HomeMy WebLinkAboutTT 31676 GPA 6-1 CZ 6-1 Cornishe of Bighorn 02-23-2006CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
I. TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
II. REQUEST: Approval of a tentative tract map and environmental impact report to
allow the subdivision of 11.87 acres into 7 lots to allow construction
of 4 single family homes adjacent to the "Canyons at Bighorn Golf
Club", west of Indian Cove and south of Dead Indian Creek; and a
request by the City of Palm Desert on same property for a general
plan amendment from Low Density Residential (Study Zone) to
Hillside Reserve and zone change from a combination of Planned
Residential, 5 units per acre and Hillside Planned Residential, to
Hillside Planned Residential on the entire property:.
III. APPLICANT: Cornishe of Bighorn, LLC City of Palm Desert
P. O. Box 789 73510 Fred Waring Dr.
Ceres, CA 95307 Palm Desert, CA 92260
IV. CASE NOS. TT 31676, GPA 6-1, CZ 6-1
V. DATE: February 23, 2006
VI. CONTENTS: A. Staff Recommendation
B. Background
C. Recommendation
D. Draft Enviromental Impact Report
E. Legal Notice
F. EIR comments
G. Planning Commission Staff report dated February 21, 2006
H. Tentative Tract Map 31676
A. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Accept public testimony and continue matter to the meeting of March 9,2006
B. DISCUSSION:
The project is almost entirely surrounded by the 400-yard buffer for the captive sheep at
the Bighorn Institute by The Canyons when that project was approved. The applicant
originally submitted a 57-unit project, which was scaled back to a 38-unit, which was
analyzed in an environmental impact report. The project was recently scaled back to a 4-
unit project while the EIR found that the only project on the property that would not
significantly impact the Institute operations was a 2-unit project.
The general plan amendment and zone change are city initiated.
STAFF REPORT
PM 33996
NOVEMBER 10, 2005
Staff is recommending a continuance for this project to the meeting of March 9 to allow
extra time for staff and city attorney to; 1) respond to comments, 2) review the regulatory
takings claim, and 3) review the analysis for no impact alternative.
For a more detailed report on the project please refer to the planning commission staff
report contained within your package.
Submitted By: Dep> ment Head:
hil Joy
Associate Transportation Planner
Appr• ed by:
'Homer Croy, A istant City Manager for Development Services
Carlos L. O ga, City Manager
hilip Drell
Director of Community Development
2
Q
02l14/2006 16:25 FAX 21a 62Q 8816 ALLEN MATKINS
�+�1 ����1Y1S
www. dllenmatkins, com
C� 004
Alleu M�tldns Leck Cr�ble & Mallory LI.P
A,1foRteys aE Law
515 5outh Figucros, 7° F7oar � Lc�s lingCles, CA 90071 3398
TetepBane: 213.622.5555 ( Facsirnile: 213.620-8816
p'atric(c A. Perty
E-mtil: prwRry�sUeematkins.carn
Direct DiaL- 213.955.5504 �'ile Number. F3263-002/LA709S45.Ot
Febaruary 14, 24p6
V'tA FA,CSYMIL� AI�TD
FIRST C'LASS N,�AJL
Mayor J�zn Fergusoz�
Mayor Pro Tem Richazd S. K.elly
Councilmember 7ean. M_ Benson
Councilmembe�r Buford A. G�ites
Gauncilnnember Robert A. Spiegel
Gity of PaUn Desert
73-5 �Q Fred Waning brive
palm Desert, Cali£oznia
Re: Case Nns. GFA 6,1 and CZ 6-1
Dear Members of the �'alm besert City Council:
This fian represe�ts Cornishe of�ighom ("Cornishe") xn connecti,an with its application �or
Tentalave Tract Map No. 31676 to subdivide approximately 12 aeres of under►eloped property (the
"Pro�erty") abutting the southern boundary of the Ciry. The Tent�tive �'ract Map is scheduled to be
considered by the City Planning Co�unission on February 2�, 2006, and by the City Council on
Febzuary 23, 24Q6. The Fla�aning Comr�tission and Cxty Council �re also scb.eduled to cor�sider the
above-refereuced General Plan amendment and �one change for tbe pr�aperty at the same time. The
current Ceneral Plan land use designatian for the Property is Law Density Residential (Study Zone),
which pexmits up ta four dwelling units pe�c a.cre. The current zoning desi�ation ;tor most af the
Property is PI�-5, Plaztned ltesiden..tial, 5 u�aits per acre. A small pc�rtion of th� Property is cwrrently
xoned Hillside planned �tesidential, whieh permits the de�veIopment of one wut per five acres. The
General Plan �uendment wauld change the l�nd use designation oFthe Fraperty fram Lvw Dez�si�y
Reszdential (Study Zone) to Hillside Reserve, and the zone change would change the zoning
desigz�ation of the porti.on o�the Pro�erty zoned PR-5 to Hillside Plann�d Res�idential.
As noted above, the Property consists of appmximately 12 acres, Und�r the current zoning
designation, a maximuzz� of 57 dwelling units could be deveXaped on tlYe Prope�ty, The General Plan
ame�ndment and the zon,e change, if approved, cvould r�duce the maximum number of dwelling units
that could be developed ota, the Properry frvm 57 ta #wo. The Tentative �'xact Map proposes to
subdivide the �roperty inta�four residenfiallots for the develop�naent of four single E`amily homes.
�
Los Angelcs j Orsnge County ( 5an Diego j�:entuty City � San �rancisco � Del Mar Heigh�
CITY (�� Pfll�l DESERT
�,
'j3-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, Cn�.►FORN[n 92z6o-2578
T�.: 760 346—o6r�
Pax: 760 34i-7o98
in(o�palm-detert. org
_ CITY oF eALM DESERT --_-- .. - -
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NOS. TT 31676, GPA 6-1 8� CZ 6-1
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning
Commission and Palm Desert City Council to consider a request by Cornishe of Bighom, LLC for
approval of a tentative tract map and environmental impact report to allow the subdivision of
11.87 acres into 7 lots to allow construction of 4 single family homes adjacent to the "Canyons at
Bighorn Golf Club", west of Indian Cove and south of Dead Indian Creek; and a request by the
City of Palm Desert on same property for a general plan amendment from Low Density
Residential (Study Zone) to Hillside Reserve and zone change from a combination of Planned
Residential, 5 units per acre and Hillside Planned Residential, to Hillside Planned Residential on
the entire property: APN 771-030-008
� E� 1 1�I►�Jl! �1�� 'L' f
f 4
f
� HAYST�c �
� A MESQUtTE HILLS DRNE
� B. PALM ROAD
� C. CANI(ON RQAD
D. L,ANTANA VIEW
� �. ANQREAS CANYON DRNE
E F. SUMMQ COVE
� � G. ROCKY CREEK
H. ARROY VIEW
I. `: iN01AN COVE
_� : .. � J. PINNACLE CREST
PRQJECT SITE
SAID public hearing before the Planning Commission will be held on Tuesday, February 21,
2006 at 6:00 p.m. and SAID public hearing before the City Council will be held on Thursday,
February 23, 2006, 4:00 p.m in the Council Chamber at the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510
Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, Califomia, at which time and place all interested persons are
invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items covered by this public
hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information concerning the
proposed project and environmental impact report is available for review in the Department of
Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written conespondence delivered to the Planning Commission or city council at, or
prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun PHILIP DRELL, Secretary
February 9, 2006 Patm Desert Planning Commission
RACHELLE KLASSEN
City Clerk
���i oF TH
F�
� : . ' y�
� �
e
�AACH 3 �$A
In Reply Refer To:
FW S-ERN-4739.1
Mr. Philip Drell
T u�
�ssxvi��
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Services
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Off'ice
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad, California 92011
Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert, Community Development Department
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578
;
� �� �
f � ` �,, ,. ►�*�'':'
k t�_�,
�
�
�4MhiUNITY DE i'ELOPl�,fENT UEPA,kT��EN?
CI''Y �r �ALbf DESERT
FEB 1 2006
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact report on the Cornishe of Bighorn Project
(Tentative Tract Map 31676)
Dear Mr. Drell:
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for the proposed Cornishe of Bighorn Project. We are providing these comments for
your consideration under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and
the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956. The mission of the Service is working with others to
conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing
benefit of the American people. The proposed project is a 38-unit residential subdivision with
associated improvements and amenities on approximately 11.87 acres of vacant land. The
proposed project would significantly impact the federally endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep
(Ovis canadensis) and threatened desert tortoise [Gopherus (xerobates) agassizii]. Our concerns
regarding the accuracy and completeness of the DEIR, range of alternatives analyzed, and
adequacy of the mitigation measures are outlined below.
l. Inadectuate data on nroposed imuacts to captive bi�horn sheep and inadequate miti�ation
for uronosed 'impacts to Peninsular bi�horn sheep
The proposed project site is located partially within designated critical habitat for
Peninsular bighorn sheep and approximately 50 yards from the lambing pen at the bighorn
sheep captive breeding facilities located at the Bighorn Institute. The proposed project
construction would occur only 125 yards from the lambing pen. We recommend that any
propased project in this location be consistent with the minimum 400-600 yard buffer that
was negotiated through a previous court-mediated settlement agreement among the
Bighorn Institute, Altamira, City, and County. No human disturbance (e.g., construction,
home owner activities, hiking, etc.� should occur within 400 yards of the existing lambing
pen, in order to maintain the isolation of the captive bighorn sheep from human activities.
