HomeMy WebLinkAbout0619 MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COFMISSION MEETItSU
TUESDAY - JUNE 19, 1990
7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER
73-510 FRED WMUM DRIVE
I. CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Whitlock called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Cnrdssioner Erwood led in the pledge of allegiance.
III. ROLL CALL
Members Present: Carol Whitlock, Chairperson
Bob Downs (arrived after item vi)
Rick Erwood
Sabby Jonathan
Jim Richards
Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Phil Drell
Kandy Allen
Phil Joy
Richard Folkers
Tonya Monroe
IV. APPROVTAL OF MINUTES:
Consideration of June 5, 1990 ►1teetinq minutes.
Action:
Moved by C nvdssioaxe:. uon=�.t-:anf seconded by Commissioner Richards,
approving the June 5, 1993 i-:,inutes as submitted. Carried 4-
0.
V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL AC2 GN'
Mr. Drell indicated theca were no pertinent items from the May 24,
1990 meeting.
VI. OONSENT CALENDAR
A. Case No. PMW 89-12 - THE VILLAS AT DESERT FALLS, Applicant
Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to
allow a lot line adjustment located on Cypress
Point Drive.
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1990
B. Case No. PMW 90-9 - GUy AND MALIA EVANS, Applicant
Request for approval of a parcel map waiver to
merge lots 17 and 18 into one parcel and lots 19
and 20 into one parcel of tract 13236, located at
Beacon Hill and Mayfair Drive.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Erwood, seconded by Commissioner Richards,
approving the consent calendar by minute motion. Carried 3-0-1
(Commissioner Jonathan abstained).
VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued Case Regarding Commercial Development Low Income
E7mployee Housing Mitigaticn Fee - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for planning commission recommendation of
approval to city council the establishment of a
commercial development low income housing
mitigation fee.
Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the report and indicated
that the economic development committee had recommended against
establishment of the fee.
Commissioner Jonathan asked if the EDC discussed any alternatives.
Commissioner Richards noted that he was a member of the committee, of
which many different facits of the community were represented, and
stated that all were against it. He indicated that one of the
reasons mentioned was the unfairness to the "new guy".
Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if anyone
present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the proposal.
MR. HANK HOWENSTEIN, 65-940 Cahuilla in Desert Hot Springs,
representing Building Industry Association. He explained that
BIA of the desert was very supportive of the need for
low/moderate income housing, but was concerned with the method
of assessing the fee and was concerned about the last developers
being made to pay for the cost. He indicated that AB 1600,
effective January 1, 1989, resulted in government code section
66000 dealing with several issues of nexus. He felt that the
comparison for fees charged in Palm Desert had no relationship
to the fees that might be charged in other cities. He felt the
2
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING CIMMSSION
JUNE 19, 1990
�.. issue needed to be addressed on the basis of what the cost was
of providing the service for Palm Desert. He indicated that the
next nexus issue was being site specific--have the specific
sites for the homes been selected, and if so, what was the cost
to develop them. He also felt there were several other issues
in the government code that needed further addressing before
adoption, i.e. what would the city do with the 20 year program
when they were collecting fees that have to be used within five
years and if they're not used, they must be returned as per
government code section 66000. He indicated that the fees had
been upheld by the courts at the trial court level, but was too
new for decision by the appellate courts and above. He stated
that if the city was selective and he only shopped in Ahmanson
stores, he was supportive of low income housing in the
community, but if he shopped at the Town Center he was not
supportive--he felt that inequity needed to be addressed. He
felt the way in which the funds were dealt with needed to be
handled; site specificity, and community support needed to be
looked into and funds in terms of isolation in a specific
account for the specified purpose only and refunded to the
individual if action was not taken. In terms of low income
housing, he invited the commission to attend the BIA meeting on
July 11 at Palm Valley Country Club, where they were going to
,,. devote an entire evening to low income housing issues.
Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony.
Commission discussed the proposed fee and determined that it was
unacceptable because existing fees were already excessive and it
would be unfair for new development to bear the burden of addressing
low income housing needs.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan,
approving the findings. Carried 5-0.
Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1445, recommending denial
to city council the establishment of a commercial development low
income housing mitigation fee. Carried 5-0.
B. Continued Case No. CUP 90-10 - BRUCE CLARK, Applicant
Request for approval of a senior housing unit to
�.+
3
DUNUIES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1990
be constructed with a new home south of Desert
Lily Drive - 400 feet west of Grapevine.
Mr. Joy outlined the salient points of the staff report and indicated
that a letter from Mr. Clark's attorney had been received, as well as
letters opposed to the size of the unit, grading and the second unit.
Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the
applicant wished to address the c mni.ssion.
MR. KENT ATTRIDGE, representing Mr. Clark, stressed that the
project was under one roof, and was one building connected by a
breezeway. He indicated that the grade was dropped per staff
recommendation, and the unit was designed to be occupied by Mr.
Clark's father and asked for any questions.
Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak and add
new testimony in FAVOR or OPPOSITION.
MR. MELVIN GORDON, President of the Palm Desert Property Owners
Association, stated that it was brought to his attention that
the CC&R's constituted an equitable servitude on the property
and their CC&R's specifically designated the property as R-1 for
a single family; the senior unit was separate and apart and did writ
not fall within the definition of R-1 zoning. He stated that
the CC&R's themselves would not be overridden by the state
statute which provided for senior housing units and if the state
wished to enforce that particular statute they would have to
exercise eminent domain and pay them for taking away that right.
He objected to the conditional use permit allowing for any
senior unit.
After further discussion, commission indicated that a homeowners
association's CC&R's were not an issue of the planning commission
when making their decision and the CC&R's was an agreement solely
between the property owners association and Mr. Clark and it was not
the city's perogative to uphold any association's CC&R's. It was
noted that the city attorney's report indicated there had not been a
lot of cases at the appellate court level.
MR. DAVID KOPAY presented a scaled model of the proposal to the
commission. He felt the project was too big for the lot. He
indicated that the pad was illegally raised and "loomed" over
the neighborhood. He stated that all the neighbors felt the
same way.
4
MINUTES
PAIM DESERT PLAN NIM COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1990
` MR. BRUCE CLARK 73-895 Sa quaro Court in Palm Desert, stated
that he applied for the granny flat unit for his father and they
were careful to make sure that all the city requirements were
complied with, as well as staff requirements as presented. He
recommended that the commission approve the conditional use
permit and staff recommendation.
Cammissioner Downs asked for the square footage of the granny flat
unit. Mr. Clark explained that they had been unaware of the 10%
limitation and had agreed to reduce it to comply with the 10%
requirement. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Clark to respond to the
neighborhood concern about over-building and the pad height. Mr.
Clark indicated that he did not begrudge any of the testimony given,
but the issue of the height of the lot was not a subject of the
conditional use permit. He indicated that the criteria used in
establishing the surface elevation of the final site was the same
criteria used in establishing the adjacent lot. He stated that he
was following the recommendations and requirements of city staff. He
felt that the structure "looming" into the neighborhood was strictly
an aesthetic consideration, and noted the structure would be reviewed
by the architectural commission for the aesthetics. He also
clarified that the height of the enlarged portion of the garage was
no higher then the crown of the parent structure.
law Chairperson Whitlock closed the p public testimony and asked for
comments.
Commissioner Jonathan indicated that the objections of the neighbors
led him to believe that the general welfare requirement had not been
met. The city attorney's report in the final paragraph indicated
that the planning commission was vested with considerable discretion
in determining whether a proposed use met the general welfare
standard, with no specific criteria to make such a determination. In
this case, he did not feel the requirement had been met to allow the
conditional use permit.
Commissioner Erwood concurred and noted that the only testimony in
favor was the applicant and to disregard the neighbors' comments and
make an affirmative finding that this would not be materially
injurious to properties in the area without any countervailing
testimony could not be proven. Commissioners Richards and Downs
concurred.
5
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING CCMKISSION
JUKE 19, 1990
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by CbMinissioner Downs,
instructing staff to prepare a resolution of denial for adoption at
the next meeting. Carried 5-0.
C. Continued Case Nos. TT 25296 and C/Z 89-16 - BIGHORN VENTURES,
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 Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Richards,
continuing TT 25296 and C/Z 89-16 to July 17, 1990. Carried 4-0-1
(Commissioner Whitlock abstained).
D. Case No. PP 90-12 - BILL WILSON, Applicant
Request for approval of a negative declaration of
environmental impact and precise plan for a 9,026
square foot industrial/showroom building at the
northeast corner of Boardwalk and Mediterranean.
Staff requested a continuance to July 3, 1990. Commission concurred.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Chairperson Whitlock,
continuing PP 90-12 to July 3, 1990. Carried 5-0.
E. Case No. PP 90-8 - TOW WATE FINANCIAL, Applicant
Request for approval of a negative declaration of
environmental impact and precise plan for a
47,000 square foot medical office building at the
6
�1
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNUC COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1990
southeast corner of Fred Waring Drive and San
Pablo Avenue.
Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report. After
providing some clarification for commission, staff recommended
approval.
Chairperson Whitlock opened the public hearing and asked if the
applicant wished to address the ccnvdssion.
MR. RAY FOX, architect from San Diego, outlined the steps taken
through the design review process and expressed a willingness to
further work with staff and the architectural commmission on any
unresolved issues.
Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR
or OPPOSITION to the proposal.
MR. BEN WATSON, 73-280 Santa Rosa, stated that he and his
neighbors suggested a buffer of a block wall on Santa Rosa, with
a greenbelt, trees and sprinklers like the area behind the Town
Center mall. He indicated they wanted something aesthetically
appealing that would enhance the value of their area. He
clarified that he was three lots down from San Anselmo. He
stated that he was not concerned about the project, but wanted a
greenbelt, wall and landscaping.
Mr. Drell indicated that Mr. Watson's comments were probably more
pertinent to the project right next door to him, west of San Pablo,
that was further down on the agenda.
Mr. Watson indicated that his mother lived in this area and he
was concerned about the whole street and wanted a buffer from
noise and traffic.
MR. J.R. LESTER, homeowner across from Mr. Watson, was concerned
about this building in terms of encroachment into their area by
office uses and traffic.
MR. STEVE PARKER, 73-291 Santa Rosa, indicated that he recently
moved into Palm Desert because it was the nicest community. He
indicated that within the last six or seven months he had not
received any literature about any meetings. He was concerned
about an office project coming into a residential area because
of traffic, looking at a parking lot instead of a nicely
maintained yard, and people using Santa Rosa as a parking lot,
7
tow
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING OC[-TMIISSION
JUNE 19, 1990
which might have influenced his decision to purchase that
particular property.
Chairperson Whitlock explained that Mr. Parker might not have
received mail due to assessors office property owner records not
having been updated yet. She also indicated that only residents
within a 300 foot radius are notified.
M. JANET BATKIN, 73-287 Santa Rosa, was concerned about the
two-story project across from her house, the greenbelt and
landscaping, and the parking situation. She was also concerned
that no entrance be allowed on Santa Rosa because it was a
family neighborhood and between San Anselmo, San Pablo and Santa
Rosa around 6:00 p.m. there were approximately 30 children
playing.
MR. TERRY HOYER, owner of property, stated that his project was
not across from any of the residents who gave testimony. He
hoped that the commission would address the project before the
commission rather than any other items on the agenda.
Mr. Hoyer noted that this project was approved over a year ago
as a two story building and he acquired an approved project. He
indicated that it was part of redevelopment and there had been a
real concentrated effort to take a whole section of Fred Waring
and across from the civic center and several blocks into the
core of the city and concentrate on senior housing with a corner
that would be a service medical facility for senior citizen
housing. He stated that they took the original facility and
enhanced the design. He felt that the rendering should be
reviewed for acceptability and stated that he met all the
requirements of code.
Commission felt that it was a good rendering. Mr. Hoyer informed
commission that this building would sit back 80 feet from a major
corner and he felt that was very significant.
Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony.
Commissioner Richards concurred that it was a pretty building, but
indicated that the use was for office professional and the medical
use was strictly office. He felt the design was too much for the
site.
Commissioner Erwood stated that he liked the building and did not
feel there would be a problem because of the setbacks, the corner
8
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLAN IW COMMISSION
JUN6 19, 1990
vow treatment, the facade undulation, and did not feel there was as much
impact as a straight facade and less setback. Commissioner Richards
asked for and received clarification on the view from windows.
Cammissioner Jonathan felt that a nice job was done on the corner and
felt the project would have no real adverse impact. He stated that
he liked the front landscaping. He expressed concern toward having
an effective underground circulation/parking area.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-1
(Cammissioner Richards voted no).
Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1446, recommending
approval of PP 90-8 to city council. Carried 4-1 (Commissioner
Richards voted no).
F. Case No. VAR 90-5 - DR. RAY HENDERSON, Applicant
Request for approval of a variance to the parking
ordinance to permit a 233 square foot addition to
the rear ' of the medical office at 73-180 E1
Paseo.
Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report. Staff
recommended denial of the variance request.
Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the
applicant wished to address the commission.
MR. KENT ATTRIDGE, architect, explained that the applicant
wished to use the addition for patient surgery recovery.
Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR
or OPPOSITION to the proposal. There was no one and the public
testimony was closed.
Commissioner Richards felt that the city should work toward the
common goal for E1 Paseo and commission concurred with the staff
recommendation.
9
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 19, 1990
Action:
v
Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0.
Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1447, denying VAR 90-5.
Carried 5-0.
G. Case No. TT 26018 - WESTINGHOUSE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITIES,
Applicant
Request for approval of 62 single family lots and
a 2.1 acre maintenance facility of 50 acres
southwest of Highway 74 and Cahuilla Way.
Mr. Joy outlined the salient points of the staff report and
recommended approval. He noted that the applicant was requesting a
continuance.
Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the
applicant wished to address the commission.
MR. TIM ENSIGN, Westinghouse, stated that he was present to
request a continuance to allow discussion relating to conditions
of approval and lot lines.
It was determined that a continuance to August 21, 1990 would be
acceptable.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Jonathan,
continuing TT 26018 to August 21, 1990. Carried 5-0.
H. Case No. ZOA 90-2 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant
Request for approval of an amendment to the R-2
(7) zone to allow parking as a conditional use
when adjacent to an office professional zone and
consistent with recommendations of a specific
plan.
Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report and
recommended approval of ZOA 90-2. He noted that the next two public
hearing items incorporated this amendment.
10
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING CCMAISSICN
JUKE 19, 1990
Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if anyone
wished to address the commission either in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to the
porposal. There was no one and the public testimony was closed.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0.
Moved by Commissioner Jonathan, seconded by Commissioner Downs,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1448, recommending to
city council approval of ZOA 90-2. Carried 5-0.
I. Case Nos. PP/CUP 90-11 and PMeI 90-10 - FIOXX & ASSOCIATES,
Applicant
Request for approval of a precise plan of
design/conditional use permit, negative
declaration of environmental impact and parcel
map waiver to allow construction of a 13,000
square foot office project on the southeast
corner of Fred .Waring Drive and San Anselmo
low Avenue.
Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report.
Chairperson Whitlock asked if the proposal had received architectural
cammmission approval and Mr. Drell replied no.
Chairperson Whitlock reminded commission and the applicant that the
previous testimony by Mr. Watson, Mr. Parker, Mr. Lester and Ms.
Batkin was pertinent to this project.
Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the
applicant wished to address the commission.
MR. RICK HOLDEN, architect, stated that he was a member of the
Palma Village Cammi.ttee, described the project, and indicated
that no landscape plan was ready because they were awaiting the
council decision on the parking lot amendment.
Commissioner Dawns asked if Mr. Holden had a problem with closing off
access on Santa Rosa and Mr. Holden replied that he had no problem,
but indicated that the director of community development was against
creating dead-end parking. Upon further questioning, Mr. Drell
11
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PIANNIM OU441SSION
JUNE 19, 1990
indicated that the lot lines would be eliminated. Commissioner Dooms
noted that the second access onto Santa Rosa could be closed if a
problem developed in the future. Mr. Holden indicated there would be
a continuous six foot wall and if no sidewalk was required, there
would be additional landscaping. After further clarification,
Chairperson Whitlock closed the public testimony.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0.
Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1449, recommending to
city council approval of PP/CUP 90-11 and PM 90-10, subject to
conditions. Carried 5-0.
J. Case Nos. CPA 90-1, C/Z 90-4, VAR 90-3, PP/CUP 90-9 - MIKE
HOMME, Applicant
Request for approval of a general plan amendment,
change of zone, variance to the setback
provisions of the O.P. zone, precise plan of
design/conditional use permit and negative
declaration of environmental impact for a 7333
square foot single story office complex located
on the east side of Monterey Avenue on the north
and south sides of Catalina Way.
Mr. Drell outlined the salient points of the staff report and
recommended approval.
Chairperson Whitlock opened the public testimony and asked if the
applicant wished to address the commission.
MR. MIKE HOMME, 76-300 Desert Lily, stated that he was present
to answer any questions.
Mr. Drell explained that landscaping would be required up to the curb
outside the wall at the cul-de-sac. Mr. HomIImme indicated concurrence.
Chairperson Whitlock asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR
or OPPOSITICN to the proposal. There was no one and the public
testimony was closed.
12
NIINUrES
PALM DESERT PLANNIM CCTIIISSICN
JUKE 19, 1990
w..
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 4-0-1
(Commissioner Jonathan abstained).
Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Ccmmissioner Richards,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1450, recommending to
city council approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact Exhibit "A", GPA 90-1 Exhibit "B", C/Z 90-4 Exhibit "C", VAR
90-3, and PP/CUP 90-9 on file in the department of ccnrwdty
development, subject to conditions. Carried 4-0-1 (Commissioner
Jonathan abstained).
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Case No. PM 25888 - JOE LADEMAM, Applicant
Resolution of denial of a request for the split
of a 1.23 acre lot into two lots, located 300
feet west of the Sunrose Lane south terminus.
Action:
Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Catissioner Jonathan,
approving the findings as presented by staff. Carried 5-0.
Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Ccmmissioner Jonathan,
adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 1451, denying PM 25888.
Carried 5-0.
IX. ORAL OCff4 NICATIGTS
None.
X. CX NNF1M
None.
13
NIINLYIE S
PALM DESERT PLANNIM CCMMIISSICN
JUKE 19, 1990
XI.
Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Cannissioner Richards,
adjourning the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m.
RAMON A. DIAZ, Sec t
ATTEST:
CAROL WHITLOCK, Chairperson
/tm
No
14
FIED COP '
FAEX bit, A
L SESERT PLANNING CQMMISSION
TUESDAY - JUNE 19, 1990
REPORTERS TRANSCRIPT OF PROCBEDINGS� VITH
REFERENCE TO ITEM C, CASE NOS. TT 252`96
AND C/Z 89-I6 - BIGHORN VENTURSSr AP_PLI-CANT
COMMISSION-BRA, PRISM:
CAROV,, ,jr ITLO(:X- CRAIRMAN
y is Ilitllir
v.
SUp PAMIt h fi x;,
`0 p
- F�l / S TI '• PLAJMR
r.,
DO
ti
.�
u� ti
QF PUBwe .lomw,3 a tI E I�$$R
el
1
RY t N'G.. JBANN:& NIW;R]WN V.S.R.
=s
CBRTIFICAT �iD,� 634.
SOCIATES
taw ' '"'
WADVIEWS
was OF:C LFORNI+COURT RrORTERS ASsoa►AON AND NAnON&94ORWM REPOWA ASOCIAnoiv
2
1 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THAT TAKES US TO OUR NEXT PUBLIC
2 HEARING, CONTINUED CASE, TENTATIVE TRACTS 25296 AND CHANGE 01
4
3 ZONE 89- 16 . BIGHORN VENTURES IS THE APPLICANT . REQUEST FOR
4 APPROVAL OF THE MASTER TENTATIVE MAP SUBDIVIDING 362 ACRES
5 INTO A 484-UNIT COUNTRY CLUB, A FIRST PHASE OF 108 UNITS ON
6 35 ACRES, A CHANGE OF ZONE FOR 25 ACRES OF DRAINAGEWAY FROM
7 OPEN SPACE TO PR-5 AND HILLSIDE PLAN RESIDENTIAL, AND FOCUSED
8 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF PORTOLA
9 AVENUE AND HIGHWAY 74.
10 MR. DRELL, MAY WE HAVE THE STAFF REPORT?
11 SENIOR PLANNER DRELL: MR. JOY WILL GIVE THE REPORT.
12 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: MADAM CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE
13 COMMISSION. THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WAS CONTINUED IN ORDER
14 TO GIVE THE PUBLIC ADDITIONAL TIME TO COMMENT ON THE PROJECT
15 ITSELF AND THEN, IN ADDITION, ADDITIONAL TIME FOR OUR
16 CONSULTANT TO COMMENT OR TO RESPOND TO THE COMMENTS THAT WERE
17 MADE.
18 IN THAT TIME, ATTACHED TO YOUR STAFF REPORT, WE
19 HAVE RECEIVED WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE TERRA NOVA
20 PLANNING GROUP REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT; THE ATTORNEYS
21 REPRESENTING THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE, A RESPONSE FROM ROBERT
22 DEL GANNON, A RESPONSE FROM THE SIERRA CLUB, AND DOROTHY
23 HART. THESE ARE ALL ATTACHED TO YOUR STAFF REPORT.
24 AND IN THE TIME -- THIS AFTERNOON WE RECEIVED SOMI
25 MORE CORRESPONDENCE WHICH ISN'T PART OF YOUR REPORT RIGHT
26 NOW. BUT WE RECEIVED THREE ADDITIONAL LETTERS : ONE FROM THE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
3
1 NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, WHICH IS RECOMMENDING
2 THAT YOU DENY THE PROJECT AND THAT IF YOU DO APPROVE THE
.w 3 PROJECT THAT THEY WOULD STRESS FOR ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 .
4 WE HAVE ANOTHER CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE NEW MEXICO
5 GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT, WHICH IS SUPPORTING AN AMENDED
6 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 , AS AMENDED BY THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE. AND
7 ALSO, ANOTHER LETTER FROM A HELEN BARRETT, WHICH IS ALSO
8 SUPPORTING ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 .
9 THE STAFF HAS PREPARED A RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL, A
10 RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT TO THE CITY
11 COUNCIL SUBJECT TO THE MITIGATION MEASURES WHICH ARE POINTED
12 OUT IN THE E. I .R. AND WHICH, AT THIS POINT, CONSIST OF
13 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2, WHICH IS A 118-ACRE BIOLOGICAL PRESERVE.
14 AS I STATED LAST TIME, WE ENCOURAGE THE COMMISSION
15 TO ACCEPT ALL PUBLIC TESTIMONY ON THE PROJECT, AND WE'RE
16 READY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE OF STAFF RIGHT NOW.
17 THE WAY WE HAVE IT WORKED OUT IS AFTER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE
18 OF US, WE WOULD INVITE THE CONSULTANT TO GIVE HIS
19 PRESENTATION.
20 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. JOY?
21 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: I HAVE ONE. WHY IS IT THAT
22 STAFF CONTINUES TO RECOMMEND ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 AFTER HEARING
23 ALL THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY ENGAGING THE COMMENTS OF THIS
24 COMMISSION?
25 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: WELL, AS I POINTED OUT IN MY
26 STAFF REPORT, WE AREN'T NECESSARILY RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
YATES & ASSOCIATES
4
1 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 , BUT WE 'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE --
2 WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT YOU ADOPT A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING
3 THE APPROVAL OF THE COUNCIL BASED ON MITIGATION MEASURES
4 WHICH YOU ADOPT AS -- I 'M JUST POINTING OUT THAT AS THEY
5 STAND RIGHT NOW, THE MITIGATION MEASURES, AS RECOMMENDED BY
6 THE CONSULTANT , CONSIST OF THIS ALTERNATIVE NO . 2 , WHICH IS A
7 118-ACRE BIOLOGICAL PRESERVE.
8 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: OKAY.
9 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THAT.
10 ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING --
11 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: I DIDN'T EITHER, SO --
12 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: ARE YOU SAYING YOU'RE
13 RECOMMENDING NO. 2 BECAUSE THAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
14 FIRM PREPARING THE E. I .R. , THE CONSULTANT?
15 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: THAT ' S JUST THE WAY -- YEAH --
16 THE E. I.R. STANDS RIGHT NOW.
17 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: BUT IT' S YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR
18 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 BECAUSE OF THE RECOMMENDATION CONTAINED IN
19 THE E. I .R. ? .
20 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: YEAH. THAT' S JUST AS A -- AS IT
21 STANDS RIGHT NOW.
22 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: I HAVE A VERY SHORT STAFF REPORT
23 THAT WAS GIVEN TO YOU. AND THAT HAS SUGGESTED MITIGATION TO
24 THE IMPACT ON THE INSTITUTE WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT THAT THE
25 DEVELOPER CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL LAMBING PEN OR ADD ON TO THE %wo
26 LAMBING PEN OR MODIFY THE EXISTING LAMBING PEN ON THE SITE ON
YATES & ASSOCIATES
5
1 THE INSTITUTE' S PROPERTY ON A TRIAL BASIS PRIOR TO GRADING
2 WITHIN THE PROPOSED BUFFER AREA. IT ' S JUST A SUGGESTION.
3 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF
�wrr
4 MR. JOY?
5 THEN WOULD YOU LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOUR CONSULTANT,
6 MR. JOY?
7 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: PERHAPS MR. MICHAEL A. PERONI
8 WOULD LIKE TO GIVE HIS PRESENTATION.
9 MR. PERONI : MADAM CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION,
10 GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MIKE PERONI . I 'M WITH THE PLANNING
11 FIRM OF SMITH, PERONI & FOX, WHICH WAS RETAINED BY THE CITY
12 TO PREPARE A REGION FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
13 LIMITED TO FOUR SUBJECTS.
14 SMITH, PERONI & FOX RETAINED THE FOLLOWING
15 SPECIALISTS WHO CONTRIBUTED TO THE REPORT: THE UNIVERSITY OF
16 CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCE UNIT CONDUCTED
17 THE ARCHEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROJECT. AS PREVIOUSLY
18 STATED, THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES IDENTIFIED ON THE
19 SITE.
20 VISUAL AND AESTHETICS CONSIDERATIONS WERE STUDIED
21 BY GEOGRAPHICS WHO CONDUCTED A VISUAL ASSESSMENT OF THE
22 PROJECT' S IMPACT. DOUG MC CULLOH OF GEOGRAPHICS WILL AUGMENT
23 OUR PRESENTATION AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
24 MAINIERO, SMITH & ASSOCIATES WERE RETAINED TO
25 EVALUATE DRAINAGE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT.
26 BIOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS WERE INVESTIGATED BY JIM
YATES & ASSOCIATES
6
1 CORNETT, CORNETT & ASSOCIATES.
2 THE RESPONSES RECEIVED TO DATE ON THE ALTA MIRA
3 DRAFT FOCUSED E. I .R. INCLUDE OVER A DOZEN COMMENT LETTERS,
4 ORAL TESTIMONY AT THE JUNE 5TH, 1990 MEETING. AND DUE TO THE
5 EXTENSIVE COMMENTS, FORMAL WRITTEN RESPONSES ARE PENDING, BUT
6 TONIGHT WE 'LL BE MAKING ORAL PRESENTATIONS.
7 THE MAJOR ENVIRONMENTAL SUBJECTS BROUGHT FORWARD
8 FROM THESE COMMENTS HAVE INCLUDED, UNDER BIOLOGICAL
9 CONSIDERATIONS AND IMPACTS, THE FOLLOWING ISSUES: THE DESERT
10 WASH, DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT, FREE-RANGING PENINSULAR
11 BIGHORN SHEEP, THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE, DISEASE-CARRYING INSECT
12 VECTORS.
13 UNDER DRAINAGE AND HYDROLOGY, WE HAVE THE PROJECT
14 IMPACTS AND THE IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES OF PROPOSED PROJECT. '
15 OTHER COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ON SUBJECTS
16 WHICH ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS ISSUE-FOCUSED DRAFT E. I .R.
17 BUT WHICH MAY BE CONSIDERED IN THE GENERAL EVALUATION OF THE
18 PROJECT' S MERITS. PRINCIPAL IN THESE ARE VARIOUS QUESTIONS
19 WHICH HAVE BEEN ASKED ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE BIGHORN SHEEP ,
20 LOCATIONAL DECISIONS, AND REQUIRE RIVERSIDE COUNTY EVALUATION
21 OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL.
22 A BRIEF HISTORICAL CHRONOLOGY HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN
23 THE DRAFT E. I .R. , BUT SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE READER' S
24 BACKGROUND. THE CONSULTANT HAD TO ACCEPT THE INSTITUTE AS
25 PART OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR PURPOSES OF IMPACT woo
26 EVALUATION, NOT WITHSTANDING HOW IT MAY HAVE ARRIVED ON THE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
7
1 SITE OR THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ENTITLEMENTS WERE GRANTED.
2 SIMILARLY, COMMENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED WHICH- FOCUS
3 ON LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION OF CEQA AND CITY ADMINISTRATIVE
4 PROCEDURES. IN THESE INSTANCES WE REFER TO THE CITY TO
5 ADDRESS THOSE MATTERS.
6 THE FIRST DISCUSSION ON BIOLOGICAL CONCERNS WILL
7 BE CONDUCTED BY JIM CORNETT. HE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY BOB
8 MAINIERO. SETTING SOME VISUAL CONSIDERATIONS WILL BE
9 PRESENTED BY DOUG MC CULLOH, AND THIS WILL CONCLUDE OUR
10 TESTIMONY TONIGHT.
11 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: EXCUSE ME. AS A POINT OF ORDER
12 HERE, I THOUGHT TONIGHT WE WERE GOING TO BE CONCERNING
13 OURSELVES WITH ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, NOT COMMENTS, EITHER FROM
rr,r 14 US OR FROM ANYBODY ELSE, THAT WE 'VE HEARD BEFORE.
15 THERE WAS A DISCUSSION AT THE LAST MEETING WHETHER
16 THIS WAS EVEN GOING TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AT ALL, AND
17 THE -- THE COMMENT WAS MADE FINALLY BY MR. DIAZ, "WELL, MAYBE
18 WE'D BETTER KEEP IT OPEN. "
19 BUT STRICTLY FOR -- FOR A SENSE OF TIMING -- I
20 MEAN WE .SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN HERE LAST TIME. I BELIEVE
21 THAT THE ISSUE HERE IS NOT TO GO OVER WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY
22 GONE OVER. THE ISSUE IS TO GATHER ANY NEW COMMENTS THAT HAVE
23 BEEN SUBMITTED, EITHER ORALLY OR VERBALLY, NOT TO GO OVER
24 WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY COMMENTED ON. +
um 25 WE HAVE HEARD PUBLIC TESTIMONY. WE DON'T WANT TO
26 HEAR IT AGAIN. WE'RE HAPPY TO HEAR ANYTHING NEW, BUT LET ' S
YATES & ASSOCIATES
8
1 KEEP IT TO WHAT THE -- THE SENSE OF WHAT WE AGREED TO LAST
2 TIME BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE VOTED LAST TIME.
3 MR. PERONI : OUR PRESENTATION IS FOCUSED ON r.r
4 CLARIFICATION OF ISSUES BROUGHT UP AT THE LAST MEETING.
5 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: CLARIFICATION OF ISSUES AT THE
6 LAST MEETING. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO OVER THE SAME THING YOU
7 DID LAST TIME.
8 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: NOT ACCORDING TO WHAT MR. PERONI IS
9 SAYING, SO --
10 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: OKAY.
11 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: - - IF HE - -
12 MR. PERONI : THERE MAY BE SOME STUFF THAT GETS TOUCHED
13 ON AS A MATTER OF NECESSITY, BUT THE INTENT IS TO CLARIFY
14 SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP DURING THE
15 TESTIMONY PHASE AND SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT ' S CONTAINED
16 IN THE LETTERS AND THE MATERIAL THAT ' S BEEN SENT IN THAT
17 WE'RE TRYING TO GO THROUGH NOW.
18 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: OKAY.
19 MR. PERONI : WE'RE DOING THIS AT THE REQUEST OF STAFF.
20 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: AND WE APPRECIATE THAT, AS LONG AS
21 WE CAN KEEP IT TO THE NEW ITEMS.
22 MR. PERONI : AND WE COULD DEFER THE ASTHETICS
23 PRESENTATION. THAT' S A REGURGITATION OF MATERIAL THAT I
24 PRESENTED AT THE LAST MEETING, THOUGH MORE SPECIFIC, BY THE
25 EXPERT WHO HAPPENS TO BE HERE TONIGHT.
26 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: I WOULD PREFER, I THINK ALL OF
YATES & ASSOCIATES
9
1 US HERE, TO HEAR ANYTHING NEW OR RESPONDING TO THE NEW
2 COMMENTS THAT -- THAT TALK ABOUT DIFFERENT ISSUES, IF THERE
wr 3 ARE ANY.
4 I MEAN THIS WHOLE THING, AS I 'VE SAID THREE TIMES
5 BEFORE, I THINK IS A WASTE OF EVERYBODY' S MONEY BECAUSE WE 'RE
6 REALLY DEALING WITH ONE ISSUE. FORGET THE WASH, FORGET THE
7 REST OF THE STUFF. LET' S GET TO WHAT IS BOTHERING PEOPLE,
8 AND THAT IS THE SO-CALLED BIOLOGICAL THING.
9 MR. PERONI : WELL, WE COULD DISPENSE WITH MAINIERO,
10 SMITH AND JUMP RIGHT TO CORNETT.
11 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: I DON'T KNOW IF THAT' S SO FAIR TO AN
12 INDIVIDUAL WHO ' S PROBABLY TRAVELED SOME DISTANCE TO BE HERE
13 TONIGHT TO SUPPORT YOUR COMMENTS. SO I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY
vow 14 WISH YOU TO DISPENSE WITH THAT, BUT PERHAPS YOU COULD ALTER
15 THE ORDER.
16 MR. PERONI : MAKE A VERY ABRIDGED COMMENT.
17 OKAY. YOU GUYS KNOW WHAT YOU'VE GOT TO DO.
18 MR. CORNETT: MY NAME IS JIM CORNETT. I REPRESENT
19 CORNETT & ASSOCIATES, P.O. BOX 846 , PALM SPRINGS CALIFORNIA.
20 I 'LL TRY TO MAKE MY COMMENTS AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE,
21 AND I WILL SIMPLY BE MAKING COMMENTS TO CLARIFY SOME
22 DISAGREEMENTS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP IN THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY
23 LAST TIME FROM PERSONS THAT SPOKE AT THE PODIUM.
24 FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION SOME
err 25 THINGS -- OR DISCUSS SOME THINGS ABOUT THE DESERT WASH AND
26 WHETHER IN FACT IT IS UNIQUE OR NOT.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
10
1 TERRA NOVA PLANNING CONSULTANTS BROUGHT UP THE
2 ISSUE THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER WASHES THAT EMPTIED
3 INTO THE COACHELLA VALLEY, AND THAT ' S TRUE. AND I HAVE
4 PERSONALLY VISITED ALL THE WASHES THAT -- THAT THEY HAVE
5 DISCUSSED. I HAD DONE THAT BEFORE THE MEETING ON JUNE 5TH.
6 THEY MENTIONED MORONGO CANYON AS A WASH THAT
7 PERHAPS WAS AS GOOD OR BETTER EXAMPLE OF A WASH AS THE DEAD
8 INDIAN CANYON WASH. AND I SHOULD POINT OUT THAT WE 'RE
9 CALLING THE WASH THAT GOES ALONG THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE
10 PROPERTY THE DEAD INDIAN CANYON WASH SO THAT WE KNOW WHICH
11 WASH WE 'RE SPEAKING OF.
12 MORONGO CANYON DOESN'T HAVE A SINGLE SMOKE TREE IN
13 IT, AND IT HAS A -- AN OIL PIPELINE THAT GOES DOWN THROUGH
14 THE CENTER. SO I WOULD CALL THAT RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED, AN
15 IT ' S NOT IN ANY WAY AN EXAMPLE OF A COLORADO DESERT WASH.
16 DEEP CANYON DOES NOT HAVE A COMPARABLE DENSITY OF
17 SMOKE TREES. IT HAS LESS THAN HALF THE NUMBER OF SMOKE TREES
18 PER ACRE. IT -- MOST OF ITS LENGTH IS BORDERED BY A GOLF
19 COURSE AT IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB.
20 THOUSAND PALMS CANYON ALSO DOES NOT HAVE A
21 COMPARABLE DENSITY OF SMOKE TREES AND IT' S COMPLETELY SCOURED
22 OF ITS VEGETATION DURING FLASH FLOODS.
23 PAINTED CANYON DOESN'T EVEN EMPTY INTO THE
24 COACHELLA VALLEY. BEAR CREEK WASH IS SCHEDULED TO BE
25 CHANNELIZED, AND IT HAS NEVER HAD A COMPARABLE DENSITY OF
26 SMOKE TREES IN IT.
VATi:C n eccnrreTRc
11
1 GUADALUPE CANYON DOES NOT EVEN REACH THE FLOOR OF
2 THE COACHELLA VALLEY; DOES NOT HAVE ANY SMOKE TREES IN -IT.
3 TORO CANYON DOES NOT EMPTY INTO THE COACHELLA VALLEY EITHER,
4 NOR DOES MARTINEZ CANYON.
5 LONG CANYON, ALSO MENTIONED IN TERRA NOVA' S
6 REPORT, HAS NO SMOKE TREES AND IT IS USED AS A DUMP AT ITS
7 MOUTH AT THE PRESENT TIME. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR WIDE CANYON
8 AND DECEPTION CANYON.
9 I COULD GO ON, BUT THE POINT IS THAT I STILL WOULD
10 MAINTAIN, AS I DID IN MY REPORT, THAT THE INDIAN CANYON WASH
11 ON THE SOUTH BORDER OF THE PROJECT AREA IS THE BEST EXAMPLE
12 REMAINING IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY OF A COLORADO DESERT WASH.
13 AND I HAVE VISITED EVERY WASH THAT EMPTIES INTO THE COACHELLA
14 VALLEY.
15 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: MR. CORNETT?
16 MR. CORNETT: YES.
17 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: DO THOSE OTHER WASHES HAVE A
18 HOUSE AND A TENNIS COURT LESS THAN 100 YARDS FROM IT?
19 MR. CORNETT: I COULD GO THROUGH THE LIST IF YOU'D LIKE
20 MS TO.
21 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THERE' S BEEN A HOUSE AND A
22 TENNIS COURT, AS YOU KNOW, THAT' S NEVER BEEN DISCUSSED
23 ANYWHERE HERE THAT' S BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME RIGHT IN THE
24 HEART OF THIS WHOLE DEAL.
25 MR. CORNETT: IT' S NOT IN THE WASH.
26 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: IT' S NOT, QUOTE, IN THE WASH IF
YATES & ASSOCIATES
12
1 YOU TALK ABOUT THE WASH BEING ABOUT THIS WIDE. WIDE AS THE
2 WIDTH OF THIS ROOM WHERE IT DROPS DOWN FROM THE BANKS. - IS
3 THAT WHAT YOU CONSIDER THE WASH?
4 MR. CORNETT: WELL, THERE ' S NO BIOLOGIST THAT WOULD SAY
5 THAT THAT HOUSE IS IN THE WASH.
6 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: OKAY. BUT IT ' S KIND OF CLOSE TO
7 EVERYTHING, ISN'T IT?
8 MR. CORNETT: IT ' S CLOSE.
9 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: OKAY.
