Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0605 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNIM CU4-1ISSION MEETING 11JES 1Y - JUNE 5, 1990 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER ODUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARD G DRIVE I. CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE C uinissioner Richards led in the pledge of allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson Bob Downs Rick Erwood Sabby Jonathan Jim Richards Members Absent: None Staff Present: Ray Diaz Kandy Allen Phil Joy Joe Gaugush Tonya Monroe IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Consideration of the May 15, 1990 meeting minutes. Action: Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs, approving the May 15, 1990 meeting minutes as submitted. Carried 5- 0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACPION Mr. Diaz indicated there were no pertinent May 24 city council actions. VI. OONSE N r CALENDAR None. NITIV[TI'FS PALM DESERT PLANNING OO MISSION JUNE 5, 1990 VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. CUP 90-10 - BRUCE CLARK, Applicant Request for approval of a senior housing unit to be constructed with a new hcme south of Desert Lily Drive - 400 feet west of Grapevine. Mr. Jay outlined the salient points of the staff report and noted that a letter frcm Mr. Ebert had been received which expressed concern about the unit being used for rental purposes and opposition to the pad height. Staff indicated that the unit was proposed to be constructed per city guidelines and recommended approval. CamLissioner Downs asked about the lot size; Mr. Joy replied 20,400 square feet. Commissioner Richards asked if there was a granny-flat mandated law from the state; Mr. Joy replied yes, that the state handed down guidelines to the effect that every city had to adopt regulations allowing units to be constructed along with existing single family units for the sole purpose of residency by senior citizens. Mr. Diaz indicated that the City of Palm Desert probably has the most stringent granny-flat laws in the state and since the ordinance was passed approximately seven years ago, this was only the second request before the ccmnission. Commissioner Richards asked if the proposal met with the city's requirements; Mr. Joy replied yes and explained that there was a condition to provide an additional two car garage with the granny-flat, which took a large lot to accommodate a total four car garage. Coimtissioner Jonathan asked what the benefit was to having a granny-flat; Mr. Joy replied that the granny-flat entitled the property owner to two kitchens, while under normal conditions an additional kitchen constitutes an additional unit. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked the applicant to address the cnudssion. MR. KENT ATTRIDGE, architect, #7 Kevin Lee Lane, stated that the house was started two years ago. He noted that before the granny-flat was added the original plan had been approved by the homeowners association. He indicated that after the granny-flat was added, the homeowners association would not approve it until after several revisions. He stated there was a pad height conflict and noted that after discussion with the city and Mr. Folkers in particular, an equitable solution was arrived at for the pad height and location of the project. He indicated that 2 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 1990 +r.. they were now in canpliance with city requirements and requested approval. Chairperson Whitlock asked what buffer was being provided between Mr. Ebert's property line and the project. Mr. Joy informed ccm ission that the project meets all applicable setback requirements of the R-1 zone. Mr. Attridge demonstrated on the map what was being included as buffer and indicated there would be a wall above grade, planting and a metal wrought iron fence for plants to grow on; he felt the primary concern was to preserve the view of the mountains. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. MELVIN GORDON, 72-944 Joshua Tree in Palm Desert, president of the Palm Desert Property Owners Association, indicated that the references made that the property owners association approved the plans and that was not accurate; the plans were submitted to the architectural cannittee and the camdttee worked with the applicant and they did finally arrive at a acceptable plan, however, as a matter of policy at a meeting held by the board of directors that afternoon, they voted against the improvements as a violation of the declaration of protective infringement as recorded against the property. He indicated that the violation was that it was zoned R-1 for a single family private dwelling. He stated that while it might appear at this time to be a viable use, there was no way of policing it in the future. The board was concerned that it might become a rental unit, which would be a violation of code provisions and city ordinances. He noted there was no way of policing it and as a matter of policy they did not want any residences in the R-1 zone to have more than one kitchen in each installation. MR. JERRY CONLEY, 46-460 Desert Lily Drive, directly opposite the proposed project, wanted to go on record as opposed because it would be a multiple residence. He noted that the surrounding lots were all large lots and felt the additional rental unit would detract from the area. He felt that it was one of the prettiest areas in the city and wanted to go on record as being opposed. JOHN SHAFFNER, 73-110 Grapevine, directly behind the proposed home, felt that he and his other two partners had the same concerns already expressed. He felt the structure as designed would obliterate his entire view of the valley, which to a 3 NIIIVUI� PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 1990 certain extent was expected, and that at some time someone would be building a home on this lot. He felt that the way in which the home was sited and designed would create a very high wall or sense of structure across the back line of the property. Starting with the garage area, exactly setback 15 feet from his property line, and was designed to go up 14 feet to acccnnodate an RV of some kind. He also had a concern about the additional residence being built on the property and noted that it was on the same line as the garage with a roof line that extends 12 feet. He indicated that the whole property has structure all the way across the back of the property at fairly high levels that would obliterate the views. He felt it was too much building on the lot. DR. RALPH ZIMMERMAN, 73-025 Shadow Mountain Drive, informed commission that he lives two doors west of the proposal. He asked what the square footage was of the second home. The applicant responded that the primary residence was 5200 square feet and the second unit was 850 square feet in living area. Dr. Zimmerman noted that the city's ordinance states that the second unit shall not result in an increase of more than 10 percent of the existing living area. He noted that the project did not comply. He stated that his main concern was that this was an R-1 area with large lots and prime property in Palm Desert. He felt that to permit two residences on the same lot was contrary to the original planning of the city. He felt if this were approved the city would be setting a precedence and lowering property value and degrading the master development plan. He was concerned if Mr. Clark's father did not want to live there, that would make the property available for rent, and noted that there was a separate metering system for all utilities in the second hone which would make it ideal for a rental property for people other than family members. He indicated that other neighbors had expressed an interest in having a second house on their property. He felt that if commission allowed this on one property, it would open the door for further applications to do the same thing on other properties. Mr. Diaz clarified that many agruments stated by the last speaker were agruments used by staff when the city wrote in opposition to this legislation when it went through Sacramento. He indicated that it was approved by the state and in certain respects, it tied the city's hands on what could or could not be approved. He suggested that the citizens write to their state assemblyman and try to get the legislation repealled, but at this time the city had to abide by 4 MIMES PALM DESERT PL71NNING CC:NMISSION JUNE 5, 1990 vow state law. He noted that the City of Palm Desert's regulations regarding granny-flats were probably the tightest in the state and noted this was only the second request since the legislation was passed seven years ago. MR. DAVID KOPAY, 73-110 Grapevine, owner behind the proposed house, stated that he was amazed that the project had gone this far without his knowledge until a week ago. He felt the granny- i flat unit was showing a bit of insensitivity on the part of the owners because of the building design with the three car garage and other workshop area that looks like it was for a motor home/RV to be parked at the base of the lot without being put away and would be unsightly. He was told that the pad had been built up and should be graded down to the level that was there and consistent with the natural terrain of the area. He indicated that the house next to it was lowered quite a bit, but felt the proposed project was built up at least two feet. He stated that he was opposed to the granny-flat. MS. GRACE PESCHELT, 46-335 Desert Lily, east of the proposed project, agreed with Mr. Kopay and had known that ever sense she started her house that the lot in question had an illegal pad on it and there were neighbors in the area that saw the dirt dumped on the property, which made the lot much higher than others in the area in addition to the huge house and enormous guest house. She felt it brought down the area a lot and noted that she had spent quite a bit of money to construct her house, which was almost finished, and did not want to see something towering above everyone. She indicated that she was one foot below the legal grade to accommodate the views of her daughter who lives behind her property. When the lot was graded, she was told she had to go from the median height from the back to the front and that was how the lot was graded. She noted that she has a guest roan that was added attached to the garage with no kitchen and objected to having a separate rental unit and was concerned about the use if Mr. Clark were to sell the property. She stated that she had sent a letter to the planning department notifying them that the height was well above grade and was higher than the lot on the other side, whereas it should be lower than the lot on the other side because of the way the street configuration. MR. CLYDE HOLLENBECK, owner of a home two lots removed from the project, felt the project was out of zone and out of context. He felt the lot street-side was four feet higher than it was at curb and gutter construction. He felt it was an unjust move for 5 MINMES PALM DESERT PLANNING 00MIISSIM allNE 5, 1990 S k i the planning commission to allow a house up there where it would be a "sore thumb". MR. BRUCE CLARK, 73-955 Saguaro Court, indicated that he purchased the lot approximately five years earlier and as the owner of the property, he stated that he shared many of the concerns that had been expressed. He indicated that he had some concern over the height requirements mentioned and informed commisison that he had met with the city that morning and discussed at length the requirements of the city with regard to the criteria used in establishing the lot height and had arrived at an acceptable pad elevation, which was lower than proposed on the drawings. He indicated that both the criteria applied which would set the pad elevation was the identical criteria applied to Mrs. Peschelt's house, although she lowered it herself. That criteria and the provisions for the granny-flat unit in the rear complied to all the provisions of the state law, which was adopted by the city and meets all city requirements. He indicated the unit would be occupied by his father, who was 73 years old, and had no interest in selling the property soon. He noted that the project could have been approved as it is strictly as a guest house and the only thing separating it as a guest house was the range and stove. He indicated that his father wished to live independently from the family. Mr. Diaz suggested that Mr. Gaugush explain about compatible grading. Mr. Gaugush indicated that initially the property was at some time in the past brought up to the current grade and the problem staff had was how much, when, etc. The project as sutmitted after preliminary review based on the architectural plan, staff was requiring the grade be dropped approximately one foot as shown on the plan. He indicated this would result in a differential with the property to the west of approximately two and a half feet, finished floor. Using the same criteria for his property which was utilized to the west property, as well as similar areas around town, determined the working number. Commissioner Richards noted some concern had been expressed about the elevation being altered recently. He asked if the city had evidence of that. Mr. Gaugush replied that he couldn't speak to the time aspect, but it appeared that the height had been raised for some time and suggested the area residents might be able to address that issue. He requested from the design engineer for the assessment district, which took place back in the 19801s, for any information he has on relative grades at that time and was in the process of putting what he has available together and getting it to the city. From an area compability standpoint, the numbers arrived at fit in with the 6 NIINUIES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 5, 1990 vow guidelines that the city utilizes. Commissioner Richards asked about the drop in grade coming down from the alluvial fan at that point and where the elevation pad would sit from the curb site as proposed. Mr. Gaugush replied from the low top of curb to the pad elevation, low top curb along the property frontage would be approximately 4.75 feet. Currently to a midpoint on the lot was approximately 6 feet. He indicated that starting from curb going back about 25 feet was y relatively flat and was probably 15 feet at that point and contours increase to anywhere from 3 to 4 feet above the curb and then gradually toward the rear of the lot picks up elevation. Commissioner Richards asked if that was consistent with adjacent properties. Mr. Gaugush noted that the property to the west as mentioned earlier, in a general sense the topography was the same, and the property owner voluntarily lowered the property an additional foot and in a general sense the street slope from the east end of the Clark property to the west end of the Peschelt the streets drops approximately 2 1/2 feet. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public hearing and asked for catments from commission. Commissioner Erwood asked what the percentage of lot coverage was with the house and granny-flat unit. Mr. Joy replied approximately 250. Commissioner Erwood asked what the maximum allowed for R-1 would be and Mr. Joy replied 30% and indicated that the height requirements for R-1 was 15 feet and up to 18 feet with approval from the architectural camdssion. Commissioner Richards asked about the height of the project at that level, and the height of the granny- flat. The architect replied 12 1/2 feet at the ridge. Commissioner Richards explained that the city was required to adopt provisions to allow granny-flats. He noted that the issues the city has control over was the height of the building, the pad elevation, and the general impact on the neighbors. He indicated that Mr. Clark was before the commission with a project that met all the requirements of the city and state. He felt there was not much recourse when anyone applies for approval that meets all requirements. He indicated that on the basis of the fact that this was only the second granny-flat request, the city's requirements were very strict. Commissioner Jonathan agreed with Commissioner Richards, but believed that superimposed on those provisions was the general requirements that had to be satisfied to grant the conditional use permit. He felt that two had not been met based on public testimony: 1) that the proposed CUP was in accordance with the objectives of the zoning 7 NIIIV[TI'� PALM DESERT PLANNIW COMMISSION JUNE 5, 1990 ordinance. It seemed that from the input of the neighbors that had not been satisfied; and 2) that the proposed CUP would not be injurious to the general welfare of the area. He was persuaded by the testimony that that was not the case. Based on that, he could not vote in favor of the conditional use permit. Commissioner Richards requested additional help from the city attorney because he felt that the ccmnission's hands were tied by state law. He asked that the city attorney respond to the two issues brought up by Cannissioner Jonathan. Commissioner Downs requested clarification: 1) could the planning commission circumvent the Palm Desert Property Owners Association if they voted against the proposal; and 2) did the city have to grant the applicant a separate meter for the granny-flat. Mr. Diaz responded that as for the Palm Desert Property Owners Association, the city works cooperatively with regard to their CC&R's. It was his understanding that the project had been approved by them, however, if the applicant insists that the decision is separate, then he could cane before the city. Mr. Diaz stated that the city could not enforce Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of a private property owners asociation. The association could proceed with a civil action to stop the project if they wished to, but the CC&R's must also cane under state and federal law. Mr. Diaz also indicated that the city was not required to grant the applicant separate meters. Ms. Allen informed commission that it was not appropriate for the planning commission to deny this application based on what the homeowners association might or might not do, but act independently. Chairperson Whitlock asked that Commissioner Jonathan's concerns be addressed. Conni.ssioner Jonathan clarified that the conditions that must be justified in the granting of a conditional use permit superimposed the other requirements having to do with the granny-flat ordinance; first the requirements of the granny-flat ordinance must be satisfied and second, the four conditions must be present to justify approval of the conditional use permit. His concern was that at least two of the conditions had not been satisfied. He asked if that was an appropriate interpretation of the law. Ms. Allen replied yes. Commissioner Richards noted that the conditions were fairly broad and could be used by almost any local body to deny the granny-flat. He wanted to know whether or not the city attorney knew or had available any decisions that might have been renedered for this particular area. He felt that the conditions outlined were such that almost 8 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING C+C 4IISSICN JUNE 5, 1990 wow anyone who occupied the neighborhood would be opposed to additional development by a fellow neighbor and the two requirements that Commuissioner Jonathan spoke of could be raised easily in that case. He felt that it would be beneficial to know what decisions were being upheld in the courts. Ms. Allen indicated that she could research the matter and bring the information back at the next meeting. Commissioner Erwood asked if these were the same findings that were applied to each and every conditional use permit in the city; Mr. Diaz replied yes. Commissioner Erwood felt that Commissioner's Jonathan's comments were well taken, and the public testimony of the adjacent neighbors that their property would be materially harmed by the construction of the grading plan, he did not feel on that basis that finding number two could be satisfied. Commissioner Jonathan stated that was his point, but his opinion was not arbitrary in that if mass opinion had been that they were all in favor of the project and everyone wanted guest houses, which might be conceivable in other places, if that had been the case there would not have been justification for not finding number two against the general welfare. Based on the public testimony he did not feel the first or second finding had been satisfied. Commissioner Richards stated that he was ready to make a motion that this matter be continued to allow the city attorney time for research and report back before the commission makes a decision, since the decision could be against state law. Ms. Allen informed commission that she would have the information for the next meeting (June 19). Chairperson Whitlock reopened the public testimony. Commissioner Downs requested an amendment that a separate meter not be granted. Commissioner Richards clarified that the difference between a granny-flat and guest house was the ability to cook and have a cooking appliance. Commissioner Downs noted that they could still have a cooking appliance without needing a separate meter. Staff indicated that they would look into that. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan, continuing CUP 90-10 to June 19, 1990. Carried 5-0. B Case No. PM 25888 - JOE LADENANN, Applicant Request for the split of a 1.23 acre lot into two lots located 300 feet west of the Sunrose Lane south terminus. 9 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING CU44ISSION JUNE 5, 1990 rwrF Mr. Joy outlined the salient points of the staff report and indicated that the property owners association granted approval of the lot split with the condition that written permission was given by the surrounding three property owners. The applicant was able to obtain written permission from two of the property owners and the third would not respond for a long time and the applicant found that the �. property had changed hands. After the case was advertised for public hearing, a letter of opposition was received by the third property owner located directly to the east. Since the property owner (Janura and Anderson) objected to the lot split, the property owners association approval was rescinded. Staff suggested a continuance to allow staff to address each item applicable to the subdivision itself that was mentioned. Chairperson Whitlock asked for and received clarification that the board of directors withdrew their approval. Chairperson Whitlock opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to address the commission. MR. KENT PHILLIPS, representing Joe Lademann who was also present, reiterated that the lot was zoned PR-7, which allowed seven dwelling units/planned residental. He indicated that the adjoining property to the north was R-1 20,000. Mr. Lademann's proposal was in accordance with all the zoning requirements and general plans. Mr. Lademann was planning to parcelize the property into two lots, the existing parcel was 1.23 acres and approximately 53,500 square feet. He wanted to parcelize that into lot 1 at 20,000 square feet and lot 2 33,500 square feet. He indicated that they had met all the requirements of the Ironwood CC&R's. He stated that the map to the north had ten lots under construction that were approximately 20,000 square feet and all the original units in the 19 unit subdivision which included this lot, approximately 10 of those are flag lot styled ranging in size from 20,000 and 24,000 depending on whether the flag was part of the lot. Letters were received on June 1 from the owners of lot 18, Janura and Anderson, as well as two approval letters from the Petitos and Phil Harris. He explained the process they used to notify and obtain approval from these homeowners. He noted that Mr. Janura's letter and Ms. Anderson's letter were about the same (co-owners of the same property). He addressed the concern that with the lot split the home would be closer to lot 18 than it would be if there were only one home, but noted that the Ironwood CC&R's regulated the amount of setback, front, side and rear, and the side yard setbacks are 20 feet, so it was not governed by the number of lots. The other comment that the lot size approach or exceed 10 MLNUMS PALM DFSET2T PLANNING CUM� ISSICN JUNE 5, 1990 one acre in size, he had a copy of the original subdivision from 1978 which indicated that the average lot size of the 19 units was 27,027 square feet. Mr. Lademan's lot was the largest at 1 and 1/4 acres. Mr. Phillips noted that Mr. Harris and Mrs. Petito were the most effected by it, and they approved the lot split. The way the Janura/Anderson house was situated, the driveway of the proposal parallels their driveway. The portion of their house that backs onto Mr. Ladomann's parcel 1 was the area of the house where the air conditioners and pool equipment were located. He felt the integrity of that house being jeopardized by this was not correct. The statement that the lot split would dimish the value of his lot and the surrounding lots he did not rebut, but commented that the improvement of a 35,000 square foot hone or larger in a gated area would not jeopardize his home. He asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Richards indicated that the Petito and Harris residences were not part of the Ironwood 19 lot subdivision in 1978. Mr. Phillips stated that was correct, that they were existing homes. Commissioner Richards asked if Mr. Lademann was aware that when he bought the property he would subject to the CC&R' s of the association. Mr. Lademann replied yes, but was aware that it was zoned PR-7 and felt that to get a variance to obtain a lot split would be conducive to the homeowners association. Mr. Diaz noted that the PR-7 zoning was in place when he arrived at the city in 1980 and did not know the reason for that zoning. He suggested obtaining from the applicant a change of zone to R-1 20,000. He did not feel it made sense for the property to be zoned PR-7. Commissioner Richards noted that when the sale of the property took place in 1979 or 1980, it was understood that they were buying into a community. The more expensive lots had views and the ones in back that had no views were larger to create an equal amount of value. He was not sure that coming in 10 years later was adequate reason to split a lot that was originally intended to be a single family lot with its neighbors when all the neighbors do not agree. Mr. Phillips indicated that in response to that, in 1987 a tentative map was filed in an area of Ironwood Association that incorporates #9 where the lots are a flag style lot, not fronting on the golf course and with limited mountain views, therefore, he felt there were previous subdivisions done in that area that were consistent with Mr. Lademann's proposal. Commissioner Richards noted there were also areas that had 11 units to the acre and did not feel that was as valid a consideration. He indicated that people who bought lots along Sunrose Lane going up JFK expected that the lots would remain 11 r MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUKE 5, 1990 as they were when they bought, purchased, and built their homes and if the association only approved the property on the basis of receiving approval from the surrounding homeowners and that was not given, what did the applicant expect from the commission. Mr. Lademann indicated that the answer to that was when someone went up to buy that lot, saw the size and location, and looked at the other two large lots adjacent to it, the third one adjacent to that had two small lots abutting its one side of the property. Also, the Janura house and view section was 90 degrees going out the other way and the service area and equipment abuts his property line, and he did not feel it would harm him in any way and felt it would be better to have two more lots consistent with the other lots in the Ironwood area for either income or closing off that open area. He noted that it was zoned PR-7 and felt it was reasonable for the city to subdivide it into two equal parcels. Mr. Phillips indicated that the CC&R's of Ironwood do allow for subdivision within different areas of Ironwood and CC&R's governed that last subdivision which was done in 1987 of the units in the R-1 20,000 area. He felt that Mr. Lademann's proposal was consistent as to lot size and structure of the lot with approximately 20-30 lots directly within 1/4 mile of his existing lot. Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. JANURA, 49-335 Sunrose Lane, stated that they had been looking at the Ironwood area for about three years. About 1 1/2 to 2 years ago they looked at Mr. Lademann's lot, which was for sale. It had a single family residence plan approved for the lot. They did not like the plan so they did not buy the lot. Just recently the hone next door came up for sale and the area with the five hones up against the wash all range in size from one to three acres, of which his is one. He indicated that they went into the purchase of their hone fully assured that these size lots and the prices paid for it would stay. He stated that they purchased the property because of the size of the lots and the home and the uniqueness of the Ironwood complex. He noted that the proposal effected his backyard views from the bedrooms that had double glass doors with lanais. That was why he was objecting. The plan they looked at was for one home and was against the CC&R's. MR. JAMES D. BROWN, 49-400 Della Robbia, owner of property immediately west of the project stated that his property was 2.4 acres. He had seen the split of the lots around him and did not { 12 MINLJTES PALM DESERT PI,ANNI W CCMMSSION JUNE 5, 1990 approve of it. He indicated that all the lots along the wash had retained their size. He borders on it and was opposed to any lot split. Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony and asked for comments. 1 Commissioner Richards felt the proposal would change the nature of the individual area and by using the statistics of the whole 19 lots; those lots were specifically sized because of their value and to split it would change the nature of the area. The two adjacent neighbors were opposed to it; the homeowners association was opposed unless neighbors agree, and he was opposed to the project. He indicated that he would move for denial. Commissioner Downs agreed. Mr. Diaz indicated that the motion would be to instruct staff to prepare a resolution of denial on the basis that the project was incompatible with the adjacent area. Action: Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Conrdssioner Erwood, instructing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption on June 19, 1990. Carried 5-0. C. Case Nos. TT 25296 and C/Z 89-16 - BIG URN VOM]RES, Applicant Request for approval of a master tentative map subdividing 362 acres into a 484 unit country club, a first phase of 108 units on 35 acres, a change of zone for 25 acres of drainageway from O. S . to PR-5 and H . P . R . , and focused environmental impact report, located southeast of Portola Avenue and Highway 74. See attached certified copy (Exhibit A) of verbatim minutes by the firm of Yates and Associates. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, continuing TT 25296 and C/Z 89-16 to June 19 to allow a response to comments. Carried 4-0-1 (Chairperson Whitlock abstained). 13 MINUI'ES PALM DESERT PLANNIM OCTUSSION JUNE 5, 1990 VIII. MIS r LANBpU A. Case No. CUP 89-12 Amendment #1 - CJH PARTNERS, Applicant Request for adoption of a resolution of denial of an amendment to an office building conditional use permit located at the northeast corner of Santa Ynez and Alessandro Drive, adding a driveway onto Santa Ynez Avenue as required by the Fire Marshal. Action: Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Cnudssioner Richards, approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Cc nnissioner Richards, adopting Planning Cc mtission Resolution No. 1444, denying CUP 89-12 Amendment #1. Carried 5-0. IX. ORAL C1CN4JNICATIONS None. w X. (XhT�fl'S Chairperson Whitlock noted that the joint meeting would be on June 18 and staff requested items for the agenda. There were no items. XI. ADJOURMENT Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, adjourning the meeting. Carried 5-0. The meeting adjourned 11:30 p.m. RAMON ATTEST: A. DIAZ, Secret - CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson /tm 14 EXHIBIT "A" PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING rtrw TUESDAY - JUNE 5, 1990 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS WITH REFERENCE TO ITEM C, CASE NOS. TT 25296 AND C/Z 89- 16 - BIGHORN VENTURES, APPLICANT COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: CAROL WHITLOCK , CHAIRMAN w.. BOB DOWNS SABBY JONATHAN RICHARD ERWOOD JIM RICHARDS STAFF PARTICIPATING: RAYMON A. DIAZ, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER , DIRECTOR OF COMMISSION DEVELOPMENT CANDY ALLEN, CITY ATTORNEY PHIL JOY , ASSISTANT PLANNER REPORTED BY : CAROL YATES CSR NO. 2534 & ASSOCIAI ES CERTIFIED COURT & DEPOSITION REPORTERS 73 255 El.PASEO/SUI I E 15 PALM DESERT, CA 92260-4276 619 /341-4431 MfMBFPS Of CA(IfORI IIA COURI RE3'OPIFPS A;,' C( I�)IJ MID NATIONAL SHORTHAND REPORTERS ASSOCIATION 2 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, JUNE 5, 1990 2 2 3 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING IS ON 4 TENTATIVE TRACT 25296, CHANGE OF ZONE 89-L6, BIGHORN VENTURES 5 IS THE APPLICANT . REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A MASTER TENTATIVE 6 TRACT SUBDIVIDING 362 ACRES INTO A 484-UNIT COUNTRY CLUB, A 7 FIRST PHASE OF 108 UNITS ON 35 ACRES, A CHANGE OF ZONE FOR 25 8 ACRES OF DRAINAGEWAY FROM O.S. TO PR-5 AND HILLSIDE PLANNED 9 RESIDENTIAL, AND FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, LOCATED 10 SOUTHEAST OF PORTOLA AVENUE AND HIGHWAY 74. 11 MR . DIAZ, MAY WE HAVE THE STAFF REPORT? 12 MR. DIAZ: YES. 13 MR. JOY , WILL YOU GIVE THE STAFF REPORT? 14 MR . JOY: YES, THIS MATTER WAS PREVIOUSLY BEFORE THE 15 COMMISSION NOVEMBER 7, 1989, AT WHICH TIME THE COMMISSION 16 REQUIRED AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT UPON THE STAFF'S 17 RECOMMENDATION. THIS WAS AS A RESULT OF CONCERNS VOICED BY 18 THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE 19 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, AMONG OTHERS, CONCERNING THE IMPACT 20 UPON THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE'S OPERATIONS. 21 WE WENT OVER THE PROPERTY ITSELF AT THAT NOVEMBER 7TH 22 MEETING, AND IT BASICALLY JUST CONSISTED OF WHAT YOU JUST 23 ALLUDED TO, THE DESCRIPTION, A 484-UNIT COUNTRY CLUB ON 362 24 ACRES. AND IN A MINUTE WE'LL TURN THE FLOOR OVER TO OUR 25 CONSULTANT WHICH WE HIRED TO PREPARE THE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT 26 REPORT, TO RUN THROUGH THE REPORT AND EXPLAIN TO YOU THE YATES & ASSOCIATES 3 1 FINDINGS THAT HE CAME UP WITH. 2 AT THIS TIME, I 'D LIKE TO JUST BRING YOUR ATTENTION 3 TO LETTERS THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED CONCERNING THE PROJECT, WHICH 4 I THINK HAVE BEEN PASSED OUT TO YOU PREVIOUSLY , AND I WOULD 5 JUST LIKE TO READ THEM INTO THE RECORD NOW. 6 THE INSTITUTE HAS WRITTEN TWO LETTERS, MAINLY 7 SUPPORTING THE E. I . R. , WITH SOME CONCERNS OVER SOME OF THE 8 TESTS AND EXPRESSING A CONCERN OF ANOTHER, OF AN ADDITIONAL 12 9 ACRES TO, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE 10 BIOLOGICAL PRESERVE BOTH AS AN INSTITUTE AND AS A WILD SHEEP 11 HABITAT BUFFER . 12 WESTINGHOUSE HAS WRITTEN A LETTER OBJECTING TO SOME 13 OF THE REFERENCES IN THE E . I . R. CONCERNING IMPACTS OF THEIR 14 PROJECT ON THE INSTITUTE, AN I WOULD REMIND EVERYBODY THAT 15 THEIR PROJECT IS NOT BEING REVIEWED TONIGHT, MOSTLY JUST A 16 RESULT OF THEIR COUNTRY CLUB . 17 THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME HAS WRITTEN THE CITY , 18 MOSTLY SUPPORTING THE E. I . R . WE HAVE A LETTER FROM A CAROL 19 PINTO, ADDRESS, 75-325 MENO (PHONETIC) DRIVE, WHICH I BELIEVE 20 IS IN THE PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB, WHO IS OPPOSING THE 21 PROJECT. 22 I HAVE A LETTER FROM RICHARD MECHLING, OF CATHEDRAL 23 CITY , WHO IS IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROJECT; I HAVE A LETTER 24 FROM HAROLD HOUSLEY , WHO IS APPLICANT'S ENGINEER, AND HE HAS 25 CONCERNS THAT THE E. I . R. DOES NOT STRESS THE BENEFITS OF THE 26 PROJECT ON THE DRAINAGE ISSUES SATISFACTORILY . YATES & ASSOCIATES 4 1 WE ALSO HAVE CORRESPONDENCE FROM JOHN CRISTE, AND HE 2 HAS A FEW EXHIBITS IN HIS LETTER AND IS SHOWING THE SANTA ROSA 3 MOUNTAINS NATIONAL -- THE SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS HABITAT 4 NATIONAL PLAN, SHOWING THE SHEEP HABITAT ON THAT PLAN. 5 AND ALSO CORRESPONDENCE IN YOUR STAFF REPORT FROM 6 DR . STEVE CARUTHERS AND DR . LARRY LA CRAY (PHONETIC) 7 CONTRADICTING SOME OF THE FINDINGS OF THE E. I . R . 8 AND ALSO A LETTER FROM RUSSELL AND JOAN BURKETT 9 (PHONETIC) OF IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB, WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE 10 REPORT, WHICH IS BASICALLY SUPPORTING THE PROJECT . 11 AND THEN WE HAVE A PETITION -- I BELIEVE YOU HAVE A 12 COPY OF THAT SOMEPLACE -- FROM THE STUDENTS OF THE PALM DESERT 13 HIGH SCHOOL, WHICH IS OPPOSING THE PROJECT . 14 MR. DIAZ: WELL, AM I CORRECT THAT THE PETITION FROM THE 15 STUDENTS OF THE PALM DESERT HIGH SCHOOL STATES THAT, "WE, THE 16 UNDERSIGNED FACULTY AND STUDENTS OF THE PALM DESERT HIGH 17 SCHOOL, BELIEVE THAT THE BIGHORN SHEEP ARE AN ESSENTIAL PART 18 OF OUR DESERT ECOLOGY , WE SUPPORT THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE AND 19 THE WORK IT DOES FOR THE HEALTH AND PRESERVATION OF THIS 20 SPECIES. " 21 IT DOES NOT INDICATE WHETHER IT IS FOR OR AGAINST THE 22 PROJECT. AND I BELIEVE WE CAN ALL ECHO THE SUPPORT OF THE 23 WORK OF THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE, WHICH THIS PETITION APPARENTLY 24 ADDRESSES, AND IS SIGNED BY 160 STUDENTS AND FACULTY MEMBERS 25 OF THE PALM DESERT HIGH SCHOOL BUT DOES NOT DIRECTLY RELATE TO 26 THE PROJECT. YATES & ASSOCIATES L• 5 1 MR . JOY : IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF AT 2 THIS TIME, I 'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE MIKE PERONI , FROM THE FIRM OF j 3 SMITH, PERONI & FOX, (PHONETIC) , PREPARERS OF THE E. I . R . , FOR �rrr 4 PRESENTATION OF THE DOCUMENT . 5 MR . DIAZ: MADAM CHAIRMAN, BEFORE MR . PERONI SPEAKS, I 6 GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS ON THE PART OF PERSONAL 7 PRIVILEGE, OR WHATEVER, FROM THE STAFF'S STANDPOINT, BECAUSE 8 THERE HAVE BEEN VARIOUS RUMORS BEING SPREAD WITH REGARD TO 9 THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT AND STAFF'S ROLE IN IT. 10 FIRST OF ALL, THERE WAS A RUMOR THAT WE HAD HEARD 11 THAT THE STAFF DID NOT WANT MR . CORONET TO SPEAK TONIGHT. 12 MR. CORONET IS HERE; THERE IS NO TRUTH TO THAT . IN 13 FACT , HE DROVE A GREAT MANY HOURS TO BE HERE TONIGHT. SO THAT 14 IS NOT TRUE. 15 SECONDLY, THERE WAS ANOTHER CALL WE RECEIVED FROM A 3 16 RADIO STATION THAT THE CITY OF PALM DESERT ALLOWS ELECTRIFIED 17 FENCES WITHIN THE CITY . 18 IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT ALL FENCES ARE APPROVED BY 19 THE PLANNING STAFF. WE HAVE NEVER APPROVED ELECTRIFIED 20 FENCES, WE WILL NEVER APPROVE ELECTRIFIED FENCES, AND WHILE 21 OTHER CITIES MAY HAVE APPROVED THEM, AND MAY NOT BE APPROVING 22 THEM NOW, WE HAVEN' T AND WE WON' T . 23 AND THAT SHOULD CLEAR UP SOME OF THOSE RUMORS. AND 24 IF ANY OTHER RUMORS COME UP, I WILL TRY TO CLARIFY THOSE, TOO. 25 MR . PERONI . 26 MR . PERONI : GOOD EVENING. YATES & ASSOCIATES 6 1 MY FIRM, SMITH, PERONI & FOX WAS TO LEAD AN 2 ENVIRONMENTAL TEAM. WE WERE GIVEN THE ASSIGNMENT TO PREPARE A 3 FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THIS PROJECT . 4 THE FOCUSED TOPICS INCLUDE ARCHEOLOGY, AESTHETICS,. 5 DRAINAGE AND BIOLOGY . AND TONIGHT OUR PRESENTATION IS GOING 6 TO FOLLOW THAT SAME FORMAT. 7 THE ARCHEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT DETERMINED THE FOLLOWING 8 FACTORS: 9 THE PROJECT SAT WITHIN THE TERRITORY WITHIN THE PATH 10 DIVISION OF THE CAHUILLA INDIANS. A FIELD SURVEY ANALYSIS WAS 11 PREPARED BY THE ARCHEOLOGICAL RESEARCH TEAM OF THE UNIVERSITY 12 OF CALIFORNIA-RIVERSIDE. 13 RESOURCES FOUND ON THE SITE INCLUDED THREE MORTARS TO 14 THE NORTH OF THE EXISTING WATER TANK , AND TWO POTTERS CERAMIC 15 BODY SHIRTS. THESE RESOURCES ONSITE HAVE BEEN DEEMED TO BE 16 NOT SIGNIFICANT . 17 NO FURTHER ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN 18 RECOMMENDED AT THIS TIME. HOWEVER, THE FOLLOWING MITIGATION 19 IS RECOMMENDED DURING CONSTRUCTION: 20 IF ANY ARCHEOLOGICAL MATERIALS ARE ENCOUNTERED DURING 21 EXCAVATION ONSITE, GRADING SHALL BE STOPPED, A QUALIFIED 22 ARCHEOLOGIST SHALL BE CONSULTED FOR FURTHER EVALUATION, AND 23 ANY MITIGATION REQUIRED BY THE ARCHEOLOGISTS SHALL BE 24 IMPLEMENTED. 25 THE NEXT TOPIC, AESTHETICS. 26 GEOGRAPHICS WAS UNABLE TO BE HERE TODAY . THEY WILL YATES & ASSOCIATES 7 1 BE AVAILABLE FOR THE COMMISSION AT THEIR NEXT MEETING, AND AT 2 THEIR PLEASURE, MAKE A DETAILED PRESENTATION. IN OUR 3 PRESENTATION AT THIS POINT, WE WILL GO OVER THE HIGHLIGHTS OF 4 THEIR FINDINGS. 5 THE METHOD OF IMPACT WAS ASSESSED ON THE BASIS OF 6 TWO TYPES OF LOOKING AT VIEWS: DISTANT VIEWPOINTS, CLOSELY 7 ADJACENT VIEWPOINTS. 8 CLOSELY ADJACENT VIEWPOINTS WERE SUPPORTED BY A 9 SERIES OF CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSES PREPARED BY GEOGRAPHICS AND 10 HOUSLEY ENGINEERING, WHICH IS CONTAINED IN YOUR DOCUMENT . 11 CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL PERMANENTLY 12 ALTER THE EXISTING GENERALLY NATURAL APPEARANCE OF THE SITE. 13 NO ASPECT OF THE PROJECT CONSTITUTES HILLSIDE VISUAL IMPACTS. err 14 I 'VE GOT TO EMPHASIZE THIS ANALYSIS, IN TERMS OF 15 HILLSIDE VISUAL IMPACTS, IS FROM THE SCENIC, THE HUMAN 16 VIEWPOINT. THERE IS A DIFFERENT DEFINITION OF HILLSIDE FROM 17 THE STANDPOINT OF BIOLOGY , WHERE MR. CORONET WILL BE TALKING 18 ABOUT LATER ON. 19 DIFFERENT VIEWS OF THE PROJECT SITE WILL BE 20 REPRESENTED BY A NARROW EDGE OF DEVELOPMENT ON THE NORTH SIDE, 21 PERCEIVED AS A THIN LINE DUE TO A RELATIVELY FLAT ANGLE OF 22 VIEW FROM THE VALLEY FLOOR . VIEW OF THE FLOOR WITHIN 23 REASONABLE PROXIMITY OF THE SITE ARE ENCLOSED ON THREE SIDES 24 BY THE MOUNTAINS. 25 AN ANALYSIS BY GEOGRAPHICS SHOWS THAT THE PROPOSED 26 DEVELOPMENT WOULD OBSTRUCT SOME MOUNTAINS VIEWS OF THE YATES & ASSOCIATES 8 1 DIRECTLY ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. THE FEWER (SIC) NUMBER OF 2 SURROUNDING PEAKS WILL NONETHELESS INSURE THE MOUNTAINS WILL 3 REMAIN AS A DOMINANT PART OF THE VISUAL SETTING, EVEN AFTER IT 4 IMPACTED RESIDENTS. 5 BASED ON LINE-OF-SITE STUDIES PREPARED BY HOUSELY AND 6 GEOGRAPHICS, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES WILL 7 BE VISIBLE FROM ADJACENT HOMES TO SOMEWHAT WIDELY VARYING 8 DEGREES, AND WILL IN THE WORSE CASES COMPLETELY OBSTRUCT THE 9 SOUTHERLY VIEWS OF THE SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS. 10 GENERAL EXAMINATION OF THE VIEWS FROM WITHIN AND 11 SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS, HOWEVER, REVEALS THIS TO BE A 12 CONDITION COMMON IN THE AREA. THE HOMES DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO 13 THE SITE ARE CURRENTLY FAVORED WITH SOUTHERLY VIEWS, PURELY AS 14 A FUNCTION OF HAVING NO NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH. THE PROPOSED 15 DEVELOPMENT WOULD MEAN SOME OBSTRUCTION OF THE VIEWS, JUST AS 16 THEY , IN TURN, OBSTRUCT OTHER VIEWS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 17 THE ADJACENT PORTION OF THE ALTA MIRA DEVELOPMENT 18 DOES NOT, AS PROPOSED, CONSTITUTE A VISUAL IMPACT BEYOND THOSE 19 COMMON TO THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT . 20 THE PROJECT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED AS NEARLY WHOLLY IN 21 KEEPING WITH THE VISUAL CHARACTER OF THE MAJORITY OF DIRECTLY 22 ADJACENT OR NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT . 23 THESE FACTS, TOGETHER WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF 24 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION LETTERS, LOWER VISUAL IMPACT OF THE 25 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS VIEWED FROM THE MOST SIGNIFICANT OF 26 AERIAL VIEWPOINTS TO A NON-SIGNIFICANT LEVEL. . YATES & ASSOCIATES t.` 9 1 MITIGATION MEASURES, WHICH HAVE HAVE BEEN PROPOSED IN 2 THE DOCUMENT, ARE CONCERNED WITH THE FOLLOWING TOPICS, AND 3 THEY ARE DETAILED IN THE DOCUMENT IN DETAIL. ELEVATION OF THE 4 PROJECT ROADWAY, PAD ELEVATION OF NEAR REVIEW OF DRAWINGS, 5 HEIGHT ELEVATION REVIEWING FOR ALL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OF 6 DRAWINGS, CONFIGURATION DWELLING ROOFS, EXTERIOR LIGHTING 7 PROGRAMS, HEIGHT OF BOUNDARY LANDSCAPING, AND SENSITIVITY OF 4 8 GRATING IN THE SOUTHERN OR SOUTHEASTERN PORTIONS OF THE SITE 9 REGARDING CONTOURING AND EROSIONS. 10 THESE MITIGATION MEASURES AGAIN SUPPORT THE 11 CONCLUSION THAT THE PROJECT HAS A NON—SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON 12 THE SCENIC ENVIRONMENT. 13 BOB MANERO, FROM MANERO & SMITH, WHO WILL DISCUSS 14 DRAINAGE IMPACTS, FOLLOWED BY JIM CORONET, WHO WILL ADDRESS 15 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT. 16 MR. MANERO: MY NAME IS BOB MANERO, MANERO, SMITH & 17 ASSOCIATES, CIVIL ENGINEERS. 18 OUR PRIMARY TASK WAS TO ANALYZE THE DRAINAGE ISSUES 19 AND OUR WORK INCLUDED THE REVIEW OF THE HYDROLOGY STUDY WHICH 20 WAS PREPARED BY THE DEVELOPER'S ENGINEER, HOUSLEY ASSOCIATES, 21 OUR OWN ANALYSIS OF HYDROLOGY, AND THE ANALYSIS OF EACH OF THE 22 BIOLOGICAL ALTERNATIVES FROM A HYDROLOGICAL STANDPOINT. 23 AND OUR CONCLUSION WAS THAT, IN EACH OF THE 24 ALTERNATIVES, IN EACH CASE, THERE IS AN ENGINEERING SOLUTION 25 WHICH WOULD NOT CAUSE NEGATIVE DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS. AND IN err 26 FACT, IN STORMS OF A LESSER DEGREE THAN THE STANDARD PROJECT YATES & ASSOCIATES i._ 10 1 STORMS, THE HUNDRED-YEAR FLOOD, THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE 2 IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD BE INCLUDED WITH ANY ONE OF THESE 3 ALTERNATIVES WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON } 4 DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE, IN THAT IT WOULD REDUCE THAT WHICH IS , 5 RELEASED BY CONTAINING SOME OF IT ONSITE. 6 I HAVE ONE OF MY ENGINEERS WITH ME, JOHN BESURES, 7 (PHONETIC) WHO DID THE DETAILED ANALYSIS WORK , AND WILL TRY TO 8 ANSWER ANY DETAILED QUESTIONS ANYONE MIGHT HAVE. 9 THANK YOU. 10 MR . CORONET: MY NAME IS JIM CORONET. I ' M REPRESENTING 11 CORONET & ASSOCIATES, A BIOLOGICAL CONSULTING FIRM. 12 MR . DIAZ WAS RIGHT, , I DID HAVE A LONG WAY TO DRIVE 13 HERE TONIGHT TO MAKE MY PRESENTATION. AND UNFORTUNATELY, I 14 DON' T HAVE A PLACE TO SPEND THE NIGHT. I ASKED JIM HAYHOE IF 15 I COULD STAY WITH HIM, AND HE SAID NO. SO I ' LL FIND 16 SOMEPLACE. 17 BASICALLY, I HAVE IDENTIFIED FOUR AREAS OF BIOLOGICAL 18 CONCERN THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THIS PROJECT. THEY ARE THE 19 DESERT WASH, THAT I HAVE SAID IN THE REPORT IS THE BEST 20 EXAMPLE REMAINING IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY AS A DESERT WASH. 21 THIS IS NOT A .UNIQUE HABITAT IN THE STATE, AND THEREFORE DOES 22 NOT RECEIVE ANY STATE OR FEDERAL PROTECTION, BUT IT IS A 23 UNIQUE HABITAT INSOFAR AS THE COACHELLA VALLEY IS CONCERNED. 24 IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE DID FIND EVIDENCES OF DESERT 25 TORTOISE ONSITE, THOUGH THE HABITAT WOULD HAVE TO BE 26 CONSIDERED POOR TORTOISE HABITAT. AS YOU ARE PROBABLY AWARE, YATES & ASSOCIATES 11 I THE DESERT TORTOISE IS AN OFFICIALLY LISTED SPECIES NOW BY THE 2 FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND THEREFORE MUST BE CONSIDERED AND DEALT 3 WITH IN TERMS OF MITIGATION OF THIS PROJECT. 4 THE THIRD ITEM OF CONCERN WOULD BE THE ROCKY HILLSIDE 5 HABITAT AND IMMEDIATE ENVIRONS. THOSE ROCKY HILLSIDE HABITATS 6 WOULD BE CONSIDERED A HABITAT FOR BIGHORN SHEEP WHICH ARE A 7 STATE-LISTED THREATENED SPECIES. AND ALTHOUGH THERE HAS BEEN 8 SOME CONCERN ABOUT WHETHER THE PRESENCE OF THE BIGHORN 9 INSTITUTE IN THE AREA HAS, INDEED, ACTUALLY ATTRACTED SHEEP 10 INTO THE AREA NOW, WE HAVE PLENTY OF INFORMATION AND PLENTY OF 11 RECORDS INDICATING THE BIGHORN SHEEP HAVE UTILIZED THAT AREA 12 FOR AT LEAST THE LAST 30 YEARS, AND CONTINUE TO DO SO TODAY . 13 I CLASSIFY THAT AS A SECONDARY OR A HABITAT FOR 14 BIGHORN SHEEP, AS OPPOSED TO A PRIMARY HABITAT. THAT IS TO %a 15 SAY THAT THE HABITAT IS NOT ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL FOR BIGHORN 16 SHEEP AT THIS MOMENT, BUT IT DOES PROVIDE A BUFFER ZONE IN 17 WHICH DEVELOPMENT AND PRIMARY BIGHORN HABITAT HAVE SOME 18 BREATHING SPACE, IF YOU WILL, BETWEEN EACH OTHER . 19 THE FOURTH AREA OF CONCERN WOULD BE THE PRESENCE OF 20 THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT 21 SITE . THE INSTITUTE IS CONSIDERED BY SOME PEOPLE TO BE THE 22 LAST AND PROBABLY THE BEST HOPE FOR THE SURVIVAL OF THE 23 BIGHORN SHEEP, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, ANYTHING THAT MIGHT OCCUR 24 ON THE DEVELOPMENT SITE THAT WOULD ADVERSELY IMPACT THE 25 INSTITUTE SHOULD BE OF CONCERN, AND SO THAT HAS BEEN INCLUDED 26 AS AN AREA OF CONCERN IN THE REPORT, ALSO. YATES & ASSOCIATES 12 I THOSE ARE THE FOUR AREAS, THEN: THE DESERT WASH 2 HABITAT, THE DESERT TORTOISE, THE FREE-ROAMING BIGHORN SHEEP 3 HABITAT AND THE PRESENCE OF THE INSTITUTE AND THE FACT THAT ow 4 THIS DEVELOPMENT COULD HAVE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE ACTIVITIES 5 OF THE INSTITUTE . 6 IF YOU WOULD LIKE, I COULD GO TO THE BOARD AND SHOW 7 YOU SOME OF THE AREAS OF BIOLOGICAL CONCERN AND SOME OF MY 8 PROPOSALS FOR PROTECTION OF THESE RESOURCES. 9 WOULD THAT BE APPROPRIATE? 10 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : I THINK SO. 11 MR . CORONET: ON THIS FIGURE THAT I ' M POINTING TO NOW, I 5 12 HAVE DELINEATED THE DESERT WASH HABITAT THAT IS WITHIN THE 13 PROJECT AREA, AND THE WASH HABITAT HAS BEEN DELINEATED, AND AS 14 I SAID BEFORE, THIS WASH COULD BE THE BEST EXAMPLE OF THE 15 COLORADO DESERT WASH LEFT IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY AT THIS 16 TIME . 17 ALL OF THE OTHER WASHES IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY HAVE 18 BEEN EITHER HEAVILY DISTURBED OR NO LONGER RECEIVE SOURCES OF 19 MOISTURE SO THEY CAN CONTINUE ON THEIR NATURAL ENVIRONMENTS. 20 PALM CANYON WASH HAS BEEN LOST. MAGNESIA SPRINGS 21 CANYON HAS BEEN LOST. INDIAN CANYON WASH HAS BEEN LOST. 22 THIS IS THE BEST EXAMPLE REMAINING IN THE COACHELLA 23 VALLEY . x 24 NOW, ON THIS MAP, WE HAVE DELINEATED THE 400-YARD 25 BUFFER AREA THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED AS AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM 26 BUFFER NECESSARY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE BIGHORN SHEEP V ATCC 9 ACCnt-T ATCO 13 1 INSTITUTE'S ACTIVITIES, AND WE HAVE DRAWN THIS IN GREEN ON 2 THIS MAP, AND IT WOULD BE THE -- IT WOULD -- IT HAS THE L� 3 FEATURE OF PROTECTING SOME WASH, BUT NOT VERY MUCH. rr 4 THIS WOULD ALSO INCLUDE, NOT ONLY THE 400-YARD 5 BUFFER, BUT IT ALSO INCLUDES A VIEW SHED ON THE MOST SOUTHERLY 6 SLOPES OF THE PROJECT AREA, AND, IN MY OPINION, GIVES THE 7 BIGHORN SHEEP INSTITUTE WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER A MINIMUM AMOUNT 8 OF PROTECTION FOR THEIR OPERATION. 9 AND ALL OF THESE FIGURES, BY THE WAY, ARE IN THE 10 REPORT . 11 THIS PARTICULAR MAP SHOWS THE 400-YARD BUFFER OF THE 12 INSTITUTE AND ALSO THE ROCKY HILLSIDE HABITAT WHICH IS USED 13 OCCASIONALLY BY BIGHORN SHEEP IN THE AREA TODAY . 14 THIS PARTICULAR MAP WOULD SHOW THE ENVIRONMENTALLY , 15 OR I SHOULD SAY THE BIOLOGICALLY PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE WHICH 16 PROVIDES PROTECTION FOR THE DESERT WASH ENVIRONMENT, THE 17 DESERT TORTOISE, THE WILD OR FREE-RANGING BIGHORN SHEEP IN THE 18 AREA, AND ALSO THE BIGHORN SHEEP INSTITUTE. AND THIS WOULD BE 19 MY RECOMMENDATION AS TO WHAT THE BIOLOGICAL PRESERVE WOULD 20 LOOK LIKE IF ONE WERE TO PROTECT THOSE FOUR AREAS OF 21 BIOLOGICAL CONCERN . 22 I ' LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS EITHER AT THE 23 PODIUM OR UP HERE IF ANYONE HAS QUESTIONS. 24 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: IN YOUR REPORT, YOU INDICATED THE 25 PRESENCE OF THE DESERT TORTOISE, AND I ' M JUST CURIOUS, THAT 26 WAS A RESULT OF ONE SHELL FINDING, AS I UNDERSTAND, IN THIS YATES & ASSOCIATES 14 1 MASSIVE AREA, AND I --JUST A PROCEDURAL QUESTION. I MEAN, HOW 2 DO YOU KNOW THAT WASN' T SOME KID WHO DUMPED HIS TURTLES, OR 3 SOMETHING SILLY LIKE THAT? 4 MR . CORONET: FIRST OF ALL, THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS 5 DESERT TORTOISE SIGHTINGS IN THE PALM DESERT COVE AREA IN 6 GENERAL . THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS DESERT TORTOISE SIGHTINGS, 7 FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE DEEP CANYON WATERSHED LESS THAN A MILE 8 AWAY . 9 THE EVIDENCE THAT WE HAVE ON OR IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT 10 TO THE SITE DOES NOT CONSIST OF A SINGLE SHELL FRAGMENT. 11 THERE HAVE BEEN OBSERVATIONS OF TOROISES ONSITE -- OF LIVING 12 TORTOISES ONSITE IN ADDITION TO THAT. 13 HOWEVER, I WILL GRANT YOU THAT IF THIS WERE PRIME 14 DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT, YOU WOULD CERTAINLY EXPECT TO SEE 15 MORE EVIDENCE OF IT. HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE LISTING OF THE 16 DESERT TORTOISE BY THE FEDERAL AGENCY, I ' M COMPELLED TO REPORT 17 ITS PRESENCE THERE AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PROTECT THE 18 POPULATION, NO MATTER HOW SMALL. 