Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes No 2486PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 11.87 ACRES FOR TWO HOME SITES AND CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, WEST OF INDIAN COVE ADJACENT TO THE "CANYONS OF BIGHORN" GOLF CLUB. CASE NO. TT 31676 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16th day of September, 2008, hold a duly noticed public hearing to a consider a request by Cornishe of Bighorn, LLC, for the project described above; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project may significantly impact the environment, and certification of the environmental impact report is recommended with a statement of overriding considerations (SCH # 2004091012); and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of said tentative tract map: 1. That the design or improvements of the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. • The design of the subdivision leaves 10.41 acres of undisturbed or designation which is intended to review the project based on project 2. That the site is physically suitable for residential development. • There are adjacent utilities close by and preliminary review of grading plans has shown the site is physically suitable. Similar residential development has been successfully accomplished on adjacent property. 3. That the design of the tract map or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 • An environmental impact report has been prepared that has identified potential significant environmental impacts, and a statement of overriding considerations has been included. 4. That the design of the parcel or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. • The subdivision will be developed in concert with oversight by all applicable governmental agencies to avoid any public health problems. 5. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. • Preliminary review of plans has shown that the site is physically suitable for the project as proposed. There is access to the site, utilities are available and the grading and construction necessary to develop two homes are regularly accomplished on similar sites in the vicinity. 6. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. • The map proposes two residential lots which are consistent with the study zone of the general plan. The study zone was placed on the property in recognition of the PR zoning on property that appeared over 10% slope -which would make it eligible for HPR zoning. The project's density is consistent with HPR density requirements even if it were re -designated as hillside residential. There is no specific plan applicable to the property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the Commission in this case. 2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council certification of the Environmental Impact Report, including the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 3. That approval of the Tentative Tract Map 31676 is hereby recommended to the City Council for reasons subject to the attached conditions. 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 16th day of September, 2008, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CAMPBELL, CAMPBELL, TANNER NOES: LIMONT, SCHMIDT ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: URI AYLAIAN, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission 3 VAN G. ANNER, Chairperson PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. TT 31676 Department of Community Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. All requirements of any law, ordinance or regulation of the state, city and any other applicable government entity, shall be complied with as part of this map. 3. Recording of final map shall take place within 2 years of the date of this approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 4. Building design and landscaping on the properties shall conform to design standards in Section 25.15.050 (Hillside Planned Residential) of the City's Zoning Ordinance in addition to the mitigation measures contained in the EIR. 5. A conservation easement shall be recorded on Lot B acceptable to the City Attorney. 6. All mitigation measures identified in CEQA FINDINGS (20 pages, attached as Exhibit A) shall be incorporated into the planning, design, development, and operation of the project. Department of Public Works: GENERAL 1. Landscaping maintenance of any common areas and property frontages shall be provided by a homeowners association and or property owner, shall be water efficient in nature and in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; (b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the Map; and (c) the aforementioned landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review simultaneously with grading plans. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 3. The maintenance of any retention areas shall be by the homeowners association and stipulated in the CC&R's. BONDS AND FEES 4. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 5. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 6. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF). Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance. 7. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 8. Grading bonds are required. DESIGN PLANS 9. Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. 10. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electronic files shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 11. Improvement plans for utility systems shall be approved by the respective provider or service districts with "as -built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to project final. Easements for utilities on private streets shall be granted on final map. 12. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 5 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION 13. Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be provided. 14. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works Department. 15. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management and Discharge Control. 16. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials. SPECIAL CONDITIONS 17. All grading shall be done under direct supervision of a registered soils engineer. 18. Provision for the continuation of any existing access rights which may be affected by this project shall be included prior to recordation of the final map. 19. Prior to recordation of the final map and the issuance of any permits associated with this project, applicant shall provide evidence of legal access rights. Fire Department: 1. All buildings shall be accessible by an all weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior wall of the structure. The roadway shall not be less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn -around. 2. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the lot. Three sets of water plans are to be submitted to the Fire Marshal. 6 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 3. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal's office for approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes. 4. Blue dot retro-reflectors shall be placed in the street 8" from centerline to the side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify hydrant locations. 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 EXHIBIT A CEQA FINDINGS INTRODUCTION The City of Palm Desert has considered the proposed project, as submitted by Cornishe of Bighorn, LLC (the "Applicant"), and has chosen to adopt the plan, subject to the imposition of feasible mitigation measures. The proposed Cornishe of Bighorn project (the "Project") consists of the subdivision of a 12 acre site to create two residential lots for the development of one single family home on each lot. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regulations §§ 15000 et seq.) require that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to avoid or mitigate significant impacts that would otherwise occur with implementation of the proposed project. Project mitigation or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the proposed project lies with another agency. (CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a), (b)). For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the public agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh the significant effects on the environment (see, Pub. Res. Code § 21081(b)). These findings summarize the data and conclusions contained in the final environmental impact report ("FEIR") for the Project, which includes the Draft EIR, dated December 2005, the New Preferred Alternative, an Addition to the Draft EIR, dated March 2008, the Responses to Comments, and the entire administrative record, all of which are incorporated into these findings as if set forth in full. The original tract map for the Project was filed in August of 2003. The original tract map proposed the development of up to 57 dwelling units on four residential lots. The initial application was revised to propose 38 dwelling units, which was evaluated as the proposed project (the "Original Project") in the Draft EIR. The 38 units were to be located in seven multi -unit structures on five residential lots occupying approximately 4.32 acres of the Project site. The remaining undeveloped areas were intended to remain in perpetual open space. Access to the Project site was to be provided via two access points, a 30- foot easement that would traverse Dead Indian Creek north of the Project site, and a 20- foot road connecting to the Indian Cove neighborhood within the Canyons at Bighorn community to the east. As an alternative to the Original Project, the Applicant proposed an eight -lot single-family subdivision with access restricted to the east at Indian Cove. 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 Impacts of the eight -unit alternative were evaluated in the Draft EIR as the Reduced Project Alternative. In addition, the City directed its consultant to include a two -unit residential alternative for analysis in the Draft EIR. Impacts of the two -unit alternative were evaluated in the Draft EIR as the Hillside Limited Alternative. In response to the comments received on the Draft EIR, the Applicant explored options for a smaller project and in November 2006, submitted a newly revised tentative tract map for a two -lot residential alternative to the City, herein referred to as the New Preferred Alternative. The New Preferred Alternative provides specific lots, pad areas for each residence, and associated garages as well as the grading necessary to create those pads. Although the Draft EIR complied with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines regarding the analysis of the Original Project, the City circulated the New Preferred Alternative for public review and comment to augment the Draft EIR. Consistent with the requirements of CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines, the FEIR discusses environmental effects in proportion to the severity and probability of occurrence. The FEIR identifies a number of potentially significant adverse environmental effects of the Project. The FEIR also identifies mitigation measures which would reduce or eliminate potential adverse effects. These effects and the mitigation measures are summarized below, as is the City Council's determination whether or not to incorporate such mitigation measures and its rationale for such determination. All mitigation measures have been incorporated into a mitigation monitoring and reporting program pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081.6. The drafting of these measures has been designed to ensure compliance during project implementation, as explained further in the FEIR. These findings merely summarize data in the FEIR administrative record for purposes of identifying the significant impacts and mitigation measures for the Project. The FEIR is incorporated by reference into these findings as substantial evidence therefor as if set forth fully in these findings. AESTHETICS Impacts The New Preferred Alternative would alter the natural appearance of less than half of the area of the Project site. The dwelling and landscape design for the two single-family residences would comply with the architectural guidelines for the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn, appearing as a minor extension of that community. With compliance with the Comprehensive General Plan policies and Municipal Code requirements and completion of design review by the City's Architectural Review Commission, the New Preferred Alternative would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or surrounding area, notwithstanding the area required for site preparation and grading. Therefore, the impacts to on -site aesthetic resources would be less than 9 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 significant. The New Preferred Alternative would not substantially affect views from the surrounding residential uses to the east and north or from public views across SR-74, a state scenic highway. Therefore, the New Preferred Alternative, well over 1,000 feet from the highway, would not substantively affect the scenic content of such views. Overall, aesthetic impacts under the New Preferred Alternative would be less than significant. However, mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that aesthetic impacts remain less than significant. As with the New Preferred Alternative, all related projects would be subject to the City's project permit and approval process. Furthermore, each related project identified is located sufficiently distant from the Project site as to have a minimal cumulative effect. As such, no significant cumulative impacts regarding aesthetics, views, and light or glare would occur. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure IV.A-1: All open areas not used for buildings, roadways, driveways, parking areas, or walkways shall be landscaped to reduce visibility of the Project improvements from adjacent properties in accordance with a Landscape Plan to be prepared by a licensed landscape architect to the satisfaction of the Community Development/Planning Department. The Landscape Plan shall specify plant materials, heights upon planting or box sizes, and locations. Remaining existing natural landscape areas shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the Landscape Plan. Mitigation Measure IV.A-2: All night lighting installed within the Project site shall be shielded and directed in a manner so that such lighting does not shine upwards or towards the lambing pen to the south of the Project site and, thus, is generally not visible from the existing sheep pens. In addition, Lighting shall not be a high glare type of lighting, shall be directed away from nearby residential uses and shall be confined to the site. Level of Significance After Mitigation As impacts of the New Preferred Alternative regarding aesthetics would be less than significant, implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would further ensure that aesthetic impacts remain less than significant. Although no significant impacts have been identified, changes or alterations have been incorporated into the Project which substantially lessen any potentially significant environmental effects on aesthetics as identified in the FEIR. AIR QUALITY Impacts During construction, emission from the New Preferred Alternative would not exceed regional and local SCAQMD significance thresholds for ROC, CO, SOx, PM10, or PM2.5. The New Preferred Alternative would, however, exceed localized significance thresholds for NOx. As such, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce NOx levels for the Project. 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 However, even with implementation of the mitigation measures, the New Preferred Alternative would result in exceedance of NOx threshold levels, resulting in significant construction air quality impacts. Utilizing SCAQMD localized significance thresholds (LST) for humans as an indicator of potential impacts upon the bighorn sheep during construction, the New Preferred Alternative would have a less than significant impact on sheep in the nearby lambing pen. Operation of the New Preferred Alternative would not result in a significant impact, as emissions during the operational phase would be on the order of five percent of those forecast for the Original Project which were also determined to be less than significant. The results of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions calculated for the New Preferred Alternative determined that operational emissions would be less than one -tenth of the Project's construction emissions, with impacts held to a level of statistical insignificance. The New Preferred Alternative would comply with the goals of the State of California as it would incorporate energy reducing features such as the installation of efficient appliances, fixtures, and infrastructure. As the New Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the