Disturbance, as would be expected from the project as proposed, would likely result in
� � �- � ��� � � .�. n
� '� ` �
Mr; Phil Drell (FWS-ERIV-4739)
stress to pregnant ewes and habituation of lambs to human disturbance. Habituation to
disturbance would likely make lambs substantially less suitable for survival in the wild.
2
Bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges of the United States were federally listed as
endangered in 1998. This bighorn sheep population is comprised of approximately 8
subpopulations or demes. Demes in the northern Santa Rosa Mountains and San Jacinto
Mountains have declined to precariously low numbers in the recent past, and the San
Jacinto Mountains deme remains at critically low numbers. Captive breeding and
augmentation, in combination with field research, has assisted greatly in recovery of the
bighorn deme in the northern Santa Rosa Mountains (Ostermann et al. 2001). Captive
breeding has been important tool for recovering the bighorn deme in the San Jacinto
Mountains near Palm Springs, and the small subgroup in Dead Indian Canyon of Palm
Desert has persisted in part from the long-standing release program in the northern Santa
Rosa Mountains. Of the ten female sheep currently remaining the San Jacinto Mountains,
six are captive-reared ewes.
The Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California (USFWS
2000) recognizes the importance of captive breeding and augmentation to the recovery of
Peninsular bighorn sheep. Reintroduction and augmentation are prospective tools to
establish ewe groups and restore connectivity among demes. Augmentation increases
population size and reduces the risk of extirpations due to environmental or demographic
stochasticity, and provides a mechanism to increase genetic diversity and reduce the risk
of inbreeding depression (Foose et al. 1995). Augmentation may alsa play an important
role in conserving bighorn sheep habitat selection patterns, which are learned from
experienced animals. Captive breeding programs have been successfully used to aid
recovery of threatened and endangered wildlife populations throughout North America,
and include programs for the American bison (Bison bonasu), California Condor
(Gymnogyps californianus), and red wolf (Canis rufus) (Kleiman 1989; Tear et al. 1993),
and have proven successful for a wide variety of species on a worldwide basis.
As a good neighbor, the City has a responsibility to respect the Bureau of Land
Management's Recreation and Public Purpose lease and investment in the recovery of
bighorn sheep at the captive breeding facility on BLM-patented lands. If the 400-yard
buffer around the breeding pen can not be legally protected under private ownership, we
recommend that the City, and perhaps others, join in pursuing a purchase the proposed
project site and place the lands in permanent conservation, to ensure that activities on
adjacent lands do not compromise the integrity of the captive breeding facility. Much
private funding, multiple government and non-governmental partnerships, and many years
of hard work were required to establish and refine this captive breeding program for
bighorn sheep.
If a regulatory takings concern exists with the proposed project, we further suggest that,
for this unique situation, the City consider an alternative that would allow one home to be
developed in the far northeastern corner of the project site. Based on our Geographic
Information System parcel data, approximately one-third of an acre of the project site lies
Mr, Phil Drell (FWS-ERIV-4739)
3
outside of the 400-yard buffer from the lambing pen. If one house and a minor deviation,
if needed, from the 400-yard buffer were allowed in this corner, maximum mitigation
measures to avoid and minimize edge effects would be required to provide a functional
equivalent of the 400 yard buffer, though it may not be possible to provide full
equivalency. The buffer surrounding the captive breeding facility should be placed in
permanent conservation with funding provided for associated land management, per
California Civil Code 815 et seq. Fencing surrounding developments in Peninsular
bighorn sheep habitat should be constructed in accord with guidelines provided in the
Recovery Plan (USFWS 2000; pages 80-81). The precise alignment of the fence should
be determined in consultation with the Service and California Department of Fish and
Game.
2. The ran�e of alternatives analvzed did not include all reasonable alternatives
All alternatives analyzed in the DEIR (except the no build option) would result in
significant impacts to captive bighorn sheep. We consider the mitigation measures
described as part of the Hillside Limited Alternative in the DEIR (reduced project
footprint, design features, and an 8' wall) to be ineffective at mitigating the effects of the
project on captive bighorn sheep. The DEIR focused on minimizing the direct impacts of
construction, but underestimated the indirect effects of the project after construction (e.g.,
noise, lighting, and home owner activity). As determined through a lengthy legal and
biological process, the consensus among bighorn sheep experts for the previous Altamira
project was that a minimum 400-600 yard buffer between the captive bighorn sheep and
any devel�pment project is required to avoid significant impacts to captive sheep. The
Hillside Limited Alternative would allow for construction and human disturbance within
the 400 yard buffer.
Despite devoting considerable effort to the identification of mitigation measures for the
Hillside Limited Alternative, the DEIR contains an important oversight: failing to
consider an alternative that allowed for the development of one house in the northeastern
corner of the proposed project site as discussed above, with a focus on respecting the
integrity of the 400 yard buffer and the feasibility of any functional equivalents to any
minor deviations from past precedent. This alternative should have been analyzed in the
DEIR.
3. Reliance on the CVMSHCP for miti�ation of biolo�ical impacts
Mitigation for the proposed Cornishe project cannot rely upon mitigation measures
potentially supplied by the proposed CVMSHCP (Plan), unless the Plan is permitted and
implemented prior to certification of the Final EIR and approval of the project by the
City of Palm Desert. Additionally, the following sentence describing mitigation of
cumulative effects on page (17) is unclear:
"The cumulative impacts of this ccre not significant due to
CVMSHCP mitigation and conservation measures, if adopted, the
same cumulative impacts would not be significant if the same
M�, Phil Drell (FWS-ERN-4739)
mitigation and conservation measures are incorporated into
projects, if the CVMSHCP is not adopted. "
Regardless, the lack of focus or detail in the proposed CVMSHCP for addressing
cumulative adverse effects to the captive breeding facility renders this conclusion
questionable.
�
4. Incomplete data on Desert Tortoise
The proposed Cornishe project is within CVMSHCP modeled desert tortoise habitat, and
is in close proximity to recent tortoise sightings (see attached map). Furthermore, a
breeding population of desert tortoises has been documented on the nearby alluvial fan of
Deep Canyon. These findings are not consistent with the DEIR (page 150) statement that
the project site is poor quality tortoise habitat. Impacts to desert tortoise should be
reanalyzed after the most recent data on tortoise occurrences and modeled tortoise habitat
are obtained. It should also be noted that because such a small percentage of desert
tortoise habitat is designated as critical habitat, the absence of designated critical habitat
on the project site should not be interpreted as an indication of little or no impact to desert
tortoise. Loss of desert tortoise habitat on the adjoining Canyons at Bighorn project was
mitigated off-site through the acquisition of private lands under section 7 consultation
between the project proponent, Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Since the
same tortoise individuals (or their progeny) and home range territories would be adversely
affected by the proposed Cornishe project, past precedent and biological equity requires
comparable mitigation in this case. At a minimum, replacement habitat should be
purchased or secured at a ratio of 1 acre of conserved land for every acre of desert tortoise
habitat impacted. The mitigation habitat should be within the Santa Rosa Mountains and
benefit the tortoise population that will be impacted by the proposed project.
In addition, the EIR should be revised to describe what actions will be taken if tortoises
(or burrowing owls) are found during pre-construction surveys. Though clearance
surveys would be appropriate to avoid death and injury to individual tortoises, presence
absence surveys are not needed because the project site is known to be occupied by the
tortoises inhabiting nearby burrows. Incidental take of desert tortoises would require
authorization under State and Federal law.
In summary, we are concerned with the impacts of the proposed Cornishe of Bighorn Project on
Peninsular bighorn sheep and desert tortoise. Based on our comments above, we hope that the
City will respect the long-term conservation work that has occurred on lands adjacent to the
proposed project and take responsibility for requiring a project design that avoids and fully
mitigates significant adverse effects to the captive-breeding herd.
Mr:,Phil Drell (FWS-ERIV-4739)
5
Please contact Jon Avery or Stacey Ostermann-Kelm of my staff at 760/431-9440 if you have any
questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
Therese O'Rourke
Assistant Field Supervisor
cc: Kim Nicol, CDFG, Bermuda Dunes
Literature Cited
Foose, T. J. L DeBoer, U. S. Seal, and R. Lande. 1995. Conservation management strategies
based on viable populations. Pages 273-294 in J. D. Ballou, M. Gilpin, and T. J. Foose, editors.
Population management for survival and recovery. Columbia University Press, New York.
Kleiman, D. G. 1989. Reintroduction of captive mammals for conservation. Bioscience 39:457-
481.
Ostermann, S. D., J. R. DeForge, and W. D. Edge. 2001. Captive breeding and reintroduction
evaluation criteria: a case study of Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. Conservation Biology 15:749-
760.
Tear, T. H., J. M. Scott, P. H. Hayward, and B. Griffith. 1993. Status and prospects for success
of the Endangered Species Act: a look at recovery plans. Science 262:976-977.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Recovery plan for bighorn sheep in the Peninsular
Ranges, California. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. xv + 251 pages.
��
��
,
.....,�. .
�,
��_
��
� � _;t
R
.. I : �
�'.
i . �;
I ;`
��
� � :'
# �
��
�°,,,�;��,:�
�` ,� � ' ��� ,`.: �
' �_„ ' +� ,;���
. ,.,
r"�`� "`�'* "�-� �
�� � . �
s 'r�"
i +� '`
�� � a
�!��' .�,':�t"�
.� ���`���*4'� , F�* �'�7��
� s':
� ; �M
�
�a, � ��
s
` s.��� �-��t�' R ;._*
����f� . '�, .'��.
