The Community Development Department shall be responsible for administering the MMRP activities via staff, other City departments (e.g., Department of Building and Safety, Department of Public Works, etc.), consultants, and contractors. Furthermore, the Community Development Department will also ensure that monitoring is documented through reports and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The designated environmental monitor (e.g., City building inspector, project contractor, certified professionals, etc., depending on the provisions specified below) will track and document compliance with mitigation measures, note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to remedy problems. Each mitigation measure is cited within the environmental topic for which an impact needing mitigation has been identified (e.g., air quality or hydrology), with accompanying identification of: The enforcement agency; The monitoring agency; The monitoring phase (i.e., the phase of the project during which the measure should be monitored); Pre-construction City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 62 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: Preferred Alternative * Construction Post-construction (prior to and post-occupancy) The monitoring frequency; and The action indicating compliance with the mitigation measure(s). A. AESTHETICS Mitigation Measure IV.A-1: All open areas not used for buildings, roadways, driveways, parking areas, or walkways shall be landscaped to reduce visibility of the project improvements from adjacent properties in accordance with a Landscape Plan to be prepared by a licensed landscape architect to the satisfaction of the Community Development/Planning Department. The Landscape Plan shall specify plant materials, heights upon planting or box sizes, and locations. Remaining existing natural landscape areas shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the landscape plan. Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Phase: Pre-construction and Post-construction Monitoring Frequency: Plan check review (landscape plan) and annually during project operation (maintenance) Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Issuance of building permits and compliance certification report submitted by the applicant Mitigation Measure IV.A-2: All night lighting installed within the project site shall be shielded and directed in a manner so that such lighting does not shine upwards or towards the lambing pen to the south of the project site and thus, is generally not visible from the existing sheep pens. In addition, lighting shall * For the purposes of this document, construction is defined as grading, excavation, framing, siding, roofing, landscaping, installation of doors and windows, and any interior work that utilizes pneumatic tools or compressors that would be located outside the proposed residences. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 63 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: Preferred Alternative not be a high glare type of lighting, shall be directed away from the nearby residential uses and shall be confined to the site. Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase: Pre-construction and Post-construction Monitoring Frequency: Plan check review and final inspection Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Approval of site plans and issuance of Certificate of Occupancy B. AIR QUALITY Mitigation Measure IV.B-1: Water three times daily or non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied, according to manufacturers’ specifications, as needed to reduce off-site transport of fugitive dust from all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces. Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works Monitoring Phase: Construction Monitoring Frequency: Throughout construction during field inspection Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly compliance certification report submitted by project contractor Mitigation Measure IV.B-2: All private streets shall be swept as needed during construction, but not more frequently than hourly, if visible soil material has been carried onto adjacent public paved roads. Enforcement Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works Monitoring Phase: Construction Monitoring Frequency: Throughout construction during field inspection City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 64 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: Preferred Alternative Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly compliance certification report submitted by project contractor Mitigation Measure IV.B-3: Construction equipment shall be visually inspected prior to leaving the site and loose dirt shall be washed off with wheel washers as necessary. Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works Monitoring Phase: Construction Monitoring Frequency: Throughout construction during field inspection Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly compliance certification report submitted by project contractor Mitigation Measure IV.B-4: All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase: Construction Monitoring Frequency: Throughout construction during field inspection Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly compliance certification report submitted by project contractor Mitigation Measure IV.B-5: General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment so as to minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues shall have their engines turned off when not in use, to reduce vehicle emissions. Construction activities should be phased and scheduled to avoid emissions peaks and discontinued during second-stage smog alerts. Enforcement Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 65 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: Preferred Alternative Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase: Construction Monitoring Frequency: Throughout construction during field inspection Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly compliance certification report submitted by project contractor Mitigation Measure IV.B-6: To the extent possible, petroleum powered construction activity shall utilize electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel power generators and/or gasoline power generators. Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase: Construction Monitoring Frequency: Throughout construction during field inspection Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly compliance certification report submitted by project contractor Mitigation Measure IV.B-7: On-site mobile equipment shall be powered by alternative fuel sources (i.e., methanol, natural gas, propane or butane) as feasible. Enforcement Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase: Post-construction Monitoring Frequency: Field inspection Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly compliance certification report submitted by project applicant Mitigation Measure IV.B-8: The Applicant shall, as feasible, install solar or low- emission water heaters that exceed the requirements of the national Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) and the American Society of Heating, City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 66 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: Preferred Alternative Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), to reduce energy consumption. Enforcement Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Design Review Committee Monitoring Phase: Design Review Monitoring Frequency: Pre-construction and Post-construction Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Approval by Design Review Board Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure IV. B-9: The Applicant shall, as feasible, install energy-efficient appliances (i.e., ENERGY STAR) to reduce energy consumption. Enforcement Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Design Review Committee Monitoring Phase: Design Review Monitoring Frequency: Pre-construction and Post-construction Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Approval by Design Review Board Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Measure IV.C-1: Garage openings shall be oriented easterly away from the lambing pens to the maximum extent practicable. Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase: Pre-construction Monitoring Frequency: Design Review Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Issuance of building permits and a Certificate of Occupancy City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 67 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: Preferred Alternative Mitigation Measure IV.C-2: Site preparation and grading of the site shall be designed to balance on-site to minimize new import of fill materials to the extent feasible. Grading shall be restricted to that necessary for 1) reasonable vehicular access from the Indian Cove section of the Canyons at Bighorn to access the residences, 2) development of proposed building pad elevations, and 3) reasonable foundation excavations. To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations of 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works Monitoring Phase: Pre-construction, Construction Monitoring Frequency: Pre-construction and during grading activities Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Issuance of City building and grading permits Mitigation Measure IV.C-3: The proposed residences shall be designed so that, to the maximum extent practicable, all activities and facilities associated with their occupancy, including indoor and outdoor residency, landscape and other maintenance, mechanical equipment, recreational facilities, etc., be located to the north of the residences or screened from view from the lambing pen by walls high enough to be effective. Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase: Design Review Monitoring Frequency: Pre-construction Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Issuance of building permits and Certificate of Occupancy Mitigation Measure IV.C-4: No construction activities, as defined in this document, * should occur during the lambing season, which extends from January to June. * For the purposes of this document, construction is defined as grading, excavation, framing, siding, roofing, landscaping, installation of doors and windows, and any interior work that utilizes pneumatic tools or compressors that would be located outside the proposed residences. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 68 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: Preferred Alternative If any construction activities should occur during the nesting season that stst extends beyond the lambing season (July 1 to August 31), all suitable habitat in the development/ disturbance area of the project shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist prior to removal. If any active nests are detected within a 300-foot buffer of the construction activity, a buffer of at least 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete or the nest has failed as determined by the biological monitor. Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Phase: Pre-construction and Construction Monitoring Frequency: Field inspections prior to construction if during the st nesting season from February 15 to August 31 and during all times of vegetation removal Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Field inspection sign-off and issuance of certification report by biologist Mitigation Measure IV.C-5: A biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey, per USFWS protocols, to ensure that no desert tortoises are affected by the project. If it is determined that tortoises may be affected, a desert tortoise conservation plan addressing the appropriate construction management and ongoing operational practices shall be prepared. Enforcement Agency:US Fish and Wildlife Service Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Phase:Pre-construction Monitoring Frequency:Prior to commencement of construction Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Field inspection sign-off and issuance of certification report by biologist Mitigation Measure IV.C-6: A pre-construction survey, conducted according to reserve agency protocols, shall be performed in order to ensure that no burrowing owls are affected by the project. If it is determined that burrowing owls may City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 69 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: Preferred Alternative be affected, a burrowing owl conservation plan addressing the appropriate construction management and ongoing operational practices shall be prepared. Enforcement Agency:US Fish and Wildlife Service Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Phase:Pre-construction Monitoring Frequency:Prior to commencement of construction Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Field inspection sign-off and issuance of certification report by biologist Mitigation Measure IV.C-7: In order to minimize stress and disturbance to Peninsular bighorn sheep at the Bighorn Institute, no dogs shall be permitted on the project site, either as residents or as visitors. Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Phase:Post Construction Monitoring Frequency:Periodic Field Inspections Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly compliance certification report by City of Palm Desert Department of Community Development Mitigation Measure IV.C-8: A permanent fence/and or wall shall be constructed around the developed parts of the project site to prevent free-roaming sheep from entering developed areas. The design and location of the fence and/or wall shall be developed in consultation with a biologist and the Bighorn Institute. No landscaping or surface water shall be allowed to occur outside the fence to prevent sheep from being attracted to the site and exposed to danger or human activity. Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 70 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: Preferred Alternative Monitoring Phase:Pre-construction and Construction Monitoring Frequency:Prior to construction and periodic field inspections Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Compliance certification report by a qualified biologist Mitigation Measure IV.C-9: In the event the CVMSHCP is adopted, the Applicant shall pay a Local Development Mitigation Fee if he/she chooses to avoid biological survey requirements, analysis of impacts and mitigation. The estimated Local Development Mitigation Fee is $5,730 per acre of Development for the first year of Plan implementation. (The average annual increase of the Local Development Mitigation Fee is projected at 3.29 percent.) Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Phase:Pre-construction Monitoring Frequency:Prior to Project Approval Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Receipt/ Report of compliance by appropriate regulatory agency D. NOISE Mitigation Measures for noise impacts include Mitigation Measures IV.C-1 through IV.C-4 above, in addition to the following: Canyons at Bighorn Mitigation Measure IV.G-1: Construction equipment shall be fitted with residential grade mufflers, where readily available in the construction equipment fleet that regularly serves the City of Palm Desert area. Prospective contractors shall demonstrate a good faith effort to locate such construction equipment for use throughout the duration of project construction. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 71 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: Preferred Alternative Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Phase:Construction Monitoring Frequency:Periodic field inspections Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Periodic field inspection sign-off and quarterly compliance certification report by the applicant or contractor Mitigation Measure IV.G-2: To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of heavy equipment simultaneously. Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase:Construction Monitoring Frequency:Periodic field inspections, especially during the rainy season (October 15 through April 1) Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Periodic field inspection sign-off and quarterly compliance certification report by contractor Mitigation Measure IV.G-3: Engine idling from construction equipment such as bulldozers and haul trucks shall be limited, to the extent feasible. Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works Monitoring Phase:Pre-construction and Construction Monitoring Frequency:Plan check review, periodic field inspections Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Issuance of building permit and Certificate of Occupancy City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 72 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: Preferred Alternative Mitigation Measure IV.G-4: The construction staging area shall be located as far as feasible from sensitive receptors. Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase:Construction Monitoring Frequency:Periodic field inspections Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Periodic field inspection sign-off and quarterly compliance certification report by contractor Mitigation Measure IV.G-5: Construction activities shall be limited to between the st hours of 6:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday from July 1 th through September 30 and between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., stst Monday through Friday from October 1 through December 31. On Saturdays, construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. No construction shall be allowed on Sundays, Federal holidays or during the January through June lambing season. Such limitation shall be placed as a condition on the grading permit in a manner meeting the approval of the City Engineer. Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works Monitoring Phase:Construction Monitoring Frequency:Plan check review, periodic field inspections Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Issuance of grading permit by City Engineer Mitigation Measure IV.G-6:Power maintenance equipment shall not be used along the southern side of the buildings nearest the Bighorn Institute lambing pens. Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Phase:Construction and Post-construction City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 73 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: Preferred Alternative Monitoring Frequency:Periodic field inspections Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Periodic field inspection sign-off and annual compliance certification report by applicant Mitigation Measure IV.G-7: Stationary equipment (i.e., pool machinery and HVAC equipment) shall be designed so as to be enclosed on all sides. In addition, mechanical equipment for the residences shall be located on the northern side of the buildings or screened from view from the lambing pen by walls high enough to be effective. Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase:Pre-construction and Post-construction Monitoring Frequency:Plan check review, periodic field inspections Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly compliance certification report submitted by applicant for three years after the conclusion of construction Mitigation Measure IV.G-8: Additional CC&Rs shall be developed that implement noise restrictions in the development and especially in the southwestern portion of the project site. These would include restrictions on fireworks, gas powered blowers, the use of loud vehicles and management of on-site celebrations or similar events. Enforcement Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Community Development Monitoring Agency:City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and Safety Monitoring Phase:Construction and Post-construction Monitoring Frequency:Plan check review, periodic field inspections Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Periodic field inspection sign-off and quarterly compliance certification report by applicant for three years after the conclusion of construction City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 74 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress VI. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program: Preferred Alternative E. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Mitigation Measure IV.C-2 above is also proposed to reduce potential transportation and circulation impacts of the Preferred Alternative. City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 75 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress WJJ/!!M JTU!PG!Q SFQBSFST VII. LIST OF PREPARERS LEAD AGENCY - CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT City of Palm Desert Department of Community Development 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Lauri Aylaian, Community Development Director Phillip Joy, Associate Planner DOCUMENT PREPARATION PCR Services Corporation 233 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 130 Santa Monica, California 90401 Greg Broughton, President Steve Nelson, Senior Vice-President/Director of Biological Resources Ailene Batoon, Associate Planner Maile Tanaka, Associate Biologist Everest Yan, Engineer Amy Kidd, Associate Air Quality Scientist Sean Bui, Principal Acoustics Consultant Terry Keelan, Publications Manager Natasha Mapp, Publications Specialist Greg Spalek, Director of Graphics and Technology Services Henry Mateo, Graphics Specialist PROJECT APPLICANT Cornishe of Bighorn, LLC P. O. Box 789 Ceres, California 95307 City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn PCR Services Corporation March 2008 Page 76 PRELIMINARY WORKING DRAFT – Work in Progress pe, - 74-000 1 a+' 4 Y � K n ice LO - 73-000 41,�j Z1-�-L'C IT.�1�r� ��72-0001 -"tba, � tl tigyy dlddl9.idilYANiYd 1 Wit I Craig Anthony Fire Chief Proudly serving the unincorporated areas of Riverside County and the Cities of: Banning Beaumont Calimesa Canyon Lake Coachella Desert Hot Springs Indian Wells Indio r. Lake Elsinore La Quinta Moreno Valley Palm Desert Perris Rancho Mirage San Jacinto Temecula Board of Supervisors Bob Buster, District 1 John Tavaglione, District 2 Jim Venable, District 3 Roy Wilson, District 4 Marion Ashley, District 5 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT In cooperation with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 73710 Fred Waring Dr. #102 • Palm Desert, California 92260 • (760) 346-1870 • Fax (760) 779-1959 Cove Fire Marshal's Office 73710 Fred Waring Drive #102 Palm Desert CA 92260 (760) 346-1870 TO: t " A Flu( u REF: �� �- If circled, conditions apply to project DATE: q With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced project, the fire department recommends the following fire protection, measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Code, NFPA, CFC, and CBC or any recognized Fire Protection Standards: The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the _31 A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the iob site. Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a j gpm flow of 3l 1500 gpm for single family dwellings 4. 2500 gpm for multifamily dwellings 5. 3000 gpm for commercial buildings The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant (s) 4"x 2 rh" x 2 %z", located not less than 25' nor more than: 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travelway 7. 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via vehicular travelway 8. 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via 9.J Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include / verification that the water system that the water system will produce the required fire flowthe required fire flow. 10. Please be advised the proposal project may not be feasible since the existing water mains will not meet the required fire flow. 11. Install a complete NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. This applies to all buildings with a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area. The Fire Marshal shall approve the locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections. All valves and connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and within 50' of an approved hydrant. Exempted are one and two family dwellings 12. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water -flow switches shall be monitored and alarmed per CBC Chapter 9 11 Install a fire alarm system as required by the UBC Chapter 3 14. Install portable fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A1 OBC extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire extinguisher is required in all commercial kitchens 15. Install a Hood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all public and private cooking operations except single-family residential usage 16. Install a dust collecting system per CFC Chapter 76 if conducting an operation that produces airborne particles. 