19 MR. JONATHAN: OKAY . THANK YOU. 20 THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE -- YOU'VE GOT ME A LITTLE 21 CURIOUS. YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS EVIDENCE ON THE 22 HILLSIDE PORTION THAT THE BIGHORN SHEEP HAVE BEEN THERE FOR 30 23 YEARS. WHY DID YOU PICK THAT NUMBER OF YEARS; WHY 30 YEARS? 24 MR. CORONET: THAT WAS AS FAR BACK AS THE PEOPLE I 25 CONSULTED WITH AND MY OWN EXPERIENCE GO BACK IN THE AREA. 26 MR . JONATHAN: PRIOR TO RESEARCH, DID THEY DETECTED THEM YATES & ASSOCIATES 15 1 IN THAT AREA, AS LONG AS 30 YEARS AGO, IS THAT -- 2 MR. CORONET: YES. 3 NOT NECESSARILY RESEARCH, PER SE, BUT BONA FIDE 4 OBSERVERS, RIGHT. 5 MR . JONATHAN: OKAY . THANK YOU. 6 MR . CORONET: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? 7 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: YEAH, I HAVE A FEW. 8 FIRST OF ALL, FOR THE BENEFIT OF MYSELF AND PERHAPS 9 SOMEBODY ELSE, WOULD YOU GIVE ME -- STATE YOUR QUALIFICATIONS 10 FOR THIS REPORT? 11 MR . CORONET: I HAVE BEEN DOING BIOLOGICAL SURVEYS AND 12 REPORTS SINCE 1975 . I HAVE DONE MORE BIOLOGICAL STUDIES THAN 13 ANY OTHER CONSULTANT IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY , AND PROBABLY ANY 14 OTHER CONSULTANT IN .THE CALIFORNIA DESERT SINCE 1975. I HAVE �wr 15 A B .A. AND A MASTER'S DEGREE IN BIOLOGY AND HAVE DONE A NUMBER 16 OF STUDIES IN THE PALM DESERT COVE. 17 I FEEL FAIRLY COMPETENT IN SAYING THAT I WOULD BE THE 18 MOST QUALIFIED INDIVIDUAL TO DO THIS STUDY . 19 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: OKAY . I WOULD LIKE TO COVER SOME 20 OF YOUR POINTS. 21 I DON' T HAVE A B.A. OR AN M.A. , BUT I HAVE BEEN IN 22 YOUR FIELD, BUT I HAVE LIVED IN THAT AREA FOR 18 YEARS. 23 THE FIRST POINT YOU HAVE TALKS ABOUT THE DESERT WASH; 24 IT'S THE LAST WASH. 25 MR . CORONET: I SAID IT WAS THE BEST EXAMPLE OF THE 26 COLORADO RIVER DESERT WASH. YATES & ASSOCIATES 16 1 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: WHAT WOULD YOU CONSIDER THE WHOLE 2 AREA THAT ENCOMPASSES THE ALLUVIAL FAN AND SO FORTH AND ALL 6 3 THE WASHES THAT FEED TO IT THAT COMPRISES THE AREA NEXT TO THE 4 IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB TO THE EAST? 5 MR . CORONET: YOU MEAN THE DEEP CANYON WASH? 6 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THAT'S RIGHT. 7 MR. CORONET: AND WHAT WAS YOUR QUESTION? 8 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: YOU INDICATED HERE TONIGHT THAT 9 THIS WAS THE LAST BEST EXAMPLE OF THE DESERT WASH. 10 MR. CORONET: UH-HUH. 11 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: AND THERE IS A TREMENDOUS WASH 12 SITTING THREE OR FOUR HUNDRED OR A THOUSAND FEET AWAY FROM 13 THIS THAT IS COMPLETELY PROTECTED AND HAS ALL KINDS OF 14 SIMILARITIES. 15 I DON' T UNDERSTAND WHY ONE OF YOUR CONSIDERATIONS IS 16 THAT WE HAVE TO PROTECT ONE OF THE LAST AND BEST WASHES, WHEN, 17 IN FACT, LESS THAN A HALF A MILE AWAY EXISTS A NUMEROUS AMOUNT 18 OF THEM. 19 MR . CORONET: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, YOU DON' T HAVE TO 20 PROTECT IT. THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION. 21 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: WELL, BUT YOU CITE THE FACT THAT 22 THIS IS A VANISHING BREED OF WASHES, WHEN I CAN ASSURE YOU 23 THAT IF YOU JUST TAKE A LITTLE HIKE LIKE I DO, THAT THERE ARE 24 A NUMBER OF WASHES PRETTY CLOSE TO THIS THAT HAVE ALL OF THE 25 SAME CHARACTERISTICS. 26 MR . CORONET: OKAY . YATES & ASSOCIATES 17 1 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: OKAY? 2 MR . CORONET: THE DEEP CANYON WASH DOES NOT HAVE A DENSITY 3 OF SMOKE TREES; IT IS NOT FULLY PROTECTED AT ALL. 4 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: I BEG TO DIFFER ABOUT THE DENSITY 5 OF SMOKE TREES. I HAPPEN TO BE A REAL FAN OF SMOKE TREES; I 6 HAPPEN TO HAVE TAKEN A PERSON WHO LIKES TO PHOTOGRAPH A LOT OF 7 THEM. AND THERE ARE A GREAT NUMBER OF SMOKE TREES ON BOTH 8 SIDES OF THOSE AREAS. 9 MR . CORONET: WELL -- 10 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: OKAY , ALL RIGHT NEXT POINT. 11 DESERT TORTOISES. 12 MR . CORONET: NEXT TIME I ' LL CALL YOU WHEN I DO A REPORT. 13 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: PLEASE DO. I MEAN, I HAPPEN TO BE 14 SOMEBODY WHO DOES IT BECAUSE I LIKE BEING THERE. I HAVE A DOG 15 THAT -- WE WALK THAT AREA AN AWFUL LOT. 16 THE DESERT TORTOISE, I 'M A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT 17 THAT. I HAVE NEVER SEEN A DESERT TORTOISE IN THAT AREA, BUT 18 IF YOU HAVE HAD BONA FIDE, QUOTE, "SIGHTINGS, " AND SO FORTH, I 19 GUESS THAT -- I GUESS -- I DON' T KNOW WHAT ANYBODY COULD SAY 20 IF I WERE TO TRY TO BE AGAINST A PROJECT AND I CITED BONA FIDE 21 SIGHTINGS, I HAVE A LITTLE PROBLEM WITH THAT, AS A BASIS OF A 22 SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, ONE FRAGMENT OF A SHELL OR SOMETHING THAT 23 SOMEBODY TALKS ABOUT. 24 MR . CORONET: MY RECOMMENDATION IS NOT BASED SOLELY ON THE 25 DESERT TORTOISE . 26 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: OKAY . YATES L ASSOCIATES i„ 18 1 I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. IF YOU WERE GOING TO 2 LOCATE A RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR ANYTHING THAT INVOLVES THE 3 TYPE OF HABITAT THAT OCCUR ON THE EDGE OF THIS VALLEY, AS WE 4 GET INTO THE MOUNTAINS, WOULD YOU THINK THAT THAT AREA WHERE 5 THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE IS WOULD BE A SUITABLE ENVIRONMENT TO 6 LOCATE A RESEARCH INSTITUTE, SPECIFICALLY FOR BIGHORN OR FOR 7 ANYTHING ELSE, TORTOISES OR WHATEVER? 8 MR . CORONET: I CAN ONLY SAY THAT THE INSTITUTE HAS BEEN 9 REMARKABLY SUCCESSFUL BY ALL STANDARDS. 10 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THAT ISN' T ANSWERING MY QUESTION. 11 YOU ARE THE PERSON THAT WE ARE LISTENING TO THAT IS 12 TELLING US WHETHER THIS IS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND PLACE TO 13 BUILD A DEVELOPMENT. 14 I ' M ASKING YOU, IS THIS AN ENVIRONMENTALLY SOUND 15 PLACE TO HAVE A RESEARCH INSTITUTE THAT IS TWO MILES FROM THE 16 CENTER OF PALM DESERT, AND HAS A HOUSE THAT HAS BEEN THERE FOR 17 I DON' T KNOW HOW LONG. 18 IS IT OR IS IT NOT A GOOD PLACE, OR ARE THERE 19 ALTERNATIVES? 20 MR. CORONET: THAT'S THE BEST POSSIBLE SITE TO BE LOCATED, 21 WITHOUT QUESTION . 22 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: HOW DID YOU DETERMINE THAT? 23 I GOT IN AN AIRPLANE -- 24 MR . CORONET: BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN REMARKABLY 25 SUCCESSFUL . 26 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: BECAUSE THEY'RE REMARKABLY 19 1 SUCCESSFUL. 2 DOES THE FACT THAT IT'S REMARKABLY SUCCESSFUL HAVE TO 3 DO WITH THE FACT THAT IT IS THE TERRAIN, OR THE FACT THAT THE 4 INSTITUTE THEMSELVES AND THE PEOPLE THAT ENCOMPASS IT AND DO 5 THE WORK MAKE IT THAT WAY? 6 MY QUESTION IS -- THIS WHOLE REPORT IS SOMETHING THAT 7 I FEEL IT'S ALMOST A WASTE OF EVERYBODY'S TIME. 8 WHY IS THAT INSTITUTE THERE? WHY IS THAT INSTITUTE 9 THERE, WHEN THERE'S 95 MILES OF MOUNTAINS OR THINGS CLOSE TO 10 IT THAT DO NOT HAVE HABITAT, HUMAN HABITAT NEAR IT? IF YOU 11 ARE THE EXPERT THAT SAYS NOTHING SHOULD BE NEAR IT NOW, MY 12 QUESTION TO YOU IS WHY IS IT THERE? IS THAT THE BEST SPOT FOR 13 IT? 14 MR. CORONET: WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I DID NOT SAY NOTHING 15 SHOULD BE NEAR IT, OKAY? AND I THINK THAT IF YOU WANT TO KNOW 16 WHY THEY HAVE LOCATED THERE, I SUGGEST YOU INVITE JIM 17 DE FORGE UP HERE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION . 18 MR . PERONI : I HAVE TO INTERRUPT HERE. 19 WE WERE RETAINED TO EVALUATE -- FOCUS FOUR TOPICS; WE 20 WERE RETAINED TO DO THAT. WE WERE REQUESTED TO DOCUMENT THE 21 HISTORY OF THE INSTITUTE. THE PROJECT AT HAND IS THIS 22 PROJECT, NOT THE INSTITUTE. WE DID NOT EVALUATE WHY THE 23 INSTITUTE'S THERE. 7 24 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: BUT THE ISSUE AT HEART, THE ISSUE ftw 25 AT HEART, MR . PERONI , THE ISSUE AT HEART -- THE DRAINAGE IS 26 NOT A PROBLEM, THE DESERT TORTOISE IS REALLY NOT A PROBLEM, YATES & ASSOCIATES E.3 20 1 THE DESERT WASH IS NOT A PROBLEM. 2 THE PROBLEM HERE IS SIMPLE. THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE 3 VEHEMENTLY OBJECTS TO ANYTHING BEING CLOSE TO IT. OKAY? 4 MR . PERONI : OKAY. I 5 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: YOU HAVE YOUR EXPERT HERE. 6 MR. PERONI : UH-HUH. 7 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: YOUR EXPERT IS A PERSON THAT'S 8 TELLING US THE REASONS WHY THIS INSTITUTE SHOULD NOT BE EVEN 9 ENCROACHED, OKAY? 10 MY QUESTIONS TO HIM RELATE EXACTLY TO WHAT WE ARE 11 DEALING WITH. YOU HAVE A REPORT HERE THAT DOES NOT LIST 12 ALTERNATIVE PLACES THAT ANY OF THESE THINGS COULD BE LOCATED 13 IN. BECAUSE -- 14 MR . PERONI : THE REPORT IS FOCUSED ON THE PROJECT AT HAND. OW 15 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: OKAY . MY QUESTION IS, THIS WHOLE 16 THING SHOULD HAVE BEEN UTILIZED BEFORE THEY PUT THE INSTITUTE 17 THERE . 18 (OVERLAPPING VOICES) 19 MR. DIAZ: MADAM CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, 20 THERE ARE SIX PAGES OF COMMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 21 REPORT THAT THE STAFF WROTE THAT THE CONSULTANT IS ADDRESSING, 22 AND, INDEED, SOME OF THOSE ISSUES HAVE TO DO WITH THE 23 DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE OR WERE NOT MADE WITH THE ADJACENT 24 USES AROUND 'IT. 25 WHAT MR . PERONI INDICATES IS VERY TRUE. THE PURPOSE 26 OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS TO ASSESS THE IMPACTS 21 1 ON THE ENVIRONMENT AS IT EXISTS TODAY . WHETHER OTHER AGENCIES 2 DID NOT OR DID AN ADEQUATE JOB IN TERMS OF ADDRESSING THE 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES WHEN THEY MADE THEIR DECISIONS, COULD BE 4 AN ENVIRONMENTAL LEGAL QUESTION, NOT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 5 REPORT QUESTION, AND THAT WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED AT A LATER 6 DATE . 7 THE PURPOSE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT IS TO 8 TRY TO GIVE YOU AS MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE TO TRY TO GIVE 9 TO THE CITY AND ADDRESS THE CITY'S POSITION AND PROTECT THE 10 CITY 'S POSITION IN TERMS OF THE DECISION THAT MIGHT BE MADE, 11 THAT IT MIGHT MAKE. 12 THE ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE RAISED, COMMISSIONER 13 RICHARDS, ARE ALSO QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED IN MY COMMENTS ' 14 TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WITH REGARD TO LAND USE 15 COMPATIBILITY AND SO ON, WHICH WERE FINDINGS THAT WERE MADE BY 16 THE COUNTY AT THE TIME THAT THEY APPROVED IT. 17 BUT BEFORE US THIS EVENING IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL 18 IMPACT REPORT, THE IMPACTS OF THE ENVIRONMENT THAT WOULD BE 19 MADE BY THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. THE ROLE OF THE INSTITUTE IN 20 TERMS OF HOW IT WAS THERE, AND THE LOCATIONS AND THAT, COULD 21 BE SUBJECT TO OTHER HEARINGS. BUT IN FAIRNESS TO THE 22 CONSULTANT, THAT WAS HIS DIRECTION. 23 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: MR . CORONET, LET ME ASK YOU 24 SOMETHING, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE FOCUS OF YOUR WORK WAS ON 25 THIS PROJECT AND NOT ON THE BIGHORN SHEEP INSTITUTE. BUT IN 26 THE COURSE OF DOING YOUR WORK I THINK YOU BECOME FAMILIAR WITH YATES & ASSOCIATES 22 1 THE INSTITUTE AND ITS NEEDS, AND MAYBE YOU CAN ANSWER MY 2 QUESTION; IF NOT, YOU CAN TELL ME SO. 3 WHERE THE INSTITUTE WOULD BE LOCATED, OF COURSE, IS 4 NOT THE ONLY PLACE THAT THE SHEEP ROAM. THERE IS A HUGE AREA 5 WHERE THE SHEEP DO ROAM -- 6 MR . CORONET: THAT'S CORRECT. 7 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: -- AND THAT IS PROTECTED. I 8 BELIEVE MOST OF THAT AREA IS PROTECTED BY THE B . L. M. 9 WITHIN THIS HUGE AREA, WHICH IS PART OF OR ADJACENT 10 TO THE COACHELLA VALLEY, ARE THERE OTHER ALTERNATIVE SITES 11 THAT THE INSTITUTE POTENTIALLY COULD HAVE LOCATED ITS 12 FACILITIES AS EFFECTIVELY? AND IT'S A HYPOTHETICAL, BUT ONE 13 THAT I WOULD LIKE FOR MY OWN EDIFICATION. 14 MR . CORONET: I. WOULD SAY THAT THE INSTITUTE, WHEN ALL 15 FACTORS ARE CONSIDERED, THAT LED TO THE INSTITUTE'S SUCCESS, I 16 WOULD SAY THIS, THAT THERE IS NO SITE THAT IS BETTER THAN THE 17 ONE THEY HAVE SELECTED, FOR WHATEVER REASONS. 18 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: LET ME PURSUE THAT ANSWER, AND 19 I ' LL TAKE YOUR OPINION AT ITS FACE VALUE BECAUSE YOU ARE THE 20 EXPERT AND I 'LL BUY INTO THAT. 21 SO LET'S PURSUE THAT A SECOND. LET'S SAY THAT SCORES 22 A HUNDRED FOR THAT LOCATION ON A TEST ZERO TO A HUNDRED. ARE 23 THERE OTHER LOCATIONS THAT WOULD HAVE PERHAPS SCORED 90 -- 24 MR . CORONET: YES. 25 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: OR 95? 26 MR . CORONET: IN MY OPINION. _.....__ _.____.. ....,_. YATES „&_ ASSOCI,ATS__.._..__.._ _ ___ 23 1 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: OKAY . THANK YOU . 2 MR. CORONET: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE BIOLOGICAL 3 IMPACT -- 4 MR . ERWOOD: I HAVE A FOLLOW-UP IN THAT. 5 WOULD IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN YOUR OPINION IF YOU 6 KNEW THAT THERE WAS PROJECT APPROVED THAT, SAY , MAY HAVE BEEN 7 MORE INTENSIVE THAN THIS PROJECT IN THE GENERAL AREA OF THE 8 INSTITUTE; IN OTHER WORDS, IS LOCATING OR BUYING PROPERTY IN 9 THERE TO LOCATE THE INSTITUTE AFTER THERE HAS BEEN A PROJECT 10 THAT'S MAYBE MORE INTENSIVE USE, THAT OF A RESIDENTIAL HOTEL 11 TYPE SITUATION? 12 MR . CORONET: THE LESS INTENSIVE THE USE, THE BETTER , 13 OKAY? 14 HOWEVER, I THINK MY MAJOR CONCERN WOULD BE ANY USE AT 8 15 ALL . IN OTHER WORDS, IF ONE HAS TO UTILIZE THE LAND ADJACENT 16 TO THE INSTITUTE WITHOUT A BUFFER , A LESS INTENSIVE USE WOULD 17 BE MORE DESIRABLE. HOWEVER , AN UP AND AWAY MORE SIGNIFICANT 18 CHOICE WOULD BE TO HAVE NO USE OF THE LAND. 19 MR . ERWOOD: I DO HAVE ONE FOLLOW-UP (QUESTION IF I MIGHT. 20 HOW MUCH INVESTIGATION WAS DONE WITH RESPECT TO THE ` 21 EXPERIENCE THAT HAS OCCURRED IN RANCHO MIRAGE, I BELIEVE IT IS 22 WITH THE RITZ CARLTON, AND THE IMPACT THAT IT HAS HAD ON THE 23 SHEEP IN THAT AREA? 24 MR . CORONET: YOU MAY RECALL ABOUT SIXTEEN MONTHS AGO, AS �r 25 I REMEMBER , THERE WAS A PROPOSAL CALLED VILLAGE OF CATHEDRAL 26 CITY , THAT WAS TO HAVE GONE IN IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE MAT®a 8. A0C2n^TAT@Q 24 1 RITZ CARLTON AND DIRECTLY SOUTH AND BEHIND CATHEDRAL CITY ON 2 THE HILLSIDES. IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE I DID THE BIOLOGICAL 3 STUDY ON THAT PROJECT ALSO. AND SO I ' M QUITE FAMILIAR WITH 4 SOME OF THE GOOD THINGS AND THE BAD THINGS ABOUT DEVELOPMENT 5 IN THAT AREA. 6 AND SO IF YOU HAD A SPECIFIC QUESTION, I COULD 7 PERHAPS -- 8 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: I HAVEN' T BEEN UP TO THE RITZ 9 CARLTON TO OBSERVE THE SHEEP COMING DOWN TO THE HOTEL, BUT 10 THAT'S THE GENERAL INFORMATION THAT I HAVE RECEIVED, AND IS 11 THAT IN FACT OCCURRING, AND IF THAT IS, IS THERE SOME 12 EXPLANATION, BECAUSE I ALWAYS THOUGH THAT IF YOU HAD ANY HUMAN 13 HABITATION, THAT THEY WOULD REALLY FLEE FROM THAT, AND HERE 14 YOU'VE GOT THIS BIG HOTEL THAT ' S QUITE A SUCCESSFUL -- 15 MR . CORONET: AT THE RITZ CARLTON, DURING THE TIME THAT I 16 WAS DOING A STUDY THERE, ON AN AVERAGE SHEEP WOULD COME DOWN 17 TO THE LANDSCAPED AREAS OF THE HOTEL ON AN AVERAGE OF ABOUT 18 ONCE EVERY THREE DAYS ON AVERAGE, AT LEAST DURING THE TIME I 19 WAS THERE. AND PEOPLE I HAVE TALKED WITH IN THE AREA PRETTY 20 MUCH CONCUR WITH THAT. AND SOMETIMES THEY SAY THEY COME DOWN 21 EVEN MORE FREQUENTLY . 22 THE QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS NOT WHETHER OR NOT SOME 23 BIGHORN SHEEP CAN BE BECOME ACCUSTOMED TO HUMAN ACTIVITY AND 24 THE PRESENCE OF HUMANS; THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT KIND OF 25 BEHAVIOR CONDUCIVE OF THE SURVIVAL OF THE BIGHORN SHEEP IN 26 GENERAL, AND I WOULD SAY IN A LONG RUN IT IS NOT . YAT49 1VAjW0efATgW J 25 1 THOSE SHEEP HAVE BECOME HABITUATED TO HUMANS, AND 2 SOONER OR LATER YOU' RE GOING TO HAVE PROBLEMS AS A RESULT OF 3 THAT SOME SHEEP IS GOING TO, YOU KNOW, BUCK SOMEBODY , SOME err 4 LITTLE KID GOES UP TOO CLOSE, AND THERE WILL PROBABLY BE A LOT 5 OF PEOPLE WHO FEEL THAT THE SHEEP SHOULD BE CONTROLLED IN THAT 6 AREA, SUCH AS WHAT IS DONE WITH COYOTES OR MOUNTAIN LIONS AND 7 IN OTHER AREAS WHEN HE THEY COME TOO CLOSE IN CONTACT WITH 8 PEOPLE . 9 IT'S A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE THOSE INCIDENTS HAPPEN, 10 AND IT' S A MATTER OF TIME BEFORE SOMEONE FEELS THE SHEEP NEED 11 TO BE CONTROLLED TO ELIMINATE THOSE . 12 MR . DIAZ: AGAIN, YOU' RE TALKING ABOUT THE INCIDENTS 13 HAPPENING . BUT IF THE INCIDENTS, SAY , DON' T HAPPEN, OR WE SAY tow 14 TOLL TO THE PEOPLE, "HEY , TOO BAD, " OR, "YOU SHOULD HAVE 15 KNOWN, " THEN CAN THEY BE ASSOCIATED? 16 MR . CORONET: THAT, I WOULD SAY IT IS CONCEIVABLE IT WILL 17 NEVER HAPPEN, BUT WE ARE DEALING WITH A STATE-LISTED 18 THREATENED SPECIES THAT I DON' T FEEL WE CAN AFFORD TO TAKE THE 19 CHANCE, BECAUSE IF WE ARE WRONG, THAT MAYBE THE STAW THAT -- 20 MR . DIAZ: THE SHEEP AT THE RITZ CARLTON . 21 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: IS THERE ANY PART OF THIS STUDY 22 THAT ALLUDES TO THAT? 23 MR . CORONET: THAT ALLUDES TO WHAT? 24 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: ANY PART OF YOUR ENVIRONMENT STUDY 25 THAT ALLUDES TO YOUR EXPERIENCE AT THE RITZ CARLTON? 26 MR . CORONET: NONE. THAT WAS A DIFFERENT PROJECT . YATES L ASSOCIATES 26 1 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: DON' T YOU FIND -- I FIND IT A 2 LITTLE BIT INCONSISTENT, THAT SOMEBODY IN OUR OWN BACK YARD 3 THAT HAS BEEN UP FOR A FEW YEARS, EVEN THOUGH I REALLY AGREE 4 WITH YOU 100 PERCENT. I DON' T LIKE THE FACT THAT ALL MAN IS 5 CLOSE TO -- NOT BECAUSE THEY MIGHT BUMP SOMEBODY OR SOMETHING 6 ELSE; I THINK THAT NATURE SHOULD BE LEFT UNDISTURBED WHEN YOU 7 POSSIBLY CAN. BUT I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT YOU COULD HAVE 8 ALLUDED TO THE EXPERIENCE AND SO FORTH IN YOUR RESEARCH, 9 ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU' RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING PRETTY CLOSE, 10 WITHIN A COUPLE OF MILES THE SAME HABITAT. 11 MR . CORONET: I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. I THINK IN THIS 12 CASE THAT IT REFLECTS THE FACT THAT -- IN THIS CASE I BELIEVE 13 WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE IMPACT ON THE INSTITUTE, AND THEIR 14 ACTIVITIES AND THEIR GOALS ARE QUITE A BIT DIFFERENT THAN 15 WHAT'S GOING ON IN RANCHO MIRAGE, WHERE THE SHEEP ARE SIMPLY 16 ALLOWED TO ROAM INTO THE DEVELOP AT WILL . THEY ARE DIRECTLY 17 CONDUCTING RESEARCH ON SHEEP AT THE INSTITUTE. 18 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: BUT THE BASIS OF YOUR COMMENTS 19 INDICATES THAT IN GENERAL, THE SHEEP SHOULD NOT BE CLOSE TO 20 MAN. 21 MR . CORONET: THAT'S TRUE . 22 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: AND IN GENERAL, WHAT'S OCCURRING 23 AT THE RITZ CARLTON IS THE SHEEP ARE CLOSE TO MAN . AND THAT 24 IS TWO MILES WAY , AND IT'S NOT IN YOUR STUDY . IT 'S BEEN THERE 25 FOR THREE YEARS, AND YOU HAVE INDICATED HERE IN PUBLIC 26 TESTIMONY YOU WERE THE EXPERT OF THE RECENT STUDY . VATFR L Atat"APYATWO 27 1 I THINK THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT MAKE SOME OF US 2 SKEPTICS WHEN WE LOOK AT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, THAT 9 3 YOU ARE THE EXPERT AND WHY HAVEN'T YOU INDICATED INCIDENCES OR 4 RECORDED REFERENCES OR SOMETHING TO SOMETHING THAT IS RIGHT 5 HERE IN TOWN? 6 MR . CORONET: THE SHEEP IN RANCHO MIRAGE INSOFAR AS THIS 7 STUDY IS CONCERNED, COULD VERY WELL BE TWO THOUSAND MILES 8 AWAY ; IT HAS NO RELEVANCE. JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME 9 SHEEP IN SOME PLACES IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY THAT COME DOWN 10 CLOSE TO PEOPLE, HAS DOES NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON WHAT'S GOING 11 ON IN THE INSTITUTE . THE INSTITUTE ARE NOT TRYING TO RAISE 12 SHEEP SO THEY CAN BECOME FRIENDLY WITH TOURISTS. 13 THE FOCUS IS TO MAINTAIN WILD SHEEP -- 14 (APPLAUSE FROM AUDIENCE) 15 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. 16 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THANK YOU, MR . CORONET . 17 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: OF THIS MAN. 18 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO IS GOINT TO 19 SPEAK REGARDING THE STAFF REPORT? 20 MR . JOY, DO YOU HAVE ANYONE ELSE REFERRING TO THE 21 STAFF REPORT? 22 MR . JOY: THAT CONCLUDES -- I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES OUR 23 CONSULTANT'S PRESENTATION OF THE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT . 24 I HAVE NOTHING MORE TO ADD TO THIS MATTER RIGHT NOW. 25 I ' M NOT SURE MR. PERONI HAS SOMETHING OR NOT. 26 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : IF THERE IS NOTHING FURTHER, I ' LL OPEN YATES & ASSOCIATES 28 1 THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF THE APPLICANT WISHES TO ADDRESS 2 THE COMMISSION . 3 MR. BURNS: MADAM CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, 4 LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, MY NAME IS MARVIN BURNS, I ' M THE 5 ATTORNEY FOR BIGHORN VENTURES. 6 FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS AND MAKE CLEAR FOR THE 7 RECORD THE NATURE OF THIS PROCEEDING. 8 MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL 9 MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL CONCERNING ALL OF 10 THE ISSUES, AND SO THAT THE APPEAL PROCEDURES WHICH WOULD BE 11 IN EFFECT IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WERE TO DECIDE ARE NOT IN 12 EFFECT WITH RESPECT TO THESE MATTERS. IT'S A MATTER OF 13 RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE CITY COUNCIL; 14 AM I CORRECT? 15 MR . DIAZ: MADAM CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, IF 16 THE COMMISSION DENIES THE APPLICATION, THEN THE APPEAL 17 PROCEDURES ARE OPEN. THE COMMISSION CAN RECOMMEND TO THE 18 COUNCIL APPROVAL, OR SEND THE ENTIRE MATTER UP WITH NO 19 RECOMMEND. 20 BUT A DENIAL DIES HERE, UNLESS IT IS APPEALED. 21 SO THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS YES AND NO. 22 MR . BURNS: OKAY, THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR 23 WHERE WE WERE. 24 I THINK THAT IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE COMMISSION AND 25 THAT THE PUBLIC UNDERSTANDS THE SETTING IN WHICH WE FIND 26 OURSELVES AND WHY WE ARE HERE. SO I WOULD LIKE TO RECITE SOME YATES & ASSOCIATES 29 1 HISTORY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE RECORD AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF 2 SETTING THE PRESENTATION THAT WE WILL MAKE. 3 WE WILL CALL THE BIGHORN VENTURE THE VENTURE, AND THE 4 BIGHORN INSTITUTE THE INSTITUTE, TO AVOID CONFUSION. 5 THE VENTURE AND THE INSTITUTE ARE, AS WE KNOW, 6 ADJOINING LANDOWNERS. THE VENTURE'S LAND IS WITHIN IN THE 7 CITY OF PALM DESERT, AND THE INSTITUTE'S LAND IS WITHIN THE 8 UNINCORPORATED AREA OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY ADJACENT TO PALM 9 DESERT . 10 THE VENTURE DESIRES TO CONSTRUCT 484 SINGLE FAMILY 11 HOUSES AND A GOLF COURSE ON ITS LAND, WHICH IS PART OF A 12 LARGER PARCEL WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY PLANNED BY THIS CITY FOR 13 350 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE, 2, 350 DWELLING UNITS, PLUS A 13—ACRE }- 14 HOTEL SITE WITH AMENITIES. AND IT MUST BE UNDERSTOOD THAT ire.. 15 THAT'S THE FUNCTION OF WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES WITH RESPECT TO 16 THE INSTITUTE'S ACTIVITIES WITH THE COUNTY, AND WITH RESPECT 17 TO THIS APPLICATION. 18 THE INSTITUTE'S LAND, THE OTHER FOUNDATION, CURRENTLY 19 CONTAINS AT ITS HEADQUARTERS SOME SHEEP PENS AND A CARETAKER'S 20 MOBILE HOME. THE INSTITUTE DESIRES TO CONSTRUCT THE INSTITUTE 21 PROJECT, INCLUDING A 6800—SQUARE—FOOT MEDICAL FACILITY, A 22 2800—SQUARE—FOOT CARETAKER'S RESIDENCE, LARGER SHEEP PENS, 23 ACCESSORY DRAIN AND MAINTENANCE STRUCTURES, A PLANNED PUBLIC 24 MUSEUM, WHICH WILL BRING TRAFFIC AND PEOPLE, A HELICOPTER PAD 25 AND A, QUOTE, "FUTURE EDUCATIONAL SITE, " UNQUOTE. THIS COMES r.i 26 FROM THEIR APPLICATION TO THE COUNTY FOR THE CHANGE OF ZONE YATES & ASSOCIATES 30 1 WHICH I WILL DISCUSS IN A MOMENT. 2 THIS CONSTITUTES A LARGE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN 200 YARDS 3 OF THE PENS THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. 4 THE INSTITUTE'S LAND WAS ZONED R-1 FOR SINGLE-FAMILY 5 DWELLINGS UNTIL RIVERSIDE COUNTY, ON OCTOBER 17, 1989, 6 APPROVED A CHANGE OF ZONE TO NATURAL ASSET AND APPROVED A 7 PLOT PLAN FOR THE INSTITUTE'S PROJECT THAT I HAVE DESCRIBED, 8 WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT IT CARVED OUT, AS I WILL EXPLAIN IN A 9 MOMENT, THE PUBLIC MUSEUM, THE HELICOPTER PAD AND THE FUTURE 10 EDUCATIONAL SITE. 11 THESE COUNTY LAND USE APPROVALS ARE CHALLENGED IN A 12 LAWSUIT THAT IS NOW PENDING BY THE VENTURE AGAINST THE COUNTY 13 AND THE INSTITUTE. 14 ON JUNE 7, 1989, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE VENTURE, 10 15 JIM HAYHOE, WHO IS A GENERAL PARTNER, AND HIS SON JOHN MET 16 WITH JAMES DE FORGE TO SHOW MR. DE FORGE THE PLANS FOR THE 17 VENTURE'S RESIDENTIAL GOLF COURSE PROJECT AND TO ENSURE THAT 18 THE VENTURE'S PROJECT WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE INSTITUTE'S 19 LAND WAS COMPATIBLE WITH THE INSTITUTE'S OPERATIONS AND PLANS. 20 AT THAT TIME, THE VENTURE HAD NOT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WHICH 21 IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS PROCEEDING. 22 THE HAYHOES MET WITH DE FORGE FOR APPROXIMATELY FOUR 23 HOURS, SHOWING DE FORGE THE PLANS FOR THE VENTURE'S PROJECT 24 AND TRAVELING TO AN OBSERVATION POINT ON THE INSTITUTE'S LAND 25 SO THAT DE FORGE COULD OBSERVE THE BOUNDARY STAKES THAT THE 26 VENTURE HAD ERECTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXHIBITING THE PLANNED YATES & ASSOCIATES 31 1 AREA OF DEVELOPMENT TO DE FORGE. DE FORGE NEVER STATED OR 2 SUGGESTED THAT THE VENTURE'S PROJECT WAS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE 3 INSTITUTE'S OPERATIONS AND PLANS FOR EXPANSION, NOR DID ■"' 4 DE FORGE EVER SUGGEST OR MENTION THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL BUFFER 5 WOULD BE NEEDED. 6 RATHER, DE FORGE EXPRESSED THREE CONCERNS DURING THIS 7 MEETING. FIRST, THAT DOMESTIC PETS, PRINCIPALLY DOGS, IN THE 8 RESIDENTIAL PROJECT BE KEPT AWAY FROM THE SHEEP PENS. 9 SECOND, THAT GLARE FROM LIGHTS IN ADJACENT 10 RESIDENTIAL UNITS NOT BE PERMITTED TO DISTURB THE BIGHORN 11 SHEEP. 12 AND THIRD, THAT GRADING OPERATIONS NOT COMMENCE 13 DURING THE LAMBING SEASON. HAYHOE AGREED TO ADDRESS AND 14 ATTEMPT TO MITIGATE EACH OF THOSE CONCERNS. �Yrr 15 THE NEXT DAY, MR . HAYHOE SENT A LETTER TO 16 MR . DE FORGE AND POINTED OUT TO HIM SOME OF THE DISCUSSION 17 THEY HAD AND REQUESTED THAT MR. DE FORGE CONTACT HIM, 18 MR . HAYHOE, WITH ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. THAT NEVER 19 OCCURRED. 