underlying growth assumptions on which the Air Quality Management (AQMP) is based, the long term increase in emissions that would occur as a result of development of the Project site would not be cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure IV.B-1: Water three times daily or apply non -toxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, as needed to reduce off -site transport of fugitive dust from all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces. Additionally, install AQMD approved track -out prevention devices for construction vehicles leaving the Project site. Mitigation Measure IV.B-2: All private streets shall be swept as needed during construction, but not more frequently than hourly, if visible soil material has been carried onto adjacent paved roads. Mitigation Measure IV.B-3: Construction equipment shall be visually inspected prior to leaving the site and loose dirt shall be washed off with wheel washers as necessary. Mitigation Measure IV.B-4: All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's specifications. Mitigation Measure IV.B-5: General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment to minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues shall have their engines turned off when not in use to reduce vehicle emissions. Construction activities should be phased and scheduled to avoid emissions peaks and discontinued during second -stage smog alerts. 11 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 Mitigation Measure IV.B-6: To the extent possible, petroleum powered construction activity shall utilize electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel power generators and/or gasoline power generators. Mitigation Measure IV.B-7: On -site mobile equipment shall be powered by alternative fuel sources (i.e., methanol, natural gas, propane or butane) as feasible. Mitigation Measure IV.B-8: The Applicant shall, as feasible, install solar or low - emission water heaters that exceed the requirements of the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) and the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), to reduce energy consumption. Mitigation Measure IV. B-9: The Applicant shall, as feasible, install energy - efficient appliances (i.e., ENERGY STAR) to reduce energy consumption. Level of Significance After Mitigation Even with implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts of the New Preferred Alternative would exceed NOx threshold levels, resulting in significant and unavoidable construction air quality impacts. Mitigation measures identified above substantially lessen potentially significant environmental effects on air quality to the extent feasible. Based on the FEIR and the whole of the record, feasible measures are not available to further reduce NOx emissions below a level of significance. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Impacts The New Preferred Alternative would not adversely affect sensitive communities, nesting habitat for sensitive birds, sensitive plant species, the barefoot gecko (Coleaonyx switaki), the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizi), the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), wildlife movement, nor free roaming specimens of the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnobates), as the site either does not provide such habitat or is well removed from the established ranges of the respective species. Impacts to wildlife movement would also be less than significant. Concern for impacts upon captive adult bighorn sheep and born Iambs in the lambing pen on the Bighorn Institute property south of the Project site has been a significant factor in developing a sequence of several previous alternatives, as well as the New Preferred Alternative. As set forth in the FEIR, documented evidence is inconclusive regarding the threshold of disturbance that would be detrimental to the captive breeding program for Peninsular Bighorn Sheep operated the Bighorn Institute. In connection with the approval of the Altamira (now Canyons at Bighorn) project, an assemblage of 40 biologists and others having knowledge and familiarity with bighorn sheep opined as to a reasonable separation between ongoing human activity in a built environment and the 12 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 lambing pens at the Bighorn Institute. The biologists provided a wide range of opinions, varying from no separation to over a mile. In an effort to settle litigation regarding the Altamira project among the City, the Bighorn Institute, and Altamira, a legal compromise was ultimately agreed upon to establish a 400 yard buffer between construction activity on the Canyons at Bighorn property and the lambing pen at the Bighorn Institute. There is thus no definitive scientific basis to establish that a buffer of 400 yards or any other distance is required to protect the captive breeding program at the Bighorn Institute. The Cornishe Property was specifically excluded in the legal settlement from the buffer area. It is understood that the bighorn sheep are more responsive to visual stimuli than they are to audio stimuli. Site preparation for and construction of two large homes with subsequent landscaping would occur in plain view of the lambing pen. Such intense visual construction activities could be expected out of an abundance of caution to significantly impact the bighorn sheep in the pen. For the purposes of the FEIR, construction is defined as grading, excavation, framing, siding, roofing, landscaping, installation of doors and windows, and any interior work that utilizes pneumatic tools or compressors that would be located outside the proposed residences. Following construction, the orientation of the access driveway from the Indian Cove Neighborhood to the southerly side of two proposed residential lots dictates that all vehicular access must approach the lambing pen prior to approaching the two residences even though construction of the driveway would remain within the lower elevations of the Project site with berms or walls along the alignment as necessary to reduce glare and views of on -coming traffic from the lambing pen. As no design information is available, it cannot be said that the two residences would be entirely oriented to the north, leaving entirely passive facades facing the lambing pen to the south. Thus, activity associated with normal residential occupancy, including vehicular arrivals and departures for occupants, visitors and guests, maintenance, mail delivery and other deliveries, as well as some of the associated outdoor activities and nighttime illumination of outdoor and indoor spaces can be presumed to be visible from the pen. The understanding of sheep behavior is not sufficiently refined to specify an activity level (i.e., 38 dwellings or two dwellings) at which the sheep's response is activated. Therefore, it must be conservatively assumed that the New Preferred Alternative could still have the potential to significantly impact captive adult sheep and born Iambs in the lambing pen through visual and, to a lesser degree, auditory habituation. Mitigation is recommended to attempt to reduce this impact, although elimination of the impact is probably not possible given the proximity of the Project site to the lambing pen in its current location. The Project is one of 32 private projects that was analyzed for cumulative impacts and is covered in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). Under the CVMSHCP, any loss of habitat can be mitigated through a donation of public and privately owned land to the Reserve or through payment of fees for habitat restoration. Therefore, implementation of the New Preferred Alternative would not have a significant cumulative impact on naturally occurring plant and wildlife species. The cumulative impact on the Bighorn Institute would remain significant. Although the 13 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 CVMSHCP has been fully approved by all affected local jurisdictions, formal adoption is not yet complete. It is reasonable to assume that if the CVMSHCP is not adopted, each of the 32 private projects would be approved with mitigations and conservation measures substantially similar to the ones proposed in the CVMSHCP. As such, the cumulative impacts would be the same, with or without the CVMSHCP. Mitigation Measures Mitigation Measure IV.C-1: Garage openings shall be oriented easterly away from the lambing pens to the maximum extent practicable. Mitigation Measure IV.C-2: Site preparation and grading of the site shall be designed to balance on -site to minimize new import of fill materials to the extent feasible. Grading shall be restricted to that necessary for 1) reasonable vehicular access from the Indian Cove section of the Canyons at Bighorn to access the residences, 2) development of proposed building pad elevations, and 3) reasonable foundation excavations. To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations no higher than 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. Mitigation Measure IV.C-3: The proposed residences shall be designed so that, to the maximum extent practicable, all activities and facilities associated with their occupancy, including indoor and outdoor residency, landscape and other maintenance, mechanical equipment, recreational facilities, etc., be located to the north of the residences or screened from view from the lambing pen by barriers high enough to be effective. Mitigation Measure IV.C-4: No construction activities, as defined in this document, should occur during the lambing season, which extends from January 1 to June 30. If any construction activities should occur during the nesting season that extends beyond the lambing season (July 1st to August 31st), all suitable habitat in the development/disturbance area of the Project shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist prior to removal. If any active nests are detected within a 300-foot buffer of the construction activity, a buffer of at least 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is complete or the nest has failed as determined by the biological monitor. Mitigation Measure IV.C-5: A biologist shall conduct a pre -construction survey, per USFWS protocols, to ensure that no desert tortoises are affected by the project. If it is determined that tortoises may be affected, a desert tortoise conservation plan addressing the appropriate construction management and ongoing operational practices shall be prepared. Mitigation Measure IV.C-6: A pre -construction survey, conducted according to reserve agency protocols, shall be performed in order to ensure that no burrowing owls 14 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 are affected by the Project. If it is determined that burrowing owls may be affected, a burrowing owl conservation plan addressing the appropriate construction management and ongoing operational practices shall be prepared. Mitigation Measure IV.C-7: In order to minimize stress and disturbance to Peninsular bighorn sheep at the Bighorn Institute, no dogs shall be permitted on the Project site, either as residents or as visitors. Mitigation Measure IV.C-8: A permanent fence and/or wall shall be constructed around the developed parts of the Project site to prevent free -roaming sheep from entering developed areas. The design and location of the fence and/or wall shall be developed in consultation with a biologist and the Bighorn Institute. No landscaping or surface water shall be allowed to occur outside the fence to prevent sheep from being attracted to the site and exposed to danger or human activity. Mitigation Measure IV.C-9: In the event the CVMSHCP is adopted, the Applicant shall pay a Local Development Mitigation Fee if he/she chooses to avoid biological survey requirements, analysis of impacts, and mitigation. The estimated Local Development Mitigation Fee is $5,730 per acre of development for the first year of plan implementation. (The average annual increase of the Local Development Mitigation Fee is projected at 3.29 percent.) Level of Significance After Mitigation With implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts of the New Preferred Alternative on biological resources would be reduced. However, in the absence of definitive scientific evidence, it is conservatively assumed that the New Preferred Alternative would still have the potential to significantly impact captive adult sheep and born Iambs in the lambing pen through visual and, to a lesser degree, auditory habituation. Thus, impacts to biological resources during construction and operation of the Project remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation measures identified above substantially lessen potentially significant environmental effects on biological resources to the extent feasible. Based on the FEIR and the whole of the record, feasible measures are not available to further reduce potential impacts on captive adult sheep and born Iambs in the lambing pen through visual and auditory habituation to below a level of significance. CULTURAL RESOURCES Impacts The New Preferred Alternative would not disturb, damage, or degrade any potentially unique historic, archaeological or paleontological resources or sites and, therefore, would have no adverse impact upon such resources/sites. In the event any archaeological resources, historic resources, or traditional burial sites are unearthed or discovered, the New Preferred Alternative would be required to comply with the provisions 15 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 and conservation measures set forth by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. As such, impacts of the New Preferred Alternative would be less than significant. As with the New Preferred Alternative, all other related projects would be required to comply with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, cumulative impacts regarding historic, archaeological and paleontological resources would also be less than significant. Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are required as the New Preferred Alternative would not have adverse impacts regarding cultural resources. Level of Significance After Mitigation No mitigation measures are required as the New Preferred Alternative would have less than significant impacts on cultural resources. HYDROLOGY Impacts The New Preferred Alternative would introduce a relatively small amount of impervious surface areas on -site altering the site's hydrology marginally. Runoff flows and volumes, and sediment loads would be increased slightly over existing conditions for ultimate discharge into Dead Indian Creek. The New Preferred Alternative would require permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board for the construction of the access road over the natural drainage channel along the site's eastern boundary. However, no access roads are proposed across Dead Indian Creek. Therefore, impacts to "jurisdictional waters" would be reduced in comparison to the potential impacts of the Original Project. The Project would also include on -site drainage improvements in accordance with City requirements. As such, with compliance with the applicable rules and regulations, impacts regarding hydrology and surface water quality attributable to the New Preferred Alternative would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be required. Cumulative impacts regarding hydrology and surface water quality would also be less than significant with the New Preferred Alternative. Each related project would be required to comply with City, state, and federal requirements. In addition, each related project would be evaluated individually by the City to ensure adequate system capacity. As such, cumulative impacts regarding hydrology and surface quality would be less than significant. Mitigation Measures The New Preferred Alternative would result in a less than significant impact regarding hydrology and surface water quality, and no mitigation measures are required. 