HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff ReportREQUEST:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Recommend to the City Council approval of a tentative tract map,
known as Cornishe, and certification of an environmental impact report
for the subdivision of 11.87 acres into two home sites west of Indian
Cove, a private street within the "Canyons at Bighorn Golf Club", south
of Dead Indian Creek.
SUBMITTED BY: Phil Joy
Associate Transportation Planner
APPLICANT: Cornishe of Bighorn Allen, Matkins, Leck
P.O. Box 789 Gamble & Mallory LLP
Ceres, CA 95307-0789 515 S. Figueroa S., 7th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3398
CASE NO. TT 31676
DATE: September 16, 2008
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Adoption of the attached resolution recommends approval of a two -home
subdivision map and certification of the EIR to the City Council.
The project site is almost entirely within 400 yards of lambing pens for captive,
federally listed and endangered Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. The sheep belong to the
Bighorn Institute, which was granted a 400-yard buffer for development at Bighorn.
If this same buffer were required on this project, development would effectively be
prohibited.
The project initially required an EIR and consisted of 38 townhomes. It was scaled
back repeatedly until -in consultation with the City- it was reduced to its present
configuration of two home sites that provide a minimum 240 yard buffer from the
sheep pens.
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31676
September 16, 2008
Page 2 of 10
II. BACKGROUND:
A. Property Description:
Cornishe is an irregularly shaped property between "The Canyons at Bighorn"
and "The Bighorn Institute", and is zoned Planned Residential- 5 dwelling units
per acre for roughly 90% of the property, with the balance zoned Hillside
Planned Residential along the eastern portion of the property.
The subject property is characterized by a plateau that slopes from south to
north of roughly five acres in the center of the property. Approximately two
acres of the site is comprised of the slopes of a rock outcropping at the
western property corner. The balance of the site is comprised of the slopes
and creek bottom of Dead Indian Creek along the northern property boundary
and a ravine along the eastern property line, separating it from new homes
within Bighorn Golf Club.
The plateau is generally 25' above Dead Indian Creek and varies in elevation
from 850' at the south property line, to 810' at the northeastern end. The rock
out cropping reaches an elevation of 929', the highest point on the property.
Although the only access to the project is from Bighorn, Cornishe is not part of
"The Canyons" at this time. The present legal access to the site is across
Dead Indian Creek and a fairway at Bighorn, but when "The Canyons" was
developed, this secondary access from Indian Cove was provided so that a
road across the golf course wouldn't be necessary.
The average slope of the property is between 20% and 25% and is identical
with most of the slopes that were developed at "The Canyons".
B. Adjacent Zoning / Land Use:
North: PR-5 / Buffer Area
South N-A, county zoning / Sheep pens and undeveloped area
East: Hillside Planned Residential / Buffer area and single family
homes
West: PR-5 / Buffer Area
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31676
September 16, 2008
Page 3 of 10
C. General Plan Designation:
Study Zone Overlay / Low Density Residential (The Study zone was placed on
the property to analyze if it should be re -designated Hillside Reserve based on
the average slope).
D. Property History:
The only portion of the property outside of the 400-yard buffer line, if it
extended across the property, is an approximate 10,000 sq. ft. area entirely
within Dead Indian Creek at the extreme northeast corner. The buffer was
deliberately left off the subject property since it was not part of The Canyons a
Bighorn. A chronology of The Canyons (formerly Altamira) is as follows:
1. Altamira project is submitted in 1989 and eventually approved with an
EIR in 1991 that incorporates a 400 to 600 yard buffer. At
approximately the same time, the Bighorn Institute receives approval
for a zone change and conditional use permit from Riverside County for
their captive sheep facilities finding that the use is compatible with
adjacent planned uses and city zoning of PR-5.
2. A lawsuit is filed by the County and Bighorn Institute challenging the
Altamira approval, and a settlement agreement is reached with the
Institute resulting in an addendum to the Altamira EIR removing the
buffer and providing for relocation of the pens on August 21, 1992.
3. The California Department of Fish and Game determines that the
Institute did not have authority to enter into the agreement and the
present configuration of the pens is the only place the pens could be
located. This results in a second addendum to the EIR for the project
now referred to as The Canyons, putting the 400 yard buffer back on
the project approved on June 3, 1997.
4. Subject application is made in August, 2003 initially for 38 units. Staff
determines an EIR is required, and a preferred alternative consisting of
two home sites is identified. Plans are prepared for this alternative and
an addition to the EIR is prepared based on this two home site design.
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31676
September 16, 2008
Page 4 of 10
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. General:
Cornishe consists of two home sites that are concentrated in the northeast
corner of the property so that they are a minimum 240 yards from the
Bighorn Institute pens. The home sites are elevated above Dead Indian
Creek to the north and the ravine to the east, providing down valley views
similar to those within Bighorn that are adjacent to the streambed. Access is
from a lettered lot extending from Indian Cove (adjacent to a recently
constructed home) extending to the rear of the home sites with a cul-de-sac.