20 BASED ON THIS MEETING WITH MR . DE FORGE, THE VENTURE, 21 MR . HAYHOE, RELIED ON MR. DE FORGE'S STATEMENTS AND PURCHASED 22 THE LAND ADJACENT TO THE INSTITUTE'S LAND, WITH THE 23 EXPECTATION THAT THE VENTURE COULD SUCCESSFULLY DEVELOP ITS 24 PROJECT WITH ONLY MINOR ADJUSTMENTS NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE 25 THE CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO PETS, LIGHTS, AND THE TIMING OF fin.. 26 GRADING. YATES & ASSOCIATES 32 1 AFTER THAT MEETING, THE INSTITUTE, BY MR. DE FORGE, 2 APPLIED TO THE COUNTY ON JULY 25, 1989, ABOUT A MONTH AND A 3 HALF LATER, FOR FAST TRACK APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE AND PLOT 4 PLAN, CHANGING THE INSTITUTE'S LAND FROM RESIDENTIAL ZONING, 5 RU- 1 , TO NATURAL ASSET ZONING, IN ORDER TO EXPAND THE 6 INSTITUTE'S SHEEP PINS, BUILD A 2, 800-SQUARE-FOOT CARETAKER'S 7 RESIDENCE AND A 6, 800-SQUARE-FOOT MEDICAL RESEARCH VETERINARY 8 FACILITY . 9 ON JULY 25TH, PRIOR TO SUBMITTING HIS FORMAL 10 APPLICATION FOR THE ZONE CHANGE, DE FORGE TRANSMITTED A LETTER 11 TO SUPERVISOR LARSON, REQUESTING THAT THE COUNTY EXPEDITE THE 12 PROCESSING OF THE PROJECT. DE FORGE OFFERED THE FOLLOWING 13 JUSTIFICATION FOR EXPEDITION. QUOTE: 14 "WE ARE REQUESTING THE COUNTY'S ASSISTANCE 15 IN HELPING US MEET THIS COMPLETION DATE, MARCH 1ST, 16 BY EXPEDITING THE PROCESSING OF THIS BUILDING 17 PROJECT. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE CONSTRUCTION IS 18 COMPLETED PRIOR TO SPRING LAMBING AT THE INSTITUTE 19 TO AVOID ANY EXCESSIVE DISTURBANCE OF THE PREGNANT 20 CAPTIVE BIGHORN EWES THAT RESIDE ADJACENT TO THE 21 BUILDING SITE. IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THIS, WE 22 WOULD NEED TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION NO LATER THAN 23 OCTOBER. " 24 MS. LARSON APPENDED TO THE COUNTY STAFF A PARAGRAPH 25 THAT SAID IN ADDITION: 26 "TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE DUE TO THE NEED TO YATES & ASSOCIATES 33 1 HAVE THE PROJECT AS COMPLETE AS POSSIBLE PRIOR TO 2 NEXT SPRING'S LAMBING SESSIONS. " 3 IN OTHER WORDS, NOTWITHSTANDING NOT MENTIONING IT IN 4 JUNE TO HAYHOE, IN JULY THEY WERE IN A HURRY TO GET IT DONE. 5 NEITHER THE INSTITUTE NOR THE COUNTY EVER GAVE NOTICE 6 TO HAYHOE OR THE VENTURE OF THESE APPLICATIONS, AND NEVER GAVE 7 ANY NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS TO THE VENTURE. THEY 8 LEARNED OF IT AFTER THEY COMPLETED THE SALE. 9 THEY DID GIVE MAILED NOTICE TO THE SELLER, WHO NEVER 10 GAVE IT TO HAYHOE. SO THE OBJECTION TO THE PROJECT WE MADE 11 WAS MADE AT THE SECOND READING OF THE REZONING ORDINANCE, 12 WHERE WE WEREN' T ALLOWED TO SPEAK . 13 DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 14 FOR THE INSTITUTE'S PROJECT ADMITS, QUOTE, "THE PROJECT COULD rr. 15 HAVE A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, " THE BOARD OF 16 SUPERVISORS DECIDED TO FILE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION RATHER THAN 17 DOING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. THE COUNTY BASED THIS 18 DECISION ON ITS CONCLUSION THAT ANY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENT 19 EFFECT WAS MITIGATED BY THE MITIGATION MEASURES SPECIFIED IN 20 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. 21 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FAILS TO LIST WHICH 22 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT ARE PURPORTEDLY 23 MITIGATED BY SPECIFY MITIGATION MEASURES. 24 OF MORE SIGNIFICANT CONCERN, THE ENVIRONMENTAL 1 25 ASSESSMENT COMMENTS ON AND RECOGNIZES THE RESIDENTIAL Yrrr 26 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT -- MIND YOU, THIS MAMMOTH RESIDENTIAL YATES & ASSOCIATES 34 1 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT I DESCRIBED BEFORE -- ADJACENT TO 2 THE INSTITUTE'S PROJECT, INCLUDING THE PORTION THAT'S ON THE 3 VENTURE'S LAND, BUT PROVIDES ABSOLUTELY NO MITIGATION MEASURES 4 TO ADDRESS THE IMPACT OF THE INSTITUTE ON THE ADJACENT 5 PROPERTY OWNERS OR THE PEOPLE WHO WOULD LIVE THERE. 6 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT STATES IN RELEVANT PART, 7 QUOTE: 8 "THE SITE IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE 9 CITY LIMITS OF PALM DESERT, WHERE A CONCEPTUAL 10 SPECIFIC PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED ON 675 ACRES, 11 WITH 13 ACRES OF HOTEL DEVELOPMENT, 1 , 000 12 SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS ON 300 ACRES, AND 350 ACRES 13 OF OPEN SPACE. " 14 THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY 15 MITIGATION MEASURES MITIGATING THE EFFECT OF THE PROJECT ON 16 THESE ADJACENT USES. RATHER, THE COUNTY STAFF REPORT 17 CONCLUDED THAT THE INSTITUTE'S PROJECT WAS, QUOTE, "COMPATIBLE 18 WITH PRESENT AND FUTURE ADJACENT LAND USES, " UNQUOTE. 19 THE COUNTY STAFF REPORT CONDITIONED APPROVAL OF THE 20 INSTITUTE'S PLOT PLAN ON THAT CONCLUSION. QUOTE: 21 "APPROVAL OF PLOT PLAN 11393 SUBJECT TO THE 22 ATTACHED CONDITIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS LISTED 23 ABOVE AND ON THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS: 24 "THE PROJECT WILL CONFORM TO THE LOGICAL 25 DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND AND IT IS COMPATIBLE WI TH 26 THE PRESENT AND FUTURE USES OF THE SURROUNDING YATES & ASSOCIATES 35 1 PROPERTY, " UNQUOTE. 2 AND I JUST WANT TO INSERT HERE, LISTEN TO WHAT 3 MR . CORONET SAID. DOES THAT SOUND LIKE IT'S COMPATIBLE IN HIS +► 4 OPINION? BUT WHEN THEY WERE APPLYING TO THE COUNTY FOR THE 5 PERMIT, KNOWING WHAT THE COUNTY WAS ACTING ON, THE PREMISE, 6 THEY DIDN' T CONTRADICT THEM AND THEY DIDN' T TELL 7 MR. HAYHOE ABOUT IT. 8 BASED ON THIS CONCLUSION, THE COUNTY PLANNING 9 DEPARTMENT RESPONDED TO A QUESTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL 10 ASSESSMENT AS FOLLOWS: "IS THE PROPOSAL COMPATIBLE WITH THE 11 EXISTING AND PROPOSED SURROUNDING LAND USES? IF NOT, 12 EXPLAIN. " 13 THE RESPONSE WAS, QUOTE, "N/A, " MEANING, OBVIOUSLY, 14 NOT APPLICABLE. l�rr 15 THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FILED BY THE COUNTY ALSO 16 MAKES REFERENCE TO A HELI-PAD FOR HELICOPTER USE, A PUBLIC 17 MUSEUM, AND A FUTURE SITE AS BEING PART OF THE INSTITUTE'S 18 PROJECT, BUT EXCLUDES THESE PARTS OF THE INSTITUTE'S PROJECT 19 FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT. THEREBY, THE ASSESSMENT 20 FAILED TO ANALYZE THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE WHOLE 21 PROJECT, SPLIT THE PROJECT, AND FAILED TO ANALYZE ITS 22 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS. 23 SO WHAT YOU HAVE, I SUBMIT, IS AN ILLEGAL APPROVAL OF 24 THE INSTITUTE'S USE, AND THE INSTITUTE'S USE ON ITS LAND IS 25 NON-CONFORMING. AND I WILL LATER SAY TO YOU THAT I SUBMIT it 26 THAT THAT ILLEGAL USE, CONSIDERING THE IMPACT OF THIS PROJECT YATES & ASSOCIATES 36 1 ON AN ILLEGAL USE, IS IRRELEVANT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 2 PROCESS. 3 ON OCTOBER 17, 1989, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ADOPTED 4 THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION. AND IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THAT 5 APPROVAL, MR . DE FORGE FIRST BEGAN MAKING CLAIMS IN PUBLIC 6 HEARINGS BEFORE THIS CITY'S BODIES AND THIS PLANNING 7 COMMISSION THAT THE INSTITUTE'S PROJECT WAS NOT COMPATIBLE 8 WITH SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL LAND USE, AND HE CLAIMED IT ' 9 REQUIRED AN ENVIRONMENTAL BUFFER OF 118 ACRES OF VACANT LAND. 10 AND HE INSISTED, AS HE DOES HERE, AS THE INSTITUTE 11 DOES HERE, AS THE CONSULTANTS DO HERE, THAT THE BURDEN OF THIS 12 BUFFER MUST BE PLACED UPON THE PROPERTY OWNERS ADJACENT TO THE 13 INSTITUTE RATHER THAN THE INSTITUTE, WHO HAS AN ILLEGAL USE. 14 ON NOVEMBER 2ND AND 4TH, 1989, DESPITE HAVING 15 REPRESENTED TO ADJACENT LANDOWNERS, THE COUNTY AND TO THIS 16 CITY , THAT THE INSTITUTE'S PROJECT WAS COMPATIBLE WITH 17 ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL LAND USES, DE FORGE, BY WRITTEN AND ORAL 18 COMMENTS, OBJECTED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF 19 THE VENTURE'S PROJECT, THIS PLANNING COMMISSION, ON THE 20 GROUNDS THE PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE VENTURE'S 21 LAND WAS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE INSTITUTE'S PROJECT, 22 NOTWITHSTANDING PRIOR STATEMENTS TO THE CONTRARY. 23 THE INSTITUTE DID NOT BASE ITS OBJECTIONS ON AN 24 UNUSUAL OR UNIQUE ASPECT OF THE VENTURE'S RESIDENTIAL 25 DEVELOPMENT, AND IT DOESN'T NOW, BECAUSE THERE AREN' T ANY . 26 RATHER, THE INSTITUTE BASED ITS CLAIM OF INCOMPATIBILITY ON YATES & ASSOCIATES 37 1 THE INSTITUTE'S UNIQUE USE OF ITS LAND IN GREETING THE BIGHORN 2 SHEEP . 3 NOW, THAT BRINGS US TO WHY WE ARE HERE. r 4 DUE TO THE INSTITUTE'S EXPRESS CONCERNS, THE CITY , 5 THIS PLANNING COMMISSION, REQUIRED A FOCUSED E. I .R . THE 12 6 E. I . R . HAS ARCHEOLOGICAL CONCERNS, AESTHETIC CONCERNS, 7 DRAINAGE CONCERNS, BIOLOGICAL CONCERNS, THE DESERT WASH, THE 8 DESERT TORTOISE, THE BIGHORN SHEEP HABITAT, AND THE BIGHORN 9 INSTITUTE . j 10 I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE IS NOT A 11 LEGITIMATE CONCERN OF THE E. I . R . THE SHEEP ARE. BUT THE 12 INSTITUTE ISN' T. 13 WE WILL PRODUCE EVIDENCE AT THIS HEARING AND AT THE 14 CONTINUED HEARING ON THE 19TH THAT THERE IS NOT ANY r.r 15 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT FROM AN APPROVED PROJECT THAT 16 REMAINS UNMITIGATED, AND THAT THERE IS NO ENVIRONMENTAL, 17 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT OF THE APPROVED PROJECT, 18 WHICH IS A FINDING THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE. 19 THE EFFECT ON THE INSTITUTE HAS TO BE EXAMINED IN 20 THIS LIGHT: THE INSTITUTE PROPERTY IS -- AND WE ARE TALKING 21 NOW ABOUT THE LAMBING, BECAUSE IF YOU REALLY GET DOWN TO IT, 22 WHAT THEY ARE REQUIRING THAT BIOLOGICAL PRESERVE FOR IS 23 BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PROTECT THE LAMBING OF THE SHEEP. 24 THE INSTITUTE PROPERTY IS NOT A NATURAL LAMBING AREA. 25 IF IT WERE, YOU WOULDN' T NEED PENS. THEY 'D WOULD LAMB THERE 26 ANYWAY . THE INSTITUTE PROPERTY IS -- THE PENS ARE NOT A YATES & ASSOCIATES 38 1 NATURAL CONDITION. IF IT WERE A NATURAL LAMBING AREA, THEY 2 WOULD LAMB THERE WITHOUT THE PENS, IS THE POINT. 3 AND ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS ASKED WHY IS IT THERE, 4 AND WHY IS IT THERE? AND THERE IS NO ANSWER. IF YOU LISTENED 5 TO WHAT THEY SAID, THEY CAN' T TELL YOU WHY IT'S THERE, BECAUSE 6 IDEALLY , AS THE BIOLOGISTS WILL TELL YOU, ONE OF THESE 7 INSTITUTES SHOULD BE IN THE WILD, COMPLETELY AWAY FROM URBAN 8 AREAS, RATHER THAN WITHIN TWO MILES OF IT. 9 THE INSTITUTE CAN MITIGATE THEIR PERCEIVED EFFECT BY 10 MOVING THEIR FENCES BACK, BY CHANGING THE CONFIGURATION OF 11 THEIR PENS. THE INSTITUTE'S USE AND PLANNING CAUSES THEIR OWN 12 PROBLEM. IT IS LIKE, AND IT'S ANALAGOUS TO, IF YOU THINK 13 ABOUT IT, DROPPING AN EXPLOSIVE FACTORY INTO A RESIDENTIAL 14 AREA AND THEN SAYING TO THE SURROUNDING PEOPLE, "YOU CAN' T USE 15 YOUR HAND BECAUSE WE'RE HERE. " AND THAT'S NOT RIGHT AND 16 THAT'S NOT FAIR, AND IT SHOULDN' T BE A CONSIDERATION IN 17 DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THIS PROJECT IS PERMITTED TO GO 18 FORWARD. 19 THE TEST IS THE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT. NOT THE 20 EFFECT ON INSTITUTE. AND WHEN YOU LISTEN TO WHAT THE 21 INSTITUTE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO TELL YOU, THEY WILL BE TALKING 22 ABOUT THE EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, BUT WHAT THEY WILL BE 23 SAYING IS THAT IT HAS AN EFFECT ON THE INSTITUTE, AND THAT'S 24 NOT AN APPROPRIATE CONCERN. i 25 YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR, I SUSPECT, BECAUSE I 'VE HEARD 26 IT BEFORE AT THE MIRADA, BECAUSE I REPRESENTED THE DEVELOPERS YATES & ASSOCIATES 39 1 OF THE MIRADA, THAT IF YOU PERMIT THIS DEVELOPMENT, YOU ARE 2 GOING KILL LITTLE SHEEP, YOU ARE GOING HARM LITTLE SHEEP. 3 IT HASN' T OCCURRED THERE, AND IT WON' T OCCUR HERE. 4 AS A MATTER OF FACT, WHEN MR. CORONET SPOKE ABOUT THE 5 MIRADA DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT WENT ON WITH RESPECT TO THE 6 VILLAGE OF CATHEDRAL CITY, WHEN WE FINALLY RESOLVED OUR 7 DIFFERENCES WITH RANCHO MIRAGE, WHAT RANCHO MIRAGE WANTED WAS 8 THEY WANTED US TO BUILD A FENCE TO KEEP THE SHEEP OUT OF THE 9 POPULATED AREAS, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM KEEPING THE HUMANS OUT 10 OF THE SHEEP AREAS, BECAUSE, TO MY PERSONAL OBSERVATION ON THE 11 SEVERAL DAYS THAT I SPENT AT THE RITZ CARLTON, ON BUSINESS, 12 THERE WERE MANY, MANY SHEEP, ON MANY OCCASIONS, FORAGING ON 13 THE PLANTS AND DOWN BY THE POOL AREA AND SO ON . 14 WE WILL SHOW THAT, BY EVIDENCE, SOME OF WHICH 15 WILL BE PRESENTED TONIGHT, BY MR . HAYHOE, BY MR . CRISTE, BY 16 MR . CARUTHERS, THAT THE PROJECT AS DESIGNED WILL NOT HAVE ANY 17 SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT, AND WE INTEND AT THE 18 JUNE 19TH MEETING TO PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THAT 19 SCORE . 20 THANK YOU . 21 I ' LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY OF ME, BUT 22 I THINK THAT IF YOU HAVE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS, YOU OUGHT TO ASK 23 THEM OF THE EXPERTS IN THAT REGARD. 24 ANY QUESTIONS? 25 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: APPARENTLY NOT, MR. BURNS. THANK YOU. 26 MR. HAYHOE: MADAM CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS, STAFF, YATES & ASSOCIATES L: 40 1 PUBLIC -- 2 JIM, YOU' RE WELCOME TO STAY AT MY HOUSE TONIGHT. 3 MARVIN IS GOING TO STAY THERE, TOO. MAYBE WE CAN ALL BE 4 TOGETHER AND GET THIS THING WORKED OUT. 5 MARVIN SAID A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT I -- 6 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: SORRY, WOULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF? 7 MR. HAYHOE: I ' M JIM HAYHOE OF BIGHORN VENTURES, THE 8 DEVELOPER. 9 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: AND YOUR ADDRESS? 10 MR . HAYHOE: AND MY ADDRESS? 11 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : YES, FOR THE RECORD. 12 MR . HAYHOE: MY ADDRESS IS 74-830 SANTA ROSA COURT IN 13 INDIAN WELLS. 13 14 MARVIN GAVE MOST OF MY SPEECH, ACTUALLY . I WAS GOING 15 TO REVIEW FOR YOU BRIEFLY THE FACT THAT I GOT AN OPTION ON 16 THIS PROPERTY . DURING THE OPTION PERIOD, I DID THE DUE 17 DILIGENCE, MET WITH JIM DE FORGE, WENT TO THE EXPENSE OF 18 HAVING AN ELABORATE TENTATIVE MAP DONE IN COLOR, ENGINEERED, 19 AND HAD THE CORNERS STAKED WITH SUBSTANTIAL STAKES, AND SO 20 FORTH, AND MET WITH JIM AND WENT OVER THIS WHOLE THING AND 21 THERE WEREN' T ANY SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS. 22 BASED ON THAT MEETING, WE WENT AHEAD AND PURCHASED 23 THE PROPERTY . MARVIN TOLD YOU ABOUT THAT. IT CAME AS A GREAT 24 SURPRISE TO FIND OUT SEVERAL MONTHS LATER THAT THERE WAS A 25 PROBLEM, BECAUSE IN THE MEANTIME WE HAD HEARD NOTHING. AND IN 26 CHECKING INTO WHAT HAPPENED AT THE COUNTY AND SO FORTH, AFTER YATES & ASSOCIATES 41 1 IT ALL HAPPENED, WE FOUND OUT THROUGH GETTING THE 2 ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD AND SOME TAPES OF THE COUNTY 3 COMMISSIONERS' MEETING THAT JIM DE FORGE HAD KNOWN ABOUT OUR Now 4 PROJECT, HE TOLD PEOPLE HE KNEW ABOUT THE PROJECT, AND 5 INDICATED THERE WAS NO CONFLICT . AND THAT WAS DONE IN A 6 PUBLIC FORM. 7 SO THAT'S BASICALLY WHERE WE ARE. 8 OUR CONSULTANTS ARE HERE, YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR FROM 9 THEM, THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS. WE HAVE 10 A PH.D. IN BIOLOGY WHO HAS DONE THIS WORK BEFORE. 11 WE ARE VITALLY INTERESTED IN THE WELFARE OF THE SHEEP 12 AND WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PUT THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE OUT OF 13 BUSINESS, WE ARE NOT TRYING TO MOVE THEM. WE JUST WANT TO BE 14 ABLE TO USE OUR PROPERTY ; THAT'S OUR MAJOR CONCERN. WE THINK 15 THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE THAT WILL ENSURE THE 16 FUTURE OF BOTH THE SHEEP AND THE PROJECT. 17 WE WERE ALSO SURPRISED TO FIND OUT THAT THEY HAVE A 18 VERY ELABORATE DEVELOPMENT PLANNED THEMSELVES WITHIN 200 YARDS 19 OF THE PENS, INCLUDING HELIPORTS AND MUSEUMS SO FORTH. AND WE 20 CAN' T HELP BUT WONDER WHY THE INSTITUTE WAS PUT THERE UNLESS 21 IT WAS TO THE PROXIMITY OF VISITORS, POTENTIAL DONORS, 22 FUND—RAISING ACTIVITIES, AND SO ON SO FORTH . I MEAN, THAT 23 SEEMS LOGICAL . TO PLACE A LAMBING OPERATION THERE DOESN' T 24 SEEM VERY LOGICAL TO US. 25 SO WITH THAT, UNLESS THERE ARE ANY (QUESTIONS, I ' M *aw 26 GOING TO INTRODUCE JOHN CRISTE, WHO IS OUR ENVIRONMENTAL YATES & ASSOCIATES 42 1 CONSULTANT. HE' LL SAY A FEW WORDS AND INTRODUCE A COUPLE 2 OTHER PEOPLE . 3 ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK ME? 4 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : NO. THANK YOU, MR. HAYHOE. Vag 5 MR . DIAZ: MADAM CHAIRMAN, WHILE MR. CRISTE IS COMING UP, 6 ON DISCUSSING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, REALLY THE 7 JUSTIFICATIONS, OR LACK THEREOF, WHATEVER, AS FAR AS THE 8 COUNTY DECISION IS CONCERNED ON THE PARTICULAR ZONING 9 APPLICATIONS ALLUDED TO, ARE NOT THINGS THAT WE EVALUATE IN 10 TERMS OF OUR DECISIONS. THEY ARE UP TO THE COURTS TO 11 DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE COUNTY DID THE RIGHT THING, AND 12 THAT. SO WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING IS THE PROJECT'S IMPACT ON 13 THE ENVIRONMENT AND THE ENVIRONMENT AS IT EXISTS. HOW IT GOT 14 THERE IS ANOTHER ISSUE. 15 MR. CHRIST: MADAM CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, 16 JOHN CRISTE, SERINELLA (PHOETIC) PLANNING AND RESEARCH, 275 17 NORTH EL CIELO, PALM SPRINGS. 1s MY ALLERGIES HAVE EVOLVED A NEW CONDITION, A COUGH I 19 CAN' T SEEM TO THROW, SO I APOLOGIZE. 20 I ' M GOING TO JUST BRIEFLY COVER THE ISSUES THAT SEEM 21 TO BE OF GREATEST CONCERN IN THE E. I . R. , AND THEN WE HAVE A 22 COUPLE OF SPECIALISTS, INCLUDING MR . HOUSLEY AND 23 MR. CARUTHERS, DR. CARUTHERS, WHO WILL ADDRESS SOME SPECIFICS, 24 BRIEFLY , ONE OF THE PRIME ISSUES HERE SEEMS TO BE ONE 25 OF LAND USE COMPATIBILITY, AND ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT DIRECTLY 26 ADDRESSED IN THE E. I . R . , IT SEEMS TO BE THE DRIVING FORCE -_ —._,I YATES_&__ASSOCI.ATES 43 1 BEHIND THE DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS AS A RESULT OF 2 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ALTAMIRA PROJECT . 3 AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, EARLIER STATEMENTS WERE MADE l.„ 4 BY B . H. I . , THAT IS, THE INSTITUTE'S STAFF, THAT THE CITY'S 5 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE WAS COMPATIBLE WITH THE PROPOSED 6 INSTITUTE'S FACILITY AT THE COUNTY HEARINGS. 7 CURRENTLY , THE GENERAL PLAN ALLOWS FIVE TO SEVEN 8 UNITS PER ACRE ON THAT PROPERTY , AND THAT WAS FELT TO BE 9 COMPATIBLE JUST LAST YEAR . NOW, A PROPOSAL ADDS 1 . 3 UNITS PER 10 ACRES, WITH EXTENSIVE OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPE AREA AND A WALLED 11 COMMUNITY, GATED, WALLED COMMUNITY, IS NOW CONSIDERED NOT TO 12 BE COMPATIBLE . 13 OTHER ISSUES, ESPECIALLY BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE ISSUES, 14 INCLUDE THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE DEAD INDIAN CREEK WASH AS %ow 15 A UNIQUE WASH IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY . IT PASSES THROUGH THE 16 ALTAMIRA SITE AND HAS BEEN ARGUED TO BE ONE OF THE BEST 17 REMAINING UNDISTURBED WASHES IN THE VALLEY . 18 THERE ARE MANY EXAMPLES OF OTHER WASHES THAT ARE OF 19 EQUAL OR GREATER VALUE IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY . JUST SOME OF 20 THEM INCLUDE THE LITTLE MORONGO WASH IN DESERT HOT SPRINGS, 21 THE DEEP CANYON WASH NEXT DOOR, THOUSAND PALMS CANYON, 22 INDIAN CANYON, MECCA, AND OTHERS WHICH REMAIN UNDISTURBED. 23 AND ALSO SOUTHEAST OF THE SITE IN THE SANTA ROSAS 14 24 INCLUDE BEAR CREEK , GUADALUPE CREEK, TORO CANYON, MARTINEZ 25 CANYON, BARTON CANYON. ALSO SMOKE TREE WASHES CAN BE FOUND IN w 26 THE LITTLE SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAINS AND THE INDIO AND MECCA YATES & ASSOCIATES 44 1 HILLS, AND INCLUDE THE MORONGO CANYON, LONG CANYON, WIDE 2 CANYON, DECEPTION CANYON, BUSHWALLA CANYON, BURDUE CANYON AND 3 FARGO CANYON. THERE ARE MORE BUT THEY NEED TO BE SIGHTED. 4 AS REGARDS TO THE UNDISTURBED NATURE OF THE INDIAN 5 CREEK WASH, IT HAS BEEN TRUNCATED UPSTREAM AND DOWN. THE PALM 6 VALLEY STORM CHANNEL AND DEBRIS BASIN HAS EFFECTIVELY TAKEN 7 THE BULK OF THAT DRAINAGE AWAY FROM THAT CHANNEL. IT HAS 8 BEEN, ON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE, IT HAS BEEN MODIFIED BY 9 THE C.V.W.D. IMPROVEMENTS, BY THE DEVELOPMENT OF 10 IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB, THE VINTAGE CLUB, AND THE C. P.W.D. HAS 11 CONSTRUCTED DIKES ON THIS PROPERTY AND ON THE WESTINGHOUSE 12 PROPERTY, WHICH HAVE, IN FACT, CHANGED THE CHARACTER OF THE 13 WASH AND FOCUSED ITS FLOWS ONTO OUR PROPERTY IN AN ARTIFICIAL, 14 DISTURBED COMMUNITY . 15 SMOKE TREE HABITAT OCCUR THROUGHOUT THE COLORADO 16 DESERT. THEY FROM JOSHUA TREE NATIONAL MONUMENT SOUTH TO 17 BAJIA DE LOS ANGELES AND WEST TO CABAZON AND EAST TO THE 18 COLORADO RIVER, WHERE I HAVE HAD THE PLEASURE OF DOING A LOT 19 OF WORK , INCLUDING BIOLOGY SURVEYS, WITH SIERRA MADRE AND 20 O TFIERS. 21 AS REGARDS THE DESERT TORTOISE, NO TORTOISES WERE 22 FOUND ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, NOR WERE ANY BURROS FOUND 23 WITHIN THE WASH AREA, WHICH HAS BEEN INDICATED AS GOOD 24 HABITAT, OR ELSEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY . AND THE E. I . R . DOES 25 NOT MENTION THAT A PREVIOUS BIOLOGICAL SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED BY 26 THE PLANNING CENTER AND THAT LOOKING SPECIFICALLY FOR YATES & ASSOCIATES 45 1 TORTOISES. NO TORTOISE SIGNS WERE FOUND IN THAT SURVEY. 2 IT'S ALSO STATED IN THIS E. I .R . THAT FINDING ONE 3 SHELL FRAGMENT HINGES ALL THE HABIT -- IS THE HINGE UPON wr 4 JUDGING ALL THIS HABITAT VALUE, AND, FRANKLY, PUN INTENDED, IT 5 SEEMS TO BE FRAGMENTED EVIDENCE. 6 THE E. I .R . -- BIOLOGISTS FURTHER STATE THAT THE 7 DENSITY OF THE TORTOISE IN THE VICINITY COULD BE AS HIGH AS 8 EIGHT PER SQUARE MILE, AND BASED ON THESE DENSITIES, ONE WOULD 9 EXPECT TO FIND AN AVERAGE OF FOUR TORTOISES ON THE 10 ALTAMIRA SITE; YET NO TORTOISES WERE FOUND IN TWO SURVEYS AND 11 ALSO ONE PLANNED SURVEY ALSO CONDUCTED BY MR . CORONET. 12 I MIGHT ALSO REFER TO THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 13 PROTOCOL FOR DETERMINING THE OCCURRENCE OF TORTOISE ON A 14 PROPOSED PROJECT SITE AND THE METHODS FOR CONDUCTING CLEARANCE 15 SUREYS TO ALLOW FOR THOSE SITES TO ULTIMATELY BE DEVELOPED. 16 AS REGARDS BIGHORN SHEEP, THE E. I . R . BIOLOGISTS 17 INDICATED THAT THE ALTAMIRA SITE AND SURROUNDING LANDS OCCUR 18 WITHIN A SECONDARY HABITAT OR AN AREA WHICH HAS BEEN 19 DETERMINED TO BE A ZONE OF DEFICIENCY . IN FACT, THE ALTAMIRA 20 SITE AND THE INSTITUTE'S FACILITIES BOTH OCCUR OUTSIDE THE 21 AREA DESIGNATED AS BIGHORN SHEEP DISTRIBUTION BOUNDARIES, AS 22 CITED IN THE SANTA ROSA WILDLIFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN. 23 THE SUBJECT PROPERTY , THE ALTAMIRA SITE, OCCURS ABOUT 24 THREE-QUARTERS OF A MILE FROM THE NEAREST DESIGNATED BIGHORN 25 SHEEP HABITAT, AS FOUND IN THIS 1980 STUDY PREPARED BY THE 26 CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME AND THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR . YATES & ASSOCIATES 46 1 THE LACK OF THE USE OF HABITAT WAS PRESUMABLY A 2 CRITERIA ALSO REQUIRED FOR THE SITING OF THE INSTITUTE 3 FACILITIES. SHEEP WHICH MAY OCCASION THE AREA NOW HAVE 4 PROBABLY BEEN ATTRACTED BY THE PEN SHEEP RATHER THAN THE logo 5 HABITAT VALUE INHERENT THERE. 6 THE SANTA ROSE MOUNTAINS PROVIDE A GENEROUS HABITAT 7 RANGE AND COULD SUPPORT MANY MORE ANIMALS THAN CURRENTLY 8 UTILIZE IT. THE SUBJECT HABITAT, TO THE EXTENT THAT IT CAN BE 9 CONSIDERED VIABLE FOR WILD SHEEP, CONSTITUTES A VERY SMALL AND 10 INSIGNIFICANT FRACTION OF SHEEP HABITAT. 11 I THINK ENOUGH HAS BEEN SAID WITH REGARDS TO THE 12 INSTITUTE ITSELF. I HAVE, HOWEVER, TRIED TO MAKE IT CLEAR 13 WHAT THE RELATIONSHIP, THE PHYSICAL RELATIONSHIP IS OF THE 14 INSTITUTE FACILITIES TO THE PROJECT. WE PROVIDED AN 15 EXHIBIT -- EXCUSE ME -- AND THE COLORED VERSION IN FRONT OF 16 YOU, WHICH INDICATES WHAT THE DIFFERENCES ARE IN TERMS OF 17 ELEVATION, THE DISTANCE. THE E. I . R. CITES THAT THE CLOSEST 18 GRADING OF THE ALTAMIRA PROJECT TO THE PENS WOULD BE 150 FEET. 19 THE CLOSEST DISTANCE IS 400 FEET, AND THE CLOSEST RESIDENCE 20 WOULD BE 450 FEET. THE NEAREST EQUAL ELEVATION IS ABOUT 120 21 FEET, AND SOME AREAS, OR LARGE PORTIONS OF THE PENNED-IN AREA 22 ON THE INSTITUTE'S PROPERTY ARE OVER 300 FEET ABOVE THE 23 ALTAMIRA PROJECT SITE. 24 OTHER ISSUES, HYDROLOGY, ARCHEOLOGY AND VISUAL 25 IMPACT, CAN' T BE MITIGATED, AS MR. PERONI HAS POINTED OUT, AND 26 DON' T. REALLY POSE SIGNIFICANT PROBLEMS. HOWEVER, I THINK YATES & ASSOCIATES 47 1 IT'S IS IMPORTANT THAT MR. HOUSLEY BE ASKED TO GIVE HIS 2 PROSPECTIVE ON THE HYDROLOGY PLANS THAT WERE DEVELOPED FOR 3 THIS PROJECT AND WHY THEY ARE THE BEST PLANS FOR TREATING THIS „► 4 DEAD INDIAN CREEK WASH AREA. 15 5 AND I ' LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU 6 HAVE . 7 THANK YOU. 8 MR . HOUSLEY: MY NAME IS HAROLD HOUSLEY . I ' M WITH THE 9 FIRM OF HOUSLEY & ASSOCIATES, AND OUR FIRM WAS PRIMARILY 10 RESPONSIBLE FOR PREPARING THE BASIC TECHNICAL DATA WHICH WAS 11 INCORPORATED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, THE DRAINAGE 12 SECTION, BY BOB MANERO, OF MANERO & SMITH . 13 NOW, WHILE I GENERALLY CONCUR WITH THE COMMENTS MADE 14 BY MR . MANERO EARLIER, I DO FEEL THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT r 15 REPORT SECTION PERTAINING TO DRAINAGE DID NOT EMPHASIZE THE 16 POSITIVE BENEFITS OF THIS PROJECT FROM A DRAINAGE STANDPOINT. . 17 IN FACT, IN THE REPORT, IT MAKES MENTION OF THE FACT THAT ONLY 18 A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF WEIGHT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT 19 THERE ARE POSITIVE BENEFITS FROM THIS DRAINAGE PROJECT. 20 I THINK MOST OF US CAN REMEMBER NOT TOO MANY YEARS 21 AGO WHEN FLOODING WAS THE NO. 1 PRIORITY IN THE CITY OF PALM 22 DESERT . IN 1976, HURRICANE KATHLEEN, TROPICAL STORM KATHLEEN, 23 INUNDATED THE DESERT, AND THERE WAS TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS 24 WORTH OF DAMAGE. A SHORT FEW YEARS LATER ANOTHER STORM IN THE 25 SAME GENERAL AREA INUNDATED THE DESERT, AND AGAIN THERE WAS stir. 26 TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF DAMAGE. YATES & ASSOCIATES 48 1 THERE CERTAINLY HAS BEEN A NUMBER OF IMPROVEMENTS IN 2 THIS AREA WHICH HAVE HELPED TO MITIGATE SOME OF THE DRAINAGE 3 PROBLEMS THAT HAVE BEEN ALLUDED TO EARLIER TONIGHT. IN 4 PARTICULAR, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PALM VALLEY CHANNEL AND THE 5 UPSTREAM DEBRIS BASIN. 