16 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 Level of Significance After Mitigation No mitigation measures are required as the impacts of the New Preferred Alternative regarding hydrology and surface water quality would be less than significant. LAND USE AND PLANNING Impacts The New Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning code. The Project would appear as a minor extension of the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community and would be subject to Architectural Review by the City. Therefore, no adverse compatibility relationships with the adjoining residential land uses or the Bighorn Institute are predicted to occur, and no division of community effects would ensue. The New Preferred Alternative's impact on Land Use and Planning would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. As each related project would be required to comply with the City's land use policies and zoning regulations, and as the location of the New Preferred Alternative would be located distant from other related projects, no cumulative impacts would occur. Mitigation Measures The New Preferred Alternative would result in a Tess than significant impact regarding land use, and no mitigation measures are required. Level of Significance After Mitigation No mitigation measures are required as the New Preferred Alternative's impacts regarding land use would be less than significant. NOISE Impacts The New Preferred Alternative's construction noise impacts at the nearest residential sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Due to the amount of proposed site preparation and grading, the earthwork and concrete work for two large residential homes and associated auxiliary structures would require more than three months to complete resulting in a likely significant construction noise impact on captive adult sheep and newborn Iambs in the nearby lambing pen. Vibration impacts associated with construction would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. After construction, the occupancy and use of the two dwellings under the New Preferred Alternative would increase noise levels from on -site operations due to vehicular movement and normal occupancy of the premises relative to the existing conditions. 17 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 However, the incremental increase in noise levels would be well below the 3 dBA CNEL significance threshold. Therefore, impacts to the existing and future sensitive residential receptors within the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community would be less than significant. Operational noise impacts upon bighorn sheep in the lambing pen would be less than significant. Nonetheless, mitigation measures are proposed. As the New Preferred Alternative would result in a potentially significant noise impact during construction to the lambing pens in the Bighorn Institute, it is anticipated that the cumulative noise impacts would also remain potentially significant to the Bighorn Institute during construction. Cumulative roadway noise impacts would be significant, as buildout of the Canyons at Bighorn would exceed the 3 dBA CNEL incremental threshold by 4.5 dBA CNEL along Cahuilla Way, east of SR-74. The New Preferred Alternative would contribute to these cumulative noise levels resulting in significant cumulative noise impacts on Cahuilla Way. No other public or private roadway segments would result in a cumulative noise impact. Mitigation Measures The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts of the New Preferred Alternative. Please note that Mitigation Measures IV.C-1 through IV.C-3 are repeated here from Subsection 3, Biological Resources above. Mitigation Measure IV.C-1: Garage openings shall be oriented easterly away from the lambing pens to the maximum extent practicable. Mitigation Measure IV.C-2: Site preparation and grading of the site shall be designed to balance on -site to minimize new import of fill materials to the extent feasible. Grading shall be restricted to that necessary for: 1) reasonable vehicular access from the Indian Cove section of the Canyons at Bighorn to access the residences, 2) development of proposed building pad elevations, and 3) reasonable foundation excavations. To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations no higher than 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. Mitigation Measure IV.C-3: The proposed residences shall be designed so that, to the maximum extent practicable, all activities and facilities associated with their occupancy, including indoor and outdoor residency, landscape and other maintenance, mechanical equipment, recreational facilities, etc., be located to the north of the residences or screened from view from the lambing pen by barriers high enough to be effective. Mitigation Measure IV.G-1: Construction equipment shall be fitted with residential grade mufflers, where readily available in the construction equipment fleet that regularly serves the City of Palm Desert area. Prospective contractors shall demonstrate a good 18 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 faith effort to locate such construction equipment for use throughout the duration of Project construction. Mitigation Measure IV.G-2: To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of heavy equipment simultaneously. Mitigation Measure IV.G-3: Engine idling from construction equipment such as bulldozers and haul trucks shall be limited, to the extent feasible. Mitigation Measure IV.G-4: The construction staging area shall be located as far as feasible from sensitive receptors. Mitigation Measure IV.G-5: Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday from July 1st through September 30th and between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.M., Monday through Friday from October 1st through December 31 st. On Saturdays, construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. No construction shall be allowed on Sundays, Federal holidays or during the January through June lambing season. Such limitation shall be placed as a condition on the grading permit in a manner meeting the approvals of the City Engineer and the Building Official. Mitigation Measure IV.G-6: Power maintenance equipment including leaf blowers, mowers, sanders, saws, and other similar equipment, shall not be used along the southern and western side of the residences nearest the Bighorn Institute lambing pens. Mitigation Measure IV.G-7: Stationary equipment (i.e., pool machinery and HVAC equipment) shall be designed so as to be enclosed on all sides with sound attenuation treatment on the southern and western side of the residences, nearest the lambing pens. In addition, mechanical equipment for the residences shall be located on the northern side of the buildings or screened from view from the lambing pen by barriers high enough to be effective. Mitigation Measure IV.G-8: Additional CC&Rs shall be developed that implement noise restrictions in the development and especially in the southwestern portion of the Project site. These would include restrictions on fireworks, gas powered blowers, the use of loud vehicles and management of on -site celebrations or similar events. Level of Significance After Mitigation Even with implementation of mitigation measures, as construction for the New Preferred Alternative is anticipated to exceed the three month threshold at which exposure to the construction noise can occur, construction impacts to the bighorn sheep in the lambing pen would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation measures identified above substantially lessen potentially significant environmental effects on noise to the 19 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 extent feasible. Based on the FEIR and the whole of the record, feasible measures are not available to further reduce noise impacts below a level of significance. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Impacts Construction traffic associated with haul trucks importing fill soils would cause a short-term significant impact on private streets within the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community. The New Preferred Alternative's import of 35,900 cubic yards of soil, is estimated with 64 haul truck trips per day resulting in an increase of 0.1 or more in the Traffic Intrusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index. A mitigation measure is recommended to reduce the amount of fill soils to be imported by the Project to the extent feasible. However, the amount of haul truck trips alone that would be required to import even a somewhat reduced volume of fill to the Project site via the Canyon's private roadway system could be unexpected to the Canyons at Bighorn residents, and perceived as intrusive. As such, construction impacts to the Canyons at Bighorn community would be considered potentially significant. During operations, the New Preferred Alternative would involve a nominal incremental addition of 19 daily vehicle trips to existing or future private traffic on the Indian Cove, Rock Creek, Canyon Drive private roadway segments within the Canyons at Bighorn. This small increase on any existing/future private street volume of 90 or more vehicles per day would not cause an increase of 0.1 in the TIRE index. Therefore, during the operation of the New Preferred Alternative, less than significant impacts would occur along the private roadways within the Canyons community. As with the Original Project, traffic impacts of the New Preferred Alternative to the public roadway system would remain Tess than significant. Cumulative traffic impacts would be localized for all related projects and would affect areas immediately adjacent to or surrounding each particular project site. The nearest identified project is the remaining buildout of the Canyons at Bighorn community. As such, the ongoing construction of that project along with the New Preferred Alternative would result in potentially significant cumulative impacts during construction. No cumulative impacts are anticipated upon public roadway segments at roadway intersections operating at levels of service worse than LOS D. Mitigation Measures Mitigation IV.C-2 is proposed above in Subsection 3, Biological Resources, and is recommended to also reduce construction traffic impacts. The following below repeats the mitigation measure as presented above: Mitigation Measure IV.C-2: Site preparation and grading of the site shall be designed to balance on -site to minimize new import of fill materials to the extent feasible. 