17. All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn -around, 55' in industrial developments 18. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over -ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16' with minimum 19. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal. Under no circumstance shall a dead end over 1300' be accepted. 20. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadwav or a emergency gate from an adjoining_ development 21. This project may require licensing by a state or county agency, to facilitate plan review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of intent detailing the proposed usage and occupancy type c1ty. 23 All fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alarm plans must be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for ap roval prior to construction 24. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when building permits are not obtained within twelve months 25. All elevators shall be minimum gurney size All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the Fire Marshal's Office at (760) 346-1870 in Palm Desert. Location: 73710 Fred Waring Drive #102, Palm Desert CA 92260 Other: Sincerely, avid A. Avila Fire Marshal gygy (WD < z z Old w 0 110 0 , LD ------------- ATTACHMENT NVIII - ATTACHMENT "A" Proposed S } CLASSIFICATION DECISION -The following Public lands have been examined and found suitable for lease, with option to purchase, under the Recreation and Public Purpose .are approved. (R&PP). Act of June 14, k1926 (44 Stat 74) as amended, and the petition for classification for these lands T. 6 S.,. R. 6 E., S.B.B.M., Section 6, Lot 7, E1/2 SW1/4, E1y2 X-WI/4 SWI/4, SEI/4 (297.34 acres) .This•decision is based upon the following reasons. 1. "If the lands are found to be suitable for disposal, consideration under the criteria of this part will be given to whether the lands are needed for urban or suburban purposes or whether they are cheifly valuable for other purposes.. Lands found to be valuable for public purposes will.be considered chiefly valuable for public purposes, except in situations where alternate sites are available to meet the public needs involved." (43 CFR 2430.2(b).) 2. "The lands must be physically suitable or adaptable to the use or purposes fo'r which they are classified. In addition, they must have such physical and other characteristics as the law may require then to ha a particular classification." (43 CFR 2410.1(a).) ve to qualify for 3. "All present and potential uses and users of the lands will be taken into consideration. All other things being equal, land.classifications will attempt to achieve maximum future use and minimum disturbance to or dislo=_ cation of existing users." (43 CFR 2410.1f1b);) 4. "All land classifications must be consistent .with State and local government programs, plans, zoning, and regulations applicable to the area in which 'the lands to be classified are located to the extent such State and local programs, plans, zoning; and regulations are not inconsistent with Federal programs, policies, and uses, and will not lead to inequities among private individuals." (43 CFR 2410.1(c)l,) 3. "All. land classifications must be consistent with Federal- programs and policies, to the extent that•thase programs and policies affect the' use or disposal of the public lands." (43 CFR 2410.1(d).) The lands petitioned for comply with the above regulations. Classification of these lands under the above cited Recreation and Public .Purpose Act will segregate them from all appropriations, including locations under minimg laws, except as to appli- cations under the mineral leasing laws and applications under the Recreation and Public Purpose Act. the following petition for classification is hereby. approved: Name of Petitioner: The Desert Bighorn Research Instlitute:(CA-14622) Mame of Petition: Recreation and Public Purpose L4 e e ater For the State Director 2 List of Weviewers Bonner Blong Mr. Ramon A. -Diaz qox 161, 55050 Strong Drive f n Director of Environmental Services -n Idyl lwi I d, Ca I if orni a. 92349 City City of Palm Desert P lm•D t =7: 9 - P.O. 1977 x Box 19 7 University Uni ' versity of California P 4Llm L.. C lif Palm Desert, California 9226 Deep Canyon Research Center* P4.0. Box 1738 Palm Desert, California 92261 Ms. Patricia Larson, Vice Chairman Riverside County Board of Supervisors P.O. Drawer 1330 University of California Indio, California 92202 ATTN: Dr. Wilbur W. Kayhew Riverside.. California 92502 Mr. James R. DeForge Living Desert Museum Desert B49horn Sheep Research Institute P.O. Box 262 ATTN: Karen Sausman, Director Palm* Desert, California 92261 47-900 South Portola Avenue Palm Desert, California 92261 Ironwood Country Club 49 , 200 M6riposa Drive Palm. Desert, California 92261 California Department of Fish and Game Environmental Services 245 W. Broadway, Suite 350 Long Beach,. California 96802 Mr. Roger Streeter, Director. Riverside Planning Department*-, 4080 Lemon, 9th-Floor -Riverside, California 92501. Assemblyman Steve Clutes-. Uo Lisa.Harrison 45-235 Towne Str6et, #2 Indio, California 92201 Ms.. Kay Ceniceros, Chairman Riverside County Supervisors .4080 Lemon, 14th Floor* Riverside, California 92561 t 0 t 12 T y .. ... f + - 1 '?$• , F'.:. f �', j �� is 12 '�7Xtf��.itl: .`,ll;luj i;' .s �C;'G..�,,-�.C: :•>>...,: T- � .I ( - - �ee� - - w.w 17, yrr �. �- t < 1 "ji WWI VIM- 29 .6r--+r!{t� urlS _C, 7t \`�,.�.�.r .,. .me�r......'r.....r 3 �%,+«'Qi/��`t`'y�.}- t�{"••i�+^ til:.: '- ~' �`'I �LY.-, , Ai f Ml ILA � ti � \ t ' i 5 �., '``!• �i' ' `tip l:, � . � � •,'�• �. is •. v.. , G , � � t .i t''�=. k •v, � `^ ��t ter rJ f.� ' � � f �..'.'v;%'\ j ...- � ,:l � l � ' •�a•.1� v (;� �` M •� `r+`:r_ .��^;�t41 n1 :.' ��` ,-i^�L' �~;� _ Lc_%I �,.,.,L'�a .v C. l .-'e^ S "••'�^, i..._"�'• :r . tea'•;. ...-.� .L� 3Y+ . 77 •'^ '!- '�, �^'�'' y��,,.,•-� S, - ;ham/ f � 5 y^.r�T+ . r I ` . ` J, CA-14622 Y MAP - OESER- BIGHORN RESEARCH INSTITUTE PROJECT - -- i ATTACHMENT .NIX _ Environmental .Asses'merit - ' EA XCA-066-4-4 I. Background ' The Desert Bighorn Sheep Research Institute, a 'nonprofit organization, has applied for a Recreation and Public Purpose permit (R&PP) for, public land in the northern 'Santa Rosa Mountains, Riverside County. 'The- Institute is working in the Santa Rosa Mountains in cooperation with with the California Department of Fish and Game (CUF&G) to study diseases and related lamb mortality in the rare Peninsular bighorn sheep herd in the Santa Rosa Mountains. l.ocaL ion The site is located d6e east of the junction of Dead Indian Canyon and Highway 74 in the Santa Rosa Mountains (T. 6 S., R. 6 E.,.Sect.i.on 6, Lot 7, E1/2 SWIM, E1/2 NWl/4 SW1/4, SE1/4). The R&PP applica,tion*•encoin- passes all public land (297.34 acres) in the southern hair• of this section. The tract is situated at the -base of*the Santa Rosa Mountains and includes a portion of the rugged mountain terrain, a small terrace, and a wash at the northern edge of the boundary. Access can be gained to the property via a dirt road south of the wash off Highway 74. III. 'Proposed Action The Institute plans to augment _existing pen facilities with the followifn� permanent improvements, -. access road -(grave;]) 12' x 3,300' off .Highway *-74 - electrical service, buried because of Scenic Highway requirements - water well, septic tank - laboratory faci i ities - parking lot - museum/Institute he.adquarters - ram pens —.permanent shelters inside of pens Affected Environment IY, Veaetation Vegetation at the site includes both creosote bush scrub and desert wash communities. Dominant plant species on the rocky hillsides include creosote bush, brittle bush, and burrobush. Occassional ocotillo and barrel cactus occur here also. Perennial vegetation in the dry washes includes desert avendar, sweeLbush, indigo bu and brandegea, among many others.' This vey-eitation Js fairly common in the Colorado cLes.ert, .but is decreasing in areas.wiLhin the Coachella Va-lley due to extensive urban expans.ion. A records check OF Indio Resource,Area files -and California tlative* Plant Society Rare Plant maps indicatedra pa'ssibility OF suitable habitat at this site for a rare and andangered perennial plant species, "California ditaxis" (Ditaxis calif--ornica). This species grows in sandy -soil In the Coachella and TF"GcTwa'Fl"�� �Vaeys, often at the base of mountains in sma 11 'washes' "California ditaxis" is a candidate for federal listing and is a BEM sensitive species. Although the soil and topography appeared to be potential habitat for this plant, no individuals of this species were observed on site. The rocky hillside habitat also to be included inside pens ts not expected to support any rare or endangered plants. Wildlife* The project area is located within the Santa Rusa Habitat Management Area which was established for the inanagement of the State listed rare Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis). One OF the primary concerns in finding a location for _the h7oT—nT�Tns was to minimize any impacts .,to the Santa Rosa herd. The applicant selected this location in colisul- tation with OLk staff' biologists becauseofits relative isolation from the rest OF the range and easy access. There are no water sources Iccated nearby and the ridge was not considered bighorn sheep habitat in the habitat. map developed jointly. by the GLM and CDF&G for the Santa Rosa HIMP (1980).',:K6 evidehce OF bighorn sheep use was observed oil site. There are -no other. rare, threatened, 'endangered, or sensitive- species known to occur on. site.*, Archaeology/Native American Concerns While the project* falls within an area of low/unknown cultural resource sensitivity (Desert Plan Sensitivity Maps), it adjoins an area of very high sensitivity (Polygon 451). Most of the sites in this polygon are located in Deep Canyon. Ethnographic records indicate th'at the area was used for seasonal collecting and Minting' of deer and bighorn sheep. A field inspection of the prope'rty vias made on November 7,- 1983. The terrace was surveyed at-100% level. Other purtion's of, the site were -selectively s6 * rveyed based on the terrain's like-lihood to C-untain artifacts. No archaeological materials were loca'ted. Anticipated fmpacts, Vegetation Construct ton OF the access road, permanent sheep shelters, museum and parking lot will result in the removal of -approximately 10 acres OF F, native vegetation. This will cause either long-tdrin or permanent removal of habitat for native plants at -the site. Vagetatign will also be disturbed during construction of buriid electrical linesandseptic facilities, but this will nut result in permanent removal of habitat. Construction of these facilities may alter the drainage.of run-off through the site, and consequently affect the vigor of individual plants in the wash. Natural drainage patterns in this area have already been changed by construction of flood diversion dikes, but further construc- tion may again affect distribution and vigor of vegetation established in the washes. Some surface disturbance will occur during construction of fences for the proposed rain pens, but because the fence is to' bebuiltby'hand, the impacts .should De negligJule. However, vegetatio-6 inside the enclosures may experience a decline- in vigor and total biomass due to browsing' by., bighorn sheep in a confined area. These impacts 'are expected to be negligitile when viewed on a desertwide scope. The proposed facilities are not expected to impact threatened or endan- gered plant species, although the area was suspected to support *4abitat suitable for California ditaxis (Ditaxis, califdrnica), a rare species, found locally in similar habitat. 1nJ iduals of this species were not observed by 8L14 staff when the site was field surveyed on November 7, although habitat did appear suitable.- i wildlife There will be minimal impacts to wildlife as a result of this project. Peninsular` bighorn sheep are not expected to be impacted because ecause of the. isolated nature of this ridge. Impacts to general wildlife will be related to the minor surface disturbance resulting from construction and increased grazing pressure within the pen areas. The impacts are not expected to significantly alter the wildlife values of the general area although the numbers of rodents on site and predator use on site is expected to drop because of the human'presence and in -creased grazing pressure. 