10 MR. CORNETT: WITH REGARD TO THE DESERT TORTOISE, I WILL
11 BE THE FIRST TO SAY THAT THIS IS -- THIS AREA, AT BEST, DOES
12 NOT HAVE A HIGH DENSITY OF DESERT TORTOISES. THERE ARE
13 PROBABLY VERY FEW THAT OCCUR THERE.
too
14 BUT ACCORDING TO THE U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE
15 SERVICE, WHICH HAS LISTED THIS ANIMAL AS THREATENED -- IT
16 DOESN'T MATTER IF ONE TORTOISE OR 1 ,000, ACCORDING TO ARTHUR
17 DAVENPORT OF THE U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE. THE
18 PRESENCE OF A SINGLE TORTOISE IS OF SIGNIFICANCE BECAUSE THE
19 TORTOISE IS LISTED AS A THREATENED SPECIES.
20 WITH REGARD TO WILD BIGHORN HABITAT, WILD BIGHORN
21 HAVE BEEN OBSERVED ON THE LOWER TOES, ON OR IMMEDIATELY
22 ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT SITE. THESE OBSERVATIONS
23 HAVE OCCURRED BOTH RECENTLY, IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, AND THEY
24 CONTINUE 30 YEARS BACK INTO THE PAST.
25 SO THE APPEARANCE OF BIGHORN SHEEP IN THIS AREA IS
26 NOT A RECENT EVENT. IT IS AN EVENT THAT HAS CONTINUED FROM
YATES & ASSOCIATES
13
1 AT LEAST 30 YEARS UP UNTIL THE PRESENT TIME .
2 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: ARE YOU CLAIMING THAT THE AREA
rr
3 NOW, THAT WE 'RE TALKING ABOUT, HAS EVIDENCE OF BIGHORN
4 HABITAT NOW IN THE WILD STATE?
5 MR. CORNETT: YES.
6 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: OKAY.
7 MR. CORNETT: IT IS TRUE THAT THE BIOLOGISTS ' FINDINGS
8 AS TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF BIGHORN IN THE PROJECT AREA
9 DISAGREE WITH THE BLM SANTA ROSA HABITAT MANAGEMENT PLAN.
10 HOWEVER, THE MANAGEMENT PLAN WAS COMPILED WITHOUT EXTENSIVE
11 FIELD INVESTIGATIONS IN THE PROJECT SITE REGION. IN FACT,
12 THERE WERE NO INVESTIGATIONS IN THE PROJECT SITE REGION BY
13 THE BLM.
vow 14 THE BIOLOGISTS WHO COMPLETED THE DRAFT E. I .R.
15 BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT INVESTIGATED THE PROJECT SITE IN DETAIL
16 TO COME UP WITH THE FINDINGS. ANY LOSS OF HABITAT OF A
17 STATE-LISTED SPECIES IS DEEMED A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT
18 BY THE BIOLOGISTS AND BY CEQA. '
19 AND LASTLY, AND PERHAPS MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, WITH
20 REGARD TO COMMENTS MADE IN TERMS OF THE IMPACT OF THIS
21 PROJECT ON THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE. CONCERN HAS BEEN EXPRESSED
22 OVER THE QUESTION OF IMPACTS OF BIGHORN/HUMAN HABITUATION TO
23 EACH OTHER. BIGHORN MAY TOLERATE HUMANS IF THEY ARE
24 DESPERATE FOR FOOD OR WATER.
�... 25 FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, SINCE 1984, BOTH OF
26 THESE COMMODITIES HAVE BEEN IN SHORT SUPPLY AND THE SHEEP
YATES & ASSOCIATES
14
1 HAVE BEEN WILLING TO COME IN CLOSE CONTACT WITH HUMANS IN
2 ONE, PERHAPS TWO, LOCALITIES OUT OF SEVERAL HUNDRED
3 POSSIBILITIES IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. IT ' S CLEARLY THE
4 EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE.
5 IF THERE IS ANY DOUBT AS TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
6 THESE IMPACTS, CEQA REQUIRES THAT WE MUST ERR IN FAVOR OF THE
7 THREATENED SPECIES.
8 EVEN THE SHEEP AT THE RITZ CARLTON BED AND LAMB
9 OUT OF BOTH AUDITORY AND VISUAL DISTANCE OF THE HOTEL. EVEN
10 THOSE SHEEP DO.
11 THE CAPTIVE SHEEP , IF CONFRONTED WITH THE
12 DEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED, EVEN WITH SCREENS, WILL NEVER BE OUT
13 OF SIGNIFICANT AUDITORY AND VISUAL SIGHT OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
14 SINCE SHEEP NEVER SEEK THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE
15 DEVELOPMENT ON THE INSTITUTE, IF THE DEVELOPMENT PROCEEDS AS
16 PROPOSED, THERE MUST BE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT UPON THE
17 INSTITUTE ' S SHEEP IF THE DEVELOPMENT WERE TO BE CONSTRUCTED
18 WITHOUT THE BUFFER, AS DESCRIBED BY EXPERTS ON THE BIOLOGY OF
19 THE BIGHORN.
20 AND FINALLY, THERE HAVE BEEN COMMENTS REGARDING
21 THE FACT THAT THE DEVELOPMENT MAY PROMOTE THE -- SOME -- A
22 PARTICULAR SPECIES OF GNAT IN THE AREA THAT ' S THOUGHT TO
23 TRANSMIT DISEASES FROM BIGHORN SHEEP -- TO BIGHORN SHEEP.
24 AND MY COMMENT THERE IS THAT SIMPLY NOT ENOUG$ IS
25 KNOWN REGARDING THE TRANSMISSION OF DISEASE TO SHEEP TO
26 EFFECTIVELY DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE AT THIS TIME . THERE MAY BE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
15
1 OTHER VECTORS THAT TRANSMIT DISEASES TO SHEEP , AND MORE
2 RESEARCH IS NEEDED ON THIS SUBJECT. AND THAT IS ONE OF- THE
3 MAJOR GOALS OF THE INSTITUTE.
�.r
4 IN SUMMARY, I WOULD SIMPLY LIKE TO SAY THAT WE
5 ONLY KNOW THAT THE PRESENT ENVIRONMENT, AS IT IS TODAY,
6 ALLOWS THE INSTITUTE TO SUCCEED IN BOTH THEIR RESEARCH AND
7 THE RELEASE OF CAPTIVE BIGHORN BACK INTO THE WILD. THE
8 BUFFER IS THE BEST SOLUTION TO MAINTAINING THE PRESENT
9 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING SURROUNDING THE INSTITUTE, SINCE IT IS
10 THE MITIGATION STRATEGY THAT PRESERVES THE PRESENT
11 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.
12 AND THAT CONCLUDES MY CLARIFICATION OF SOME OF THE
13 ISSUES BROUGHT UP AT THE LAST MEETING.
14 DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
15 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I 'M
16 CURIOUS AS TO WHY THEY'RE NOT ON YOUR REPORT.
17 MR. CORNETT: WHICH THINGS?
18 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: PROBABLY 20 WEEKENDS OF THE
19 YEAR, THE HANG GLIDERS COMING OFF THE MOUNTAIN, ZIPPING ALL
20 AROUND, NOT VERY FAR FROM WHERE THIS INSTITUTE IS , OR WHERE
21 THIS DEVELOPMENT IS. THAT'S NOT MENTIONED.
22 THE FACT THAT THERE' S BEEN A HOME AND ENCROACHMENT
23 IN THIS AREA FOR SEVERAL YEARS, LONG BEFORE ANYTHING
24 OCCURRED, LONG BEFORE THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE WAS FORMED. THE
�r. 25 WATER DISTRICT AND THEIR ROADS, THE PUBLIC ROADS HAVE BEEN --
26 PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DRIVING IN AND OUT OF THERE. AND NONE OF
YATES & ASSOCIATES
16
1 THIS IS - - IS BROUGHT UP.
2 I MEAN WHAT KIND OF A REPORT DO YOU ISSUE? DO YOU
3 LOOK AT EVERYTHING OR DO YOU JUST DO WHAT YOU WANT TO SAY. I
4 MEAN I 'M TRYING TO -- I 'M TRYING TO FIND OUT WHY YOU -- YOU
5 LEFT OUT ANY COMMENT BEFORE ABOUT WHAT OCCURRED UP IN -- UP
6 IN THE RANCHO MIRAGE AREA, AND YOU'RE THE EXPERT IN THAT
7 AREA. AND WE 'RE JUST GETTING IT NOW.
8 AND WHY HAVEN'T WE COMMENTED ABOUT THE FACT THAT
9 THERE ' S BEEN HUMAN HABITAT LIVING IN A HOME AND A TENNIS
10 COURT AND SO FORTH 50 YARDS FROM THE WASH OF WHICH YOU CLAIM
11 IS SO UNIQUE AND -- AND SOME OF US HAVE LIVED IN THIS AREA A
12 LONG TIME AND SPENT A LOT OF TIME -- I MEAN FOR 15 YEARS I 'VE
13 LIVED IN IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. THAT OVERLOOKS THE OTHER
14 SIDE OF THE SAME HILL. OKAY? AND I 'VE GOT REAL GOOD EYES,
15 AND I 'VE NEVER SEEN A BIGHORN SHEEP. AND I PLAYED A -- I
16 MEAN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF HOURS OF TIME.
17 AND LOTS OF PEOPLE ARE VERY ANXIOUS, ESPECIALLY
18 PEOPLE WHO COME TO OUR AREA. "SHOW ME A SHEEP . WHERE DO WE
19 FIND THEM?"
20 AND YOU NOW SAY THAT THIS AREA -- BECAUSE I THINK
21 THAT WAS AN ISSUE BEFORE. I DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS AN ISSUE
22 AT ALL. I DID NOT FEEL THAT WE WERE -- YOU WERE CLAIMING
23 THAT THE AREA WHERE THE INSTITUTE IS IS A NATURAL HABITAT.
24 AND NOW YOU'RE APPARENTLY SAYING THAT THAT IS. AND -- AND
25 THAT, TO ME, HAS BEEN A CHANGE BECAUSE I FELT -- '
26 MR. CORNETT: NO. IT' S IN THE REPORT. IT' S IN THE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
17
1 REPORT.
2 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: I MEAN WE 'VE GOT - - WE 'VE GOT
3 NOTHING ABOUT NOISE. HIGHWAY 74, I LIVE ABOUT THREE BLOCKS
4 FROM. EVERY TRUCK THAT GOES UP HIGHWAY 74 MAKES A HELL OF A
5 NOISE, ESPECIALLY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT.
6 MR. CORNETT: THAT ' S TRUE.
7 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL OF
8 THESE FACTORS AND NONE OF THEM ARE IN HERE AND YET, STILL,
9 IT ' S AN IDEAL PLACE TO RAISE SHEEP. I MEAN I REALLY --
10 THAT ' S THE PART THAT -- THAT STRAINS OUR IMAGINATION. WHY IS
11 THIS AN IDEAL PLACE WHEN IT HAS ENCROACHMENT FROM ABOVE, IT
12 HAS ENCROACHMENT FROM THE LAND, IT HAS BUILDINGS AND SO FORTH
13 THAT ARE -- THAT ARE NEAR THERE? WHY, ALL OF A SUDDEN, IS IT
14 THIS IDEAL PLACE? AND THIS IS WHAT YOU GUYS, IN ALL THE
15 LETTERS, SAY.
16 MR. CORNETT: I 'VE NEVER MADE THAT STATEMENT.
17 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING
18 THESE COMMENTS TO THE CORRECT PERSON, MR. RICHARDS.
19 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THAT ' S FINE.
20 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: MR. CORNETT BEING THE BIOLOGIST
21 HERE. SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS, PERHAPS --
22 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: WELL, HE JUST TESTIFIED THAT --
23 THAT THIS -- THIS WAS A HABITAT WHICH WAS -- AMONG OTHER
24 THINGS, WAS AT LEAST CONGENIAL TO RAISING OR SIGHTINGS OF
25 BIGHORN SHEEP. AND I 'M ADDRESSING MY COMMENTS SPECIFICALLY
26 TO THE ITEMS HE TALKED ABOUT: THE SIGHTINGS AND THE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
18
1 ENVIRONMENT .
2 AND THE QUESTIONS I HAVE HAVE TO DO WITH THE-
3 PROXIMITY OF HUMAN HABITAT, THE NOISE, THE AIR -- THAT AIR
4 FACTOR OF PEOPLE ABOVE THEM AND CARS AND SO FORTH AROUND
5 THEM. THAT ' S ALL.
6 MR. CORNETT: WELL, I WOULD SIMPLY SAY IN GENERAL THAT
7 THE BIGHORN SHEEP INSTITUTE, TODAY, IS ABLE TO SUCCESSFULLY
8 CONDUCT RESEARCH AND RELEASE CAPTIVE BIGHORN SHEEP INTO THE
9 WILD. THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE MENTIONED. BECAUSE
10 YOU'RE RIGHT. THOSE THINGS DO EXIST.
11 MY POSITION IS SIMPLY THAT THE DEVELOPMENT, AS
12 PROPOSED, WOULD RADICALLY CHANGE THE PRESENT SITUATION. AND
13 WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH A THREATENED SPECIES, IF WE 'RE
14 GOING -- IF WE 'RE DEALING WITH A THREATENED SPECIES, I SIMPL
15 FEEL THAT WE CANNOT TAKE THE RISK OF JEOPARDIZING THE
16 ACTIVITY GOING ON THERE AT THIS TIME.
17 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: MR. CORNETT, LET ME FOCUS IN ON
18 THAT FOR A SECOND. I 'M TRYING TO PUT THIS THING IN
19 PERSPECTIVE. THE BIGHORN SHEEP HABITAT IS AN AREA WHICH
20 COMPRISES -- IS IT 290 ACRES OR ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A LARGER
21 AREA?
22 MR. CORNETT: ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE FREE-RANGING
23 BIGHORN SHEEP HABITAT?
24 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: YES.
25 MR. CORNETT: HOW MANY ACRES WOULD IT BE WITHIN THE
26 PROJECT AREA?
YATES & ASSOCIATES
19
1 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: YES.
2 MR. CORNETT: OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I DON'T RECA-LL THE
3 EXACT NUMBER OF ACRES; ALTHOUGH, I SEE MIKE PERONI LOOKING
tow
4 FOR IT AT THIS TIME. I BELIEVE THAT ' S A LITTLE HIGH. MAYBE
5 82 . 5 ACRES .
6 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: OKAY. WHAT IS THE 290 ACRES
7 THAT THE BLM GRANTED TO THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE?
8 MR. CORNETT: THAT WOULD, PRESUMABLY, BE THE LAND WITHIN
9 THE INSTITUTE' S PROPERTY.
10 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: OKAY. NOW, DO THE -- I 'M TRYING
11 TO FIND OUT IN WHAT AREA THE BIGHORN SHEEP ROAM. WHAT AREA
12 DO THEY USE?
13 MR. CORNETT: BIGHORN SHEEP, IN GENERAL, WOULD UTILIZE
14 THE SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS, DOWN TO THE TOE OF THE MOUNTAINS,
15 AND APPROXIMATELY 50 TO 100 YARDS OUT FROM THE TOE OF THE
16 MOUNTAINS.
17 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: OKAY. SO IT ' S A VAST AREA.
18 MR. CORNETT: A VAST AREA.
19 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: AND THIS ONE PROJECT, WE'RE
20 TALKING ABOUT WHAT IMPACT IT HAS ON A VARIETY OF ITEMS IN --
21 YOU KNOW, BIOLOGICAL THINGS.
22 MR. CORNETT: UH-HUH.
23 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: AND WE'RE FOCUSING IN RIGHT NOW
24 ON WHAT EFFECT THIS PROJECT HAS ON THE BIGHORN SHEEP, NOT ON
.. 25 THE INSTITUTE, NOT ON THE DESERT WASH HABITAT, NOT ON THE
26 DESERT TORTOISE, BUT ON THE SHEEP THEMSELVES. AND AS
YATES & ASSOCIATES
20
1 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS POINTED OUT , THIS ISN'T THE FIRST TIME
2 THAT THAT AREA IS COMING UP AGAINST CIVILIZATION. IN OTHER
3 WORDS, THIS ISN'T THE FIRST PROJECT TO FRONT THE AREA IN
4 WHICH THE BIGHORN SHEEP ROAM.
5 MR. CORNETT: THAT' S CORRECT.
6 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: WE 'VE GOT A LOT OF CIVILIZATION
7 ALL OVER THE PLACE WITH A LOT OF NOISE, A LOT OF POLLUTION, A
8 LOT OF THINGS THAT WE DON'T LIKE.
9 IN YOUR OPINION, ARE YOU SAYING, THEN, THAT THIS
10 SPECIFIC PROJECT WILL BE THE STRAW THAT BREAKS THE CAMEL' S
11 BACK, THE ONE THING THAT WILL REALLY DO IT TO THE BIGHORN
12 SHEEP? THAT ' S THE SENSE I 'M GETTING. I WANT TO MAKE SURE
13 I 'M READING YOU CLEARLY.
14 MR. CORNETT: OKAY. IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT I BELIEVE WOULawo
15 BE THE NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF THIS PROJECT ON THE FREE-RANGING
16 BIGHORN SHEEP IN THE AREA, I CAN SIMPLY SAY THAT IT ' S A
17 STATE-LISTED THREATENED SPECIES AND ANY LOSS OF HABITAT AT
18 ALL, I WOULD DEEM SIGNIFICANT.
19 WHETHER IT BE THE 82 . 5 ACRES WOULD BE THE STRAW
20 THAT BROKE THE BACK OF THE PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP' S
21 EXISTENCE IN THE SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS, I CANNOT ANSWER THAT.
22 I DON'T KNOW.
23 IF WE 'RE TALKING ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED
24 PROJECT ON THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE' S ACTIVITY AND HOW THEY
25 RELATE TO THE SHEEP, I WOULD SAY THAT IT PROBABLY WOULD BE wry
26 THE STRAW THAT BREAKS THE BACK OF THE CAMEL.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
21
1 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: AND WHAT IS YOUR PROPOSAL?
2 MR. CORNETT: MY PROPOSAL IS FOR THE 118-ACRE BIOLOGICAL
3 PRESERVE AND THE BUFFER.
tow
4 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: ONE OTHER QUESTION ON THE DESERT
5 WASH, AND THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY EARLIER QUESTION. THE
6 DESERT WASH HABITAT. JUST -- I DON'T KNOW TO WHAT EXTENT WE
7 CAN DISCUSS THIS CANDIDLY, BUT , YOU KNOW, I 'M THE AMATEUR
8 HERE AND I 'M DEFERRING TO THE EXPERTS.
9 AND I HAD ONE EXPERT AT THE LAST MEETING WITH
10 PRETTY IMPRESSIVE CREDENTIALS THAT WAS SAYING ONE THING. AND
11 THEN I HAD ANOTHER EXPERT -- THAT ' S YOU -- WITH ALSO
12 IMPRESSIVE CREDENTIALS, BASICALLY SAYING THE OPPOSITE. AND
13 THIS IS WITH REGARDS ESSENTIALLY, TO THE DESERT WASH HABITAT.
r.► 14 WE SHOULD BE DEALING WITH A QUESTION OF FACT . WHY DO I HAVE
15 TWO EXPERTS TELLING ME OPPOSITE THINGS?
16 MR. CORNETT: UM, I FEEL THE NECESSITY OF COMMENTING,
17 PERHAPS, UPON THE BACKGROUND OF THE TWO EXPERTS. I -- STEVEN
18 CARUTHERS' BACKGROUND IS EXCELLENT IN ARIZONA. HIS FIRM HAS
19 NEVER DONE ANY WORK, EVER, IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY. EVER. I
20 MAY BE WRONG, BUT I 'M NOT SURE THAT HIS FIRM HAS DONE ANY
21 WORK IN THE COLORADO DESERT OF CALIFORNIA. I COULD BE WRONG
22 ON THAT, BUT I KNOW HE' S NEVER DONE ANY WORK IN THE COACHELLA
23 VALLEY. NOT HIS FIRM.
24 UM, I HAVE DONE MOST OF MY STUDIES IN THE ,
25 COACHELLA VALLEY. AND I 'VE DONE MORE STUDIES THAN ANY OTHER
26 BIOLOGIST IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY AND PROBABLY MORE STUDIES
YATES & ASSOCIATES
22
1 THAN ALL OTHER BIOLOGISTS COMBINED. SO I WOULD SAY THAT IN
2 TERMS OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE AREA, I WOULD SAY THAT I FEEL
3 FAIRLY CONFIDENT IN MAKING THE STATEMENT THAT I -- MY
4 QUALIFICATIONS IN THE REGION WOULD SURPASS HIS SIMPLY BASED
5 ON EXPERIENCE . I COULDN'T SAY THAT IF I WENT TO ARIZONA, BUT
6 I THINK I CAN SAY THAT IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY.
7 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: THANK YOU.
8 MR. CORNETT: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
9 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: APPARENTLY NOT, MR. CORNETT. THANK
10 YOU VERY MUCH.
11 MR. CORNETT: THANK YOU.
12 MR. MAINIERO: MY NAME IS BOB MAINIERO, MAINIERO, SMITH
13 & ASSOCIATES, CIVIL ENGINEERS.
14 I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADDRESS ONE COMMENT THAT WAS r
15 CONTAINED IN A LETTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FROM THE
16 FIRM OF ALLEN, MATKINS, LECK, GAMBLE & MALLORY? DATED
17 JUNE 12 , 1990. AND THE COMMENT HAD TO DO WITH THE CLEAN
18 WATER ACT AND FILL MATERIALS IN WASHES AND WETLAND AREAS.
19 I 'D SIMPLY LIKE TO SAY THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE
20 REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 404
21 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT AMENDMENT, 1977 , AS PART OF THE
22 REQUIREMENTS OF THE APPROVAL OF THE FINAL DESIGN OF THE
23 PROJECT.
24 THANK YOU.
25 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: NOW, THAT' S SHORT.
26 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: MR. MC CULLOH.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
23
1 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: MAKE IT SHORTER.
2 MR. MC CULLOH: YEAH. I 'LL TAKE THE STRONG DIRECTION OF
3 THE COMMISSION TO KEEP IT VERY BRIEF HERE.
4 MY NAME IS DOUG MC CULLOH. I 'M WITH GEOGRAPHICS.
5 WE WORKED ON THE VISUAL AND AESTHETIC PORTION OF THE
6 ANALYSIS .
7 I WASN'T HERE LAST MEETING. I COULDN'T BE HERE,
8 BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT MIKE PERONI GAVE A KIND OF SUMMARY OF
9 THE REPORT. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT HE COVERED, BUT I WILL
10 TRY AND BE VERY BRIEF.
11 BASICALLY, WE LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF VIEWPOINTS.
12 THESE WERE -- THE ANALYSIS WAS BASED ON THREE FIELD VISITS TO
13 THE SITE AND ON SIX LINE-OF-SIGHT DRAWINGS FROM SENSITIVE
mw 14 VIEWPOINTS IN THE AREA. THE ANALYSIS INCLUDED LOOKS AT
15 DISTANT -- IMPACTS ON DISTANT VIEWPOINTS, WHICH WOULD BE OUT
16 IN THE VALLEY FLOOR, AS WELL AS THE MOST SENSITIVE, WHICH ARE
17 CLOSELY ADJACENT VIEWPOINTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, JUST SOME OF
18 THE THINGS -- SOME OF THE RESIDENCES DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH.
19 IN SUMMARY, THE IMPACTS ON THE DIRECTLY ADJACENT
20 RESIDENCES VARY QUITE WIDELY. THEY -- THERE ARE ONLY IMPACTS
21 TO EXISTING RESIDENCES WHICH ARE IN FACT DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO
22 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. THOSE -- THERE ARE A SCORE -- OR
23 20 OR MORE OF THOSE DIRECTLY ADJACENT RESIDENCES IN THE
24 SUMMIT AND AT THE NORTH END OF THE PROPERTY.
25 THE IMPACTS TO THOSE RESIDENCES VARY WIDELY,
26 DEPENDING ON THEIR EXACT LOCATION ON ADJACENT STREETS BECAUSE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
24
1 THE -- THE ADJACENT STREETS ARE HIGHER AT ONE END, BASICALLY,
2 THAN -- THAN THE OTHER. TALKING ABOUT SPYGLASS LANE, IN
3 PARTICULAR, THE WEST END IS QUITE A BIT HIGHER IN RELATION TO
woo
4 THE PROJECT.
5 THE WORST IMPACTS ON THOSE DIRECTLY ADJACENT
6 RESIDENCES, THE WORST IMPACT WOULD BE THEIR VIEW OF THE
7 MOUNTAINS WOULD BE COMPLETELY BLOCKED BY THE PROPOSED
8 STRUCTURES. THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THE ENTIRE PROPOSED
9 STRUCTURE FROM WELL INSIDE THEIR PROPERTY LINE OVER THE BLOCK
10 WALL THAT ' S BETWEEN THE TWO PROJECTS.
11 HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A VISUAL IMPACT
12 BEYOND THAT WHICH IS COMMON TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA TO THE
13 NORTH. IN OTHER WORDS, MANY HOUSES IN THAT AREA, SIMPLY
14 BECAUSE OF THE SHALLOW EAVE AND SLOPE OF THE TERRAIN, HAVE
15 THEIR VIEWS BLOCKED BY ADJACENT HOUSES.
16 THE HOUSES ALONG THAT NORTH EDGE OF THE PROPERTY
17 HAVE VIEWS OF THE MOUNTAINS IN MANY CASES AT THIS POINT
18 SIMPLY BECAUSE THERE IS NO DIRECTLY ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT.
19 AND ANY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA WOULD BLOCK SOME
20 VIEWS.
21 THE OTHER AREAS WE LOOKED AT ARE VIEWS -- AS I
22 SAID, DISTANT VIEWPOINTS FROM CAHUILLA HILLS, FROM HIGHWAY
23 74, AND FROM THE IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. THOSE ALL HAVE MUCH
24 LESSER IMPACTS. IN FACT, NONE OF THE IMPACTS UPON ANY VIEWS
25 ARE AT A SIGNIFICANT LEVEL.
26 DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
YATES & ASSOCIATES
25
1 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
2 ANY FURTHER STAFF REPORT?
3 MR. JOY, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER ON THE STAFF
4 REPORT?
5 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: NOTHING FURTHER AT THIS TIME,
6 MADAM CHAIRMAN.
7 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THEN I 'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING
8 AND ASK FOR ANY NEW COMMENTS THAT WE HAVEN'T PREVIOUSLY
9 HEARD, PREVIOUS TESTIMONY.
10 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: MR. BURNS, I HOPE THAT YOU HEARD
11 MY COMMENTS. IT' S THE SAME WITH YOU AS WITH THE OTHERS.
12 MR. BURNS: YES, I HAVE.
13 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THE COMMENTS SHOULD BE
tow 14 RESTRICTED TO NEW OR COMMENTS ABOUT COMMENTS WE HAVE
15 RECEIVED.
16 MR. BURNS: YES, WE WILL.
17 MADAM CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS, LADIES AND
18 GENTLEMEN, MY NAME IS MARVIN BURNS. I REPRESENT THE
19 APPLICANT. I 'M A LAWYER.
20 I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS JUST EXACTLY WHAT IT IS
21 THAT IS BEING RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF. I 'M SOMEWHAT
22 CONFUSED BECAUSE IN THE MEMORANDUM THAT WE RECEIVED JUNE
23 19TH, 1990, WHAT THEY SAY IS THIS:
24 "IF THE COMMISSION DOES NOT AGREE WITH
25 THE MITIGATION PROPOSED BY THE CONSULTANT,
26 THEN IT SHOULD BASE THEIR PROPOSED MITIGATION
YATES & ASSOCIATES
26
1 MEASURES ON OTHER EVIDENCE OR EXPERT TESTIMONY.
2 A SUGGESTED MITIGATION TO THE IMPACT ON THE
3 INSTITUTE WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT THAT THE
4 DEVELOPER CONSTRUCT AN ADDITIONAL LAMBING PEN
5 ON THE INSTITUTE ' S PROPERTY ON A TRIAL BASIS
6 PRIOR TO GRADING WITHIN THE BUFFER AREA. "
7 THE RESOLUTION -- THE BODY OF THE RESOLUTION, AS I
8 READ IT, DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY RECOMMENDATION FOR THE
9 ALTERNATIVE NO . 2 . IT MAKES -- IT REFERS TO FINDINGS, BUT IT
10 DOESN'T TELL US ABOUT WHAT IS MITIGATION.
11 AND, FRANKLY, WHEN I READ THIS, I THOUGHT THAT THE
12 PROPOSED MITIGATION WAS CONDITION NO. 13 :
13 "HOMES AND ROADWAY WITHIN 500 FEET OF
14 SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE SHALL INCLUDE
15 INSTALLATION OF MATURE TREES TO MITIGATE
16 LIGHT GENERATION AND VISTAS FROM BIGHORN
17 PENS. "
18 AND THAT' S THE ONLY PLACE WHERE I SAW ANY SPECIFIC
19 MITIGATION MEASURE RECOMMENDED. IT CAME AS A COMPLETE SHOCK
20 AND SURPRISE HERE TONIGHT TO HEAR MR. JOY SAY THAT THE
21 STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 .
22 AND WE VOCIFEROUSLY OPPOSE NO. 2 . WE OPPOSE IT
23 FOR THE REASONS THAT I STATED LAST, AND WE OPPOSE IT FOR THE
24 REASONS THAT I WILL EXPLAIN TO YOU IN A MOMENT, WHICH ARE
25 CUMULATIVE.
26 THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO MR. WILLIAMS ' LETTER, WHICH
YATES & ASSOCIATES
27
1 I REGARD AS MISLEADING, FULL OF HALF-TRUTHS AND
2 MISREPRESENTATIONS. I WILL STAND ON EXACTLY WHAT I SAID TO
3 THE COMMISSION. AND I FURNISHED YOU WITH A TRANSCRIPT LAST
4 WEEK.
5 FIRST OF ALL, WAS THE COUNTY TOLD THAT THE PROJECT
6 WAS COMPATIBLE IN THE SURROUNDING USES? WAS THE COUNTY TOLD
7 THAT? AND IF SO, BY WHOM? THE COUNTY TOLD ITSELF THAT, FOR
8 SURE. MR. WILLIAMS ' LETTER SAYS SO.
9 BUT IN ADDITION, TO A SUBSTANTIAL DEGREE,
10 MR. DE FORGE DID BECAUSE IN -- AND THAT' S A QUESTION THE
11 STAFF HAS, BY THE WAY, IN THEIR MEMORANDUM, AND I 'M ANSWERING
12 IT.
13 IN THE TRANSCRIPT THAT I HAVE OF THE HEARING
14 BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE INSTITUTE' S
15 APPLICATION ON OCTOBER THE 7TH, 1989 , AMONG OTHER THINGS, THE
16 COUNTY STAFF PERSON WHO WAS EXPLAINING THE PROJECT AT THE
17 BEGINNING OF THE PROCEEDINGS SAID:
18 "THERE HAS, HOWEVER, BEEN APPROVED A
19 SPECIFIC PLAN FOR BELLA VISTA WHICH COVERS
20 THE AREA NORTH OF THE SITE ON BOTH SIDES OF
21 HIGHWAY 74 WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. AND THIS
22 PROPOSAL IS FOR 1 ,000 LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
23 UNITS, 350 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE, AND
24 APPROXIMATELY 13 ACRES OF HOTEL WITH
mw 25 AMENITIES. "
26 AND IT THEN GOES ON AND A -- AN EXPLANATION.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
28
1 AND ON THIS ISSUE, MR. DE FORGE WAS ASKED BY
2 SOMEONE FROM THE COUNTY -- BECAUSE IT ' S LABELED "COUNTY" :
3 "WHAT ABOUT THOSE 1 , 000 HOUSES THAT ARE
rrr
4 GOING UP TO THE NORTH OF YOU? ARE THOSE KIND
5 OF A PROBLEM TO YOU?"
6 DE FORGE: "WE HAVE TALKED WITH
7 WESTINGHOUSE TO SOME DEGREE, AND I UNDERSTAND
8 THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE NECESSARILY HIGH
9 DENSITY. AND THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT WE WILL
10 HAVE TO ADDRESS WHEN WE GET THERE. BUT IT IS
11 OUR INTENT TO WALL OFF PEOPLE FROM WALKING ON
12 THE PROPERTY OR ANYTHING ELSE BECAUSE OF THE
13 NATURE OF THE WORK WE DO IN MINIMIZING" --
14 AND THERE' S A BLANK. THE END OF THE SENTENCE. ago
15 "BUT RIGHT NOW WESTINGHOUSE HAS BEEN
16 VERY MUCH INTERESTED IN OUR OPERATION AND
17 TRYING TO TIE IN AND MAKE IT SOMETHING THAT
18 WILL WORK FOR EVERYBODY. "
19 YOU NOTICE THAT MR. DE FORGE DID NOT SAY THAT THAT
20 USE WAS INCOMPATIBLE OR THAT ANY BUFFERS WERE NEEDED. AND
21 BEAR IN MIND THAT WHAT HE WAS APPLYING FOR WAS A CHANGE FROM
22 AN R- 1 OR RESIDENTIAL ZONE TO AN NA ZONE, OR NONASSET,
23 APPARENTLY IS WHAT IT' S CALLED.
24 THEN LATER IN THAT SAME PROCEEDING, THE COUNTY IS
25 SAYING:
26 "IS THERE A LOCAL WATER SUPPLY" --
YATES & ASSOCIATES
29
1 EXCUSE ME. I 'M READING THE WRONG THING .
2 OH. THEN SOMEBODY FROM THE COUNTY SAYS :
3 "IS WESTINGHOUSE STILL INVOLVED IN
4 EVERYTHING? IS THAT --
5 MR. DE FORGE: "THEY HAVE PURCHASED
6 THE BELLA VISTA PROPERTY, AND THEIR INTENT
7 IS TO PUT VERY NICE HOMES TO THE WEST OF US
8 AND ALSO SOME UP NORTH. I DON'T THINK THEY
9 ARE AS HIGH A DENSITY AS BELLA VISTA
10 ORIGINALLY HAD PLANNED. "
11 SO GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY WITH THE COUNTY AT THE
12 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING, MR. DE FORGE DIDN'T MENTION ANY
13 OF THE THINGS YOU'RE NOW BEING TOLD.
14 SECONDLY, THEN, IN THE -- IN THE -- IN
15 MR. WILLIAMS' LETTER, HE SAYS THAT THE CITY, YOUR CITY,
16 TACITLY APPROVED THIS PROJECT. AND YOU KNOW THAT IS NOT
17 CORRECT BECAUSE MR. DIAZ TOLD YOU THAT NO ONE EXPLAINED THAT
18 THERE WOULD BE ANY CLAIM OF INCOMPATIBILITY BETWEEN THE
19 INSTITUTE AND THE PROJECTS THAT WERE THEN PLANNED TO THE
20 NORTH. AND THAT'S ON PAGE 12, IF YOU CARE TO LOOK AT IT, OF
21 MR. WILLIAMS' LETTER.
22 MR. WILLIAMS POINTS OUT THAT THE HELIPAD WAS NOT
23 APPROVED. THAT' S CORRECT. IT WASN'T APPROVED. BUT OUR
24 POINT WAS THAT THE HELIPAD WAS PART OF A FUTURE PROJECT,
25 ALONG WITH A MUSEUM AND OTHER ITEMS THAT WOULD BE FOR --
26 REQUIRE A LOT OF HUMAN CONTACT, A LOT OF TRAVEL, A LOT OF
YATES & ASSOCIATES
30
1 NOISE, AND A LOT OF ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE NOW BEING TOLD
2 CAN'T EXIST COMPATIBLE WITH THE SHEEP.
3 THE COUNTY HEARING. THE COUNTY:
4 "SO, IS THIS GOING TO BE SOME KIND OF
5 A MEETING PLACE OR SOMETHING?"
6 DE FORGE: "THERE WOULD BE A FUTURE
7 MUSEUM FACILITY PLACED THERE, SO IT WOULD BE
8 BUILT AT THAT TIME. "
9 MEANING IN THE FUTURE, THEY INTEND TO PUT A MUSEUM
10 THERE. WELL, I SUBMIT THAT IF THEY CAN PUT A MUSEUM THERE
11 WITH THE ATTENDANT TRAVEL, WE CAN PUT A HOUSING PROJECT THERE
12 WITH THE ATTENDANT TRAVEL. THERE ISN'T A SIGNIFICANT
13 DIFFERENCE, IN MY MIND, BETWEEN THE TWO.
14 THERE IS -- THEY HAVE SAID THEY WOULD PLACE A
15 HELIPAD THERE. THE RECORD BEFORE THE COUNTY IS EXACTLY WHAT
16 I TOLD YOU IT WAS. THEY HAVE A FUTURE PLAN FOR A HELIPAD AND
17 A MUSEUM AND VISITOR AREAS AND PARKING AREAS AND SO ON, AND
18 TO CUT IT OUT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IN AN ATTEMPT TO GET A
19 NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WHICH WE ARE CONTESTING.
20 YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE
21 DOES -- HAS TWO -- TWO MISSIONS. YOU'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THE
22 BIGHORN INSTITUTE MISSION IS TO -- IS TO CARE FOR SHEEP WHO
23 ARE LAMBING AND ALSO TO TREAT THEM FOR DISEASE AND RELEASE
24 THEM INTO THE WILD.
25 HOWEVER, IT' S UNCLEAR TO ME, IN READING
26 MR. WILLIAMS ' LETTER, WHETHER OR NOT THAT IS CORRECT BECAUSE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
31
1 AT ONE PLACE HE SAYS THAT THE BIGHORN AT THE INSTITUTE --
2 THIS IS ON PAGE 12 . THIS IS THE SENTENCE:
3 "BIGHORN AT THE INSTITUTE WILL SPEND
m
4 THEIR ENTIRE LIFE CYCLE AT THE INSTITUTE,
5 LIVING, BREEDING AND DYING. "
6 THAT ' S A CONCEPT . THEY'RE THERE. IT ' S LIKE A
7 ZOO. THEY'RE THERE IN CAPTIVITY, AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE
8 RELEASED.
9 AND ON PAGE 14, HE SAYS:
10 "THE INSTITUTE IS NOT ONLY ATTEMPTING
11 TO RAISE SHEEP TO RETURN TO THE WILD, IT IS
12 DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE DISEASES AND THE
13 MORTALITY RATE ASSOCIATED WITH LAMBS . "
14 AND THEN, AGAIN:
15 "AS STATED ABOVE, THE INSTITUTE HAS
16 TWO OBJECTIVES. THESE OBJECTIVES ARE TO
17 RETURN BIGHORN TO THE WILD AND INCREASE
18 THEIR POPULATION THROUGH ELIMINATING THE
19 MORTALITY RATE AND DISEASES AFFECTING THE
20 BIGHORN. "
21 THERE IS AN INCONSISTENCY IN WHAT I JUST READ YOU,
22 AS THERE IS AN INCONSISTENCY IN WHAT WAS TOLD THE COUNTY AND
23 WHAT YOU'RE BEING TOLD.
24 AND THERE' S ANOTHER INCONSISTENCY THAT SHOULDN'T
+ter 25 GO UNANSWERED. MR. DIAZ, IN HIS MEMORANDUM, ADDRESSES IT IN
26 PART, BUT I WANT TO ADDRESS IT SPECIFICALLY.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
32
1 YOU'RE TOLD IN MR. WILLIAMS ' LETTER THAT THE
2 E. I .R. THAT ' S BEEN PREPARED IS INSUFFICIENT. IT IS NOT- A
3 FULL-BLOWN E. I .R. WELL, THE REASON IT ' S NOT A FULL-BLOWN
4 E. I .R. IS THAT THIS E. I .R. WAS -- CAME INTO EXISTENCE, IF YOU
5 WILL -- IT HAD ITS GENESIS IN THE COMPLAINT OF THE BIGHORN
6 INSTITUTE THAT AN E. I .R. HAD TO BE PREPARED.
7 A LETTER OF NOVEMBER 2 , 1989 FROM MR. DE FORGE TO
8 MR. DIAZ SAID:
9 "WE FEEL A RESPONSIBLE BIOLOGICAL
10 EVALUATION OF THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS
11 NECESSARY AND, THUS, A FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL
12 IMPACT REPORT MUST BE CONDUCTED. "
13 SO THEY ASKED FOR A FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
14 REPORT. AND NOW THAT THEY'VE GOT A FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL
15 IMPACT REPORT , THEY'RE TELLING YOU THAT WHAT THEY NEED IS A
16 FULL-BLOWN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
17 THOSE ARE THREE INSTANCES WHERE THEIR POSITION IS
18 TOTALLY, IRRECONCILABLY INCONSISTENT. AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE
19 PERMITTED TO BLOW HOT AND COLD.
20 THEY TOLD MR. HAYHOE THAT IT WAS OKAY TO GO AHEAD
21 AND BUY THIS LAND AND PROCEED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT. THEY
22 KNEW THAT THERE WAS THE BELLA VISTA DEVELOPMENT COMING ALONG.
23 THEY WENT TO THE COUNTY AND, AT BEST -- AT BEST, THEY MISLED
24 THE COUNTY BECAUSE, GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY, THEY DIDN'T TELL
25 THE COUNTY THAT THEY REGARDED THEIR USE AS INCOMPATIBLE WITH
26 A 1 , 000 HOME DEVELOPMENT/HOTEL DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS
YATES & ASSOCIATES
33
1 CONTEMPLATED TO THE NORTH. THEY ASKED FOR A FOCUSED E. I .R.
2 AND THEY GOT A FOCUSED E. I .R. , AND NOW THEY DON'T LIKE -IT.
3 AND THEY CAN'T EVEN GET STRAIGHT WHAT THEIR
.r
4 MISSION IS. IS IT TO KEEP SHEEP IN CAPTIVITY FOR THEIR LIFE
5 CYCLE OR IS IT TO MAKE THEM WELL AND RELEASE THEM TO THE
6 WILD? WE DON'T KNOW.
7 AND THEY TELL YOU OTHER THINGS. THEY CHALLENGE
8 OUR EXPERTS AS BEING PAID. WELL, THEY HAVE TO BE.
9 SOMEBODY' S GOT TO PAY THEM. SOMEBODY' S PAYING THESE OTHER
10 EXPERTS, PRESUMABLY, OR THEY'RE DOING IT OUT OF THEIR
11 RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. DE FORGE.
12 AND I THINK AN INTELLIGENT INQUIRY, IF THIS IS AN
13 ISSUE, IS: WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP OF THESE GENTLEMEN WHO
14 TESTIFY ON BEHALF OF THE INSTITUTE TO MR. DE FORGE? IN THE
15 PAST THEY'VE TESTIFIED AT OTHER PROCEEDINGS IN THE SAME WAY.
16 I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT
17 EXIST, THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE APPROVED WITHOUT ANY MITIGATION
18 MEASURES OTHER THAN THOSE THAT ARE CONTAINED IN THE STAFF
19 REPORT CONDITIONS.
20 MR. CRISTE WILL SPEAK ON BIOLOGICAL ISSUES.
21 MAY I ASK, MADAM CHAIRMAN, THE REPORTER LAST WEEK
22 ASKED MB, AND I 'M SURE THE REPORTER THIS WEEK WOULD ASK ME,
23 AT APPROXIMATELY AN HOUR OF THIS HEARING, ASSUMING IT GOES
i .