The home sites consist of Lot 1 which is 1.17 acres and Lot 2 which is 1.35
acres. The access road (Lot A) is .26 acres, leaving most of the property
undeveloped with an open space (Lot B) with 9.09 acres. Including 1.32
acres of Lots 1 and 2 to be re -naturalized, the open space area totals 10.41
acres of the 11.87 Cornishe property, or 88% of the land.
The density of two homes on almost 12 acres is well within the density
restrictions of the Hillside Planned Residential Zone, even though only a
small amount of the property is actually zoned Hillside.
Similar to the adjacent homes at Bighorn, all grading must be done outside of
lambing season (January 1 to June 30) and Cornishe is conditioned further
by the EIR to include all construction being performed outside of this period.
B. Home Design:
It is the applicant's intention to fully develop the home sites for future sale, so
home designs are not available at this time but would be subject to the
design criteria contained within the EIR and those at Bighorn Golf Club, even
though it is not part of that project yet. The pads being provided could
support homes up to 10,000 sq. ft., similar to the adjacent home sites at
Bighorn.
One of the EIR criteria is that outdoor activity areas be located away from the
lambing pens, which is also the most common way to develop the homes so
that the view of the valley would be across the rear yard area.
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31676
September 16, 2008
Page 5 of 10
This necessitates that the parking on the south side of the homes be "tucked
under", creating a split level type of home. The reason for this requirement is
to make the parking less obtrusive by, in essence, burying it since the
parking will be on the "sensitive side" of the home facing the lambing pens
while also minimizing grading.
C. Grading:
The project involves a considerable amount of soil import needed both to
provide a ravine crossing, and also to create a buildable pad where the
ravine meets Dead Indian Creek, similar to what was done at Bighorn. The
terrain makes the lower level garages possible since the cul-de-sac is within
the ravine at an elevation of 795' and the pads are elevated with heights is
820' for Lot 1 and 809' for Lot 2. The lower garages help to minimize the
amount of soil imported, which is part of the other potentially significant
environmental impact identified in the EIR.
The earthwork quantities are conservatively estimated at 3,921 c.y. of cut
and 39,800 c.y. of fill, resulting in an import of 35,879 c.y. Lot 1 (820' pad
height) involves cutting 6 feet into a high point of the plateau on the west side
and filling in an adjacent area on the southeast side to create a 24, 848 sq.
ft. pad. Lot 2 (809 pad height) involves a small amount of cut into the
plateau, and mostly fill again to the southeast to create a view lot. Adjacent
lots to the east at Bighorn have pad heights of 789' and 809", while Dead
Indian Creek rises 20 feet adjacent to the 200' of developed area from 780'
elevation to 800'.
The 6 foot "cut" area for Lot 1 is adjacent to a small peak in the plateau that
would be13 feet above the pad area, which helps to screen the home from
the pens. Berms are proposed adjacent to the cul-de-sac to help provide
screening.
Any grading in the ravine and Dead Indian Creek will be subject to review by
the Army Corps of Engineers since they are deemed "waters of the United
States".
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31676
September 16, 2008
Page 6 of 10
IV. ANALYSIS:
A. General:
The proposed lot sizes, density and elevation are similar to the nearest other
existing adjacent development, therefore the analysis of the project centers
on the impacts to the Bighorn Institute and the imposition of a 400 yard
buffer on the property. During the EIR process the applicant consulted with
the City to establish an appropriate buffer distance for Cornishe. After
careful analysis of the distance between the lambing pens and the Institute
Director's residence, a 240 yard distance was identified as being appropriate.
The Institute points out that the sheep utilize the east side of the pens facing
Cornishe more than the west side facing the highway where the Director's
residence is situated. However, it should also be noted that the sheep are
fed by Institute staff from the west side, and no one will be approaching the
pens from the east side (Cornishe side) of the pens.
The sheep become habituated to people when they see them in close
proximity. Institute employees feed the sheep on the west side so there will
still be more human activity on the west side than on the Cornishe side and,
consequently, there is greater likelihood of habituation from Bighorn Institute
employees than from Cornishe residents.
The EIR points out that the 400 yard figure is not a scientific number. It was
a compromise among experts with some recommending more, some less.
Given the residential zoning on and adjacent to the site where the Institute is
located, it is the City's responsibility to mitigate the project as much as is
feasible while balancing the development rights of the property owner against
the need to protect an endangered species.
With the sheep being a federally listed endangered species, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service has ultimate authority over the Institute's operations. At
their request, line of sight drawings were prepared and included in the EIR.
The drawings depict where screening will be necessary to visually shield
from the sheep all human activity within 8'of the ground within the entire
project. The adjacent homes at Bighorn have their activity areas facing the
pens with no requirements to visibly shield human activity.
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31676
September 16, 2008
Page 7 of 10
B. Home Design:
The EIR addresses impacts of human activity at the homes on the Institute
through home design. Review through the City's Architectural Review
Commission will address those issues previously listed in addition to light,
glare, architecture and re -naturalization of disturbed areas. The applicant
has stated that the architectural guidelines of the homes will be identical with
those at Bighorn, with the idea that this property could be absorbed by
Bighorn once entitlements are received.