'No -threatened or endaii9ered wildlife species are expected to be impacted. Cultural Resburces Because of the lack of archaeological sites, 'no impacts are expected to result from the proposed *project. Since most of the property will be us, for bighorn sheep, nhich are indigeno'tiis to the area and were. hunted here by Native Americans, no impacts are anticipated to Native American con - terns. Indeed, the put -pose of the project is to study aeclining bighorn populations in an attemp.t to increase herd health and numbers. If the project is successful, it may enhance the survival of a species of great sign.ificanc'e to Native Americans. 3 ?_S19 THu i %a SJH S P 08 t . C _ _ F � v 1 Recommended Mitigating Measures The Desert Bighorn Sheep Research Institute should.provide the BLM Indio Resource Area Office with copies of all progress and final reports, and an annual update on all actions taken on public land, including construc- tion of facilities, and stbdies undertaken. Consultation and Coordination The following groups were contacted concerning this project: University of California Philip L. Boyd Deep Canyon.. Research Center Cal i.forn i a Department of Fish and Game List of Preparers Faye Davis: ..Wildlife Biologist, Team Leader' Robin Kobal•y: Botani st Judyth Reed: Archaeologist Mark Hatchel: Realty Specialist 4 4 III ...... T VIE-*IOR;N0UM•-?PRAISAL REPORT R&PP BIG HORN RESEARCH INSTI:UTE - CA-I4622 I L_cA•sc ?KITH OPTION TO PATE"tT The lands involved in t - o e su�,_b-je ct 2.,7.34 acre parcel are is^d;ocked. As such, ac ti:i_ ;i e t1lere is ro le-_-: accEss (e n road cCC2S=^i5 prEScn:i;/ arOViG�_'' b� �, r a,, yT`XiS�i � .2c:Se`a�Cj a•1t!icusi rhJshc31 _ 4 0.- 055ins an ad,jacant PHva.te owner. The _ i; the are! reliects reds a la. •' a l Ior�.rcperzies now os i 2 n' Utility arm ower fz r marnet. `clue � o $?551i1: aqa i road access. 2 • w T _ is trs. in face of the face• !:,hat s'rrcur._-r3 are is under ge^=rd i expdnsi0n and tr3n•s' _iC7 to h-t,her Value r siren id a C�.^ErCtc� C2'1210C'2E:�- c. e t _,r y " _ h estimated value 0, .he sub,e_t lands a r- acre asis is SRO::_ ih.e aco',ice, in c - t• ' RZPP is r^ ed - �`' 3 = r�^F.esearcn .-s:i Jte, under, an :,;-a�:t, Gu_: i' s ��r c"C:, r_ uc:ycr representing Basic Pul- U a' o' C a;.a 2C Y.oi :c Supper_ under S,c 2-•q� ., • - 6eel I, t siectioce n c - C / l..!'_', -1-;.1 ,�c� ai. i ;2�d insa2ction c Or SUE. e has =n cC:r.,)letea. %_:,.::pare le 5n1 � r - o es da a I;c sucpor, of th;s 3ppr %sal j` cn �cc^ca-:ale ;o the s�b?ec_•T nd$ are d; tailed under .TL::eculla appraisal -2�-0•�-.' for Pus iC Sale - C� 15 ' •e . n .._:l�, ,,_pro (iraa. C-c :a'.cJ:c?t.3d as �,7T1:(�, G, UM , c �c -797-14 nir25 A 3=-O. pzr r'.rr6 _ S 1 c:^ 7GLI. l ,r v :43,iCO Y _..t Ra:e of neiurr. - .D,--= .t'Q �J`-i.;. S:c,35i.vO t�i:.;s Gi":.� ..:.=? ;':1;•.:r:Ce = a 5,5=.',.r`O-,2:::, -;:✓%• =.�s� pJ;J'/ �v . Rounded to: 5 o,EEI;". CO per y=+r 41 -r _y: ert Lac ar?d' CD - O-istric-- :'pyra:ser Jure 20, 19E4 �`'..�`;-� „ten_ �!'i L..�,•: rppr,,,':ed s :•ii I i la' :i. ;;e1sJn r 41� -. ----- -- --- - =:,� 7—as T H U I P - Ila RECOMMENDATION/RATIONALE I. Recommendation It Is recommended that a 20 year lease be issued to the Bighorn Research Institute, for the purpose of establishing a bighorn sheep laboratory to study diseases and related lamb mortality in the Peninsular bighorn sheep herd in the Santa Rosa Mountains of -Riverside 'County in California. The Institute and its auxiliary facilities*would be located on: T. 6 S., R. 6 E., S.B.B.m., Secton 6, Lot 7, E 1/2 SW 1/4,' E 1/2 NW 1/4 SW 1/4, SE 1/4. (297.34 acres) 2 The rental should be reduced by 60% to reflect the following public benefits: 1. Basic. Public Benefit Allowance: 40% 2. Public Support Allowance: 20% 3. it Is 'also recommended that a stipulation be added to the lease requiring the lessee to submit yearly reports on the.methods and results of all research activities conducted on the subject lands.. The lands are physically suited for the proposed use.. The environmental impacts are considered to be insignificant 'Compared to the benefits obtained from the research of Bighorn sheep diseases. All present and potential uses and users have been taken -into consideration. No -local, State or Federal programs would be adversely affected. The authority to.lease or convey public lands for the proposed use is granted'to the Secretary under the Rdcreatlo'n and Public .Purposes Act of, June 14,,.1926, as amended (43 U.S.C. 669 et seq.) Mark Hatchel ate U t__ -_; ri H I P 0 19 17 Serial Mc A-14622 LAND REPORT AND DECISION RECORD 'Type of Action R&PP Lease District California Desert Applicant's Name Bighorn Research Institute Resource Area Indio Address P.O.-Box 262 k State California Palm Desert, CA 92261-0262 County Riverside LANDS INVOLVED Township Range Meridian Section §Ljbd iyi sid.n Acres Length Width 6 S. 6 E. S. B. B..11 6 lot- 7,E1jNWNSW1%,SE11i,E�.SWJi 297.34 A. Environmental Compliance - We have reviewed the environmental assessment prepared to analyze the environmental effects of the proposed action and have determined that the.. proposed action and approved mitigation measures would not have significant environmental effects on the human env.ironment. Therefore, an environmental impact statement is not required'to further analyze the environmental efforts of the proposed action. Environmental'Assessment reviewed by-: /I qk- Area Manager Date. .Environmental CoordfnatorDate I.concur : ACTING Di st-r ict Manager �L2! Ir-LDate B. Review/Decision Review. I have reviewed the recommendat tons, on the lan*d use propqsal contained -in-the L ' and Report and find that they are technically ade- quate and that cbns.iderat'lon has been given to all resource values. lie recommend that the recommendation on the approved action be approved as the Bureau's decision an the proposed action, Prepared by: Date Realty Specialist Reviewed - by — Date Area Manager Decision. I have reviewed the recommendation on the proposed action contained In this Land Report and approve the recomme ndation(s) as the decision of th4 Bureau on- the proposed action. 01 str ict Manager lr Date 'ACTIN ATTACHMENT NX Form I NO- 91 (Januaq 19881 I all to ta(�Qm tb* of . Serial No. CACA 24020 prtirents Sbqjj armt, ortrung: Cn M Cn E SAS coo 4UL i 9 1989. lu APA Bighorn institute; a California nonprofit corporation poratic i n is entitled to a land paten . c pursuant to the*Act Of June 14, 1926,*as amended and supplemente'd (43 U.S.C. 869, et seq.), for the following described land: San Bernardino Meridian, C-ilifornia T. 6 S.i'R. 6 E.9 sec. 6, -lot 7, E:SWkj NE�NWkSWk., E SaNwkswk, and SEk. Containing 292.3*4 acres. NOW Y-NOW YE., that there is, therefore, granted by t"-&Ae UNiTLD STATESunto the BIghorn Institute, a California rnia nonprofit corporations the -land described above for research purposes only in connection with improving the 'Status of desert bighorn sheep Populatiojas; TO HAVE AND To HOLD the said land with* all the rights, privileges, immunitiespland appurtenances, of whatsoever nature thereunto belonging, unto the Bighorn Institute, a California nonprofit corporation, forever; EXCEPTING AND RESERVING TO THE UNITED STATES: A right -of -wa y'thereon f . or ditch . es or canals constructed by the. authority of the United States. Act of Aug 1 : ust 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 943). 2- All'zineril deposits in the land So Patented, and to It, or persons authorized by it, the right to prospect, mine, and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law. 4 05-0022 . fl Patent Nurmbr -8 Serial No. CACA 24020 P � SUBJECT TO those rights for;12-kv distribution,line purposes granted to the Southern California Edison Company, its successors or assigns, by right-of-way Serial No, CACA 16652, pursuant to Title V of the Act of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C, 1761), as to the NEkNWkSAk and E�SE;NASA said sec. 6. Provided, that, at the time the Bighorn Institute's Visitors Center is constructed, the pateatee•or its successor in interest will install and maintain a sign at the main entrance of the center. The sign shall be prominently displayed and convey the following information:. "These:.lands are made available to the Bighorn Institute for bighorn sheep research' purposes through a special program offered -by the Bureau of Land Management." Provided, further, that the patentee or its successor in interest shall furnish to the Bureau of Land Management's Indio Resource Area Office by January•l of each.calendar year an annual report describing in detail the research activities performed during the -previous year, including but not limited to survey and inventory data, and summary reports of bighorn sheep studies. The report shall contain- wildlife: information 'determined by the Indio Resource Area Manager to be beneficial to both the Bureau of Land M3nage_enc and the general public. _ Provided, further, that, title shall revert upon a finding, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, that, without the approval of the authorized officer: 1. The patentee or its:.approved successor attempts to transfer title to or control over the land to another; 2. The land has been devoted to a use other than that for. which the land was conveyed; 3. The land has not been used for the purpose for which it was conveyed for a 5-year period; or 4. The patentee has failed to follow the approved development plan or management plan; Provided., further, that the Secretary -of the Interior, or hie delegate, may take action to revest title in'the'United States if the patentee directly or indirectly permits its agents, employees, contractors, or subcontractors (including without limitation lessees, sublessees, and permittees) to prohibit or restrict the use of any part of the patented land or any of the facilities thereon by any person because of such person's race, creed, color, sex, or national origin. Patent No. 04--59-00 A., 2 Form 186425 (June 1984) c Serial_No. CA 24020 The grant of the herein described lands is subject to the following reservations, conditions; and limitations: The patentee or his (its) successor in interest shall comply with and shall not violate an of the to Provisions of Title VI of the Civil Righ is Act of 1964 (78 Stat 241), and requirements of any terms o modified or amended, of the Secretary of the Interior issued Pursuant thereto (43 CFR 17) fotsthe Period that the lands conveyed herein are used for the purpose for which the grant was made pursuant to the act ited above, or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits. (2) If the patentee or his (its) successor in intare-at does natcorn p) of 196{, and the rywith thetertnsorprovisions ofTytleyjof the Civil Rights Act equirementa imposed by the Department of the Interior issued pursuant to that title, during the period during which the property described herein is u for which the grant was made pursuant to the act• cited above, or for another u s� for the purpose provision of similar services or benefits, the Secretary of the Interior or his delegate mayodeclare the terms Of this grant terminated in whole or in part (3) The Patentee, by acceptance of this patent, agrees for himself (itself) or his (its) succesaon is interest that a declaration of tet.minatlon in whole or in part of this grant shall, at the option of Secte delegate, operate to revest in the United States full title to the lands involved in the decleraiaa�orhis (4) The United States shall have the right to seek judicial enforcement of the requirearents ofTitle VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the terms and conditions of the regulations, as modified or -amended, of Secretary of the Interior issued pursuant to said Title VI, in the event of their violation "by the patentee (5) The Patentee or his (its) successor in interest will, upon request of the Secretary of'the Interior or his' delegate, Post and maintain on the property conveyed by this documentaigns and posters bearing a legend concerning the applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the area or facility conveyed- (6) The reservations, conditions, and limitations contained in paragraphs (I) through (5) shall constitute a covenant rtinning with the land, binding on the patentee and his (its) successors ininterestfor the period for which the land described herein is used for thepurpose for which. this grant was madx, a_ for ,another pur,.ose involving the provision of similar services or benefits. M The assurances and covenant required by sections (1)—(6) "above. shall not apply to ultimate beneficiaries under the program for which this grant is made. "Ultimate beneficiariez" are identified is 43 CFR 17.12(h). IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the undersigned authorized ofacer of the Bureau of Land Management, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of June 17.1948 (62 Stat. 476). has, in the name of the United States, caused these letter*'to be made Patent, and the Seal of the Bureau to be hereunto atfrxed GIvENunder m ha in Sacramento, California the TIJENTY—SxIX� day of JANUARY in the p of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and EIGHTY—NINE and of the Inde ndenee of the United States the two hundred and THIRTEENTH. By G �4--85--OOti A' oand ecords y Patent :(umber • California State Office 3- w, 1 (, ATTACHMENT NVIII - ATTACHMENT "A" Proposed t } CLASSIFICATION DECISION -The following Public lands have been examined and found suitable for lease, with option to purchase, under the Recreation and Public Purpose (R&PP). Act of June 14, '1926 (44 Stat. 74) as amended, and the petition for classification for these lands .are approved. T. 6 S,,, R. 6 E., S-B.B.M., Section 6, Lot 7, E1/2 SW1/4, EIZ2 NWI/4 SWI/4, SEI/4. (297.34 acres) .This•decision is based upon the following' reasons. 