24 THAT LONG, WHICH I PRESUME IT WILL, CAN SHE HAVE A
25 FIVE-MINUTE RECESS IN ORDER TO REST HER FINGERS AND SO ON?
26 WE WOULD APPRBCIATB THAT.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
34
1 THANK YOU.
2 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION WHILE
3 WE'RE - - AT THIS POINT ON SOMETHING MR. BURNS HAD TO SAY.
4 MAYBE IT ' S TO YOU, MR. BURNS, MAYBE IT ' S TO THE CITY STAFF.
5 YOU EXPRESSED CONFUSION THAT THE STAFF
6 RECOMMENDATION. I GUESS NOW I 'M EQUALLY CONFUSED.
7 MR. JOY, YOU MENTIONED ALTERNATIVE 2 , BUT I ALSO
8 DIDN'T SEE IT SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO, NOR DID I SEE SOME OF
9 THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALTERNATIVE 2.
10 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: THAT ' S -- THE RESOLUTION THAT WE
11 BROUGHT BEFORE YOU IS -- WE ' LL ADMIT THAT IT IS PRETTY VAGUE
12 AND THERE WERE A LOT OF HOLES IN IT. WE WERE HOPING THE
13 COMMISSION WOULD WANT TO FILL IT IN THEMSELVES AFTER HEARING
14 SOME OF THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. Mimi
15 JUST FOR THE RECORD, THOSE ARE THE SAME
16 RESOLUTIONS WE BROUGHT BEFORE YOU LAST NOVEMBER, AND IT -- AS
17 TO THE WORDING OF IT AS IT RELATES TO MITIGATION MEASURES,
18 THE MITIGATION MEASURES IDENTIFIED IN THE RESOLUTION WOULD BE
19 THOSE THAT WERE IDENTIFIED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
20 REPORT.
21 AND I 'LL JUST GO ON THE RECORD RIGHT NOW. I KNOW
22 THERE'S ONE CONDITION NO. 10, AS IT RELATES TO ARCHEOLOGICAL
23 FINDINGS ON THE SITE, THAT SHOULD BE STRICKEN FROM THE
24 RESOLUTION ALTOGETHER BECAUSE THAT' S NOW COVERED IN THE
25 E. I .R. , AND THE ARCHEOLOGICAL SECTION HAS BEEN DONE.
26 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: SO YOUR RECOMMENDATION FOR
YATES & ASSOCIATES
35 j
1 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 IS NOT INCORPORATED INTO THE WRITTEN
2 RESOLUTION THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US , IT WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO
3 THOSE MITIGATIONS?
tow
4 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: THAT WOULD BE - - THAT WOULD BE
5 BEFORE YOU RIGHT NOW. I 'M NOT NECESSARILY RECOMMENDING THAT
6 RESOLUTION TO YOU, BUT THAT IS THE RESOLUTION THAT IS BEFORE
7 YOU RIGHT NOW.
8 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: THE MITIGATION MEASURES IN
9 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 ARE NOT CONTAINED IN YOUR WRITTEN REPORT?
10 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: THEY'RE CONTAINED IN THE
11 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
12 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: OKAY.
13 MR. BURNS: IS THERE A QUESTION TO ME ON THAT SCORE
r,.► 14 OR --
15 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: WELL, I GUESS I 'M TRYING TO
16 CLEAR IT UP FOR THE BOTH OF US. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I - -
17 MR. BURNS: I 'M STILL CONFUSED.
18 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: I #M STILL CONFUSED.
19 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: JUST TO CLEAR IT UP, AS I -- AS
20 I WROTE DOWN, I THINK THE LAST SECTION OF THE RESOLUTION
21 SAYS:
22 "SUBJECT TO MITIGATION MEASURES AND
23 CERTIFICATION OF FOCUSED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
24 REPORT SUBJECT TO MITIGATION MEASURES. "
r.► 25 IF WE JUST ADD ON TO THAT SENTENCE IN THERE,
26 THAT ' S IDENTIFIED IN THE E. I .R.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
36
1 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: LIKE IN THE ORIGINAL THING?
2 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: NO. THAT ' S NOT IN THE
3 RESOLUTION THAT ' S BEFORE YOU NOW. IT WOULD NEED TO BE
4 AMENDED TO STATE THAT.
5 MR. BURNS: WELL, I MEAN YOU RECOGNIZE THAT IF THE
6 MITIGATION MEASURES THAT ARE RECOMMENDED IN THE E. I .R. ARE
7 ADOPTED, THE PROJECT IS DESTROYED. I MEAN YOU CAN'T BUILD
8 THIS PROJECT WITH THOSE MITIGATION MEASURES.
9 SO WHAT WE -- WE HAVE A SET OF FINDINGS THAT WE
10 WILL PRESENT AND WE WOULD ASK YOU TO ADOPT.
11 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: IF I COULD CLARIFY ONE MORE
12 THING, ONE OF MR. BURNS ' STATEMENTS.
13 YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT MY TWO STAFF REPORTS I
z
14 WROTE. AND I THINK ON JUNE 5TH, I WAS TALKING ABOUT ONE
15 STAFF REPORT, WHERE I GAVE THE COMMISSION SOME INPUT AS FAR
16 AS TWO DIFFERENT EXPERTS' OPINIONS. AND YOU TAKE THE PUBLIC
17 TESTIMONY AND YOU LISTEN TO THE EXPERTS ' OPINIONS AND YOU
18 BASE SOME OF THOSE MITIGATION MEASURES ON EXPERT OPINIONS
19 THAT YOU RECEIVE INPUT FROM.
20 MR. BURNS: WELL, AS I UNDERSTAND -- I UNDERSTAND WHAT
21 MR. JOY SAID, THAT WHAT THE COMMISSION IS BEING REQUESTED TO
22 DO IS TO FASHION ITS OWN MITIGATION MEASURES. THAT' S WHAT I
23 THOUGHT I HEARD HIM SAY.
24 THE STAFF IS SAYING, "WELL, YOU CAN TAKE THE
25 E. I.R. , YOU CAN TAKE WHAT WE RECOMMENDED IN THE JUNE 19TH,
26 MEMORANDUM, YOU CAN TAKE WHAT' S IN THE CONDITIONS, OR YOU
YATES & ASSOCIATES
37
1 CANNOT RECOMMEND ANY. " I GATHER THAT' S WHAT ' S BEING SAID.
2 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: I SPOKE A LITTLE BIT MORE
3 ELOQUENTLY THAN THE WAY YOU JUST PUT IT, BUT THAT IS THE WAY
vow
4 I WROTE THE RESOLUTION.
5 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: MR. BURNS, WHAT YOU SAID IS THE
6 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AS THEY ARE CONTAINED IN THE WRITTEN
7 STAFF REPORT, ARE ACCEPTABLE, BUT WHAT MR. JOY IS SUGGESTING
8 IS THAT WE ALTER THE MITIGATION MEASURES RECOMMENDED IN
9 ALTERNATIVE 2 . AND THAT ' S WHAT CAUSES YOU TO SAY THAT, WITH
10 THE ADDITIONAL ADDITION OF THOSE MITIGATION MEASURES , THE
11 PROJECT WOULD BE UNFEASIBLE?
12 MR. BURNS: CORRECT.
13 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: THANK YOU.
14 MR. BURNS: AS PLANNED.
15 MR. CRISTE: MADAM CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION,
16 JOHN CRISTE, TERRA NOVA PLANNING AND RESEARCH, 275 NORTH
17 EL CIELO IN PALM SPRINGS.
18 I WILL ATTEMPT TO BE AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE AND
19 FOCUS ON NEW MATERIALS.
20 FIRST, I 'D LIKE TO HAND OUT A VISUAL IMPACT
21 ANALYSIS THAT WAS PREPARED BY STEVE CARUTHERS AND SWCA
22 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS.
23 REAL BRIEFLY, THE CONSULTANT WAS ASKED TO PREPARE
24 A VIEW SHED ANALYSIS AS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING
25 LANDS WOULD BE VIEWED FROM THE PENS THAT ARE THE ISSUE OF
26 CONTENTION WITH REGARD TO THE BIGHORN FACILITIES.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
38
1 WHAT WAS DONE IS THAT A COMPUTER MODEL WAS
2 EMPLOYED TO DEVELOP THE ANALYSIS. IT SYNTHESIZED THE TOPO OF
3 THE BIGHORN SHEEP INSTITUTE PROPERTY, THE ALTA MIRA PROPERTY
4 AND ALSO ADJACENT PROPERTIES AT FIVE-FOOT CONTOUR INTERVALS
5 AND GRIDDED IT INTO 50-FOOT CELLS .
6 THE -- WITHIN THE PEN ITSELF, 133 INDIVIDUAL
7 VIEWPOINTS WERE IDENTIFIED. AND FROM THOSE VIEWPOINTS, AN
8 ANALYSIS WAS DONE OF VIEWS TO ANY OTHER PORTION OUTSIDE OF
9 THOSE PENS AND WHAT THE RELATIVE VISIBILITY OF THOSE SITES
10 WOULD BE.
11 THE ANALYSIS THEN BRACKETED THE VIEW INTO SIX
12 CATEGORIES WHICH ARE COLOR-CODED IN THE COMPUTER PRINTOUT.
13 AND THEY RANGE FROM AN UNSEEN OR UN -- NONVISIBLE STATE --
14 THAT IS THE WHITE ON THE EXHIBIT - - TO A VERY HIGH VISIBILITY
15 FROM WITHIN THE PENS OR ANY PORTION WITHIN THE PENS. AND
16 THAT IS THE HOT PINK THAT YOU SEE IN THE EXHIBIT.
17 THE -- JUST REAL BRIEFLY, IT INDICATES THAT --
18 THAT THE VIEW SHED ANALYSIS INDICATES THAT APPROXIMATELY
19 63 PERCENT OF THE AREA ON THE ALTA MIRA PROJECT IS NOT
20 VISIBLE WITHIN ANY PART OF THE -- OF THE SUBJECT PEN FOR A
21 DISTANCE OF 200 YARDS. IT ALSO INDICATES 37 PERCENT OF THAT
22 AREA WITHIN 200 YARDS IS VISIBLE FROM LESS THAN 20 PERCENT OF
23 THE PEN AREA.
24 THE REASON FOR THIS IS THE NATURAL VISUAL
25 SCREENING AS A RESULT OF THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC RELIEF AND
26 THE ELEVATION DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PENS, WHICH WE POINTED
YATES & ASSOCIATES
39
1 OUT LAST TIME. I DON'T WANT TO BELABOR THE POINT TO ANY
2 GREAT LENGTH.
3 IT ALSO INDICATES, HOWEVER, THAT THERE ARE MANY
4 OPPORTUNITIES FOR SCREENING WHERE IT' S FELT TO BE APPROPRIATE
5 ADJACENT TO ROADS OR SENSITIVE USE AREAS THAT MIGHT BE OF
6 CONCERN. THE EXHIBIT PRETTY MUCH SPEAKS FOR ITSELF.
7 NEXT I WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY ADDRESS JUST THE
8 BIOLOGICAL ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED IN THE COMMENTS FROM THE
9 ATTORNEY, MR. WILLIAMS, ON BEHALF OF THE INSTITUTE. I
10 HAVEN'T SUFFICIENT COPIES TO PASS AROUND, SO I 'LL JUST REAL
11 QUICKLY READ THROUGH THESE. THEY'RE VERY BRIEF.
12 THE LETTER REFERENCES SECTION 15125 OF CEQA, WHICH
13 REQUIRES A SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON RARE AND UNIQUE ENVIRONMENTAL
14 RESOURCES. IT IS OUR CONTENTION THAT -- THAT WE HAVE CLEARLY
15 DEMONSTRATED THAT THERE ARE NO UNIQUE OR RARE ENVIRONMENTAL
16 RESOURCES OF SIGNIFICANCE WITHIN THE AREA OF INFLUENCE WITHIN
17 THE ALTA MIRA PROJECT AND THAT, AT BEST, THE PENS CONSTITUTE
18 QUESTIONABLE LAND USE BUT NOT, IN AND OF THEMSELVES, AN
19 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCE.
20 IT' S ALSO REFERENCED THAT THE INSTITUTE IS
21 REDUCING THE MORTALITY OF LAMBS BORN IN THE WILD. WE FEEL
22 THAT THERE IS NO CORRELATION ESTABLISHED BETWEEN THE
23 REMOTENESS OF THE PENS WITH THE SUCCESS THAT THEY'VE HAD IN
24 ENHANCING THE SURVIVAL RATE OF THE LAMBS.
r. 25 IT' S ALSO CLEAR THAT THERE' S NO EVIDENCE OF
26 ADVERSE EFFECTS UPON THE INSTITUTE OPERATIONS BY THE ALTA
YATES & ASSOCIATES
40
1 MIRA PROJECT, AND EVIDENCE CONTRADICTING THIS POSITION HAS
2 NOT BEEN PROVIDED. THE ARGUMENT THAT THE SHEEP WILL BE-
3 ADVERSELY AFFECTED IS PURELY SPECULATIVE.
4 REFERENCE, ALSO, TO THE CONTINUED MENTION OF
5 UNIQUE AND RARE CHARACTER OF THE DESERT WASH, BIGHORN
6 HABITAT, AND THE DESERT TORTOISE. THE QUALIFICATIONS OF
7 THESE RESOURCES HAS BEEN EFFECTIVELY DISPUTED, WE FEEL.
8 MR. WILLIAMS WOULD LIKE THE COMMISSION TO AVOID
9 BEING CONFUSED BY FACTS AND WOULD LIKE TO PERPETUATE WHAT WE
10 THINK IS ERRONEOUS INFORMATION OR, AT THE VERY BEST,
11 ERRONEOUS CONCLUSIONS.
12 ALSO, MR. WILLIAMS CITES A PARAGRAPH FROM
13 DR. DUPREY' S APRIL 28TH LETTER, WHICH YOU'LL FIND IN THE
14 EARLIER STAFF REPORT OF JUNE 5TH. HE CLAIMS THAT THIS IS AN.rr
15 EXAMPLE THAT SHOWS THAT THE SHEEP ARE SENSITIVE TO HUMAN
16 ACTIVITIES.
17 MR. WILLIAMS FAILS TO POINT OUT THAT THE SHEEP DID
18 IN FACT STAY IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF THE RITZ CARLTON
19 HOTEL, ALTHOUGH THEY DID GO JUST IMMEDIATELY OVER THE RIDGE
20 TO AVOID BEING SEEN BY CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AT THE MIRADA
21 PROJECT.
22 EXAMPLE ALSO IS OF WILD SHEEP AND DOES NOT TAKE
23 INTO ACCOUNT THE RELATIVELY UNSTRESSED STATE OF THE CARED-FOR
24 SHEEP THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, A CAPTIVE HERD, EFFECTIVELY, IN THi
25 PENS.
26 THE COMMISSION IS REFERENCED TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH
YATES & ASSOCIATES
41
1 OF DR. DUPREY' S LETTER WHICH STATES, QUOTE:
2 I AM NOT CONVINCED THAT THE PLACEMENT
3 OF RESIDENTIAL LAND USES NEAR THE BIGHORN
4 INSTITUTE FACILITIES WILL NECESSARILY BE
5 DETRIMENTAL TO THE RELEASE OF BIGHORN INTO
6 THE WILD OR THAT IT WILL CAUSE A REDUCTION
7 IN THE SUCCESS OF THE INSTITUTE TO PRODUCE
8 HEALTHY NEW LAMBS FOR AUGMENTATION OF THE
9 POPULATION OR FOR VETERINARY RESEARCH. "
10 MR. WILLIAMS ALSO REFERENCES AND STATES THAT THE
11 ALTA MIRA PROJECT, AGAIN, WILL INCLUDE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN
12 150 FEET OF THE SHEEP PENS. HE ALSO CITES DR. DUPREY' S
13 LETTER AS AN ARGUMENT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A BUFFER
it 14 GREATER THAN THAT WHICH IS ALREADY PROVIDED BY NATURAL
15 CONDITIONS AT THE TWO SITES.
16 FIRST, THE CLOSEST DEVELOPMENT PORTION OF THE SITE
17 IS A MINIMUM OF 400 FEET FROM THE PENS, NOT TO MENTION A
18 MINIMUM ELEVATION OF 130 FEET DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PENS AND
19 THE ALTA MIRA SITE. THIS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT SEVERAL TIMES
20 AND YET IT KEEPS RISING AGAIN AND AGAIN.
21 ALSO, THAT IF MR. WILLIAMS' LOGIC REGARDING THE
22 RITZ CARLTON SHEEP WERE CORRECT, THE SHEEP WOULD HAVE LEFT
23 THE AREA RATHER THAN JUST HAVING MOVED A FEW FEET TO BE OUT
24 OF SIGHT OF THE CONSTRUCTION AT THE MIRADA SITE.
•+ 25 SHEEP IN THE PENS ARE LESS LIKELY TO BE STRESSED
26 BY DEVELOPMENT AT THE ALTA MIRA SITE AND HAVE THE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
42
1 OPPORTUNITIES TO ENJOY THE VIEWS OF THE DEVELOPMENT IF
2 THEY'RE SO INCLINED.
3 MR. WILLIAMS ALSO STATED THAT, QUOTE -- "WITH ALL
4 RHETORIC ASIDE" -- I THINK TONGUE WAS DEEPLY IN CHEEK WITH
5 THAT COMMENT. HE STATES: "-- THE ALTA MIRA APPROVAL, AS
6 PROPOSED, WILL ERODE THE BIGHORN HABITAT. "
7 HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE SUBJECT DEVELOPMENT
8 ALONE WOULD RAPIDLY MOVE A THREATENED SPECIES INTO A CATEGORY
9 OF ENDANGERED SPECIES AND MOST LIKELY AN EXTINCT SPECIES.
10 IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE BLM AND THE FISH AND - GAME
11 HAVE CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THE ALTA MIRA SITE AND THE
12 BIGHORN INSTITUTE ARE NOT LOCATED IN AN AREA OF SHEEP
13 DISTRIBUTION.
14 I MIGHT ALSO REFERENCE THE PORTION FROM THE BLM ' S
15 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WHICH CLEARLY STATES THAT THE REASON
16 THAT THE SITE WAS SELECTED WAS THE FACT THAT THERE WERE - - IT
17 WAS NOT CONSIDERED HABITAT AND THERE WERE NO SHEEP IN THE
18 AREA.
19 NOW, WE HAVE TO RELY ON THESE AGENCIES TO PROVIDE
20 US WITH INFORMATION AND TO DO LONG-TERM PLANNING AND TO BE
21 ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE ENVIRONMENT. THE ENVIRONMENT SHOULD
22 NOT BE A MOVING TARGET NOR SHOULD THE INFORMATION THAT WE 'RE
23 PROVIDED.
24 SECONDLY, MR. WILLIAMS ' STATEMENT REGARDING THE
25 PROJECT' S POTENTIAL, THAT IT ALONE COULD CAUSE A CHANGE IN
26 THE STATUS OF THE SHEEP AND POSSIBLY THEIR EXTINCTION IS, IN
YATES & ASSOCIATES
43
1 FACT, RHETORIC. IT IS ALSO AN ALARMIST STATEMENT THAT DOES A
2 DISSERVICE TO THE EFFORTS OF OTHERS TO BRING IN SOMETIMES
3 OTHERWISE HIGHLY IRRATIONAL PERSPECTIVES TO ENVIRONMENT
4 ISSUES IN THE RESOLUTION.
5 THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT, ALL RHETORIC
6 ASIDE , THE ALTA MIRA PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT
7 IMPACT ON THE INSTITUTE OR ITS ACTIVITIES AND THAT THE
8 PROJECT AND THE ADJOINING WESTINGHOUSE PROJECT HAVE THE
9 DISTINCT POTENTIAL TO ENHANCE THE INSTITUTE' S FACILITIES AND
10 THE PLIGHT OF THE BIGHORN IN THE SANTA ROSAS.
11 FINALLY, MR. WILLIAMS STATES THAT THE DRAFT E. I .R.
12 IS DEFICIENT BECAUSE IT LACKS A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
13 RECORDING PROGRAM. THIS IS ERRONEOUS. AB 3180, WHICH
14 ENACTED THIS PROGRAM, DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT SUCH A PROGRAM BE
15 ESTABLISHED PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OR CERTIFICATION OF AN
16 E. I .R. . THEREFORE, THE SPECIFIC PLAN -- RATHER THE SMITH,
17 PERONI & FOX B. I .R. IS NOT DEFICIENT IN THIS RESPECT.
18 FINALLY, BEFORE I OFFER WHAT I FEEL ARE ADEQUATE
19 FINDINGS THAT THE COMMISSION COULD MAKE WITH REGARD TO THIS
20 PROJECT, I 'D LIKE TO, REAL BRIEFLY, ADDRESS THE STATEMENTS
21 MADE BY MR. CORNETT.
22 IT IS -- IT SHOULD BE KEPT IN MIND THAT THE
23 COACHELLA VALLEY HAS BEEN UNDER DEVELOPMENT FOR APPROXIMATELY
24 150 YEARS IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. HUMAN ACTIVITY HAS, EVEN IN
.. 25 SOME OF THE MOST REMOTE PORTIONS OF THE DESERT, HAS AFFECTED
26 DESERT WASH HABITAT. AND YOU CAN FIND EVIDENCE OF THAT JUST
YATES & ASSOCIATES
44
1 ABOUT ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES.
2 TO ARGUE THAT WE CANNOT FIND A WASH THAT IS
3 COMPARABLE, I WOULD POINT TO HAYSTACK ROAD, WHICH MY MOTHER, '
4 A TRANSPLANTED PENNSYLVANIAN, WALKS EVERY MORNING AND IS
5 AMAZED BY THE SMOKE TREES THAT ARE THERE.
i
6 I WOULD OFFER THAT WE COULD HAVE AN EQUALLY UNIQUE
7 AND DENSE SMOKE TREE ENVIRONMENT ANYWHERE YOU CARE TO FOCUS
8 FLOWS AS THEY HAVE BEEN FOCUSED ON THIS PROJECT PROPERTY.
9 THIS IS NOT AN UNDISTURBED FACILITY, THIS IS AN ARTIFICIAL
10 CONDITION THAT EXISTS ON THIS SITE. SO IF THERE IS AN
11 UNUSUALLY HIGH DENSITY, IT' S NOT A NATURAL CONDITION.
12 AS REGARDS THE TORTOISE, THERE, AGAIN, IT ' S NOTED
13 THAT THEY'RE NOT A HIGH DENSITY. IT IS A LISTED ANIMAL. WE
14 SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT SOME ENDANGERED SPECIES, CERTAINLI
15 BUT, AGAIN, IT SEEMS TO US THAT IF WE HOPE TO BUILD A
16 CONSENSUS THAT ALLOWS US, AS A SOCIETY, TO MOVE FORWARD AND
17 MITIGATE THESE PROBLEMS APPROPRIATELY, THE LAST THING WE NEED
18 TO DO IS POLARIZE THESE ISSUES AS THEY'RE BEING TONIGHT.
19 WITH REGARD TO BIGHORN HABITAT, I THINK I 'VE
20 MENTIONED ENOUGH WITH REGARDS TO THAT WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT
21 WE MIGHT WONDER TO WHAT EXTENT THE HERD HAS IN FACT BEEN
22 ENHANCED BY THE AVAILABILITY OF WATER, BOTH THE GUZZLERS AND
23 BY THE SWIMMING POOLS AND BY VEGETATION THAT HAS BEEN
24 AVAILABLE DURING UNUSUAL DROUGHT PERIODS IN SOUTHERN `
25 CALIFORNIA.
26 THE GNATS, NOT ENOUGH IS KNOWN. MORE RESEARCH IS
YATES & ASSOCIATES
45
1 REQUIRED. THAT' S TRUE OF JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING IN LIFE.
2 WITH REGARD TO OUR EXPERTS, EXPERTS ARE STILL
3 ARGUING OVER EINSTEIN' S THEORY OF RELATIVITY. ANY NUMBER OF
it
4 THINGS. THESE CRISES ARE --
5 I HAVE WORKED AND WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH
6 MR. CORNETT AND, ALSO, WITH MY FRIEND MIKE PERONI . AND THIS
7 IS NOT A POSITION I -- I CHERISH BEING IN, BUT THE FACT OF
8 THE MATTER IS THAT MR. CARUTHERS AND -- DR. CARUTHERS AND HIS
9 STAFF ARE EXCEPTIONALLY QUALIFIED TO MAKE THE STATEMENTS THEY
10 HAVE. THE CONDITIONS DO NOT CHANGE RADICALLY BETWEEN ONE
11 PORTION OF THE COLORADO DESERT AND ANOTHER, AND THEIR
12 CONCLUSION IS AT LEAST AS VALID AS MR. CORNETT ' S IN THIS
13 RESPECT.
14 FINALLY, WITH REGARDS TO THE RECOMMENDED FINDINGS
15 THAT WE THINK CAN BE MADE -- AND SOME MAY THINK I JEST WITH
16 THESE FINDINGS. I DO NOT. I 'M ABSOLUTELY SERIOUS. WE
17 PROPOSE THAT, NUMBER ONE, THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE
18 A SIGNIFICANT DETRIMENTAL IMPACT UPON THE INSTITUTE OR ITS
19 OPERATIONS.
20 TWO, THE PROPOSED ALTA MIRA PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE
21 ANY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON ANY OF THE UNIQUE OR
22 RARE DESERT WASH OR SIMILAR HABITATS;
Z3 THAT THE PROPOSED ALTA MIRA PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE
24 A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON ANY SIGNIFICANT HABITAT OF THE DESERT
r.r 25 TORTOISE;
26' THAT THE PROPOSED ALTA MIRA PROJECT WILL NOT HAVE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
46
1 ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE HABITAT OF THE PENINSULAR
2 BIGHORN SHEEP ;
3 THAT IT WILL NOT HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON
4 ARCHEOLOGICAL RESOURCES WHICH COULD NOT BE MITIGATED;
5 AND THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY, IN
6 ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 15145 OF THE STATE CEQA GUIDELINES,
7 DETERMINE THAT IMPACTS ARGUED TO BE SIGNIFICANT ARE IN FACT
8 TOO SPECULATIVE FOR EVALUATION AND IT MAY TERMINATE
9 DISCUSSION ON THESE IMPACTS.
10 I ' LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY
11 HAVE.
12 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: APPARENTLY, THERE ARE NONE.
13 THANK YOU.
14 WHO ' S NEXT? ANYTHING FURTHER?
15 MR. HAYHOE: MY NAME IS JIM HAYHOE, THE DEVELOPER. I
16 DON'T THINK WE NEED TO SAY ANY MORE RIGHT NOW.
17 WILL WE GET A CHANCE TO A SAY A COUPLE OF WORDS AT
18 THE END OR NOT?
19 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: YES, YOU WILL.
20 MR. HAYHOE: WE WEREN'T PLANNING ON A LONG PUBLIC
21 HEARING TONIGHT. THAT' S WHY WE DON'T HAVE OUR BIOLOGISTS AND
22 ALL THESE PEOPLE HERE. WE WEREN'T PREPARED TO --
23 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: NEITHER WERE WE.
24 MR. HAYHOE: SO WHAT I 'D LIKE TO SAY, AS THE DEVELOPER,
25 SIMPLY IS THIS. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THERE ARE SOME
26 REASONABLE CONCERNS ABOUT THE VIEW SHED AND THE BIGHORN
YATES & ASSOCIATES
47
1 SHEEP.
2 AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT A REASONABLE MITIGAT-ION
3 THAT WE SHOULD BE OR COULD BE ASKED TO DO WOULD BE TO
rr
4 CONTRIBUTE FINANCIALLY TO THE REALIGNMENT OF THOSE PENS IN
5 THE SAME GENERAL LOCATION THEY'RE IN SO THAT THE PENS ARE NO
6 CLOSER THAN 400 YARDS TO OUR NEAREST HOME.
7 THAT SEEMED TO BE THE BOTTOM LINE. I 'VE SAT IN
8 MEETINGS IN THIS CONFERENCE ROOM HERE. THE BOTTOM LINE IS
9 THAT 400-YARD RADIUS. IF WE WERE TO FINANCIALLY CONTRIBUTE
10 TO THE POINT TO RELOCATE THE PENS SO THAT THE NEAREST ONE WAS
11 400 YARDS TO OUR CLOSEST HOME AND, IF THAT DETRACTED FROM THE
12 AREA OF THAT PEN, TO REALIGN THEM IN SOME OTHER PART OF THAT
13 HILL TO THE POINT WHERE THERE IS NO LOSS OF AREA, A.
..r 14 B, THAT WE BE REQUIRED, IF THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH
15 THE SMOKE TREE WASH AND THESE THINGS THAT YOU'RE HEARING FROM
16 ALL THESE BIOLOGISTS AND SO FORTH, THAT WE BE REQUIRED TO
17 MAINTAIN THAT WASH IN ITS NATURAL STATE OR AS CLOSE AS
18 POSSIBLE TO ITS NATURAL STATE UNTIL IT ' S FAR DOWN IN OUR
19 PROJECT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
20 IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT' S WHAT THE WHOLE THING
21 BOILS DOWN TO, AND THAT' S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE YOU
22 REQUIRE OF US. AND WE 'RE WILLING TO DO THAT.
23 THANK YOU.
24 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THANK YOU, MR. HAYHOE.
25 IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO ADDRESS THE
26 COMMISSION REGARDING THIS PROJECT?
YATES & ASSOCIATES
48
1 MR. WILLIAMS: I SUGGEST WE TAKE A BREAK.
2 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: GO AHEAD. PLEASE STEP FORWARD:
3 MS. ARTIS : MY NAME IS NANCY ARTIS. I LIVE AT 72-687
4 SPYGLASS LANE. MY PROPERTY IS RIGHT AT THE VERY NORTHEAST
5 CORNER OF THAT LITTLE JUT THAT COMES OUT.
6 IN NOVEMBER I ATTENDED THE MEETINGS, AND I 'VE BEEN
7 TO EVERY ONE OF THE MEETINGS SINCE THEN, AND I 'VE GONE OVER
8 THE E. I .R. REPORT. THE TWO AREAS THAT ARE OF BIGGEST CONCERN
9 TO THE HOMEOWNERS IN THE SUMMIT WERE, ONE, WATER DRAINAGE
10 COMING OFF OF THE GOLF COURSE THAT ' S PROPOSED AND OFF OF
11 RESIDUAL WATER COMING FROM THE SPRINKLING OF LAWNS. AND THE
12 SECOND ISSUE WAS THE LINE OF SIGHT ISSUE.
13 AFTER GOING OVER THE E. I .R. AND WITH THE DEVELOPER
14 WORKING WITH US IN THE SUMMIT AREA, I 'M VERY PLEASED WITH
15 WHAT HAS COME OUT OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND WHAT HAS COME
16 OUT OF THE REPORTS FOR THE DRAINAGE. SO MY HUSBAND AND I ARE
17 VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT BECAUSE WE'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT
18 HAVING THE WATER IN OUR BACKYARD.
19 AT THIS POINT, CONCERNING THE HEIGHT ELEVATIONS OF
20 WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE DISTANCE
21 BETWEEN THE HOMES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED THERE AND THE BACK
22 WALL FROM US, I 'M KIND OF CONFUSED AS TO WHAT MIGHT END UP
23 OCCURRING, BASED ON THE THREE ALTERNATIVES. THE ORIGINAL
24 PLAN LOOKS VERY APPEALING TO US AND THE OTHER PLANS, I 'M
25 REALLY NOT TOO SURE ABOUT.
26 UM, I AM VERY CONCERNED THAT IF YOU DO APPROVE THE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
49
1 RESOLUTION THAT YOU DO CONSIDER THE CONDITIONS THAT WERE
2 ORIGINALLY PRESENTED. I BELIEVE THERE WERE 24. BECAUSE
3 THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THOSE ISSUES THAT DO EFFECT THE
4 AESTHETICS AND THE ENVIRONMENT THAT WILL AFFECT, DIRECTLY,
5 THE HOMEOWNERS AT THE SUMMIT AREA.
6 IF THOSE DO NOT GET INCLUDED - - I DON'T RECALL
7 SEEING THEM IN THE B. I .R. -- I 'D BE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT
8 BECAUSE, UM, I DIDN'T SEE ANY SPECIFICS THERE IN TERMS OF
9 WHERE THE PAD ELEVATIONS WERE GOING TO BE IN REFERENCES TO
10 THE STREET ELEVATIONS AND SO FORTH.
11 AT THIS POINT, THOUGH, MY HUSBAND AND I ARE, UM,
12 IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT AND WE WOULD LIKE TO BE GOOD
13 NEIGHBORS.
14 THANK YOU.
15 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THANK YOU.
16 NOT KNOWING WHAT TIME THIS HEARING BEGAN, BUT
17 WISHING TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUEST THAT WAS GIVEN FOR A
18 RECESS AFTER AN HOUR, I 'LL RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES, WHICH
19 WILL TAKE US TO 9:05.
20 (RECESS. )
21 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: LET ' S CONTINUE WITH THE PUBLIC
22 HEARING AND ASK FOR THE NEXT SPEAKER. REMEMBER, THIS IS ON
23 ANYTHING NEW THAT WE HAVEN'T ALREADY HEARD.
24 MR. WILLIAMS: MAY IT PLEASE THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING
25 COMMISSION, MY NAME IS CRAIG WILLIAMS, AND I 'M AN ATTORNEY
26 WITH ALLEN, MATKINS, LBCK, GAMBLE & MALLORY, 18400 VON
YATES & ASSOCIATES
50
1 KARMAN, FOURTH FLOOR, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA, 92715 .
2 BY COMMISSIONER RICHARDS ' ADMONITION, I WILL- NOT
3 REPEAT ITEMS THAT ARE WITHIN MY LETTER, JUNE 12TH, 1990, OF
4 WHICH YOU HAVE A COPY WITH ITS ATTENDANT EXHIBITS, NOR WILL I
5 REPEAT THE COMMENTS THAT I MADE AT THE LAST HEARING, ONLY TO
i
6 ADDRESS THREE OF THE POINTS RAISED BY MR. BURNS WITH RESPECT
7 TO WHY THE INSTITUTE IS REQUESTING A FULL-BLOWN OR A FOCUSED
8 E. I .R.
9 IT IS CORRECT IN NOVEMBER OF 1989 THAT THE
10 INSTITUTE REQUESTED THE FOCUSED E. I .R. AND THE INSTITUTE, AT
11 THIS POINT, REQUESTS A FULL-BLOWN E. I.R. THE STATEMENT,
12 PERHAPS, IN MY LETTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN QUALIFIED TO CONSIDER
13 THE FACT THAT THE INSTITUTE RECOMMENDS AND ENDORSES
14 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 AS MODIFIED, AND THAT MODIFICATION IS SHOW1
15 IN THIS MAP, WHICH I 'LL PAUSE FOR A MOMENT TO GET AND SHOW
16 YOU.
17 THE INSTITUTE PROPOSED THAT THE CROSSHATCHED AREA
18 IN THIS MAP BE INCLUDED AS AN ADDITIONAL BUFFER TO
19 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 BECAUSE OF THE VIEW SHED FROM THE LAMBING
20 PENS. A COPY OF A REDUCED SIZE OF THIS LARGE EXHIBIT IS
21 INCLUDED IN THE PACKET IN MY LETTER TO YOU.
22 IF THE COMMISSION ELECTS TO RECOMMEND TO THE CITY
23 COUNCIL ANYTHING OTHER THAN ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 , THE INSTITUTE
24 WOULD REQUEST A FULL-BLOWN E. I .R. TO GIVE CONSIDERATION tO
25 ALL OF THE REMAINING POINTS. , p1
26 MR. BURNS COMMENTED ON MY LIVE, BREATHE, DIE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
51
1 COMMENT AND RETURN THE SHEEP TO THE WILD. IT IS TRUE THAT
2 APPROXIMATELY 20 OF THE INSTITUTE' S BIGHORN SHEEP , FOR SOME
3 SHARE OF THEIR LIFE, STAY IN THE INSTITUTE PENS. HOWEVER,
fir..