� {`
� , , , �.
�,{ : !' -� w ",�''..�
_� ts,�•";_ -
� ,w:• .'�.���5 '•' �� �+4•
� i ��• ?
♦ . r .��
.�
f i��� � � �
�� �. � '� �:
r , + ` �' ���'r' ' �
•�� ^�f " •
' � ���Mp � ,#�.�f f �, f�.
....:�- � _ , k- �` `4ka° x ,�, { .:,
1`�e�_�� �.: � �
�-�." �4 � '� � §`,:�
�,��, y� � �
• _;��
. ��. '�.� � 5•.µ _
��� � � �.
� ' ,> �-� �a � ,- . ��` �'� , � , � �
� �:
,. � �'
�:� ,
Ft',t,'� �- �: � ' . .
� �u:
R�
t p �a'•.
F� r��.e
� ��.
��� ' �� ,_.i�.•.
�.�
0��� z� S,�i�° ., . r o- � "�`p�!'""i '��,� �+�,1 _r��4'�� � .. �
y.�� `r.i> r i� . � � �i { � '� �,l4 � . �
, � ,� °
�� ��� ;
�� � � i rf z h y� ��f 'l' �'� �` { $ y3''# - `k
'"�i�i�",��� � . ,s� '`,�` `' � � -� s�' 4
.' , ' ���� ,. ��
4 yyx , t �' r �i,,rk'``�� ' :,� : '�� � !� �. - �'�
. .z " r ,s s ,,:. _ � ' ��� {
:
. s r , . � 7�. . .- �.� ��
y � ro � �� � � !�_ ' �
� �k�- ¢ � : � �� : � � � �` � ;- � ., z � ��' �i z� � .:
�Y ��+ �Y;��1 -t , ' ��� ,�,�1� ' .k . *y�
,.9' Y' r �� 6 "' r.�' }� �r' y,�,' 'F"�- -� ' ' � s` � T
"%':� �a3r-�,��j �t ,��'� �# - J� . � � M.. �.y. .;� ..",�
�, ��
`; .�, � s r.&"�d �" ��ti�:�r �ss . ���� � �..dt_ . =�'
_ :.�I '_ - � �� ,.,
Y€�`' � �" � - ���� ., � �
`" ��s � ��,z, � tt ?� � �� ,� ; �„ a' ,�, ' s �* �� ,�_ �,.,,,�
4�.k�",�'.rfi �. ,�'',�a�` �� w��+` -a�' .�,��'�'� x �� !e.'�,� '�a+��
=�,� m �rj � .�� � ,� ��fi`" �' > � "�.
.� y+��`�"��.`{t�+�. .� �. � �: #�,�a �: "�„r. �'�` � '' ,'�-:. . f n �, � s :. i -:. ,.� .s
o-C�",7'r � �'. � �„#�k`K��� � fi'�' � f � �
��t�� �✓�"�; r''" �+ �y�+ �" P �'
� . � ,_
i � � L �� y" .�,1( ,, y �' ; . ! �
k �.t.. � S,� � . ,
r� �' _ _ �� r o-
��r s� ' ' �' � �. �:.
�� � � k,: �
.� � � +F +f^�y �. ! � �. 1 t'i ,r t}� �� � M
" � - - '� ' a -
�- s
� ��}a ... � ��,�r? 1,��S,�SYf .Y' �,j�@,y 'r ' t� u�: 1 - _
4 �vw Yv� .
' �+�� � k5 ., . � i�� � �r z • _ "�
` �` � ; � T��..� 'ty��� � _
a
�k . w� �' '_ j �r` ��,h�k5 ;.��..�F '� 6
� � s`' �"9 rt ' �+�"F�'Ar ��'�.�# ��,�. _ �
t _�,y �'� .;.�.� > :' ^x vr;,'?b��'". .���� - . . . � � f ��.� �' . .
'�`.'1 � ... "t `� '?,"4 1`.�C 't. ' � . � :.
� �,��' '` �" 4'`�� � �"$�Y�,".
s' �.��� �, ��-.�f
" �
�>'�� � �,S�sr �� �
� `� �'�"'�Fjr- ' � � �' �' � �� i
_ � - � k`% "ssr�'t � ni` 'w �..�
r-
� � ,.' �"' _, 3s��'� �',�" ; , , .. i+
�r �C{�;. ,�,:. ;i�'`FF�i t ��. ' .y`�: ".
=', i
��ei'� � ,�:..h�i"" �_ ,. S� �;.�: '� ' y ; ��.,, �
¢ s b ,' r .� .> �,,�.�,������� .T < g
r'f � �� �
s-x � � w gb a". � - � >� � �. � "� ��44 - �; o � .
4 6 � � n. �v� h,H � � A�S� '�. ± _ ���yY
. � � � t `� ���l� � �' �tt
'0 " f � �4, � � �z#� . As . n '
N" � v �ri�" ��' . � y � � '` ` c� _ " z'Yf' ;
1 � _ '' �''k tcz .s� :. .
k
� � . . , . ��� xG, su '� .
a� � .. � ,�.r s , � s�"s. , �- b
Fy��' �` �3* � 4 f`� �.-F�������� .. ' :. Z ';. y
� i ' 'n '4': �e � �- : *� y " . y 3 fyir'd �.,� .'.
C� : �� .��' ' b. � � ' � �rs � -`,
�r� � a '���a,�`a . �;t, � _ �����e� � �.6 pf:
'u - � '~ • � �'�r� � Q9� �`��� ' '���"
1��� �••��� ��� t � ' s ���+ .����. �+�'�� ��� .�r� � 5�.�:.�" : ��.
i'rt�i�, . ��� � ��i'.x��.Car^ai����aa+i��i���i�i�•��-��a����a ,��;"�3y"'c'. ��� �.;y?� � �` ..
.Ir��.�,,q�r..�,: �. „�,,:.+ J.afi� - �: S ��:;. .e�' ��s" - �� �ii '
s� rS. �, , a:��a!r ._ :L°'.-,� �tt�;`.�: ,�' 3-. �' � Sc E . . ... _ . .� }+:�����
ALIFORNIA
z� F�sH;.�����
;s��'�
v�-�
�
:
State of California - The Resources Aaency
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGG�R, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME .,�.�
f 78078 Country Club Dr., Ste. 109 �
Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 -
Mr. Philip Drell January 30, 2006
Director of Community Development ��i (J �i° I�E+ �
City Of Palm Desert, Community Development Department
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert CA 92260-2578
Dear Mr. Drelt,
��B 0 2 2006
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
The Cal�omia Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Cornishe of Bighorn Project.
The proposed project consists of construction of 38 single family homes on 11.87
acres. The project is located along the southernmost border of the city of Palm
Desert and is east of Highway 74. The proposed construction activities would
occur 375 feet from the lambing pens of the non-profit Bighorn Institute.
The Department requests that the project be consistent with the 400 meter buffer
that was negotiated through a previous court decision with the Canyons at
Bighorn. No construction activities should occur within 400 meters of the lambing
pens for the captive bighorn sheep population to remain isolated from human
activities.
The Department requests the project proponent check other sources such as the
Department's Natural Diversity Database, BLM records and EIRs for the
Canyons at Bighorn, Ironwood and the Reserve for sightings of desert tortoise in
the area closer to the project than 16 miles.
The project requires a notification of streambed alteration (Fish and Game Code
Section 1602). The type of habitat impacted must be delineated for purposes of
mitigation. Mitigation for the impacted acres of streambed listed in the DEIR must
be addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report before a permit can be
issued.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (760) 200 -9174.
Sincerely,
Eddy Konno �
�Staff Environmental Scientist
Conserving CaCfor►zia s 2I�'iCd�Cfe Since 18T0
�.��������
ag
��r�,►...
i . � ��
:�� !��
��� •.
• '� ��
6 t� ... � i' �n�i;��
COMPviUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALhi DESERT
United States Department of the Interior
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Palm Springs-5outh Coast Field Office
690 West Garnet Avenue
P.O. Box 581260
North Palm Springs, CA 92258-1260
(760) 251-4800 Fax (760) 251-4899
Visit us on the Internet at
www. ca. blm. gov/palmsprings
IN REPLY REFER T0:
2000 (P)
CA660.41
JAN 31 2006
Mr. Philip Drell, Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert, Community Development Department
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report, Cornishe of Bighorn Project
Dear Mr. Drell:
U. S. OE!'AHTMENT OF THE INTERIOF
euntwoFUNou�x�c uenr
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) for the proposed Cornishe of Bighorn Project.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) supports the Bighorn Institute's endeavors in sustaining
the endangered wild population of bighorn sheep occupying the Peninsular Ranges. The BLM
has had a longstanding partnership with the Institute, and through provisions of the Recreation
and Public Purposes Act transfer patent, retains involvement in the Institute's ability to conduct
ongoing research occurring at the site.
Based on the analysis provided in the DEIR, BLM has serious concerns about potential impacts
of the proposed Cornishe of Bighorn Project on captive sheep at the Bighorn Institute. The DEIR
concludes that impacts to these captive sheep after implementation of recommended mitigation
measures would be significant and unavoidable due to the close proximity of the proposed
residential improvements and associated human activity to induce stress in adult sheep and
habituation of young to human activity (pp. 166 and 270). These impacts would occur during site
preparation, construction of homes, and ongoing occupancy and operation (pp. 166 and 270).