1. "If the lands are found to be suitable for disposal, consideration under the criteria of this part will be given to whether the lands are needed for urban or suburban purposes or whether they are cheefly valuable for other purposes,. Lands found to be valuable for public purposes will.be considered chiefly valuable for public purposes, except in situations where alternate sites are available to meet the public needs involved." (43 CFR 2430.2(b).) 2. "The lands must be physically suitable or adaptable to the uses or purposes fo'r which they are classified. In addition, they must have such physical and other character.ist ics as the law ray require them to havto qualify for a particular classification." (43 CFR 2410.1(a).) e 3. "All present and potential uses and users of the lands will be taken into consideration. All other things being equal, land.classifications will attempt to achieve maximum future uses and minimum disturbance to or dislo=_ cation of existing users." (43 CFR 2410.1-(b),) 4. "All land classifications must be consistent .with State and local government programs, plans, zoning, and regulations applicable to the area in which'the lands to be classified are located to the extent such State and local programs, plans, zoning, and regulations are not inconsistent with Federal Programs, policies, and uses, and will not lead to inequities among private individuals." (43 CF.R 2410.1(c)l,) 3. "Ali, land classifications must be consistent with Federal- programs „and Policies, to the extent that those programs and policies affect the use or disposal of the public lands." (43 CFR 2410.1(d).) The lands petitioned for comply with the above regulations. Classification of these lands under the above cited Recreation and Public.Purpose Act will segregate them from all appropriations, including locations under minimg laws, except as to appli- cations under the mineral leasing laws and applications under the Recreation and Public Purpose Act. r r the following petition for classification is hereby. approved: Name of Petitioner: The Desert Bighorn Research Instjtute:(CA-14622) Flame of Petition: Recreation and Public Purpose L4 e e a er For the State Director N List of 4vieweers Bonner Blong q,ox 161, 55050 Strong Drive Idyllwild, California.92349 University of California Deep Canyon Research Center- P`60. Box 1738 Palm Desert, California 92261 University of California ATTN: Dr. Wilbur W. Mayhew Riverside, California 92502 Living Desert Museum ATTN: Karen Sausman, Dire ' ctor 47-900 South Portola Avenue Palm Desert, California 92261 Ironwood Country Club 49 , 200 Miriposa Drive Palm. Desert, California 92261 Z California Department of Fish and Game Environmental Services 2d5 W. Broadway, Suite 350 Long Beach, California 9*0802 Mr. Roger Streeter, Director. Riverside Planning Department.! 4080 Lemons 9th'Floor -Riverside, California 92501 Assemblyman Steve Clutes-- Uo Lisa ' Harrison 45-235 Towne Street, #2 Indio, California 92201 Ms.. Kay Ceniceres, Chairman Riverside County Supervisors .4080 Lemon, 14th Floor Riverside, California 92561 Mr. Ramon A. -Diaz Director �D irector of Environmental Services - City P 1 t of Palm Desert P.O. Bo� 1977 x Palm rt, California Desert, Califoi9 2:2 6D Ms. Patricia Larson, Vice Chairman Riverside County Board of Supervisors P.O. Drawer 1330 India, California 92202 Mr. James R. DeForge Desert Bighorn Sheep Research Institute P.O Box 262 Palm Desert, California 92261 All 12 41 - t--o ,ire;';;= . � �'_�=r•s��.-� '" l i � � . • � ti , -+�- 17 la 0 4 WWI y41 - It „ r r• .•y ! 12 :d.0 iw liti \ a t wr� 29WOW. WOW �rt1 l� �,� - er.. ' .. a%��y,,; C� �: lfJiyy. ?„" • `y..l.' , -lJ.:• - i j„�1., W06" v, ira 14 lz Sv JG All ' J `'`.. � �'��^i' I •••`\ .ate' ����i l••, ,\-'�"' �^J 'yc''!iT' . ay, .1 � v \�...�. r� -:. , � '' :n "•iti���.;�`�Vh° n` � lGi-.�'�L^•'��''�a'` v �r C. ,,: /;•. -+..,, • jam.,-:c��,.�''�t K \:.���•;�\�`�•�r•, a•'�� �i�`-'�,4r'¢� is�^�t \ ,t "^ '> ..' A+ i • ' i J 3'„'^yi� L .�v,��'`'��.y' y� • t \� t .Jr • L, '��` �� "-.�. ...`°Fy �Z,.`:;• - ' "�" �, .t�/ !; /'\ �,ljj�1 t:` rr- CA-14622 V MAP - GESER- BIGHORN RESEARCH INSTITUTE PROJECT _ v ter. I iocc ATTACHMENT NIX Environment -al -Assessment EA RCA-066-4-4 I. Background The Desert B'ighurn Sheep Research Institute, a nonprofit organization, has applied for a Recreation and Public Purpose permit ('R&PP) fo.r. public land in the northern "Santa Rosa Mountains, Riverside County. 3The- Institute is working in the Santa Rosa Mountains in cooperation with with the California Department of Fish and Game (CUP&G) to study diseases and related lamb mortality in the rare Peninsular bighorn sheep herd in the Santa Rosa Mountains. LocaL ion The site is located d6e east or the junction of Dead 'Indian Canyon and Highway 74 in the Santa Rosa Mountains (T. 6 S. , R. 6 E. I Sect-i.on 6, Lot 7, E1/2 SWIM, E1/2 NWI/4 SWI/4, SEI/4). The RIPP appl ication:-enco(n- Passes all public land (297.34 acres) in the southern half• OF this section. The tract is situated at the -base of*the Santa Rosa Mountains and includes a portion of the rugged mountain terrain, a small terrace, and a wash at the. northern edge of the boundary. Access can be gained to the property via a dirt road south of the wash off Highway 74. III. Proposed Action the Institute plans to augnelit _existing PUll facilities with the following permanent improv'eiiients: -.access road -(gravel) 121 x 3,300' .0ff'H1qhway*-74 - electrical service, buried because OF Scenic Highway requirements - water well, septic tank - laboratory facilities - parking lot museum/Institute headquarters rain pens Permanent shelters, inside of pens Affected Environment ly, Veqetation Vegetation at the site includes both creosote bush scrub and desert wash communities. Dominant plant species an the rocky hillsides include creosote bush, brittle bush, and burrobush. Occassional acotilla and barrel cactus occur here also. Perennial vegetation in the dry washe.s includes desert .avendar, sweet.bush, indigo bu and brandeyea, among many others. This veyetation Js fairly commion in the Colorado des-ert, .but is decreasing in areas within the Coachella Valley due to extensive urban expansion. A records check of Indio Resource.Area files -and California Native Plant Society Rare Plant maps indicatedr a possibility of suitable habitat at this site for a rare and' endangered pe►-ennia.l plant species, "California ditaxis" (Oitaxis calif-ornica). This species grows in sandy -soil in the Coachella and Chur5_wa7;,a VaTTeys, often at the base of mountains in sma11*washes. "California ditaxis" is a candidate for federal listing and i s a BLM sensitive species. Although the soil and topography appeared to be potential habitat for this plant, no individuals of this species were observed on site. T}ie rocky hillside habitat also to be included inside pens is not expected to support any rare or endangered plants. Wildlife The project area is located within the Santa Rusa 1•I4bitat Management Area which was established for the management, of the State listed rare Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis cana(lensis). One of the primary concerns in finding a locatiun for the holding pens was to ►ninimize any impacts .,to the Santa Rosa herd. The applicant; selected this location in consul— tation with QLM staft biologists because of i*ts relative isolation from the rest of the range and easy access. There are no*water sources lccated nearby and the ridge was not considered -bighorn sheep habitat in the habitat. map developed jointly by the ULM and CDF&G for the Santa Rosa HMP (1980).": No evidence of bighorn sheep use was observed on site. There are -no other. rare, threatened, 'endangered, or sensitive_ species known to occur on. site. Archaeology/Native Amer'icin Concerns While the project, fal is within an at'ea of low/unknown cultural resource sensitivity (Desert Plan Sensitivity Maps), it adjoins an area of very high sensitivity (Polygon 451). Most of the sites in this polygon are located in Deep Canyon. Ethnographic records indicate that the area was used for seasonal collecting and hunting of deer and bighorn sheep. A. field inspection of the property was made on November 7,- 1983. The terrace was surveyed at-100% level. Other portions of the.site were selectively s6 veyed based on the terrain's likelihood to c:vntain `k artifacts. No archaeological materials were located. Anticipated Impacts .; Vegetation Construction of the access road, permanent sheep shelters, museum and parking lot will result in the removal of approximately 10 acres of N native vegetation. This will cause either long-term or permanent removal, of habitat for native plants at the site. Vegetatign will also be disturbed during curnstructlun of buriid electrical lines and septic facilities, but this will nut result in permanent removal of habitat. Construction of these facilities may alter the drainage. of run-off through the site, and consequently affect the vigor of individual plants in the wash. Natural drainage patterns in this area have already been changed by construction of flood diversion dikes, but further construc- tion may again affect distribution and vigor of vegetation established in the washes. Soine surface disturbance will occur during construction of fences for the proposed rain pens, but because the fence is to be -built by hand, the impacts .should ue neg fig,ible. However, veyetatiari inside the enclosures may experience a decline- in vigor and total biomass due to browsing' by, bighorn sheep in a confines! area. These impacts 'are expected to be negligitile when viewed on a desert -wide scope. The proposed facilities are not expected to impact threatened or endan- gered plant species, although the area was suspected to support 11abitat' suitable for California ditaxis (Qitaxis. califdrnica), a rare species, found locally in similar habitat. InslTiduals of this species were not ubserved by BLM staff when the site was field surveyed on November 7, 'f983, although habitat did appear suitable. - Wildlife There will be minimal impacts to wildlife as a result of this project. Peninsular bighorn sheep are not expected to be impacted because of the isolated nature of this ridge. Impacts to general wildlife will be related to the minor- surface disturbance resulting from construction and increased grazing pressure within the pen areas. The impacts are not expected to significantly alter the wildlife values of the general area although the numbers of rodents un site and predator use on site is expected to drop because uF the hunian'presence and increased grazing pressure. 'No-threaten.ed or endarryered wildlife species are expected to be impacted. Cultural Resources Because of the lack of archaeological sites, no impacts are expected to ' result from the proposed 'project'. Since most of the property will be us, for bighorn sheep, which are indigenous to the area and were. hunted here by Native Americans, no impacts are anticipated to Native American con- cerns. Indeed, the purpose of the project is to study declining bighorn populations in an atternp.t to increase herd health and numbers. If the project is successful, it may enhance the survival of a species of great sign.ificanc'e to Native Americans. 