C. Grading:
The pad heights represent a balance between the project objectives of
providing down valley views, staying as far away from the lambing pens as
possible, and minimizing soil import to the site. The import of 35,879 c.y. of
soil was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact in the EIR. A
number of mitigation measures are proposed in the EIR to minimize this
unavoidable impact. One down valley view obstruction from the property is a
berm that's part of "The Canyons" golf course, which the City has been told
is an integral part of the course that can't be removed.
D. Findings for Approval:
1. That the design or improvements of the proposed map is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
• The design of the subdivision leaves 10.41 acres of undisturbed
or re -naturalized open space area which is consistent with the
"Study Zone" designation which is intended to review the project
based on project slopes that exceed 10%.
2. That the site is physically suitable for residential development.
• There are adjacent utilities close by and preliminary review of
grading plans has shown the site is physically suitable. Similar
residential development has been successfully accomplished on
adjacent property.
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31676
September 16, 2008
Page 8 of 10
3. That the design of the tract map or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
• An environmental impact report has been prepared that has
identified potential significant environmental impacts, and a
statement of overriding considerations has been included.
4. That the design of the parcel or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
• The subdivision will be developed in concert with oversight by all
applicable governmental agencies to avoid any public health
problems.
5. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.
• Preliminary review of plans has shown that the site is physically
suitable for the project as proposed. There is access to the site,
utilities are available and the grading and construction necessary
to develop two homes are regularly accomplished on similar
sites in the vicinity.
6. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
• The map proposes two residential lots which are consistent with
the study zone of the general plan. The study zone was placed
on the property in recognition of the PR zoning on property that
appeared over 10% slope -which would make it eligible for HPR
zoning. The project's density is consistent with HPR density
requirements even if it were re -designated as hillside residential.
There is no specific plan applicable to the property.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
An environmental impact report has been prepared for Cornishe which analyzes all
environmental impacts for the project. The report identified short term construction
and long term operational biological impacts to the lambing pens, and short term
construction traffic impacts to the surrounding Bighorn community as potentially
significant and unavoidable for Cornishe.
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31676
September 16, 2008
Page 9 of 10
In order to approve the project, a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" is
included in the resolution which states the City has considered all aspects of
the project and has imposed all feasible mitigation measures to lessen
project impacts. The "Statement" stresses that this is being done only in an
abundance of caution and that the City is persuaded by the expert opinion of
the EIR consultants and those representing the applicant that feel no buffer -
or one smaller than 400 yards -is necessary to mitigate all effects.
VI. CONCLUSION:
All feasible mitigation measures have been placed on the project while respecting
the development rights of the property owner. The inclusion of tuck -under parking,
screening of all human activity, prohibition of all construction during lambing season,
and elimination of most, if not all, light and glare in the construction and operation
of the homes, are all in excess of restrictions placed on homes that were built with a
400 yard buffer from the lambing pens at Bighorn.
Further stated is that the Bighorn Institute had full knowledge of the City's General
Plan for adjacent residential uses when they located their facilities, and the
imposition of a buffer on this property would place an unreasonable burden on the
City in terms of litigation, inequity, and loss of revenue.
Therefore staff believes that Cornishe has taken great strides towards mitigation of
the impacts in a very difficult situation. The 240 yard buffer equates to almost 2 1
football fields, which many experts felt is an acceptable buffer distance. The two
home sites should produce a unique opportunity for a couple more beautiful homes
in the Bighorn area that the City can be proud to have within their jurisdiction, while
eliminating most, if not all, impacts to operations at the Bighorn Institute.
VII. RECOMMENDATION:
Waive further reading and adopt Res. No. recommending to the City
Council:
1. Certification of the EIR with a Statement of Overriding Considerations
2. Adoption of the findings; and
3. Approval of TT 31676
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31676
September 16, 2008
Page 10 of 10
VIII. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution
B. Legal Notice
C. Cornishe EIR and Addition
D. TT 31676 and grading plan
Submitted by:
Phil Joy
Associate Transportation Planner
Approval:
Homer Croy
ACM for Devel
ent Services
Department Head:
Lauri Aylaian
Director of Community Development
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 11.87 ACRES FOR TWO HOME
SITES AND CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT, WEST OF INDIAN COVE ADJACENT TO THE "CANYONS OF
BIGHORN" GOLF CLUB.
CASE NO. TT 31676
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 16th day of September, 2008, hold a duly noticed public hearing to a consider a
request by Cornishe of Bighorn, LLC, for the project described above; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined
that the project may significantly impact the environment, and certification of the
environmental impact report is recommended with a statement of overriding
considerations (SCH # 2004091012); and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of
said tentative tract map:
1. That the design or improvements of the proposed map is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
• The design of the subdivision leaves 10.41 acres of undisturbed
or designation which is intended to review the project based on
project
2. That the site is physically suitable for residential development.
• There are adjacent utilities close by and preliminary review of
grading plans has shown the site is physically suitable. Similar
residential development has been successfully accomplished on
adjacent property.
3. That the design of the tract map or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
PLANNING RESOLUTION NO.
• An environmental impact report has been prepared that has
identified potential significant environmental impacts, and a
statement of overriding considerations has been included.