The BLM acknowledges it is not the intent of the City of Palm Des�rt to preclude development
from occurring within the project site (DEIR, p. 253). The BLM also acknowledges that it has no
jurisdictional authority with regards to the proposed project. However, the BLM recommends
that adoption of all possible mitigation measures to reduce impacts to captive bighorn sheep at
the Bighorn Institute be adopted should the Cornishe of Bighorn Project be approved. It should
be noted that the DEIR cites Mitigation Measure IV-G-9 as recommended, among others, to
address project impacts upon operations of the Bighorn Institute (p. 165); however, this
mitigation measure is not described in the DEIR (see pages 221-222 regarding the "IV-G" set of
measures).
Should you have any questions with regards to these comments, please contact Jim Foote, Acting
Monument Manager, Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument, at (760) 251-
4836.
Sincerely,
Gail Acheson
Field Manager
cc: Jim DeForge, Executive Director, Bighorn Institute
Mike Pool, State Director, California
Steve Borchard, District Manger, California Desert District
�'�ZaT �p
��, �-�\�
�. .�
W_-- � :� �,:-- �
A � III < M
•L � �P
y\�- � �fP
.S'TATFS t�t �.
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O BOX 532711
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90053-2325
january 24, 2006
Office of the Chief
Regulatory Branch
City of Palm Desert
Attention: Philip Drell
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578
Dear Dr. Drell:
,�
l �
��;�:'r � � ���5
''OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
r,ITY OF PALM DESERT
It has come to our attention that you plan to develop a residential subdivision near
unnamed tributaries to Whitewater River, in the city Palm Desert, Riverside County, California.
This activity may require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit.
A Corps of Engineers permit is required for the discharge of dredged or fill material into,
including any redeposit of dredged material within, "waters of the United States" and adjacent
wetlands pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1972. Examples include, but are not
limited to,
1. creating fills for residential or commercial development, placing bank protection,
temporary or permanent stockpiling of excavated material, building road crossings, backfilling
for utility line crossings and constructing outfall structures, dams, levees, groins, weirs, or other
structures;
2. mechanized landclearing, grading which involves filling low areas or land leveling,
ditching, channelizing and other excavation activities that would have the effect of destroying
or degrading waters of the United States;
3. allowing runoff or overflow from a contained land or water disposal area to re-enter a
water of the United States;
4. placing pilings when such placement has or would have the effect of a discharge of fill
material.
.��
, , .
►
-2-
Enclosed you will flnd a pernut application form and a pamphlet that describes our
regulatory program. If you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 452-3418. Please
refer to this letter and 200600537-CI.M in your reply.
Sincerely,
�
Crystal L. arquez
Project Manager
0
Enclosures
�v
�� WORDEN WILLIAMS aPc
Representing Public Agencies, Private Entities, and Individuals
February 1, 2006
Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail
� �"�A � �
� � : : i� .� � �oUU
;��ite�[iPdt°rY DEVELOPMGIVT DEPARTMEN!
r;IT� OF PALY DESEftT
Mr. Philip Drell, Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert
Community Development Department
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report
Cornishe of Bighorn Project
SCH#:2004091012
Dear Mr. Drell:
These comments are made on behalf of the Sierra Club. We have briefly reviewed
the Draft EIR for the above Project, and have the following fundamental concerns:
Failure to Identifv and Adobt Alternatives or MitiEation Measures to Reduce
Imnacts.
The EIR correctly concludes that the Project, as designed, will result in significant,
unavoidable impacts to the Bighorn Institute's sheep breeding program. Once this
conclusion has been reached, the EIR (and ultimately the City of Palm Desert) has a
duty to attempt to "avoid or lessen" the identified impact. Mitigation measures and
alternatives must be identified and adopted, unless they are found infeasible.
However, the EIR has failed to identify any alternatives to the Project that will
reduce the impact to the Bighorn Institute to below significance. The discussion
must focus on alternatives capable of eliminating or reducing each significant
adverse effect, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment
of the Project objectives, or would be more costly. (CEQA Guideline §15126(d)(3).
At a minimum, an alternative that was outside of the 400 foot buffer for the
Institute's breeding program should have been considered. This is a fundamental
flaw of the document that must be addressed. Furthermore, it is not clear that
suggested mitigation measures will, in fact, avoid or lessen the impact. The EIR
must demonstrate that the mitigation measures are feasible, will reduce the impact,
and are enforceable. "Recommended" measures are not enforceable.
AREAS OF PRACTICE
PUBLIC AGENCY
LAND USE AND
ENVIRONMENTAI
REAL ESTATE
PERSONAL IN)URY
ESTATE PLANNING
AND ADMINISTRATION
CIVIL LITIGATION
ATTORNEYS
TRACY R. RICHMOND
D. WAYNE BRECHTEL
TERRY J. KILPATRICK
TERRY M. GIBBS
MALINDA R. DICKENSON
KRISTEN M�BRIDE
D. DWIGHT WORDEN
Of Counsel
W. SCOTT WILLIAMS
OfCounsel
OFFICE
462 STEVENS AVENUE
SUITE 102
SOLANA BEACH
CALIFORNIA
92075
(858) 755-6604 TEIEPHONE
(85$) 755-5�98 FACSIMILE
www.wordenwilliams.com
r
,1�
City of Palm Desert
February 1, 2006
Page 2
Inappropriate Analvsis.
Page 272 of the EIR states reasons why the Project is being proposed notwithstanding significant
unavoidable impacts. The section quotes CEQA Guideline § 15126 (b), which requires that the
significant unavoidable impacts be identified. Nothing in that section required that the EIR
identify why the Project is being proposed despite its impacts. CEQA requires the Agency to
disclose, at the time of project approval, why it is approving a project despite its significant,
unavoidable impacts. This analysis at this time is premature, given the missing analysis of
alternativ,,s and mitigatiori explain�d above
Thank you for the opporiunity to comment on this document. Please add the Sierra Club to your
mailing list to receive copies of the Final EIR, once it has been prepared.
Very truly yours,
WORDEN WILLIAMS, APC
�G%�
'.�!��
D. Wayne Brechtel
dwb@wordenwilliams.com
DWB:Ig
THE
�1VLF' WILLIAMS
LAW F"IRM, PC�
���� � �`� �� � � `y- �.� �
�4':� �.� �.,.� .,�,.� .�. ': ..�
����i1���
February 1, 2006
Via Facsimile, Email and Overnite Express
760-341-7098, pdrell@ci.palm-desert.ca.us
Mr. Philip Drell, Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert, Community Development Department
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
Re: Draft Environmental Impact Report
Cornishe of Bighorn Project
SCH#:2004091012
Dear Mr. Drell:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPART�IENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
This law office has the pleasure of representing a non-profit research organization,
Bighorn Institute that is concerned with the Cornishe of Bighorn Project referenced above. This
letter communicates the Institute's comments on the above-described Draft Envirorunental
Impact Report (DEIR).
Just last August 2005, the northern Santa Rosa Mountain (NSRNn population of
Peninsular bighorn sheep suffered a shocking 40% die-off due to a virus present only in the wild
population, and thankfully not present in the Institute's captive herd. As shown in more detail
below, since 1982, the Institute has released 108 captive-born bighorn in the wild, successfully
augmenting the existing population and pulling it back from the brink of disaster.
The lnstitute's captive breeding program has been documented as highly successful, and
recognized as such the world over, and praised by the governmental agencies that oversee its
privately-funded efforts. The United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), the California
Department of Fish & Game (CDFG), and the United States Bureau of Land Management
ioo BAYVIEW CIRCLE� SOIITHTOWER� SiIITE 330
NEWPORT BEACH� CA y266o-zJ8¢
TELEexoxE: 949- g 3 3-3 � S g
FncsiMttE: 949�833'3a5g
�V �b'R: R'LF- LA�'l'. C061
1 \WDox�DOCSU69\002�51920 DOC
THE
WLF WILLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PC�
1V1r. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 2 of 19
(IiLM) and the joint public and private Recovery Team all look to the Institute as a beacon in
what would otherwise be a bleak outlook for the survival of this species.
In other words, without the Institute, the Peninsular bighorn would likely be extinct.
This DEIR must therefore very carefully evaluate the effect of this project on the
Institute's pens. In actuality, the DEIR fails to meet even the most basic evaluative criteria.
Pi•eviously and in response to the DEIR prepared for Altamira (now the Canyons at Bighorn
project), the City, developer and the Institute participated in a study undertaken by 29 biologists,
including biologists nominated by the City and the developer. Those biologists recommended a
minimum 400 to 600 yard buffer between any development and the Institute's captive pen. That
recommendation has been completely ignored in the Cornishe DEIR.
This proposed project is located just 50 yards from the Institute's main captive breeding
pen, the 30-acre pen. Lambing occurs on the northeast side of this pen each year between
January and June, and directly faces the proposed project. Lambing is not only the time when
the ewes are the most stressed, it is also the time when the lambs are most susceptible to life-
threatening diseases, such as pneumonia. Increased stress from both construction and continued
hiiman activity greatly increases the risk of disease and death, and the Institute's ability to
successfully release bighorn into the wild to augment the already dwindling population.
To add insult to injury, a large defect of the DEIR is in the misinformation it includes.