3 T-619 T H U 1 La TJH I P 08 t 1+ aj v Recommended Mitigating Measures The Desert Bighorn Sheep Research Institute should.provide the BLM Indio Resource Area Office with copies of all progress and final reports, and an annual update on all actions taken on public land, including construc- tion of facilities, and stbdies undertaken. Consultation and Coordination The following groups were contacted concerning this project: University of California Philip L. Boyd Deep Canyon..Research Center Cal i.fornia Department of Fish and Game 1 List of Preparers Faye Davis: ..Wildlife Biologist, Team Leader - Robin Kobal•y: Botanist Judyth Reed: Archaeologist Mark Hatchel: Realty Specialist F 4 r Je _T// Yja4,A-i'4 A-7/4-/- APPRAISAL REPORT ROP BIG MOR-.11 RESEARCH INSTITUTE CA-14622 LEAS-' 141TH OPTION TO PATENT The lands involved in 'Ere subject. 297.34 acre parcal are la^d'oc'ced. As such, a: th[s- time, t'lerE is no legal access - (exising read a-1though physical ac r as s is presenrly provided by a Zrossing an adjacant ?�Iva.te owner. The in the area refiects red--ced I.End ut"Ift and a lower fah- market value 4 LY r, r:r ' :rc ' perzies not zossessinc legal roat Eccess. This is tr-.-;e lin face of the fact. surr-curzing -area is uncer gereral expansion and tr3n*s-.'_-.*c,1 to higher value resildent-lal and c':=arcial develop -.:ant The esti-mated vajua o-IF the Subzect lands -n a :-er acre tasis is S40-1_ *7he acoj4cart, 3f- Hcri Rresaerzh Tns�ilu't' -' r 11 1 ' ' a, under* an R!'P qu--:Hies for EC'j reductzlcn representing Basic put:':: Benez-t allo-v.-ancz 0; ;:'_-I-�C SL-PpCr7 u nd a r 5 _- c 2 07,40. 7'_4 ld -nsecT:iojj 0 X a r a I % P : -su-;"4eC: has t=_=_n Ccimpleta-d. Cz:--';�arazle sales date for supporz of th's appralsal '"Ncn Ere to the sz:biect-1-ands are de"ail--.1 linder T�nnecul.a appraisal L ddl--ea 5-10-34 For Pub!-Ic Salle CA 153-71, 4'*letra Area. t:':e annur! r:nt=1 =s1-.7:!t_3 i:r ralcul e t.2,.4 a S Annual Re-n-%j r=o,f. ta!"lors 297.34 -^Icr!zs Av 3SLO. pzr -.zre S 14 7 i." L, . X 43,I A *CO X Rate of Raturr 6 3 57.-30 ir. s G-Mj R ZPF, a Rcunded to: S 6 5 5 G'. C 0 per yadr P"enared ',ty t r CO D-istrict Apqratser Jure 20, A1924 Ch i e 5 t -A s a r U 9Z = _C U:3 C H U RECOMMENDATION/RATIONALE I. Recommendation 1'. It is recommended that a 20 year lease be issued to the Bighorn Research Institute, for the purpose of establishing a bighorn sheep laboratory to study diseases and related lamb mortality in the Peninsular bighorn sheep herd in the Santa Rosa Mountains of -Riverside County in California. The Institute and its auxiliary facilities would be located on: T. 6 " S., R. 6 E., S.B.B.m., Secton 6, Lot 7, E 1/2 SW 1/4, E 1/2 NW 1/4 SW 1/4, SE 1/4. (297.34 acres) 2 The rental should be reduced by 60% to reflect the following public benefit's: 1. Basic. Public Benefit Allowance: 40% 2. Public Support Allowance: 20% ;3. It is 'also recommended that a stipulation I be added to the lease requiring the lessee to submit yearly reports on the.methods and results of all research activities conducted on the subject lands., 'Rationale The lands are physically suited for the proposed use, The -environmental impacts are considered to be insignificant *Compared to the benefits obtained from the research of Bighorn sheep diseases. All present and potential uses and users have been taken into consideration. No. local, State or Federal programs would be adversely affected. The authority to.lease or convey public lands for the proposed use is' granted* -,to the Secretary under the Rdc,reatidn and Public Purposes Act of� June 14,,-1926, as amended (43 U.S.C. 869 et seq.) Mark atChel Nate Z4 Serial I c -A-1�022 LAND REPORT AND DECISION RECORD 'Type of Action R&PP Lease District California Desert Applicant's Name Bighorn Research Institute Resource Area Indio Address P.O.-Box 262 State California Palm Desert, CA 92261-0262 County Riverside LANDS INVOLVED Township Range" Meridian Section §ubdi-fisiqn Acres Length Width 6 S. 6 E. S. B. 6 6 lot 7 , VINWNSW4, SE!i, E�SW'i 297.34 Environmental A. Ironme tal Compliance We have reviewed the environmental assessment prepared to analyze the environmental -Ffects of the proposed action and have determined _.rmined that t.he..pr6posed action and approved mitigation measures would not have significant environmental effects on the human env.-Ironment. Therefore,_ an environmental impact statement is not required'to further analyze the environmental efforts of the proposed action. Environmental 'Assessment reviewed by: Area Manager (r /I Date: Environmental Coord at, or 4 . 1: I -If 1-0- Date I.concur: ACTING D i st* r i c t Manager •jD at a S. Review/Decision Review. I have reviewed the recommendations. on the land use propqsal contained -in-the Land Report and find that they are technically ade- quate and that considerat-ion has been given to all resourcq values. Ve recommend that the recommendation on the approved action be approved as the Bureau's decision an the proposed action. Prepared by: Date Realty Specialist Rev iewed. by: - Date Area Manager 7 -1 Decision. I have revie�-,ed the reccmmendation on the proposed action contained In this Land Report and approve the recommendation(s) as the decision of th4 Bureau on the proposed action. Date 'ACTING District Manager ATTACHMENT NX Form 1860.97 of (January 198s) ric Serial No. CACAthese 24020 pruents sball come, ocetting: C on C� cr) Kcl�E IV WEREAS Cn UL i 9 1989 lu > . . A P A Bighorn Institute a California nonprofit 5 C9 corporation w is entitled to a land patent pursuant to the-' and supplementeict . Of June 14, 19261,as amended d (43 U.S.C.usC869, et seq.), for the following described land; San Bernardino Meridian, California T. 6 6 E., sec. 6, lot 7, E�SWkj NEkNWkSWk., SEUWkSWk, and SEk. Containing 292.3.4 acres. NOW KNOW YE., that there is, therefore, granted by the UNITED STATES -unto the Bighorn Institute, a California nonprofit corporation, the -land d6scribed above for research purposes only in connectio- n with improving the 'status of desert bighorn sheep Populatiobs; TO HAVE AND To HOLD the said and with.!'all the rights, privileges, immunities ,,and appurtenances, of whatsoever nature, thereunto belonging; unto the Bighorn Institute, a California nonprofit corporation, forever; EXCEPTING AND RESERVING To THE UNITED STATES: right—of—way'thereon for ditches or canals constructed by the. authority of t . he United States. Act of August 30, 1890 (43 U.S.C. 945). 2. All *mineril deposits in the land 80 Patented, and to It, or persons authorized by it, the right to prospect, mine, and remove such deposits from the same under applicable law. Patent Nurnber 11-1. 1 -1) %J _L serial No. CACA 24020 SUBJECT TO those rights for '12-kv distributioa,line purposes granted to the Southern California Edison Company, its successors or assigns, by 3 right-of-way Serial No,. cACA 16652, pursuant to Title V of the Art of October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761), as to the NEkNWkSWk and E'SVONWkSA said sec. 6. Provided, that, at the time the Bighorn Institute's Visitors Center is constructed, the patentee -or its successor in interest will install and maintain a sign at the main entrance of the center. The sign shall be prominently displayed and convey the following information: ' "These,lan * da are made available to the Bighorn Institute for bighorn sheep research:' purposes through a special program offered -by the Bureau of Land Management." Provided, further, that the patentee or its successor in interest shall furnish to the Bureau of Land Management's Indio Resource Area Office by January'l of each.calendar year an annual report describing in detail the research activities performed during the previous year, including but not limited to survey and inventory data, and summary * reports of bighorn sheep studies. The report shall contaia-wildli!e.- infc=ation determined by the Indio Resource Area Manager to be beneficial to both the Bureau of Land Manage=ent and the general public Provided, further, that, title shall revert upon a finding, after notice and opportunity fora hearing, that, without the approval of the authorized officer: 1. The patentee or 'its :.approved successor attempts to transfer title to or control over the land to another; 2. The land has been devoted to a use other than that for, which the land was conveyed; 3. The land has not been,. used for the purpose for which it was conveyed for a 5--year period; or 4. The pattentei' has failed to fallow the approved development plan or management plan; Provided, further, that the Seer . etary-of the Interior, or his delegate, may take action to revert tit -le in'the'Uaited States if the patentee directly or indirectly permits its agents, employees, contractors, or subcontractors (including without limitation lessees, sublessees, and permittees) to prohibit or restrict the use of any part of the patented land or any of 'the facilities thereon by any person because of such person's race, creed, color, sex, or national origin. Patent No. .0 4-8 9-- U000 2d,(.!, 2 Form 1860.25 (June 1984) t� Serial.No. CA 24020 The grant at the li ••rein described lands is subject to the following reservationa, conditions; sad (imitations: (1) The patentee or his (its) successor in interest shall comply with and shall not violate any of the terms or Provisions of Title VI of fhe Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 StaL 241), and requirements of the regulations, as modified or amended, of the Secretary of the Interior issued pursuant thereto (43 CFR 17) fo�the Period that the lands conveyed herein are used for the purpose for which the grant was made purauanf to the act cited above, or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits. (2) If the patentee or his (its) successor in interest does not comply with the terms or provisions of Title VI the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the requirements impoaed of by the Department of the Interior isauad pursuant to that title, during the period during which the property described herein is for which the grant was made used for the purpow pursuant to the aa• cited above, or for another u provision of similar services or benefits, the Secretary of the Interior or his delegate mdinvolving of this grant terminated in whole or in �a part. the (3) The Patentee, by acceptance of this patent, agrees for himself (itself) or his (its) succea,wrs is interest that a declaration of tetmination in whole in or part of this grant shall, at the Option otthe delegate, operate to revert in the United States full title to the )ands involved ryorhia in the declaraen (4) The United States shall have the right to seek judicial enforcemen t of the requirements of Title VT of the Civil Right: Act of I964, and the terms and conditions of the regulations, as modified' or amended, Secretary of the Interior issued pursuant to said Title r,a of VI, in the event of their violation'by patentee (5) The patentee or his (its) successor in interest will, upon request of the Sumentsigna and ecretary of•the Interior or his' delegate, Post and maintain on the property conveyed by this doe concerning the applicability Fwsters bearing a legend of Title VI of the Civi) Rights Act of 1964 to the area or facility conveyed. (6) The reservations• conditions, and limitations contained in paragraphs (1) through (5) shall g coaadtute a covenant runninwith the land, binding on the patentee and his (its) successors in interestfor the period for which the land described herein is used for the purpose for which. this grant was mad., o: for another DurYose involving the provision of similar services or benefits. (7) The assurances and covenant required by sections (1)-46) .above. shall not apply beneficiaries under the program for which this PP Y to ultimate CFR 17.12(h). Brant is made. "Ultimate beneficiariea" are identified in 43 114 TESTIMONY WHEREOF. the undersigned authorised `officer of the Bureau otLand Management, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of June 1T,1948 (62 SCaL 476), has, in the name of the United States, caused these lettertu be made Patent, and the Seal of the Bureau to be hereunto affixed_ GIvrnunder ta ha in Sacramento California the TWENTY—SYI1f�1 day of JANUARY ° g of our Loin th rd one thousand nine hundred and EIGHTY NINE and of the Indee�eendence of the United States the two hundred and THIRTEEM. By �4--89=-00A:ti and ecorda y Patent raac ;lumber California State Office 9 1 2 3 4 5 r .1 1 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 JGV: re 22 1473z 23 11/27/89 24 25 26 27 28 GERALD J. GEERLINGS COUNTY COUNSEL SUITE 300 3535 * IOTH STREET RIVERSIDE. CALIFORNIA ORDINANCE NO. 348.309 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OFRIVERSIDE AMENDING ORDINANCE NQ.. 348 RELATING TO ZONING The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside Ordains as Follows: Section 1. Section 4.10 of Ordinance No. 348, and Cathedral City/Palm Desert Zoning Plan Map No. 10, as amended, are further amended by placing in effect the zone or zones as shown on the map entitled "Change of official Zoning Plan, Cathedral City/Palm Desert District, Map No. 10.033, Change o: Zone Case No. 5552,11 which map is made a part of this ordinant Section 2. This ordinance shall take effect 30 days ,after its adoption. ATTEST: GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board/ Deputy' (SEAL) BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COU] OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORN B di -airman SEC. 6 T.6S:.R.SE. S.B.B. & �. Mes. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) I HEREBY CERTIFY that at a regular meeting of the board of Supervis6rs of said county held o- 19--B-cL, the foregoing ordinance consisting I of TWO sections was adopted by said Board by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors ceniceros, Dunlap, Larson, Younglove NOES: None ABSENT: None Dated: 12/5/89 417(71821 (Seal) GERALD A. MALONEY Clerk of the Board By: Dep N 3.1 Zoning District: Cathedral City -Palm Desert CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5552 ~ Supervisorial District: Fourth PLOT PLAN NO. 11393 �-� E. A. No. 34143 Regional Team III Planning Commission: 9/13/89 Agenda Item: 2-3 RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT Vil-)FACTS: i-. Applicant: 2. Type of Request: 3~ Location: 4. Parcel Size: 5. Existing Roads: 6. Existing Land Use: 7. Surrounding Land Use: B. Existing Zoning: 9. Surrounding Zoning: 10. General Plan Elements: (Western Coachella Valley Plan) 11. Agency Recommendations: 12. Sphere of Influence: 13. Letters: Bighorn Institute Change of Zone from R-1 to N-A; plot plan for a noncommercial menagerie and accessory caretakers and research buildings Easterly of Highway 74, southerly of Cahuilla Way 290 acres Highway 74 Mobllehome, pens Residence, vacantn mountainous R-1 R-1m N-A; and PR-5 within the City of Palm Desert LAND USE: Wildlife/Vegetation OPEN SPACE: Wildlife/Vegetation CIRCULATION: Highway 74 (Variable) ROAD: Bee transmittal dated 8/E3/89 FLOOD: See RCFC transmittal dated HEALTH: See transmittal dated 8/17/89 WATER: See CVWD transmittal dated 8/18/89 FIRE: See transmittal dated 8/23/89 City of Palm Desert No letters received as of 8/28/89 The applicant for Change of Zone Case No. 5552 requests approval of a change of zone from R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to N-A (Natural Assets) on 290 acres. The site is located easterly of Highway 74, southerly of the City of Palm Desert. The applicant concurrently filed plot Plan No. 11393 for a noncommercial menagerie and accessory caretakers and research buildings. The site is predominately vacant with natural mountainous vegetation, sheep pens, and a caretakers mobilehome. Immediately west of the site is a large residence where the headquarters of the Bighorn Institute (BHI) currently exist. The BHI began operations of the 290 acre site in 19B5 through a lease by the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM). In February 1969v the BLM granted a patent to the BHI for the 290 acre site. The BHI originated in order to breed and study the rare peninsular Bighorn Sheep. There are approximately 50 sheep in this area, the north end of the Santa Rosa Mountains, of which 23 have been released into the wild by the BHI. PLOT PLAN NO. 11393 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5552 Staff Report Page 2 Plot Plan No. 11393 proposes a 6,800* square foot disease laboratory/ administration building, a 2,800 square foot residential- structure with four bedrooms and common kitchen/living facilities, and accessory grain and maintenance structures. The plot plan also includes provisions for a seven acre pen and a 30 acre pen which will house the current stock of 19 Iambs. and sheep, a figure which usually ranges between 15 and 25. Surrounding land' uses are vacant and mountainous with scattered mountain cottages. Immediately northerly and northwesterly of the site, within the City of palm Desert, is a large 675 acre site on which a conceptual specific'plan (Bella Vista) has been approved for 350 acres of �pen space, 100O low density dwellings on approximately 300 acres, and a 23 acre hotel site with amenities. Farther northeasterIy of thesite along PortoIa Avenue is the Living Desert Reserve, a zoo environment for the viewing and showing of desert animals and vegetation. The Living Desert Reserve assisted in the commencement of the BHI in 1985. The Living Desert has a small population of Peninsula Bighorn Sheep for public viewing but is unable -to conduct breeding procedures because such a process needs isolation. The two facilities are different but yet compliment each other due to their caring for and research of the Bighorn Sheep. ASSESSMENT:ENVIRONMENTAL The Initial Study performed pursuant to Environmental Assessment No. 34143 identified environmental concerns associated with project development as including: Slopes Wildlife Scenic Highway Public Facilities Cultural Resources Circulation The initial study (a copy of which is attached) determined that approval of the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment. All environmental impacts would be clearly mitigated to a level of insignificance. A monitoring program was incorporated into the initial study. PLOT PLAN NO. 11393 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5552 Staff Report Page 3 GENERAL PLAN CONS I STENC � The site is designated "Wildlife/Vegetation" on the Western Coachella a Valley Plan (WCVP). The Open Space and Conservation Policies of the Comprehensive General Plan specify that areas that are mapped "Wildlife/Vegetation" on the open space map are for the conservation of critical wildlife and vegetation. The policies also specify that only the following uses are permitted in wildlife/vegetation designations: open space, limited recreation, and research or educational uses. The applicant's intention to use the land for research and educational uses ' for the nurturing and breedipg of the state rare Peninsular Bighorn Sheep is compatible with the "Wildlife/Vegetation" designation and the open space policy requiring careful control and management of the utilization of natural resources includingwildlife. The Open Space and Conservation policies also specify that open space designated parcels shall be appropriately zoned. The proposed N-A zone has been applied within the Coachella Valley Preserve, for the threatened Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard, and in other wildlife/vegetatlb'n designated areas within the Western Coachella Valley Plan. DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE R-I AND N-A ZONES: The existing R-1 zone primarily permits one -family dwellings and requires a minimum lot sizeof7,200 square feet. The R-1 zone allows growing of field crops and tree crops along with such recreational facilities as golf courses, country clubs, and public parks and playgrounds. Planned residential developments are permitted through the land division process. Plot plan approval is required for beauty shops, horticultural nurseries, kennels and catteries, and temporary real estates offices, while mobiIehome parks require a conditional use permit. The proposed N-A zone also permits one -family dwellings, field and tree - crops, apiaries, and grazing of cattle, horses, sheep or goats not exceeding two animals per acre. Subject to plot plan approval the following uses .are permitted: public utility substations, museums, menageries, water wells* and agricultural worker mobilehomes. Fishing lakes, golf courses, riding academies, well water extraction, mining, RV and mobllehome parksx and resort hotels are all permitted uses subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. The applicant proposes a noncommercial menagerie for Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, a herd which in the past five years has not exceeded 25 sheep. Since the BHI'ss origination, approximately 50 percent of the current stock of sheep located in this area of the Santa Rosa Mountains have been released from the BHI; had these sheep not been released the stock would be next to extinction. PLOT PLAN NO. 11393 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5552 Staff Report Page 4 CONSIDERATIONS:PLOT PLAN The applicant is proposing a noncommercial part is a veterinary hospital and research following are a list of uses that staff pursuant to Plot Plan No. 11393 and a list require additional permits: RECOMMENDED Disease laboratory/ Administration Building Existing Pens New Residence Guard House Brain Storage Car Storage 22 parking spaces menagerie that for the most center for sheep. The is recommending approval of of future uses that would Future Museum Concrete Helicopter Pad Future Site The applicant submitted the change of zone and plot plan, on July 28, 1989 and the cases were expedited to hearing due to the need for approval and construction of the facility before winter. The noncommercial menagerie proposed by the applicant is not open to the public, however, on occasion an educational class will field trip to the BHI~ The BHI according to the applicant has.long range plans to include a museum and education center in the future which will be open to the public. These uses would require additional permits prior to construction. The proposed project is not expected to generate traffic* it is however subject to the TUMF fee as adopted by the Board of Supervisors in January, 1969. CITY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE.: The site is within the sphere of influence of the City of Palm Desert. The city staff participated in the review of the project plan. The city responded with "No Comment" on a transmittal dated August 3» 19B9. The staff of the City of Rancho Mirage 'also reviewed the project and their comments are attached in a transmittal dated August B, 1989. PLOT PLAN NO. 11393 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5552 Staff Report Page 5 1. The applicant requests approval of a change of zone from R-1 to N-A on 290 acres located easterly of Highway 74. 2. The applicant concurrently filed plot Plan No. 11393'which is an application for a noncommercial menagerie and accessory caretakers and research buildings. 3. The applicant, The Bighorn Institute (8HI)w has been in existence since 1985 and has recently received a patent for the 290 acre site from the U. B. Bureau of Land Management. 4. Surrounding parcels are.zoned R-1, N-A; and PR-5 within the City of Palm Desert. 5. Surrounding land uses are predominately vacant with mountainous vegetation, and scattered mountain cottages. 6. The findings of Environmental Assessment No. 34143 (a copy of which is attached) are incorporated herein by reference. ^ ^ ' 7. The Western Coachella Valley Plan designates the site "Wildlife/Vegetation." B. The Open Space and Conservation Policies of the Comprehensive General Plan specify that research and educational uses are permitted in the "Wildlife/Vegetation" designation. 9. The Comprehensive General Plan lists the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep as a "Rare" species. 10. The BHI has been responsible for increasing the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep herd at the 'north end of the Santa Rosa Mountains by approximately 50 percent. 11. The site is'within the sphere of influence of the City of Palm Desert. PLOT PLAN NO. 11393 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5552 Staff Report Page 6 ADOPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 34143. The planning Department has found that approval of the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. and has completed a Negative Declaration; APPROVAL, of Change of ZoneCase No. 5552 from R-1 to N-A in accordance with Exhibit 2, baseed on the above findings and the following conclusions: APPROVAL. of Plot Plan, No. 11393 subject to the attached conditions, based on the findings isted above, and on the following conclusions: 1. The project is consistent with all the elements of the Comprehensive General Plan and the Western Coachella Valley Plan. 2. The project's overall development of the land is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and welfare. 3~ The project'will conform to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future uses of th�e surrounding property. LAM:csa B/31/89 , A CITY Of :. ....•. i PALM DESERT ' ' • . aQ :Q .. .. ... • J .dal 'Z: T4 :CS• • Z: oJ� 9 ARP• BIGHORN INSTITUTE L RANCHO Use NONCOMMERCIAL MENAGERY Dist. CC A N® P D Sup. Dist 4 MIRAGE Sec. 6 T. 6 S.,lR.6 E. 