4. That the design of the parcel or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
• The subdivision will be developed in concert with oversight by all
applicable governmental agencies to avoid any public health
problems.
5. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.
• Preliminary review of plans has shown that the site is physically
suitable for the project as proposed. There is access to the site,
utilities are available and the grading and construction necessary
to develop two homes are regularly accomplished on similar sites
in the vicinity.
6. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
• The map proposes two residential lots which are consistent with
the study zone of the general plan. The study zone was placed
on the property in recognition of the PR zoning on property that
appeared over 10% slope -which would make it eligible for HPR
zoning. The project's density is consistent with HPR density
requirements even if it were re -designated as hillside residential.
There is no specific plan applicable to the property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
certification of the Environmental Impact Report, including the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
3. That approval of the Tentative Tract Map 31676 is hereby recommended to
the City Council for reasons subject to the attached conditions.
2
PLANNING RESOLUTION NO.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 16th day of September, 2008, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
LAURI AYLAIAN, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
3
VAN G. TANNER, Chairperson
PLANNING RESOLUTION NO.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. TT 31676
Department of Community Development:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file
with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following
conditions.
2. All requirements of any law, ordinance or regulation of the state, city and any other
applicable government entity, shall be complied with as part of this map.
3. Recording of final map shall take place within 2 years of the date of this approval
unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null,
void and of no effect whatsoever.
4. Building design and landscaping on the properties shall conform to design
standards in Section 25.15.050 (Hillside Planned Residential) of the City's Zoning
Ordinance in addition to the mitigation measures contained in the EIR.
5. A conservation easement shall be recorded on Lot B acceptable to the City
Attorney.
6. All mitigation measures identified in CEQA FINDINGS (20 pages, attached as
Exhibit A) shall be incorporated into the planning, design, development, and
operation of the project.
Department of Public Works:
GENERAL
1. Landscaping maintenance of any common areas and property frontages shall be
provided by a homeowners association and or property owner, shall be water
efficient in nature and in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape
design standards. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of
Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by
the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration
shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners
association; (b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the
recordation of the Map; and (c) the aforementioned landscaping shall be the
responsibility of the property owners association. Landscaping plans shall be
submitted for review simultaneously with grading plans.
4
PLANNING RESOLUTION NO.
2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils
engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public
Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
3. The maintenance of any retention areas shall be by the homeowners association
and stipulated in the CC&R's.
BONDS AND FEES
4. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
5. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
6. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
7. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
8. Grading bonds are required.
DESIGN PLANS
9. Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a
drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction.
10. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electronic files
shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval
prior to issuance of any permits.
11. Improvement plans for utility systems shall be approved by the respective
provider or service districts with "as -built" plans submitted to the Department of
Public Works prior to project final. Easements for utilities on private streets shall
be granted on final map.
12. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and
modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION
13. Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in
accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be
provided.
14. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works
Department.
15. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section
24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management
and Discharge Control.
16. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence
to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit
for storm water discharges associated with construction. Developer must
contact Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
17. All grading shall be done under direct supervision of a registered soils engineer.
18. Provision for the continuation of any existing access rights which may be
affected by this project shall be included prior to recordation of the final map.
19. Prior to recordation of the final map and the issuance of any permits associated
with this project, applicant shall provide evidence of legal access rights.
Fire Department:
1. All buildings shall be accessible by an all weather roadway extending to within 150'
of all portions of the exterior wall of the structure. The roadway shall not be less
than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Dead-end roads in
excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn -around.
2. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted
by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being
placed on the lot. Three sets of water plans are to be submitted to the Fire Marshal.
3. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal's office for
approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes.
6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
4. Blue dot retro-reflectors shall be placed in the street 8" from centerline to the side
that the fire hydrant is on, to identify hydrant locations.
7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EXHIBIT A
CEQA
FINDINGS
INTRODUCTION
The City of Palm Desert has considered the proposed project, as submitted by
Cornishe of Bighorn, LLC (the "Applicant"), and has chosen to adopt the plan, subject to
the imposition of feasible mitigation measures. The proposed Cornishe of Bighorn project
(the "Project") consists of the subdivision of a 12 acre site to create two residential lots for
the development of one single family home on each lot.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et
seq.) ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regulations §§ 15000 et seq.)
require that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to
avoid or mitigate significant impacts that would otherwise occur with implementation of the
proposed project. Project mitigation or alternatives are not required, however, where they
are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the proposed project lies with
another agency. (CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a), (b)).
For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a Tess than significant level,
the public agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh the significant effects on
the environment (see, Pub. Res. Code § 21081(b)).
These findings summarize the data and conclusions contained in the final
environmental impact report ("FEIR") for the Project, which includes the Draft EIR, dated
December 2005, the New Preferred Alternative, an Addition to the Draft EIR, dated March
2008, the Responses to Comments, and the entire administrative record, all of which are
incorporated into these findings as if set forth in full.
The original tract map for the Project was filed in August of 2003. The original tract
map proposed the development of up to 57 dwelling units on four residential lots. The
initial application was revised to propose 38 dwelling 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 Project site, 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.