As set forth below, the DEIR assumes incorrect facts and indeed shows a lack of consultation
with appropriate governmental agencies and the Institute in order to obtain the correct facts. The
conclusions in the DEIR are consequently fraught with mistakes. It is a case of "garbage in,
garbage out." The DEIR should be redone with the correct facts and recirculated to allow a
fully-informed evaluation by the public and the governmental agencies. Without the correct
basic information, the decision-makers cannot even hope to make a correct decision.
I. OVERVIEW OF BIGHORN INSTITUTE
Created in 1982, the Institute is a non-profit organization dedicated to the conservation of
the world's wild sheep, through research and education with particular emphasis on the
Coachella Valley's endangered Peninsular bighorn. For the.last 24 years, the Institute has
1:\WDox�DOCSU69\002\51920.DOC '1
G
THE
WLF WILLIAMS
LAW �IRM, PC�
NIr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 3 of 19
assisted in bighorn research and recovery. The Institute is the only private facility in the world
that focuses on bighorn in the Peninsular ranges. Its programs include reseaxch, captive
breeding, and wild population augmentation to support declining bighorn populations. The
Institute's work is conducted with the cooperation and oversight of CDFG, USFWS and BLM.
The Institute operates on an annual budget funded with nearly all private dollars. In effect, the
work and efforts of the Institute are a gift to the people of the Coachella Valley and the rest of
the nation for the conservation of Peninsular bighorn.
Peninsular bighorn have experienced dramatic population declines from 1,200 down to
280 and now number around 700 animals in the United States and less than 2,500 in Baja,
1vlexico. Since 1985, Bighorn Institute has released 108 captive-bred or rehabilitated Peninsular
bighorn into the wild through its Captive Breeding and Wild Population Augmentation Program,
which provides genetic and demographic support to declining Peninsular bighorn populations.
The Institute's land, located on nearly 300 acres purchased from BLM, is a very successful
Peninsular bighorn breeding area. Animals born at the Institute are released into the
local northern Santa Rosa Mountains and San Jacinto Mountains (SJM) near Rancho Mirage and
Palm Springs, California, respectively.
A key issue created by this proposed project is its adverse effect on the Institute's captive
breeding facility. This facility has been in its current location in operation since 1984, and the
Institute believes that the Cornishe project's current landowners were aware of the Institute, its
captive breeding operations and the environmental issues surrounding the project land when they
chose to purchase it. They were also aware of the Final Environmental Impact Report that was
done on the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn and the minimum 400-yard buffer no-development
area established around the Institute. In addition, the City of Palm Desert had designated the
project land as a Special Study Area (SSA), indicating that this land was a special case that
needed extra study for these issues as they relate to the endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep. If
this established buffer is not going to be considered, then this project must have comprehensive
studies investigating all of the potential impacts to the endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep,
particularly in the captive herd.
Additionally, we note that from a land-use planning perspective, the Cornishe
development sits between what essentially amounts to open space and large estate homes. The
proposed development of two-story condominiums is at best inconsistent with current land uses.
Moreover, the Cornishe development is proposed in the foothills of the City yet fails to address
th� City's ordinance on that point. �
J.\WDoz�DOCSll69\002�SI920.DOC �
THE
WLF WIL.LIAMS
LAW FIRM, PC�
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 4 of 19
II. OVERVIEW OF DEFECTS
The Institute has serious concerns with the proposed project, Cornishe of Bighorn, related
to the captive herd of Peninsular bighorn sheep and ongoing, long-term conservation activities
conducted at Bighorn Institute. The Institute's primary concern is the intense use and proximity
of the project to the Institute's property, particularly the 30-acre lambing pen, and the impacts it
could have on the captive herd of endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep. Bighorn Institute's
concerns are outlined below.
The DEIR does not go far enough in addressing the substantial impacts on the Institute's
captive herd of bighorn. In addition, its mitigation measures are either not feasible or lack
adequate provisions to achieve the required mitigation.
Please remember the goals of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):
To identify the significant environmenta.l effects of the City of Palm Desert's actions;
and, either:
(a) avoid those significant environmental effects, where
feasible; or,
(b) mitigate those significant environmental effects, where
feasible.
The DEIR in its present state meets neither of these goals.
A. Failure to Consult with Auuronriate A�encies
In order to ensure the City's DEIR adequately addresses the concerns of all responsible
agencies, the lead agency must consult with and solicit comments from responsible agencies.
California Public Resources Code §§ 21080.3, 21080.2, 21104, 21153; CEQA Guidelines §§
15073, 15082, 15086, 15096. The City must consult with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and
California Department of Fish & Game Code regarding harassment of an endangered species,
Peninsular bighorn sheep. The City has violated CEQA by failing to consult with and solicit
comments from all responsible agencies.
7�\W Dox�DOCS�369\002�51920.DOC �
THE
WLF WILLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PCa
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page5of19
B. The DEIR Faits to Adepuatelv Identifv Miti�ation Measures; The DEIR
Must Fullv Analvze and Miti�ate Potentiallv Signi�cant Impacts
The DEIR must identify and focus on the possible significant environmental impacts of a
proposed project. CEQA Guidelines § 15126(a); California Public Resources Code § 21000(a).
CEQA requires that a DEIR must not only identify the impacts, but must also provide
"information about how adverse the impacts will be." Santia�o Countv Water Dist. v. Countv of
Oran e(1981) 118 Ca1.App.3d 818, 831. As the lead agency, the City may deem a particulax
impact to be insignificant only if it produces rigorous analysis and concrete substantial evidence
justifying the finding. Kin�s Countv Farm Bureau v. Citv of Hanford (1990) 221 Ca1.App.3d
692.
CEQA contains substantive provisions with which lead agencies must comply. The most
important of these is the provision requiring public agencies to deny approval of a project with
significant adverse effects when feasible alternatives and mitigation measures cannot
sl�bstantially lessen such effects. Sierra Club v. Gilrov Citv Council (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 30,
41. California Public Resources Code section 21002 requires agencies to adopt feasible
mitigation measures in order to substantially lessen or avoid otherwise significant adverse
environmental impacts of a proposed project. See also, CEQA § 21081(a) and CEQA Guidelines
8 15370.
To effectuate this requirement, DEIRs must set forth mitigation measures that decision-
makers can adopt at the findings stage of the process. CEQA Guidelines § 15126(c). For each
significant effect, the DEIR must identify specific mitigation measures. Where several potential
mitigation measures axe available, each should be discussed separately and the reasons for
crioosing one over the other should be stated. CEQA Guidelines § 15126(c). Mitigation
measures should be capable of "avoiding the impact altogether," "minimizing impacts,"
"rectifying the impact," or "reducing the impact." CEQA Guidelines § 15370. The mitigation
measures are inadequate for light, noise, traffic, cultural resources, biological resources and land
use. The Institute has concerns with some of the suggested mitigation measures and additional
mitigation measures should be considered:
Mitigation Measure IV.C-6 specifies that no outdoor construction should take place
during January — June, which is the bighorn lambing season. This mitigation measure
should prohibit indoor and outdoor construction during January — June to protect the
captive herd at Bighorn Institute �since many indoor construction tools are very loud.
Along with specifying indoor and outdoor construction, it should be made clear in the
summary that lambing season is January — June (pg. 19).
1�\WDax�DOCSl369�002G51920 DOC �
THE
WLF' WILLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PG�
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 6 of 19
2. The City of Palm Desert has a history of non-compliance with mitigation measures,
specifically with Canyons at Bighorn. Grading and other outdoor construction
activities often illegally occur during the designated lambing season at Canyons at
Bighorn, but no one properly enforces the mitigation conditions of the Canyons at
Bighorn as set out in either the EIR or the settlement agreement with the City. When
Institute staff reports the infractions to the City of Palm Desert, the City refuses to
enforce the mitigation conditions by creating ambiguity in the definitions of grading
or construction. If the current Canyons at Bighorn EIR can so easily be breached,
then why would not we expect Cornishe of Bighorn be any different? Mitigation
conditions must be drafted to allow for an outside agency with law enforcement
capability and funding to enforce these conditions against the Cornishe project since
the City has refused to enforce entirely similar mitigation conditions in the past.
3. Mitigation measure IV.C-5 suggests a permanent fence or wall will be constructed to
keep wild bighorn out of the developed project site, but there is no map depicting this
alleged fence/wall. The fence/wall to keep wild sheep out needs to be clearly
depicted in the DEIR along with specifics of the potential types of barrier materials
and estimated height. As a guideline for this condition, the pens at the Institute are
constructed with the fence located three feet underground to prevent tunneling, and
are ten feet high. The City of Rancho Mirage constructed a four and one-half mile
long fence that is eight feet high, but not constructed underground.
4. Mitigation measure IV.C-8 specifies a stone wall (8 feet high) will be built to screen
the development from the captive herd. The stone wall in mitigation measure IV.C-8
will not adequately screen the development from the captive herd. The 30-acre
lambing pen consists of natural, mountainous terrain rising to approximately 1,150
feet in elevation. A structure much higher than eight feet would have to be built and
extend the length of the pen to assure the development cannot be viewed by the sheep
from any point in the pen. A view-shed analysis should be performed to detertnine
the necessary height of the structure. Based on personal observation and estimating
the height of a two-story building on the Cornishe property, such a fence would
(impractically) exceed 100 feet in height.