4 BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE PENS, THOSE THAT ARE BORN IN THERE
5 OR THOSE THAT -- THERE CAN ONLY BE A CONSTANT NUMBER OF SHEEP
6 IN THE PENS, SO THAT CONSEQUENTLY SOME OF THEM ARE RELEASED.
7 MR. BURNS POINTED OUT THAT THE COUNTY WAS NOT
8 INFORMED OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH OF THE INSTITUTE' S
9 PROJECT WHEN THE INSTITUTE SOUGHT ITS APPROVAL FROM THE
10 COUNTY. AND TO MAKE A MINOR REPEAT OF LAST WEEK' S -- OR TWO
11 WEEKS AGO COMMENT, CEQA REQUIRES THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION
12 AND THE CITY OF PALM DESERT ADDRESS EXISTING PHYSICAL
13 CONDITIONS. NOT THOSE THAT WERE OR COULD HAVE BEEN OR MAYBE
ter. 14 IF, BUT ONLY THOSE THAT EXIST AT THE TIME.
15 HOWEVER -- IN FACT, MR. BURNS DID NOT TELL ANY OF
16 THE COMMISSION MEMBERS ABOUT, THAT IS POINTED OUT IN MY
17 LETTER, THAT THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE SENT THE CITY A LETTER
18 DURING THE COUNTY' S APPROVAL PROCESS CAUTIONING IT ABOUT THE
19 NEED FOR A BUFFER IN THIS PROJECT AREA.
20 ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT IS BEFORE THE PLANNING
21 COMMISSION IS A LETTER FROM THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE
22 COUNCIL. NOW, I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT I DO NOT
23 REPRESENT THE NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL. HOWEVER,
24 THEY HAVE REQUESTED THAT I READ TO YOU A LETTER THAT IS DATED
25 TODAY, DIRECTED TO CAROL WHITLOCK, THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS
26 OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
52
1 IF YOU WILL INDULGE ME , I WILL READ THAT LETTER
2 INTO THE RECORD.
3 "THE NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
4 IS A NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ORGANIZATION WITH
5 130,000 MEMBERS AND 140-MEMBER STAFF OF
6 LAWYERS, SCIENTISTS, AND RESEARCH SPECIALISTS.
7 FOUNDED IN 1970, IT HAS A 20-YEAR RECORD OF
8 SUCCESSFUL ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION AND
9 ADVOCACY.
10 "ON BEHALF OF ITS APPROXIMATELY 15 ,000
11 MEMBERS WHO LIVE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, NRDC
12 SUBMITS THESE COMMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO
13 BIGHORN VENTURES' APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION
14 MAPPING AND REZONING TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF
15 THE ALTA MIRA COUNTRY CLUB PROJECT, A 484-UNIT
16 RESIDENTIAL COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT ON 362
17 ACRES IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT.
18 "BASED ON OUR REVIEW OF THE MAY 1990
19 DRAFT E.I.R. AND THE OTHER RELATIVE
20 DOCUMENTS, THE NRDC BELIEVES THAT APPROVAL
21 OF THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED BY THE BIGHORN
22 VENTURES WOULD BE INCONSISTENT BOTH WITH
23 THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
24 (CEQA) AND THE FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES
25 ACT (FESA) . AND ACCORDINGLY, THAT THE rrrf
26 REQUESTED LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS SHOULD BE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
53
1 DENIED.
2 "IN THE EVENT, HOWEVER, THAT THE CITY
3 ELECTS TO PROCEED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF
�.r
4 THE PROJECT SITE, WE URGE APPROVAL OF THE
5 D.E. I .R. ' S PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE 2 AS THE ONLY
6 ALTERNATIVE THAT INCORPORATES EVEN A MINIMALLY
7 ADEQUATE MITIGATION OF POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
8 ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE AREA' S UNIQUE AND
9 IRREPLACEABLE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES . AS SUCH,
10 IT IS THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE WHOSE APPROVAL BY -
11 THE CITY WOULD BE COLORABLY SUFFICIENT UNDER
12 CEQA OR FESA.
13 "CEQA MANDATES THAT STATE AND LOCAL
.r 14 PLANNING AGENCIES GIVE MAJOR CONSIDERATION TO
15 PREVENTING ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE WHEN
16 REGULATING ACTIVITIES AFFECTING THE
17 ENVIRONMENT.
18 "AS THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT
19 RECENTLY EMPHASIZED, 'THE FOREMOST
20 PRINCIPLE UNDER CEQA IS THAT THE LEGISLATURE
21 INTENDED THE ACT TO BE INTERPRETED IN SUCH A
22 MANNER AS TO AFFORD THE FULLEST POSSIBLE
23 PROTECTION TO THE ENVIRONMENT WITHIN THE
24 REASONABLE SCOPE OF THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE. "
�lw 25 "MORE THAN A DECADE AGO, WE OBSERVED
26 THAT, 'IT IS, OF COURSE, TOO LATE TO ARGUE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
54
1 FOR A GRUDGINGLY MISERLY READING OF CEQA. '
2 "IN ADDITION, THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY -OF
3 CEQA SUPPORTS THAT ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES ARE TO
4 BE ASSIGNED GREATER WEIGHT THAN THE NEEDS OF
5 ECONOMIC GROWTH. THE ACT THUS REQUIRES
6 DECISION-MAKERS TO ASSIGN GREATER PRIORITIES
7 TO ENVIRONMENTAL THAN ECONOMIC NEEDS.
8 THE HEART OF CEQA IS THE REQUIREMENT OF
9 AN E.I .R. DESCRIBING A PROJECT AND ITS
10 POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. E. I .R. ' S
11 ARE TO SERVE AS ENVIRONMENTAL ALARM BELLS TO
12 ALERT THE PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS
13 TO IMPENDING ENVIRONMENTAL HOT SPOTS BEFORE
14 IRREPARABLE HARM HAS OCCURRED.
15 "THE E. I.R. IS AN INFORMATIONAL
16 DOCUMENT, THE PURPOSE OF WHICH IS TO PROVIDE
17 PUBLIC AGENCIES AND THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL
18 WITH DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT THE EFFECT
19 WHICH A PROPOSED PROJECT IS LIKELY TO HAVE ON
20 THE ENVIRONMENT, TO LIST WAYS IN WHICH THE
21 SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS OF SUCH A PROJECT CAN BE
22 MINIMIZED, AND TO INDICATE ALTERNATIVES TO
23 SUCH A PROJECT. "
24 THERE ARE SOME FOOTNOTES WHICH I AM OMITTING VHIC
25 REFER THESE QUOTES AND CITATIONS TO PARTICULAR CASES.
26 THE LETTER CONTINUES:
YATES & ASSOCIATES
55
1 "FURTHER, THE CUMULATIVE IMPACTS OF
2 THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND OTHER FORESEEABLE
3 PROJECTS IN THE AREA MUST BE DISCUSSED IN
4 DETAIL IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT
5 FULLY.
6 "PERHAPS MOST PERTINENT HERE, CEQA
7 REQUIRES THAT THE PUBLIC AGENCY MAKE
8 APPROPRIATE FINDINGS FOR EACH SIGNIFICANT
9 IMPACT IDENTIFIED IN AN E. I .R. AND
10 INCORPORATE ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION
11 MEASURES BEFORE APPROVING A PROPOSED
12 PROJECT WITH SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL
13 IMPACTS.
tow 14 "GOVERNMENT RESOURCES CODE SECTION
15 21002 FORBIDS AGENCIES FROM APPROVING
16 PROJECTS WITH SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS
17 WHEN FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES OR FEASIBLE
18 MITIGATION MEASURES CAN SUBSTANTIALLY
19 LESSEN SUCH IMPACTS.
20 "THUS, CEQA REQUIRES THAT THE CITY
21 AND THIS COMMISSION IMPLEMENT ALL FEASIBLE
22 MEASURES NECESSARY TO MITIGATE ANY PROJECT
23 THAT WOULD OTHERWISE CAUSE SIGNIFICANT
24 ADVERSE IMPACTS.
,., 25 "ALTERNATIVES NO. 1 AND 2. CONSISTENT
26 WITH THIS MANDATE, THE D.E.I.R. FOR THE ALTA
YATES & ASSOCIATES
56
1 MIRA PROJECT CONSIDERS SEVEN ALTERNATIVES
2 RAISING FROM, QUOTE, NO PROJECT TO FULL-SCALE,
3 UNMITIGATED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED BY THE
woo
4 APPLICANT, AND CONCLUDES THAT ONLY
5 ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2 WOULD ADEQUATELY
6 PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES WITHIN
7 THE PROJECT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREAS .
8 "IT DOES SO BASED UPON ITS
9 IDENTIFICATION OF, QUOTE, FOUR SIGNIFICANT
10 BIOLOGICAL ELEMENTS THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY
11 SUFFER SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS BY THE
12 ALTA MIRA DEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED, INCLUDING:
13 "ONE, THE UNIQUE DESERT WASH ENVIRONMENT;
14 TWO, THE DESERT TORTOISE; THREE, THE FREE-
15 RANGING PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP; AND, FOUR,
16 THE RESEARCH ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE INSTITUTE.
17 EACH OF THESE ELEMENTS IS UNQUESTIONABLY
18 SIGNIFICANT.
19 "FIRST, RELATIVELY UNDISTURBED DESERT •
20 WASHES, SUCH AS THE UNIQUE WASH OCCURRING
21 ALONG THE SOUTHERN AND EASTERN BORDERS OF
22 THE PROJECT AREA, HAVE BECOME EXTREMELY RARE
23 IN THE COACHELLA VALLEY. BECAUSE THEY
i.
24 RECEIVE BOTH PRECIPITATION AND RUNOFF, THEY
25 FOSTER THE PRESENCE OF PLANT SPECIES THAT ARE �wf
26 NOT NORMALLY FOUND IN OTHER DESERT HABITATS,
YATES & ASSOCIATES
57
1 AND THEIR EDGES PROVIDE SITES FOR DESERT
2 TORTOISE BURROWS. WASH PRESERVATION,
3 THEREFORE, IS IMPORTANT TO THE CONTINUING
4 BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY OF THE COACHELLA REGION.
5 "SECOND, THE THREATENED DESERT TORTOISE
6 AND BIGHORN SHEEP POPULATION HAVE UNDENIABLE
7 ECOLOGICAL, EDUCATIONAL, HISTORICAL,
8 RECREATIONAL, AESTHETIC, ECONOMIC, AND
9 SCIENTIFIC VALUE. THESE WILDLIFE ANIMALS
10 ARE THREATENED WITH DESTRUCTION, EXTINCTION,
11 OR ADVERSE MODIFICATION, IN PART, AS A
12 CONSEQUENCE OF HUMAN ACTIVITIES.
13 "THE TORTOISE, FOR EXAMPLE, IS ALREADY
14 LISTED AS AN ENDANGERED SPECIES BECAUSE OF
15 THE DECLINE IN ITS POPULATION AND BECAUSE OF
16 ITS VULNERABILITY TO DISEASE AND HABITAT
17 DEGRADATION RESULTING FROM OFF-ROAD VEHICLES,
18 DESERT TRAINING MANEUVERS, AGRICULTURAL AND
19 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, AND MINERAL
20 EXTRACTION ACTIVITIES.
21 "THE PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP, WHICH
22 150 YEARS AGO NUMBERED BETWEEN 1 , 500,000 AND
23 200v000 (SIC) , TODAY TOTAL APPROXIMATELY
24 40,000 IN ALL OF NORTH AMERICA.
�ww 25 "IN CALIFORNIA, BIGHORN POPULATIONS
26 HAVE BEEN LOST FROM 16 MOUNTAIN RANGES IN THE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
58
1 LAST 40 YEARS WITH THE SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS IN
2 CALIFORNIA AMONG THE LARGEST POPULATION SITES.
3 "SINCE 1977 , APPROXIMATELY 90 PERCENT
4 OF THE LAMBS IN THE SANTA ROSAS HAVE BEEN
5 DYING, LEADING TO CONCERN FOR THE SPECIES '
6 SURVIVAL. TAKING NECESSARY PROTECTIVE MEASURES
7 NOW WILL CONTRIBUTE SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE
8 CONTINUING VIABILITY OF THESE ANIMALS.
9 "THIRD, THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE IS UNIQUE
10 IN ITS SUCCESS IN BREEDING AND RETURNING SHEEP
11 TO THE WILD. BY ALL ACCOUNTS, THE INSTITUTE
12 HAS MADE A MAJOR CONTRIBUTION TO THE
13 CONSERVATION OF DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP,
14 PARTICULARLY IN ITS RESEARCH EFFORTS ON VIRAL
15 AND BACTERIAL DISEASES OF WILD SHEEP AND IN
16 REARING CAPTIVE LAMBS THAT CAN BE USED IN
17 REESTABLISHING WILD POPULATIONS.
18 "CONSEQUENTLY, THE INSTITUTE HAS BEEN
19 RECOGNIZED AND SANCTIONED BY BOTH FEDERAL AND
20 STATE CONSERVATION MEASURES. MITIGATING
21 ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE RESEARCH ACTIVITIES OF
22 THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE WILL HELP FURTHER THE
23 NATIONWIDE CONCERN FOR PRESERVATION OF THIS
24 VALUABLE SPECIES.
25 "FINALLY, CEQA AND ITS REGULATIONS
26 EXPLICITLY RECOGNIZE THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
YATES & ASSOCIATES
59
1 THESE NATURAL AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES BY
2 REQUIRING, QUOTE, MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
3 SIGNIFICANCE, UNQUOTE, WHERE, QUOTE, THE
4 PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO SUBSTANTIALLY
5 DEGRADE THE QUALITY OF THE ENVIRONMENT,
6 SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE HABITAT OF THE FISH
7 OR WILDLIFE SPECIES, CAUSE THE FISH OR
8 WILDLIFE POPULATIONS TO DROP BELOW SELF-
9 SUSTAINING LEVELS , THREATEN OR ELIMINATE A
10 PLANT OR ANIMAL COMMUNITY, REDUCE THE NUMBER
11 OR RESTRICT THE RANGE OF A RARE OR ENDANGERED
12 PLANT OR ANIMAL, OR ELIMINATE IMPORTANT
13 EXAMPLES OF THE MAJOR PERIODS OF CALIFORNIA
14 HISTORY OR PREHISTORY. "
15 CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 16065 (A) , SEE ALSO PUBLIC
16 RESOURCES CODE SECTION 2103 . THAT ' S THE CITATION FOR THAT
17 QUOTE.
18 "IN THIS CASE THE RECORD UNQUESTIONABLY
19 SUPPORTS THE APPLICABILITY OF THESE MANDATORY
20 FINDINGS AND THE D.E. I .R. PROPERLY REFLECTS
21 SUCH INCLUSIONS.
22 "ALTERNATIVE 1 : NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Z3 WOULD CLEARLY PREVENT THESE IMPACTS. ON THE
24 ASSUMPTION THAT THE CITY MAY ELECT TO PROCEED
25 WITH THE DEVELOPMENT, HOWEVER, THE D.E. I .R.
26 IDENTIFIES SPECIFIC MEASURES TO MITIGATE ALL
YATES & ASSOCIATES
60
1 STUDIED ADVERSE BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF THE
2 PROJECT TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE.
3 "FOR EXAMPLE, IT PROPOSES THAT, QUOTE,
4 PRIOR TO ANY TENTATIVE MAP APPROVAL, THE
5 PROJECT DESIGN BE ALTERED SO THAT THE DESERT
6 WASH, DESERT TORTOISE HABITAT, AND THE WILD,
7 FREE-RANGING BIGHORN SHEEP HABITAT ARE
8 MAINTAINED IN THEIR NATURAL STATE.
9 "IN ADDITION, PRIOR TO ANY TENTATIVE
10 MAP APPROVAL, A 400-YARD BUFFER IS TO BE
11 INCORPORATED AS A PERMANENT OPEN SPACE INTO
12 THE PROJECT DESIGN.
13 "AND PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY
14 OCCUPANCY PERMITS, A 6-FOOT HIGH CONCRETE
15 WALL IS TO BE PROVIDED TO PREVENT COYOTES
16 FROM MOVING IN AND OUT OF THE RESIDENTIAL
17 AREA AND TO KEEP STRAY DOMESTIC DOGS FROM
18 WANDERING ONTO THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE' S
19 LANDS.
20 "CONCLUDING THAT EACH OF THESE
21 MEASURES IS NECESSARY, THE D.E. I .R.
22 INCORPORATES THEM INTO ALTERNATIVE 2 AND
23 RECOMMENDS ITS ADOPTION BY THE CITY IN ORDER
24 TO AVOID OR SUBSTANTIALLY LESSEN THE
25 PROJECTED IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ALTA MIRA
26 DEVELOPMENT. THAT WOULD MITIGATE OFF-SITE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
61
1 IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT TO A LEVEL OF
2 INSIGNIFICANCE.
3 "ACCORDING TO THE D.E. I .R. , THIS
err.
4 ALTERNATIVE IS NOT ONLY FEASIBLE" - -
5 AND THERE ARE FOOTNOTES. SECTION 15364 OF THE
6 GUIDELINES, WHICH DEFINES "FEASIBLE" TO MEAN, QUOTE:
7 "CAPABLE OF BEING ACCOMPLISHED IN A
8 SUCCESSFUL MANNER WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD
9 OF TIME, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ENVIRONMENTAL" --
10 EXCUSE ME -- "ECONOMIC, ENVIRONMENTAL, LEGAL-,
11 SOCIAL, AND TECHNOLOGICAL FACTORS.
12 "ANY FINDING THAT SPECIFIC ECONOMIC,
13 SOCIAL, OR OTHER CONDITIONS MAKING FEASIBLE
a.�. 14 THE MITIGATION MEASURES OR PROJECT
15 ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL E. I .R.
16 MUST BE SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN
17 THE RECORD.
18 "SHOWING OF INFEASIBILITY MUST CONSIST
19 OF MORE THAN THE MERE FACT THAT A PARTICULAR
20 MITIGATION MEASURE OR ALTERNATIVE WILL ADD SOME
21 COST TO A PROJECT.
22 QUOTE: "WHAT IS REQUIRED IS EVIDENCE
23 THAT THE ADDITIONAL COST OR LOST PROFITABILITY
24 ARE SUFFICIENTLY SEVERE AS TO RENDER IT
25 IMPRACTICAL TO PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT, "
26 CITING CITIZENS OF COLETA VALLEY VERSUS THE BOARD
YATES & ASSOCIATES
62
1 OF SUPERVISORS.
2 "NO SUCH SHOWING COULD BE MADE IN THIS'
3 CASE. "
4 THE SENTENCE GOES ON, AFTER IT TALKS ABOUT:
5 "ACCORDING TO THE D.E. I .R. , THIS
6 ALTERNATIVE IS NOT ONLY FEASIBLE, BUT IT
7 ALSO ESTABLISHES A BIOLOGICAL PRESERVE THAT
8 WOULD PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR ALL FOUR OF THE
9 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES MOST DIRECTLY AT RISK
10 FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
11 "UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE NRDC
12 BELIEVES THAT THE BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE 2 ,
13 RELATIVE TO OTHER DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES,
14 ARE BOTH SUBSTANTIAL AND COMPELLING .
15 "ALTERNATIVES 3 THROUGH 7 : BY CONTRAST,
16 IN LIGHT OF THE FACTUAL FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
17 SET FORTH IN THE D.E. I .R. , AN APPROVAL BY THE
18 CITY OF ALTERNATIVE 3 , 4, 5 , 6 , OR 7 WOULD
19 VIOLATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA.
20 "FIRST, EACH MITIGATES ONLY SOME OF THE
21 POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND
22 LEAVES A RESIDUAL SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT.
23 "AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, HOWEVER, THE CITY
24 MAY LEGALLY APPROVE ONLY THE ALTERNATIVES
25 CAPABLE OF EITHER ELIMINATING ANY SIGNIFICANT
26 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OR REDUCING THEM TO A
YATES & ASSOCIATES
63
1 LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE, EVEN IF SUCH
2 ALTERNATIVES WOULD BE MORE COSTLY OR IN SOME
3 WAY IMPEDE THE PROJECT ' S ALTERNATIVES.
4 BECAUSE ALTERNATIVES 3 THROUGH 7 RESULT
5 IN SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS, NONE IS A
6 LEGALLY SUFFICIENT ALTERNATIVE TO ALTERNATIVE
7 NO. 2 , WHICH IS BOTH FULLY MITIGATED AND
8 FEASIBLE. "
9 THE LETTER GOES ON FOR SEVERAL MORE PAGES, AND I
10 DO NOT INTEND TO READ THE REMAINDER OF IT BECAUSE IT MOSTLY
11 ADDRESSES LEGAL POINTS. I ' LL LEAVE THAT FOR YOUR READING
12 PLEASURE.
13 HOWEVER, THE CONCLUSION OF THE LETTER FINISHES BY
14 SAYING:
15 "FOR ALL OF THE REASONS STATED ABOVE,
16 NRDC REQUESTS THAT THE BIGHORN VENTURES
17 APPLICATION BE DENIED. IN THE EVENT,
18 HOWEVER, THAT THE CITY ELECTS TO PROCEED WITH
19 THE DEVELOPMENT, NRDC ORDERS THE CITY TO
20 PROCEED WITH ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 . "
21 IF YOU NOTICE WHAT' S HAPPENED BY MR. BURNS AND
22 MR. HAYHOE, WHAT THEY HAVE ATTEMPTED TO DO IS A CLASSIC
23 LAWYER TECHNIQUE. AND THAT IS TO TURN THE ATTENTION AWAY
24 FROM YOUR PROJECT ONTO ANOTHER.
25 I SUMMIT TO THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION THAT YOUR
I
j 26 PROPER FOCUS IS ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, ON
YATES & ASSOCIATES
64
1 THE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED BY
2 NEUTRAL BIOLOGISTS RATHER THAN PAID BIOLOGISTS , AND FIN-D IN
3 SUPPORT OF THE INSTITUTE ' S RECOMMENDATION OF ALTERNATIVE
4 NO. 2, AS MODIFIED. Mimi
5 IF YOU ELECT TO PROCEED WITH 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , OR 7 , WE
6 WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU SEND IT BACK TO STAFF FOR
7 A FULL-BLOWN E. I .R. TO ADDRESS THE DEFICIENCIES OUTLINED IN
8 MY EARLIER LETTER AND DEFICIENCIES OUTLINED IN THE NRDC
9 LETTER.
10 ANY QUESTIONS?
11 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: YES. ON THE LAST COMMENT. THE
12 REST OF IT, I 'M GOING TO LET PASS BECAUSE WE 'VE ALL TALKED
13 ABOUT IT.
14 WHEN YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND ABOUT AN E. I .R. , YOU
15 HAVE TO HAVE SIGNIFICANT REASONS FOR CHANGING YOUR MIND. YOU
16 HAVE TO INDICATE THAT THERE ARE THINGS THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW
17 BEFORE THAT COULD BE AFFECTED AND SO FORTH.
18 I HAVE HEARD NO TESTIMONY NOW FOR ANY OF THIS
19 STUFF THAT INDICATES THERE ' S BEEN ANY CHANGE IN ANY OF THE
20 ITEMS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. YOU DON'T GO AND REQUEST FROM ANY
21 BODY WITHOUT PROVIDING PROOF THAT THERE ARE NEW OR DIFFERENT
22 CIRCUMSTANCES THAT REQUIRE A FULL B. I.R. WE HAVE DISCUSSED
23 THE FOUR AREAS THAT ARE IN QUESTION.
24 THERE HAVE BEEN ITEMS THAT I TALKED ABOUT THAT
25 AREN'T IN THERE AT ALL: THE AIR POLLUTION, THE NOISE
26 POLLUTION THAT OCCURS VERY CLOSE TO THE SITE, THE FACT THAT
YATES & ASSOCIATES
65
1 THERE ARE HUMAN HABITATS THERE, THE FACT THAT THE WATER
2 DISTRICT -- THE NATURAL WASH IS BALONEY. THAT WAS MADE- BY
3 THE WATER DISTRICT WHEN THEY PUT A DIKE THERE.
raw
4 ALL OF THESE THINGS HAVEN'T BEEN DISCUSSED, AND
5 YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BRINGING A FULL E. I .R. IN, AND YOU
6 HAVEN'T DISCUSSED ONE NEW ITEM. AND THAT ' S WHAT YOU HAVE TO
7 DO. WHAT ARE THE NEW REASONS WHY WE NEED A FULL E. I .R. ?
8 MR. WILLIAMS: THERE IS A SECTION IN MY JUNE 12TH
9 LETTER, WHICH RATHER THAN IDENTIFY ALL OF THOSE NOW, I WOULD
10 JUST REFER TO YOU AS THE DEFICIENCIES. IT ' S THE SECTION THAT
11 TALKS ABOUT THE DEFICIENCIES IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
12 REPORT. IF YOU'D LIKE, I CAN PULL IT OUT.
13 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: WHY DON'T YOU JUST TELL ME?
14 MR. WILLIAMS: I WILL.
15 IF YOU WOULD LIKE, I CAN ALSO IDENTIFY THE
16 DEFICIENCIES IN THE E.I.R. POINTED OUT BY THE NATURAL
17 RESOURCES DEFENSE COMMISSION. OTHERWISE, I 'LL JUST REFINE
18 MY -- OR AT LEAST --
19 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: GIVE ME THE GENERAL REASONS WHY
20 YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND FROM A FOCUSED E. I.R. TO ONE THAT YOU
21 WANT A FULL B. I .R. ?
22 MR. WILLIAMS: THE DESERT WASH, THE DESERT TORTOISE, THE
23 BIGHORN HABITAT, THE BIGHORN --
24 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THOSE ARE THE SAME FOUR ISSUES
.. 25 THAT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.
26 SENIOR PLANNER DRELL: THOSE ARE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN
YATES & ASSOCIATES
1 ADDRESSED AND DOCUMENTED.
2 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THEY'VE BEEN ADDRESSED IN THE.
3 AND DOCUMENTED.
rn
4 SENIOR PLANNER DRELL: YOU MIGHT HAVE DISAGREEMENTS OF
5 THEIR CONCLUSIONS, BUT THAT IS NOT A JUSTIFICATION TO EXPAND
6 THE SCOPE OF THE DOCUMENT INTO AREAS WHICH YOU HAVE NOT SHOWN
7 ANY NEW EVIDENCE OR SUBSTANTIATED ANY NEW IMPACT WHICH THEY
8 DON'T ADDRESS .
9 MR. WILLIAMS : ONE OF THE AREAS THAT HAS NOT BEEN
10 ADDRESSED IS THE TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS POINTED OUT BY
11 CALTRANS. THAT AREA IS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL
12 IMPACT REPORT.
13 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: THAT AREA IS COVERED UNDER
14 THE -- OUR INITIAL STUDY THAT WAS DONE AND ALSO IN THE STAF-
15 REPORT THAT WE PREPARED FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION, AND
16 THAT ' S BEFORE THE COMMISSION TONIGHT. CALTRANS HAS APPROVED
17 THE ENTRYWAY TO THE PROJECT.
18 MR. WILLIAMS: WELL, THERE IS A CALTRANS FINDING THAT
19 THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT TRAFFIC FLOW
20 IN THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED ALTA MIRA DEVELOPMENT.
21 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: CALTRANS -- MAY I REPEAT?
22 CALTRANS HAS APPROVED THE ENTRYWAY INTO THE PROJECT. OKAY?
23 MR. WILLIAMS: ALL RIGHT. THE D. E. I.R. DOES NOT ADDRESS
24 ALL THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON PLANT AND ANIMAL RESOURCES YN
25 THE AREA, IT DOES NOT ADDRESS --
26 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: THAT' S --
YATES & ASSOCIATES
67
1 SENIOR PLANNER DRELL: YEAH. DO YOU HAVE -- DO YOU OR
2 YOU EXPERTS -- HAVE THEY FOUND ANY OR ARE THERE ANY THAT HAVE
3 NOT BEEN ADDRESSED THAT YOU ARE AWARE OF?
4 MR. WILLIAMS: THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PUBLIC IS TO
5 RAISE THE QUESTION TO THIS COMMISSION. IF YOU ELECT NOT TO
6 PROCEED WITH IT, THAT IS AN ELECTION THAT YOU CAN MAKE. WE
7 MERELY POINT OUT THE FACT THAT THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
8 REPORT DOES NOT ADDRESS THOSE AREAS.
9 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: DON'T YOU HAVE A CREDIBILITY
10 PROBLEM? YOU RAISED THE REQUEST FOR A DIRECTED ENVIRONMENTAL
11 IMPACT REPORT. THE CITY GOES OUT AND DOES EXACTLY WHAT YOU
12 WANT. YOU COME BACK IN HERE AND YOU SAY NOW, "THAT ' S NOT
13 SUFFICIENT. " AND YET YOU'RE NOT POINTING ME TO WHY IT ' S NOT
14 SUFFICIENT.
15 MR. WILLIAMS: IF I CAN FINISH, I ' LL POINT OUT SOME
16 OTHER AREAS.
17 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: EXCUSE ME FOR JUST A SECOND. HOW
18 DID THE TRAFFIC CHANGE FROM, WHAT, NOVEMBER TILL NOW? DID
19 YOU JUST BECOME AWARE THAT THIS PROJECT WAS GOING TO GENERATE
20 TRAFFIC?
21 MR. WILLIAMS: CALTRANS WAS THE ONE THAT IDENTIFIED THAT
22 AREA, AND IT WAS --
23 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: THAT' S SOMETHING THAT YOU DIDN'T
24 CONSIDER? I MEAN ANY TIME THERE' S A DEVELOPMENT, WE KNOW
25 THERE' S GOING TO BE TRAFFIC, WE KNOW THERE' S GOING TO BE AIR
26 POLLUTION.
YATES 8 ASSOCIATES
68
1 MR. WILLIAMS: I CAN'T APOLOGIZE FOR THE INSTITUTE NOT
2 HAVING LEGAL ADVICE AT THE TIME THAT IT ASKED FOR THE FOCUSED
3 E. I .R. AND IT MAY HAVE BEEN A POOR CHOICE OF WORDS ON ITS
4 PART BUT, AS YOU KNOW, IF THE INSTITUTE WISHES TO OBJECT TO
5 THE PLANNING COMMISSION' S FINDINGS OR THE CITY COUNCIL' S
f
6 FINDINGS, IT MUST PRESERVE ITS OBJECTIONS ON THE RECORD.
7 AND AT THIS POINT WE ARE PREPARED TO ACCEPT
8 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS THAT.
i
i
9 HOWEVER, IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION GOES WITH 3 , 4, 5 , 6 , OR
10 7 , WE WOULD REQUEST, GIVEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
11 IDENTIFIED IN THAT, THAT THE COMMISSION ASK FOR A FULL-BLOWN
12 E. I .R. TO IDENTIFY OTHER AREAS OF WHICH WE 'RE NOT NOW AWARE.
13 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: YOU'RE NOT REALLY ASKING FOR
14 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 BECAUSE THAT DIAGRAM THAT YOU HAVE PROPPED
15 UP AND ARE SHOWING US IS NOT ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 . IT ' S
16 MODIFIED.
17 MR. WILLIAMS: THAT IS CORRECT.
18 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: SO WHICH ONE ARE YOU ASKING FOR?
19 MODIFIED?
20 MR. WILLIAMS: MODIFIED.
21 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU'VE
22 ASKED FOR THAT; ISN'T THAT CORRECT?
23 MR. WILLIAMS: NO, IT ' S NOT CORRECT.
,
24 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: WHEN DID YOU ASK FOR THAT BEFORE?
25 MR. WILLIAMS: IN THE LETTER OF NOVEMBER 7TH, 1989 . YOU104
26 CAN SEE THAT THE LINE THAT' S DRAWN ON THE MAP THAT' S
YATES & ASSOCIATES
69
1 PRESENTED TO MR. HAYHOE IS THE SAME, IDENTICAL LINE THAT. IS
2 PRESENTED THERE.
3 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: AND HOW MANY ACRES IS THAT?
4 MR. WILLIAMS: I THINK THAT ' S -- AND I DON'T WANT TO BE
5 HELD TO THIS BECAUSE I 'M NOT SURE, BUT I THINK IT ' S
6 APPROXIMATELY 18 ACRES.
7 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: 18 IN ADDITION TO THE 118?
8 MR. WILLIAMS: THAT ' S CORRECT.
9 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: SO YOU'RE ASKING FOR 136 ACRES?
10 MR. WILLIAMS: RIGHT. TO PROTECT ALL FOUR OF THE
11 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IN THE DRAFT E. I .R.
12 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: ARE YOU PREPARED TO PAY FOR
13 THAT?
14 MR. WILLIAMS: FOR THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
15 REPORT?
16 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: ARE YOU PREPARED TO PAY FOR
17 THE -- THE ADDITIONAL ACREAGE THAT YOU'RE DEMANDING OF THE
18 DEVELOPMENT?
19 MR. WILLIAMS: THE INSTITUTE IS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY FOR
20 THAT ADDITIONAL AREA.
21 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THEY'RE NOT OBLIGATED, HUH? BUT
22 YOU WANT TO. THAT' S THE WAY THIS WHOLE GAME WORKS: "WE WANT
23 TO, WE'RE NOT OBLIGATED. " BUT NOWHERE IN HERE IS THE
24 ALTERNATIVE THAT YOU PAY FOR IT.
aim 25 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: MR. WILLIAMS, LET ME ASK YOU
26 SOMETHING BEFORE WE LOSE THE POINT. THE ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 ,
YATES & ASSOCIATES
70
1 THE ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 , WITH THE 18 ACRES, IF -- IF
2 WE RECOMMEND SOMETHING OTHER THAN THAT, YOU WANT THE
3 FULL-BLOWN E. I .R.
4 PRESUMABLY, ONE OF THE THINGS, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU'D
5 BE CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE TRAFFIC IMPACT.
6 MR. WILLIAMS: AND WATER IMPACT.
7 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: LET ' S JUST FOCUS ON THAT FOR A
8 SECOND. THAT ' S ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE?
9 MR. WILLIAMS: RIGHT.
10 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: IF WE GO WITH ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 ,
11 MODIFIED, ISN'T THERE STILL A TRAFFIC IMPACT? WHY DO YOU
12 LOSE YOUR CONCERN?
13 MR. WILLIAMS: BECAUSE ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 FULLY ADDRESSE^
14 THE POINT THAT WAS RAISED BACK IN NOVEMBER.
15 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: IT DOESN'T ADDRESS - - THE DRAFT
16 E. I .R. DOES NOT ADDRESS TRAFFIC IMPACT IN DISCUSSING
17 ALTERNATIVE 2. OR ANY OTHER ALTERNATIVES, FOR THAT MATTER.
18 IF YOU HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT TRAFFIC, WHY DOES IT GO AWAY IF
19 WE RECOMMEND ALTERNATIVE NO. 2? ANSWER ME THAT.
20 MR. WILLIAMS: IT DOES NOT GO AWAY.
21 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: THEN WHY ARE YOU SAYING THAT
22 YOU'LL DEMAND A FULL E.I .R. ONLY IF WE RECOMMEND SOMETHING
23 OTHER THAN ALTERNATIVE NO. 2? IF I WERE TO ANSWER THAT, I
24 WOULD SAY THAT IT SMACKS OF EXTORTION.
25 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: OR BLACKMAIL.
26 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: AND I DON'T LIKE IT, OBVIOUSLY.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
1
t
71
1 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: IN THE THREATENING LETTER -- I
' 2 GUESS THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD CALL I GUESS IN THE LEGAL A
3 THREATENING LETTER. WHEN IT STARTS OFF BY SAYING WE HAVE
k-
C ilnr
4 130,000 MEMBERS AND WE'VE GOT X AMOUNT OF ATTORNEYS AND THIS
i
5 AMOUNT OF MONEY, THAT, I CONSIDER A THREATENING LETTER. THE
6 ONLY THING WHEN YOU CONCLUDED, IT DIDN'T SAY WE 'RE GOING TO
7 MAYBE DO SOMETHING TO YOU IF YOU DO SOMETHING ELSE. I DIDN'T
8 HEAR THAT, BUT THE FIRST PART OF IT WAS CERTAINLY
9 THREATENING.
10 AND I WANT TO TELL YOU SOMETHING. ONE OF THE
{; 11 PROBLEMS THAT RAISES THE NECK -- THAT BOWS OF NECK OF THOSE
12 OF US WHO LIVE HERE AND ARE NOT COMING FROM THE OUTSIDE AND
!x 13 WE 'RE HERE A LONG TIME BEFORE THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE WAS AND
14 KNOW THE AREA VERY WELL IS ALL THE BALONEY COMING FROM PEOPLE
15 FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. AND IT ' S ALL THE SAME STUFF.
I
16 IT LOOKS LIKE YOU TOOK A FAX MACHINE AND SENT IT .
17 TO EVERY FRIEND YOU HAVE AND SAID, "SEND ME A LETTER THAT
18 READS THIS. " IT' S SO PHONY THAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU
}' 19 EXPECT US TO SIT HERE WITH A STRAIGHT FACE AND OBJECTIVELY
i..
20 ARGUE THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHETHER IT' S
21 ANY ONE OF THOSE FOUR ITEMS. I MEAN THE ITEMS ARE -- ARE -
22 ARE ABSOLUTELY INSANE.
23 WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS VALLEY HAS GOT A FLOOR
24 THAT BASICALLY GOES LIKE THIS ON ALLUVIAL FANS WHEREVER tOU
25 GO. DEVELOPMENT OCCURS UP INTO THE ALLUVIAL FANS, AND THEN
26 WE HAVE HILLSIDES. IN SOME PLACBS THEY'VE BUILT SOME HOUSES
YATES & ASSOCIATES
„ ,......... R w x. - ,... of ......x .. .... .... ... .,:.