8
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
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
residential alternative for analysis in the Draft EIR. Impacts of the two -unit alternative
were evaluated in the Draft EIR as the Hillside Limited Alternative.
In response to the comments received on the Draft EIR, the Applicant explored
options for a smaller project and in November 2006, submitted a newly revised tentative
tract map for a two -lot residential alternative to the City, herein referred to as the New
Preferred Alternative. The New Preferred Alternative provides specific lots, pad areas for
each residence, and associated garages as well as the grading necessary to create those
pads. Although the Draft EIR complied with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines
regarding the analysis of the Original Project, the City circulated the New Preferred
Alternative for public review and comment to augment the Draft EIR.
Consistent with the requirements of CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines, the
FEIR discusses environmental effects in proportion to the severity and probability of
occurrence. The FEIR identifies a number of potentially significant adverse environmental
effects of the Project. The FEIR also identifies mitigation measures which would reduce or
eliminate potential adverse effects. These effects and the mitigation measures are
summarized below, as is the City Council's determination whether or not to incorporate
such mitigation measures and its rationale for such determination.
All mitigation measures have been incorporated into a mitigation monitoring and
reporting program pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081.6. The drafting of these
measures has been designed to ensure compliance during project implementation, as
explained further in the FEIR.
These findings merely summarize data in the FEIR administrative record for
purposes of identifying the significant impacts and mitigation measures for the Project.
The FEIR is incorporated by reference into these findings as substantial evidence therefor
as if set forth fully in these findings.
AESTHETICS
Impacts
The New Preferred Alternative would alter the natural appearance of less than half
of 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 adjacent Canyons at
Bighorn, appearing as a minor extension of that community. With compliance with the
Comprehensive General Plan policies and Municipal 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
9
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
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 Tess 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.
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.
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 Tess than significant. Although no significant impacts
have been identified, changes or alterations have been incorporated into the Project which
substantially lessen any potentially significant environmental effects on aesthetics as
identified in the FEIR.
AIR QUALITY
Impacts
During construction, emission from the New Preferred Alternative would not exceed
regional and local SCAQMD significance thresholds for ROC, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5.
The New Preferred Alternative would, however, exceed localized significance thresholds
for NOx. As such, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce NOx levels for the Project.
10
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
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 a less than significant impact on
sheep in the nearby lambing pen.
Operation 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 Tess than one -tenth of the
Project's 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 (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.
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.
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.
11
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
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.
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 and unavoidable
construction air quality impacts. Mitigation measures identified above substantially lessen
potentially significant environmental effects on air quality to the extent feasible. Based on
the FEIR and the whole of the record, feasible measures are not available to further
reduce NOx emissions below a level of significance.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
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 Iambs 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. As set forth in the FEIR, documented evidence is inconclusive
regarding the threshold of disturbance that would be detrimental to the captive breeding
program for Peninsular Bighorn Sheep operated the Bighorn Institute. In connection with
the approval of the Altamira (now Canyons at Bighorn) project, an assemblage of 40
biologists and others having knowledge and familiarity with bighorn sheep opined as to a
reasonable separation between ongoing human activity in a built environment and the
12
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
lambing pens at the Bighorn Institute. The biologists provided a wide range of opinions,
varying from no separation to over a mile. In an effort to settle litigation regarding the
Altamira project among the City, the Bighorn Institute, and Altamira, a legal compromise
was ultimately agreed upon to establish a 400 yard buffer between construction activity on
the Canyons at Bighorn property and the lambing pen at the Bighorn Institute. There is
thus no definitive scientific basis to establish that a buffer of 400 yards or any other
distance is required to protect the captive breeding program at the Bighorn Institute. The
Cornishe Property was specifically excluded in the legal settlement from the buffer area.
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 out of an abundance of caution to significantly
impact the bighorn sheep in the pen. For the purposes of the FEIR, 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 Iambs in the lambing pen through visual and, to a
lesser degree, auditory habituation. Mitigation is recommended to attempt to reduce this
impact, although elimination of the impact is probably not possible given the proximity of
the Project site to the lambing pen in its current location.
The 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
13
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CVMSHCP has been fully approved by all affected local jurisdictions, formal adoption is
not yet complete. It is reasonable to assume that if the CVMSHCP is not adopted, 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.
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 June
30. If any construction activities should occur during the nesting season that extends
beyond the lambing season (July 1st to August 31st), 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
14
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
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.)
Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts of the New Preferred
Alternative on biological resources would be reduced. However, in the absence of
definitive scientific evidence, it is conservatively assumed that the New Preferred
Alternative would still have the potential to significantly impact captive adult sheep and
born Iambs 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 unavoidable. Mitigation measures identified above substantially
lessen potentially significant environmental effects on biological resources to the extent
feasible. Based on the FEIR and the whole of the record, feasible measures are not
available to further reduce potential impacts on captive adult sheep and born Iambs in the
lambing pen through visual and auditory habituation to below a level of significance.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
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
15
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
and conservation measures set forth by CEQA and the 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 CEQA
and the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, cumulative impacts regarding historic,
archaeological and paleontological resources would also be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required as the New Preferred Alternative would not
have adverse impacts regarding cultural resources.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
No mitigation measures are required as the New Preferred Alternative would have
less than significant impacts on cultural resources.