's Sk, 7 71 Pq, 040 CircUl®tion HIGHWAY 74 - ARTERIAL 110' Element a Rd. Sk. Pg. 113 Date ® - 21-419 13y R O S ; I"St 20 0 O' a � 0 INDIAN 41f l w �,L � � � c - rtturvaty cvrvllvia 2 3Q R-1-12000� n CITY O = P.R.-6 :® PA M DESERT.,.. . �- R-1-M y v Qa P.R-7 P.R.-7 10 4 . R-1 20,000 Co .. �w •. .. ' . O.S... ...... . Q� y•—' P.R-7,0 P.R.1,D M.P.R..D . ® ... :..1 P.R-5 JAJ: ar: 4 L]: :Z: N-A R-1 N- A ' 1 12 - N- A ' 1 1 1 I i t4-A APP• BIGHORN INSTITUTE RANCHC Use NONCOMMERCIAL MENAGERY Dist. CC AND P D Sup. test. 4 MIRAGE Sec. 6 T. 6 S.,RA E. 's 13k.771 Pig. 040 Circulation HIGHWAY 74 - ARTERIAL 110' Element A Rd. Sk. Pg. 113 its 8-21-85 DrMM By R D S I" >a 2 O O O' - T®-I-JLW INDIAN WELLS 3A mommomm a� ko 213 co Zw CITY OF PALM DESERT Ell 12 J APP• BIGHORN INSTITUTE R�►e+c►Z Use NONCOMMERCIAL MENAGERY Dist. CC AND P D Sty Dist 4 MIRAGE Sec. 6 T. 6 S..R.6 E. 's Sk. 7 71 4. 040 Circulation HIGHWAY 74 - ARTERIAL 110' Element N Rd. Bk. Pg. 113 Date 8-21-69 Drawn By RDS "a 20 O 0' NVEAME COtATY TA&W W .-AOUNTAINOUS AREAS School of Natural Resources College of Agriculture and Life Sciences 15 November 2006 THE UNIVERSITY OF AmzoNA. TUCSON AFjZONA Mr. Patrick A. Perry Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP Attorneys- at Law 515 South Figueroa 7th Floor LogArrgeles, CA 90G71-33% RE: Cornishe of Bighorn and the Bighorn Institute Dear Mr. Perry: 325 Biological Sciences East Building P.O. Box 210043 Tucson, AZ 85721-0043 (520) 621-7255 Fax: (520) 621-8801 I reviewed all the. documents you sent me. (Le, Draft Environmental Impact Report, Cornishe of Bighorn Project, December 2005; document from the Williams Law Firm, PC that comments on the Bighorn Institutes response to the Draft Environmental Report, 1 February N t " l Akins io, iirerriber of the -PMiirDe*se!fCfty'Council-; � 10-February no: d"' fi—i" ­ ... kin'' 21q�; a map of 6 2 lot conceptplan, tentative tract map: 31676; aft a pre muna.ry wor g draft I *, .. !, ­';* I ... ., I ft of � responses to comments 'related to the Draft Eiivirdn rental Repdft,- Cbrhishe' of Bighorn Ilyio1'e"c*t,*'D'6cemb6r'20-05): 'After tea&iliig'ffie'sedocuiii6iitg'l-hav6r,6ii6luded,*tlieft"thi�'colifli6t.'-- between _ the Corni'sh6 6fbighornProject "ad''the Bighorn Instifilteis disagreement over the influence the construction of 2' homes approximately 100 ya_ids'fr6r�i the Bighorn Institute may sh . e have on bighornep (free -ranging and captive). The Bighorn Institute is concerned that human activity within 400 yards of the pen will be detrimental to the captive sheep. I am not aware of any literature or research that supports this concern for captive animals. Certainly, these animals are already significantly influenced by the actions of the Bighorn Institute. Desert bighorn sheep have" large home ranges (> 100 km2, Krausman et al. 1989). Simply enclosing the animals, in a small enclosure is-a,significant alteration in -the life history characteristie& of -desert bighorn sheep. The Bighorn Institute is concerned that the construction of 2 Buses- adjacent (-240y-ards) to the pens will result in detrimental effects causing habituation of sheep to humans. It is unlikely this will occur (more than current habitituatioil) with the development of the 2 homes. The studies cited in these documents related to habituation address free -ranging populations. The captive herd maintained by the Bighorn Institute is not free -ranging., Furthermore, Meljen and Ellis (1996) discuss habituation of captive -animals to humans; unless there is a repeated . presqptat . i . on.by humans''that alters some aspect'. 'of the lifd history characteristics of the -animal, habituation will not be an None o;f"the"ciie'd work suggests that habitation will' be ail issue. 140s"b,,f- ic'o,ncerbs.reh4dd'tb,aninaals,',t§"s�OdAtddwt'thhitbit'atioilor-othirtunpo'ift-an aspeds- reprbducti6p) and are related to ahsmg the cage) to animals d' (Kleiman '6i 'a'i. 1996). The in -question a'r&nolt "61o§6".- Furthermore; the propose activities and restrictions imposed on homeowners minimise potential detrimental influences to the captive sheep. However, it must be recognized that there are deficiencies in the current state of knowledge regarding mammalian reproduction. It is fairly well established that animals that are not handled properly or are fearful of humans have poorer reproduction than those that have been properly managed and are not fearful of humans (Hemsworth et al. 1981). It is unlikely the construction of the 2 homes in question will have any implications to the breeding program at the Bighorn Institute. Another concern is that the project site is used by desert bighorn sheep. Because of all the human activity around the site it is unlikely the site has been used in the recent past or will be used in the future as outlined in the document. Furthermore, the concerns related to noise will not likely enhance ambient noise levels so they are detrimental to bighorn sheep in the enclosure. The hearing of desert ungulates including bighorn sheep was less than A — weighted noise (e.g., sound pressure levels that approximates human hearing and usually the most appropriate sound metric used when studying sound effects on mammals; Krausman et al. 2004). In one of the few studies available that contrasted the behavior of desert ungulates in areas with different sound pressure levels, Krausman et al. (2004) did not document changes in behavior of Sonoran pronghorn in areas with (65.3 dB) and without military activity (35 dB). Clearly, there are different opinions related to raising captive bighorn sheep. However, based on my experience on raising captive desert bighorn sheep, testing hearing of desert bighorn sheep, habituation studies of desert bighorn, and my understanding of the life history characteristics of desert bighorn sheep, it is my opinion that the construction of 2 homes 100 yards from the lambing pens will have no detrimental influence on the sheep enclosed at the Bighorn Institute. Please consider this a preliminary report. I plan to visit the site, discuss the project with you in more detail, and obtain additional information at a mutually agreed time. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, Paul R. Krausman Professor Wildlife Conservation and Management PRKIvc Cc: Michelle McKenzie References H ernsworth, P. R.,A- Brand, and P_ Willems- 1981-.The behavioural xespo =-e. of. -saws-to, the presence of human beings and its relation to productivity. Livestock Productin Science 8:67-74. Kleiman, D.G., M. E. Allan, K. V. Thompson, and S. Lumpkin, editors. 1996. Wild mammal-4 in captivity: principles and techniques. The University of Chicago Press, Chicagc(4,- Illinois, USA. Krausman, P. R., B. D. Leopold, R. F. Seegmiller, and S. G. Torres. 1989. Relationships between desert bighorn --sheep, and habitat in- western Arizona: Wildlife- Monographss TO-2. Krausman, P. R., L. -K. Harris, C. L. Blasch, K. K. G. Koenen, and J. Francine. 2004. Oects of military operations on behavior and hearing o-fendangered'Sonoran pronghorn Wildlife Monographs 157. Mellen, J. D., and S. Ellis. 1996. animal learning and .husbandry techniques. Pages 88-99 in D. C. Kleinman, M. E. Allen, K. V. Thompson, and S. Lumpkin, editors. Wildl mammals in captivity: -principles and techniques.. The University. of Chicago Press,, Chicago,, Illinois., USA. P� Boone and Crockett Wildlife Conservation Program ti r !�9 J Tye 7py { "(� University The I..JY tl v e �.7it of College of Forestry and Conservation ✓ L� � n ,`. M01 The University of Montana Missoula, MT 59812 j Director: (406) 243-56011 Assistants (406) 243-5272 FAX: (406) 243-4557 25 June 2008 Mr. Patrick A. Perry Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP 515 South Figueroa Street, 7t" Floor Los Angles, California 90071-3398 RE: Response to comments related to Cornishe of Bighorn Project Dear Mr. Perry: I reviewed the letters you sent to me from Therese O'Rourke of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service; John R. Kalish of the United States Bureau of Land Management; D. Wayne Brechtel of Worden Williams, APC; and J. Craig Williams of the Williams Lindberg Law Finn, PC. Each letter criticized various aspects of the Cornishe of Bighorn Project (i.e., Project) because it would be detrimental to the conservation of Nelson's bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) in the Peninsular Ranges of California. The letters express 2 general biological reasons the Project will be detrimental to the recovery and conservation of bighorn sheep in the Coachella Valley, California. 1. The Project will be within the 400 yard buffer around the Bighorn Institute (BI) and, thus, be too close to the captive breeding facility. 2. Bighorn sheep in the enclosure at the BI will be able to see the Project and hear construction, become habituated, and not be able to survive in the wild. Because the BI plays a role in the conservation of this endangered subspecies threats to the captive rearing facility are serious concerns. However, I am not aware of studies or data in the primary literature that support the concerns raised in the letters. The basis for the 400 yard buffer is unclear. I am not aware of data that indicates a 400 yard buffer is necessary for successful captive breeding programs. Researchers that have examined bighorn sheep responses to humans have concluded that hikers cause the greatest disturbance to sheep when compared with vehicles, mountain bikers, and combinations of vehicles and mountain bikers (MacArthur et al. 1982, Papouclus et al. 2001). Even under free ranging conditions bighorn sheep did not respond to hikers until they were approximately 200 yards from the sheep (if they responded) (Papouchis et al. 2001). Researchers investigating captive breeding programs for large mammals are more concerned with genetic issues that may have serious consequences to captive herds and do not even address buffers associated with the breeding facilities ( Kleiman 1989, Elliott and Boyce 1992, Th6velion et al. 2003, Nielsen et al. 2007). Based on my experience and the literature, I cannot find evidence for this concern. I was not able to find support for the second concern either. The animals are already habituated to artificial conditions (i.e., the enclosure, supplemental feeding, and care takers) as is necessary for captive populations. I am unaware of any literature or data that even suggest that activities associated with the Project, as described, will cause habituation resulting in the failure of lambs to survive in the wild. Researchers have evaluated how well captive reared sheep from the BI survive in the wild; they did not do well (i.e., "did not result in population growth or establishment of a viable population...77 [Ostermann et al. 2001:749]). The authors (Osterman et al. 2002) that examined the captive breeding program, operated by the BI, did not attribute failure to habituation. Because there are no published data to support either concern I find no basis for a wall that will "break the line -of -sight" between bighorn sheep and the Project as discussed in the documents. The literature cited in this letter is listed below. Literature Cited Elliott, L. F., and W. M. Boyce. 1992. Implications of captive breeding programs for the conservation of desert bighorn sheep. Desert Bighorn Transactions 36: 54-57. Kleiman, D. J. 1989. Reintroduction of captive mammals for conservation. BioScience 39:152-161. MacArthur, R. A., V. Geist, and R. H. Johnston. 1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses of mountain sheep to human disturbance. Journal. of Wildlife Management 46:351-358. Nielsen, R. K., C. Pertoldi, and V. Loesclicke. 2007. Genetic evaluation of the captive breeding program of the Persian wild ass. Journal of Zoology 272:349-357. Ostermann, S. D., J. R. Deforge, and W. D. Edge. 2001. Captive breeding and reintroduction evaluation criteria: a case study of Peninsular bighorn sheep. Conservation Biology 749-760. Papouchis, C. M., F. J. Singer, and W. B. Sloan. 2001. Responses of desert bighorn sheep to increased human recreation. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:573- 582. Th6venon, S., A. Bonnet, F. Claro, and J. Maillard. 2003. Genetic diversity analysis of captive populations: the Vietnamese sika deer (Cel-vus nippon pseudaxis) in zoological parks. Zoo Biology 22:465-475. Please let me know if I can provide additional information or address other issues. I would be pleased to do so. Sinserely, Paul R. Krausman, Boone and Crockett Professor of Wildlife Conservation and Certified Wildlife Biologist®