72
1 ON HILLSIDES BEFORE PEOPLE HAD RULES AND SO FORTH. BUT
2 BASICALLY, THE DEVELOPMENT GOES UP TO THE SHARPNESS AND-
3 STOPS, AND THAT' S WHAT' S CONTINUING HERE.
4 WE ARGUED AGAINST A 1400-UNIT BUILDING -- OR ”
f
5 DEVELOPMENT ON THAT SAME PROJECT AND SPENT AT LEAST THREE
6 YEARS, ENDED UP IN A COURT BATTLE THAT TOOK ANOTHER FIVE u
7 YEARS ON THIS SAME AREA. AND YOU COME IN NOW AND SAY, "WELL,
8 WE CAN'T - - WE WANT ANOTHER ADDITIONAL 18 ACRES AND WE WANT
9 THIS AND WE WANT THAT. "
10 WHERE WILL YOU GUYS END? THIS IS ABOUT -- THE
11 ONLY REASON THERE ISN'T A GOLF COURSE AND HYATT HOTEL THERE
12 WAS BECAUSE THE MITZGER FAMILY RAN OUT OF MONEY WHEN THEY
13 BOUGHT BRANFF. OTHERWISE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A HYATT
14 HOTEL THERE IN 1984.
15 AND NOW YOU'RE TELLING US WE 'VE GOT TO DO THIS AND
16 DO THAT. AND -- AND, YOU KNOW, YOU COME IN LATE, YOU'VE GOT
17 A SHAM CAUSE, AND NOW YOU'RE TELLING US IN AN EXTORTIONARY
18 MANNER THAT, "HEY, WE'RE EITHER -GOING TO THREATEN YOU WITH A
19 BARRAGE OF ATTORNEYS AND OTHER PEOPLE, OR WE 'RE NOW GOING TO
20 BRING UP ISSUES THAT ARE OKAY IF YOU TAKE 2 . " THAT 'S WHAT IT
21 IS. IT' S AN EXTORTION.
22 MR. WILLIAMS: YOU ASKED AT THE LAST COMMISSION HEARING
23 FOR AN IDENTIFICATION OF A COMPROMISE, AND THAT IS
24 ALTERNATIVE 2 .
25 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: BUT THEN YOU MODIFIED THAT.
26 MR. WILLIAMS: THAT' S CORRECT.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
73
1 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: HE DIDN'T ASK FOR AN E. I .R. , A
I
2 FULL—BLOWN E. I .R. AT THE LAST MEETING. AND AT LEAST THE
f
3 RECORD WILL REFLECT THAT THE TRADE—OFF THAT YOU'RE OFFERING,
k
4 BASICALLY, THE CITY OF PALM DESERT THAT YOU 'RE MAKING A
5 DEMAND FOR THE FULL—BLOWN E. I .R. , BUT YOU'LL WITHDRAW THAT
k
6 DEMAND IF WE GIVE YOU 18 ACRES. THAT ' S FINE. I 'M
k' 7 COMFORTABLE WITH THAT RECORD.
f 8 MR. WILLIAMS: THE COMMISSION MUST KNOW THAT WHEN THIS
9 GETS RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL, WE HAVE TO PRESERVE THE
10 RECORD AND PRESERVE OUR OBJECTIONS. WHAT WE 'RE TRYING TO DO
a
11 AT THIS POINT IS OFFER A COMPROMISE THAT -- ONE THAT CAN BE
12 LIVED WITH.
13 IF IT TURNS OUT THAT THE DEVELOPMENT CANNOT
14 PROCEED WITH ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 AND YOU ELECT TO RECOMMEND A
15 DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVE TO THE CITY COMMISSION -- CITY COUNCIL,
16 THEN WE'LL HAVE TO LIVE WITH THAT OR DEAL WITH IT AS WE SEE
17 FIT.
18 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THANK YOU, MR. WILLIAMS.
19 IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING
20 THE PROJECT?
21 MR. DE FORGE: MADAM CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS, I 'M JIM
22 DE FORGE WITH THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE. I RESIDE AT 51000
23 HIGHWAY 74 IN PALM DESERT.
24 AS I SIT HERE TONIGHT AND LISTEN TO MANY OF THE
25 QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED AND SUCH, IT IS QUITE
26 APPARENT FROM A BIOLOGICAL STANDPOINT, AND THAT ' S THE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
74
1 STANDPOINT THAT I CHOOSE TO HAVE SOME EXPERTISE IN AND CHOOSE
2 TO TALK ABOUT, IS THAT BOTH MR. BURNS AND MR. CARUTHERS- IN
3 THE PAST AND MR. CRISTE HAVE ALL SUGGESTED THAT THE EXPERTS
4 ARE UNCERTAIN OF WHAT ' S GOOD FOR THE SHEEP OR WHAT IS REALLY
5 NEEDED HERE.
i
6 I ' LL TAKE A QUOTE FROM MR. CARUTHERS THAT STATED
i
7 IN THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING ON JUNE 5TH, AND I QUOTE FROM
8 PAGE 51 OF THE TRANSCRIPT: "I DON'T CLAIM PARTICULARLY,
9 MYSELF, TO BE AN EXPERT ON BIGHORN SHEEP. "
10 I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE WITH THAT, AS WELL AS MOST
11 OF THE REST OF THE BIGHORN EXPERTS THAT I 'M AWARE OF,
12 MR. CARUTHERS IS NOT A BIGHORN EXPERT AND IS NOT CONSIDERED
13 SUCH. HE IS NOT QUALIFIED TO ADDRESS BIGHORN SHEEP ISSUES
14 AND, SPECIFICALLY, THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE.
15 IN REGARDS TO THE DRAFT E. I .R. REPORT AND ITS
16 INVOLVEMENT WITH MR. HAYHOE AND -- AND THE ALTA MIRA PROJECT,
17 MR. CARUTHERS HAS COME IN AS A PAID CONSULTANT TO BOTH LISTEN
18 TO THE BIGHORN EXPERTS AS WELL AS DRAW HIS OWN CONCLUSIONS.
19 AND WHAT HE HAS DONE IS DRAWN HIS CONCLUSIONS.
20 I ALSO -- IT' S VERY OBVIOUS TO ME THAT MR. CRISTE
21 IS NOT QUALIFIED AS A BIGHORN EXPERT, EITHER. AND I DO
22 QUALIFY BIGHORN EXPERTS AS SOMEBODY THAT SPENT A FAIR AMOUNT
23 OF TIME AND YEARS DEALING WITH THE SPECIES AS SUCH.
24 AND I WILL AGAIN ALLUDE TO A DRAFT THAT WAS
25 SUBMITTED THAT WAS CONDUCTED ON DECEMBER 9TH OF 189 , WHERE
26 NINE BIGHORN EXPERTS THAT PROBABLY TOTAL 200 YEARS EXPERIENCE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
75
1 IN BIGHORN SHEEP WERE BROUGHT TOGETHER, NONPAID BIOLOGISTS.
2 AND MR. HAYHOE' S BIOLOGIST AT THE TIME, MR. -OLSON,
3 WAS ALLOWED AND ASKED TO BE AT THAT MEETING. AND WE SAID IT
4 WOULD BE FINE. HE SAT IN ON IT AND LISTENED TO IT ALL. AND
5 IT WAS THE ADVICE FROM THESE EXPERTS THAT CAME UP WITH THE
6 MODIFIED VERSION THAT WE SHOW AS ALTERNATIVE 2 .
7 AND SO THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT CAME FROM NEW MEXICO
8 STATE, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, BLM. WE EVEN BROUGHT IN A Z00
9 EXPERT BECAUSE IT WAS RECOMMENDED TO DO SO. THERE WAS A LOT
10 OF YEARS OF EXPERTISE BROUGHT IN ON THIS, AND THIS IS WHAT
11 THESE EXPERTS CAME UP WITH.
12 AND I WOULD HAVE TO SAY, FROM A BIOLOGICAL
13 STANDPOINT, LISTENING TO THE SIDE OF MR. HAYHOE ' S
14 CONSULTANTS, THEY HAVE NOT YET PRESENTED A BIGHORN EXPERT
15 HERE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT IF THEY'RE GOING TO
16 ALLUDE TO THE FACT THAT THE EXPERTS ARE DIVIDED ON THIS
17 BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW OF ANY EXPERTS THAT ARE DIVIDED ON THIS.
18 WHAT THE EXPERTS HAVE SUGGESTED IS IN WRITING
19 HERB. OTHER EXPERTS HAVE LOOKED AT THIS AND CONCURRED. AND
20 I BELIEVE DR. VALDEZ, WHO CHOOSES TO TALK TONIGHT HIMSELF,
21 HAS WRITTEN THREE OR FOUR BOOKS ON BIGHORN SHEEP AND IS A
22 BIGHORN EXPERT, WILL READ YOU A LETTER FROM AN ADDITIONAL
23 BIGHORN EXPERT THAT AGAIN HAS COME ON-SITE, LOOKED AT THIS,
24 AND DRAWN THESE CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THEIR EXPERTISE.
25 ANOTHER ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE RAISED IS THESE
26 EXPERTS ALSO LOOKED AT MOVING THIS PEN BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT
YATES & ASSOCIATES
i
76
1 SOUNDS LIKE THE EASY CHOICE. AND THE EXPERTS ALL CONCLUDE
2 AND CONCUR THAT THE PEN CANNOT BE MOVED.
3 IF THERE WAS AN ALTERNATIVE SITE ON OUR
4 FACILITY -- AND AGAIN, MR. RICHARDS, IT' S A FACT THAT BIGHORN
5 SHEEP LIVE AND BREATHE AND LAMB IN A CERTAIN TYPE OF
6 TOPOGRAPHY AND SUCH, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER PIECE OF
7 TOPOGRAPHY LIKE THAT.
8 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: I HAVEN'T . HEARD ANYBODY TELL ME
9 THAT THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE ABOUT HANG GLIDERS FLYING ABOVE
10 THEM, TRUCKS DRIVING NEXT TO THEM, PEOPLE LIVING ABOUT 200
11 YARDS AWAY, KIDS ON MOTORCYCLES AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS THE
12 ENVIRONMENT. I CANNOT BELIEVE THAT ANY GROUP OF EXPERTS IN
13 THE WORLD WILL TELL ME THAT THAT SITE THAT YOU'RE AT IS AN
14 IDEAL SITE.
15 AND I HOPE MR. VALDEZ CAN TELL US THAT. BECAUSE
16 IF YOU CAN TELL ME THAT THAT SITE IS AN IDEAL SITE, I WON'T
17 BELIEVE ANYTHING I 'VE EVER HEARD IN MY LIFE FROM ANYBODY.
18 MR. DE FORGE: MR. RICHARDS, IF YOU TAKE THAT APPROACH,
19 YOU'RE SAYING UNLESS SOMETHING IS VIRGIN TERRITORY, THEN
20 LET'S DEVELOP IT. I MEAN WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS BECAUSE
21 THERE'S PEOPLE THAT EXIST AROUND THERE, SO THEREFORE THE
22 CRITERIA IS --
23 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THAT WAS R- 1 ZONING WHEN YOU
24 MOVED THERE. YOU WENT AND TOLD THE COUNTY THAT IT WOULDN'T
25 AFFECT ANYTHING, AND NOW YOU'RE TELLING PEOPLE THAT IT WILL.
26 NOW HOW DO YOU HANDLE THAT? I MEAN IS THAT TESTIMONY, IS
YATES & ASSOCIATES
77
1 IT - -
2 MR. DE FORGE: FROM THE BEGINNING, BE IT G. E. OR WHOEVER
3 OWNED THAT PROPERTY, ALWAYS CAME TO US AND SUGGESTED THEY
4 WANTED TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND THAT THINGS WOULD WORK OUT.
5 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: YOU DIDN'T EVEN GET THERE TILL A
6 COUPLE YEARS AGO.
7 MR. DE FORGE: 184.
8 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THAT' S A LONG TIME. BEFORE
9 1980, WE WERE DOING DEALS ON THE PROPERTY. I SPENT PROBABLY
10 50 HOURS IN SESSIONS LIKE THIS ON THAT PROPERTY. NEVER' HEARD
11 ANYBODY -- AND THE REST OF THESE PEOPLE TOO.
12 MR. DE FORGE: I THINK THIS IS WHAT CEQA IS ALL MADE UP
13 OF. THINGS CHANGE OVER TIME AND THINGS HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT
14 OVER TIME. AND THAT ' S THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT.
15 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: BUT LET ME ASK YOU ONE QUESTION.
16 MR. DE FORGE: YES, MR. DOWNS.
17 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: YOU KNEW BELLA VISTA WAS THERE
18 BEFORE YOU MOVED THERE, YES OR NO?
19 MR. DR FORGE: THAT' S CORRECT.
20 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: THEN WHY THE HELL DID YOU MOVE
21 THERE, WHEN YOU KNEW THERE WAS GOING TO BE A DEVELOPMENT
22 THERE?
23 MR. DE FORGE: BECAUSE THAT WAS THE BEST HILL AVAILABLE
24 AT THE TIME AND IT WAS AN EFFORT TO BRING THE ANIMAL BACK
25 HERE TO THE SANTA ROSAS. AND WE LEARNED FROM BOTH THAT PEN
26 FACILITY AND THINGS THAT DEVELOPED AFTER THAT.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
78
1 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: WHY IS IT A PROBLEM NOW WHEN IT
2 WASN'T A PROBLEM THEN?
3 MR. DE FORGE: THERE WAS NOBODY THERE.
4 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: HUH?
5 MR. DE FORGE: THERE WAS NOBODY THERE THEN. THERE WAS
6 CREOSOTE THERE.
7 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: BUT YOU INDICATED TO THE COUNTY
8 THAT IT WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM, ACCORDING TO THE LETTER.
9 MR. DE FORGE: NO. I BELIEVE THAT ' S SOMEWHAT OF A
10 MISQUOTE. OBVIOUSLY, I MADE STATEMENTS TO THE DEVELOPERS, BE
11 IT WESTINGHOUSE, HAYHOE, OR WHOEVER' S BEEN AROUND THERE, HAS
12 ALWAYS COME IN -- LOOK AT THE NAMES: BIGHORN VENTURES,
13 BIGHORN. I MEAN THEY'VE ALL TAKEN THE NAME BECAUSE OF THE
14 INTEREST IN THE BIGHORN SHEEP, AND THEY'VE ALL HAD THE
15 ATTITUDE THAT, "WE'LL SOMEHOW WORK WITH YOU. "
16 NOW WHAT THAT MEANS, IF YOU LISTEN TO MR. BURNS ON
17 THE OTHER SIDE, I SOUND LIKE HIS INVESTMENT COUNSELOR. IT ' S
18 LIKE I TOLD HIM, "BUY THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. IT' S A GREAT
19 INVESTMENT. " I MEAN THAT NEVER HAPPENED.
20 ALL I KNOW -- R- 1 . WHAT THAT MEANS? I 'M A
21 BIOLOGIST. IN 184, I WAS A BIOLOGIST. I KNOW A LITTLE BIT
22 MORE ABOUT R- 1 THAN I DID THEN. WHAT I DID KNOW IS WHEN WE
23 GOT OUR PROPERTY, IT WAS R-1 . AND IT WAS WORKING. SO IS
j 24 THAT WRONG?
25 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: I DON'T THINK ANYBODY' S WRONG -
26 MR. DE FORGE: EVEN IF WE DID CHANGE OUR ZONE --
YATES & ASSOCIATES
79
1 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: - - BUT NOW EVERYBODY ELSE IS WRONG
2 EXCEPT YOU. I DIDN'T SAY THAT WAS WRONG.
3 MR. DE FORGE: I KNOW. I 'M NOT SAYING THAT --
4 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: WELL, YOU'RE WANTING TO TAKE HALF
5 OF THEIR PROPERTIES AWAY FROM THEM FOR NOTHING.
6 MR. DE FORGE: I DON'T THINK --
7 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY THE --
8 MR. DE FORGE: SIR, I DON'T THINK I AM. I THINK THE
9 E. I .R. ADDRESSES THE SENSITIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES.
10 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WE KEEP
11 WANDERING AWAY FROM THAT D. E. I .R. --
12 MR. DE FORGE: RIGHT.
13 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: -- AND THAT' S WHAT WE 'RE SUPPOSED
14 TO BE DOING.
15 MR. DE FORGE: AND AGAIN, I JUST THINK THAT ' S HOW CEQA
16 WORKS. AND THAT' S -- I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHTS THAT THE
17 ANIMALS HAVE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T BE HERE TONIGHT TO TALK, AND
18 THAT' S WHAT -- THAT' S HOW THIS COUNTRY IS STRUCTURED, WITH
19 THOSE --
20 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: THE RIGHTS OF THE ANIMALS ARE THE
21 RIGHTS OF THE ANIMALS THAT ARE ROAMING FREE --
22 MR. DE FORGE: RIGHT.
23 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: -- NOT NECESSARILY THE RIGHTS OF
24 ANIMALS TO BE PENNED UP.
25 MR. DE FORGE: TO ROAM FREE.
26 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: YOU KNOW, AND SO IN REALITY, IT
YATES & ASSOCIATES
80
1 MAY - - IT MIGHT BE BECAUSE OF YOUR INCONSISTENT POSITIONS
2 WITH RESPECT TO WHO YOU'RE TALKING TO, MAYBE WE SHOULD ONLY
3 CONSIDER THE DESERT TORTOISE, THE FREE-ROAMING BIGHORN SHEEP
4 AND THE WASH, AND NOT EVEN BE CONCERNED WITH THE BIGHORN
5 INSTITUTE BECAUSE, QUITE FRANKLY, I THINK YOU HAVE A PROBLEM
6 WITH CREDIBILITY.
7 MR. DE FORGE: HOW IS THAT, MR. --
8 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: YOU GO TO THE COUNTY AND REPRESENT
9 ONE THING, THEN YOU COME HERE AND REPRESENT ANOTHER. THEN
10 YOU SAY YOU WANT A DIRECTED OR FOCUSED E. I .R. WE DO THAT.
11 THEN YOU COME BACK AND SAY, "NOW WE WANT A FULL-BLOWN E. I .R. ,
12 BUT WE WON'T REQUEST THAT IF YOU GIVE US MORE LAND. "
13 YOU KNOW, I REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
14 MOST -- MOST OF THE TIME WHEN WE HAVE PEOPLE COME IN HERE,
15 THEY CAN BE PRETTY CANDID WITH US. AND I HAVE BEEN ON THE
16 COMMISSION ALMOST EIGHT YEARS. AND LUCKILY, MY TERM IS ABOUT
17 GETTING OVER. BUT I REALLY -- I 'M REALLY HAVING A PROBLEM
18 WITH, NOT NECESSARILY YOU PERSONALLY, BUT WITH PEOPLE THAT
19 ARE REPRESENTING THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE' S INTEREST COMING
20 BEFORE US AND MAKING INCONSISTENT REPRESENTATIONS OF WHAT
21 THEY'RE GOING TO DO OR WHAT THEY WANT OR --
22 MR. DE FORGE: WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING TO, MR. ERWOOD?
23 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: I MEAN LIKE YOU. WHY DIDN'T YOU
24 REQUEST THE FULL-BLOWN B.I.R. WHEN WE WERE BACK IN NOVEMBER?
25 WHY NOW? WHY DID YOU REQUEST JUST A FOCUSED E . I .R?
26 MR. DE FORGE: WELL, FIRST OFF, WE DIDN'T HAVE A --
YATES & ASSOCIATES
81
1 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: BECAUSE WE DID THAT, AND NOW
2 YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT' S NOT SUFFICIENT.
3 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: BUT IT IS SUFFICIENT IF WE GIVE
%mw 4 THEM SOMETHING. THAT' S EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID.
5 MR. DE FORGE: FROM THE DECEMBER 9TH, 189 LETTER, THAT
6 HAS NOT CHANGED. THE BIGHORN EXPERTS THAT WERE GIVING ADVICE
7 AT THE INSTITUTE, EVERYBODY INVOLVED, IN TERMS OF THIS IS
8 WHAT THEY CAME UP WITH. AND THAT ' S WHAT WE 'RE LIVING WITH.
9 I DON'T THINK -- '
10 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: THEN YOU DON'T WANT A FULL-BLOWN
11 E. I .R. ?
12 MR. DE FORGE: YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T STATE SUCH IN THE
13 LETTER. I DON'T --
14 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: AGAIN, YOUR LAWYER STATED - -
15 MR. DE FORGE: THEN I HAVE TO LISTEN TO OUR ATTORNEYS.
16 THAT ' S SOMETHING THAT WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED.
17 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: WELL, SEE THE PROBLEM I 'M HAVING?
18 MR. DE FORGE: WELL, I 'M NOT A ATTORNEY.
19 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: I THINK THE PROBLEM I 'M HAVING --
20 EXCUSE ME. I STARTED TO BRING UP A WHILE AGO AND I DIDN'T.
21 YOU HAD ALL THESE BIGHORN SHEEP EXPERTS FROM ALL OVER THE
22 SOUTHWEST. YOU NAMED ALL THE COLLEGES AND ALL THE STATES
23 THAT THEY WORK FOR. AND SOMEBODY CALLED TAXPAYERS PAY THEM.
24 THEY'RE NOT UNPAID EXPERTS. THEY MAY HAVE COME OUT HERE`- -
.► 25 MR. DE FORGE: THEY CAME OUT --
26 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: -- AND NOT CHARGED YOU ANYTHING
YATES & ASSOCIATES
82
1 EXTRA, BUT THEY'RE GETTING PAID BY SOMEBODY, SOMEHOW.
2 MR. DE FORGE: WHAT WAS PAID WAS THEIR AIRPLANE TICKET
3 ONLY. THAT' S IT.
4 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: THEY STILL HAVE A MONTHLY SALARY
5 SOMEWHERE.
6 MR. DE FORGE: WELL, THEY DID THIS ON THEIR DAY OFF.
7 THEY DID THIS ON A SATURDAY, AND NOBODY WAS PAID.
8 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: I QUIT.
9 MR. DE FORGE: SO, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WITH CREDIBILITYWHO
10 CARE ABOUT SOMETHING --
11 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: I 'M NOT TRYING TO TAKE ANYBODY' S
12 CREDIBILITY, INCLUDING YOURS - -
13 MR. DE FORGE: I KNOW, BUT I 'M JUST --
14 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: -- BUT YOU'RE HAVING A HELL OF A
15 TIME CONVINCING ME THAT YOU HAVE TOO MUCH CREDIBILITY RIGHT
16 NOW.
17 MR. DE FORGE: WELL, I 'M SORRY THAT YOU FEEL THAT WAY.
18 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: I DO., I AM NOT AGAINST THE BIGHORN
19 SHEEP INSTITUTE. I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT.
20 MR. DE FORGE: THANK YOU.
21 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: THE OTHER CONCERN THE WE HAVE --
22 AND INCIDENTALLY, I -- YOU KNOW, I ADMIRE YOUR DETERMINATION.
23 I KNOW THAT YOU'RE A DEDICATED INDIVIDUAL, AND I RESPECT
24 WHAT -- YOUR FOLLOWING YOUR CAUSE AND BEING A -- YEAH. AND
25 WISH YOU SUCCESS AND LUCK WITH THAT. I THINK WE ALL DO.
26 AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE ALL SEARCHING FOR IS A WAY
YATES & ASSOCIATES
83
1 TO MAKE YOUR GOALS BECOME REALITY WHILE OTHERS CAN ENJOY WHAT
2 THEY FEEL THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO. THAT ' S THE WHOLE IDEA HERE.
3 PART OF THE PROBLEM THAT WE 'RE HAVING, AND WE KEEP
%or
4 COMING BACK TO IT, IS WE LOOK AT THIS PROPOSED PROJECT. AND
5 THE WAY THINGS WORK, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT IMPACT IT ' S
6 GOING TO HAVE ON ITS NEIGHBORS. AND THE E. I .R. TELLS US
7 CERTAIN IMPACTS THAT IT WILL HAVE ON YOU.
8 SO THE QUESTION COMES UP: WELL, WAIT A SECOND.
9 YOU WERE THERE. AND WHEN YOU GOT THERE, THEY WERE THERE
10 BEFORE YOU. AND YOU HAD KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO
11 DO , AND YOU SAID, "YEAH. IT' S ALL RIGHT WITH US. "
12 NOW THERE SEEMS TO BE AN ABOUT-FACE AND ONE THAT ' S
13 PRETTY SIGNIFICANT. EARLIER, YOU SAID, "WELL, THERE WAS NO
14 ONE THERE. " AND NOV YOU TAKE EXCEPTION TO IT.
15 THERE WAS NO PHYSICAL STRUCTURE THERE, BUT THERE
16 WAS AN OWNER THERE WITH EXPECTATIONS, WITH AN INVESTMENT AND
17 ALL THE REST THAT GOES WITH IT, AND WITH ZONING THAT ENTITLED
18 HIM TO THOSE EXPECTATIONS.
19 THAT' S THE PROBLEM I KEEP COMING BACK TO: THE
20 FACT THAT WHEN YOU WENT IN THERE, YOU INDICATED THAT YOU WERE
21 COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING PROPERTY USES. NOW THAT SEEMS TO
22 BE CHANGING. WOULD YOU COMMENT?
23 MR. DE FORGE: YES. I THINK IN THE - - IF YOU'RE
24 REFERRING TO THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL
%mmw 25 ASSESSMENT, WHERE IT WAS MARKED NOT APPLICABLE? IS THAT WHAT
26 YOU'RE REFERRING TO? THAT WAS -- THAT WAS DONE BY THE COUNTY
YATES & ASSOCIATES
84
1 PEOPLE. THAT -- THAT FORM WAS NOT TO BE FILLED OUT IN THAT
2 SECTION.
3 AND AGAIN, MR. BURNS ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT WE
4 FILLED IT OUT . IF YOU LOOK AT THAT FORM, THE WHOLE THING WAS
5 NOT APPLICABLE.
6 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: IT ' S NOT JUST THAT. I THINK
7 THERE WERE OTHER REFERENCES TO THE 1 , 000 UNITS GOING UP.
8 THERE WERE QUESTIONS, YOU WERE QUOTED IN SOME TRANSCRIPTS .
9 MR. DE FORGE: AGAIN - -
10 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: BUT YOU HAD KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT
11 WAS GOING IN THERE, AND YOU SEEMED TO INDICATE THAT THAT
12 WOULD BE ALL RIGHT; THAT IT ' S OKAY FOR YOU TO GO IN BECAUSE
13 THE OTHER -- THE SURROUNDING LAND USES WERE COMPATIBLE WITH
14 WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO BE DOING.
15 NOW YOU'RE REALLY SAYING NO, IT ' S NOT REALLY
16 COMPATIBLE. THAT' S WHERE I 'M HAVING A PROBLEM.
17 MR. DE FORGE: I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT ' S BEEN
18 DEVELOPED AND THE SUCCESS, THAT' S WHAT MAKES IT NOT
19 COMPATIBLE. NOBODY NECESSARILY KNEW THAT THAT WOULD HAPPEN.
20, AND SO IT BOILS DOWN TO -- SAY ALL THE SHEEP DIED
21 AND WE WERE UNABLE TO BE SUCCESSFUL. THE PENS WOULD HAVE
22 BEEN BUILT UP AND HAD TO BE TAKEN DOWN.
23 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: MR. DE FORGE, YOU'VE NEVER
24 ANSWERED THE OTHER QUESTION.
25 MR. DE FORGE: WHAT IS IT, SIR?
26 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THE QUESTION THAT -- THAT THE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
85
1 REMOTENESS -- WHAT LINK IS THERE BETWEEN YOUR REMOTENESS AND
2 YOUR SUCCESS RATIO? OKAY? NOBODY HAS INDICATED THAT THAT
3 PARTICULAR SPOT IS -- IS THE ONLY REASON WHY THESE SHEEP ARE
*saw 4 SUCCESSFUL. AND THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE A
5 PROBLEM WITH.
6 IF -- YOU KNOW, IT ' S A SUBJECTIVE, NOT AN
7 OBJECTIVE SITUATION. WE CAN'T JUST SAY THAT BECAUSE THE
8 SHEEP ARE SURVIVING THERE -- THEY'RE NOT IN AN ISOLATED
9 LABORATORY, THEY'RE NOT BEING LEFT ALONE. YOU ARE DOING --
10 YOU ARE TAKING CERTAIN ACTIVITIES TO PROMOTE THEIR HEALTH.
11 AND WHEN YOU COME TO US AND SAY, "MY EXPERTS SAY
12 THAT THIS IS THE ONLY HILL WHICH THESE SHEEP CAN LAMB ON
13 AND" --
14 I 'VE GOT A BOOK THAT SOMEBODY WROTE. ON THE
15 BIGHORN. IT' S ABOUT THIS BIG, THAT SOMEBODY SENT ME. AND I
16 TOOK THE TROUBLE TO GO THROUGH WHAT I COULD READ ABOUT THE
17 SANTA ROSA SHEEP. AND I 'VE BEEN UP ON THE PLAIN AND LOOKING
18 AT ALL NORTH—FACING SLOPES.
19 AND TO TELL ME THAT THAT' S THE ONLY ONE, YOU CAN
20 GO OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MOUNTAINS OVER BY THE BOYD
21 INSTITUTE, WHERE THERE' S PLENTY OF LAND AND SO FORTH, AND
22 WHERE IT' S ALREADY BEEN GIVEN TO RESEARCH AND SO FORTH.
23 AND IT LOOKS LIKE, TO ME, THAT YOU'VE GOT YOUR
24 HEADS IN THE SAND AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE. AND YOUR
.. 25 IDEA OF A COMPROMISE IS TO SAY, "GIVE ME 18 MORE ACRES. "
26 AND IF THAT' S THE WAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE -- DO
YATES & ASSOCIATES
86
1 BUSINESS AROUND HERE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANY SYMPATHY
2 HERE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET IT IN A COURT OF LAW.
3 MR. DE FORGE: OKAY. I THINK THAT SOME OF THOSE ISSUES
4 HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, MR. RICHARDS, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF
5 AL MOOSE WROTE TO THE CITY IN DEALING WITH THE U. C. SYSTEM.
6 IT ' S NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY INVITED A NONPROFIT IN TO DO THE
7 WORK WE 'RE DOING. THEY'RE BASICALLY THERE FOR THEIR OWN
8 EDIFICATION OF U.C. SYSTEM AND THEIR RESEARCH.
9 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: ONE OTHER QUESTION,
10 MR. DE FORGE . THERE WAS ONE REAL COMPROMISE OFFERED TONIGHT
11 THAT I HEARD. MR. HAYHOE SUGGESTED, AT HIS COST, TO REALIGN
12 THE PENS AND PERHAPS ARRANGE THE VIEW SO THAT IT WAS
13 TOLERABLE. AND, NUMBER TWO, TO PRESERVE THE WASH IN ITS
14 NATIVE CONDITION. DO YOU FEEL --
15 MR. DE FORGE: UNTIL FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.
16 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: PARDON?
17 MR. DE FORGE: I THINK HE SAID UNTIL HE GETS TO THE
18 STAGE OF DEVELOPING IT. I MEAN IT'S STILL A LONG-TERM THING,
19 YES.
20 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: YEAH. I MEAN WE CAN'T DISCUSS
21 SPECIFICS, BUT THE BASIC CONCEPT.
22 MR. DE FORGE: UH-HUH.
23 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: UM, DO FEEL THAT THOSE TWO
24 PROPOSALS WOULD OFFER SOME SIGNIFICANT MITIGATION?
25 MR. DE FORGE: UM, NO, I DON'T, PER SE. logo
26 AND, AGAIN, BIGHORN EXPERTS LOOKED AT MOVING THE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
87
1 PEN. BELIEVE ME. MR. HAHN AND A NUMBER OF OUR DIRECTORS
2 HAVE GOTTEN DEEPLY INVOLVED IN THIS, IN LOOKING AT EVERY
3 POSSIBILITY, INCLUDING BUILDING OUR OWN MOUNTAIN.
4 AND WITH THE LAY OF THE LAND AS IT IS THERE, WITH
5 OUR ACREAGE AND SUCH, IT WAS THE EXPERTS ' OPINION -- AND I
6 CAN GIVE YOU 10 EXPERTS WITH 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE OR
7 BACKGROUND, AND THEY ALL CONCURRED THAT - - THAT -- . THAT WAS
8 THE SITE AND THERE WAS NO OTHER COMPARABLE SITE THERE ON OUR
9 PROPERTY.
10 COMMISSIONER JOHATHAN: I DON'T THINK THE PROPOSAL WAS
11 TO CHANGE THE SITE. I THINK THE PROPOSAL WAS TO REALIGN
12 THE --
13 MR. DE FORGE: RIGHT.
Ito 14 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: -- EXISTING PEN.
15 MR. DE FORGE: WELL --
16 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: IT ' S NOT A - -
17 MR. DE FORGE: IT ' S NOT -- AGAIN, IT WAS LOOKED AT.
18 IT' S NOT A VIABLE OPTION. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO RAISE MORE
19 SHEEP THERE. IT ' S THE SHEEP LAMB ON THAT SITE THAT
20 OVERLOOKS --
21 IF I COULD SHOW YOU SOMETHING HERE.
22 AND AGAIN, I THINK PART OF THE STRATEGY OF
23 MR. CRISTE OR SUCH IS CONFUSING. LIKE THE VIEW SHED IS - - 63
24 PERCENT OF THE VIEW SHED WOULD NOT BE SEEN. THIS IS -- BY
... 25 THE SHEEP.
26 THIS IS THE SHEEP PEN. THIS IS MR. HAYHOE' S
YATES & ASSOCIATES
88
1 PROPERTY. IT CUTS OUT LIKE THIS. MAYBE 3 PERCENT, BUT NOT
2 63 PERCENT. THIS IS ALL MR. HAYHOE' S PROPERTY. AND SO- I
3 DON'T KNOW WHERE THE 63 PERCENT --
4 THIS IS THE WASH RIGHT HERE, THIS IS BERM ROAD,
5 THE BUFFER, AS THE EXPERTS CAME UP WITH IT, CAME UP LIKE THIS
6 AND CAME OUT TO THIS HILL.
7 SO AGAIN, THERE' S BEEN A LOT OF CONFUSION AND
8 SUGGESTIONS OF STATISTICS AND SUCH, AND IN TERMS OF - - AGAIN,
9 MR. RICHARDS, HANG GLIDERS AND SUCH, THERE ' S ONLY BEEN A
10 COUPLE DOCUMENTED CASES OF THEM COMING OVER THE RIDGE WHERE
11 THEY'RE IN SIGHT OF OUR 7-ACRE PEN AND SUCH.
12 THOSE PEOPLE -- ONE MAN ACTUALLY LANDED ON OUR
13 PROPERTY. AND IT JUST SO HAPPENS LAST WEEK A MOTORIZED HANG
r
14 GLIDER FLEW AROUND OUR 30-ACRE PEN, FOR SOME REASON. BUT - -
awit
15 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THAT ' S THE PROBLEM. THESE
16 EXPERTS DON'T LIVE HERE ALL YEAR. I 'VE LIVED HERE ALL YEAR
17 FOR 18 YEARS. AND WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS CONTRARY TO WHAT
18 I KNOW TO BE A FACT. I HAVEN'T SEEN A BIGHORN SHEEP IN THAT
19 AREA EVER, AND I GO THERE A LOT.
20 MR. DE FORGE: THAT DOESN'T CONSTITUTE YOU BEING AN
21 EXPERT ON SHEEP.
22 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: I KNOW IT DOESN'T. BUT I DO
23 KNOW MORE ABOUT WHAT' S HAPPENED IN THAT LAND THAN ANY OF
24 THESE EXPERTS YOU'VE BROUGHT DOWN. I WORKED WITH THE WATER
25 DISTRICT ON THE WATER DRAINAGE PROBLEMS WHEN WE HAD A FLOOD
26 IN 176. AND ALL THESE THINGS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
89
1 BROUGHT IN FROM SOMEBODY FROM SOMEWHERE WHO ' S BROUGHT IN FOR
2 A DAY.
3 YOU'RE GOING TO TELL ME YOU PAID SOMEBODY' S
4 AIRFARE FOR TEN OF YOUR PALS OUT HERE, AND THEY'RE GOING TO
5 SAY, "NO , THIS ISN'T THE RIGHT SITE"?
6 NOW, COME ON. HOW MANY OTHER SITES DID YOU SHOW
7 THEM IN THE -- IN THE MOUNTAINS?
8 MR. DE FORGE: AGAIN, MR. RICHARDS, FISH AND GAME, BLM,
9 THERE' S A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE LOOKED AT THIS THAT WERE NOT
10 PAID ANYTHING. THEY WERE A PART OF THE SYSTEM. THE FEDERAL
11 GOVERNMENT, THE STATE -- IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THOSE EXPERTS
12 AND THROW THEM OUT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT EXPERTS ARE LEFT TO
13 LOOK AT ANYTHING.
14 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: HOW CAN --
wow
15 MR. DE FORGE: REALLY. AND, YOU KNOW, BIGHORN SHEEP ARE
16 SEEN MORE BY THE BIGHORN BIOLOGISTS THERE BECAUSE THEY'RE
17 ON—SITE 24 HOURS -- OR AT LEAST SOMEBODY IS AT ALL TIMES.
18 AND IT' S LIKE, YES, THEY'RE NOT THERE EVERY DAY. BUT THAT ' S
19 BIGHORN SHEEP HABITAT.
20 WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A TORTOISE. I HEAR WE'RE
21 SIZING -- I MEAN THERE ARE VERY FEW PEOPLE THAT HAVE SEEN
22 THEM. JUST BECAUSE YOU AND I HAVEN'T SEEN THEM DOESN'T MEAN
23 THEY DON'T EXIST. BIGHORN DO EXIST THERE. THEY'VE BEEN SEEN
24 AND THEY'VE BEEN ON—SITE.
25 AGAIN, I -- I THINK -- IN FACT, I COMMEND
26 MR. CORNETT FOR SOME OF THE STATEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN
YATES & ASSOCIATES
90
1 IN TERMS OF THE E. I .R. AND EVERYTHING ELSE. IT MAY NOT
2 PLEASE US ALL, AS WE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE BUT, AGAIN, YO1J
3 ASKED FOR A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT. AND I THINK BOTH THE
4 E. I .R. AS WELL AS THE EXPERTS' OPINIONS THAT HAVE BEEN POLLED
5 AROUND THIS COUNTRY HAVE ALL SUGGESTED THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS
6 FACILITY.
7 AND WE CAN ARGUE WHO HAD THE RIGHT FIRST OR
8 ANYTHING ELSE. AND IF WE MESSED UP, FROM THE STANDPOINT OF
9 WE KNEW IT WAS R- 1 , THOSE ARE OTHER ISSUES. BUT I DON'T
10 THINK THERE ' S ANY DOUBT IN TERMS OF BIGHORN SHEEP, THE
11 CONCERNS, AND WHAT THE EXPERTS HAVE ADDRESSED.
12 THANK YOU.
13 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THANK YOU, MR. DE FORGE.