20 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 Grading shall be restricted to that necessary for 1) proposed building pad improvement and reasonable vehicular access from the Indian Cove section of the Canyons at Bighorn to access the residences, 2) development of proposed building pad elevations, and 3) reasonable foundation excavations. To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations of 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively. Level of Significance After Mitigation Even with implementation of mitigation measures, construction traffic impacts associated with the amount of fill to be imported cannot be ascertained to be reduced to less than significant levels. Therefore, the New Preferred Alternative would result in a significant and unavoidable impact regarding construction traffic to the Canyons at Bighorn private roads. Mitigation measures identified above substantially lessen potentially significant environmental effects on traffic to the extent feasible. Based on the FEIR and the whole of the record, feasible measures are not available to further reduce traffic impacts below a level of significance. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, the FEIR described additional categories of potential effects that were not found to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the FEIR. An Initial Study was prepared for the Project in September 2004 and is included as Appendix A in the FEIR. The Initial Study indicates why the Project's potential effects on these issues were determined not to be significant and were therefore eliminated from further consideration in the FEIR. The issue areas determined to be less than significant by the Initial Study include the following: • Agricultural Resources • Historic and Paleontological Resources • Geology/Soils • Hazards/Hazardous Materials • Mineral Resources • Population/Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Utilities/Service Systems 21 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 Based on the Initial Study and the whole of the record, the Project was determined not to result in significant impacts in any of the foregoing issue areas. EXPLANATION FOR REJECTION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES Three alternatives to the Original Project were identified in the Draft EIR, which included a No Project/No Build Alternative, a Reduced Project Alternative (Eight Single - Family Units), and a Hillside Limited Alternative (Two Single -Family Units). In addition, the New Preferred Alternative was analyzed in the New Preferred Alternative, an Addition to the Draft EIR. Based on an analysis of these alternatives, an environmentally superior alternative was identified. Each of the alternatives has been evaluated in relation to its ability to accomplish the Project objectives set forth in the Draft EIR. The Project objectives are as follows: 1. Land Use Planning Objectives • Accommodate projected regional growth in a location that is adjacent to existing infrastructure, urban services, transportation corridors, and employment centers. • Cluster development on the site to preserve regionally significant ecological areas and other natural open space while reducing landform alteration and maintaining the scenic views. • Provide a range of recreational opportunities, including pedestrian paths that are accessible to residents. • Provide development that is compatible with surrounding residential communities. 2. Design Objectives • Provide residential streets, access roadways, drainage facilities and other infrastructure consistent with City of Palm Desert municipal codes and design standards. • Provide attractive architecture and landscaping that enhances the project site while complementing the surrounding desert landscape. • Provide a complementary outdoor lighting plan that promotes safety and avoids adverse lighting impacts on surrounding uses. 22 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 3. Economic Objectives • Maximize the value of the site with clustered residential uses consistent with the City of Palm Desert General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and with anticipated market demands. • Provide housing which supports the economic future of the region in an area in which the necessary infrastructure is in place. 4. Resource Conservation Objectives • Provide open space in a manner that is compatible with the protection of significant natural resources. • Minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources through site design and development standards. The four identified alternatives, as well as the identified environmentally superior alternative, are summarized below. No Project/No Build Alternative: The No Project/No Build Alternative assumes that the Project would not be developed, and that the development of the Project site with new uses and structures would not otherwise occur. Thus, the physical conditions of the site would remain as they are today, and a reduced environmental impact would occur when compared with the proposed Project. However, as the No Project/No Build Alternative would preclude development on the property, the Land Use Planning, Design, and Economic Objectives that have been set forth for the Project would not be met, leaving the Project site with no economically viable use. Thus, this Alternative was considered but rejected. Reduced Project Alternative (Eight Single -Family Units): The Reduced Project Alternative would develop eight single-family units, and 30 dwelling units less than the Original Project. Under this alternative, the single-family dwelling units would generally be located within the same location as the larger townhome buildings proposed by the Original Project. Under this Alternative, the access road would occur exclusively via the Indian Cove neighborhood from the east similar to the New Preferred Alternative but different from the Original Project's proposed 30-foot wide access road from the north. This roadway would be constructed similar to the New Preferred Alternative and would be approximately 25 feet in width. Recreational amenities would not be provided under this Alternative, different from the Original Project's proposed pool and park. Furthermore, although this Alternative reduces impacts of the Original Project, it does not meet the Land Use Planning and Economic Objectives to the same extent as the Original Project, nor would it meet the Resource Conservation Objectives to the same extent as the New Preferred Alternative. This Alternative would also result in greater impacts on the 23 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 environment than the New Preferred Alternative. Thus, this Alternative was considered but rejected. Hillside Limited Alternative (2 Single -Family Units): The Hillside Limited Alternative would develop two single-family units, 36 dwelling units Tess than the Original Project. Under this Alternative, the two dwelling units would be developed in the northeastern portion of the Project site, at a distance of approximately 300 yards from the closest point of the lambing pen to the Project site. This Alternative would be designed to achieve a completely passive character that appears as natural when seen from the lambing pen within the Bighorn Institute property as can be reasonably accomplished. Access would be provided from the east via the Indian Cove section of the Canyons at Bighorn community. Although the assessment of this