5. It is ironic and inconsistent that a minimum buffer (between 50-300 ft, pg. 18 & 163)
would be required for non-threatened nesting birds on the project site, but that no
consideration is given to the legal�y established 400-yard buffer between the captive
herd and Canyons at Bighorn. After extensive meetings, twenty-nine bighorn sheep
biologists gave their expert opinion on the minimum distance necessary between the
captive herd of bighorn at the Institute and development to maintain a successful
J \WDox�DOCS�369\002\51920.DOC L
V
THE
WLF WILLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PCm
l�Ir. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 7 of 19
breeding program. These experts concluded 400-600 yaxds was the minimum distance
needed. The City of Palm Desert imposed a minimum 400-yard buffer between the
lambing pen and Canyons at Bighorn. If the DEIR is suggesting a minimum buffer
for non-thxeatened species of birds, then it is imperative that this established 400-yard
buffer be recognized for the Peninsular bighorn, a fully protected, federally
endangered species.
C. The DEIR Does Not Include an Analvsis of a Reasonable Ran�e of
Alternatives
The DEIR must "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
location of the project, that could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the
comparative merits of the alternatives." CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a); see also Citizens of
Goleta Vallev v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Ca1.3d 553, 566; and see California Public
Resources Code § 21100(b)(4).
The DEIR must also "ensure that all reasonable alternatives to proposed projects are
thoroughly assessed." Wildlife Alive v. Chickerin� (1976) 18 Ca1.3d 190, 197. Under CEQA,
public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives
available that would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects.
California Public Resources Code § 21002. Without meaningful analysis of alternatives in an
EIR, neither the courts nor the public can fulfill their proper role of analyzing the information
presented.
The DEIR completely fails to address and analyze an alternative to develop only the
northeast corner of the project land that is entirely outside of the 400-yard buffer azea from the
Institute. Under the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(a), this one house 400
ya.rds from the Institute alternative "could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the
project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project."
Building one large, single-family home on the land that extends beyond 400 yards from the
Institute's land would attain most of the basic objectives of the project by:
1. Developing a project that is compatible with and complementary to surrounding land
uses;
2. Developing a project that is financially viable by avoiding adverse property impacts
upon adjacent residents and at the same time providing benefits to the City by means
of a large residence; and,
J \WDox�DOCSU69�002151920.DOC �
THE
WLF WILLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PCm
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 8 of 19
3. Minimizing the potential impacts on the Institute's captive breeding program adjacent
to the project site, to the extent feasibie, by reducing or eliminating significant
impacts of Iight, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, land use, noise
and traffic.
Because of the reasons stated, the DEIR does not include an analysis of a reasonable
range of alternatives by failing to consider an alternative at least 400 yards away from the
Institute's property. The DEIR should be revised to include the fult consideration of this
alternative and then recirculated.
D. The DEIR Has Numerous Inaccuracies
Given that the foliowing facts are wrong, the DEIR conciusions must Iikewise be wrong
since the initial premise is inaccurate. In addition, the authors appeax to have little knowledge or
familiarity with the area, the animals or the data with which they axe working. These facts need
to be corrected and the DEIR recirculated with the correct facts:
1. Peninsular bighorn Iambing season is January — June. The DEIR refers to the
lambing season as such except in the sutnmary (DEIR Mitigation Measure IV.C-6 pg.
19). The summary needs to be corrected to January — June;
2. The DEIR should provide the most recent data. The DEIR gave the number of
bighorn released into the wild from the Institute's captive breeding program through
1998, but current data should be provided. Since 1985, over 100 Peninsular bighorn
lambs have been born at the Bighorn Institute and 108 captive-reared or rehabilitated
bighorn sheep have been released into the wiid. This data needs to be included in the
DEIR;
3. The DEIR states that Bighorn Institute's efforts began focusing on captive breeding in
1995 (pg. 14). This is incorrect; it was 1984 and the DEIR needs to be corrected;
4. In the DEIR, Bighorn Institute's ram pen is repeatedly and incorrectiy referred to as a
"den." Dens are for bears, not sheep. Also, the ram pen is seven acres in size, not
one acre (pg. 14). In addition to these corrections, the ram pen needs to be redrawn
and accurately depicted on the DEIR maps (Fig. 16, pg. 115; Fig. 24, pg. 205);
5. The DEIR is inconsistent and inaccurate when discussing desert tortoise sightings
(pg. 140 & 141). The DEIR inaccurately states that the nearest desert tortoise
observation is almost 16 miles from the project site. The USFWS and CDFG are
1 \WDox�DOCS�369\002�51920 DOC O
O
THE
\1VLF' WILLIAMS
LAW F[RM, PCm
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 9 of 19
aware of desert tortoise sightings in the buffer between Bighorn Institute and Canyons
at Bighorn. Also, BLM and Bighorn Institute biologists documented a desert tortoise
on City of Palm Desert land south of the BLM Visitor Center on September 26, 2003,
near the "Old Shirley Road." It is obvious the City did not consult with the wildlife
agencies or the Institute on this point and the DEIR must include all desert tortoise
sighting data;
6. The DEIR incorrectly refers to the Santa Rosa Mountains as the Santa Rita Mountains
(pg. 142). It is hard to believe that the data provided in the DEIR is correct given this
apparent fundamental misunderstanding of the location of the project. This reference
needs to be corrected;
7. The DEIR incorrectly lists the dates of the Institute's lamb study as 1998-2002 (pg.
152). The study was conducted from 1998-2001 and this date needs to be corrected;
and,
8. The DEIR incorrectly states that the Institute's Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) with CDFG is the only MOU for releasing Peninsular bighorn sheep (pg.
153). The Institute's 10(a)(1)(A) permit with the USFWS also allows for releasing
Peninsular bighorn sheep into the wild. This misstatement needs to be corrected. In
addition, on February 1, 2001, the USFWS distributed a news release stating "to
conserve this native bighorn sheep population, a captive-breeding program has been
established at the Bighorn Institute in Palm Desert."
II. ANALYSIS OF ELEMENTS OF DEIR
A. Aesthetics, Views. Li�ht and Glare
1. The Mitigation Measures in the DEIR Do Not Adequately Reduce or
Eliminate the Impacts of Aesthetics, Views, Lights or Glare on the Captive Herd at
the Institute.
As previously discussed, bighorn sheep experts agreed upon a minimum buffer of 400-
600 yards between the captive herd and development for the continued success of the breeding
program at the Institute. The experts had to consider these elements when they recommended
the buffer. It is wrong to think that shielding light, tinting windows or using certain landscaping
materials will prevent the captive bighorn sheep from being adversely affected. This proposed
project construction would only be 125 yards from the lambing pen, which is significantly closer
than the established buffer for Canyons at Bighorn. The primary concern with these elements is
J.\WDox�DOCSU69�002�51920.DOC (�
THE
WLF WILLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PC�
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 10 of 19
captive herd habituation and the potential effects on reproductive success. These issues will be
discussed further under biological resources.
B. Air Quality
l. The DEIR Does Not Consider the Feasible Mitigation Measure of
Establishing Restrictions That Would Reduce Air Quality Impacts
This project will increase emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter
(PM10). The mitigation measures proposed to deal with these excesses are insufficient. All
increases in these criteria pollutants must be considered significant and must be mitigated. There
should be no net increase in emission of these chemicals or particles. CEQA requires a public
agency to adopt feasible mitigation measures in order to reduce or eliminate otherwise
significant adverse environmental impacts. California Public Resources Code §§ 21102 and
2! 081(a). The DEIR establishes that "regional construction activities would exceed the South
Coast Air Quality Management District daily emission thresholds for NOx ...and for PM10."
(DEIR pg. 14 & 102).
Human deaths from hanta virus are known to have occurred near desert construction
where foothill and alluvial areas in Canyons at Bighorn were disturbed. (pers. comm. Dr.
Lawrence Cone). There is substantial reason to believe that these unfortunate circumstances will
be repeated with this proposed development.
The DEIR states "bighorn sheep live in a desert habitat and are regularly exposed to high
levels of fugitive dust" (pg. 11). Animals that inhabit a desert environment are used to natural
dust associated with windy days, but to suggest that bighorn sheep are used to the same type of
fugitive dust in their natural habitat as they would be exposed to from a construction site is
illogical. Construction activities destroy many different layers of rock, creating different types
of dust particles. The DEIR also states "There are no existing regulatory guidelines or
significance thresholds designed to protect Bighorn sheep from air pollutants." The DEIR air
qi�ality analysis for bighorn sheep was based on the fact that an adult bighorn sheep weighs
approximately the same as an adult human (115-280 pounds, pg. 11). If there are no known
thresholds for bighorn sheep, then an experiment should not be made out of the captive herd of
bighorn that have so far proven to be invaluable to the recovery of the local population of
endangered Peninsular bighorn.
� We recommend no construction since there are significant, unayoidable impacts to air
quality that would adversely affect humans and bighorn sheep in the captive herd after suggested
mitigation measures.
).\WDox�DOCS�369\002151920 DOC 1 O
THE
WLF' WILLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PCm
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 11 of 19
C. Biolo�ical Resources
There are several biological resources that would be impacted by Cornishe of Bighorn.
The desert tortoise and Peninsular bighorn sheep are the two species most impacted by this
proj ect.
The DEIR does not provide all of the known observation data for desert tortoises in
the vicinity of the project site. As discussed previously, the DEIR authors did not
consult with the USFWS regarding known tortoise observations because the DEIR
incorrectly states that there are no sightings within 16 miles of the project site (pg.