6 BUT THERE ARE STILL MANY PROBLEMS IN THIS PARTICULAR 7 AREA. THE WATER IS STILL RUNNING WILD AND UNCONTROLLED COMING 8 DOWN UPON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS. AND I WOULD LIKE TO READ 9 INTO THE RECORD THE LETTER WHICH WAS GIVEN TO YOUR STAFF LATER 10 TODAY, AND PROBABLY YOU DON' T HAVE IT, OR AT LEAST HAVEN' T HAD 11 AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT, AND IT'S TO THE PLANNING 12 COMMISSION, ATTENTION OF MR. PHIL JOY, WHO HAS BEEN 13 COORDINATING THE STAFF WORK . 14 "WE HAVE COMPLETED OUR REVIEW REGARDING 15 THE DRAINAGE ISSUE OF THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL 16 IMPACT REPORT FOR THE ALTAMIRA COUNTRY CLUB 17 PROJECT PREPARED BY SMITH, PERONI & FOX, 18 INCORPORATED, DATED MAY 1990, AS REQUESTED BY 19 JIM HAYHOE. 20 "WE GENERALLY CONCUR WITH THE TEXT CONCERNING 21 DRAINAGE, BUT WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON VARIOUS ITEMS 22 IN THE REPORT. 23 "THE OVERALL TONE OF THE E. I .R. DOCUMENTS SEEMS 24 TO DOWNPLAY THE POSITIVE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT -- 25 THE. PROPOSED PROJECT WILL HAVE ON LOW DRAINAGE. WE 26 WISH TO EMPHASIZE THE PROJECT'S BENEFICIAL IMPACT ON YATES & ASSOCIATES 49 1 DRAINAGE AS DESCRIBED BY MANERO & SMITH IN THEIR REPORT. " 2 AND I QUOTE FROM THEIR REPORT: 3 "IF CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO THE TENTATIVE t 4 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 5 HOUSLEY STUDY ARE IMPLEMENTED, THE PROJECT, WHEN 6 COMPLETED, WILL OVERALL HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON 7 THE DRAINAGE AND RUN-OFF IN THE AREA: 8 "WE FEEL" -- AND I ' M GOING ON WITH MY LETTER 9 NOW -- 10 "WE FEEL THE DEVELOPMENT OF BOTH SIDES OF 11 DEAD INDIAN CREEK , WHICH WOULD PROVIDE FOR CHANNEL 12 IMPROVEMENTS OF THE ENTIRE DEAD INDIAN CREEK CHANNEL 13 THROUGH THE PROJECT, INCLUDING WIDENING, LINING, 14 PROVIDING DETENTION AREA, IS PRUDENT AND NECESSARY tow 15 TO PROVIDE FOR RUNOFF CONTROL DESIRED TO MINIMIZE 16 THE EROSIONAL AND DEPOSITION PROBLEMS WITH PROJECT 17 AND EXISTING DOWNSTREAM DEVELOPMENTS. 18 "THE EXISTING HAZARDOUS CONDITIONS WILL BE 19 IMPROVED BY THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECTS AND THE 20 ASSOCIATED DRAINAGE CONTROL FACILITIES. 21 "UNCONTROLLED RUNOFF FROM THE NORTHERN PORTION 22 OF THE PROJECT WHICH CURRENTLY FLOWS INTO INDIAN HILLS 23 AND SUMMIT AREAS WILL BE COMPLETELY ELIMINATED. FLOWS 24 IN THESE AREAS WILL BE CONVEYED BY IMPROVED CHANNELS 25 TO EXTENSION BASINS AND RELEASED AT CONTROLLED RATES lrr 26 TO ACCEPTABLE DISCHARGE POINTS. YATES & ASSOCIATES i50 1 "THE DEVELOPER'S PROPOSED PLAN TO WIDEN, LINE AND 2 UTILIZE AS A GOLF COURSE THE- EXISTING DEAD INDIAN CREEK 3 CHANNEL WILL SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVE RUNOFF CONTROL FOR 4 THIS 1100-SQUARE-FOOT OFFSITE WATERSHED. 5 "THE PROPOSED DETENTION BASINS IN THE CHANNEL 6 WILL PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR DOWNSTREAM DEVELOPMENTS 7 FOR MANY ADDITIONAL FLOWS CREATED BY THE PROPOSED 8 PROJECT IN THE EVENT THE 100-YEAR STORM IS REALIZED. 9 "EROSION CONTROL WILL BE INCREASED AND v 10 SEDIMENT LOAD AND SEDIMENT TRANSPORT CAPACITY WILL BE 11 DECREASED BY THESE IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH WILL ALL 12 RESULT IN BENEFITS TO THE PROPOSED ALTAMIRA COUNTRY CLUB 13 AND THE IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. 14 "LEAVING THE CHANNEL IN ITS NATURAL STATE AND NOT 15 INCORPORATING THE AFOREMENTIONED IMPROVEMENTS WILL 16 ALLOW THE RANDOM AND POTENTIALLY DAMAGING GRADING 17 PATTERNS TO PERSIST AND WILL ALLOW THE LOCAL AREA TO 18 BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION DURING PEAK 19 FLOWS, WHICH COULD ENDANGER BOTH PROPOSED AND EXISTING 20 PROJECTS. 21 "WE REQUEST THAT YOU GIVE THIS LETTER AND THE 22 OBVIOUS MATERIALS HEREIN DUE CONSIDERATION IN YOUR 23 DELIBERATIONS THAT YOU TAKE CONCERNING THIS PROJECT. " 16 24 I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT 25 HAVE CONCERNING THIS. AND I ALSO HAVE WITH ME BILL ENOS, WHO 26 IS THE ENGINEER WHO DID MOST OF THE DETAILED WORK CONCERNING YATES & ASSOCIATES 51 1 THIS REPORT, AND HE CAN ELABORATE FURTHER IF YOU SO DESIRE. 2 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : THANK YOU, MR. HOUSLEY . 3 MR . CARUTHERS: MADAM CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE 4 COMMISSION, MY NAME IS STEVEN CARUTHERS. I RESIDE AT wry. 5 804 NORTH BEAVER STREET, FLAGSTAFF, ARIZONA, AND I LIVE THERE. 6 I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT FOR THE RECORD A STATEMENT OF 7 QUALIFICATIONS BEFORE I BEGIN MY PRESENTATION, MADAM CHAIRMAN. 8 I SAW JIM DE FORGE NODDING OFF A MINUTE AGO, AND I 9 GUARANTEE YOU HE'S NOT NODDING OFF RIGHT NOW. I 'VE GOT HIS 10 ATTENTION HERE. 11 BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I 'VE BEEN INVOLVED 12 IN BIGHORN SHEEP ISSUES IN THIS COUNTRY AND AROUND THE 13 SOUTHWEST FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. I DON' T CLAIM PARTICULARLY 14 MYSELF TO BE AN EXPERT ON BIGHORN SHEEP. I ' M AN ECOLOGIST, I 15 RUN A COMPANY OF 45 EMPLOYEES WHO ARE PRESENTLY UNDER CONTRACT 16 WITH THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, ARIZONA GAME & FISH 17 DEPARTMENT, NATIONAL PARKS SERVICE, UNITED STATES FOREST 18 SERVICE, AND A VARIETY OF INDUSTRY AND PRIVATE CLIENTS, AND WE 19 DEAL PRIMARILY IN ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH. 20 WE' RE INVOLVED IN DETERMINING IMPACTS AS THEY RELATE 21 TO A VARIETY OF ISSUES, WHETHER IT'S DESERT WASHES, MAJOR 22 RIVER SYSTEMS, BIG GAME ANIMALS, SMALL ANIMALS, WHATEVER THE 23 ISSUE IS, WE PUT TOGETHER TEAMS OF ECOLOGISTS TO SEARCH OUT 24 WHAT WE HOPE IS THE TRUTH. 25 AND IT'S DISTURBING FOR ME TO BE INVOLVED IN A tow 26 PROJECT LIKE THIS WHERE YOU ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE ONE YATES & ASSOCIATES 52 1 HONEST BIOLOGIST IS PITTED AGAINST ANOTHER HONEST BIOLOGIST. 2 AND WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A SITUATION WHERE OUR 3 CONCLUSION -- WE WERE ASKED BY MR. JOHN CRISTE, OF TERRANOVA, 4 TO GIVE AN EVALUATION OF THE FOCUSED E. I . R. ON THIS PROJECT, 5 AND I 'LL JUST READ TO YOU OUR CONCLUSIONS THROUGH OUR 6 EVALUATION. WE SPENT A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME, I HAVE 7 SPENT A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF TIME IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS 8 IN THIS AREA LOOKING INTO THIS, AND OUR CONCLUSIONS ARE AS 9 FOLLOWS: 10 THE E. I . R. 'S CONCLUSION THAT THE THREE DISTINCT 11 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, DESERT WASH SUBCOMMUNITY , DESERT 12 TORTOISE HABITAT AND WILD BIGHORN SHEEP HABITAT, ARE HIGHLY 13 SIGNIFICANT IS OPINION NOT SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTATION OR 14 PROFESSIONALLY-SUPPORTED CRITERIA. t5 CONCLUDING THAT THE PROJECT WILL HAVE ADVERSE IMPACTS wW 16 ON THESE RESOURCES IS INAPPROPRIATE. WHILE IT'S AGREED THE 17 BIGHORN INSTITUTE IS A SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE, IT IS DOUBTFUL 18 THAT A 400-YARD BUFFER IS THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT THAT 19 RESOURCE. 20 NOW, I REALIZE THE HOUR IS LATE, BUT I NEED TO TAKE A 21 FEW MINUTES AND DISCUSS EACH OF THESE ISSUES. 22 SINCE AUGUST 4, 1989, WHEN THE DESERT TORTOISE WAS 23 LISTED IN AN EMERGENCY LISTING BY THE FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE 24 AS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES, MY COMPANY HAS ANALYZED OVER 85, 000 25 ACRES OF HABITAT FOR THE DESERT TORTOISE. WHETHER I LIKE IT 26 OR NOT, I HAVE COME TO BECOME SOMETHING OF AN EXPERT ON DESERTVW YATES & ASSOCIATES 53 1 TORTOISES. 2 THERE ARE NO DESERT TORTOISES ON THE SUBJECT 3 PROPERTY . WE HAVE ANALYZED IT, OTHER BIOLOGISTS BEFORE US 4 CAME AND ANALYZED IT . 5 I DO NOT DOUBT THAT OCCASIONALLY CAPTIVE RELEASED 6 ANIMALS OR CAPTIVE ESCAPED ANIMALS FROM THE LOCAL COMMUNITY 7 HAVE WANDERED OFF INTO THE PROJECT; I BELIEVE THAT'S A 8 POSSIBILITY . I PERSONALLY HAVE NOT SEEN THE ALLEGED SKELETON 9 OF THE CRITTER THAT WAS FOUND DEAD ON THE PROPERTY; I DON' T 10 DOUBT THAT IT COULD OCCUR THERE, NOR DO I DOUBT THAT IN THE 11 PAST BEFORE THIS VALLEY WAS DEVELOPED THAT THE DESERT 12 TORTOISES OCCUPIED THESE AREAS. 13 WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT WHEN WE GO IN TO SURVEY AN 14 AREA FOR A DEVELOPER OR FOR THE FOREST SERVICE OR FOR THE 15 B . L. M. TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT DESERT TORTOISES ARE IN AN 16 AREA THAT COULD BE IMPACTED BY WHATEVER ACTION, THERE IS A 17 CERTAIN SET OF CRITERIA THAT THE FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE GUIDE 18 US THROUGH. 19 IF A DESERT TORTOISE OR OBVIOUS SIGNS OF ACTIVITY ARE 20 ON THE PROPERTY , ALL ACTIVITY STOPS UNTIL SOMETHING CAN BE 21 DONE, UNTIL THE ANIMAL CAN BE -- UNTIL IT CAN BE MITIGATED 22 FOR, AND IN SOME CASES, DEVELOPMENT IS COMPLETELY STOPPED. 23 IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE ON THIS INSTANCE ON THIS 24 PROPERTY, THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE IN THE EYES AND MINDS 25 OF THE AGENCIES THAT REGULATE THIS, THAT DESERT TORTOISES 26 OCCUR THERE, AND THAT IT WOULD PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT. YATES & ASSOCIATES 54 1 SO, I MEAN, JUST -- WITH 85,000 ACRES BEHIND ME, THIS 2 PROJECT DOES NOT HAVE EVIDENCE OF DESERT TORTOISES THAT WOULD 3 STOP DEVELOPMENT. 4 AS FAR AS THE DESERT WASH HABITAT GOES, MR . CRISTE 5 AND MR . RICHARDS, HIMSELF, ALREADY MENTIONED THE FACT THAT 6 THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ADJACENT WASHES OF HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT 7 SMOKE TREE HABITAT. AND THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST 17 8 SIGNAL, AND IT WAS A SIGNAL TO ME WHEN I READ THIS E. I . R. , 9 THAT THERE IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF BIAS INVOLVED IN WHAT WAS 10 WRITTEN DOWN. TO SAY THAT THIS THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DESERT 11 WASH HABITAT LEFT IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY IS A RED FLAG THAT 12 SOMEBODY -- THAT EVERYONE I THINK THAT READS IT WITH ANY 13 DEGREE OF SANITY RECOGNIZES AS SOME SORT OF BIAS. 14 MY FIRST OPPORTUNITY TO DEAL WITH MR. DE FORGE IN 15 BIGHORN SHEEP ISSUES WAS IN 1981 , WHERE I WAS REPRESENTING A 16 DEVELOPER IN ARIZONA. THE DEVELOPER WANTED TO DEVELOP HIS 17 LAND ADJACENT TO A WILDERNESS HABITAT. THE WILDERNESS 18 CONTAINED DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP . 19 I HEARD ABOUT MR. DE FORGE AND I CAME OVER HERE, AND 20 MR. DE FORGE HELPED ME THROUGH THAT PROJECT, IN THAT HE SHOWED 21 ME AREAS BEHIND RANCHO MIRAGE AND COMMUNITIES WHERE 22 DEVELOPMENT, IN FACT, FORMED A RELATIVELY IMPENETRABLE WALL 23 FOR IMPACTS GOING OFF INTO THE BIGHORN SHEEP COUNTRY. 24 IN FACT, IT WAS IN LARGE PART DUE TO MR . DE FORGE'S 25 EFFORTS THAT THE ZONING CASE I WAS WORKING ON IN 1981 PASSED 26 WITH FLYING COLORS, SAYING THAT WE COULD ACTUALLY BUILD YATES & ASSOCIATES 55 1 DEVELOPMENTS ADAJACENT TO BIGHORN SHEEP HABITATS, AND IN SO 2 DOING, PROTECT NOT ONLY THE BIGHORN SHEEP, BUT THE RESIDENTS 3 OF THE AREA. IT WOULD BE A TREMENDOUS MARKETING PLOY TO HAVE 4 THE RESIDENTS BECOME THE STEWARDS OF THE BIGHORN SHEEP IN THAT 5 HABITAT BEHIND. 6 IN ANSWER TO MR. RICHARDS' QUESTION BEFORE, IF I WERE 7 GOING TO TRY TO RUN AN INSTITUTE LIKE THE BIGHORN SHEEP 8 INSTITUTE, WHERE MY JOB WAS TO DO WHAT MR. DE FORGE'S JOB 9 WOULD BE TO DO, I GUARANTEE YOU, I WOULD PICK THE MOST REMOTE 10 SPOT IN THE DESERT THAT I COULD FIND TO PROTECT THESE ANIMALS. 11 WE HAVE RECENTLY HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE 12 NEW MEXICO GAME & FISH PEOPLE. THEY HAVE A BIGHORN SHEEP 13 RESEARCH PROJECT IN SOME WAY SIMILAR TO THIS ONE, WHERE 14 THEY' RE RAISING BIGHORN SHEEP BEHIND PENS, AND THEY ARE DOING .r 15 IT IN THE MOST REMOTE PLACE IN MEXICO THAT THEY CAN FIND. 16 IT IS ABSOLUTELY ILLOGICAL TO THINK THAT YOU COULD 17 PUT THIS INSTITUTE FACILITY WITHIN THAT CLOSE OF A PROXIMITY 18 TO A MAJOR URBAN AREA AND CALL IT A NATURAL SITUATION . 19 SO, I AM IN TOTAL SUPPORT OF MR . DE FORGE'S 20 ACTIVITIES. I THINK THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE IS A TREMENDOUS 21 OPERATION, IT'S A CREDIT TO THIS COMMUNITY, IT'S A CREDIT TO 22 MR . DE FORGE FOR THE HARD WORK THAT HE PUTS INTO IT. BUT IN 23 THE STUDIES THAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS, 24 THERE IS NO WAY THAT WE CAN FIND, NOR CAN OTHER BIGHORN SHEEP 25 EXPERTS FIND, THAT, IN FACT, THE ACTIVITIES OF A DEVELOPMENT 26 ADJACENT TO THAT PROPERTY COULD BE MITIGATED FOR , ESPECIALLY YATES & ASSOCIATES 56 1 CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT OF HABITAT AND THE AMOUNT OF AREA THE 2 BIGHORN SHEEP INSTITUTE HAS ON ITS OWN GROUND. 3 THE ABILITY FOR THEM TO ACTUALLY MOVE PENS OR TO FIND 4 THEMSELVES IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY COULD ACCOMMODATE 5 ADJACENT LAND USES IS AN ISSUE THAT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLORED. 6 MR . DE FORGE IS VERY, VERY SET IN HIS WAYS, HE IS 7 UNWILLING TO LISTEN TO ANY KIND OF POTENTIAL FOR MITIGATION AS 8 IT RELATES TO THE ADJACENT HABITAT. 9 AND IT'S FOR THIS REASON THAT I FIND THIS A VERY -- 10 I ' M TELLING YOU THE TRUE SIDE, BUT I FIND IT'S A VERY 11 DISTASTEFUL PROCESS THAT WE ARE GOING THROUGH, BECAUSE WE 12 HAVE PITTED BIOLOGIST AGAINST BIOLOGIST, AND WHAT WE HAVE SEEN 13 HERE IS -- THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE PEOPLE 14 WILL LISTEN TO ANY KIND OF REASON OR LISTEN TO ANY KIND OF A 15 MITIGATION ALTERNATIVE AS IT RELATES TO ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT, UW 16 AND THEY KNEW FULL WELL WHEN THEY GOT THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE 17 PROPERTY THAT THE ADJACENT LAND WAS ZONED IN SOME CASES FOR 18 THE DENSITIES THAT WE' RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT. 19 WITH THAT, IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, I THINK I HAVE 20 HAD ENOUGH TIME. 21 THANK YOU. 22 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THANK YOU, MR . CARUTHERS. 23 MR. BURNS, OR MR. HAYHOE, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER 24 SPEAKER TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY FOR THE APPLICANT. 25 MR. BURNS: NOT THIS EVENING. WE EXPECT TO PRESENT 26 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE 19TH. YATES L ASSOCIATES 57 1 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THANK YOU . THEN I WILL CONTINUE THE 2 PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK IF THERE IS ANYONE PRESENT WHO WISHES 3 TO SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. 4 MR. TICE: MY NAME IS CLAY TICE, 48-871 NORTH VIEW DRIVE, rr 5 PALM DESERT, LIVING ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. AND 6 FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT WE ARE BACKED UP TO THE WALL, 7 WE PREFER THAT NOTHING EVER BE BUILT THERE. WE WOULD LIKE TO 8 KEEP IT DESERT. HOWEVER, WE APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE 9 VALLEY IS A GROWING CONCERN AND WE KNOW THAT SOMETHING WILL 10 DEVELOP AND WE WANT THE BEST POSSIBLE SITUATION TO DEVELOP. 11 THE VENTURES MAY BE THAT. 12 I WAS GOING TO DISCUSS DESERT TORTOISES. HOWEVER, 13 I ' M GOING TO (UNINTELLIGIBLE ) OVER NOW AND QUALIFIED AS AN 14 EXPERT . rw 15 I LEARNED FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT THEY PROPOSED TO 18 16 HAVE A HELI-PAD AT THIS LOCATION. ONE OF MY CAREER JOBS WAS 17 ASSISTANT MANAGER OF THE FLIGHT TEST DIVISION OF HUGHES 18 AIRCRAFT CORPORATION IN LOS ANGELES. 19 ONE OF MY ADDITIONAL DUTIES WAS PLANNING FOR AND 20 ACQUIRING CLEARANCES FOR HELI-PADS USED BY A CORPORATE FLIGHT 21 SECTION THROUGHOUT ORANGE COUNTY AND LOS ANGELES COUNTY . AND 22 VENTURA COUNTY, AS WELL. BEING VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE STATE 23 REQUIREMENTS, CITY REQUIREMENTS AND PENAL REQUIREMENTS ON THE 24 LOCATION OF HELI-PADS, ONE OF THE FIRST CRITERIA THAT COMES TO 25 MIND IS ACCESS IN AND OUT OF THE HELI-PAD LOCATION. 26 THE FIRST PROBLEM YOU RUN INTO, AND I 'VE BEEN ON BOTH YATES & ASSOCIATES 58 1 SIDES OF THE FENCE MANY, MANY TIMES, HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS 2 IN THE AREA WHERE YOU HAVE THE HELI-PAD WILL RISE UP AND 3 STRIKE DOWN ANY HELI-PAD OPERATION. THE GOVERNMENT WILL, 4 HOWEVER, PRECLUDE THAT AND PERMIT IT. BUT THEY WILL RULE ON 5 THE ENTRY ACCESS. 6 IN THIS CASE, ENTRY ACCESS TO THIS HELI-PAD LOCATION 7 WHICH WILL PREVAIL FINALLY, WILL BE DOWN HIGHWAY 74, UP AND 8 DOWN THE HIGHWAY . THAT IS THE GUIDE, IT WILL BE A FLIGHT 9 PATH. AND I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS 10 ON BOTH SIDES OF HIGHWAY 74 WILL RISE UP IN RATH WHEN THAT 11 HAPPENS. 12 SO ON THAT STANDPOINT, I CANNOT SPEAK FOR THE -- SOME 13 OF THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS IN THIS MATTER, BUT I CAN 14 ASSURE YOU THAT WE WILL 'BE ABLE TO GET A MAJORITY VOTE THAT 15 WILL SHOOT DOWN ANY HELI-PAD OPERATION IN THAT AREA. rr 16 THANK YOU. 17 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE 18 TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT? 19 PLEASE COME FORWARD. 20 MS. BANNON: MY NAME IS LORI BANNON, I ' M ONE OF THE OWNERS 21 OF -- MY RESIDENCE IS 46-211 EDGEHILL, PALM DESERT. I ' M ONE 22 OF THE OWNERS OF THE 12 ACRES WHICH IS PART OF THE BIGHORN 23 VENTURE, HAYHOE PROJECT. 24 THIS LAND IS PRESENTLY ZONED PR-5, WHICH WOULD ALLOW 25 FIVE UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH WOULD BE TOTALLY OVER 50 UNITS ON j 26 THE LAND. AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE -- WELL, WE CHOOSE TO BECOME YATES & ASSOCIATES 59 1 A PART OF THE BIGHORN VENTURES PROJECT BECAUSE WE LIKE THE 2 CONCEPT AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLANNED FOR OUR PROPERTY . 3 MR . HAYHOE HAS PROJECTED ONLY 12 LOTS, 12 RESIDENCES ON OUR 4 PROPERTY , INSTEAD OF THE 50 . 5 300 ACRES -- I ' M JUST TRYING TO READ A FEW NOTES 6 HERE -- 300 ACRES OF B.L. M. LANDS, PUBLIC LANDS, WERE GIVEN TO 7 THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE TO USE. 20, 000 ADJACENT ACRES OR MORE 8 IN THE SANTA ROSAS ARE AVAILABLE TO THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE BUT 9 ALL BELONG TO B. L. M. WE HAVE MAPS AT THE DESERT MAP SHOP THAT 10 WE CAN SHOW ANYONE WHO HAS ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS. 11 WHAT WE ARE QUESTIONING IS WHY DO THEY WANT 120 ACRES 12 OR MORE OF PRIVATE LAND IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT INSTEAD OF 13 GOING NORTH . WHAT IS THE POINT AND THE PURPOSE OF GOING SOUTH 14 TO THE RESIDENCES. 15 THAT'S ALL BASICALLY WE HAVE TO STATE AT THIS TIME. 16 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THANK YOU. 17 IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR 18 OF THE PROJECT? 19 MS. STEFFY: DONNA STEFFY , MANAGER OF THE INDIAN SPRINGS 20 MOBILEHOME PARK , SPEAKING FOR THE OWNER OF THE PARK , IS IN 21 FAVOR . 22 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO 23 ADDRESS IN FAVOR? 24 ANYONE IN OPPOSITION? 25 MR . WILLIAMS: MAY IT PLEASE THE PLANNING COMMISSION, MY 26 NAME IS CRAIG WILLIAMS, I ' M AN ATTORNEY WITH ALLEN, MATKINS, YATES & ASSOCIATES 60 c 1 LECK , GAMBLE & MALLORY AT 18400 VON KARMAN, ON THE FOURTH 2 FLOOR, IN IRVINE, CALIFORNIA. I REPRESENT MR. ERNEST HAHN AND 3 THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE. 4 I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO EXPRESS MR. HAHN'S REGRETS FOR 5 NOT BEING ABLE TO BE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT TO EXPRESS HIS 6 APPROVAL OF WHAT I ' M GOING TO SAY AND WHAT SOME OF THE 7 SPEAKERS AFTER ME ARE GOING TO SAY. HE WAS NOT ABLE TO MAKE 8 IT. BUT CONTRARY TO SOME OF THE RUMORS THAT HAVE BEEN FLYING, 9 MR. HAHN IS IN VERY GOOD HEALTH. 10 YOU WILL HAVE TO FORGIVE ME BECAUSE I DON' T HAVE THE 11 SILVER HAIR THAT MR . BURNS HAS, AND I MAY NOT BE AS ELOQUENT A 12 SPEAKER AS HE, BUT I COULDN' T HELP AS I WAS SITTING IN MY 13 CHAIR, BEING THE ATTORNEY THAT I AM, AND A TRIAL ATTORNEY, 14 WANTING TO STAND UP AND OBJECT, AND I LOOKED UP AND I DIDN' T 15 SEE ANY BLACK ROBES. 16 WE ARE NOT TRYING THE BIGHORN VENTURES CASE THAT 17 MR. HAYHOE AND BIGHORN VENTURES HAS INSTITUTED AGAINST THE 18 BIGHORN INSTITUTE TONIGHT. THE EVIDENCE THAT YOU HEARD AND 19 HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU ABOUT WHATEVER THE COUNTY OF 20 RIVERSIDE HAS DONE WITH RESPECT TO THE 9600 SQUARE—FOOT 21 CARETAKER'S RESIDENCE THAT IS PLANNED TO BE BUILT ON 292 22 ACRES, AND I DON' T NEED TO BE THAT GOOD AT MATH TO TELL YOU 19 23 THAT THE DENSITY IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN MR . HAYHOE'S 24 PROJECT, WE ARE NOT TRYING THAT CASE TONIGHT, AND ALL THAT 25 INFORMATION IS IRRELEVANT WITH RESPECT TO THE CONSIDERATION 26 THAT'S BEFORE YOU, WHICH LEADS ME TO MY NEXT POINT. YATES & ASSOCIATES 61 1 MR . BURNS MADE AN ALLUSION TO AN EXPLOSIVE PLANT, 2 WHEN HE SAID WHEN YOU DROP IT IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA. BUT 3 THAT'S NOT THE CIRCUMSTANCE HERE. WHAT YOU HAVE, AND I -- JIM 4 IS GOING TO KILL ME AFTERWARDS FOR SAYING THIS, BUT TO USE 5 MR . BURNS' STORY, YOU HAVE AN EXPLOSIVE PLANT THAT'S ALREADY 6 THERE . AND WHEN YOU PROPOSE TO MOVE IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 7 NEXT TO IT, DOESN' T THAT RAISE SOME CONCERNS IN YOUR MIND? 8 AND DOESN' T IT ALSO CAUSE YOU TO WONDER ABOUT WHETHER 9 MR . HAYHOE SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 10 BEFORE HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, AND FOUND OUT THE RESULTS THAT 11 HE FOUND OUT TONIGHT? 12 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: I HAVE A QUESTION. ARE YOU 13 THROUGH? 14 MR . WILLIAMS: NO. I WENT TO GRAB SOMETHING THAT I HAD err 15 FORGOTTEN . 16 MR. HAYHOE DID MEET WITH MR . DE FORGE FOR ABOUT 45 17 MINUTES, AND I DO NOT WANT TO SPEND A WHOLE LOT OF TIME ON 18 THIS USE ISSUE, SINCE I FEEL IT IS IRRELEVANT, BUT I FEEL THAT 19 A COUPLE OF POINTS NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. 20 HIS LETTER THAT FOLLOWED THAT MEETING THE NEXT DAY 21 SAID, "WE WILL KEEP YOU ADVISED OF OUR PROGRESS. " 22 NOT UNTIL TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE FIRST TENTATIVE MAP 23 WAS SHOWN TO MR. DE FORGE DID HE HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE 24 DEVELOPMENT WAS GOING TO BE. AND I ' M GOING TO SHOW YOU 25 SOMETHING THAT LOOKS REMARKABLY SIMILAR TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS 26 THAT THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE HAD MADE TONIGHT. YATES & ASSOCIATES 62 1 THIS IS MR. HAYHOE'S PROJECT . THIS IS A MAP THAT HE 2 GAVE MR. DE FORGE. AND YOU WILL NOTICE THAT ON THIS MAP THERE 3 IS A LINE, AND THAT LINE IS THE BUFFER THAT THE INSTITUTE 4 RECOMMENDED WHEN THEY WERE FIRST SHOWING THIS MAP TO 5 MR. HAYHOE. IT CUTS OFF A NUMBER OF BUILDINGS, A NUMBER OF 6 HOMES. 7 YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT IT IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE 8 COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ACCESS ROAD. THERE IS AN 9 AWFUL LOT OF DISTANCE THERE. 10 IF YOU LOOK AT ALTERNATIVE 2, WHICH YOU WILL HEAR 11 MORE ABOUT IN A LITTLE BIT, THIS LINE, THE FIRST TIME THIS MAP 12 WAS SHOWN, WAS THERE. 13 THE INSTITUTE DOESN' T HAVE ANY OBLIGATION TO ADVISE 14 MR. HAYHOE REGARDING HIS PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, AND WE DON' T 15 WANT TO TRY THAT CASE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. THAT WILL BE TRIED 16 IN THE COURTS, IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, IN THE 17 INDIO BRANCH. 18 WHAT IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS WHAT YOU NEED TO 19 CONSIDER, AND THAT IS MR. HAYHOE'S REQUEST TO REZONE AN 20 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, AND THAT IS WHAT YOU SHOULD FOCUS 21 ON . 22 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 23 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: I HAVE A QUESTION OF YOU. 24 MR. WILLIAMS: SURE. 25 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: ONE OF THE COMMENTS YOU MADE WAS 26 THAT YOU DIDN' T SEE JUDGES IN BLACK ROBES. THAT MIGHT BE YATES & ASSOCIATES 63 ':. 1 TRUE, BUT SOME OF US HAVE BEEN HERE A LONG TIME. 2 MR. WILLIAMS: THAT IS CORRECT. 3 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: AND WE HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS. 4 MR. WILLIAMS: THAT IS CORRECT. err 5 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: YOU ALSO ALLUDED TO THE FACT 6 THAT -- THE EXPLOSIVE PLANT ISSUE, AND THAT ISSUE SHOULD HAVE 7 BEEN IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT BEFORE MOVING IN AS A 8 RESIDENT NEXT DOOR . 9 MR. WILLIAMS: I ASKED THAT QUESTION. 10 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: IN 1980, OR SOMEWHERE AROUND 11 THERE, WE HAD BEFORE THIS BODY A DEVELOPER WHO WAS PROPOSING 12 1400 HOMES, A MAJOR HOTEL, AND WE SPENT PROBABLY THREE YEARS 13 WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL OF THAT GROUP DEALING WITH THE PROPERTY 14 THAT COMPLETELY SURROUNDS THIS. r 15 IN 1983 OR 1984, WE HAD THE HYATT HOTEL PEOPLE HERE, 16 AND HAD APPROVED A 525-UNIT HOTEL AND AN ADDITIONAL 300 HOMES 17 ON THE REST OF THE PROPERTY THAT SURROUNDS US. NEITHER OF 18 THOSE PROJECTS EVENTUALLY GOT BUILT, BUT THEY WERE ZONED LONG 19 BEFORE BIGHORN INSTITUTE EVER GOT INVOLVED, LONG BEFORE. 20 WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PEOPLE HERE, IN FAIRNESS, I ' M 21 LIKING IT TO THE CASE OF THE APPLICANTS WHO MOVED INTO HOMES 22 NEXT TO THE AIRPORT, THEN PETITIOND THE AIRPORT NOT TO LAND 23 THE PLANES ANYMORE, BECAUSE THAT'S ABOUT WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE 24 FROM THIS PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL, BECAUSE THE ZONING WAS THERE 25 LONG BEFORE THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE. 26 THE FACT THAT THE BODY, THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY SAYS YATES & ASSOCIATES 64 t. 1 WE CAN' T ALLUDE TO, CHANGED THE ZONE FROM R-1 , WHICH IT WAS 2 ZONED, TO THE ZONING THAT THE INSTITUTE NOW HAS, NEVER 3 NOTIFIED ANYBODY ON THIS BOARD, WAS DONE, AS FAR AS I ' M 4 CONCERNED, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, WE DIDN' T KNOW IT WAS 5 HAPPENING. HE'S GOING TO PROBABLY -- BUT I WAS THERE AND 6 NOBODY EVER TOLD US. WHETHER HIS STAFF LET THE BALL DOWN, BUT 7 THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT, THE COMMUNICATION WAS TYPICALLY 8 LACKING. 9 BUT YOU COME TO US AND YOU SAY HE SHOULD HAVE DONE AN 20 10 E. I .R. REPORT. I THINK THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE SHOULD HAVE DONE 11 ONE. I THINK THAT'S WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE. WE ARE NOT 12 AGAINST IT. I PROMISE YOU NOBODY HERE IS AGAINST THE 13 INSTITUTE. WE ARE AGAINST THE FACT THAT YOU WANT TO BE 14 ISOLATED AND YOU DON' T WANT TO BE NEIGHBORLY. 