14 MR. ROBERTS: MY NAME IS KENT ROBERTS , PRESIDENT OF THE
15 INSTITUTE. IF WE GET A LITTLE UPSET OUT HERE, I THINK IN ALL
16 FAIRNESS -- BECAUSE IT' S KIND OF A TWO-WAY STREET.
17 AT THE LAST MEETING, MR. RICHARDS MADE A POINT
18 THAT HE WANTED TO GET A VOTE AND THAT, AS HE SAID, THE
19 E. I .R. , IN HIS OPINION, WAS A WASTE OF MONEY AND A PIECE OF
20 TRASH. WHAT WE'RE HEARING TONIGHT FROM SOME PEOPLE IS THAT
21 IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE WHAT THE E. I .R. SAYS. SO
22 WE 'RE ON THE OTHER SIDE SAYING, YOU KNOW, WHERE ARE WE?
23 I WOULD LIKE TO CLEAR UP A FEW THINGS BECAUSE I
24 THINK THERE' S SOME, MAYBE, MISCONCEPTIONS, MISUNDERSTANDINGS
25 WHATEVER.
Sri
26 GOING BACK TO DAY ONE, OUR LAND, 292 ACRES , WAS
YATES & ASSOCIATES
91
1 BLM LAND. AND WE WERE GIVEN A LEASE ON THAT LAND WITH A
2 REVERSION CLAUSE THAT SAID AS LONG AS WE USE IT AS THE
3 BIGHORN INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH, THAT' S FINE. TO USE IT FOR
4 R-1 , NO WAY. IT GOES BACK TO THE BLM.
5 WHEN WE PURCHASED THE LAND, WE GOT WHAT IS CALLED
6 A PATENT. AND THAT PATENT, ONCE AGAIN, HAD A REVERSION
7 CLAUSE THAT OUR PROPERTY, IN NO WAY, AT ANY TIME, NOW AND IN
8 THE FUTURE, COULD BE DEVELOPED, EVEN THOUGH ONCE IT BECAME
9 OURS , IT FELL UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE COUNTY AND WAS
10 ZONED R-1 .
11 SO THE FACT THAT THAT ZONING EXISTED, IN REALITY,
12 WAS MEANINGLESS. AND ALSO, I THINK ANYONE THAT ' S BEEN THERE,
13 OF COURSE, UNDERSTANDS THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD R- 1 ON
r. 14 OUR PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY BECAUSE THERE ' S PROBABLY
15 ONLY 30 OR 40 ACRES THAT ARE FLAT, ANYWAY. ALL THE REST IS
16 HILLSIDE.
17 THIS WHOLE ISSUE, IT SEEMS TO ME, DOES -- IF WE
18 CAN GET BACK, PERHAPS, TO THE E.I .R. . THAT' S WHY WE'RE HERE
19 TONIGHT. I WAS PRESENT AT THE MEETING WHERE THE NINE
20 BIOLOGISTS CAME IN ON DECEMBER THE 9TH. AND BASICALLY, THEY
21 ELECTED A CHAIRPERSON, DICK WEAVER. DICK IS RETIRED, WITH
22 THE DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME IN CALIFORNIA FOR OVER
23 24 YEARS, AND IS KNOWN AS SOMEONE THAT IS AN EXPERT AS WELL
24 AS MANY OF THE OTHERS WHO WERE THERE THAT DAY.
7 25 THEY SET THE AGENDA. THEY BASICALLY WENT OUT TO
26 THE PEN FACILITIES, TOOK WITH THEM TOPOGRAPHY MAPS, LOOKED AT
YATES & ASSOCIATES
92
1 THE FEASIBILITY OF RELOCATING THE PENS ON SOME OTHER PIECE OF
2 PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE ON THE 294 ACRES.
3 AFTER THAT REVIEW, THEY SAID IT CANNOT BE DONE ANI
4 MEET WHAT IS NEEDED AS FAR AS A CRITERIA FOR THE LAMBING.
5 AND THAT WAS A FACT.
6 THEY ALSO, THEN, OF COURSE, WENT OUT ONTO THE
7 PROPERTY ITSELF, THE HAYHOE PROPERTY. WE HAD ALREADY SET UP
8 SOME MARKERS THAT SHOWED BASIC DISTANCE. AND THEY SPENT A
9 GREAT DEAL OF TIME OUT THERE LOOKING AT THE VItW SHED AND
10 TALKING, OBVIOUSLY, ABOUT THE IMPACT ON THE BIGHORN SHEEP.
11 YOU WOUND UP WITH A REPORT PREPARED BY THOSE
12 PEOPLE AND, ONCE AGAIN, IT IS -- IT ISN'T THEIR OPINION.
13 THEIR OPINION IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. THESE ARE PEOPLE WHO
14 KNOW JIM DE FORGE AS A PROFESSIONAL, ON A PROFESSIONAL BASI : ,
%N
15 THAT ' S EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. ONE OF THEM IS HERE TONIGHT AND
16 WILL SPEAK. AND THEIR INSTRUCTIONS WERE SIMPLY TO DO WHAT
17 THEY FELT WAS PROPER. AND THAT WAS THE INSTRUCTION.
18 WE DID NOT, I DID NOT, JIM DE FORGE, NO ONE AT THE
19 STAFF DREW THE LINE AND SAID, "THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD DO AS
20 FAR AS A BUFFER. " THEY DREW THE LINE. AND IT WAS IN THEIR
21 OPINION THAT THAT WAS DONE.
22 I THINK, ALSO -- THAT PARTICULAR MAP, BY THE WAY,
23 IS A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN THE FULL ALTERNATIVE 2 THAT' S SHOWN
24 IN THE E.I.R. BECAUSE, IF YOU REMEMBER, THE MAP THAT WE '
25 SUBMITTED WAY BACK WHEN BASICALLY WENT TO THE BASE OF THAT
ulgi
26 FIRST HILL AND BASICALLY CUT OFF THROUGH THERE. THE 18 ACRES
YATES & ASSOCIATES
93
1 WAS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WE SUBMITTED AND WHAT THE
2 E. I.R. CAME UP WITH AS FAR AS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE DIKE.
3 SO OUR -- OUR PROPOSAL IS ACTUALLY LESS THAN ALTERNATIVE NO.
4 2 .
5 I THINK, ALSO -- I 'M NOT SURE HOW YOU SAY WHETHER
6 IT ' S RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT BLM, WHEN THEY ALLOWED US TO LEASE
7 THE LAND, DID GIVE LEGAL NOTICE BECAUSE THAT ' S THE WAY THEY
8 DO THINGS. SO NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE CITY, THE COUNTIES, TO
9 THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, NOTIFYING THEM OF THE INTENT
10 OF BLM TO DO EXACTLY WHAT WAS DONE, AND THAT LEGAL NOTICE WAS
11 GIVEN.
12 AND AS JIM DE FORGE HAS SAID, THE PREVIOUS OWNER,
13 NOBODY QUITE KNOWS, BUT NOTHING EVER HAPPENED. THERE WAS
14 NEVER A PROPOSAL PUT IN FRONT OF US THAT SAID THAT THERE ' S
15 GOING TO BE THIS DEVELOPMENT, WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE THINK? IT
16 WAS JUST GENERAL TALK THAT THEY WOULD WORK WITH US AT THE
17 TIME ANYTHING HAPPENED.
18 AND THINGS HAVE GOTTEN KIND OF HOT IN THE VALLEY
19 LATELY AS FAR AS REAL ESTATE. AND DURING THE PAST TWO OR
20 THREE YEARS, WE HAVE RECEIVED NUMEROUS INQUIRIES FROM PEOPLE
21 ON THIS PROPERTY, ON WHAT' S NOW THE WESTINGHOUSE PROPERTY,
22 THE SHIRLEY PROPERTY, REAL ESTATE PEOPLE. I 'VE TALKED TO
23 THEM.
24 AND EVERYONE HAS SOMETHING THEY'RE GOING TO
25 DEVELOP, AND THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT OUR POSITION IS. AND THE
26 SAME -- THE SAME THINGS COME UP ALL THE TIME. YOU KNOW, "IF
YATES & ASSOCIATES
94
1 WE GIVE YOU $2 MILLION, WILL YOU MOVE? WHAT DO YOU NEED IF
2 WE 'RE HERE?" AND IT' S LIKE WE SUBMIT A PLAN, AND THERE- WE Go
3 AGAIN.
4 I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED IS THAT
5 THERE ' S NO QUESTION THAT MR. HAYHOE, SOMEONE THAT WE DID NOT
6 KNOW, SHOWED UP ON THE DOORSTEPS OF THE INSTITUTE FOR A
7 MEETING ONE DAY. AND HE DID BRING WITH HIM A PLAN. AND THAT
8 PLAN WAS ACTUALLY WHAT YOU HAVE PROPOSED HERE TONIGHT, WAS
9 WHAT I CALL A FULL-SCALE DEVELOPMENT, NO BUFFER OR ANYTHING
10 ELSE.
11 AND FOR TWO SIDES OF WHAT OCCURRED IN THE MEETING.
12 YOU'VE HEARD JIM' S SIDE AND YOU'VE HEARD MR. HAYHOE ' S SIDE.
13 THE ONLY THING WE CAN POINT TO IS THAT WE DID RECEIVE A
14 LETTER THE NEXT DAY, WHERE MR. HAYHOE STATED THAT HE WOULD
15 KEEP US INFORMED AND WANTED OUR INPUT. PERIOD .
16 THERE WAS NO MORE COMMUNICATIONS -- MR. HAYHOE HAS
17 NOT DENIED THAT -- BETWEEN JUNE 7TH AND OCTOBER 24TH, WHEN
18 PHIL JOY CALLED JIM DE FORGE AND SAID, "THERE ' S A PROJECT
19 GOING TO BE ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA IN TWO WEEKS.
20 WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE SOME COMMENTS?"
21 NOW, THAT' S WHAT HAPPENED. I DON'T THINK -- I
22 CERTAINLY DON'T THINK THAT MR. HAYHOE SHOULD RELY UPON A
23 FIELD BIOLOGIST TO MAKE HIS DECISIONS IN PURCHASING A 15 OR
24 $16 MILLION PIECE OF PROPERTY. IF THERE WAS A MISTAKE MADE
25 ON HIS PART, I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
26 THE FACT IS, IS THAT WE TRIED TO DO SOMETHING.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
95
1 JIM AND I MET WITH JOHN HAYHOE , MR. HAYHOE ' S SON, AND TOM
2 OLSON. TOM OLSON WAS A -- A BIOLOGIST THAT WAS HIRED BY
3 MR. HAYHOE TO MEET WITH US AND DISCUSS ALTERNATIVES. WE
`four
4 SPENT TWO OR THREE HOURS GIVING THEM A TOUR OF THE FACILITY
5 AND THE PENS, WALKING OUT ON THEIR PROPERTY, PROBABLY FOR AN
6 HOUR, JUST STANDING OUT THERE LOOKING AT THE ASPECT OF THE
7 PIECE OF PROPERTY AND TALKING ABOUT OUR CONCERNS.
8 AT THE CONCLUSION OF THAT MEETING, THEY BOTH
9 AGREED THAT IT MAY BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF EVERYONE TO
i
10 HAVE AN E. I .R. THREE DAYS LATER, WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM
11 MR. HAYHOE SAYING HIS SON WAS NO LONGER GOING TO BE INVOLVED
I
12 IN THE PROJECT. AND I THINK YOU CAN DRAW YOUR OWN
13 CONCLUSIONS.
14 WE, AT THAT TIME, BECAUSE WE WERE ASKED BY
ire►
15 MR. HAYHOE, YOU KNOW, "BE SPECIFIC. " YOU KNOW, "WHAT DO YOU
16 WANT?"
17 AND THAT IS WHY WE ASKED FOR THIS MEETING OF THE
18 BIOLOGISTS, BECAUSE IT WAS MY FEELING THAT WE DID NOT -- AND
19 I SAY "WE" AS THE INSTITUTE -- OUR STAFF SHOULD NOT SIT DOWN
20 AND DRAW THESE LINES BECAUSE OF THE VERY REASONS THAT COULD
21 BE BROUGHT UP TONIGHT.
22 AND WE SIMPLY SAT DOWN AND SAID, "WHO ARE THE
23 EXPERTS?" AND I JUST WANT TO -- I ONLY WANT TO SPEND A
24 COUPLE MINUTES, BUT I THINK IT' S VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE CIE
25 ARE TALKING ABOUT CREDIBILITY.
26 AND WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE? AND IT' S ALREADY BEEN
YATES & ASSOCIATES
96
1 SAID, AND MR. CARUTHERS STATED HIMSELF , THAT HE WAS NOT A
2 BIGHORN EXPERT. HE SAID THAT AT THE LAST MEETING. HE '-S AN
3 ECOLOGIST. AND HE' S A GOOD ECOLOGIST, BUT HE ' S NOT A BIGHOR
4 EXPERT. AND THERE ' S A BIG DIFFERENCE IN PEOPLE THAT SPEND woo
5 20 YEARS IN THE FIELD, THEIR ENTIRE LIVES ON THIS PARTICULAR
6 SUBJECT VERSUS SOMEONE WHO IS AN OVERALL ECOLOGIST.
7 THE PEOPLE THAT WE HAD AT THAT MEETING INCLUDED
8 MICHAEL DEE. HE ' S THE CURATOR OF MAMMALS AT THE LOS ANGELES
9 ZOO AND HAS BEEN IN CHARGE OF BIGHORN SHEEP AT THE ZOO FOR
10 THE PAST 15 YEARS.
11 DICK WEAVER, WHO I TALKED ABOUT, WAS ELECTED AT
12 THIS COMMITTEE TO BE CHAIRMAN, HAD 40 YEARS WITH THE
13 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME AND HAS BEEN VERY
t
14 WELL-KNOWN IN THIS STATE FOR THE PAST 25 YEARS AS ONE OF THE
15 FOREMOST EXPERTS ON BIGHORN SHEEP AND IS ALSO A TECHNICAL
16 STAFF MEMBER OF THE DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL.
17 THIS PARTICULAR COUNCIL IS COMPOSED OF
18 APPROXIMATELY 200 BIGHORN BIOLOGISTS IN CALIFORNIA, AND THESE
19 PEOPLE BASICALLY ADVISE THE STATE AND FEDERAL LAND AGENCIES
20 ON ISSUES THAT COME BEFORE THEM.
21 THIS OTHER PERSON, WHO WILL SPEAK TONIGHT, IS RAUL
22 VALDEZ. HE IS A TEACHER WITH THE NEW MEXICO STATE
23 UNIVERSITY. HE ' S HAD OVER 19 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN, NOT
24 ONLY NORTH AMERICA BUT ASIA, FOR LONG PERIODS OF TIME AND HA,
2
25 WRITTEN SEVERAL BOOKS AND PERIODICALS ON BIGHORN SHEEP.
26 GEORGE WELSH, ALSO WAS A BIOLOGIST, AND IS A
YATES & ASSOCIATES
97
1 WILDLIFE MANAGER FOR THE ARIZONA GAME AND FISH -- FISH AND
2 GAME DEPARTMENT. AND HE WORKED THERE FROM 1957 UNTIL HIS
3 RETIREMENT IN 1983 . AND HE SPENT OVER 24 YEARS IN THE
%or
4 KINGMAN, ARIZONA AREA. AND HIS PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY WAS
5 DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP. HE WAS DEVELOPING SURVEYS AND
6 MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES. HE ' S ALSO ON THE TECHNICAL STAFF OF
7 THE DESERT BIGHORN COUNCIL.
8 TWO OTHER PEOPLE , AND THEN I ' LL FINISH THE LIST.
9 DON ARMENTROUT. HE HAS BEEN EMPLOYED AS A WILDLIFE BIOLOGIST
10 BY THE BLM SINCE 1976 . ONCE AGAIN, HIS SPECIALTY IS IN
11 BIGHORN SHEEP HABITAT MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING
12 IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION.
13 THE LAST PERSON IS MARK JORGENSON, WHO IS A STATE
14 PARK NATURALIST AT ANZA-BORREGO DESERT STATE PARK SINCE 1980
15 AND OVERALL HAS OVER 25 YEARS EXPERIENCE WORKING SPECIFICALLY
16 WITH BIGHORN SHEEP. HE IS ALSO ON THE DESERT BIGHORN
17 COUNCIL.
18 THOSE PEOPLE CAME BECAUSE THIS IS THEIR LIFE:
19 BIGHORN SHEEP. THEY KNOW OF THE INSTITUTE, THEY KNOW OF OUR
20 SUCCESS, AND THEY WERE ASKED TO COME THERE TO GIVE THEIR
21 OPINION TO TELL US WHAT TO DO WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROBLEM.
22 AND THEY DID SO. AND AS JIM POINTED OUT, TOM
23 OLSON ATTENDED THIS MEETING AND -- AND WE HAD A LITTLE
24 DIALOGUE ABOUT THIS BECAUSE TOM OLSON, THREE WEEKS -- OR THE
+�++ 25 MONTH BEFORE, HAD BEEN EMPLOYED BY MR. HAYHOE, OBVIOUSLY, TO
26 CONVINCE US THAT EVERYTHING WAS FINE.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
98
1 AND THERE WERE SOME QUALMS ABOUT HAVING SOMEONE
2 LIKE THAT AT THE MEETING. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, THE P-EOPLE
3 FELT THAT THEY HAD NOTHING TO HIDE. THEY COULD GO AHEAD AND
4 TALK ABOUT THESE THINGS AND GIVE WHAT THEY FELT WAS THEIR
5 BEST OPINION.
6 AND AT THE END OF THE DAY THEY SAT DOWN AS A
7 COMMITTEE AND SAID, "LET ' S WRITE UP WHAT WE FEEL. " AND THAT
8 IS ONE OF THE LETTERS THAT YOU RECEIVED FROM THIS COMMITTEE .
9 SO NOW WE FIND OURSELVES HERE TONIGHT, AND I THINK
10 THE CENTRAL ISSUE, AT LEAST IN MY OPINION, IS : DO YOU -
11 BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON
12 THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE BY THIS PROPERTY IF THERE ARE HOMES
13 DEVELOPED TO THE LIMIT?
14 AND I THINK WHEN WE TALK ABOUT COMPROMISE THAT TH.
15 COMMITTEE SAT DOWN IN DECEMBER AND SAID THAT, "THIS IS WHAT
16 WE FEEL IS THE MINIMUM. " AND I HAD PEOPLE THERE TALKING
17 ABOUT A MILE AWAY BECAUSE THAT ' S WHAT THEY FEEL IS IMPORTANT.
18 AND WE SAID, "THAT' S NOT PRACTICAL. WHAT ELSE CAN
19 WE DO?"
20 AND THAT' S HOW THEY SPENT THEIR TIME. AND THEY
21 CAME UP WITH THAT MAP, WHICH, LIKE I SAY -- I 'M NOT SURE
22 WHERE IT IS HERE TONIGHT, BUT IT DOES HAVE THAT EXTRA - - YOU
23 MIGHT CALL THE 18 ACRES -- WHICH IS PART OF THAT VIEW SHED,
24 BUT BASICALLY, IT CUTS OFF AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HILL.
25 SO WHETHER THAT' S AN ACCEPTABLE COMPROMISE TO THE
26 DEVELOPER, I CAN'T ANSWER. BUT I KNOW IF YOU WANT TO SEE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
99
1 BIGHORN SHEEP HERE 20 OR 30 YEARS FROM NOW, I THINK IT ' S THE
2 CORRECT DECISION. AND I THINK WE HAVE FOLLOWED THE PROCESS
3 AND WE DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING THAT' S CALLED FAST-TRACKING,
4 LIKE IT WAS TALKED ABOUT BEFORE.
5 WE STARTED OUR PLANS FOR THESE BUILDINGS IN 1984.
6 THESE ARE THINGS ON THE RECORD, IRREFUTABLE FACTS . AND WE
7 HAVE BEEN MOVING TO THAT SINCE THAT DATE. AND IN MARCH OF
8 1989 , WE ACTUALLY BROUGHT IN GENE KING, THE CONTRACTOR, TO
9 WORK WITH ALTUNA PORTER TO BEGIN THEIR SUBMISSIONS TO THE
10 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND BUILDING
11 DEPARTMENT SO THAT WE COULD BEGIN CONSTRUCTION IN OCTOBER OF
12 1989 . OBVIOUSLY, THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.
13 WHAT WE DO NOT WANT TONIGHT, I DON'T THINK, IS TO
14 FEEL THAT SOMEHOW THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE
15 FOR MR. HAYHOE ' S DECISION ON THE PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY.
16 IT COULD HAVE BEEN SOMEONE ELSE THERE BESIDES THE BIGHORN
17 INSTITUTE, AND THE E. I .R. IS REQUIRED WHEN THERE ARE
18 SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS.
19 AND I HAVE NOT -- I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYONE FROM THE
20 OTHER SIDE REFUTE THE PEOPLE THAT WE HAVE TONIGHT WITH THE
21 EXCEPTION OF A COUPLE OF CONVERSATIONS SAYING THAT, "WE JUST
22 DON'T THINK IT' S A PROBLEM.
23 AND WE BELIEVE, IF YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE EXPERT
24 TESTIMONY, THAT THE PEOPLE THAT WERE AT THAT MEETING OF
%mw 25 DECEMBER 9TH ARE EXPERTS WITH A COUPLE OF HUNDRED YEARS OF
26 EXPERIENCE, AND THEY'RE VERY QUALIFIED, PEOPLE WITH A VERY
YATES & ASSOCIATES
100
1 HIGH LEVEL OF INTEGRITY AND, I THINK, RESPECTED. AND THEY
2 GAVE THEIR OPINION.
3 AND I DIDN'T GIVE MINE. AND WE KEPT JIM OUT OF IT
4 AND WE KEPT ELAINE OUT OF IT. BASICALLY, IT WAS THEIR
5 DECISION.
6 I 'LL BE HAPPY TO TRY AND ANSWER, MR. RICHARDS,
7 YOUR QUESTIONS.
8 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THE SAME THING. WHERE WERE
9 THESE PEOPLE WHEN YOU BOUGHT THE PROPERTY?
10 THE PROBLEM IS: YOU WANT, NOW, TO TAKE SOMEBODY
11 WHO HAD OWNERSHIP OF SOMETHING. IF WE WERE TO AGREE THAT
12 YOUR EXPERTS ARE TOTALLY RIGHT, IN MY ESTIMATION, YOU OUGHT
13 TO BUY THE LAND BECAUSE YOU TOOK AWAY THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS.
:
14 YOU TOOK AWAY THE RIGHTS OF OTHERS, OTHER PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT
15 LAND.
16 I DON'T HAVE A -- AN INCH OF SYMPATHY WITH
17 MR. HAYHOE, WHETHER HE TALKED TO YOU GUYS. TO ME, BUYER
18 BEWARE. THAT' S HIS OWN PROBLEM.
19 I HAVE SYMPATHY FOR ANYBODY THAT OWNED THAT
20 PROPERTY NEXT TO YOUR PROJECT WHEN YOU WENT IN AND SAID,
21 "HEY, WE'RE GOOD NEIGHBORS. EVERYTHING IS COMPATIBLE. " AND
22 NOW YOU COME IN AND SAY, "HEY, PAL. YOU CAN'T DO WHAT YOU
23 WANT TO DO. "
24 THAT' S THE PROBLEM. IF YOU -- YOU WANT THE
25 BUFFER, YOU PAY FOR IT. wr
26 MR. ROBERTS: OKAY. MR. RICHARDS, LET ME -- LET ME TRY
YATES & ASSOCIATES
101
1 AND ADDRESS THAT, IF I CAN.
2 WE HAD TALKED WITH THE PREVIOUS OWNER. OKAY-? WE
3 DID NOT HAVE A PROBLEM. I 'M JUST TALKING ABOUT THE PREVIOUS
°fir.
4 OWNER AT THAT TIME.
5 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: I 'M TALKING ABOUT THE - - THE
6 TRANSCRIPTS THAT MR. BURNS READ AT THE COUNTY WHEN YOU
7 APPLIED FOR CHANGE OF ZONE. THAT' S THE PROBLEM.
8 THE HEART OF THIS WHOLE THING IS YOU SAID IN THOSE
9 TRANSCRIPTS THAT YOU WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS
10 AND THAT YOU DIDN'T -- YOU -- YOU DID A NEGATIVE DEC. THAT
11 SAYS BASICALLY, "WHAT WE DO ISN'T GOING TO AFFECT OUR
12 NEIGHBORS. " AND YOU DECLARED THAT.
13 MR. ROBERTS: IF I MAY SAY THIS. IF WE HAD NEVER
14 APPLIED FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE WITH THE COUNTY, OUR ZONE OF R- 1
15 IS MEANINGLESS. AND I HOPE EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THAT. THIS
16 IS BLM LAND. THEY DO NOT SELL BLM LAND FOR R- 1 DEVELOPMENT.
17 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: BUT THEY TRADE IT ALL OVER THE
18 WORLD. I MEAN THEY TRADE IT ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.
19 MR. ROBERTS: WELL, IN OUR PARTICULAR CASE, SINCE WE
20 WERE THERE WITH RIGHTS ALSO, BECAUSE WE HAD A LAND LEASE AND
21 WE ACQUIRED THE LAND PRIOR TO MR. HAYHOE WITH RIGHTS. AND
22 THE ONLY WAY THAT PROPERTY COULD EVER BE R- 1 IS IF, FIRST OF
23 ALL, WE LEFT AND IT REVERTED TO THE BLM, AND THEN THEY SOLD
24 IT TO SOMEONE, SO I DON'T --
25 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: BUT THAT' S NOT ADDRESSING THE
26 NEIGHBOR. THAT' S NOT ADDRESSING THE PEOPLE WHO OWNED THE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
102
1 PROPERTY BEFORE YOU GOT THERE. NOT THE PROPERTY YOU HAVE.
2 MR. ROBERTS: WE DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE PE-OPLE
3 THAT WERE THERE BEFORE, MR. RICHARDS. WHAT I ' M SAYING IS
4 THAT THERE WAS NEVER A PROJECT. WE TALKED WITH' THE PEOPLE,
5 WE --
6 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. I MEAN YOU
7 TALK ABOUT NEVER A PROJECT. LET' S TAKE A LITTLE HISTORY.
8 1980, WE HAD A MAJOR PROJECT ON THE BOARDS. IT
9 WAS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY, TO GIVE YOU SOME HISTORY. THE
10 DEVELOPER CAME TO US AND SAID, "WE WANT TO BUILD 1400 UNITS
11 AND TWO HOTELS ON THAT PROPERTY. "
12 WE SAID TO THEM, "NO, THAT' S NOT ACCEPTABLE TO
13 US. "
14 THEY SAID, "WELL, WHAT IS?"
15 WE ENDED UP SOMEWHERE WITH 11 OR 1200 UNITS AND A
16 120-UNIT HOTEL. AND THEIR AGREEMENT WAS THAT THEY WOULD --
17 WE WOULD ACCEPT THEM INTO THE CITY WITH THAT KIND OF ZONING.
18 AND IT WAS ALL AGREED, AND IT WAS PUBLICIZED.
19 AND IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT IT WAS ALL GOING TO
20 BE BUILT. AND THE WATER DISTRICT CAME IN ONE NIGHT, DUG A
21 BIG TRENCH, PUT THE DITCH IN, AND SAID, "WE 'RE HERE. "
22 AND THEN THE FUN STARTED. LAWSUITS LASTED -- IN
23 THE MIDDLE OF THE LAWSUITS IS WHEN YOU PURCHASED OR GOT
24 YOUR -- YOUR TITLE TO THE PROPERTY. IN THE MIDDLE OF IT:
25 MR. ROBERTS: THAT'S WHEN WE GOT OUR LAND.
26 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: I MEAN, BUT THE PROPERTY ALL
YATES & ASSOCIATES
103
1 AROUND YOU HAD SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT ALREADY APPROVED WITH
2 LOTS OF MONEY BEING SPENT AND ALL KINDS OF THINGS ALL AROUND
3 YOU.
4 AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME YOU WENT AND TOLD THE
5 COUNTY THAT NOTHING YOU WERE GOING TO DO - - YOU DECLARED A
6 NEGATIVE DEC. OKAY? NOTHING YOU WERE GOING TO DO WAS GOING
7 TO AFFECT THEM.
8 NOW, HOW DO YOU TELL US NOW THAT TENS OF MILLIONS
9 OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PROPERTY HAS TO BE GIVEN UP, WHEN THEN
10 YOU SAID, "NOTHING WE DO IS GOING TO AFFECT OUR NEIGHBORS"?
11 MR. ROBERTS: I THINK WE 'RE BACK TO STILL ONE OF THE
12 ISSUES THAT THIS LAND, MY UNDERSTANDING, HAS BEEN OWNED BY
13 THE BLM SINCE 1926.
14 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: YOUR LAND. LET' S GET - - LET ' S
15 TALK ABOUT -- YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT GIVING UP - - NOT YOUR
16 LAND. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT GIVING UP SOMEBODY ELSE' S LAND.
17 LET' S KEEP OUR FOCUS ON THAT.
18 MR. ROBERTS: I WILL TRY AND KEEP MY FOCUS ON THAT.
19 ONCE AGAIN, MR. HAYHOE ACQUIRED THIS PROPERTY WITH THE FULL
20 KNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAD A PATENT ON THE LAND, THAT WE WERE
21 GOING TO BE THERE FOR PERPETUITY, THAT WE HAD A REVERSION
22 RIGHT, IF HE WANTED TO CHECK THE RECORDS. IT SAYS IF WE EVER
23 QUIT, IT GOES BACK TO THE BLM. MR. HAYHOE WAS AWARE THAT WE
24 HAD PEN FACILITIES. ALL THESE THINGS WERE THERE.
ftow 25 NOW MR. HAYHOE BECOMES THE NEW OWNER. MR. HAYHOE
26 COMES TO THE CITY AND REQUESTS -- FILLS OUT A NEGATIVE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
104
1 DECLARATION. OKAY?
2 AFTER WE FIND OUT ABOUT IT TWO WEEKS BEFORE THE
3 PLANNING COMMISSION, WE OBJECT TO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
4 WE TALK WITH MR. HAYHOE'S SON AND HIS CONSULTANT . I TALKED
5 WITH MR. HAYHOE. HE AGREED THE DAY BEFORE THE MEETING TO
6 SAY, "IT ' S OKAY. LET' S HAVE AN E. I .R. " THAT ' S WHAT I 'M
7 SAYING.
8 NOW WE HAVE THE E. I .R. , AND WHAT DOES IT SAY?
9 THAT IS, I THINK, THE REASON THAT WE'RE HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE
10 EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS ON THE AGENDA IS TO EVALUATE THE E. I .R.
11 AND MAKE A DECISION AS FAR AS THIS PROJECT.
12 WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THAT WE BELIEVE THAT THE
13 E. I .R. AND THE TESTIMONY THAT WE'VE GIVEN SAYS THAT HIS
14 PROJECT, AS PROPOSED, FULL-BLOWN, WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE IMP,,, WAO
15 ON THE ENVIRONMENT. AND WE HAPPEN TO BE ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE.
16 AND THAT SHOULD BE THE ISSUE.
17 IF MR. HAYHOE, AS HE HAS SUED US NOW, WINDS UP
18 BEING SUCCESSFUL, THAT' S FINE VITH HIM. WE DON'T BELIEVE
19 THAT ' S WHAT' S GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT THAT' S WHAT LAWYERS ARE
20 FOR.
21 ALL I 'M SAYING IS THAT I THOUGHT AND I THINK THAT
22 THE ISSUE IS, BEFORE US TONIGHT, THE E. I.R. AND I THINK,
23 WHETHER WE LIKE CEQA OR NOT, IT ' S VERY, VERY CLEAR THAT THE
24 B. I .R. IS DETERMINED AT THE TIME THAT IT IS TAKEN.
25 AND IF WE HAD ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY IN 1940 OR
26 1960 OR 1987 , IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. AND THAT' S - -
YATES & ASSOCIATES
105
1 THAT ' S MY WHOLE POINT IS THAT -- IS THAT WE 'RE TRYING TO GO
2 BACK, I GUESS, AND RECREATE HISTORY. AND I 'M SIMPLY SAYING
3 THAT WHATEVER HAS HAPPENED HAS HAPPENED.
err
4 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: WELL, THAT ' S NICE OF YOU TO DO
5 THAT. I MEAN --
6 MR. ROBERTS: NO. I 'M TRYING TO BE PRACTICAL.
7 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: YOU THROW OUT A $10 MILLION - -
8 WELL, THAT' S NICE. I MEAN THAT ' S THE PROBLEM. EVERYTHING
9 THAT YOU SAY HAS -- HAS GOT -- YOU TALK ABOUT SOMEBODY
10 MENTIONED DIVERTING THE ATTENTION. WHAT WE 'RE HERE TO DO
11 TONIGHT IS NOT ONLY TO LOOK AT AN B. I.R. , IT ' S TO LOOK AT A
12 PROJECT. OKAY? AND LOOK AT WHERE THE PROJECT WAS AND WHAT ' S
13 DEVELOPED THERE AND WHAT WAS THE ZONING AND ALL OF THIS.
wow 14 AND WE HAD ZONED THAT PROPERTY. THAT PROPERTY WAS
15 ZONED RIGHT HERE TO DO MUCH BIGGER THINGS THAN WHAT' S GOING
16 ON IT NOW.
17 MR. ROBERTS: AND IT STILL CAN BE DONE. THERE IS
18 NOTHING -
19 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: IT CAN'T BE DONE WITH YOU
20 SITTING HERE DEMANDING THAT THEY GIVE UP --
21 MR. ROBERTS: NO, I 'M NOT --
22 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: -- I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ACRES.
23 MR. ROBERTS: I 'M NOT -- I THINK YOU'RE SAYING THAT
24 WE'RE DEMANDING THIS.
25 MR. HAYHOE SAID, "OKAY. WHAT DO YOU PEOPLE WANT
26 FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL BUFFER?"
YATES & ASSOCIATES
106
1 AND WE SAID, "OKAY. LET US TRY AND FIND OUT WHAT
2 WE SHOULD PROPOSE. "
s
3 WE CALLED A GROUP OF EXPERTS. WE GAVE IT TO
4 MR. HAYHOE. WE PRESENTED IT TO THE CITY, AND WE SAID, "HERE
5 IS WHAT WE FEEL THAT WE NEED FOR AN ENVIRONMENTAL BUFFER. "
6 AND THAT' S WHY WE ARE HERE TONIGHT . AND THAT ' S --
7 THAT ' S WHAT WE 'RE SAYING. AND MR. HAYHOE CAN RESUBMIT PLANS.
8 THERE ' S ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THAT SAYS THAT HE CANNOT DO
9 SOMETHING ELSE, AS HE TOLD ME ON THE PHONE ONE DAY. "IF I
10 DON'T DO THE GOLF COURSE, I MAY JUST BUILD 1 , 000 HOMES ON
11 WHAT ' S LEFT. "
12 AND I SAID, " IF IT ' S THE RIGHT TYPE OF
13 DEVELOPMENT, WE 'D LIKE TO SUPPORT IT ON THE REMAINING
14 PARCEL. "
15 SO THERE IS OTHER SOLUTIONS. BUT I 'M BACK AGAIN
16 TO FOCUSING ON WHAT I THOUGHT THE DECISION WAS TONIGHT, WAS
17 THE E. I .R. AND NOT TRYING TO GO BACK TO FIND BLAME OF EITHER
18 THE INSTITUTE OR MR. HAYHOE.
19 AND ONCE AGAIN, IF WE'RE GOING TO BE FAULTED FOR
20 SOMETHING, NO ONE HAS CRITICIZED MR. HAYHOE. I MEAN IT ' S
21 LIKE, "OKAY. YOU BOUGHT THIS THING, AND IF YOU CAN'T GET
22 YOUR WAY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ' S GOING TO HAPPEN. "
23 AND ALL I 'M SAYING IS THAT I THINK, ONCE AGAIN,
24 WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE FOCUSING ON THE RESULTS OF THE E. I .R.
F
25 AND I THINK THEY'RE FAIRLY CLEAR. I THINK MR. CORNETT
26 OUTLINED THEM.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
107
1 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THANK YOU, MR. ROBERTS.
2 MR. VALDEZ: MY NAME IS RAUL VALDEZ. I AM A PROFESSOR
3 OF WILDLIFE SCIENCE AT NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY IN THE
4 DEPARTMENT OF FISHERY AND WILDLIFE, LAS CRUCES, NEW MEXICO.
5 AND I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO READ THE LETTER
6 WRITTEN TO YOU BY MR. ANDY SANDOVAL, WHO IS A WILD SHEEP
7 BIOLOGIST AND CURRENT CHIEF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HABITAT,
8 ENVIRONMENT, AND LANDS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF GAME AND FISH,
9 STATE OF NEW MEXICO.
10 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: MR. VALDEZ, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WE
11 DID RECEIVE THIS LETTER. AND MAYBE, IN THE ESSENCE OF TIME,
12 IT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY FOR YOU TO READ THAT.
13 MR. VALDEZ: WELL, THEN, LET ME PARAPHRASE BECAUSE I
14 THINK IT ' S IMPORTANT THAT I GO OVER SOME OF THE -- SOME OF
15 THE CONCERNS THAT HE EXPRESSES. AND THESE CONCERNS RELATE,
16 OF COURSE, TO THE WELFARE OF THE SHEEP POPULATION AND --
17 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: YOU'RE THE ONLY EXPERT WE 'VE HAD
i
18 HERE NEXT TO MR. DE FORGE. CAN YOU TELL US IN YOUR OWN WORDS
19 WHY THIS IS A GOOD SITE OR WHY IT ISN'T?
20 MR. VALDEZ: WELL, I 'LL TELL YOU WHY. BECAUSE THE WILD
21 SHRIP TELL US IT IS A PERFECT SITE BECAUSE THEY ARE
22 SUCCESSFULLY BREEDING IN THAT SITE. AND IF SOMETHING IS
23 WORKING, WHY MESS WITH IT?
24 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: AH-HAH. THAT ' S THE --
taw 25 MR. VALDEZ: WAIT A MINUTE.
26 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THAT' S THE REASON, THEN?
YATES & ASSOCIATES
108
1 MR. VALDEZ : THAT' S RIGHT.
2 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: OKAY.