141). Impacts to desert tortoises need to be reanalyzed after all of the data is
collected and included and the DEIR results and conclusions need to reflect the new
data.
This project will cause desert tortoise habitat destruction, contrary to what is
suggested in the DEIR. It is obvious that the DEIR conclusions would be inaccurate
since it did not include all of the desert tortoise sighting data. Impacts of the project
on desert tortoise habitat need to be reanalyzed with all the data, and the DEIR
recirculated with the appropriate data included.
3. There are many inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the DEIR relative to impacts to
free-roaming Peninsular bighorn sheep.
a. "Dead Indian Creek is believed to be a regionally significant wildlife
corridor..." (pg. 117-118), and was not analyzed fully in regards to bighorn
sheep. The Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges,
California recognizes the importance of maintaining movement corridors for
bighorn sheep to prevent subgroups from becoming geographically isolated
from each other. The subgroups are part of a meta-population that relies on
gene flow via movement corridors.
b. The DEIR makes a key statement, "use of the project site and areas neaxby by
wild sheep is not well understood" (pg. 152), but then suggests the project
land and surrounding area is not suitable sheep habitat. Approximately half of
the project site, however, is in Unit 2 of federally designated critical bighorn
sheep habitat (pg. 130, Fig. 17 pg. 143). These statements are inconsistent at
best and need to be reconciled by the DEIR.
1 \RDox�DOCS�369\002�51920.DOC 1 1
rH�
WLF WILLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PCm
1Vir. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 12 of 19
c. The DEIR suggests that bighorn do not use the area because there are not
many bighorn sightings on or around the project land. The lack of bighorn
sheep sightings in the area of the project sight is more likely due to the lack of
people looking for sheep in that area. Even so, however, the Institute received
two independent reports on January 20, 2006, and January 23, 2006, of a
group of wild bighorn sheep on the mountain directly south of the project
land. On January 20th Institute biologists confirmed the sighting of 13 wild
bighorn sheep including ewes, lambs and rams and there were two additional
wild ewes on the other side of the ridge. The Institute has observed wild
bighorn sheep neax the project site in the past as well. A full study needs to be
done to adequately determine the extent that wild bighorn sheep utilize the
area surrounding the project site and thus determine the extent of the impacts
on these sheep. The DEIR draws poor and incorrect conclusions due directly
to poor and incorrect information.
d. Mitigation measure IV.C-5 suggests building a fence or wall to keep wild
bighorn out of the developed project to mitigate the impacts of the project on
wild sheep. Fencing off an area merely condones the taking of critical habitat,
and does not lessen the impacts of the project on wild sheep. Critical habitat
will still be impermissibly lost.
e. The DEIR states, "the proposed development would remove less than 10 acres
of potentially suitable habitat and increase fragmentation of habitat only
marginally" (pg. 153). The DEIR concludes that there would not be
significant impacts to wild bighorn, yet this sta.tement clearly acknowledges
the project would involve taking of critical habitat and would cause
fragmentation. The DEIR is contradictory because it also states "Today,
habitat loss and fragmentation are recognized as the leading threats facing
bighorn sheep" (pg. 152). Therefore, since the project will result in further
habitat loss and fragmentation, it should not be allowed to do so, and again,
these statements in the DEIR need to be reconciled.
f. Whatever monetary value the project land is estimated at, an equal value
should be put,on Peninsular bighorn sheep. The project would take critical
habitat, cut off a potential movement corridor, cause habitat fragmentation,
and impact more than one� endangered species that are biological and cultural
resources.
J;\WDox�DOCSU69\002151920.DOC 1'Z
THE
WLF WILLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PC�
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 13 of 19
4. There are many inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the DEIR relative to impacts on
the captive herd of Peninsular bighorn sheep at Bighorn Institute.
a. All of the same concerns apply from the EIR on Altamira (now Canyons at
Bighorn) relative to the captive herd. The Institute's comment letter on that
project is attached, and incorporated by this reference.
b. The project site is a mere 50 yards from the Institute's 30-acre lambing pen
and 125 yards from the proposed construction (pg. 16). As previously
discussed, numerous bighorn experts recommended a minimum distance of
400-600 yards between the captive herd and development to maintain the
Institute's successful breeding and rearing program. There is no reason to
dismiss the opinion of these experts and not apply this knowledge and buffer
to the proposed project. If the established buffer will not be considered, then a
separate study must be conducted to determine the appropriate distance
between the captive herd and Cornishe of Bighorn. The following new
information should be considered since the original buffer was established:
i. Peninsular bighorn sheep are now a federally-listed endangered
species (listed March 18, 1998); they were a state-listed threatened
species when the 400-yard buffer was established;
ii. Since 1985, Bighorn Institute has released 108 bighorn from the
captive breeding facility into the wild. The NSRM bighorn population
declined to only 2lbighorn in 1996. It is recognized that the NSRM
population of bighorn would have been extirpated without the
augmentation of captive-reared bighorn sheep;
iii. The Peninsulax bighorn Recovery Team has deemed the SJM
population of bighorn to be in most need of augmentation efforts. The
Institute has focused its augmentation efforts on the SJM since 2002,
because there were only four adult ewes there at that time. Today
there are 11 ewes in the SJM, six of which were released from the
Institute;
iv. The USFWS sent�out a news release on February 1, 2001, stating, "to
conserve this native bighorn sheep populatiQn, a captive-breeding
program has been established at the Bighorn Institute in Palm Desert"
(news release attached and incorporated by this reference);
J\WDox�DOCSli69\002�S1920.DOC 1 �
1
THE
WLF WILLIAMS
L.AW FIRM, PC�
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 14 of 19
v. In August 2005, a severe bighorn die-off took place in the Santa Rosa
Mountains. A virus was detected in the wild sheep, but was not
present in the Institute animals. In 2005, the NSRM bighorn
population declined by approximately 40%. With the known success
that the captive breeding and augmentation program has had with the
NSRM bighorn, it is imperative to keep the captive herd wild and
protect them from habituation from this new project. The captive herd
should not be used as an experiment;
vi. The Peninsular bighorn sheep are fax from being delisted as an
endangered species and augmentation of captive-reared bighorn has
been an integral and vital part of species recovery to date.
c. The mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate impacts on the captive herd of
bighorn at the Institute are inadequate.
i. Mitigation measure IV.C-6 recommends that no outdoor construction
take place during the lambing season, January — June. In the Canyons
at Bighorn EIR there was to be no activity in the 400 yard buffer. This
measure must also prohibit all types of indoor construction during
lambing.
ii. Mitigation measure IV.C-6 does not take into account the information
provided in the DEIR regarding habituation of bighorn sheep to
disturbance.
1. The DEIR includes Miller and Smith's studies that conclude
that bighorn react differently to the same stimuli (pg. 158). In
other words, some sheep may appear to have little or no
reaction while others may have a dramatic response to the same
stimuli.
2. Miller and Smith also found that despite an almost daily
presence of pedestrian biologists, bighorn sheep did not show
any tendency to habituate (pg. 158). If the captive herd does
not habituate to the proposed project, then they will be in a
constant state of stress because they cannot escape the
perceived threat of the project, as they would in the wild.
Stress can lead to decreased reproductive success and loss of
1'\WDox�DOCS�369\002151920.DOC 1 A
i �r
THE
WLF' WILLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PCm
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 15 of 19
fitness of the captive ewes since the lambing side of the 30-
acre pen is only 125 yards away from the proposed
construction, and only 50 yards from potential human activity.
Ewes may be too stressed to properly care for their young.
Lambs would be subjected to the disturbance at the project site
and could become sick and die from stress-induced pneumonia.
This would result in take of a federally endangered species and
impact important recovery efforts.
3. The captive herd habituating to the proposed project would be
equally devastating to the captive breeding and augmentation
program. If the captive herd habituates to human disturbance
from this project, then they will not be adaptively fit to survive
in the wild. Habituated sheep released from the Institute will
be less viable, will not integrate properly with the wild herd
and will not have the protection of the wild herd, thus making
them more susceptible to predation and disease after release.
The DEIR acknowledges that even after mitigation measures the impacts to the captive
herd at the Institute are significant and unavoidable (pg. 19 & 166). We recommend no building,
construction and human activity within 400 yards of the 30-acre pen since the impacts of the
project cannot be reduced or eliminated through mitigation measures.
D. Cultural Resources
The DEIR incorrectly concludes that there will not be any significant impacts to cultural
resources from the proposed project. Peninsular bighorn sheep are a cultural resource. The
bighorn has been used across the Coachella Valley as a symbol of the native heritage existing
here. The bighorn has been used as the logo for the City of Rancho Mirage and by Bighorn
Cuuntry Club in Palm Desert, as well as by numerous businesses throughout the Valley. The
bighorn was also featured in the Institute's public art project, Path of the Bighorn, which raised
awareness of the plight of this endangered species. The DEIR says there would be no significant
impacts, but if the wild and captive bighorn are impacted by the project, then there are impacts to
cultural resources. Due to the irreversible impacts to Peninsular bighorn sheep, we recommend
no construction.
J \N�'Dox�DOCS�369\002\SI920 DOC 1 G
1 .J
THE
WLF WILLIAMS
LAW F[RM, PC�
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 16 of 19
E. Hvdrolosv
This project would include building in a Coachella Valley flood plain in Dead Indian
Creek. There would be streambed alteration, which requires consultation with the Army Corps
of Engineers, CDFG and the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board to
obtain the appropriate permits. All of these agencies must be made aware of the potential
impacts to bighorn sheep at the captive herd and the issue of the established buffer between
Canyons at Bighorn and the Institute 30-acre pen. Due to the irreversible environmental impacts,
we recommend no construction.