15 THAT PLACE AND THAT DEVELOPMENT WAS THERE AND THE 16 DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE PROPOSED WERE THERE LONG BEFORE THEY 17 GOT THE PROPERTY FROM THE B.L. M. AND IT IS MY BELIEF THAT IF 18 YOU -- THEY MAINTAIN THE FACT THAT THEY CAN' T WORK OUT A 19 COMPROMISE, THAT SOMEBODY'S BEING STUPID, AND THIS BODY HERE 20 IS GOING -- THIS ONE PERSON IS GOING TO HAVE A TOUGH TIME 21 MAKING THE BLACK ROBE DECISION THAT WE SHOULD GO AGAINST THE 22 DEVELOPER. 23 MR. WILLIAMS: MY "BLACK ROBE" ALLUSION WAS TO PUT YOU 24 THAT YOU ARE NOT IN THE PLACE OF THE JUDGE THAT WILL 25 EVENTUALLY TRY THE CASE THAT BIGHORN VENTURES HAS AGAINST THE 26 INSTITUTE. YOU CERTAINLY HAVE THE OBLIGATION AND THE RIGHT YATES & ASSOCIATES 65 I AND YOUR COMPLETE DISCRETION OF EXERCISE POWER TO CONSIDER THE 2 ISSUE THAT IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, AND RIGHTLY YOU SHOULD. 3 THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DID A STUDY WHEN THEY 4 DECIDED TO GIVE THE LAND TO THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE, AND THAT 5 STUDY WE ARE CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO GET FROM 6 THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, AND WHEN THAT IS AVAILABLE, IT 7 WILL BE IN YOUR HANDS. 8 THAT STUDY WAS DONE, THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY 9 WAS DONE, AND I CAN' T TELL YOU WHAT IT ADDRESSED, BECAUSE I 'VE 10 NEVER SEEN IT. ONCE I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET IT FROM THE 11 ARCHIVES OF WASHINGTON, D.C. , WE CAN SIT DOWN AND TALK ABOUT 12 IT AND SEE WHAT THE REFERENCES ARE THEREAFTER. 13 YOU WILL SEE IN THE DIARAMA THAT WILL BE SHOWN TO YOU 14 TONIGHT THAT THE AREA, IF YOU LOOK BEHIND YOU IN THE GREEN, UP 15 ON ALTERNATIVE NO. 2, IS, IN A LARGE PART AN ALLUVIAL FAN 16 DEVELOPMENT, EVEN AT THE TIME IT WAS APPROVED, AS YOU SAY, IN 17 THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, IS QUESTIONABLE ON THAT. AND I DON' T 18 MEAN TO QUESTION THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION ABOUT 19 THAT, BUT ALLUVIAL FAN DEVELOPMENT HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN 20 QUESTIONABLE . 21 YOU HAVE THE OBLIGATION TO CONSIDER ALL OF THE 22 EVIDENCE THAT WILL BE PUT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, BOTH IN FAVOR 23 AND BOTH AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT. MY ONLY PURPOSE IN SPEAKING 24 TO YOU TONIGHT IS TO CLEAR UP A COUPLE OF POINTS AND TO LET 25 YOU KNOW, AS WELL, AND THE GENTLEMAN THAT SPOKE ABOUT THE 26 HELI-PAD, THE MUSEUM, THE EDUCATIONAL SIDE, NO APPROVALS FROM YATES & ASSOCIATES 66 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY WILL -- NONE OF THOSE ITEMS ARE APPROVED, 2 NONE OF THOSE ITEMS WILL BE BUILT. 3 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: YES, BUT IS IT FACTUAL TO SAY THAT 4 YOU APPLIED FOR THEM? 5 MR. WILLIAMS: YES, IT IS. 6 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: WELL, WHAT KIND OF CREDIBILITY DO 7 YOU HAVE HERE? YOU APPLIED FOR THEM BUT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO 8 BE BUILT, AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO HARM ANYBODY . THAT'S THE 9 MAJOR PROBLEM WE HAVE HERE, THE CREDIBILITY . YOU APPLIED FOR 10 THEM BUT YOU' RE NOT GOING TO BUILD THEM. I DON' T UNDERSTAND 11 THAT. 12 THANK YOU. 13 MR . DIAZ: MADAM CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY ONE 14 THING. WHAT I INDICATED WAS THAT THE -- HOW THE COUNTY MADE 15 THE DECISION ON THE INSTITUTE WAS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD NOT BEwr 16 ENTERING OUR DECISION. THE CITY ATTORNEY DID NOT INDICATE 17 THAT -- YOU CANNOT ALLUDE TO OR DISCUSS THAT. 18 I -- ALSO IN FAIRNESS TO MY COLLEAGUES AT RIVERSIDE 19 COUNTY, WE DID RECEIVE NOTICES OF THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE'S 20 APPLICATIONS AS WELL AS THE STAFF REPORTS, AND AS YOU WILL 21 RECALL AT THE VERY FIRST MEETING BACK IN NOVEMBER, WE READ 22 THOSE REPORTS AND RELIED ON THOSE REPORTS, WHICH IS WHY WE DID 23 NOT COMMENT ON THEM. 24 BUT WE DID KNOW, AND I WANT TO APOLOGIZE TO THE 25 COMMISSION THAT HAD I KNOWN THEN WHAT I KNOW NOW, OBVIOUSLY I 26 WOULD HAVE BEEN DOWN HERE ASKING SOME QUESTIONS, BUT I DIDN' T YATES & ASSOCIATES _ 67 1 SO I WASN' T. 2 MR. WILLIAMS: AS YOU ARE PROBABLY FAMILIAR WITH THE 3 CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, IT REQUIRES THAT WHEN AN 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IS DONE THAT ALL OF THE POTENTIAL err 5 PROSPECTIVE ITEMS THAT MAY BE BUILT IN THE FUTURE BE 6 CONSIDERED AT ONE TIME IN ORDER NOT TO SPLIT THE PROJECT INTO 7 SEGMENTS. 8 THAT WAS THE THOUGHT BEHIND WHAT POSSIBLY MAY BE A 9 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HELI-PAD. THAT'S WHY IT WAS PUT IN 10 THERE, BECAUSE IT'S REQUIRED BY LAW. 11 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: NOW YOU' RE REALLY STARTING TO BUG 12 ME . 13 WE DEAL WITH THAT SUBJECT EVERY NIGHT HERE. 14 IF MR. BONE CAME TO US AND SAID, "I ' M GOING TO BUILD 15 5, 000 HOMES AND AN AIRPORT, " THAT ISN' T THE WAY IT'S REALLY 16 DONE. THEY BUILD THE HOMES, AND THEY DON'T DO IT LIKE THAT. 17 I MEAN, I 'VE BEEN HERE 11 YEARS, AND WHAT YOU' RE JUST 18 TELLING ME IS NOT A FACTUAL EVENT. IF I ' M GOING TO BE A 19 DEVELOPER, I ' M NOT GOING TO COME IN HERE ON MY ACREAGE AND 20 TELL YOU ALL THE BAD THINGS I MIGHT DO; I ' M GOING TO TELL YOU 1 21 THE GOOD THINGS AND I ' M GOING TO TAKE IT STEP BY STEP . 22 AND WHETHER YOU TELL ME THE LAW IS, IN FACT, THE LAW, 23 THAT ISN' T THE WAY IT OCCURS HERE. EVERY DEVELOPMENT THAT WE 24 HAVE IN THIS PACKET TONIGHT WILL NOT START ON THAT BASIS. 25 THE FACT THAT YOU ARE TELLING ME NOW THAT YOU MIGHT 26 BUILD A HELI-PAD, OR YOU TOLD THE COUNTY THAT YOU MIGHT BUILD YATES & ASSOCIATES 68 �Y 1 A HELIPORT BECAUSE YOU HAD TO DO IT BECAUSE THE LAW SAID YOU 2 HAD TO DO IT AHEAD OF TIME, THAT JUST ISN' T SO, THAT JUST IS 3 NOT SO IN FACT. AND THAT'S MY EXPERIENCE HERE. 4 AND I DON' T KNOW WHERE THEY PRACTICE LAW THAT 5 INDICATES THAT THAT IS THE CASE, BUT THAT ISN' T WHAT WE HAVE 6 SEEN HERE IN THE EXPERIENCE THAT I HAVE HAD. 7 SO WHEN YOU APPLY TO THE COUNTY AND SAY , "I ' M GOING 8 TO BUILD A MUSEUM AND A HELIPORT, IN YOUR ANALYSIS, " IN MY 9 ESTIMATION, THAT''S WHAT YOU INTEND TO DO. BECAUSE YOU DON' T 10 PUT THE APPLICATION IN AND PAY THE FEES AND GO THROUGH THE 11 TROUBLE TO DO THAT UNLESS YOU INTEND TO DO IT, OR INTEND TO 12 SELL THE PROJECT TO SOMEBODY ELSE IF IT'S A PROJECT. 13 MR . WILLIAMS: THE BUREAU'S LAND CANNOT BE SOLD. 14 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: IT'S ALSO HARD TO GET LAND FROM } 15 THEM IF YOU HAVE A REASONABLE PROJECT. AND IT HAS BEEN SOLD , 16 IN THE PAST. 17 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: MR . WILLIAMS, LET ME SEE IF YOU 18 CAN HELP ME ON ONE QUESTION THAT'S COME UP. 19 YOU KNOW, SOME QUESTIONS ARE A QUESTION OF OPINION 20 AND OTHERS ARE A QUESTION OF FACT. AND THE ONE THAT I WOULD 21 LIKE TO ADDRESS IS ONE OF FACT, AND HOPEFULLY IT WILL BE 22 SIMPLE, THEREFORE, TO CLARIFY. AND IT IS THE QUESTION OF WHO 23 CAME FIRST, OKAY; WHO WAS THERE FIRST. 24 IN THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER ' 89, I ASKED A BIGHORN 25 REPRESENTATIVE IF, WHEN THEY APPLIED FOR A CHANGE IN ZONE AND 26 APPLIED TO BUILD THEIR FACILITY, IF THEY WERE AWARE OF THE 1 YATES & ASSOCIATES 69� 1 SURROUNDING ZONING AND THE PLANNED USES, AND I WAS TOLD VERY 2 CLEARLY, YES, THEY WERE. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I ' M SORRY, I MISSED IT. OF THE 4 VENTURES OR THE INSTITUTE? 5 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: OF THE INSTITUTE. AND THE ANSWER 6 WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THEY HAD KNOWLEDGE PRIOR TO MAKING THEIR 7 APPLICATION. 8 WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT? 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: THAT'S A QUESTION THAT I CAN' T 10 ANSWER . I MEAN, I HAVE TO DEFER TO MR. DE FORGE TO ANSWER THE 11 QUESTION BECAUSE HE WAS THERE AT THE TIME. I DON' T KNOW THE 12 ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. 13 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: WHAT WAS YOUR BASIS FOR SAYING 14 THAT THE EXPLOSIVE PLANT, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, WAS THERE FIRST? 15 MR . WILLIAMS: IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT, AS A MATTER OF 16 FACT, BEFORE ANY DEVELOPMENT BEGAN, THAT THE INSTITUTE WAS 17 BUILT, PHYSICALLY BUILT FIRST. 18 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: OKAY . I THINK PERHAPS YOUR GOING 19 TO FIND OUT LATER THAT THAT WAS NOT THE CASE. 20 MR . WILLIAMS: YOU MEAN THERE IS -- 21 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: I MEAN THE EXISTING FACILITY . 22 MR. WILLIIAMS: IT WAS THERE BEFORE MR . HAYHOE STARTED 23 BUILDING HIS HOMES. 24 MR. DIAZ: MADAM CHAIRMAN, I BELIEVE THAT THE CONFUSION 25 LIES BETWEEN WHEN THE ZONING OCCURRED AND WHEN THE 26 DEVELOPMENTS WERE BUILT. THERE IS NOTHING ON THE PROPERTY YATES L ASSOCIATES 70 �_. 1 NOW, SO THE INSTITUTE CAME BEFORE ANYTHING WAS BUILT ON THE 2 PROPERTY . HOWEVER, THE ZONING EXISTED ON THE PROPERTY PRIOR 3 TO THE INSTITUTE BEING DEVELOPED. SO THE ZONING EXISTED, THE 4 ZONING WHICH DESIGNATED THAT AREA AS PR-5, FIVE UNITS TO THE 5 ACRE. 6 THE ZONE CHANGE IN QUESTION TO CLARIFY INVOLVES AREA 7 NORTH OF THE AREA THAT IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE BIGHORN 8 INSTITUTE. THE LAND NEXT TO THAT INSTITUTE AREA WAS ZONED 9 ALREADY, BUT NOT DEVELOPED. 10 SO IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS OF WHAT CONSTITUTES THE 11 ZONING OR THE DEVELOPMENT. 12 YOU ALSO HAVE THE DECISION OF THE RECOMMENDATION IN 13 TERMS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE COUNTY IN TERMS OF COMPATIBILITY 14 WHICH DEALT WITH ZONING AND POTENTIAL USE, THE EXISTING ZONING 15 AND THE POTENTIAL OF THE USE ON THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIME. 16 BUT RIGHT NOW THE PROPERTY IS VACANT. 17 MR . WILLIAMS: AND THE ZONING CHANGE THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE 18 YOU TONIGHT IN ONE AREA IS OPEN SPACE H. R.P. 19 MR. DIAZ: THAT'S CORRECT, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S 20 ADJACENT . 21 MR. WILLIAMS: IT'S WITHIN THE GREEN AREA UP ON THE MAP. 22 MR . DIAZ: OKAY . 23 MR . JOY: JUST A VERY SMALL PORTION OF THAT REZONING IS 24 WITHIN THE GREEN AREA. I DON' T KNOW IF ANYBODY CAN POINT TO 25 IT, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THAT REZONING AREA CONSTITUTES THE 26 IRONWOOD DIKE, I SUPPOSE, WHICH IT GOES RIGHT -- AS MR . DIAZ YATES & ASSOCIATES 71 1 IS POINTING TO, THAT'S THE AREA OF REZONING TONIGHT . 2 MR. DIAZ: WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE AREA DOWN HERE . 3 MR . ROBERTS: MADAM CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS, MY NAME IS { 4 KENT ROBERTS. I ' M THE PRESIDENT OF THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE THIS rllrrr 5 YEAR. 6 IF I HAD JUST WALKED IN HERE, I 'D REALLY THINK THAT 7 OUR ORGANIZATION MAYBE HAS SOME ULTERIOR MOTIVES IN LOCATING 8 HERE AND A LITTLE BIT SINISTER AROUND THE EDGES, BUT THAT IS 9 NOT THE CASE. 10 I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE CLEARLY STATED THAT I HAVE 11 KNOWN OUR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, JIM DE FORGE, OVER 20 YEARS. 2 12 JIM IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, I ' M THE PRESIDENT, WE REPORT -- 13 I REPORT TO THE BOARD DIRECTORS MADE UP OF EIGHTEEN PEOPLE, 14 SIX OF THOSE ARE BIOLOGISTS. SOME OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 15 MEMBERS YOU WILL KNOW: MR. ERNEST HAHN, PRESIDENT FORD, BILL �lrrr ' 16 BONE, DAVE STOCKTON; WE HAVE SEVERAL HERE TONIGHT. 17 I WAS AT THE FIRST MEETING AT CHARLIE JENNER'S HOUSE, 18 WHO WAS PAST PRESIDENT, A BOARD MEMBER, BACK IN 1980 WHEN THIS 19 WHOLE ORGANIZATION WAS SIMPLY A THOUGHT. AND I THINK PART OF 20 THE PROBLEM WE HAVE IS PERHAPS NO ONE'S FAULT ON PART OF IT. 21 I WOULD ASK PERHAPS A FAVOR, TOO. THE CURRENT 22 ASSESSOR'S RECORDS PROBABLY STILL SHOW BUREAU OF LAND 23 MANAGEMENT, THE B . L. M. AS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY . THEY ARE 24 STILL GETTING LEGAL NOTICES REGARDING THIS HEARING AND WE ARE 25 NOT . SO WE ' NEEDED TO BE ADDDED TO THAT LIST BECAUSE WE DIDN' T 26 KNOW ABOUT THIS HEARING UNTIL ABOUT 12 OR 13 DAYS AGO. SO, YATES L ASSOCIATES 72 1 BILL CAN TAKE THAT CARE OF THAT. 2 MR. JOY: I PERSONALLY DELIVERED A LEGAL NOTICE TO 3 MR . DE FORGE AS HE CAME DOWN TO MY OFFICE PROBABLY THE SAME 4 TIME ALL ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS RECEIVED THAT NOTICE. 5 I MAILED OUT THOSE NOTICES 18 DAYS AGO. 6 MR . ROBERTS: THANK YOU. 7 PART OF THE PROBLEM, AND AGAIN I THINK WE HAVE TO 8 RECOGNIZE IT AS AN EXISTING SITUATION, WE ARE IN THE COUNTY, 9 THE CITY IS OVER HERE, AND THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT AGENCIES 10 INVOLVED, AND PART OF THIS LEGAL PROCESS BACK AND FORTH I 11 THINK HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT CAUSED BY THAT. 12 TONIGHT'S HEARING WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT TAKING A 13 LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT AND, OF COURSE, UNDER 14 CQUA, THAT'S TO LOOK AT WHAT EXISTS TODAY AND NOT TALK ABOUT 15 PAST HISTORY . AND, OF COURSE, WE KNOW THAT ALTHOUGH 16 PROPERTIES ARE ZONED, WE HAVE SEEN TREMENDOUS CHANGES IN THE 17 LAST 10 YEARS OVER HOW PLANNING COMMISSIONS AND CITY COUNCILS 18 LOOK AT ZONING. 19 ZONING IS NO LONGER A 100 PERCENT RIGHT TO BUILD OUT 20 A DEVELOPMENT TO WHATEVER STANDARDS ARE THERE AS FAR AS SO 21 MANY UNITS PER ACRE, AND CQUA WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME 22 INTO EFFECT THAT SAID, "LET'S LOOK AT WHAT'S THERE. " 23 AND MR. RICHARDS, I THINK I CAN UNDERSTAND EXACTLY 24 WHERE YOU' RE COMING FROM, TOO. 25 PART OF OUR PROBLEM IS THAT WE WERE ESTABLISHED THERE 26 IN 1982. IF JIM WAS A LOT OLDER, WE COULD HAVE BEEN YATES & ASSOCIATES 73 1 ESTABLISHED THERE IN 1950, BUT WE WERE HERE IN 1982. 2 MOST OF THE THINGS THAT MR. BURNS HAS TALKED ABOUT 3 OF -- YOU KNOW, I DO TAKE A LITTLE BIT PERSONALLY, BECAUSE I 4 WAS THE ONE THAT TALKED TO MR . HAYHOE MAYBE 12 DAYS BEFORE 5 YOUR LAST PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING, BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN WE 6 WERE INFORMED OF EXACTLY WHAT WAS HAPPENING; NOT PRIOR TO THAT 7 TIME. 8 AND I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE FACT THAT WE DO 9 EXIST NOW, I MEAN, WE ARE THERE, AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE 10 WERE ESTABLISHED IN 1982 OR 1950, THAT WE DO HAVE A PRESENCE 11 THERE, AND THAT MR. HAYHOE HAS CERTAINLY KNOWN THAT THE PEN 12 FACILITIES EXISTED, THE TRAILER THAT WE HAVE SOMEONE STAYING 13 AT NIGHT EXISTED, THE HOUSE THAT WE RENT AND LIVE IN AND USE 14 AS A FACILITY EXISTED; ALL THESE THINGS PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT >` 15 MR . HAYHOE DECIDED TO BUY THE PROPERTY . 16 AND WE ARE GETTING TWO SIDES OF THE CONVERSATION 17 TONIGHT . AND AS OUR ATTORNEY SAID, WE WOULD REALLY PREFER 18 THAT A LOT OF THESE THINGS THAT WE ARE BEING ACCUSED OF BE 19 HANDLED ON A TRIAL BASIS, BECAUSE I DIDN' T COME HERE PREPARED 20 TO HAVE 14 WITNESSES TALK ABOUT CONVERSATIONS THAT TOOK PLACE 21 PRIOR TO THE TIME THAT THEY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY . 22 AND MY PROBLEM IS I DIDN' T REALIZE THAT WE SHOULD BE 23 UNDER SOME OBLIGATION TO PROTECT SOMEBODY BASICALLY IN MAKING 24 AN INVESTMENT . I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT DECISION. I DID 25 NOT DECIDE ON THE DENSITY, I DID NOT MAKE THE DECISION TO ASK 26 FOR AN E. I . R. OR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION; I DIDN' T DECIDE ON IF YATES & ASSOCIATES 74 1 WE CAN DEVELOP THE WHOLE THING OR WHATEVER . I WASN' T A PARTY 2 TO THAT . AND I THINK WE SIMPLY NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT. 3 AND REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE GO AHEAD AND BUILD A NEW 4 FACILITY DOES NOT CHANGE WHAT IS THERE. WE HAD A DREAM FOR A 5 NUMBER OF YEARS. I THINK SOME OF YOU ARE AWARE OF IT. WE 6 HAVE BEEN RAISING MONEY IN THIS COMMUNITY, IN THE COACHELLA 7 VALLEY, FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS TO REALIZE OUR DREAM, AND OUR 8 DREAM IS SIMPLY TO BE THE BEST THAT WE CAN. 9 AND I THINK IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT WE ARE THE ONLY 10 ORGANIZATION IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY, PERHAPS IN NORTH 11 AMERICA, THAT IS 100 PERCENT DEDICATED TO FINDING OUT 12 SCIENTIFICALLY WHAT IS CAUSING THE DEMISE OF THE BIGHORN 13 SHEEP. AND OUR BASIC WORK IS IN THIS VALLEY, BUT WE THINK IT 14 CAN ALSO BE APPLIED IN MANY OTHER AREAS, AND WE HAVE WORKED I� 15 MANY OTHER STATES AND IN MEXICO, AND WE BELIEVE THAT WE ARE 16 THE AUTHORITY . 3 17 AND MR . CARUTHERS CAN, YOU KNOW, TALK ABOUT HOW JIM 18 HELPED IN 1981 , AND IF THERE IS AN EXPERT IN CALIFORNIA, NORTH 19 AMERICA, IF YOU WOULD LIKE, IF YOU WANT TO RATE JIM DE FORGE, 20 HE'S GOING TO BE THERE AT THE TOP, ONE OF THE TOP. 21 SO WE HAVE A LITTLE CONTRADICTION HERE: WE CAN 22 BELIEVE JIM ON ONE HAND BUT WE CAN' T BELIEVE HIM ON THE OTHER. 23 ALL I ' M SAYING IS THAT MYSELF AND JIM HAVE GIVEN AS 24 MUCH INFORMATION AS POSSIBLE REGARDING THESE HEARINGS, THIS 25 ISSUE, TO OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT OUR 26 BOARD OF DIRECTORS, TO THE PERSON, SUPPORT WHAT WE ARE YATES & ASSOCIATES 75 1 REQUESTING. 2 SO IT THIS IS NOT A JIM DE FORGE BLACK HAT OPPOSING 3 THE WORLD. THIS IS THE ORGANIZATION, WE HAVE A LOT OF LOCAL 4 SUPPORT, WE WOULD LIKE TO BE HERE IN THE FUTURE, AND THINK 5 THAT WE SHOULD PERHAPS MOVE TO THE ISSUES THAT SUPPOSEDLY WERE 6 ON THE AGENDA, AS FAR AS I ' M CONCERNED, TONIGHT, AND THAT IS 7 AN EVALUATION OF THE E. I . R . REPORT. 8 IF MR . HAYHOE GOES AHEAD WITH HIS LAWSUIT, SOME COURT 9 WILL DETERMINE ON WHETHER OR NOT THE COUNTY WAS CORRECT OR WE 10 WERE CORRECT IN NOT GETTING AN E. I . R . FOR OUR PARTICULAR 11 PROPERTY . WE JUST MAY GO AHEAD AND GET IT ANYWAY; IT'S 12 PROBABLY CHEAPER . WE JUST MAY GO AHEAD AND DO THAT; AND LET 13 THEM DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT OUR BUILDING, A 6500-SQUARE-FOOT 14 MEDICAL FACILITY, 2800-SQUARE-FOOT LIVING QUARTERS ON 300 15 ACRES, ROUGHLY, IS APPROPRIATE. AND WE WOULD HOPE THAT THE 16 ISSUE ONCE AGAIN COULD COME BACK TO WHAT EXISTS TODAY, AND 17 LEAVE IT TO MR. HAYHOE AND THE INSTITUTE TO RESOLVE THROUGH 18 THE COURT PROCESS WHETHER OR NOT WE DID WHAT WE DID RIGHT. 19 BUT WE DO EXIST TODAY , AND WE THINK THE ENVIRONMENTAL 20 IMPACT REPORT SAYS THAT SINCE WE ARE THERE, IT HAS TO BE TAKEN 21 INTO CONSIDERATION. AND WE DO HAVE THE BIOLOGICAL PEOPLE HERE 22 TONIGHT WHO CAN ADDRESS WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT THAT THE 23 LAMBING AREA HAVE A FEW SHEDS AT A DISTANCE. AND THOSE ARE 24 ISSUES THAT JIM DE FORGE, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND OTHERS, CAN 25 ADDRESS TONIGHT . 26 BUT I 'M JUST A LITTLE -- AND I DON' T GET UPSET VERY YATES & ASSOCIATES 76 ,4 1 EASILY, PERHAPS ABOUT ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS, BUT IT REALLY 2 BOTHERS ME WHEN I HEAR A, WHAT I CALL A ONE-SIDED 3 CONVERSATION. AND I WOULD HOPE THAT SOME OF THE THINGS YOU 4 HAVE HEARD TONIGHT, THAT YOU JUST DON'T ACCEPT THAT AS BEING 5 THE LAST WORDS, BECAUSE, BELIEVE ME, IN SOME CASES THERE CAN 6 BE, AS PAUL NEWMAN SAID IN ONE OF HIS MOVIES, A FAILURE TO 7 COMMUNICATE. AND THAT DOESN' T MEAN THAT WE ARE ALL RIGHT OR 8 WRONG OR MR. HAYHOE IS ALL RIGHT OR WRONG. 9 BUT I THINK THE POINT IS IS THAT WE EXISTED PRIOR TO 10 THE TIME THAT MR . HAYHOE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY . AND I KIND OF 11 WOULD LIKE TO START WITH THAT AS A TIME FRAME, NOT SOMETHING 12 THAT WE HAVE DONE STARTING IN 1982, BECAUSE WE DID NOT COME 13 INTO THIS AREA TRYING TO CREATE A PROBLEM. 14 AND THE BOARD, WHEN THEY SELECTED THIS SITE AND `1 15 EVERYTHING, AND THE PRESUMPTION WAS MAYBE WRONG, IS THAT WHERE -- 16 THE WASH AND THE ALLUVIAL, THE PRESUMPTION WAS MADE THAT THERE 17 WOULDN' T BE ANY DEVELOPMENT THERE BUT PROBABLY ON THE OTHER 18 SIDE OF THE DIKE. OUR PRESUMPTION MAY BE WRONG, BUT THE FACT 19 IS THAT A LONG TIME AGO IT LOOKED LIKE A PRETTY LOGICAL 20 DECISION. LIKE I SAY, IF WE HAD BEEN THERE IN 1950, WE WOULD 21 HAVE THOUGHT THERE PROBABLY WOULDN' T BE ANYTHING ABOVE 111 . 22 BUT THE TIMES CHANGED. AND WE JUST DON'T WANT TO BE THOUGHT 23 OF AS THE PARTY THAT CAUSED ALL THIS. 24 WE ARE THERE, WE WOULD LIKE TO CERTAINLY WORK OUT 25 SOMETHING, WE SUPPORT THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE E. I .R . , AND WE 26 WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ON THOSE YATES & ASSOCIATES 77 1 ISSUES, BUT I HAVE A PROBLEM TRYING TO ADDRESS THINGS THAT, 2 YOU KNOW, WE ARE BEING SUED ON. 3 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: DON' T YOU THINK IT SIGNIFICANT IF 4 SOMEONE BEFORE THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, KNOWING THE ZONING ON 5 THIS PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, THEY REPRESENTED TO 6 THAT BODY THAT THE USE, THAT THEIR USE, THAT THEIR CHANGE OF 7 ZONE WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY ; DON' T 8 YOU THINK THAT'S SIGNIFICANT THAT NOW YOU' RE COMING BACK AND 9 SAYING, "WELL, WE' RE THERE NOW, AND GUESS WHAT, IT'S NOT 10 COMPATIBLE. " BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU' RE ASKING. AT TWO 11 DIFFERENT BODIES YOU ARE MAKING DIFFERENT REPRESENTATIONS, IF, 12 IN FACT, THOSE REPRESENTATIONS WERE MADE. 13 AS A PERSON SITTING ON THIS COMMISSION, IF YOU ARE 14 SAYING THAT I CAN' T CONSIDER THAT. .. 15 MR . ROBERTS: NO, I ' M SAYING THAT IF WE HAVE MADE A 16 MISTAKE BY SIMPLY -- THIS IS A RARE CASE IN THIS STATE, 17 PERHAPS, OF TAKING R-1 ZONING AND BUILDING A NATURAL ASSET -- 18 IT'S USUALLY PEOPLE TRYING TO GO THE OTHER WAY . 4 19 IF WE HAVE MADE A MISTAKE, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO 20 LIVE WITH THAT. I GUESS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN PROBABLY BETTER 21 OFF IF WE'D JUST SAID, "LET'S DON' T DO ANYTHING. LET'S JUST 22 STAY R-1 , DON' T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE ZONING, AND JUST ASK FOR 23 A VARIANCE TO PUT IN A 9500-SQUARE-FOOT DEVELOPMENT ON 292 24 ACRES. IT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN EASIER, IN HINDSIGHT. 25 BUT WHEN WE TALKED TO THE COUNTY, THE PROPER THING WE 26 THOUGHT WAS TO PROBABLY SAY, "HEY, LET'S CHANGE THE ZONING. W YATES & ASSOCIATES 78 1 IT'S NEVER GOING TO BE DEVELOPED AS R-1 ANYWAY, SINCE MOST OF 2 IT IS HILLSIDE, SO LET'S LOOK AT REALITY AND LET'S JUST GO TO 3 NATURAL ASSET BECAUSE WE PLAN ON BEING HERE FOR A VERY LONG 4 TIME. " IT MAY HAVE BEEN THE WRONG MOVE, AND PERHAPS IF WE 5 HADN' T OF DONE THAT, WE WOULDN' T HAVE THAT ISSUE BEFORE US 6 TONIGHT . 7 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: WELL, I DON' T THINK THAT WAS THE 8 QUESTION. I THINK THE QUESTION WAS WHEN YOU WENT TO ONE BODY, 9 THAT BEING THE COUNTY, YOU SAID THAT THE INTENDED USE OF THE 10 SURROUNDING AREA WAS COMPATIBLE WITH THE INSTITUTE. NOW I ' M 11 KIND OF HEARING, "NO, IT'S NOT. " 12 AND THAT'S THE QUESTION; NOT WHICH WAY SHOULD THE 13 ZONING -- 14 MR. ROBERTS: NO, I UNDERSTAND, AND I THINK THAT, AND I 15 THINK, ONCE AGAIN, WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT ADJACENT LAND -- 16 JUST LIKE WESTINGHOUSE. AS YOU PEOPLE ARE PROBABLY AWARE, WE 17 ARE WORKING SOMETHING OUT WITH WESTINGHOUSE, BECAUSE THEY 18 RECOGNIZE THE SENSITIVITY OF OUR DEVELOPMENT AND THINK IT IS 19 GOOD FOR THEM, ALSO. 20 AND WE LOOKED -- PERHAPS WRONGLY, MAYBE -- AT THIS 21 PROPERTY AND SAID THAT THERE WOULD PROBABLY BE SOME TYPE OF 22 BUFFER, BECAUSE IT SHOULD BE THERE. NOW, WHEN WE SAY 23 "COMPATIBILITY, " WE DID NOT LOOK AT IT AND SAY THAT WE 24 EXPECTED EVERY HOME TO BE DEVELOPED TO WITHIN 150 FEET OF THE 25 PENS. THAT MAY BE OUR MISTAKE. BUT AS FAR AS OUR INTENT, OUR 26 INTENT WASN' T TO BYPASS ANY PROCESS. IT WAS ONE QUESTION, WE YATES & ASSOCIATES 79 1 ANSWERED IT, AND PERHAPS WE SHOULD HAVE ANSWERED IT IN ABOUT 2 TWO PARAGRAPHS RATHER THAN JUST, "NO PROBLEM, N.A. " 3 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: WELL, LET ME FOLLOW UP, THEN . 4 WHEN WE TALK ABOUT COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING n.r 5 PROPERTY AND INTENDED USE, COMPATIBILITY DOESN' T ASSUME THAT 6 THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNER CAN DO THINGS TO MITIGATE MY PROBLEM. 7 COMPATIBILITY CAN ALSO MEAN THAT THE TWO OF US WILL WORK 8 TOGETHER TO MITIGATE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON EACH OTHER'S PROPERTY . 9 I MEAN, IT'S CONCEIVABLE THAT YOUR PROJECT HAS AN ADVERSE 10 IMPACT ON THE OTHER PROPERTY AS WELL AS VICE VERSA, WHICH IS 11 WHAT WE HAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON TONIGHT, THAT BEING THE ADVERSE 12 IMPACT POTENTIALLY OF THE PROJECT THAT WE ARE MEETING ON 13 TONIGHT, OKAY? 14 , SO, YOU KNOW, WHY THAT HASN' T OCCURRED TO THE 15 SATISFACTION OF THE TWO PARTIES INVOLVED, I DON' T KNOW, THAT'S err 16 BEYOND THIS BODY'S CONSIDERATION. IN OTHER WORDS, WHY THE TWO 17 OF YOU HAVEN' T SAT DOWN AND SAID, "HEY, WE' LL DO THIS, YOU' LL 18 DO THIS, AND NO PROBLEM. " SIMILAR, PERHAPS, TO WHAT YOU HAVE 19 DONE WITH WESTINGHOUSE. 20 MR. ROBERTS: WELL, YOU ARE GOING TO HEAR, THERE AGAIN, 21 TWO SIDES. 22 WE HAVE TRIED. 23 I HAVE HEARD TONIGHT THAT WE, JIM DE FORGE, ARE NOT 24 WILLING TO SIT DOWN AND DO ANYTHING. IT'S NOT TRUE. THAT'S 25 ALL I CAN DO IS TELL YOU MY OPINION. 26 YES, WE WOULD LIKE TO. BUT THE PROBLEM IS, IF I YATES & ASSOCIATES 80 1 START SAYING WHAT THEY SAID TO US, I MEAN, WE' RE GOING TO GET 2 OURSELVES IN REAL DEEP TROUBLE, SO I ' M JUST GOING TO STAY OUT 3 OF THAT . j 4 I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU' RE COMING FROM. I THINK , ONCE 5 AGAIN, MY PREMISE IS THINGS WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST, SOME 6 THINGS RIGHT, SOME THINGS WRONG, WE HAVE BEEN CRITICIZED FOR . 7 I HAVE TRIED TO DRAW MY OWN LINE AND SAID THAT 8 SOMETHING HAPPENED PRIOR TO THE ACQUISITION OF THIS PROPERTY 9 BY THE CURRENT OWNER AND THOSE SITUATIONS EXISTED; THEY HAD 10 KNOWLEDGE OF IT, WHATEVER . 11 NOW, ONCE THEY ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY, WE HAVE ANOTHER 12 SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES. AND PART OF THE PROBLEM I THINK THAT WE 13 ARE ADDRESSING IN THE E. I . R. IS THAT OUR CONDITIONS EXISTED 14 PRIOR TO THEIR ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY . THAT IS WHAT THE 15 E. I . R. IS BASICALLY FOCUSING UPON US, IS THE FACT THAT WE ARE 16 THERE, AND YES, IT HAS AN IMPACT ON THEIR PROPERTY . AND I 'M 17 LEFT IN THE POSITION OF SAYING I GUESS WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN 18 INVOLVED IN THE NEGOTIATION OF THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY 19 NEXT DOOR TO US TO PROTECT THOSE PEOPLE, BECAUSE NOW WE' RE 20 HERE, AND WE ARE WERE NOT A PART OF THAT. AND I DON' T KNOW 21 HOW WE COULD HAVE BEEN A PART OF IT. 22 THE E. I .R. TONIGHT COULD HAVE HAD AN EXAMPLE THAT IS 23 HALF OF WHAT YOU HAVE UP HERE. I MEAN, I DON' T KNOW WHAT IT 24 WAS GOING TO BE UNTIL IT TURNED OUT, BUT THE FACT IS, IS THAT 25 I THINK EVERYONE AGREES THAT THERE IS SOME MITIGATION; IT'S A 26 QUESTION OF HOW MUCH. AND ALL WE CAN DO NOW IS REACT TO THE YATES & ASSOCIATES 81 1 SITUATION THAT EXISTS. BUT ONCE AGAIN, WE DIDN' T TRY AND 2 CREATE THIS SITUATION. 