Alternative was based on very conceptual design parameters and did not have the benefit of any specific design studies, it was determined that if implemented it would reduce each of the Original Project's unmitigable significant impacts to less than significant levels. It would also have less impact than the New Preferred Alternative. However, the northeastern corner of the site identified for development is largely located within the floodplain of Dead Indian Creek, which would result in unacceptable biological and hydrological impacts due to the need to undertake significant grading to raise the building site above the floodplain of the Creek, and thereby disturbing riparian habitat and permanently altering existing drainage patterns within the Creek. Furthermore, the Hillside Limited Alternative does not possess sufficient elevation to permit views of the Coachella Valley, and the portion of the site that does not lie within the floodplain of Dead Indian Creek is not large enough to accommodate more than a single lot. Thus, the Hillside Limited Alternative does not meet the Project's Land Use Planning, Design, and Economic Objectives to the same extent as the Original Project and the New Preferred Alternative. To the extent that the feasibility of the Hillside Limited Alternative depends upon the ability to construct within the floodplain of Dead Indian Creek, the alternative is considered impractical and infeasible due to the difficulties of constructing within an existing streambed. New Preferred Alternative: (2 Single -Family Units with a preliminary site design): The New Preferred Alternative would be similar to the Hillside Limited Alternative as it would develop two single-family units, 36 dwelling units less than the Original Project. The units would develop less than half of the eastern portion of the Project site, at a distance of approximately 240 yards from the closest point of the lambing pen to the Project site. Similar to the Hillside Limited Alternative, the New Preferred Alternative would be designed to achieve a passive character similar to the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community. Access would also be provided via Indian Cove. As with the Hillside Limited Alternative, the New Preferred Alternative would result in considerably less environmental impacts in all issue areas when compared with the Original Project. This reduced impact profile could be reduced even further if the amount of imported fill soils deemed necessary to raise the proposed pad heights sufficiently to provide Coachella Valley views from one-story residences therein could be substantively reduced. Subject to achievement of such views, mitigation to reduce the import has been recommended as feasible. The extent to which such mitigation may be feasible is not 24 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 known. Therefore, the relative effectiveness of this mitigation also is not known. Construction of the New Preferred Alternative would result in significant regional air quality impacts during construction, biological impacts upon captive sheep in the lambing pen at the Bighorn Institute during and following construction, noise and traffic impacts on the private roads within the Canyons at Bighorn community during construction, considerably less than the Original Project. In addition, the New Preferred Alternative would achieve the Land Use Planning, Design, and Economic Objectives for the Project. Environmentally Superior Alternative: Of the Alternatives analyzed for the Project, the No Project/No Build Alternative is considered the environmentally superior alternative as it reduces nearly all of the significant impacts that would occur under the New Preferred Alternative and the Original Project to less than significant levels. However, this Alternative would not meet any of the Land Use, Design, and Economic objectives established for the Project. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines requirement to identify an environmentally superior alternative other than the No Project/No Build Alternative, a comparative evaluation of the remaining alternatives indicates that the Hillside Limited Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative. Implementation of the Hillside Limited Alternative would result in considerably less environmental impacts in all issue areas when compared with the Original Project and the New Preferred Alternative. As construction of the New Preferred Alternative would result in significant regional air quality impacts during construction, biological impacts on captive sheep in the lambing pen at the Bighorn Institute during and following construction, noise impacts during construction, and traffic impacts on the private roads within the Canyons at Bighorn community during construction, impacts of the New Preferred Alternative would be more when compared with the Hillside Limited Alternative. Although these impacts could be reduced if the amount of imported fill soils could be substantively reduced, the extent to which such mitigation may be feasible is not known. Therefore, the relative effectiveness of this mitigation also is not known. With the Hillside Limited Alternative, however, development within the floodplain of Dead Indian Creek would occur, which would result in potentially significant biological and hydrological impacts due to the need to undertake significant grading to raise the building site above the floodplain of the Creek, and thereby disturbing riparian habitat and permanently altering existing drainage patterns within the Creek. Furthermore, the Hillside Limited Alternative does not possess sufficient elevation to permit views of the Coachella Valley, and the portion of the site that does not lie within the floodplain of Dead Indian Creek is not large enough to accommodate more than a single lot. Thus, the Hillside Limited Alternative does not meet the Project's Land Use Planning, Design, and Economic Objectives to the same extent as the Original Project and the New Preferred Alternative. To the extent that the feasibility of the Hillside Limited Alternative depends upon the ability to construct within the floodplain of Dead Indian Creek, the alternative is considered impractical and infeasible due to the difficulties of constructing within an existing streambed. 25 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 The New Preferred Alternative would achieve the Land Use Planning, Design, and Economic Objectives for the Project to an extent that the Hillside Limited Alternative would not. In comparison, if it were feasible, the Hillside Limited Alternative would be more effective in achieving the stated Resource Conservation Objectives than the New Preferred Alternative. However, as the New Preferred Alternative would optimize a balance between the Original Project and the Hillside Limited Alternative, it would meet most of the Project Objectives for the property. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City Council of the City of Palm Desert finds that the mitigation measures described in the FEIR will, when implemented, mitigate or substantially reduce most of the significant effects identified in the FEIR. Nonetheless, certain significant environmental impacts of the Project are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. For such effects, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against such unavoidable adverse environmental risks in approving it. In this regard, the City Council hereby finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the FEIR have been and will be implemented with the Project and that any significant unavoidable effects remaining are acceptable due to the following specific economic, social, and other considerations, including but not limited to Project benefits, based upon the findings set forth above, in the FEIR, and in the public record of the consideration of this Project. The unavoidable adverse impacts are identified as follows: • Regional construction air quality emissions for NOx; • Biological impacts (during construction and operation) to captive adult sheep and born Iambs in the lambing pen through visual and auditory habituation; • Construction noise impacts due to the anticipated duration of construction in excess of the three month threshold at which significant noise impacts can be expected to occur; and • Construction traffic impacts to the Canyons at Bighorn community. EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS The FEIR and the administrative