HYDROLOGY
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 Dead Indian Creek. The New Preferred Alternative would require
permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and
Game, and the 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
quality would be less than significant.
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.
16
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
No mitigation measures are required as the impacts of the New Preferred
Alternative regarding hydrology and surface water quality would be Tess than significant.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
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, no cumulative impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
The New Preferred Alternative would result in a less than significant impact
regarding land use, and no mitigation measures are required.
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.
NOISE
Impacts
The New Preferred Alternative's construction noise impacts at the nearest
residential sensitive receptors would be Tess 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 Iambs 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.
17
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
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.
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.
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
18
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
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
hours of 6:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday from July 1st through September
30th and between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., Monday through Friday from
October 1st through December 31st. 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 side 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 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.
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.
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 the construction noise can occur, construction impacts to the bighorn sheep in the
lambing pen would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation measures identified
above substantially lessen potentially significant environmental effects on noise to the
19
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
extent feasible. Based on the FEIR and the whole of the record, feasible measures are
not available to further reduce noise impacts below a level of significance.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
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 of soil, 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 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.
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.
20
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
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.
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. Mitigation measures identified above substantially lessen potentially
significant environmental effects on traffic to the extent feasible. Based on the FEIR and
the whole of the record, feasible measures are not available to further reduce traffic
impacts below a level of significance.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, the FEIR described additional
categories of potential effects that were not found to be significant and were therefore not
discussed in detail in the FEIR. An Initial Study was prepared for the Project in September
2004 and is included as Appendix A in the FEIR. The Initial Study indicates why the
Project's potential effects on these issues were determined not to be significant and were
therefore eliminated from further consideration in the FEIR. The issue areas determined
to be less than significant by the Initial Study include the following:
• Agricultural Resources
• Historic and Paleontological Resources
• Geology/Soils
• Hazards/Hazardous Materials
• Mineral Resources
• Population/Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Utilities/Service Systems
21
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
Based on the Initial Study and the whole of the record, the Project was determined
not to result in significant impacts in any of the foregoing issue areas.
EXPLANATION FOR REJECTION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Three alternatives to the Original Project were identified in the Draft EIR, 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, the
New Preferred Alternative was analyzed in the New Preferred Alternative, an Addition to
the Draft EIR. Based on an analysis of these alternatives, an environmentally superior
alternative was identified. Each of the alternatives has been evaluated in relation to its
ability to accomplish the Project objectives set forth in the Draft EIR. The Project
objectives are as follows:
1. Land Use Planning Objectives
• Accommodate projected regional growth in a location that is adjacent to
existing infrastructure, urban services, transportation corridors, and
employment centers.
• Cluster development on the site to preserve regionally significant ecological
areas and other natural open space while reducing landform alteration and
maintaining the scenic views.
• Provide a range of recreational opportunities, including pedestrian paths that
are accessible to residents.
• Provide development that is compatible with surrounding residential
communities.
2. Design Objectives
• 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.
• Provide a complementary outdoor lighting plan that promotes safety and
avoids adverse lighting impacts on surrounding uses.
22
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
3. Economic Objectives
• Maximize the value of the site with clustered 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.
4. Resource Conservation Objectives
• Provide open space in a manner that is compatible with the protection of
significant natural resources.
• Minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources through site design and
development standards.
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 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 Planning, Design,
and Economic Objectives that have been set forth for the Project would not be met,
leaving the Project site with no economically viable use. Thus, this Alternative was
considered but rejected.
Reduced Project Alternative (Eight Single -Family Units): The Reduced Project
Alternative would develop eight single-family units, and 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 to the same extent as the Original Project, nor
would it meet the Resource Conservation Objectives to the same extent as the New
Preferred Alternative. This Alternative would also result in greater impacts on the
23
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
environment than the New Preferred Alternative. Thus, this Alternative was considered
but rejected.
Hillside Limited Alternative (2 Single -Family Units): The Hillside Limited
Alternative would develop two single-family units, 36 dwelling units less than the Original
Project. Under this Alternative, 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 to the Project site. This Alternative would be designed to
achieve a completely passive character that appears 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. However, the northeastern corner of the site
identified for development is largely located within the floodplain of Dead Indian Creek,
which would result in unacceptable biological and hydrological impacts due to the need to
undertake significant grading to raise the building site above the floodplain of the Creek,
and thereby disturbing riparian habitat and permanently altering existing drainage patterns
within the Creek. Furthermore, the Hillside Limited Alternative does not possess sufficient
elevation to permit views of the Coachella Valley, and the portion of the site that does not
lie within the floodplain of Dead Indian Creek is not large enough to accommodate more
than a single lot. Thus, the Hillside Limited Alternative does not meet the Project's Land
Use Planning, Design, and Economic Objectives to the same extent as the Original Project
and the New Preferred Alternative. To the extent that the feasibility of the Hillside Limited
Alternative depends upon the ability to construct within the floodplain of Dead Indian
Creek, the alternative is considered impractical and infeasible due to the difficulties of
constructing within an existing streambed.