5 3 COMMISSIONER RICHARDSON: YOU ARE BEING AWFUL CUTE ABOUT 4 THIS SUBJECT. YOU KEEP GOING BACK , FELLOW, TO SOMEBODY THAT r 5 WE DON' T EVEN CARE ABOUT. WE DON' T CARE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED 6 TO THIS NEGOTIATION WHEN HE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY . THAT'S BUYER 7 BEWARE. IF HE BOUGHT A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND IT WAS ZONED TO 8 BE A BOMBSIGHT, THAT'S HIS PROBLEM. 9 WHAT WE' RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE FAIRNESS ISSUE, AND 10 THE FACT THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT AN E. I .R. THAT, TO ME, IS A 11 BIG WASTE OF SOMEBODY'S MONEY . THE E. I .R . BASICALLY WAS 12 CREATED BY YOU AND YOU'RE BEING CUTE ABOUT THAT. IT SAYS 13 YOU' RE DENYING THAT YOU CAUSED IT, AND YOU ABSOLUTELY DID 14 CAUSE IT. 15 WE ARE TALKING ABOUT EVALUATING SOME ALTERNATIVES, 16 OKAY? JUST SOME ALTERNATIVES, SOME BARGAINING CHIPS. THAT'S 17 ALL IT IS. A PIECE OF LAND UP HERE, SOMEBODY WANTS TO DO ONE 18 THING, YOU WANT THEM TO DO SOMETHING ELSE, OKAY? 19 YOU PEOPLE HAVE HAD THREE OR FOUR MONTHS TO MAKE SOME 20 SORT OF AN AGREEABLE ARRANGEMENT. NOBODY ON THIS COMMISSION 21 HAS ANYTHING TO SAY . BUT YOU GUYS ARE DOING A GREAT JOB AND 22 WE ARE NOT AGAINST WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO. BELIEVE ME. 23 I THINK THAT YOU' RE NOT BEING FAIR, OKAY? I THINK 24 THAT YOU'RE NOT BEING REALISTIC. I DON' T THINK THE E. I . R. 25 REPORT AT ALL SAYS THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE SHEEP IN 26 THE AREA ON A NATURAL BASIS. I THINK MR. BURNS' STATEMENT IS +fir YATES & ASSOCIATES 82 1 A CORRECT STATEMENT. 2 I DO THINK IT SAYS THAT THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE 3 INSTITUTE AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING WITH THE PROPERTY. AND IF 4 TWO BUSINESS PEOPLE CAN' T GET AN ARRANGEMENT TOGETHER, THEN WE 5 HAVE TO MAKE SOME SORT OF A JUDGMENT, AND IT HAS TO BE UPHELD 6 BY THE CITY COUNCIL. 7 MR. ROBERTS: I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND MR . RICHARDS, AND I 8 THINK, IN ALL FAIRNESS, SINCE THIS THING HAS OCCURRED, YOU 9 HAVE A COPY OF WHAT WE PROPOSED SEVERAL MONTHS AGO. IT IS NOT 10 WHAT'S UP THERE, IT'S LESS THAN THAT, AS FAR AS WHAT WE 11 DETERMINED. AND THIS WAS A GROUP OF BIOLOGISTS. I MEAN, I 12 WAS THERE AT THE MEETING. I JUST WANT TO TELL YOU THAT THIS 13 GROUP OF BIOLOGISTS CAME IN AND WE JUST SAID, "WHAT DO YOU 14 THINK SHOULD BE DONE?" THIS GROUP OF 10 PEOPLE DREW THE 15 LINES. THAT'S WHAT WE SUBMITTED TO MR. HAYHOE. 16 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: IN 1983 I WALKED THAT LAND WITH 17 ARNOLD PALMER WHEN HE DESIGNED THE GOLF COURSE THERE . HE 18 DESIGNED A GOLF COURSE. WHERE WAS THIS BODY OF THESE PEOPLE 19 WHEN A GOLF COURSE AND A 500-UNIT HOTEL WAS BEING PUT UP? 20 THAT'S OUR PROBLEM. 21 YOU ALLUDE TO THE FACT THAT WHO BOUGHT IT BEFORE. 22 THAT'S WHAT THE ZONING WAS. THAT'S WHAT -- IN SUBSEQUENT 23 EVENTS, I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THAT PROJECT ON MOST OF THAT 24 LAND TWO OR THREE OTHER TIMES, AND NEVER ANYTHING CAME OUT. 25 AND ALL OF A SUDDEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT WE HAVE A -- 26 MR . ROBERTS: I THINK PART OF THE PROBLEM IS, AND IT'S NOT YATES & ASSOCIATES 83 1 THE FAULT OF ANYBODY. WE ARE IN THE COUNTY AND WE ARE TALKING 2 ABOUT A PIECE OF PROPERTY HERE THAT'S IN THE CITY. AND JUST 3 LIKE ONE OF THE OTHER PEOPLE SAID, ALL NOTICES WERE SENT TO 4 THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, AND IF WE DON' T GET NOTICE OF 5 IT, WE DON' T. IT'S JUST UNFORTUNATE IT OCCURS, BUT I THINK 6 IT'S REALITY . 7 ALL I CAN SAY IS THAT THERE ARE NOW TWO POSITIONS. 8 THE INSTITUTE LAID OUT WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS AN APPROPRIATE 9 PLAN, WHICH YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU. IT IS NOT PART OF THE E. I . R. 10 MR. HAYHOE SAYS 400 YARDS AND NOT AN INCH MORE. NOW, ARE WE 11 FAR APART? AND THE ANSWER IS YES. 12 AND I ' M NOT SURE HOW I CAN TONIGHT RESOLVE THAT, BUT 13 THAT IS THE ISSUE. WE' RE TRYING TO SAY THAT WE ARE HERE, THAT 14 A MINIMUM OF 400 YARDS ON THAT PARTICULAR SITE IS NOT 15 SUFFICIENT, AND JIM CAN ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE IT'S BEEN HIS 16 WHOLE LIFE, AND I HOPE HIS CREDIBILITY WOULD MEAN SOMETHING. 17 BUT THAT IS THE DISPUTE. AND I THINK WHAT WE ARE 18 HEARING TONIGHT IS -- ALL THIS GOES BACK TO 1982, AND ALL I ' M 19 SAYING IS THAT I THINK IN FAIRNESS TO BOTH PARTIES, AS YOU 20 SAID, BUYER BEWARE, OR WHATEVER, THAT THE TIME FRAME BEGAN 21 WHEN THIS PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED. 22 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: WITH R-1 ZONING ON IT. YOU 23 ACQUIRED A PROPERTY WITH R-1 ZONING ON IT, AND THAT'S -- 24 MR . ROBERTS: SUBJECT TO CQUA, YES. 25 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: SURROUNDED BY PR-5, AND THEN IT IS 26 ALL SUPPOSED TO START RIGHT THEN. THAT'S SO NAIVE, IF YOU YATES & ASSOCIATES 84 1 EXPECT US TO BELIEVE YOUR STORY -- 2 MR. ROBERTS: NO, NO. I 'M SIMPLY SAYING, MR. RICHARDS, 3 THAT THE SITUATION OF THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE EXISTED PRIOR TO 4 THIS HEARING, AND THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT WE' RE HERE ABOUT. 5 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: WHAT IS THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE? 6 IF YOU THINK THAT WE ARE INSENSITIVE, YOU OUGHT TO 7 SIT HERE A COUPLE TIMES WHEN WE DEAL WITH PROPERTY RUNNING 8 THROUGH THE LIVING DESERT RESERVE. 9 MR. ROBERTS: YOU'RE NOT INSENSITIVE. THAT'S WHY YOU' RE 10 HERE, AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT. 11 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: WE HAVE UPHELD, AND I HAVE 12 PERSONALLY MADE MANY STANDS ON THE PROPERTY THAT SURROUNDS THE 6 13 LIVING DESERT, BECAUSE THAT INSTITUTION HAS BEEN VIABLE AND A 14 GREAT PART OF THIS COMMUNITY, AND IT REALLY IS AN INSTITUTION. u 15 THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE, AT THIS STAGE, OR A FEW YEARS 16 AGO, WAS A GOOD DREAM BY A HARD-WORKING PERSON WHO BELIEVES IN 17 WHAT HE'S SAYING. WHAT DOES REALLY EXIST TODAY? 18 I GO UP THAT WASH A LOT. THE PENS ARE THERE, THE 19 MOBILE HOME IS THERE, OR -- MOBILE, WHATEVER IT'S CALLED. YOU 20 KNOW, THE INSTITUTE CONSISTS OF A GREAT GROUP OF PEOPLE ON THE 21 BOARD OF DIRECTORS LIKE YOURSELF, AND A COUPLE OF PEOPLE ON 22 THE STAFF, AND A MOBILE HOME AND A RENTED HOUSE. THAT'S THE 23 INSTITUTE, OKAY? 24 NOW, IT'S MY BELIEF AT THIS POINT IN TIME THE FUNDING 25 IS AVAILABLE, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ADJACENT TO YOUR PROPERTY , 26 I 'M SURE, ARE WILLING TO DO SOME FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS, BUT YATES & ASSOCIATES 85 ., 1 YOU ARE REQUIRING TO GIVE UP FINANCIALLY A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT 2 OF VALUE, AND THAT'S WHAT IT GETS DOWN TO. YOU SAY 400 YARDS 3 ISN' T ENOUGH. WHEN YOU START CALCULATING WHAT THIS IS, IT 4 GETS INTO THE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF LAND 5 VALUES, AND THAT'S WHERE YOU' RE NOT BEING, IN MY ESTIMATION, 6 FAIR. 7 MR. ROBERTS: OKAY, I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE 8 SAYING, AND I GUESS ALL I CAN SAY ON BEHALF OF THE INSTITUTE, 9 ONCE AGAIN, IS THAT WE HAVE ASKED FOR MORE, IF THAT'S HOW YOU 10 WANT TO SAY IT, OR WE HAVE SAID THAT WE NEED MORE AS FAR AS A 11 BUFFER AREA, BECAUSE WE HAVE A GROUP OF PEOPLE, NOT JUST 12 PEOPLE ON THE STAFF, WHO FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT IT'S NECESSARY TO 13 MAINTAIN THE WORK AND EVERYTHING THAT GOES IN THE INSTITUTE IN 14 THE FUTURE, AND WITHOUT THAT BUFFER, WE WILL GO AWAY BECAUSE 15 WE WILL NOT BE SUCCESSFUL. 16 THE ARGUMENT ABOUT THAT IS THE SPACE IN BETWEEN . AND 17 ONCE AGAIN, I THINK EQUALLY RESPONSIBLE IS A PERSON WHO 18 ACQUIRES A PIECE OF PROPERTY, UNDERSTANDING THAT WE' RE THERE, 19 AND THAT IS A CONCERN TO US AND TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND TO THIS 20 COMMUNITY, AND, YES, SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE WORKED OUT. 21 AND LIKE I SAY, WE SUBMITTED SOMETHING, THEY HAVE 22 COME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT WOULD PUT US OUT OF BUSINESS. 23 NOW, IT'S A QUESTION OF WHAT SHOULD IT BE . AND WE ARE SIMPLY 24 SAYING THAT WE WILL BE HAPPY, AS LONG AS EVERYONE ELSE TO 25 PRESENT WHAT WE HOPE TO BE FACTUAL EVIDENCE, THAT WOULD 26 SUPPORT A BUFFER. YATES & ASSOCIATES 86 1 MR. DIAZ: MADAM CHAIRMAN, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT AS TO WHO 2 SHOULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT, WHERE, AND WHO SHOULD HAVE WARNED WHO, 3 WHERE, WHEN AND WHY, THAT WILL BE DECIDED BY THE COURTS IN 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY IN THEIR INFINITE WISDOM, AND PROBABLY BEYOND 5 THAT, BECAUSE WHOEVER LOSES IS PROBABLY GOING TO APPEAL. SO I 6 THINK THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 7 AND THE MITIGATING MEASURES AND THE TESTIMONY THAT WE TAKE 8 THIS EVENING AND RESPONDING TO THOSE COMMENTS. 9 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE. 10 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: THE REPRESENTATION THAT WAS MADE 11 GOES TO WHETHER OR NOT IT IS, IN FACT, NOW INCOMPATIBLE OR 12 NOT. THAT'S THE ISSUE. 13 MR. DIAZ: THAT CORRECT, BUT I THINK THAT THAT HORSE HAS 14 BEEN -- IS THERE NOW, AND WE'VE SAID THAT 14 DIFFERENT WAYS, 15 AND I DON' T THINK THERE IS ANY OTHER WAY TO SAY IT. AND I 16 THINK THAT THE COMMISSION WILL HAVE TO DECIDE THAT IN YOUR 17 DELIBERATIONS. 18 I BELIEVE THAT THE VIEW THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED BY 19 THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE ISN' T GOING TO CHANGE. WE CAN SAY THE 20 SAME THING 14 DIFFERENT WAYS AND BE HERE UNTIL 2: 00 IN THE 21 MORNING, IS WHAT I ' M SAYING. 22 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: IT HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED BY 23 MR. BURNS ALREADY THAT THERE'S ANOTHER HEARING. I DON' T 24 UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN HAVE ONE HEARING AND ONE PARTY TO THE 25 HEARING IS' ALREADY ALLUDING TO ANOTHER ONE. 26 MR . DIAZ: NO, WHAT WE WERE CONCLUDING IS THAT BASED ON YATES & ASSOCIATES 87 1 THE COMMENTS THAT WE WERE GOING TO RECEIVE TO THE ENVIRONMENT 2 IMPACT REPORT, IT WOULD BE VERY DOUBTFUL THAT THE CONSULTANT 3 AND THE STAFF, DESPITE HOW TREMENDOUS WE ARE, WOULD BE ABLE TO 4 RESPOND TO ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS THIS EVENING. AND SO WE WERE it 5 GOING TO STATE THOSE COMMENTS, CONTINUE THE HEARING, RESPOND 6 TO THOSE COMMENTS AND BRING YOU BACK THE COMMENTS AND RESPONSE 7 TO COMMENTS AT THE NEXT MEETING, AND THAT YOU CAN DECIDE. AND 8 THAT WAS THE HEARING THAT 9 THAT MR. BURNS WAS ALLUDING TO. 10 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: ARE YOU ALLUDING TO THE FOUR 11 PROBLEMS IN THE E. I .R .? 12 MR . DIAZ: NO. FOR EXAMPLE, ALL OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE 13 RAISED BY MR . HAYHOE AND HIS REPRESENTATIVES IN ADDITION TO 14 THE SEVEN PAGES OF -- OR, EXCUSE ME -- FIVE AND A HALF PAGES 15 OF COMMENTS THAT I MADE TO STAFF TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 16 REPORT THAT HAS TO BE RESPONDED TO. 17 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT IT IS YOUR 18 STAFF, BECAUSE I -- 19 MR . DIAZ: THAT'S WHY WE' RE -- 20 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: -- I THINK THIS COMMISSION COULD 21 MAKE SOME DECISIONS TONIGHT. 22 MR . DIAZ: OUR RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT YOU WAIT UNTIL 23 YOU GET OUR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS BEFORE YOU MAKE THE DECISION. 24 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: TO WHOSE COMMENTS? 25 MR. DIAZ: TO THE COMMENTS THAT ARE MADE THIS EVENING ON 26 THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, PLUS THE ONES THAT HAVE �.r YATES & ASSOCIATES 88 1 ALREADY BEEN MADE, AND THE WRITTEN COMMENTS THE STAFF HAS 2 MADE, SO THAT YOU HAVE THEM BEFORE YOU, AND THEN YOU CAN SEND 7 3 THE ENTIRE MATTER TO THE COUNCIL. 4 BUT IT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE. IF YOU DO NOT WANT TO 5 WAIT FOR THE RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS, YOU CAN SEND IT ON. 6 HOWEVER, I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU DO, AND THAT WAY , YOU HAVE 7 A PROPER RESOLUTION OF THE MATTER. 8 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE PEOPLE. 9 MR. DE FORGE: MADAM CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONERS, I ' M 10 JIM DE FORGE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE. I 11 LIVE AT 51000 HIGHWAY 74 IN PALM DESERT. 12 WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS KEEP MY COMMENTS SOMEWHAT 13 BRIEF AND TRY TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS. THERE'S BEEN A NUMBER 14 OF QUESTIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY COME FORWARD HERE TONIGHT. AND 15 GIVE SOME OF THE OTHER PEOPLE HERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK UP . 16 ACTUALLY , THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE HERE IS THE 17 PROBLEM OF OUR SUCCESS. AND YET FROM SOME OF THE CONCERNS AND 18 STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN HERE TONIGHT IT IS VERY OBVIOUS THAT 19 ANIMALS THAT HAVE SUFFERED AND HAVE BEEN LOST OR BECOME 20 EXTINCT OR ENDANGERED IS BECAUSE OF BASIC LAND ISSUES BEING IF 21 IT'S RIGHT, WRONG, WHATEVER. 22 AS A BIOLOGIST, I ' M NOT A DEVELOPER OR A COMMISSIONER 23 THAT WOULD KNOW ABOUT ZONING AND SUCH. I DID KNOW THAT IT WAS 24 ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL. THE IMPACTS THAT THAT WOULD HAVE ON US 25 AT THE TIME I DID NOT KNOW FROM THAT STANDPOINT. 26 BUT LET ME GET TO THE POSITIVE END, SINCE WE HAVE YATES & ASSOCIATES 89 1 HEARD ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT ENDS OF THINGS. 2 THE INSTITUTE FORMED IN ' 82, AND AT THAT TIME WE 3 SIGNED A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF 4 FISH AND GAME TO LOOK INTO THE CAUSE OF THE BIGHORN DECLINE too 5 HERE IN THE SANTA ROSAS. THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH & GAME 6 REALIZED FROM ' 77, THE BEGINNING OF ' 77, THERE WAS A 7 TREMENDOUS HIGH LAND MORTALITY . 8 WHEN WE BEGAN IN ' 82, SHORTLY THEREAFTER, WITHIN THAT 9 YEAR, WE BEGAN CAPTURING SICK LAMBS. OUR MEMORANDUM OF 10 UNDERSTANDING ALSO SAID THAT IF ONE OF THESE LAMBS DIED AS A 11 RESULT OF OUR CAPTURE OR WORK WITH IT, THEN THE PROJECT WOULD 12 STOP . WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN UNDER THE GUN, IT'S ALWAYS BEEN AN 13 EFFORT TO TRY AND TO LEARN AND TO DO SOMETHING POSITIVE FOR 14 THE SPECIES AND NOT ANY OTHER EFFORT OTHER THAN THAT. 15 AS A RESULT OF OUR EFFORTS AS SUCH, WE HAVE BROUGHT err 16 IN NOW 33 LAMBS THAT HAVE SURVIVED. THESE ARE ANIMALS THAT 17 HAD 40 TO 80 PERCENT LUNG CONSOLIDATION. 33 OUT OF THE 36 18 BROUGHT IN SURVIVED. AS A RESULT OF THAT, THEY HAVE BEEN 19 PART OF OUR BREED STOCK OR HAVE BEEN RELEASED INTO THE WILD. 20 AND AS THE DRAFT E. I .R. BRINGS OUT, THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN 21 ORGANIZATION, A ZOO, ABLE TO PRODUCE SHEEP IN A CAPTIVE STATE 22 AND RETURN THEM TO A NATURAL STATE AND HAVE THEM SURVIVE 23 SUCCESSFULLY , PRODUCE OFFSPRING, AND SUCH. 24 SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I WOULD LIKE TO DWELL ON THE 25 POSITIVES OF WHAT THIS ORGANIZATION HAS BEEN, AND FROM THE 26 STANDPOINT WE ARE HERE TO TRY TO HELP THE THREATENED SPECIES. YATES & ASSOCIATES 90 1 IT HAS BEEN SHOWN OR SUGGESTED IN THE E. I . R. AND 2 AMONG MANY OF THE EXPERTS THAT HAVE BEEN CONTACTED THAT THE 3 INSTITUTE IS THE BEST HOPE FOR THE SUB-SPECIES, BARRING LAND 4 ISSUES OR NOT. 5 IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED IN OUR LETTER TO THE CITY LAST 6 YEAR, AND BY A GROUP OF EXPERTS THAT WERE BROUGHT INTO THE 7 INSTITUTE, NON-PAYING EXPERTS, TO EVALUATE THE PEN SITUATION. 8 THE LAMBS WERE SELECTED FROM THE BUREAU LAND 9 MANAGEMENT FROM SIX DIFFERENT POTENTIAL PARCELS THAT WE 10 ORIGINALLY LOOKED AT. AND IT WAS FELT THAT DUE TO THE FACT 11 THAT WE HAD A ALMOST VIOLENT SITUATION, TO WHICH NOW THE 12 30-ACRE PEN OR THE LAMBING PEN IS CONSTRUCTED AROUND, IT WOULD 13 BE THE BEST POSSIBLE LOCATION OF ALL OTHER SITES THAT WE 14 LOOKED AT HERE IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY TO PRODUCE VIABLE 15 OFFSPRING. IT WAS NOT KNOWN AT THE TIME IF WE WOULD BE 16 SUCCESSFUL OR NOT. 17 OBVIOUSLY, THIS PEN COULD HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED AT 18 THE COST OF $130 , 000 AND IN TWO YEARS TORN DOWN IF THAT 19 OPERATION COULD NOT WORK . IT WAS OBVIOUSLY AT THE TIME OF 20 THIS PEN'S CONSTRUCTION SUCH WE WERE EXPERIENCING 90, 95 21 PERCENT LAND MORTALITY IN THE RANGE. THE POPULATION IN THE 22 NORTH END OF THE SANTA ROSAS, FROM PALM DESERT OVER TO 23 CATHEDRAL CITY, HAD DROPPED IN THE LAST 15 YEAR FROM AROUND 24 150 ANIMALS DOWN TO 50 BIGHORN. EXPERTS, TOP EXPERTS IN THEIR 25 FIELD HAVE SUGGESTED THAT WHEN POPULATIONS GET TO AROUND 20, 26 THE TESTING WILL BECOME EXTINCT, AND MOST LIKELY WILL. YATES & ASSOCIATES 91 1 WITHOUT THE INSTITUTE'S EFFORT TODAY, THE POPULATION 2 WOULD BE SOMEWHERE PROBABLY IN THE 20'S, SINCE THERE ARE ONLY 3 50 BIGHORN LEFT IN THE NORTH END, AND OVER HALF OF THOSE, OR 4 RIGHT AT HALF OF THOSE ARE THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN RELEASED FROM 5 THAT FACILITY . SO THAT HAS CREATED THE PROBLEM. 6 THE PROBLEM IS ONE OF OUR SUCCESS HAS LED TO WHAT DO 7 WE DO NOW. DO WE ALLOW FULL USE OF THE ZONING SITUATION OR DO 8 WE CARE ABOUT THE SURVIVABILITY OF THE SUB-SPECIES IN TROUBLE 9 AND HOW DO WE COMPROMISE THAT. 8 10 WITH THAT IN MIND, OBVIOUSLY THE INSTITUTE ASKED 11 THESE EXPERTS' OPINION, AND THEY TOTAL OVER 150 YEARS OF 12 BIGHORN FIELD EXPERIENCE, AND IT WAS THEIR BEST EXPERTISE THAT 13 THE LINES THAT WERE DRAWN AND GIVEN TO THE CITY WOULD BE AN 14 ABSOLUTE MINIMUM OF WHAT WOULD WORK TO STILL KEEP THAT WNW15 FACILITY VIABLE. AND IF THE BIGHORN IS A CONCERN, AND IF THE 16 VIABILITY OF THAT FACILITY IS TO CONTINUE, THEN THAT IS THE 17 BEST GUESS OF THE TOP EXPERTS OF NORTH AMERICA. 18 THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WE HAVE 19 OUTLINED. A LOT OF IT HAS TO DO WITH THE NOISE OF 20 CONSTRUCTION, DEVELOPMENT, HOUSING SO CLOSE. 21 WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE SITUATION AT THE 22 RITZ-CARLTON. I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT TO A GREAT DEGREE. 23 THOSE ANIMALS DON' T SLEEP THERE, THEY DON' T LAMB THERE, THEY 24 CHOOSE TO COME THERE BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN A FOUR-YEAR 25 DROUGHT IN THIS RANGE. WE EVEN HAD A MOUNTAIN LION WITHIN 50 26 YARDS OF A HOUSE RECENTLY THAT KILLED A BIGHORN . THESE THINGS YATES & ASSOCIATES 92 _ 1 HAPPEN WHEN YOU BRING PEOPLE THAT CAN PROVIDE WATER AND 2 BRINGING LUSH VEGETATION NEXT TO A HABITAT WHERE ANIMALS ARE 3 SUFFERING BOTH WATER AS WELL AS POSSIBLY VEGETATION CONCERNS. 4 AND AS A RESULT, WE HAVE SHEEP DOWN IN THE MIDDLE OF 5 THE DAY, UTILIZING THOSE GREENERIES AND SUCH. THE SHEEP ARE 6 NOT DUMB; THEY ARE A PRODUCT OF MAN'S BEHAVIOR TOWARDS THEM . 7 THE RITZ-CARLTON , JUST AS IT IS A CLASS HOTEL, IT INSTRUCTS 8 THEIR PEOPLE TO NOT ALLOW PEOPLE THAT ARE STAYING THERE TO 9 APPROACH THE SHEEP CLOSE, AND SO THE SHEEP HAVE LEARNED THAT 10 THERE'S NO HARM TO GIVEN TO RITZ RIGHT NOW. 11 IF YOU ALLOW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHICH IS GOING 12 TO OCCUR ADJACENT TO THAT, AND POSSIBLY DOGS CHASING THE SHEEP 13 OR DOGS HARASSING, OR PEOPLE HARASSING, THE WHOLE SITUATION 14 COULD CHANGE, AND I WOULD PREDICT THAT. 15 SO WE CAN'T REALLY LOOK AT A SITUATION WHERE A 16 BIGHORN SHOWS UP BY SOME RESIDENTIAL THING AND SAY THIS IS 17 TYPICAL BIGHORN BEHAVIOR. THEY DO NOT CHOOSE TO LAMB THERE, 18 THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A DOCUMENTED LAMBING WITHIN, I WOULD SAY 19 A MILE OF THE RITZ-CARLTON, OR HALF A MILE, SOMEWHERE IN 20 THERE, AND THEY DO NOT CHOOSE TO STAY THERE. 21 IN OUR FACILITY THEY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. IF THERE 22 IS A STRESS THAT PUTS ON THAT PEN, THEY WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH 23 THAT FOR THE REST OF THEIR LIFE. AND THAT'S THE IMPACTS THAT 24 WE HAVE IN OUR FACILITY, VERSUS A POSSIBLE IMPACT OF A PERCENT 25 OF A PORTION OF THE RANGE. 26 IT IS BECAUSE OF THESE REASONS AND SUCH THAT THE YATES &ASSOCIATES 93 1 BIGHORN INSTITUTE SUPPORTS ALTERNATIVE 2, AND WE'VE REVISED IT 2 SOMEWHAT TO STRESS THE IMPORTANCE THAT THE TOP EXPERTS IN 3 NORTH AMERICA WHO GATHERED ON THIS SUGGESTED WOULD BE AN 4 ABSOLUTE MINIMUM FOR THE INSTITUTE TO REMAIN VIABLE. err 5 AND AT THIS TIME IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO HIT ME WITH 6 QUESTIONS, I WOULD MORE THAN HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER THEM. 7 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THE BIGHORN HERE, SOME PEOPLE GET 8 THE IDEA THAT THE BIGHORN IN NORTH AMERICA IS DISAPPEARING, 9 WHICH, THAT ISN' T THE CASE, IS IT? 10 MR . DE FORGE: NO. 11 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: IT'S THE BIGHORN IN OUR PARTICULAR 12 AREA? 13 MR. DE FORGE: RIGHT. 14 FOR INSTANCE, THERE HAS BEEN A MAJOR DROUGHT IN 15 OREGON A FEW YEARS AGO WHERE 80 PERCENT OF THE HERD err 16 DISAPPEARED. THE PROBLEM WE HAVE WITH SHEEP IS -- THE 17 INSTITUTE HAS BEEN ABLE TO RECOGNIZE THROUGH THIS WORK TO 18 BRING IN THESE SICK LAMBS WHEN THESE VIRUSES HIT THEM. THE 19 IMPORTANT PART -- AND AS I 'M STANDING HERE NOW, WE HAVE ONE WE 20 JUST BROUGHT IN LAST WEEK THAT'S TRYING TO DIE ON US IN OUR 21 KITCHEN, BASICALLY IS WHAT WE' RE DEALING WITH. BUT THESE 22 VIRUSES HIT THEM, DESTROY THE LINING OF THE TRACHEA, AND 23 BACTERIA GETS IN THE LUNGS. WE HAVE NOT HAD THE ABILITY TO 24 CONTROL THAT. SO AT TIMES WHERE WE AS GAME MANAGERS OR 25 DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME HAVE FELT THAT THINGS ARE GOING 26 GREAT, THEY HAVE ALSO EXPERIENCED 80 PERCENT LOSS WITHIN A YATES & ASSOCIATES 94 1 MONTH'S PERIOD OF TIME. 2 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THE PROBLEM THAT SOME OF US HAVE, 3 BECAUSE WE REALLY -- DESPITE MY ARGUMENTS TO THE CONTRARY -- 4 WE REALLY DO BELIEVE IN YOUR CAUSE. BUT I KNOW IT'S A TOUGH 5 ONE, BECAUSE THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT, WHAT THE SHEEP HAVE IS 6 NOT UNSIMILAR TO THE AIDS PROBLEM; IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S AN 7 IMMUNE DEFICIENCY PROBLEM? , 8 MR . DE FORGE: THERE ARE SOME IMMUNE DEFICIENCIES THAT 9 HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP. 10 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: AND THAT THE BASIC RESEARCH IN 11 TERMS OF THE CURING OF WIDER DYING HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED YET; 12 IS THAT CORRECT? 13 MR . DE FORGE: THAT'S CORRECT. 14 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: SO WHAT YOUR ORGANIZATION IS DOING 15 IS BRINGING THE SICK' ONES, TRYING TO GET THEM BACK TO LIFE AND 16 PUT THEM BACK IN THE POPULATION? 17 MR . DE FORGE: OUR PURPOSE IS NOT TO SAVE THE ANIMALS 18 INDIVIDUALLY . OUR PURPOSE IS TO BRING -- IT'S LIKE A CANCER. 19 YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT IN HAND TO LEARN FROM IT . YOU BRING THESE 20 LAMBS IN TO TRY TO LEARN FROM THEM. IT'S JUST LIKE THE ONE WE 21 HAVE IN NOW. THE END PRODUCT HAS BEEN THAT WE HAVE BEEN 22 SUCCESSFUL IN TREATING AND GETTING THEM BACK ON THEIR FEET 23 AND, THEREFORE, IT'S BEEN A TREMENDOUS PLUS THAT THESE ANIMALS 24 HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GO TO THE WILD, BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS 25 THAT WE HAVE STABILIZED THE DIE-OFF TO SOME DEGREE. WE ARE 9 26 MAINTAINING NUMBERS AND HOPE THAT A CURE OR SUCH WILL OCCUR YATES & ASSOCIATES 95 1 HERE TO WHERE WE CAN GET THE POPULATION BACK WHERE IT SHOULD 2 BE. 3 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: WELL, THE PROBLEM THAT I HAVE IS, 4 YOUR TOP EXPERTS THAT SAY THAT THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE. 5 I HAD A FRIEND OF MINE TAKE ME UP IN A PLANE. HE 6 TOOK ME ALL AROUND AND LOOKED AT THE NORTH SLOPE FACING 7 RIDGES. AND BETWEEN ANZA-BORREGO DESERT, WHICH, THERE'S 8 250, 000 ACRES, I GUESS, WHICH NOBODY IS AROUND, AND UNTIL YOU 9 START TO GET UP INTO THE AREAS THAT ENCROACH THEM, THE 10 TEMECULA AND AREAS OF HEMET AND SO FORTH, THERE'S AN AWFUL LOT 11 OF TERRAIN THAT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THERE IS SUITABILITY TO DO 12 WHAT YOU' RE DOING, WITHOUT THE FACT THAT YOU ARE TWO MILES 13 FROM THE HEART OF THE VALLEY AND LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF YARDS 14 AWAY FROM PEOPLE. 15 AND FOR A RESEARCH INSTITUTE THAT NOW SAYS THAT THEY 16 NEED ABSOLUTE CONTROL OVER A VAST AMOUNT OF LAND THAT NOW HAS 17 A TREMENDOUS ECONOMIC VALUE, AND THAT'S WHERE THE PROBLEM 18 COMES IN; IF WE WERE STILL TALKING ABOUT $5, 000 AN ACRE LAND, 19 THE LAND THAT WE' RE TALKING ABOUT, AS YOU KNOW, HAS ESCALATED 20 TREMENDOUSLY IN VALUE OVER THE LAST 10, 15 YEARS, AND NOW WE 21 ARE REALLY TALKING ABOUT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY, A LOT 22 MORE MONEY THAT YOU GUYS RAISED, A LOT MORE MONEY THAN YOU 23 RAISED IN TEN YEARS. 24 SO WHEN WE DEAL WITH AN ISSUE LIKE THIS, WE DON' T 25 THINK ABOUT THAT, BECAUSE THAT ISN' T WHY WE' RE HERE. WE ARE 26 TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE A PROJECT, THEY YATES & ASSOCIATES 96 c 1 HAVE A PROJECT, WE HAVE CONCERN ABOUT THE FAIRNESS OF WHO WAS 2 THERE FIRST, CONTRARY TO WHAT YOUR BELIEFS ARE. AND SO --BUT 3 IT'S HARD FOR ME TO BELIEVE THAT THERE ISN' T AN ECONOMIC 4 SOLUTION THAT YOU COULDN' T TAKE MONEY OR SOMETHING AND SELL 5 SOME OF THAT LAND AND PUT IT SOMEWHERE AND REALLY DO THE JOB 6 RIGHT, THAT WHERE IT'S NOT TWO MILES FROM THE HEART OF A TOWN 7 AND 2, 000 YARDS FROM HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE. S AND THAT'S THE PART THAT'S HARD FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND: 9 WHY, THAT THE LAND VALUE THAT EXISTS NOW, IF THIS IS THE ONLY 10 SUITABLE SITE, FROM TOP EXPERTS THAT'S THE PART THAT I HAVE A 11 TOUGH -- 12 MR. DE FORGE: COMMISSION RICHARDS, ONE THING I WILL SAY , 13 AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR FEELINGS ON THIS, THERE ARE A LOT OF 14 EXPERTS THAT WERE SKEPTICAL WHEN WE GOT STARTED. I WOULD HAVE 15 TO SAY MYSELF, WE GAVE IT AS OUR BEST POSSIBLE HOPE BECAUSE OF 16 THAT PIECE OF REAL ESTATE. 17 THERE IS NO GUARANTEE -- AND I THINK THE E. I . R. 18 SUGGESTED IT ALSO -- THAT WE COULD DUPLICATE THAT SUCCESS. 