record for this Project document that the Bighorn Institute located its pen facilities with full knowledge, or with the potential for full knowledge, of the planning activities of the City of Palm Desert. This includes a recognition, actual or constructive, that the Project site was and is zoned and planned for residential uses. The evidence available in the public records of the Bureau of Land Management even note that this consideration was taken into account, particularly in the appraisal report establishing the value of the Bighorn Institute property. It must be assumed that the Bighorn Institute knew of this issue and considered the location of its 30- 26 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 acre pen so close to the boundary with future development in the City of Palm Desert to be acceptable. The extent to which the Bighorn Institute must have considered this proximity acceptable at one time, but no longer considers it acceptable, is a factor of internal concern to the Bighorn Institute operations. The City of Palm Desert is not considering a general plan amendment or zone change on the Project site from open space to residential, but rather an implementation of its own general plan. If problems have arisen that were not expected by the Bighorn Institute at the time that the Bighorn Institute established its operations so close to residentially zoned property, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert believes that it is incumbent upon the Bighorn Institute to look to its own site or another site to mitigate impacts to its facilities as they now exist or may exist in the future. The establishment of an open space buffer with no uses in it imposes a burden on the City of Palm Desert of potential litigation, inequity, and loss of revenue for a problem that the City of Palm Desert not only did not create, but made completely public through its records. There was ample opportunity through the planning and zoning process for the Bighorn Institute to make the City of Palm Desert aware of any conflicts with its facility. However, the Bighorn Institute chose to locate its 30-acre pen only 300 feet from the boundary of the Project site, which is also the municipal boundary. For the Bighorn Institute to assume that the City of Palm Desert would change its general planning program to accommodate an adjacent land use which had willingly moved so close to the City is an unreasonable expectation. It also deprives the City of Palm Desert of the substantial revenue from this Project, as well as the contribution to the City's jobs/housing balance. It should also be noted that the two single family residences proposed to be constructed as part of the Project will be located approximately the same distance from the Bighorn Institute's 30-acre pen as the residence of the Director of the Bighorn Institute. These overriding considerations are only stated in an abundance of caution provided there is any impact to the Bighorn Institute facility at all. As documented in the findings, there is no scientific basis to establish that a buffer of 400 yards or any other distance is required, and the City of Palm Desert is persuaded by those experts who believe that no buffer, or only a small buffer, is necessary to mitigate all effects. Therefore, there are no significant effects that need to be overridden in this sense. However, to the extent that unanticipated impacts may occur, and recognizing the permanence of the Project once it is established, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert sets forth the above rationale for proceeding with the Project in view of the slight potential for these impacts. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS As set forth in the FEIR and in the administrative record for the Project, a 400 yard buffer was established around the Bighorn Institute's 30-acre lambing pen in connection with the approval of the Altamira project, now the Canyons of Bighorn development, in 1991. The establishment of the 400 yard buffer was the result of a legal compromise agreed to in order to settle litigation regarding the Altamira project. The Project site lies 27 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 almost entirely within the 400 yard buffer area, but the City agreed as part of an additional settlement of pending litigation, that the Project site is specifically excluded from the effect of the 400 yard buffer and that development of the Project site would not be precluded due to its location within the 400 yard buffer area. The only portion of the 12-acre Project site that lies outside the buffer area consists of only approximately '/a acre, which lies entirely within the streambed of Dead Indian Creek, which is designated as "waters of the United States" for purposes of the Federal Clean Water Act. The Applicant has presented evidence that even if permits could be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game to develop within the streambed of Dead Indian Creek, the cost of such development would exceed the resulting value of the property. If the City were to limit development to only that portion of the Project site located outside of the 400 yard buffer area, the economically viable use of the property would be significantly diminished and possibly reduced to nothing, thereby exposing the City to a potential regulatory takings action by the Applicant, which could result in a significant financial burden on the City's resources. A restriction on all development of the Project site located within the 400 yard buffer area would also eliminate possible revenue to the City in the form of increased property taxes that would accrue as a result of the development of the Project site for two high -end single family homes. OVERALL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS The City Council of the City of Palm Desert has for some time had an adopted general plan which has been harmonized with the City's policies for overall growth of both housing and jobs. The City has chosen in its general planning scheme to concentrate the job producing uses in the center of the City principally along Highway 111, or in the northern portion of the City in proximity to Interstate 10, while using as residential areas portions of the City away from Highway 111 and Interstate 10. The Project site is the last remaining residentially zoned property located along the City's southern boundary for which development has not yet been approved. The Project as proposed fully complies with applicable use and density standards. The extent to which the Project is not developed, or is not developed as proposed, would prevent the City from realizing its full expectation. In adopting these policies, it is important to note that the City strove for balance between environmental quality objectives, fiscal responsibility, and land use patterns. Short term construction air quality impacts and traffic impacts on the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn development will be limited in duration and will cease following completion of grading on the Project site. Construction has been ongoing on portions of the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn development for a number of years, including, most recently, in the adjacent Indian Cove community. The potential impacts associated with the construction of the Project are not unlike those that the adjacent community has been and still is experiencing. As discussed in the findings above, operational air quality and traffic impacts will be less than significant. The ability of the City to implement its overall 28 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486 planning goals and realize the economic benefits due to the Project outweigh the temporary and unavoidable impacts due to construction. The proposed two lot subdivision is designed to be sensitive to the existing landscape and compatible with surrounding uses. It effectively balances the firmly established rights of the property owner with protection of the environment and will place one of the last remaining pieces of undeveloped property along the City's southern boundary into productive use. If developed as proposed, the Project will also result in the preservation of approximately eight acres of the property as protected open space. Based on the entire record of proceedings, the City finds that the foregoing equitable, economic, and overall planning considerations outweigh the significant, unavoidable impacts of the Project as identified in the FEIR. 29