3 MR. VALDEZ: WHO IS A BETTER JUDGE OF GOOD, QUALITY WIL
4 SHEEP HABITAT THAN THE WILD SHEEP THEMSELVES? YOU ARE NOT, I
5 AM NOT.
6 AS A WILD SHEEP BIOLOGIST, I GO OUT THERE, AND I
7 ASK - - THE PRIMARY QUESTION I ASK: WHERE ARE WILD SHEEP
8 DOING WELL? AND WHERE THEY ARE DOING WELL, I KNOW THAT IS
9 GOOD SHEEP HABITAT.
10 SO I CAN TELL YOU WITH 100 PERCENT ACCURACY,
11 100 PERCENT CONFIDENCE, THAT THAT PARTICULAR BREEDING SITE IS
12 AN EFFECTIVE BREEDING SITE.
13 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: DO YOU SUBSCRIBE TO THE FACT
14 THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE CONDITION THAT MAKES THAT SUCCESSFUL?%wo
15 MR. VALDEZ: IN THIS CASE, YES. BECAUSE THE WELFARE OF
16 THE WILD SHEEP POPULATION IS DEPENDENT ON THE WELFARE OF THAT
17 BREEDING POPULATION BECAUSE THE SHEEP THAT ARE PRODUCED IN
18 THAT PEN ARE GOING TO BE USED TO RESTOCK THE ORIGINAL RANGE
19 OF THESE SHEEP.
20 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: I WANT TO GET BACK TO THE
21 LOCATION BECAUSE THE PURPOSE OF THIS -- YOUR TESTIMONY IS --
22 IS TO PERSUADE SOMEBODY HERE OR NOT TO PERSUADE SOMEBODY HERE
23 THAT THE PROPERTY THAT' S ADJACENT TO THIS --, TO THE BIGHORN
24 INSTITUTE WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL.
e �
25 AND MY QUESTION IS: THE FACT THAT IF THOSE SHEEP%
26 WHICH ARE PENNED IN, IF THOSE SHEEP WERE TOTALLY LEFT ALONE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
109
1 IN A REAL LABORATORY SENSE IN TERMS OF -- THE ONLY WAY YOU
2 COULD TELL ME THAT THAT LOCATION WAS THE ONLY REASON THAT
3 THOSE SHEEP WERE HEALTHY WOULD BE IF MAN WAS NOT AROUND THEM.
4 YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT YOU HAVE A STAFF BIOLOGIST AND A
5 BIGHORN SHEEP EXPERT LIKE JIM AND THAT HIS INPUT TOWARDS
6 THEIR HEALTH HASN'T GOT SOMETHING DO WITH THEIR SUCCESS.
7 AND NOBODY HERE IS MEASURING THAT. THEY'RE
8 SAYING, "WELL, WE PUT THEM IN A PEN HERE AND THEY BREED WELL,
9 SO THAT' S THE GREATEST SPOT. "
10 IF THAT ' S WHY TEN PEOPLE HERE SAY THIS IS THE ONLY
11 REASON -- I MEAN THIS IS THE PRIMARY REASON WHY THAT' S THE
12 BEST LOCATION, BECAUSE IT' S SUCCESSFUL, I QUESTION THAT
13 THAT ' S REALLY WHAT -- THAT THAT MAKES ANY SENSE, BECAUSE
vow 14 THERE WERE MORE FACTORS THAN JUST THE LOCATION IN WHY THEY'RE
15 SUCCESSFUL.
16 MR. VALDEZ: WELL, AGAIN, I THINK MOST OF WHAT YOU SAID
17 IS IRRELEVANT. THE FACT IS THAT THIS AREA IS PRODUCING THE
18 ONLY VIABLE BREEDING POPULATION OF WILD SHEEP IN SOUTHERN
19 CALIFORNIA.
20 AND THERE IS A DANGER THAT THIS POPULATION, THE
21 ENTIRE POPULATION IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, WILL BECOME
22 ENDANGERED. AND IF YOU WANT PROBLEMS, WELL, THEN, GO AHEAD
23 AND JEAPORDIZE THE WELFARE OF THIS POPULATION AND LET THE
24 ANIMAL -- LET THIS SUBSPECIES BECOME ENDANGERED, AND YOU ARE
.•• 25 REALLY GOING TO HAVE CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON YOU BY
26 THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE STATE GOVERNMENT RELATIVE TO
YATES & ASSOCIATES
110
1 DEVELOPMENT. THEN YOU WILL REALLY HAVE PROBLEMS.
2 SO , AGAIN, DON'T TOY WITH THIS . LEAVE IT ALONE.
3 LET' S LEARN FROM PAST EXPERIENCES, OIL SPILLS, ET CETERA.
4 THIS IS A VERY VALUABLE RESOURCE, SO JUST LEAVE IT ALONE.
5 DON'T PLAY WITH -- DON'T MESS -- DON'T BUNGLE THE SUCCESS OF
6 THIS ANIMAL. DON'T TOY WITH IT. LET' S BE ENVIRONMENTALLY
7 CONSCIOUS.
8 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: WAS THAT SITE PICKED BECAUSE THERE
9 WERE ACTUALLY SHEEP BREEDING THERE BEFORE THEY PENNED IT IN
10 AND MADE A BREEDING AREA?
11 MR. VALDEZ: WELL, HISTORICALLY, WILD SHEEP OCCUPIED THE
12 ENTIRE RANGE. YOU KNOW, 20 YEARS AGO, YOU COULD DRIVE UP
13 THAT HIGHWAY AND SEE 20, 30, 40 SHEEP RIGHT ALONG THE
14 HIGHWAY.
.n
15 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: HOW ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO?
16 MR. VALDEZ: YES, THAT' S A FACT.
17 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: HOW ABOUT FIVE YEARS BEFORE --
18 MR. VALDEZ: YES, YES.
19 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: HOLD IT DOWN.
20 HOW ABOUT FIVE YEARS BEFORE THEY ACQUIRED THE
21 PROPERTY? WAS SHEEP BREEDING THERE?
22 MR. VALDEZ: I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. I WASN 'T THERE. BUT
23 IF YOU TALK TO DICK WEAVER, WHO IS -- WHO STUDIED WILD SHEEP
24 IN CALIFORNIA FOR 40 YEARS, HE HIMSELF POINTED OUT TO ME;
25 "SEE THAT SLOPE RIGHT THERE? 20 YEARS, I WOULD SEE MANY, rrrr
26 MANY SHEEP ON THAT SLOPE. " THAT' S A FACT, DESPITE OPINIONS
YATES & ASSOCIATES
111
1 OTHERWISE.
2 AND AGAIN, IF YOU'RE NOT A WILD SHEEP EXPERT-,
3 THERE COULD BE A SHEEP STANDING 50, 60, FEET AWAY FROM YOU,
4 AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO NOTICE IT. I SEE IT CONSISTENTLY. A
5 DEER WILL BE RIGHT BESIDE SOMEBODY WHO CAN -- WHO DOES NOT --
6 WHO IS NOT USED TO IDENTIFYING DEER, AND SAYS, "I DON'T SEE
7 ANYTHING. "
8 I SAY, "LOOK. THERE IT IS. " IT ' S THAT SIMPLE.
9 SO WILDLIFE EXPERTS KNOW FOR A FACT THAT ALL THAT
10 WAS WILD SHEEP HABITAT. AND AGAIN, DISTURBANCE WAS ONE OF
11 THE -- WAS PROBABLY THE MAJOR REASON WHY THOSE SHEEP ARE
12 NOW -- HAVE NOW DECLINED SO DRASTICALLY.
13 ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
14 THANK YOU.
15 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THANK YOU.
16 IS THERE ANYONE ELSE?
17 MS. SCHWENN: I 'M BERN SCHWENN, 74-075 MOCKINGBIRD
18 TRAIL. I 'M GOING TO SPEAK HERE WITH TWO DIFFERENT HATS.
19 FIRST, I NEED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID
20 BY DOUG ALMS. HE COULDN'T BE HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE HE HAD TO
21 WORK. HE' S THE CONSERVATION CHAIR OF THE SIERRA CLUB.
22 AND TO ANSWER MR. RICHARDS, IN PALM DESERT, WE
23 HAVE OVER 250 FAMILIES THAT ARE MEMBERS OF THE SIERRA CLUB.
24 AND THAT' S NOT INCLUDING THE PEOPLE WHO BELONG TO THE
vw 25 NATIONAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL AND THE NATIONAL
26 ASSOCIATION AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 250 FAMILIES HERE ARE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
112
1 CONCERNED.
2 THE SIERRA CLUB SUPPORTS THE NO DEVELOPMENT
3 ALTERNATIVE, BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO DEVELOP , WE WANT
4 ALTERNATIVE 2 , AS IT ' S BEEN DISCUSSED. AND THAT ' S MY COMMENT
5 FOR THE SIERRA CLUB.
6 MY OTHER COMMENT IS TO CLARIFY A FEW THINGS. UM,
7 I HAVE BEEN LIVING HERE FOR OVER 20 YEARS. I HAVE MORE TIME
8 THAN YOU, MR. RICHARDSON (SIC) . AND I HAVE SEEN BIGHORN ALL
9 OVER THE SANTA ROSAS. AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT ON OCCASION,
10 I 'VE HAD BIGHORN TEN FEET IN FRONT OF ME AND I DON'T SEE
11 THEM. THE ONLY REASON I FINALLY SEE THE BIGHORN IS BECAUSE I
12 MOVE, THEN THE BIGHORN MOVES. AND THEN I NOTICE THAT THERE' S
13 A BIGHORN RIGHT THERE.
14 SO I HAVE SEEN BIGHORN ALL ALONG THE SLOPES OF THE
15 SANTA ROSAS. AND I DID SEE THEM VERY RECENTLY IN THE SAME
16 AREA DOWN ON THE LOW SLOPES, AND I WAS REALLY SURPRISED
17 BECAUSE I HADN'T SEEN BIGHORN FOR A LONG TIME.
18 TO DISCUSS THE LOCATION, WHY THE INSTITUTE WENT
19 THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, I THINK I CAN SPEAK FOR THIS
20 BECAUSE I WORK AS A VOLUNTEER WITH THE BLM. AND I AM THE
21 GRANDPARENT OF THE SANTA ROSA WILDERNESS, WHICH MEANS I WATCH
22 FOR ABUSES, PEOPLE GOING WITH ATV' S AND THINGS LIKE THAT INTO
23 THE WILDERNESS.
24 AND AS FAR AS LOCATING SOMETHING LIKE THE
25 INSTITUTE, THE BLM DOES OWN -- I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT ' S EVEN
26 OR ODD-NUMBERED SECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
113
1 MOST OF THESE SECTIONS ARE UP IN THE MOUNTAINS. THEY ARE
2 LANDLOCKED. AND BECAUSE THEY ARE WILDERNESS, YOU CANNOT PUT
3 A ROAD IN. THE INSTITUTE COULD NEVER HAVE LOCATED ON ANY OF
4 THESE SITES.
5 THE ONLY SITE WHERE THERE WAS AN EXISTING ROAD AND
6 IT DID NOT VIOLATE THE WILDERNESS ACT AND THE INSTITUTE - -
7 THE ONLY LOCATION THE INSTITUTE COULD HAVE ORIGINALLY LOCATED
8 WAS ON THAT SITE, AND THAT ' S WHY THE INSTITUTE IS THERE AND
9 NOT ANYWHERE ELSE. SO THAT IS TO CLARIFY A QUESTION THAT WAS
10 BROUGHT UP, I THINK, THE LAST TIME.
11 UM, AS FAR AS WHY THE BIGHORN COME DOWN TO PLACES
12 LIKE THE RITZ CARLTON HOTEL, ORIGINALLY THAT SITE WAS A
13 LAMBING GROUND. OR THERE WAS A LAMBING SITE NEARBY. SO THEY
14 HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THAT' S WHERE THEY USED TO GO.
15 AND THE REAL REASON THEY ARE COMING DOWN THERE IS
16 BECAUSE -- I HIKE THROUGH THE SANTA ROSAS. ALMOST EVERY
17 SPRING AND STREAM IS DRY, AND IT HAS BEEN DRY FOR OVER FOUR
18 YEARS. SOME OF THIS IS DUE THAT THE WELLS THAT ARE UP IN THE
19 PINYON CREST AREA HAVE LOWERED THE WATER TABLE SIGNIFICANTLY
20 AND DRIED UP A LOT OF THE SPRINGS, AND SOME IS DUE TO THE
21 D&OUGHT.
22 BUT THE BIGHORN ARE BEING FORCED INTO AREAS WHERE
23 THEY WOULD NOT WANT TO BE. THEY DO NOT LIKE COMING DOWN
24 WHERE THERE ARE DOGS AND PEOPLE. AND HAVING DOGS -- MY DOGS
%ow 25 ARE TRAILED TRAINED, WILL CHASE A BIGHORN LIKE ANY OTHER DOG.
26 THEY DO NOT COME DOWN WHERE THERE ARE PEOPLE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
114
1 UNLESS THEY ARE FORCED TO BECAUSE THAT ' S WHERE THE WATER AND
2 FOOD IS. AND IT IS REALLY CRITICAL IN THE SANTA ROSAS -NOW
3 BECAUSE PLACES THAT I KNOW THAT SPRINGS HAVE ALWAYS RUN AND
4 STREAMS HAVE ALWAYS RUN, I HAVEN'T SEEN WATER IN FOR THREE
5 YEARS. AND THAT' S WHY YOU' LL BE SEEING THEM IN PLACES LIKE
6 THE RITZ CARLTON. IT ' S NOT THEIR CHOICE.
7 DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
8 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THANK YOU.
9 MS. GANYON: MY NAME IS LAURIE GANYON. MY ADDRESS IS
10 46-211 EDGEHILL, PALM DESERT. I 'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE
11 PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE 12 ACRES LOCATED WITHIN THE PROPOSED
12 ALTA MIRA PROJECT. WE JUST HAVE VERY SHORT CONCERNS. WE 'VE
13 ALREADY DISCUSSED THINGS BEFORE.
14 THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE, NOW, IS ATTEMPTING TO -- I
15 ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE A CONDEMNATION OF VALUABLE LAND THAT CAN
16 BE DEVELOPED. THE DEL GANNON' S 12 ACRES SEEM TO BE THE FOCAL
17 POINT OF THE BUFFER ZONE. THIS IS A $1 MILLION SITE.
18 OUR BIGGEST CONCERN .IS: WHO WILL PAY FOR IT? OF
19 ALL THE WONDERFUL 250 FAMILIES IN THE SIERRA CLUB, OF ALL THE
20 FAMILIES EVERYWHERE WHO ARE TALKING ABOUT HOW TERRIBLE THIS
21 PROJECT IS, HOW MANY OF THEM HAVE REACHED INTO THEIR
22 PROJECT (SIC) AND EVER TRIED TO BUY THE 12 ACRES IN ALL THE
. 23 TIME THAT WE'VE OWNED THAT PROPERTY? WE HAVE NEVER HAD ONE
24 OFFER FROM ANY OF YOU.
25 SO PLEASE, IF THERE IS ANY -- IF WE MISSED SOME
26 MAIL SOMEWHERE ALONG THE ROAD, WE 'D LOVE TO HEAR ABOUT IT
YATES & ASSOCIATES
115
1 NOW.
2 THANK YOU. THAT ' S ALL.
3 AND ALSO, AS FAR AS THE LETTER THAT WE SENT, IF
4 THERE IS ANY QUESTIONS ON IT, WE 'RE HERE TO ANSWER.
5 THANK YOU.
6 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THANK YOU.
7 MR. BURNS, LET ' S BE SURE THAT --
8 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: NOT YET. IT ISN'T TIME FOR REDRESS
9 NOW.
10 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: I 'D LIKE TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY
11 HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
12 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: GIVE US A BREAK.
13 MR. WARDELL: HELLO. MY NAME IS TOM WARDELL, AND I LIVE
*moo 14 IN THE CAHUILLA HILLS, WHICH OVERLOOKS THIS PARTICULAR -- THE
15 SHEEP PENS AND THE HOUSE WITH THE TENNIS COURT AND IRONWOOD
16 AND THE REST OF IT.
17 AND IT' S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE -- I 'VE LIVED THERE
18 SINCE 1972 -- THAT DEVELOPMENT IS CREEPING TOWARDS MY HOUSE.
19 BUT DEVELOPMENT PLANNED AND DOING THINGS IN THE RIGHT WAY IS
20 WHAT I 'M FOR. I LIVE IN THE CAHUILLA HILLS, I HAVE A SHACK
21 NEXT TO ME, I HAVE A HOUSE OVER HERE, I HAVE A DEAL HERE.
22 I 'D RATHER SEE A PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. AND THAT' S
23 WHAT YOU PEOPLE ARE HERE FOR AND TO PROTECT US FOR AND
24 EVERYTHING ELSE.
tam 25 WELL, IF YOU LOOK, IRONWOOD IS A GREAT PROJECT.
26 IF YOU LOOK AT THE VINTAGE CLUB, IT' S A GREAT PROJECT. OR
YATES & ASSOCIATES
116
1 EL DORADO OR INDIAN WELLS. AND THEY'RE ALL IN THE ALLUVIAL
2 FANS. THEY'RE ALL RIGHT AGAINST THE VALLEY.
3 NOW, THIS IS A NATURAL IN PALM DESERT ' S GREATEST
4 AREA, I THINK, TO DEVELOP ANOTHER COUNTRY CLUB , GOLF COURSES,
5 AND THAT SORT OF THING. FOR THE HUMAN BEING, NOT FOR THE
6 SHEEP, NOT FOR THE RABBIT, BUT JUST FOR HUMAN -- HUMAN
7 CONSUMPTION.
8 AND IN THIS PLANNED PROJECT -- I SPOKE TO YOU TEN
9 YEARS AGO OR FIVE OR EIGHT YEARS AGO. I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT
10 IT WAS -- AGAINST BELLA VISTA BECAUSE I WAS AGAINST THE*
11 HOTEL. BUT THIS PROJECT, AFTER TEN YEARS OF DEVELOPMENT AND
12 THINGS THAT ARE GOING ALONG, IT SEEMS IT ' S THE NATURAL THING
13 TO DO.
14 AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE COME ACROSS SOME SHEEP ANC
15 THINGS ARE GOING TO STOP. NOW, THE SHEEP ARE A MAJESTIC
16 ANIMAL, THEY'RE BEAUTIFUL. BUT I THINK ENVIRONMENT HAS
17 CHANGED IN THE DESERT SINCE I 'VE LIVED HERE.
18 WHEN I FIRST CAME TO THE CAHUILLA HILLS , WE HAD
19 SNAKES AND -- OH, QUITE A FEW GROUND HOGS AND DIFFERENT
20 THINGS LIKE THAT. NOW WE HAVE ABUNDANCE IN QUAIL AND WE HAVE
21 A LOT OF RABBITS AND DOVE AND SO FORTH. AND EVEN RACCOONS.
22 AND THE AREA HAS CHANGED BECAUSE OF THE WATER
23 THAT' S INVOLVED IN THE LAWNS, JACUZZIS, AND OTHER DIFFERENT
24 THINGS. AND I THINK THE DESERT FLOOR IS CHANGING AS GOLF
25 COURSES AND THINGS COME AVAILABLE.
26 AND IN RANCHO -- I MEAN IN THE - - IN THE BIGHORN
YATES & ASSOCIATES
117
1 PROJECT - - THAT ' S WHAT THEY'RE CALLING IT. WE SHARE NATURE
2 WITH BIGHORN OR WHATEVER IT IS, WESTINGHOUSE PROJECT. Z NOW
3 HAVE A LAKE VIEW. AND IN THAT LAKE, YOU'D BE SURPRISED. A
�r
4 LOT OF SHEEP COULD DRINK THERE AND EAT THERE AND GRAZE THERE
5 AND PRODUCE THERE AND LAMB THERE AND DO ANYTHING THEY WANT.
6 AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PUT IT THIS WAY, BUT IN
7 THE LAST 20 YEARS, THINGS HAVE CHANGED. AND WE HAVE TO
8 CHANGE WITH IT.
9 NOW, THE DESERT -- IF ANYONE HAS DRIVEN TO --
10 ACROSS TO DESERT CENTER, TO LAUGHLIN, OR TO PARKER, YOU CAN
11 SEE THERE ' S A LOT OF DESERT OUT THERE FOR THE TURTLE AND FOR
12 THE SNAKES AND THE LIZARDS AND THE REST OF IT.
13 BUT WE'RE IN A COMMUNITY THAT' S DEVELOPING. WE'RE
'rrw 14 IN PRIME LOCATION. WE HAVE HARDLY ANYTHING LEFT. WE AREN'T
15 IN THE WIND BELT, WE HAVE -- YOU KNOW, THERE ' S A LOT OF
16 COUNTRY CLUBS OUT THERE ON COUNTRY CLUB LANE, BUT THE PRIME
17 PROPERTY IS IN THE ALLUVIAL FAN. IT' S IN THE TOP OF THE
18 VALLEY, OUT OF THE WIND. THAT ' S THE PROPERTY THAT COULD BE
19 OUR MALIBU OR -- WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, HOLLYWOOD
20 HILLS. IT COULD BE THE FOCAL POINT OF PALM DESERT.
21 AND TO -- AND TO STOP IT FOR -- FOR AN INSTITUTE
22 THAT'S SAYING, "LET' S NOT DEVELOP ANYTHING, LET' S LEAVE IT
23 THE WAY IT WAS 50 YEARS AGO. " WELL, THEN LET' S NOT PUT IN A
24 ROAD. LET' S NOT BUILD THIS STORE. IF HAHN HAS A SHEEP DOWN
25 THERE, LET' S NOT HAVE THE TOWN CENTER. NOBODY NEEDS A TOWN
26 CENTER. LET' S NOT HAVE THE COLLEGE OF THE DESERT. LET ' S NOT
YATES & ASSOCIATES
118
1 HAVE ANY OF IT. LET' S JUST SIT HERE AND PUT OUR HEAD IN LIKE
2 A TURTLE AND SAY, 'GOD, I HOPE THAT JACKRABBIT DOESN'T COME
3 BY OR WHATEVER IT IS. "
4 I 'M SAYING DEVELOPMENT HAS A PLACE IN THIS DESERT.
5 I 'VE LIVED HERE FOR 20 YEARS . I WANT TO SEE DEVELOPMENT.
6 I 'M IN AGREEMENT WITH JIM HERE. HE SAYS, "NOW WAIT A MINUTE.
7 I WANT TO SEE A BIGHORN SHEEP. "
8 I SAID, "I PLAYED GOLF AT IRONWOOD. I 'VE NEVER
9 SEEN ONE. I 'VE NEVER SEEN ONE UP ON THE HILL. " BUT 20 YEARS
10 AGO , I NEVER SAW ONE.
11 BUT THE AREA HAS CHANGED, AND I THINK MAN IS
12 CHANGING WITH IT. WE ARE NOT DESERT, QUOTE, QUOTE, QUOTE.
13 WE'RE CITY. PALM DESERT. WE ARE A COMMUNITY. WE ARE A
14 GROWING COMMUNITY, AND WE CAN GROW WITH THE ANIMALS . Sri
15 BUT THIS IS NOT DESERT, DESERT ANYMORE. DESERT,
16 DESERT IS DESERT CENTER. DESERT, DESERT IS IF YOU HIKE OVER
17 MY HILL AND THE NEXT HILL AND YOU GET TO THE DUNHAM ROAD AND
18 YOU GO OUT THAT WAY. BIGHORN SHEEP, OASIS. THERE ' S NO
19 CIVILIZATION THERE. SHEEP DON'T WANT CIVILIZATION.
20 I THINK THAT WE CAN LIVE WITH THE SHEEP AND THEY
21 CAN LIVE WITH US. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO GIVE UP ALL OF
22 OUR PROPERTIES, OUR INVESTMENTS, AND EVERYTHING ELSE SO WE
23 CAN GET ALONG WITH THE SHEEP.
24 AND SHEEP. I WAS WATCHING A THING IN AUSTRALIA.
25 AND THESE ARE DOMESTICATED SHEEP. BUT THEY STARTED OUT WITH+
26 A LOT OF GRASS AND SOME SHEEP. AND THEY WERE WORRIED,
YATES & ASSOCIATES
119
1 "THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GROW. " BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY GOT
2 MILLIONS OF SHEEP . I MEAN THESE SHEEP PROLIFICATED (SIC) AND
3 WENT ON LIKE MAD.
%NW
4 BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE KANGAROOS -- THE
5 KANGAROOS SAID, "HEY. THIS IS PRETTY GOOD. I LIKE THIS
6 GRASS TOO . " AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY GOT TEN MILLION
7 KANGAROOS. AND THEY'RE OUT THERE SHOOTING THESE POOR
8 KANGAROOS, GOING BAM, BAM. WE'VE SCREWED UP THE ECOLOGY. WE
9 DON'T HAVE ANY SHEEP . WE'VE GOT A LOT OF SHEEP AND NO
10 KANGAROOS.
11 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
12 MR. WARDELL: I 'M SORRY. OKAY.
13 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: IS THERE ANYONE ELSE?
loom 14 MR. BURNS: I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS -- I KNOW IT ' S LATE
15 AND I KNOW THAT YOU'VE HAD A LOT OF INPUT, BUT I THINK THAT
16 THERE ARE A COUPLE THINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ON THE
17 ISSUES THAT CONFRONT YOU.
18 FIRST OF ALL, WITH RESPECT TO THE EXPERTISE, WE --
19 AS I TOLD YOU AT THE BEGINNING, WE DID NOT BRING OUR EXPERTS
20 BECAUSE WE DIDN'T EXPECT THIS. BUT I DO HAVE A LETTER. IT' S
21 SHORT, AND I DO -- I WOULD LIKE TO READ IT TO YOU BECAUSE IT
22 ADDRESSES THE EXPERT -- THE EXPERT QUESTION. AND I THINK IT
23 IS RIGHT ON THE MONEY OR I WOULDN'T BURDEN YOU WITH IT.
24 THIS IS A LETTER TO ME FROM A GENTLEMAN WHO IS
.r 25 CHARLES L. DOUGLAS. IT SAYS:
26 "DEAR MR. BURNS. I REVIEWED THE E. I .R.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
120
1 FOR THE ALTA MIRA DEVELOPMENT AND HAVE
2 COMMENTS ON SEVERAL ITEMS.
k
3 "INITIALLY, I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW MY
4 EXPERIENCE WITH THE DESERT BIGHORN SHEEP. I
5 AM A SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST FOR THE
6 NATIONAL PARK SERVICE. IN THAT CAPACITY, I
7 AM DIRECTOR OF THE COOPERATIVE PARK STUDIES
8 UNIT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA LAS VEGAS.
9 I AM ALSO AN ADJUNCT PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGY AT
10 UNLV.
11 "MY GRADUATE STUDENTS AND I HAVE
12 DEVELOPED RESEARCH ON DESERT BIGHORN FOR
13 17 YEARS IN DEATH VALLEY AND JOSHUA TREE
14 NATURAL MONUMENT AND LAKE MEAD NATIONAL
15 RECREATION AREA. OUR STUDIES HAVE INVOLVED
16 CAPTURE AND HANDLING OF ANIMALS, RADIO
17 TELEMETRY FOR STUDIES OF SEASONAL
18 MOVEMENTS, HABITAT QUALIFICATION AND
19 EVALUATION, SEASONAL FOOD HABITS, FORAGING
20 EFFICIENCY AND DAILY TIME BUDGETS,
21 COMPETITIVE INTERACTIONS WITH FEDERAL
22 BUREAUS, AND THE EFFECTS OF HUMAN
23 DISTURBANCE AND CONSTRUCTION ON BIGHORN.
24 I HAVE PUBLISHED EXTENSIVELY ON DESERT +
25 BIGHORN.
26 "IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
i
j 121
4 1 BIGHORN INSTITUTE WAS PLACED IN ITS PRESENT
f
2 LOCATION BECAUSE THE AREA WAS INFREQUENTLY
3 USED BY BIGHORN AND SO THAT DISEASE
i
4 TRANSMISSION BETWEEN FREE-RANGING AND CAPTIVE
5 SHEEP WOULD NOT CREATE PROBLEMS.
6 "THE INSTITUTE ' S ORIGINAL MISSION, AS I
i
' 7 UNDERSTAND IT, WAS TO STUDY DISEASES IN THE
8 SANTA ROSA HERD AND NOT TO CREATE A CAPTIVE
9 REARING HERD FOR REPOPULATION EFFORTS.
10 "ALTHOUGH THE INSTITUTE HAS REARED LAMBS
11 AND RELEASED THEM INTO THE NORTHERN SANTA ROSA
12 HERD, IT IS STILL MUCH TOO EARLY TO EVALUATE
13 WHETHER THE DOWNWARD TRAJECTORY OF THE HERD
14 HAS BEEN CHANGED.
15 "THE INSTITUTE' S EFFORTS ON LAMB-REARING
16 AND RELEASE CANNOT BE CONSTRUED THAT SUGGEST
17 THAT THEY HAVE SAVED THE HERD FROM EXTINCTION.
18 "IT IS NOTEWORTHY THAT THE INSTITUTE WAS
19 ESTABLISHED ADJACENT TO PROPERTIES ALREADY
20 ZONED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING. THEREFORE,
21 THE ELECTION TO BUILD PENS AND FACILITIES WAS
22 UNDERTAKEN WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE OF FUTURE
23 DEVELOPMENTS.
24 "THE INSTITUTE WANTS TO KEEP PENS AS
25 CLOSE TO NATURAL AS POSSIBLE, BUT THIS IS
26 ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE IN A ZOO-TYPE SITUATION.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
122
1 I HAVE BEEN IN THE LAMBING ENCLOSURE . THE
2 NATIVE VEGETATION IS TRAMPLED AND OVERGRAZED,
3 AS ONE WOULD EXPECT, AND BIGHORN MUST MOVE TO
4 ANOTHER SERIES OF ENCLOSURES TO BE FED.
5 "ANIMALS IN THE FACILITY ARE HANDLED
6 FREQUENTLY FOR BLOOD COLLECTION. THUS, THE
7 INSTITUTE PERSONNEL ARE CONSISTENTLY THE MAJOR
8 STRESSORS OF THE CAPTIVE ANIMALS. ALTHOUGH
9 THE NEED FOR REPEATED CAPTURE AND BLOOD
10 COLLECTION IS LARGELY UNAVOIDABLE, THE
11 RESULTANT STRESS FROM THOSE OPERATIONS IS
12 CRITICAL.
13 "BIGHORN READILY HABITUATE TO MINOR
14 IRRITANTS, SUCH AS TRAFFIC NOISE FROM THE
15 HIGHWAY. DIFFERENT TYPES OF STRESSORS
16 ELICIT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF RESPONSE OR NO
17 RESPONSE AT ALL.
18 "BIGHORN I HAVE SEEN IN THE INSTITUTE' S
19 LAMBING PEN ARE HABITUATED TO PEOPLE AND DO
20 NOT RESPOND TO THEM AS FREE-RANGING SHEEP
21 WOULD. SOME INDIVIDUAL ANIMALS ARE RETAINED
22 IN THE PEN FOR EXTENDED PERIODS OF TIME.
23 "SINCE SOME OF THESE MAY BE RETURNED TO
24 THE NORTHERN SANTA ROSA HERD, I HAVE
25 ENCOURAGED JIM DE FORGE TO DEVELOP A LARGER,
26 MORE REMOTE PEN, WHERE THESE SHEEP CAN BECOME
YATES & ASSOCIATES
123
1 WILDER BEFORE BEING RELEASED.
2 "THE STATEMENT THAT THE MAIN BREEDING
3 PEN IS LOCATED WITHIN 150 FEET OF THE GRADING
4 PLAN FOR THE ALTA MIRA DEVELOPMENT IS NOT
5 TRUE. THE CLOSEST DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE 400
6 FEET FROM THE PEN AND 130 FEET LOWER IN
7 ELEVATION THAN THE LOWEST END OF THE PEN.
8 "THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR THE
9 SELECTION OF 400 YARDS OR ANY OTHER DISTANCE
10 AS BEING APPROPRIATE FOR A BUFFER BETWEEN
11 DEVELOPMENT AND THE PENS. THE PENNED SHEEP
12 ARE EXPOSED TO PEOPLE, VEHICULAR NOISE, AND
13 OTHER POTENTIAL STRESSORS ON A DAILY BASIS.
14 HABITUATION TO THE DISTURBING ELEMENTS OF
15 CIVILIZATION OCCURS MORE READILY THAN THE
16 INSTITUTE ACKNOWLEDGES, EVEN AMONG FREE-
17 RANGING WILD ANIMALS.
18 "I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE PROPOSED
19 DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE
20 CAPTIVE BIGHORN. HOWEVER, THE B. I .R. IS
21 SERIOUSLY NONOBJECTIVE AND OVERSTATES
22 POTENTIAL IMPACTS. SINCE MOST, IF NOT ALL
23 OF THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS CAN BE MITIGATED,
24 THE BEST RESOLUTION FOR ALL PARTIES WOULD BE
viow 25 TO AGREE TO NEGOTIATE ACCEPTABLE SOLUTIONS. "
26 WITH THAT IN MIND, WE SUGGESTED -- MR. HAYHOE MADE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
124
1 THE SUGGESTION THAT HE MADE. THAT ' S A REASONABLE SOLUTION.
2 MOVE THE PENS , RELOCATE THEM, WE ' LL PAY FOR IT . YOU' LL- HAVE
3 THE NORTH-FACING SLOPE, YOU'LL MITIGATE THIS EFFECT THAT IS
4 CLAIMED TO EXIST, THOUGH THIS GENTLEMAN DISPUTES IT.
5 NOW, INSOFAR AS YOUR TASK TONIGHT , AGAIN, THE
6 LETTER FROM THE - - I WANT TO COMMENT FIRST ON THE LETTER FROM
7 THE NATIONAL RESOURCE DEFENSE FUND. THAT LETTER IS WRITTEN
8 BY AN ADVOCATE. THAT PERSON IS NO DIFFERENT THAN I AM. IT
9 IS NOT A NEUTRAL OBSERVER. THEY ARE ESPOUSING A VIEWPOINT.
10 THEIR VIEWPOINT IS THAT THE LAW COMPELS YOU TO DO
11 CERTAIN THINGS. MY VIEWPOINT IS THE LAW DOESN 'T COMPEL YOU
12 TO DO ANYTHING. THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR. ON SUBSTANTIVE
13 FACTS, YOU CAN MAKE ANY DECISION YOU WANT.
I 14 I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT THE SUBSTANTIVE FACTS ON BOT;
Now
15 SIDES -- EACH SIDE HAS CONSTRUCTED A FACT TREE . YOU CAN DO
i
16 WHATEVER IT IS THAT' S REASONABLE WITHIN THE FACTS -- ALL OF
I
17 THE FACTS THAT YOU'VE HEARD.
18 WE SUBMIT TO YOU THAT WHAT YOU OUGHT TO DO IS
19 RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT WITHOUT ANY MITIGATION.
20 BUT IF YOU BELIEVE THAT IT SHOULD BE MITIGATED, THEN WE
21 SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THE MITIGATIONS THAT ARE - - THE
22 MITIGATION THAT IS IN THE CONDITIONS -- THAT IS, THE TREE
23 LINE AND THE SUGGESTIONS THAT MR. HAYHOE MADE - - ARE
24 SUFFICIENT MITIGATION WHICH WILL STAND UP AND UPON WHICH YOU
25 CAN MAKE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF MITIGATED EFFECT UPON THE
26 ENVIRONMENT.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
125
1 THANK YOU.
2 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: ONE QUESTION. WHY DIDN'T YOU READ
3 THAT WHILE AGO?
4 MR. BURNS: BECAUSE WE WERE NOT PREPARED TO PRESENT
5 EXPERTS . WE THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO GO FORWARD. WE WOULD
6 HAVE - - WE WERE GOING TO PRESENT MR. DOUGLAS LATER.
7 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: I DIDN'T ASK YOU ABOUT THAT.
8 MR. BURNS: I 'M TALKING ABOUT THE LETTER.
9 COMMISSIONER DOWNS : THAT ' S RIGHT. I MEAN WHEN YOU GOT
10 UP THERE AND TALKED, WHY DIDN'T YOU READ THE LETTER?
11 MR. BURNS: BECAUSE IT ' S REBUTTAL TO WHAT THEY WERE
12 SAYING. I WASN'T INTRODUCING EXPERTS.
13 MR. ROBERTS: OPPOSING COMMENTS. THAT ' S IT. TWO
*mw 14 MINUTES, AND I 'LL BE THROUGH.
15 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: ONE MINUTE, AND YOU'RE THROUGH.
16 MR. ROBERTS: OKAY.
17 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: WE'VE GOT FOUR MORE PROJECTS
18 SITTING HERE BEHIND YOU GUYS.
19 MR. ROBERTS: I UNDERSTAND.
20 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: THAT ' S OKAY.
21 MR. ROBERTS: I 'M SORRY FOR THAT.
22 I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WE THINK THAT WE'VE BEEN
23 CONSISTENT. DECEMBER 9TH WE CAME UP WITH ONE PLAN AND WE
24 SUBMITTED THAT TO THE CITY. THAT CAME FROM OUR EXPERTS.
25 TONIGHT WE 'VE JUST HEARD THAT WE WANT YOU TO GO AHEAD WITH
26 THE PROPOSAL AS PROPOSED, AS MR. BURNS SAID. BUT IF YOU
YATES & ASSOCIATES
126
1 DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, WE ' LL TAKE 400 YARDS.
2 NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHICH EXPERTS THEY WANT TO- TALK
3 ABOUT, THE ONES THAT SAY THE 400 YARDS OR THE ONES THAT SAY
4 DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. THE POINT IS, I THINK, ONCE AGAIN,
5 WE'RE BEING CONSISTENT WITH OUR REQUEST. WE BELIEVE THAT WE
6 HAVE A NUMBER OF EXPERTS, VERY FULLY QUALIFIED, THAT SAID
7 THIS IS A CORRECT ANSWER FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
8 THANK YOU.
9 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: I 'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND
10 ASK FOR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS.
11 I THINK, SINCE WE HAVE SEVERAL ISSUES BEFORE US
12 WITH THE TENTATIVE TRACT CHANGE OF ZONE, WHY DON'T WE FIRST
13 ADDRESS THE E . I .R. ?
14 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: I 'LL GO FIRST IF -- UNLESS --
15 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: WELL, I WAS JUST WONDERING IF IT
16 MAKES SENSE - - I DON'T THINK ALL OF US -- I HAPPEN TO HAVE
17 MY E. I .R. , BUT I DON'T KNOW IF ALL OF US BROUGHT IT. I
18 WONDER IF IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO GIVE US A CHANCE TO
19 RE-REVIEW THE E. I.R. IN LIGHT OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN
20 MADE AND THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS THAT WE'VE RECEIVED AND TO
21 CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSION AT THE NEXT MEETING.
22 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: I WOULD -- I WOULD BE OPPOSED TO
23 THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE HAVE HEARD ALL THE
24 COMMENTS, WE HAVE HAD THE B.I .R. IN FRONT OF US, AND THERE
25 ARE SOME SUGGESTIONS AS TO ALTERNATIVES THAT I AGREE WITH v
26 THAT IT WOULD BE PERHAPS BETTER TO TALK ABOUT ALTERNATIVES AT
YATES & ASSOCIATES
127
1 SOME OTHER TIME WHEN WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE TIME. BUT I - - I
2 DON'T THINK THE SUBSTANTIVE FACTS, THE FOUR ISSUES THAT- WERE
3 BROUGHT UP AND THE EXPERT TESTIMONY THAT ' S BEEN INVOLVED ON
wr
4 BOTH SIDES SHOULD BE AT ISSUE.
5 I THINK PERHAPS WHEN WE GET TO DECISIONS ABOUT
6 WHERE WE GO AFTER THEN REGARDING ALTERNATIVES , WE MIGHT NEED
7 TO SPEND SOME TIME WITH -- WITH SOME OF THE SUGGESTIONS. FOR
8 INSTANCE, WE HAVEN'T REALLY SPENT ANY TIME ON ANY OF THOSE.
9 AND I - - I HAPPEN TO BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE SOME
10 PLACES IN THAT -- IN THAT DEVELOPMENT THAT, UM, WOULD
11 DEFINITELY BE ENCROACHING ON THE INSTITUTE AS IT NOW IS. AND
12 I 'D HAVE TO GO UP THERE WITH SOME STAKES AND SOMEBODY WOULD
13 HAVE TO SHOW ME THIS IS ALTERNATIVE 5 OR 6 OR 4 OR SOMETHING
14 THAT I CAN SEE. I CAN SEE MORE OR LESS WHERE 2 IS, BUT I
vow
15 CAN'T REALLY SEE SOME OF THE OTHERS. AND I 'D LIKE TO SEE
16 SOME OF THOSE.
17 BUT AS FAR AS THIS BODY RESPONDING TO THE E. I .R. ,
18 I THINK THAT' S SOMETHING WE OUGHT TO HANDLE RIGHT NOW.
19 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: BUT THE E. I .R. CONTAINS THE
20 ALTERNATIVES AND THAT'S REALLY, PRIMARILY, WHAT I 'M CONCERNED
21 WITH AS WELL.
22 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: OKAY. WELL, AREN'T WE CHARGED
23 WITH THE FOUR ISSUES? THE MITIGATION --
24 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: WE'RE CHARGED WITHtoo --
25 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THE MITIGATION IS SOMETHING, I
26 THINK, THAT IS ANOTHER ISSUE.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
128
1 DISCUSS THE FOUR ISSUES WITHOUT TALKING ABOUT SOME
2 MITIGATION. I MEAN IF WE ADOPT WHAT' S BEEN PROPOSED BY- THE
3 CONSULTANT, ALTERNATIVE 2 IS THE ONE THAT SEEMS TO HAVE THE
4 LESS IMPACT ACCORDING TO THE EXPERTS THAT WERE, YOU KNOW,
5 HIRED BY THE CITY.
6 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THE MOST IMPACT.