19 NOW -- 20 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: BUT THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THE 21 LAND HAD ANYTHING TO DO IT. THE LAND IS ONLY ONE PART OF IT. 22 MR. DE FORGE: THIS IS ACTUALLY THE SITUATION: IF THIS 23 COMMUNITY CAN ACCEPT US, OR IF WE NEED TO GO TO ANOTHER 24 COMMUNITY, BECAUSE MY OTHER STATEMENT WOULD BE, I DON' T CARE 25 WHERE WE WOULD GO, I THINK THERE WOULD BE A LAND USE ISSUE 26 SOMEWHERE, UNLESS WERE WERE ABLE TO AFFORD PURCHASING -- YATES & ASSOCIATES 97 1 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: PLUS, THE LAND AS YOU START 2 GETTING INTO THE TOUGHER TERRAIN, IS AVAILABLE FOR NOTHING. 3 THE FISH AND GAME AND THE BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT -- YOU'RE 4 NOT TALKING ABOUT DOLLARS, HERE, THEY' LL GIVE IT TO YOU. 5 AND THE MONEY THAT COULD BE OBTAINED IN BRIBES AND/OR IN 6 BLACKMAIL OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, FROM THE DEVELOPERS 7 WOULD BUILD YOU THE BEST FACILITY YOU WANT . I MEAN, THE 8 BUSINESS SIDE OF THIS WHOLE THING DOESN' T MAKE ANY SENSE. 9 MR . DE FORGE: THE OTHER SIDE WOULD BE THEY' RE DOWN HERE 10 WITH THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S BEST FOR THE PEOPLE. THE SAME 11 WITH THE INSTITUTE, TO SOME DEGREE: OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF THE 12 MIND. IF WE' RE OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MOJAVE DESERT DESERT, 13 I DON' T KNOW THAT ANYONE'S GOING TO KNOW ABOUT THE INSTITUTE. 14 WE CAME TO THIS AREA -- 15 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: NOW WE' RE GETTING DOWN TO THE 16 ISSUE I TALKED ABOUT BEFORE. OUT OF THE SITE OF THE PEOPLE. 17 NOW WHAT YOU' RE SAYING IS IT AIN'T NECESSARILY FOR THE SHEEP, 18 IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE JIM DE FORGE AND HIS INSTITUTE. 19 THAT'S THE PART THAT GETS A LITTLE -- (APPLAUSE 20 MUFFLES LAST WORD. ) 21 MR . DE FORGE: BUT MY POINT ON THAT IS SIMPLY THIS, THAT 22 IF THE COMMUNITY SEES US AS A VALUABLE ENTITY FOR THIS 23 COMMUNITY AND FOR THE BIGHORN, THEN I DON' T THINK THIS 24 ORGANIZATION WOULD LIVE IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE TO TRY TO 25 WORK RIGHT HERE IN THIS VALLEY . 26 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: JIM, THE LIVING DESERT RESERVE HAS fir.. YATES & ASSOCIATES 98 1 A BEEN AROUND SINCE WHEN -- 2 MR. DE FORGE: ' 71 , I BELIEVE. 3 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: ' 71 . IRONWOOD, THEIR DEVELOPMENT, 4 THE THING ACROSS THE STREET, I MEAN, I DON' T UNDERSTAND. THEY 5 HAVE A LOT OF SENSITIVE ANIMALS. 6 MR. DE FORGE: RIGHT. 7 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THE COMMUNITY ACCEPTS IT. THEY 8 DON' T PUT ANY DEMANDS ON ANYBODY . IF ANYTHING OCCURRED, WE' RE 9 THE ONES THAT HAVE SHELTERED THEM FROM THE DEMANDS OF THE 10 DEVELOPERS THAT WANT TO ENCROACH AROUND THEM. 11 THAT'S THE PART. IF YOU WANT TO BE A NEIGHBOR, YOU 12 WANT TO HAVE YOUR EXPOSURE IN THIS TOWN, AND YET YOU WANT TO 13 HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT, TOO. YOU WANT YOUR EXPOSURE BUT 14 YOU DON' T WANT TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. 15 THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE, THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 10 16 REPORT, BECAUSE IT DEALS WITH THE PROPERTY DOWN HERE, THERE IS 17 NOTHING IN HERE WHERE THE EXPERTS OR YOUR PEOPLE HAVE SAID, 18 MAYBE WE COULD MOVE THE PEN UP HERE, AND WE COULD DO THIS OR 19 WE COULD DO THAT. I MEAN, I DON' T UNDERSTAND WHY -- 20 MR. DE FORGE: THE EXPERTS HAVE TESTED THAT, AND WE HAVE 21 AN AGREEMENT WESTINGHOUSE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO LET US COMMENT 22 ON THAT. 23 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: WELL, THE WESTINGHOUSE DEAL IS 24 LIKE THIS, TOO. 25 MR. DE FORGE: MR. CARUTHERS COMMENTED ON IT -- 26 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: I 'M AWARE OF THOSE KINDS OF DEALS, - YATES & ASSOCIATES 99 1 AND IT'S JUST THE SAME THING. I MEAN, IF YOU'VE GOT SOMEBODY 2 AND YOU CAN HOLD UP THEIR PROJECT AND MAKE THEM COME UP WITH 3 THIS, YOU'VE GOT NO MONEY INVESTED IN THEM MAKING THIS REPORT, 4 BUT THE CLOCK IS TICKING ON MILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF 5 PROPERTY, AND EVENTUALLY, MAYBE THEY'LL RUN OUT OF MONEY . 6 THAT'S AN UNFORTUNATE FACT OF LIFE, AND THAT'S ALL 7 WITHIN THE LAWS THAT COURTS PROTECT YOU, AND THAT'S YOUR 8 RIGHT. 9 BUT TO MAKE AN AGREEMENT SOMEBODY TO FORCE THEM TO DO 10 SOMETHING IN SOME KIND OF A MITIGATION EFFORT -- 11 MR . DE FORGE: NO, MR. RICHARDS, I DON' T THEY THINK WE 12 ARE. I THINK WHAT WE ARE DOING IS SHOWING THE COMMISSION AND 13 THE COUNCIL THE SENSITIVITY OF THE BIGHORN, AND IT'S UP THE 14 COMMISSION AND COUNCIL TO DETERMINE IF THEY WANT TO CONTINUE 15 TO HAVE BIGHORNS IN THE VALLEY . 16 AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE ISSUE IS. IT'S NOT A 17 MATTER OF WHAT THEIR ECONOMIC VALUES ARE, AS OPPOSED TO WHERE 18 THE BIGHORN VALUE IS. 19 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: LET ME JUST INTERRUPT FOR ONE 20 SECOND. 21 IT'S THAT COMMENT THAT, VERY CANDIDLY , MR . DE FORGE, 22 HAS CAUSED ME NOT TO REALLY WARM UP TO WHAT YOU' RE, YOU KNOW, 23 PUSHING, HERE. SPECIFICALLY, YOU SEEM TO BE REALLY TAKING 24 EXTREMES. I MEAN, YOU HAVE IMPLIED THAT IF YOU DON' T LIKE THE 25 BIGHORN SHEEP INSTITUTE EXHIBIT, YOU KNOW, THEN APPROVE THINGS 26 AS IS. AND YOU JUST SAID AGAIN, YOU KNOW, "TAKE US OR LEAVE YATES & ASSOCIATES 100 1 us. '• 2 I MEAN, I DON' T SEE A WHOLE LOT OF WILLINGNESS TO 3 COMPROMISE. YOU SAID EARLIER, YOU KNOW, IT'S THIS SITE OR 4 NOTHING, AND I WOULDN' T WANT YOU OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND, 5 BUT ON MY DRAWING, I MEAN, YOU' RE A LITTLE SPEC IN YOUR ENTIRE 6 LAND. I MEAN, ISN' T THERE ROOM FOR COMPROMISE; IF THEY HAVE 7 TO MOVE, CAN'T YOU MOVE A LITTLE BIT? IF YOU HAVE TO BE "X" 8 AMOUNT APART, CAN' T THEY MOVE A LITTLE AND YOU MOVE A LITTLE? 9 IS IT REALLY ALL OR NOTHING? 10 MR. DE FORGE: I DON' T KNOW WHERE THEY ANYBODY GETS THE 11 FEELING THAT WE DIDN' T SIT DOWN AND TRY TO COMPROMISE. 12 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: WELL, I DON' T KNOW, BUT -- 13 MR. DE FORGE: AGAIN, IT WASN' T ME THAT PUT THOSE LINES ON 14 THE MAP. THESE ARE TOP EXPERTS. IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO BRING 15 IN MORE EXPERTS, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. 16 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: I GUESS MORE SPECIFICALLY, ALL THE 17 SOLUTIONS AND THE MITIGATING MEASURES WE HAVE LOOKED AT HAVE 18 HAD TO DO WITH WHAT THIS PROJECT CAN DO TO SOLVE THE PROBLEMS 19 BEING DUMPED ON THE INSTITUTE. 20 THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE OF YOU IS, IS THERE ANYTHING 21 THE INSTITUTE CAN DO IN TERMS -- TO HELPING SOLVE THE PROBLEM? 22 I MEAN, YOU KNOW, OUR LIVES UP HERE WOULD BE EASIER, 23 YOUR LIFE WOULD BE EASIER, HAYHOE'S LIFE WOULD BE EASIER, AND 24 WE WOULD ALL BE HAPPY CAMPERS IF YOU TWO CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY 25 TO LIVE WITH EACH OTHER. AND I ' M ASTOUNDED THAT, I MEAN, 26 THERE'S A LOT OF LAND INVOLVED. I ' M ASTOUNDED THAT THERE IS YATES & ASSOCIATES 101 1 MUCH THIS TROUBLE IN FINDING A WAY , UNLESS, AS HAS BEEN 2 IMPLIED, THERE ARE JUST OTHER CURRENTS, YOU KNOW, GOING ON 3 OVER HERE. 4 I GUESS THE SPECIFIC QUESTION WOULD BE, YOU HAVE A 5 LOT OF LAND YOU'RE LOOKING AT. DOES YOUR FACILITY HAVE TO BE 6 WITHIN THAT LAND SO -- I ' M NOT TRYING TO SAY YOU SHOULD BE OUT 7 OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND IN THE MIDDLE OF MEXICO SOMEWHERE, OKAY? 8 WITHIN THIS PROPERTY THAT YOU HAVE NOW, ISN' T THERE 9 ALTERNATIVE SITE, OR, I MEAN, CAN YOU MOVE IT A LITTLE BIT? 10 A. I ' M SURE IT CAN BE MOVED A LITTLE BIT. BUT AGAIN, WE 11 HAD THE EXPERTS LOOK AT IT, AND THERE WAS NOT A HILL THAT 12 CREATED A TOP THAT THE PEN COULD BELOW IT, WHICH IS ONE OF THE 13 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PEN. AND THAT WAS WHY THAT PEN WAS BUILT 14 THERE; THERE IS NOT ANOTHER AREA LIKE THAT ON THE SITE. ' ' 15 NOW, MY SUGGESTION WAS NOT THAT -- MY SUGGESTION IS 16 YES, THAT MOVING OUT OF THAT PROPERTY MAY BE OUR ONLY 17 SOLUTION. AND THAT'S WHERE WE' RE AT . 18 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: WHY DON'T YOU LET SOME OF THE OTHER 19 PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE TALK FOR A WHILE? ALL YOUR GUYS, YOUR 20 BIG EXPERTS HAVE BEEN TALKING ALL NIGHT. LET SOME OF THE 21 OTHER PEOPLE HERE SAY SOMETHING. 22 MR. DE FORGE: I AGREE. 23 MR . ALMS: MY NAME IS DOUG ALMS, AND MY ADDRESS IS 69-775 24 POMEGRANATE LANE, CATHEDRAL CITY . 25 I REPRESENT THE SIERRA CLUB, SO YOU CAN DEVELOP 26 YOU'RE ATTITUDES FROM THAT IF YOU MUST. I 'VE BEEN WAITING FOR YATES & ASSOCIATES 102 1 A LONG TIME FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO YOU, AND I ' LL TRY 2 TO MAINTAIN DECORUM. 3 THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE SAT THROUGH THIS 4 TONIGHT, AND I REPRESENT AN ORGANIZATION OF 875-PLUS MEMBERS 5 HERE IN THE VALLEY . I SPEAK DIRECTLY FOR THAT MEMBERSHIP, 6 AND I ' M SURE I SPEAK FOR A LOT OF OTHERS OF SIMILAR MIND. 7 THE TAHQUITZ GROUP OF THE SIERRA CLUB EMPHATICALLY 8 SUPPORTS EFFORTS FOR THE PERPETUATION OF THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE 9 AS THE BEST SURVIVAL OF THE BIGHORN SHEEP. THAT IS OUR 10 OFFICIAL OPINION, OUR OFFICIAL POSITION. 11 WE'VE DEALT SO MUCH WITH THAT THIS EVENING THAT I 12 THINK WE'VE JUST GONE WAY OVERBOARD. 13 WHAT WE' RE TALKING ABOUT IS A DEVELOPMENT ON A PIECE A 14 OF LAND, AND THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE JUST HAPPENS TO BE IN THE 15 WAY . I PUT THAT IN QUOTES, "IN THE WAY . " IT SHOULD NOT HAVE 16 TO BE IN WAY; IT SHOULD NOT HAVE TO BE SUCH A BIG ISSUE AS HAS it 17 BEEN MADE. 18 I ' LL CONTINUE ON WITH MY PREPARED STATEMENT. 19 IT IS EVIDENT THAT A SUBSTANTIAL BUFFER IS NEEDED 20 BETWEEN THE INSTITUTE AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER FOR 21 THE INSTITUTE TO CONTINUE TO BE A VIABLE ENTITY . THEREFORE, 22 THE TAHQUITZ GROUP OF THE SIERRA CLUB WOULD PREFER THIS 23 DEVELOPMENT NOT TO TAKE PLACE. HOWEVER, WE ARE PREPARED TO 24 COMPROMISE. 25 WE HAVE SPOKEN OF COMPROMISE THIS EVENING. WHAT I 26 PERCEIVE FROM THIS BODY IS PRODING THE ONE SIDE INTO YATES & ASSOCIATES 103 1 COMPROMISE. SO AS WE CONTINUE ON THE COMPROMISE SUBJECT, WE 2 WOULD SUPPORT THE 400-YARD BUFFER ZONE. 3 I HAVE MORE TO SAY BUT I THINK I ' LL CONCLUDE, AND WE it 4 WILL CONTINUE THAT IN A LETTER TO THE COUNCIL AND TO SOME 5 OTHER BODIES. 6 THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 7 MS. SCHWENN: MY NAME IS BERN SCHWENN, I LIVE AT 74075 8 MOCKINGBIRD TRAIL, INDIAN WELLS. WE ACTUALLY LIVE IN PALM 9 DESERT. I ' M HERE TO REPRESENT THE COACHELLA VALLEY NATURAL 10 HISTORY OF ASSOCIATION. 11 AND I LISTENED TO COMMENTS TONIGHT AND I ' M VERY 12 DISTURBED, AND I 'LL PUT MY PERSONAL COMMENTS FIRST, BECAUSE I 13 HAVE SAT THROUGH TWO AGENDA ITEMS PRIOR TO THIS WHERE THE 14 CONSIDERATION WAS GIVEN TO THE EXISTING HOMEOWNER, VERSUS WHAT 15 THE NEW DEVELOPER WANTED. IN ONE CASE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, 16 SOMEONE WANTED TO SUBDIVIDE, IT WAS PERMITTED UNDER THE ZONING 17 BUT YOU CONSIDERED THE EXISTING PERSONS ALREADY . 18 THE BUILDINGS OF THE INSTITUTE ALREADY ARE THERE, THE 19 PENS ARE THERE. NOW YOU' RE ASKING THEM TO TAKE THE PENS AND 20 MOVE THEM. THE DEVELOPER KNOWS WHAT WAS THERE, AND IT'S BUYER 21 BEWARE, AS YOU SAID, MR . RICHARDS, AND I FEEL THAT IN THIS 22 CASE, YOUR JOB IS TO LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. 23 AS REQUIRED BY CQUA, THAT WAS ONE THING THE DEVELOPER HAD TO 24 DO BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT STATE LAW SAYS. IT IS NOT SOMETHING 25 THE INSTITUTE ASKED TO FORCE INTO THE ISSUE, IT'S SOMETHING 26 THAT STATE LAW REQUIRES. YATES L ASSOCIATES 104 1 AND I ' M REALLY DISTURBED BY THE INSTITUTE BASHING, 2 BECAUSE THEY' RE A RESOURCE INSTITUTE, AND THAT SHOULD BE 3 CONSIDERED IN YOUR CONSIDERATIONS HERE. 4 PERSONALLY -- THAT'S MY PERSONSAL COMMENT. 5 THE NATURAL HISTORY ASSOCIATION WOULD PREFER THAT 6 THERE BE NO DEVELOPMENT NEAR THE INSTITUTE, BUT I THINK 7 ALTERNATIVE TO, WITH THE BUFFER IS OUR PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE, 8 AND, TO ADD INTO THAT, THE DESERT TORTOISES MAY HAVE BEEN SEEN 9 OR MAY NOT HAVE BEEN SEEN. THERE ARE RECORDED INSTANCES OF 10 THE DESERT TORTOISE THERE, AND I THINK UNDER FEDERAL LAW, 11 WHICH YOU MUST ABIDE BY, YOU MUST PROVIDE MITIGATION FOR THE 12 TORTOISE. 13 ALSO ONE OF THE CONSULTANTS REFERRED TO THIS AS JUST 14 ANOTHER DESERT WASH, AND I SPEND A LOT OF TIME OUT IN THESE 15 DESERT WASHES. THE PLANT LIFE IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM 16 ONE SIDE OF THE VALLEY TO THE OTHER. 17 PINYON CANYON WASH CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH THE WASHES 18 IN THIS SIDE OF THE VALLEY. THE MORONGO WASH IS A HIGHER 19 ALTITUTE AND THE PLANT LIFE IS DIFFERENT THERE, TOO. 20 TO COMPARE IT WITH TORO CANYON, GUADALUPE AND THOSE, 21 WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING. THIS IS A SANDY WASH 22 WITH A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PLANT LIFE THAN YOU WOULD FIND IN THE 23 SOUTHERN END OF THE RANGE, WHERE IT IS A VERY ROCKY, ALLUVIAL 24 FAN. 25 SO THIS A VERY UNIQUE WASH, AND THE PLANTS ARE THERE 26 THAT I HAVEN' T SEEN ELSEWHERE. YATES & ASSOCIATES 105 1 THAT WOULD CONCLUDE OUR COMMENTS. 2 THANK YOU. 3 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THANK YOU. nrr 4 MR . TYLER: MY NAME IS BOB TYLER. I LIVE AT 73-042 5 SKYWARD WAY IN PALM DESERT. 6 I REPRESENT JUST A GRASS ROOTS LOCAL ASSOCIATION THAT 7 SUPPORTS THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE CALLED THE FRIENDS OF THE 8 BIGHORN. WE DON' T REALLY HAVE ANY DUES OR ANYTHING, BUT 9 THERE'S MORE OF US ALL THE TIME AND WE ARE BECOMING VERY 10 CONCERNED WITH WHAT'S GOING ON IN ENDANGERING THE BIGHORN 11 SHEEP . 12 I WAS BORN IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY AND I HAVE LIVED 13 HERE SINCE 1950. I HAVE SEEN THE COACHELLA VALLEY GROW FROM A 14 RELATIVELY SPARSE AREA TO A RELATIVELY CROWED PLACE. rr 15 I FEEL THAT WHEREAS MOST OF THE DEVELOPMENTS ARE 16 GOOD, THERE ARE PRICELESS ASSETS, CERTAIN THINGS ABOUT THE 17 COACHELLA VALLEY THAT MAKE IT INHERENTLY BEAUTIFUL, AND MAKE 18 IT A VERY DESIRABLE AND GOOD PLACE TO LIVE, A PLACE WHERE 19 PEOPLE WANT TO COME. 20 THEY'VE TALKED ABOUT THE LIVING DESERT AS SORT OF A 21 SPECIMEN DESERT, WHAT'S LEFT OF THE DESERT. THE BIGHORN ARE 22 ANOTHER SPECIMEN, SOMETHING THAT IS LEFT OF A BETTER TIME IN 23 THE PAST, WHEN ANIMALS WERE ALLOWED TO LIVE. 24 I THINK IT'S UNCONSCIONABLE TO ME THAT SUCH WONDERFUL 25 ANIMALS IN OUR MIDST WOULD BE COMPROMISED INTO EXTINCTION BY 26 EXTINGUISHING THEIR LAST POSSIBILITY TO SURVIVE . YATES L ASSOCIATES 106 12 1 SO I THINK AS FAR AS THE PEOPLE OF PALM DESERT AND 2 THE PEOPLE THAT I KNOW OF THAT I 'VE TALKED TO, WE' RE GOING TO 3 BE FOLLOWING THE PROCEEDINGS, AND I HOPE THAT YOU FOLKS DO 4 YOUR DUTY AND WATCH OUT FOR US AS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO, AND TAKE 5 OUR CONSIDERATIONS AS WELL AS OUR ENVIRONMENT AND EVERYTHING, 6 NOT JUST MONEY INTO CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. 7 (APPLAUSE) 8 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK IN 9 FAVOR OF THIS, OR IN OPPOSITION? 10 MR . POYNTER: I ' M IN FAVOR, OF THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE I 11 MIGHT ADD. MY NAME IS BRUCE POYNTER, I RESIDE 73-390 12 CALLIANDRA STREET, PALM DESERT. 13 I SUPPORT JIM DE FORGE OF THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE IN 14 HIS REQUEST FOR BUFFER ZONE AROUND THE PROPERTY, AND APPLAUD 15 HIS EFFORTS TO SAVE WHAT I THINK IS THE MOST MAGNIFICENT 16 ANIMAL IN THE STATE. 17 I THANK YOU. 18 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THANK YOU. 19 ANYONE ELSE? 20 MS. DONGAN: I MY NAME IS MARY THOMAS DUNGAN (PHONETIC) , 21 AND I OPERATE DESERT OFFROAD ADVENTURES, AND I CAN SPEAK A LOT 22 FOR THE SHEEP, I SPEND A LOT OF TIME WITH THEM. 23 I ORIGINALLY BECAME ACQUAINTED WITH THE SHEEP WHEN I 24 WORKED AT THE RITZ-CARLTON AND I SAW THEM WHEN THEY STARTED T( 25 COME DOWN AND VISIT THERE AND EAT THE PETUNIAS. 26 I LIKED THEM SO MUCH I LEFT THE RITZ CARLTON AND WENT YATES & ASSOCIATES 107 1 UP TO WHERE THEY LIVE. 2 AND I THINK THE REAL ISSUE HERE THAT WE ALL HAVE TO 3 REMEMBER IS, IT ISN'T WHETHER WE WANT -- WHETHER THE BIGHORN 4 SHEEP INSTITUTE WAS HERE FIRST, OR WHETHER WE WANT IT 5 DEVELOPED. THIS IS THE SHEEP'S LAND, AND THERE'S ONLY 50 OF 6 THEM LEFT, AND IF IT WASN' T FOR THE EFFORTS OF PEOPLE LIKE 7 JIM DE FORGE, THEY' RE NOT GOING TO BE THERE. 8 SO THERE ARE A LOT OF PLACES WHERE WE COULD BUILD 9 BEAUTIFUL HOMES. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A BEAUTIFUL HOME ON THE 10 MOUNTAIN, TOO. BUT THERE'S ONLY 50 SHEEP, AND THEY ARE REALLY 11 IMPORTANT. WE HAVE LET OVER 20, 000 PEOPLE THROUGH HERE IN 12 THIS LAST YEAR AND IT IS A REALLY SPECIAL THING WHEN PEOPLE 13 COME HERE AND SEE THESE ANIMALS IN THE WILD. I 14 ANYTHING THAT WE DO THATS PREVENTS THIS IS NOT A GOOD 15 CITIZEN. 16 THANK YOU. 17 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: ANYONE ELSE? 18 MS. LAKE: I 'M HEIDI LAKE, I LIVE AT 69-765 INDIO AVENUE, 19 PINYON PINES. I WOULD LIKE TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT THE 20 PETITION WAS SUBMITTED BY THE FACUALTY AND STUDENTS OF PALM 21 DESERT HIGH SCHOOL STATED THAT THEY WERE IN FAVOR OF THE 22 BIGHORN INSTITUTE, THOUGH IT DID NOT STATE THAT IT WAS NOT IN 23 OPPOSITION TO THIS PROJECT. 24 EVERYONE WHO SIGNED THAT WAS AWARE OF THE CONTROVERSY 25 OF THE PROJECT, AND IS INDEED OPPOSED TO IT. 26 I WOULD JUST THE SAY THAT FOR THE RECORD. THANK YOU. YATES & ASSOCIATES 108 1 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THANK YOU. 2 IS THERE ANYONE ELSE? 3 AND WOULD THE APPLICANT WISH TO READDRESS THE 4 COMMISSION? 5 MR . BURNS: MARVIN BURNS. IN LIGHT OF THE COMMENTS THAT 6 HAVE BEEN MADE AND THE EVIDENCE THAT HAS BEEN PRODUCED, WE 7 WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU MAKE YOUR DECISION THIS EVENING. 8 WE THINK THAT UNDER CQUA AND THE PLANNING ACT, THAT 9 YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO DO SO, AND THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO 10 DO SO. 11 THERE ARE THERE ARE MANY THINGS THAT WE COULD SAY IN 12 RESPONSE TO WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, BUT I THINK THAT YOU HAVE 13 SUFFICIENT INFORMATION BEFORE YOU TO MAKE A DECISION, AND WE 14 WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO DO SO. 15 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR . BURNS? t6 THANK YOU MR. BURNS. 17 I ' LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND REMIND THIS BODY 18 THAT I MUST ABSTAIN FROM VOTING ON THIS MATTER, AND WOULD ASK 19 FOR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSIONERS. 20 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK RAY DIAZ 21 TO GIVE US COMMENTS AS TO WHY WE OUGHT NOT TO VOTE HERE. 22 MR. DIAZ: WE HAVE RECEIVED A LOT OF COMMENTS TO THE 23 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, A LOT OF COMMENTS THAT WERE 24 EXTRANEOUS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, BUT A LOT OF 25 COMMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. AND WHILE THIS 26 BODY WILL BE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL THE PROPOSED i YATES & ASSOCIATES 109 1 ACTION OF EITHER APPROVAL OR IT DENYS IT, WHATEVER IS 2 INDICATED, THAT YOU WILL ALSO BE RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY lrrr 3 COUNCIL THAT CERTIFICATION OF THAT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 4 REPORT, AND AS PART OF THAT REPORT ARE THE COMMENTS AND 5 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS. 6 WITH ALL THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN THIS 7 EVENING, IN ADDITION TO THE ONES THAT I HAVE WRITTEN, I DO NOT 8 BELIEVE THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMISSION TO 9 SEND A REPORT UP TO THE COUNCIL WITHOUT AT LEAST HAVING A 10 RESPONSE TO THOSE COMMENTS ON BOTH SIDES. 11 THIS HAS BEEN A LONG PROCESS, AND WE WOULD NOT 12 RECOMMEND THAT WE SCREW IT UP NOW. 13 SO THIS IS WHY WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE CONTINUE �.r 14 THIS MATTER TO ALLOW US TO RESPOND TO COMMENTS, AND THEN THEY 15 WILL GO UP TO THE COUNCIL, AND I 'M SURE WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A 16 ANOTHER LATE EVENING ON THE CITY COUNCIL ON THIS PARTICULAR 17 PROJECT BUT HOPEFULLY THINGS WILL BE WORKED OUT BEFORE THEN 18 BETWEEN THE CITY ATTORNEY AT ME. 19 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: TO CONTINUE THIS AGAIN, MR . DIAZ, 20 WOULD WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO TAKE PUBLIC TESTIMONY? 21 MR . DIAZ: I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN -- THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN 22 CORRECT ME IF I ' M WRONG -- WE CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY 23 PORTION OF THE HEARINGS, AND THEN WHAT YOU WILL BE RECEIVING 1 24 NEXT TIME IS THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS. 25 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: THOSE COMMENTS, THE PEOPLE WHO GOT UP 26 AND MADE COMMENTS, THEY ARE ON RECORD. IF YOU DON' T HAVE TIME YATES L ASSOCIATES 110 1 TO COME BACK TO THE NEXT MEETING, THOSE ARE IN THE RECORD, 2 OKAY? AND THANK YOU ALL FOR MAKING THE COMMENTS AND WAITING 3 FOR IT. 4 MR. DIAZ: THE COMMENTS AND THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 5 BECOME PART OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT. 6 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: EXCEPT FOR THE (UNINTELLIGIBLE) ON 7 THE FIRST TWO ROWS. 8 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: GENTLEMEN, WHAT IS YOUR WISH? 9 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: I DON' T REALLY' WANT TO -- I THINK 10 THE GENTLEMAN TO MY LEFT PROBABLY KNOWS MORE ABOUT WHY WE' RE 11 DOING THIS THAN I DO, SO I 'M GOING TO YIELD TO HIS SUGGESTION 12 AND RECOMMEND THAT WE POSTPONE IT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. 13 MR. BURNS: MAY I HAVE A POINT OF ORDER? 14 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THE PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CLOSED, 15 MR. BURNS. 16 MR. BURNS: I WOULD LIKE TO INQUIRE CONCERNING WHETHER OR 17 NOT IF YOU ARE GOING CONTINUE THIS TO THE 19TH, WE WILL HAVE 18 AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT FURTHER EVIDENCE. 19 YOU CAN CHARACTERIZE IT AS A RESPONSE, OR YOU CAN 20 CHARACTERIZE IT AS A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT I 'M JUST TRYING TO 21 GET THE ORDER STREAM OF WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO. IF YOU ARE 22 GOING CONTINUE THE MATTER WE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO 23 PRESENT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 24 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: WELL, IF YOU WANT THE PRESENT 25 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, IT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION TO THE 26 COMMISSION THAT YOU MAKE THE MOTION FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF THE YATES & ASSOCIATES 111 I PUBLIC HEARING, BECAUSE OTHERWISE YOU ARE NOT GOING TO BE 2 ALLOWED TO PRESENT, ACCORDING TO WHAT I FEEL THAT MR . DIAZ 3 SAID, IT IS JUST GOING TO BE REALLY SET FOR OUR DECISION. 4 MR . BURNS: WE WILL MAKE THAT MOTION. 5 MR. WILLIAMS: IF I MAY ASK FOR A POINT OF ORDER, AS WELL. 6 JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT 7 MAY 18, 1990, STARTS TO 45-DAY CQUA REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENT 8 PERIOD RUNNING. IF YOU CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT YOU 9 WILL NOT ALLOW THE 45 DAYS, AND WE WOULD OBJECT TO THE LACK OF 10 PROPER HEARING. 11 MR. DIAZ: I WOULD CORRECT COUNSEL THAT 45 DAYS IS FROM 12 THE DATE THE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MAKES THEIR DECISION. 13 HOWEVER, I GUESS IT'S TRUE THE FIRST THING TO DO IS 14 SEND OUT OUR LETTERS. (SIC) tow 15 WE WOULD RECOMMEND, THEN, THAT YOU CONTINUE THE 16 PUBLIC HEARING, ASK BOTH COUNSEL TO SUBMIT THEIR COMMENTS TO 17 US IN WRITING SO THAT WE CAN RESPOND TO THOSE COMMENTS IN 18 WRITING. BECAUSE THIS CAN' T CONTINUE, AND OUR HOPE IS TO SEND 19 THIS UP TO COUNCIL AFTER THE NEXT HEARING. SO ANY COMMENTS 20 REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, NOT THE PROJECT 21 ITSELF, JUST THE E. I . R. , JUST SUBMIT THEM TO US IN WRITING AS 22 SOON AS POSSIBLE. AND WE WOULD CONTINUE THIS MATTER UNTIL -- 23 PHIL? 24 MR . JOY: THE NEXT DATE WOULD BE JUNE 19. 25 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK : SHOULDN' T YOU PUT A DATE ON THIS, 26 MR. DIAZ? OTHERWISE, YOU'LL BE GETTING YOUR WRITTEN COMMENTS YATES & ASSOCIATES ` 112 1 JUST PRIOR TO THE MEETING. 2 MR . DIAZ: YES. WE WOULD LIKE THE RECEIVE THE WRITTEN 3 3 COMMENTSmoo -- 4 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: IF THE MEETING IS THE 19TH, HOW ABOUT 5 SAYING THE 12TH? 6 MR. DIAZ: THE 12TH. 7 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: ALL WRITTEN COMMENTS NEED TO BE 8 SUBMITTED TO MR. DIAZ OR MR. JOY BY JUNE 12TH. 9 MR. DIAZ: BUT THAT DOES NOT CUT OFF THE REVIEW PERIOD. 10 YOU CAN PRESENT THEM TO THE COUNCIL, BUT THEN IT'S UP TO THE 11 COMMISSION. PLEASE GET THEM TO US BY THE 12TH. 12 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THEN THERE WILL NOT BE PUBLIC COMMENT 13 ON JUNE THE 19TH. THIS WILL JUST BE -- 14 MR . DIAZ: I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE CONTINUE THE PUBLIC 15 HEARING OPEN UNTIL JUNE THE 19TH. AS I SAY -- 16 COMMISSIONER : SO MOVED. 17 MR. DIAZ: -- WE DON' T WANT TO SCREW IT UP PROCEDURALLY. 18 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THEN I 'LL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. 19 MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JUNE 19 20 SECONDED. 21 ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? 22 (AYE'S UNANIMOUS) 23 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: OPPOSED? 24 (NO- RESPONSE) 25 SO CARRIED. 26 (WHEREUPON, THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED UNTIL JUNE 18, 1990. ) YATES & ASSOCIATES 1 2 3 • 4 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 5 6 7 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I DID REPORT IN SHORTHAND e THE WITHIN PROCEEDINGS, THAT AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE 9 ABOVE-ENTITLED MATTER, I DID TRANSCRIBE MY SHORTHAND NOTES 10 INTO TYPEWRITING, AND THAT THE FOREGOING TRANSCRIPT IS A FULL, 11 TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF MY SAID SHORTHAND NOTES, AND OF SAID 12 TESTIMONY AND PROCEEDINGS. 13 14 tow 15 16 CERTIFIED S THAND REPORTER 17 18 CERTIFICATE NUMBER 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 YATES L ASSOCIATES