New Preferred Alternative: (2 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 Tess than the
Original Project. The units would develop Tess 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 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
24
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
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. 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
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 to Tess than significant levels.
However, this Alternative would not meet any of the Land Use, Design, and Economic
objectives established for the Project.
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines requirement to identify an environmentally
superior alternative other than the No Project/No Build 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 considerably less environmental impacts 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 on captive sheep in the lambing pen at the Bighorn
Institute during and following construction, noise impacts during construction, 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 floodplain of Dead Indian Creek would occur, which would result in potentially
significant biological and hydrological impacts due to the need to undertake significant
grading to raise the building site above the floodplain of the Creek, and thereby disturbing
riparian habitat and permanently altering existing drainage patterns within the Creek.
Furthermore, the Hillside Limited Alternative does not possess sufficient elevation to
permit views of the Coachella Valley, and the portion of the site that does not lie within the
floodplain of Dead Indian Creek is not large enough to accommodate more than a single
lot. Thus, the Hillside Limited Alternative does not meet the Project's Land Use Planning,
Design, and Economic Objectives to the same extent as the Original Project and the New
Preferred Alternative. To the extent that the feasibility of the Hillside Limited Alternative
depends upon the ability to construct within the floodplain of Dead Indian Creek, the
alternative is considered impractical and infeasible due to the difficulties of constructing
within an existing streambed.
25
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
The New Preferred Alternative would achieve the Land Use Planning, Design, and
Economic Objectives for the Project to an extent that the Hillside Limited Alternative 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 New
Preferred Alternative. However, as the New Preferred Alternative would optimize a
balance between the Original Project and the Hillside Limited Alternative, it would meet
most of the Project Objectives for the property.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council of the City of Palm Desert finds that the mitigation measures
described in the FEIR will, when implemented, mitigate or substantially reduce most of the
significant effects identified in the FEIR. Nonetheless, certain significant environmental
impacts of the Project are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation
measures. For such effects, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project
against such unavoidable adverse environmental risks in approving it. In this regard, the
City Council hereby finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the FEIR have
been and will be implemented with the Project and that any significant unavoidable effects
remaining are acceptable due to the following specific economic, social, and other
considerations, including but not limited to Project benefits, based upon the findings set
forth above, in the FEIR, and in the public record of the consideration of this Project. The
unavoidable adverse impacts are identified as follows:
• Regional construction air quality emissions for NOx;
• Biological impacts (during construction and operation) to captive adult sheep
and born Iambs in the lambing pen through visual and auditory habituation;
• Construction noise impacts due to the anticipated duration of construction in
excess of the three month threshold at which significant noise impacts can be
expected to occur; and
• Construction traffic impacts to the Canyons at Bighorn community.
EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS
The FEIR and the administrative record for this Project document that the Bighorn
Institute located its pen facilities with full knowledge, or with the potential for full
knowledge, of the planning activities of the City of Palm Desert. This includes a
recognition, actual or constructive, that the Project site was and is zoned and planned for
residential uses. The evidence available in the public records of the Bureau of Land
Management even note that this consideration was taken into account, particularly in the
appraisal report establishing the value of the Bighorn Institute property. It must be
assumed that the Bighorn Institute knew of this issue and considered the location of its 30-
26
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
acre pen so close to the boundary with future development in the City of Palm Desert to
be acceptable.
The extent to which the Bighorn Institute must have considered this proximity
acceptable at one time, but no longer considers it acceptable, is a factor of internal
concern to the Bighorn Institute operations. The City of Palm Desert is not considering a
general plan amendment or zone change on the Project site from open space to
residential, but rather an implementation of its own general plan. If problems have arisen
that were not expected by the Bighorn Institute at the time that the Bighorn Institute
established its operations so close to residentially zoned property, the City Council of the
City of Palm Desert believes that it is incumbent upon the Bighorn Institute to look to its
own site or another site to mitigate impacts to its facilities as they now exist or may exist in
the future. The establishment of an open space buffer with no uses in it imposes a burden
on the City of Palm Desert of potential litigation, inequity, and loss of revenue for a
problem that the City of Palm Desert not only did not create, but made completely public
through its records. There was ample opportunity through the planning and zoning
process for the Bighorn Institute to make the City of Palm Desert aware of any conflicts
with its facility. However, the Bighorn Institute chose to locate its 30-acre pen only 300
feet from the boundary of the Project site, which is also the municipal boundary. For the
Bighorn Institute to assume that the City of Palm Desert would change its general planning
program to accommodate an adjacent land use which had willingly moved so close to the
City is an unreasonable expectation. It also deprives the City of Palm Desert of the
substantial revenue from this Project, as well as the contribution to the City's jobs/housing
balance. It should also be noted that the two single family residences proposed to be
constructed as part of the Project will be located approximately the same distance from
the Bighorn Institute's 30-acre pen as the residence of the Director of the Bighorn Institute.