7 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: HAS THE LEAST IMPACT.
8 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: NO, MOST.
9 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: ALTERNATIVE 2 HAS THE BIGGEST
10 BUFFER ZONE - -
11 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: OH, YEAH.
12 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: -- PROPOSED, SO IT HAS THE LEAST
13 IMPACT.
14 I THINK IF YOU DISCUSSED -- YOU KNOW -- OKAY.
15 WELL, I 'LL JUST THROW IT OUT. YOU GO FIRST, AND WE 'LL GET
16 THIS OVER WITH, MAYBE. I DON'T KNOW.
17 OKAY. FIRST OF ALL, I THINK IF YOU EXAMINE ALL
18 THE EXPERTS THAT TESTIFIED HERE, I THINK THAT MR. CORNETT ' S
19 QUALIFICATIONS, HIS EXTENSIVE EXPERIENCE IN THE COACHELLA
20 VALLEY, UM, THE WAY HE RESPONDED TO THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE
21 OTHER EXPERTS WHO TESTIFIED, TO ME, HE WAS THE PERSON THAT I
22 FELT HAD THE GREATER WEIGHT OF AUTHORITY BEHIND HIM.
23 AND I -- AND I -- I THINK THAT HE POINTED OUT A
24 COUPLE OF FACTORS THAT I THINK ARE SIGNIFICANT . HE INDICATE]
25 THAT TWO - - I GUESS THERE' S TWO ENDANGERED SPECIES THAT
26 THERE' S EVIDENCE OF THEM BEING ON THIS SITE. ONE IS THE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
129
1 BIGHORN SHEEP AND ONE IS THE TORTOISE.
2 NOW, IT WAS KIND OF HUMEROUS BECAUSE EVERYBODY
3 TALKED ABOUT THE ONE TORTOISE SHELL BEING FOUND ON THIS SITE
4 AND IT WAS MADE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT WE DIDN'T REALLY FIND
5 A TORTOISE.
6 BUT I THINK MR. CORNETT' S APPROACH IS APPROPRIATE .
7 HE SAID - - HE SAYS , BASICALLY, WHENEVER YOU'RE DEALING WITH
8 AN ENDANGERED SPECIES, WHEN IN DOUBT, YOU SHOULD PROTECT IT.
9 WE FOUND EVIDENCE OF A DESERT TORTOISE ON THE SITE;
10 THEREFORE, I THINK WE SHOULD PROTECT IT.
11 WITH RESPECT TO THE BIGHORN SHEEP , THE SAME
12 ANALYSIS APPLIES. I THINK IT' S BETTER TO TAKE A CONSERVATIVE
13 APPROACH WHEN DEALING WITH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS BECAUSE ONCE
.. 14 WE - - ONCE WE DESTROY OUR ENVIRONMENT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET
15 IT BACK.
16 WITH RESPECT TO THE WASH, I THINK HIS TESTIMONY
17 EVEN IN THAT REGARD, EVEN IN DEFERENCE TO THE COMMISSIONER
18 SITTING ON MY LEFT, WAS THE MOST PERSUASIVE. I AM CONVINCED
19 THAT HE IS THE PERSON WHO IS THE MOST QUALIFIED TO RENDER THE
20 OPINION ABOUT THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS WASH, AND THEREFORE, I
21 BASICALLY BELIEVE IN HIS POSITION.
22 WITH RESPECT TO THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE, I DON'T
23 REALLY -- I 'M REALLY NOT THAT CONCERNED WITH THE IMPACTS THAT
24 THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE ON THE INSTITUTE. AND THE REASON
25 I 'M NOT THAT CONCERNED IS BECAUSE OF ALL THE TESTIMONY WE 'VE
26 LISTENED TO ABOUT WHAT HAS OCCURRED IN THE PAST AND WHAT I
YATES & ASSOCIATES
I
130
1 THINK THAT THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO IN ATTEMPTING TO USE THE
2 THREAT OF CALLING FOR A FULL-BLOWN E. I .R. TO GAIN MORE LAND
3 AS A BUFFER ZONE.
4 I THINK THAT THAT WAS AN INAPPROPRIATE POSITION TO
5 TAKE. I AGREE WITH MR. JONATHAN THAT THAT BORDERED ON BEING
6 EXTORTION, AND THAT' S WHY I DON'T REALLY CONSIDER THE IMPACTS
7 TO THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE SIGNIFICANT. BUT I DO CONSIDER THE
8 IMPACTS TO THE WASH, THE FREE-ROAMING BIGHORN SHEEP, AND THE
9 TORTOISE TO, IN FACT, BE SIGNIFICANCE.
10 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THANK YOU, MR. ERWOOD.
11 I REMIND YOU, GENTLEMEN, THAT I NEED TO ABSTAIN ON
12 THIS ISSUE.
13 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: WHAT?
14 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: MY ABSTENTION. ,
15 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: WELL, NOBODY ELSE IS GOING TO
16 SPEAK.
17 I HAVE, OF COURSE, EXPRESSED CONCERNS ABOUT THE --
18 ALL OF THE ISSUES. I 'M STILL UNIMPRESSED AT ALL WITH THE
19 FACT THAT TEN EXPERTS WENT OUT THERE AND SAID, "HEY, IT' S
20 WORKING. DON'T CHANGE IT. THAT' S WHY THEY LIKE IT. "
21 I THINK THAT' S BAD SCIENCE. REAL BAD SCIENCE. I
22 THINK IT' S -- IT MAKES GREAT COMMON SENSE, BUT IT' S BAD
23 SCIENCE.
24 I THINK THAT -- THAT THE WASH THAT IS BEING
25 REFERRED TO, AS FAR AS IT BEING ONE OF THE LAST, GREATEST,
26 BEST, OR WHATEVER, HAS MORE SMOKE TREES, GET OUT THERE WITH A
YATES & ASSOCIATES
131
1 CAMERA AND COUNT THEM. AND GO ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE
2 MOUNTAIN. DEEP CANYON HAS MORE SMOKE TREES, PRETTIER, AND
3 EVERYTHING ELSE.
4 THAT WASH HAS BEEN CHANGED AND MOVED AROUND BY THE
5 EFFORTS OF THE WATER DISTRICT AND THE VARIOUS FLOODS THAT
6 WE 'VE HAD. THERE' S BEEN DIKES BUILT, THERE ' S BEEN ROADS
7 BUILT, THERE' S BEEN PHYSICAL -- HUMANS LIVING IN THE AREA,
8 THERE' S A HUGE WATER TANK IN THE AREA THAT GETS VISITED BY
9 ALL OF THE WATER PERSONNEL.
10 THIS AREA IS SURROUNDED BY ONE OF THE BUSIEST
11 INGRESSES AND EGRESSES WE HAVE TO THIS VALLEY, HIGHWAY 74. I
12 MEAN BIG TRUCKS AND LOTS OF CARS AND LIGHTS AND NOISE AND --
13 AND PEOPLE FLYING THINGS ABOVE THIS AREA AND -- AND ALL KINDS
14 OF POLLUTANTS.
15 TO SAY THAT THIS AREA NOW IS - - IS VIRGIN, IT
16 SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE, I JUST DON'T BUY IT. I DON'T BUY
17 THAT -- THAT SEVERAL SETS OF PEOPLE WENT UP AND COULDN'T FIND
18 EVIDENCE OF A TORTOISE.
19 THE WASH AREA. ONE EXPERT OR ONE SET OF THINGS
20 SAID THAT THE REASON THEY PUT THE INSTITUTE THERE WAS BECAUSE
21 THERE WAS NO BIGHORN AROUND THERE THAT COULD INFECT THE
22 HEALTHY ONES OR THE ONES THEY WERE TRYING TO BRING UP. SO --
23 AND I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT BIGHORN ALMOST HAVE TO CROSS BUSY
24 HIGHWAYS TO GET THERE.
.,, 25 AND I REALLY HAVE -- IF THIS PLACE WAS SOMEWHERE
26 MORE REMOTE AND CIVILIZATION WAS CREEPING UP ON IT I 'D, BE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
132
1 THE STRONGEST PROPONENT TO KEEP IT AWAY. BUT THAT ISN'T THE
2 WAY IT HAPPENED. IT JUST DIDN'T HAPPEN. CIVILIZATION WAS
3 THERE BEFORE IT. I DON'T LIKE THE WAY THEY DID IT, ACQUIRED
4 THE USE OF THE LAND AND THEN COME BACK IN AND SAY, "HEY, YOU
5 GUYS CAN'T DO THAT. "
6 SO THE E. I .R. , FROM MY STANDPOINT, THE MITIGATING
7 MEASURES SHOULD BE TAKEN, IF AT ALL, ON THE ISSUES OF HOW FAR
8 AND HOW CLOSE THINGS SHOULD BE TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF
9 A -- OF AN INSTITUTE LIKE THIS. THE IDEA THAT SOMETHING HAS
10 TO BE FOUR OR FIVE, 600 YARDS AWAY, WHEN THESE ANIMALS, - AS
11 THE LAST TESTIMONY, HAVE BEEN HANDLED BY MAN AND ARE REALLY
12 NOT IN A NATURAL HABITAT AT ALL. THE ONLY THING NATURAL
13 ABOUT IT IS THE FACT THAT IT ' S A HILL WITH A FENCE AROUND IT.
14 AND I THINK THERE ARE SOME SPOTS ON THE -- IN THI:
too
15 PROJECT. I 'M NOT SURE THAT THEY'RE PART OF THE DEL GANNON
16 PROPERTY OR THEY'RE A PART OF THE HAYHOE PROJECT, BUT THERE
17 ARE SOME SPOTS THERE THAT -- THAT I WOULDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE
18 PUTTING ANY -- ANY HOMES ON FOR A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT
19 REASONS, JUST ONE OF WHICH WOULD BE THEY PROBABLY HAVE THE
20 CLOSEST PROXIMITY TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE INSTITUTE. AND
21 I 'D HAVE TO SEE THAT WITH STAKES AND SO FORTH. AND THAT' S
22 THE PART THAT I DO FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE ABOUT.
23 I DON'T THINK THAT -- THAT THE INSTITUTE SHOULD BE
24 GIVEN ANYWHERE NEAR AS MUCH OF RELIEF AS -- AS THE
25 ALTERNATIVE 2. I THINK THAT A BUFFER AREA FOR THIS -- FOR
26 THIS DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE NO DIFFERENT THAN WE CONSIDER
YATES & ASSOCIATES
133
1 OTHER BUFFER AREAS.
2 AND I THINK WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT 100 YARDS
3 AND LINE OF SIGHT AND WHERE THINGS REALLY OCCUR, THAT ' S
NNW
4 REALLY WHERE YOU CREATE BUFFERS. AND I DON'T THINK IT ' S
5 BECAUSE THE EXPERTS SAY YOU NEED THIS AMOUNT OF FEET AND THIS
6 AMOUNT OF FEET. I THINK IT ' S -- I THINK IT ' S RIDICULOUS TO
7 TALK ABOUT HUGE BUFFERS TO AN AREA WHERE YOU'VE GOT PENNED-IN
8 ANIMALS. THESE ANIMALS ARE NOT ROAMING FREE. THEY'RE PENNED
9 IN. THEY HAVE SOME RESTRICTIONS AND SHOULD BE GIVEN SOME
10 PROTECTION, BUT THE IDEA THAT --
11 IF ALTERNATIVE 2 IS TO BE USED, IN MY ESTIMATION,
12 THE COST FOR THAT LAND SHOULD BE -- THAT LAND SHOULD BE
13 APPROPRIATED FOR AND PAID FOR BY THE INSTITUTE . IF THEY WANT
14 A BIG BUFFER, PAY FOR IT. AND THAT' S THE ONLY WAY I THINK
WNW
15 THIS SHOULD WORK. IT WAS A LOUSY DEAL DONE IN THE MIDDLE OF
16 THE NIGHT, AS FAR AS I 'M CONCERNED, ON THE WAY THE PROPERTY
17 WAS ACQUIRED AND THE RIGHTS TO DO CERTAIN THINGS.
18 AND THEN ALL THE TIME, THE FACT -- HISTORY SHOWS
19 THAT THERE WAS - LOTS OF DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED THERE, AND NOW
20 WE'RE SUPPOSED TO COME IN AND FROM THE SAME STANDPOINT, WE'RE
21 SUPPOSED TO NOW TAKE AND PROTECT THE COUNTY ON WHAT THEY DID.
22 AND I DON'T LIKE THAT BECAUSE THE COUNTY, IN ESSENCE, IS
23 SAYING TO THE CITY, "WELL, WE DID THIS, AND NOW YOUR PEOPLE
24 OR YOUR OWNERSHIP AND SO FORTH IS GOING TO BE HAMPERED. "'
25 SO I -- I FEEL THAT -- THAT THE MITIGATING
26 MEASURES AS IS URGED BY THE E. I .R. , NAMELY ITEM 2 OR
YATES & ASSOCIATES
134
1 MEASURES AS IS URGED BY THE E. I .R. , NAMELY ITEM 2 OR
2 ALTERNATIVE 2 , ARE FAR TOO SEVERE. I 'M NOT PERSUADED BY THE
3 TESTIMONY AT ALL THAT' S OCCURRED IN FRONT OF ME THAT THOSE
4 ISSUES ARE NEEDED, AND I AM MORE PERSUADED BY THE FACT THAT I
5 THINK THERE IS PROBABLY AN ALTERNATIVE IN THE LOWER NUMBERS
6 OF 4, 5 , AND 6 OR 7 OR WHATEVER IT IS -- 4, 5 , AND 6 THAT
7 WOULD MAKE MORE COMMON SENSE AND MORE -- BETTER FROM THE
8 CITY' S STANDPOINT OF PLANNING.
9 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: WITH RESPECT TO THE TORTOISE,
10 THE SHEEP, THE WASH, AND THE INSTITUTE, I MUST SAY I 'M
11 DISAPPOINTED THAT SO MUCH TIME, MONEY, AND EFFORT WAS SPENT
12 BY ONE GROUP OF EXPERTS ONLY TO BE COMPLETELY REFUTED BY
13 ANOTHER GROUP OF EXPERTS. I FIND IT DISTASTEFUL THAT, AS AN
14 AMATEUR AND A LAYPERSON, I AM NOT ABLE TO RELY ON EXPERT
15 TESTIMONY BECAUSE OF THAT.
16 SO INSTEAD, I FIND MYSELF IN THE PRECARIOUS
17 POSITION OF HAVING TO RELY ON COMMON SENSE. AND IN A SENSE,
18 THAT MAKES THE WHOLE PROCESS, IN MY MIND, A BIT OF A WASTE OF
19 TIME, EFFORT, MONEY. BUT EMBARRASSINGLY, I 'VE BEEN ON THE
20 OTHER END IN LITIGATION SUPPORT, AND I GUESS I CAN UNDERSTAND
21 BOTH SIDES OF THAT ISSUE.
22 MY COMMON SENSE TELLS ME THAT THIS PROJECT
23 DESERVES TO GO UP; HOWEVER, IT'S GOING TO HAVE SOME IMPACT ON
24 ITS NEIGHBOR AND THE BIGHORN SHEEP. AND I GUESS I , TOO, FEE:
25 THAT SOME MITIGATION IS CALLED FOR.
26 A COMPROMISE HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE DEVELOPER
YATES & ASSOCIATES
135
1 CARE OF ALL THE PROBLEMS IN MY MIND. I KNOW THAT ALTERNATIVE
2 NO. 1 , NO. 2 , AND NO. 2 MODIFIED SEEM, TO ME, TO BE TOO
3 SEVERE. SO I PERSONALLY NEED A LITTLE TIME AND PERHAPS A
4 VISIT TO THE SITE TO LOOK AT THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES AND
5 DECIDE WHERE, IN THAT RANGE, THE PROPER MITIGATION, IN MY
6 MIND, FALLS .
7 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: NOW IT ' S ME. ONE THING ABOUT IT
8 WAS INTIMIDATING. AND WHATEVER WAY YOU GUYS WANT TO GO,
9 THAT ' S THE WAY I 'M GOING TO GO. I 'D JUST LIKE IT OUT OF
10 HERE.
11 IF YOU WANT TO TURN IT DOWN AND LET THEM APPEAL,
12 TURN IT DOWN THEIR WAY AND LET THEM APPEAL. LET ' S GET IT OUT
13 OF HERE.
14 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO, IF THE
15 CHAIR IS READY AT LEAST TO LISTEN TO SOME PROCEDURE, I 'D LIKE
16 TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MAKE THAT THE END OF THAT.
17 AND I THINK WITH THE COMMENT THAT AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE'RE
18 NOT -- WE WANT STAFF TO BE PREPARED AT THE NEXT MEETING TO
19 DRAW UP ANOTHER PROPOSAL, ONE OF -- ONE OF WHICH WE 'RE NOT
20 SURE OF RIGHT NOW, BUT ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE. BUT DEFINITELY
21 NOT -- DO NOT COME HERE AND RECOMMEND ALTERNATIVE 1 OR 2 .
22 AND WE WILL HAVE THE TIME THEN.
23 AND I WOULD THEN LIKE STAFF TO BRING US UP THERE
24 WHERE STAKES ARE AND SHOW US EXACTLY WHERE SOME OF THESEy
25 OTHER ALTERNATIVES ARE BEFORE THE NEXT HEARING.
26 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: OKAY. LET ME TRY AND UNDERSTAND
YATES & ASSOCIATES
136
1 THAT . YOU'D LIKE A FIELD TRIP UP TO THE SITE?
2 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: I WANT A FIELD TRIP WHERE I CAN
3 IDENTIFY THE ALTERNATIVES.
4 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: OKAY. SO --
5 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO
6 MITIGATING MEASURES FOR THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE.
7 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: OKAY. AND LET ' S SEE. WE HAVE
8 PLENTY OF EXHIBITS WE CAN BRING BEFORE YOU NEXT TIME, ALSO,
9 SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIPS IN THE COURSE OF THE FIELD VISIT.
10 THAT' S THE BEST THING POSSIBLE TO - -
11 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: YOU KNOW, THE HILLS UP THERE
12 ARE -- I THINK YOU HAVE TO GO UP THERE AND -- AND DO THAT.
13 AND YOU HAVE TO DO IT WITH THE EXHIBITS IN YOUR HAND SO YOU
14 KNOW THAT THIS STAKE SAYS THAT THIS IS THE LINE FOR 3 OR THE
15 LINE FOR 4 OR SOMETHING, BUT I --
16 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: I THINK YOU HAVE TO DO IT IN THE
17 MORNING TOO.
18 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: FINE. ANY TIME YOU CAN DO IT.
19 BUT MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING
20 AND PUBLIC TESTIMONY BE CONCLUDED; THAT STAFF BE PREPARED, IF
21 THE VOTES ARE HERE, TO DRAW UP A -- HAVE A RESOLUTION
22 PREPARED AT OUR NEXT MEETING WITH THE IDEA IN MIND THAT WE
23 HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF -- OF THE OTHER ALTERNATIVES.
24 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: EXCEPT THE ONLY CRITERIA THAT YOU'V1
25 HELPED THE STAFF WITH IS YOU'VE ALL MENTIONED NO. 2,
26 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 , UM, BUT THAT IT' S TOO SEVERE. NOW YOU
YATES & ASSOCIATES
137
1 ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 , UM, BUT THAT IT ' S T00 SEVERE. NOW YO.0
2 WANT THEM TO LOOK AT THE --
3 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: THREE -- THREE PEOPLE HAVE
4 MENTIONED THAT IT' S T00 SEVERE.
5 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: OKAY. MAJORITY OF THOSE WHO ARE
6 VOTING.
7 COULD YOU GIVE THE STAFF, MAYBE, A LITTLE BIT MORE
8 DIRECTION? OTHERWISE, WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE ANOTHER FOUR
9 HOURS ON THIS T00.
10 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: NO, NO. I TOLD YOU THAT PUBLIC
11 TESTIMONY WOULD BE CONCLUDED. THE MITIGATING MEASURE THAT WE
12 ARE SIMPLY - - OR I AM SIMPLY INTERESTED IN IS THE MITIGATING
13 MEASURE REGARDING THE BUFFER FOR THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE. I AM
14 NOT CONVINCED AT ALL THAT THE WASH, THE TORTOISE, OR ANYTHING
15 ELSE HAS ANY IMPACT ON THIS PROPERTY.
16 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THAT' S YOUR OPINION.
17 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: RIGHT.
18 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THERE ' S TWO OPINIONS ON THIS BODY
19 THAT ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WASH AND THE TORTOISE.
20 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: OKAY.
21 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: SO WE HAVE TO TAKE EVERYBODY' S --
22 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: IR GOING UP THERE, I THINK,
23 MADAM CHAIRPERSON, THAT SPECIFICALLY ALTERNATIVES 3 , 4, 5 ,
24 AND 6 , THEN, THAT WE WOULD LIKE CLARIFIED.
rw 25 AND ADDITIONALLY, NOT JUST TO SEE PHYSICALLY WHERE
26 WE 'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT ALSO IF ONE OF THOSE ALTERNATIVES IS
YATES & ASSOCIATES
138
1 ADOPTED, THE PROPOSAL IS FOR 484 SINGLE-STORY DWELLINGS .
2 WELL, IF YOU CHOP OUT 40 ACRES OR WHATNOT, I WANT TO SEE AN
3 ALTERNATIVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP. I MEAN WOULD THERE STILL BE
4 484 DWELLINGS?
5 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: YEAH. IN OUR JUNE 5TH STAFF
6 REPORT, WHICH IS ALSO INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKAGE, WE INCLUDED
7 ALTERNATIVE SUBDIVISION PLANS WHICH MR. HAYHOE HAS PREPARED,
8 SHOWING WHAT HE CAN DO ON THE PROPERTY.
9 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: UNDER EACH OF THOSE
10 ALTERNATIVES? I DIDN'T SEE THAT.
11 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: YEAH. IT ' S A - - ONE HAD THE
12 PRESERVATION OF THE ENTIRE 118-ACRE BIOLOGICAL PRESERVE AND,
13 ALSO, ONE HAD THE PRESERVATION OF THE 400-YARD BIGHORN
14 INSTITUTE BUFFER.
15 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: OKAY. THEN IN THAT FIELD TRIP,
16 IF YOU WILL, IF WE CAN SEE THE PHYSICAL LAYOUT AND HAVE IN
17 OUR HAND THE ALTERNATIVE LAYOUT, THEN I THINK I COULD BE
18 ADEQUATELY INFORMED. THAT' S WHAT I 'M AFTER.
19 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THE SAME THING. AND I DON'T
20 WANT ANY REPRESENTATIVE OF EITHER PARTIES THERE.
21 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: I 'D STILL LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION
22 TONIGHT TO MOVE THIS UP. I MAY NOT GET A PASSAGE ON IT, BUT
23 I 'M GOING TO MOVE TO ADOPT THE FINDINGS, AS WE AGREED ON BY
24 THE STAFF, INCLUDING NO. 2, NOT MODIFIED BY THE BIGHORN SHEEP
25 INSTITUTE.
26 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: IS THERE A SECOND?
YATES & ASSOCIATES
139
1 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: I ' LL SECOND IT .
2 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: DISCUSSION?
3 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: WHAT DID HE SAY? NOT MODIFIED
liow
4 BY NO. 2?
5 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: WELL, THEY'RE TAKING ANOTHER
6 18 ACRES, I BELIEVE.
7 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: HE' S SAYING TO ACCEPT ALTERNATIVE
8 NO. 2 WITHOUT THE MODIFICATIONS AS REQUESTED BY --
9 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: THE INSTITUTE.
10 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: - - THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE.
11 IT HAS BEEN SECONDED, AND IT ' S OPEN FOR
12 DISCUSSION.
13 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: AS MR. ERWOOD SAID, WE NEED TO BE
... 14 CONCERNED ABOUT THE TORTOISE, THE WASH. ALL OF THESE
15 CONCERNS ARE IN THERE?
16 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: LET ME JUST ADDRESS SOMETHING TO
17 THE COMMISSIONERS. THEY SEEM TO BE -- YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT
18 THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE' S -- THE IMPACT THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS
19 GOING TO HAVE ON THE BIGHORN INSTITUTE.
20 WE HAD -- I GUESS YOU COULD SAY WE HAD THE EXPERT
21 THAT WAS HIRED BY THE CITY, THE -- YOU COULD MAYBE CALL HIM
22 THE OBJECTIVE EXPERT. HE INDICATED THAT ALTERNATIVE 2 WOULD
23 BE APPROPRIATE TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT ON THE INSTITUTE. AND,
24 OF COURSE, WE HAVE THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE TWO OTHER
tow 25 EXPERTS, ONE THAT CAME FROM THE APPLICANT AND ONE THAT CAME
26 FROM THE INSTITUTE.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
140
1 EXPERT THAT MR. DE FORGE IS WITH RESPECT TO BIGHORN SHEEP,
2 ALTERNATIVE 2 CARVES OUT A -- I THINK THAT' S THE MAP UP-
3 THERE. THE GREEN IS ALTERNATIVE 2 . YOU KNOW, THAT TAKES
4 A -- I MEAN I CAN'T IMAGINE -- I CAN'T, IN ALL FAIRNESS, SAY
5 THAT WE SHOULD CARVE OUT MORE PROPERTY.
6 I FEEL THAT, BASED ON MR. CORNETT' S TESTIMONY,
7 THAT THAT ' S AN ADEQUATE --
8 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: WELL, I MEAN IF YOU GO UP THERE
9 AND YOU LOOK AT -- THE PART THAT ' S REALLY DISTURBING IS HIM
10 TALKING ABOUT THE WASH. HONEST TO GOD, THAT IS JUST PLAIN
11 BALONEY THERE.
12 THE WATER DISTRICT HAS MOVED THAT STUFF TO
13 THEIR -- THE WAY THEY'VE WANTED IT SEVERAL TIMES. IT IS
14 NOT -- AT THE TOP IT' S GATED, AT THE BOTTOM IT ' S CHANGED. I ,
15 MEAN WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY
16 DIFFERENT AND UNIQUE THAN ANYTHING YOU COULD BY GOING
17 300 YARDS AWAY.
18 AND PUBLIC TESTIMONY, I 'M SORRY, IS CLOSED.
19 AND WE CANNOT -- IF YOU WANT TO GO UP THERE AND
20 SAY THAT YOU NEED TO TAKE ALL THAT AWAY, I THINK THERE ARE
21 REASONS, FOR DRAINAGE PURPOSES, THAT IT EITHER HAS TO BE - -
22 SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE WITH IT, ANYWAY.
23 WHEN YOU -- WHEN YOU WALK THE SITE, IT APPEARS
24 THAT THE WASH AREA ITSELF IS ALMOST LIKE A NATURAL KIND OF A
3
25 BUFFER TO THE MOUNTAINS _AND THE HILLS ON THE LEFT. BUT WHEN,
26 YOU GET UP BY THE INSTITUTE, IT' S A WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY
YATES & ASSOCIATES
141
1 YOU GET UP BY THE INSTITUTE, IT ' S A WHOLE DIFFERENT STORY
2 BECAUSE THEN YOU -- THEN YOU -- I 'M TREATING THIS LIKE I
3 WOULD IF WE WERE PUTTING A HOTEL UP OR SOMETHING, OR
w
4 ANYTHING.
5 FORGETTING THE -- ASSUMING THAT WHAT SABBY SAID,
6 THAT THE EXPERTS DISAGREE AS TO HOW CLOSE OR HOW FAR, AND
7 YOU'RE BACK DOWN TO WHAT APPEARS TO BE COMMON SENSE. GIVE
8 THEM SOME BREATHING ROOM SO THAT THE VISIBILITY OF THE PEOPLE
9 AREN'T LOOKING DOWN ON THEM.
10 WHAT IS THAT? I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT ' S
11 200 YARDS, 400 YARDS, OR A MILE. I REALLY DON'T -- I REALLY
12 DON'T KNOW UNTIL YOU GET UP THERE. AND TO HAVE SOMETHING
13 DRAWN ON THE MAP AND NOT HAVE THE ALTERNATIVES -- AND I KNOW
14 THE AREA, BUT TO GET UP THERE WITHOUT SEEING IT, I THINK
15 YOU'D ALL BE MAKING A MISTAKE BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT - -
16 HOW MANY ACRES OF LAND, NOW OUT OF THE PROJECT, HAS BEEN
17 TAKEN?
18 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: ALTERNATIVE 2 IS 118 ACRES.
19 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: 118 OUT OF HOW MANY ACRES?
20 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: 362 .
21 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: 362.
22 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: 362?
23 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: THREE OR FOUR?
24 ASSISTANT PLANNER JOY: YEAH, 362. 484 UNITS.
vow 25 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: IT' S A SIGNIFICANT --
26 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: THEY'RE STILL GOING TO PUT THE SAME
YATES & ASSOCIATES
142
1 PUT TWO PER ACRE.
2 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: WELL, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY .PUT
3 THERE IS A WHOLE NOTHER STORY. AND WHETHER OR NOT ANYTHING
4 LIKE THAT IS APPROPRIATE, I THINK, REALLY, WHEN YOU'RE
5 LOOKING AT 118 ACRES --
6 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: I AGREE.
7 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: 118 ACRES OF LAND , THAT' S A LOT
8 OF MONEY.
9 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: THAT ' S WHAT --
10 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THAT' S A LOT OF MONEY.
11 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: THAT' S ALSO WHAT' S BEEN RECOMMENDED
12 TO US BY THE PEOPLE THAT WE HIRED.
13 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE HAVE
14 TO ACCEPT THAT. AND THAT' S --IF YOU ACCEPT IT , FINE. YOU 3
15 KNOW, YOU GET YOUR VOTE AND I GET MINE. AND I THINK
16 118 ACRES, ESPECIALLY ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE DESERT
17 WASH, THAT BEING UNIQUE AND SO DIFFERENT AND EVERYTHING, I
18 THINK WE'RE BEING KIDDED.
19 AND I THINK THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY FOUND A PIECE
20 OF A SHELL ONE TIME -- IF WE -- IF WE DID THINGS LIKE THAT,
21 BASED ON THAT KIND OF SKETCHY TESTIMONY, I MEAN WE WOULDN'T
22 HAVE ANOTHER BUILDING BUILT IN THIS VALLEY. MAYBE THAT' S A
23 GOOD IDEA TOO.
24 BUT STILL, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T JUST SAY, "WELL,
25 SOMEBODY FOUND A FRAGMENT UP THERE AND HOW LONG WAS IT
26 THERE?" I MEAN IT JUST -- I MEAN THIS KIND OF -- THE PROBLEM
YATES & ASSOCIATES
143
1 THAT I SEE IS THAT WHAT WE 'RE BEING ATTACKED WITH HERE IS A
2 FULL-SCALE ENVIRONMENTALIST WAR. AND EVERYBODY AND THEIR
3 BROTHER IS HERE TO -- TO HELP MR. DE FORGE KEEP HIS INSTITUTE
4 THE WAY IT IS. AND I THINK THAT ' S FINE BECAUSE THAT ' S THEIR
5 RIGHT. OKAY?
6 BUT I ALSO HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THE FACT THAT -- THAT
7 THERE IS A POINT OF VIEW COMING FROM ALL OF THEM THAT IS
8 BIASED, WHETHER THEY'RE CALLED -- SO-CALLED FRIENDS OF THE
9 EXPERTS OR WHATEVER. IT IS AN OPINION THAT -- THAT I ACCEPT
10 FOR -- IN ITS WAY.
11 AND TO TAKE ALL OF THAT LAND, 118 ACRES, AND SAY
12 THAT THAT ' S THE ONLY WAY WE CAN DO IT, I -- I THINK THAT' S
13 BEING FAR TOO SEVERE. ESPECIALLY -- ESPECIALLY WHEN THAT
14 LAND WAS TOTALLY ZONED TO PUT FAR MORE THAN ANY OF THIS .
15 AND SOMEBODY OWNED IT AND BOUGHT IT, AND WE WENT
16 THROUGH HEARINGS ON IT. AND ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW, IT CAN'T
17 HAVE THIS THIS AND IT CAN'T HAVE THIS AND IT CAN'T HAVE THAT.
18 AND I DON'T THINK THAT ' S RIGHT.. I THINK IF THEY WANT
19 BUFFERS, THEY SHOULD PAY FOR IT.
20 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: I NEED TO CAUTION YOU, MR. RICHARDS ,
21 THAT THIS BODY IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE CONCERNED WITH ECONOMICS
22 OF A PROJECT, AND YOU ARE REFERRING TO THE COST OF THE LAND
23 THAT WE'RE ASKING TO PROVIDE AS A BUFFER. SO I JUST WISH
24 TO --
25 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: CALL IT UNITS. I DON'T CARE
26 WHAT YOU CALL IT. IT ' S A -- WHETHER YOU USE COST OR JUST
YATES & ASSOCIATES
144
1 WHAT YOU CALL IT. IT ' S A -- WHETHER YOU USE COST OR JUST
2 LAND. THE USAGE. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 118 ACRES OUT OF 380
3 THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF ACREAGE TO BE TAKEN OUT OF
two
4 SOMETHING THAT ONCE HAD A 125-ROOM HYATT HOTEL AND 350
5 CONDOMINIUMS AND 40 SITES TO BUILD HOUSES THAT SOMEBODY PAID
6 FOR AND OWNED THE LAND ON.
7 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO
8 SEND THIS UP TO THE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDING ALTERNATIVE
9 NO. 2 . ARE WE READY TO TAKE A VOTE?
10 ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
11 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: AYE.
12 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: AYE.
13 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: ALL THOSE OPPOSED?
14 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: AYE.
15 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: OPPOSED.
16 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: AND AN ABSTENTION.
17 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: I 'D LIKE TO PROPOSE, THEN, AN
18 ALTERNATIVE MOTION, WHICH IS THAT -- I THINK THE PUBLIC
19 TESTIMONY HAS ALREADY BEEN CLOSED AND THAT WE CONTINUE THE
20 MATTER, HOPEFULLY, TO NEXT MEETING. AND IN THE INTERIM, HAVE
21 THE STAFF WALK US THROUGH THE SITE AND GO THROUGH
22 ALTERNATIVES 3, 4, 5, AND 6 WITH ALTERNATIVE TRACT MAPS IN
23 HAND.
24 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: I ' LL SECOND THAT MOTION.
25 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: ANY DISCUSSION?
26 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: I WOULD JUST ASK: WHAT ' S THE
YATES & ASSOCIATES
145
1 SECOND DATE IN JULY FOR OUR MEETING? I 'M NOT GOING TO BE
2 HERE THE FIRST --
3 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THE 17TH.
4 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: - - WEEK.
5 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THE 17TH.
6 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: OH. SO THE FIRST ONE IS --
7 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: FIRST WEEK IN JULY, I 'M .NOT GOING
8 TO BE HERE.
9 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO CONTINUE THIS
10 TO THE 17TH.
11 CAN WE ALTER YOUR MOTION, MR. JONATHAN?
12 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: YES.
13 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: IT' S BEEN MOVED AND SECONDED TO
14 CONTINUE THIS MATTER TO JULY 17TH WITHOUT REOPENING THE
15 PUBLIC HEARING IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE A FIELD TRIP TO LOOK
16 AT ALTERNATIVES 3 , 4, 5 , AND 6.
17 COMMISSIONER RICHARDS: AND 2 . I MEAN -- I DON'T MEAN
18 TO DISCREDIT -- I MEAN JUST SO THAT WE ALL SEE WHAT
19 EVERYTHING IS. THAT ' S WHAT I REALLY MEANT.
20 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: RIGHT.
21 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: THE MOTION HAS BEEN AMENDED TO
22 INCLUDE ALTERNATIVE 2 .
23 ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
24 COMMISSIONER DOWNS: AYE.
%aw 25 COMMISSIONER JONATHAN: AYE.
26 COMMISSIONER ERWOOD: AYE.
YATES & ASSOCIATES
146
1 CHAIRMAN WHITLOCK: OPPOSED?
2 ONE ABSTENSION.
3 THEN THIS MATTER WILL BE CONTINUED TO JULY 17TH.
4 THERE WILL NOT BE A PUBLIC HEARING AT THAT TIME.
5 (WHEREUPON, THE HEARING BY THE PALM DESERT PLANNING
6 COMMISSION WAS CONCLUDED AT 11 : 20 P.M. )
7 ---000---
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
YATES & ASSOCIATES
1
2
3 CERTIFICATE
ftw
4 OF
5 REPORTER
6
7
I , G. JOANNE BERGREN, CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER IN
8
AND FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DO HEREBY CERTIFY:
9
THAT THE FOREGOING HEARING WAS TAKEN BEFORE ME AT
10
THE TIME AND PLACE THEREIN SET FORTH;
11
THAT THE HEARING WAS RECORDED STENOGRAPHICALLY BY ME
12
AND THEREAFTER TRANSCRIBED THROUGH COMPUTER-AIDED
13
TRANSCRIPTION, SAID TRANSCRIPT BEING A TRUE COPY OF MY
.. 14
SHORTHAND NOTES THEREOF AND A TRUE RECORD OF THE HEARING.
15
16 IN WITNESS// WHEREOF, I HAVE SUBSCRIBED MY NAME THIS
17 DATE:
-----------------------'
18
---- ------------- -------
19
G. JOANNE BERGREN, C. S .R.
20 CERTIFICATE NO. 6334
21
22
23
24
law 25
26
YATES & ASSOCIATES