These overriding considerations are only stated in an abundance of caution
provided there is any impact to the Bighorn Institute facility at all. As documented in the
findings, there is no scientific basis to establish that a buffer of 400 yards or any other
distance is required, and the City of Palm Desert is persuaded by those experts who
believe that no buffer, or only a small buffer, is necessary to mitigate all effects.
Therefore, there are no significant effects that need to be overridden in this sense.
However, to the extent that unanticipated impacts may occur, and recognizing the
permanence of the Project once it is established, the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert sets forth the above rationale for proceeding with the Project in view of the slight
potential for these impacts.
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
As set forth in the FEIR and in the administrative record for the Project, a 400 yard
buffer was established around the Bighorn Institute's 30-acre lambing pen in connection
with the approval of the Altamira project, now the Canyons of Bighorn development, in
1991. The establishment of the 400 yard buffer was the result of a legal compromise
agreed to in order to settle litigation regarding the Altamira project. The Project site lies
27
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
almost entirely within the 400 yard buffer area, but the City agreed as part of an additional
settlement of pending litigation, that the Project site is specifically excluded from the effect
of the 400 yard buffer and that development of the Project site would not be precluded due
to its location within the 400 yard buffer area.
The only portion of the 12-acre Project site that lies outside the buffer area consists
of only approximately '/a acre, which lies entirely within the streambed of Dead Indian
Creek, which is designated as "waters of the United States" for purposes of the Federal
Clean Water Act. The Applicant has presented evidence that even if permits could be
obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and
Game to develop within the streambed of Dead Indian Creek, the cost of such
development would exceed the resulting value of the property. If the City were to limit
development to only that portion of the Project site located outside of the 400 yard buffer
area, the economically viable use of the property would be significantly diminished and
possibly reduced to nothing, thereby exposing the City to a potential regulatory takings
action by the Applicant, which could result in a significant financial burden on the City's
resources. A restriction on all development of the Project site located within the 400 yard
buffer area would also eliminate possible revenue to the City in the form of increased
property taxes that would accrue as a result of the development of the Project site for two
high -end single family homes.
OVERALL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council of the City of Palm Desert has for some time had an adopted
general plan which has been harmonized with the City's policies for overall growth of both
housing and jobs. The City has chosen in its general planning scheme to concentrate the
job producing uses in the center of the City principally along Highway 111, or in the
northern portion of the City in proximity to Interstate 10, while using as residential areas
portions of the City away from Highway 111 and Interstate 10. The Project site is the last
remaining residentially zoned property located along the City's southern boundary for
which development has not yet been approved. The Project as proposed fully complies
with applicable use and density standards. The extent to which the Project is not
developed, or is not developed as proposed, would prevent the City from realizing its full
expectation. In adopting these policies, it is important to note that the City strove for
balance between environmental quality objectives, fiscal responsibility, and land use
patterns.
Short term construction air quality impacts and traffic impacts on the adjacent
Canyons at Bighorn development will be limited in duration and will cease following
completion of grading on the Project site. Construction has been ongoing on portions of
the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn development for a number of years, including, most
recently, in the adjacent Indian Cove community. The potential impacts associated with
the construction of the Project are not unlike those that the adjacent community has been
and still is experiencing. As discussed in the findings above, operational air quality and
traffic impacts will be less than significant. The ability of the City to implement its overall
28
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
planning goals and realize the economic benefits due to the Project outweigh the
temporary and unavoidable impacts due to construction.
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.
Based on the entire record of proceedings, the City finds that the foregoing
equitable, economic, and overall planning considerations outweigh the significant,
unavoidable impacts of the Project as identified in the FEIR.
29
CITY Of PHA DESERT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760 346-0611
FAX: 760 341-7098
info@pa1r-duen.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO. TT 31676
NCI. :CE iS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
�e.; ir, ;ssion to consider a request by Cornishe of Bighorn, LLC for approval of a tentative tract
ma and an environmental impact report to allow the subdivision of 11.87 acres into two (2)
-ices west of a private street named Indian Cove within the "Canyons at Bighorn Golf
or Daad Indian Creek. APN 771-030-008
A. I ESQUI1E HILLS DRIVE
B. PAW ROAD
C. CANYON ROAD
D. LANTANA VIEW
E. ANDREAS CANYON DRIVE
F. SUMMIT COVE
G. ROCKY CREEK
H. ARROIY VIEW
I. OWN CONE
J. PINNACLE CREST
PROJECT SITE
Sr.l: ,ioiic hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 16, 2008 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council
Chao -her at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, Califomia, at
..ic„ time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written
corm ants concerning all items covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the
cate oti the hearing. Information conceming the proposed project is available for review in the
u<;panr:�ellt of Ccmmunity Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
5.0;, p.m. Monday through Friday. In addition, the environmental impact report is available
or f .•:: on the city's website, at the Palm Desert Library, in addition to City Hall. If you
proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
s:n'.er. eise raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence
r?.iivi:rsd to r1e Planning Commission (or city council) at, or prior to, the public hearing.
:jh: Desert Sun Lauri Aylaian, Secretary
A.:gust 25, 2008 Palm Desert Planning Commission