F. Land Use
The DEIR suggests that the project land does not have any significant impacts because it
is within the level of development for it zoning, Residential Low Density (R-L). This land was
designated by the City of Palm Desert as a SSA; therefore, zoning cannot be the only factor
involved in deciding the impacts of land use. All of the species occurrence data was not included
in the analysis of this project's impacts. Further studies need to be conducted to determine the
extent of the impacts on biological resources if the project is proposed for development as R-L.
Tne studies conducted for the DEIR are inadequate.
Two-story townhouses are not consistent with the adjacent open space and large, single-
family luxury homes at Canyons at Bighorn, nor are they consistent with the undeveloped lands
of Bighorn Institute. The DEIR inaccurately concludes that land use for the project is consistent
with the current adjacent development (pg. 191).
The DEIR states that although it was not addressed in the City of Palm Desert's General
Plan, the City recently suggested changing the land use designation to Residential Hillside
Reserve (R-HR), which is more consistent with the topography and adjacent use of the project
site (pg. 183). This suggestion by the City is in direct conflict with the proposed alternative for
maximum development of this project. It appears that the City is aware that the proposed project
is completely inappropriate for this paxcel of land. The goals of CEQA are to either avoid or
mitigate environmental impacts. There are numerous significant, unavoidable impacts to
bighorn sheep that result from land use with the proposed project even after suggested
mitigation; therefore, we recommend no construction since the goals of CEQA are not met.
G. Noise
Under CEQA, an increase in noise can have a significant effect on the environment. Oro
Fino Gold Minin� Corp. v. Countv of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 881-882. In that
1.\R�Dox�DOCSU69\002�51920.DOC 1 L
1V
THE
WLF' WILLIAMS
LAW FIRM, PC�
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 17 of 19
case, the Court noted that project noise levels were significant, even if consistent with general
plan standards for the zone in question.
1. Noise levels from the proposed project would grossly exceed the normal ambient
levels at the Institute, thus having significant impacts on the captive herd of bighorn.
The 30-acre lambing pen is only 50 yards from the project land. Although the
western portion of the land is to remain undeveloped, construction is proposed as
close as 125 yards from the 30-acre pen. This is 275 yards closer than the 400 yard
minimum distance recommended between the captive herd and development.
According to the DEIR, ambient noise levels at Bighorn Institute are 40 dBA.
Construction noise levels are between 77-86 dBA. Due to the distance from the pen,
construction noise would measure approximately 70 dBA. This level exceeds the
normal ambient noise level by 30 dBA (pg. 25-26). Construction noise levels,
however, have the potential to exceed 70 dBA when construction vehicles are closer
to the western edge of the project land (for staging areas, to get equipment out of the
way of construction, etc). The machines could come as close as 50 yards from the
30-acre pen. Bighorn sheep inhabit a quiet, pristine desert environment and noise
levels produced by the proposed project would significantly adversely impact the
captive herd.
2. Mitigation measures are inadequate and fail to reduce or eliminate the impacts
resulting from noise.
a. Mitigation measure IV.G-5 should not specify only grading, but should
prohibit all indoor and outdoor construction during lambing from January —
June (pg. 28 & 221). As discussed previously, the City of Palm Desert has
had a history of not upholding mitigation measures on property adjacent to
Bighorn Institute relative to constraints on construction.
b. The DEIR suggests that construction activities would adhere to the
requirements of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. These codes regulate
construction hours during October 1-April 13 and May 1-September 13. It is
not clear why April 14-Apri130 and September 14-September 30 are not
included (pg. 25). T'he hours of construction should be clear for all days of
the year. Again, construction should not occur from January — June.
c. Mitigation measures for noise should include avoidance of indoor and outdoor
construction during sensitive times in the Institute's captive herd such as the
7 \WDmc�DOCSl36N002�51920.DOC 1'1
�HE
WLF WILLIAMS
LAIN F[RM, PC�
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 20Q6
P�ge 18 of 19
January — June larnbing season. Unnecessary stress on the captive herd could
result in stress-induced pneumonia in young 1a.mbs and lack of fitness to
survive in the wild, which would result in take of an endangered species and
jeopardize the success of the captive breeding and augmentation program for
recovery.
Due to the significant, unavoidable impacts on bighorn sheep resulting from noise, we
recommend no construction.
H. Traffic, Circulation and Parkin�
The DEIR incorrectly suggests that there would be no significant impacts from traffic,
but does not adequately address the issue of the two new proposed roads. Both of these roads
would illegally go through an established buffer between Canyons at Bighorn and the Institute
that prohibits development and year-round activity. Bighorn Institute will not grant easement
rights on its property for development of these roads.
We recommend no construction since the DEIR proposes building roads illegally through
an established buffer that was set up specifically for the protection of the captive herd of bighorn
sheep and allows no outside activity.
III. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, Bighorn Institute requests that the City of Palm Desert include in the
administrative record for this project these comments. The Institute also requests, and CEQA
requires, that the City consider these comments and prepare a written "good faith reasoned
analysis" in response to each comment. CEQA Guidelines § 15088(b). This analysis cannot
J \WDox�DOCSU69\0 0215 1 9 20.DOC � �
THE
WLF WILI_IAMS
LAW FIRM, PC�
Mr. Philip Drell
January 31, 2006
Page 19 of 19
include conclusory statements unsupported by facts. Id. Thank you for considering and
responding to these comments.
Very truly yours,
WLF � The Williams Law Firm, PC
, _ �
---_
_. �. ---�-� � _
--�.�---_ �)
J. Craig Williams
JC W/
Enciosures
cc: Members for the Board of Directors, Bighorn Institute
Mr. James R.DeForge, Executive Director, Bighorn Institute
J�\WDox�DOCS\369\002�51920.DOC 19
�It,��U� �11'�tl��,it�
Dedlcated to the conseruation of the euorld's wild sheep through research And educdtion
HoNQRARY CHAIRMAN
OF FUNCsRAislNG
� Geroki R. Fnrd
98�b Rr+7dan1 ..
ej �he U�Iwd SrmH
56ARp QF PlREC1DRS
Kent A. Rabetss'
Ph6tldeM
Emest Fiehn'
Execwiue Vk� Pr►+�dert
Charles N� Jenner, D•VM,'
v�ce rie.�dc��
Dave &�akton'
Vict Pm�dent
A��e� �. Cy+�oa, D.v,�, �
Senewy
Rlcherd C� McClung'
'Mesum
Cindy Ausnn
V10I(ganQ F. $asre'
W{Ulem Bone
Jeek Bdn�ngham
Lawsence A, Cape, M.D.
Mlchael Pee
John E• Earhart
Beb Howerd
J. Roborl MeGowan
Btuca McNgll
flnn Mo►�er
Stan l., Tlmm�na
•f+rocur+ui Gevnul
ADMINiSTRATION
JsmsS R. Da�or9E
8xep4t�ue D�nppr
a�oRn e,doe�,r
Elalne M. Barrett
Awatae tlirscva
e�aa,�n
qDVt50R5
Roherl Pissley
CallfU.nk b/plc $���w
M�mb�A Senon Cohrmfnp oa
Wqtwoi R�sovma� eAQ N/lldN/f
Ooaald C. Butr9
Mu�er.Conrarvm�o++p7
Tomt f. Cmt�+o, U.V.M•, Ph.�.
Cel Neroe�uN CiagmOk W601alery
HIncM & Clark
Legol Coumel
bavtd A, Jassup, t7V.M.
CeNlbmw Dep7. oj Flth and t'iomc
M�k G, Jorgensan
Mm•$or�9e Dwe�t Simt Pak
_ Glso� R, Stewqtl, Ph.D.
Ca/ Poly Un+Ye�aMy, R++hona
Reu] Vq►da:, Ph�D•
New Mex�ce &iwe UMre�,iry
hSkfiael Vala�cta
twiso� �a wi�d Sheev 5i�ma
�n Ma�ro
a: Monpropt
lAx•Exempt l7rgonla4uon
�une 27� 1991
Mr. Phil �oy
A�socia�.e Plannex
Gity of Palm Deser�
73WS10 Fred War�ng Arive
Falm Des.ert, CA 92260
Ft�: Camment� o�n May Z991 Draft �nviron�msntal Smp�act Report
�or the Propased Al�amira C�un�ry Club Praj�ct
D�ar Mz. Joy:
Th�s �etter aets Eorth a numb�r ot cammenta I have
with respect to the Draft Environmet�tal impaGt� Repvrt
t"DEiR"?� prepared foz the Ca.ty o� Fa]�m Desex�t, Cd3a�fo�nia
t"Ci.ty°) by Culb�rtson, Adams & As&ociate�, In�c. t^�EIR.
preparer") which inciudes th� Bio�lagical Repart t"DE�R H..R."1
o� P�;ci�ic Southwest Biolag�ca�, Services, Tnc. t"biolagical
consultan�ts)") fox the p��posec] Altamira Countr� ��.ub
project t�he "Project") in t�,e City.
i am commenting as Ex�cutive Dizecto� and Reseaxoh
Biologi,st ai the Big��rn Institate� with near�.� 2a years of
�xperi.ence s�udy.ing bigharn sh�ep2. �
� would like to �ocus the ma�ority oi my cqmments on
issves invp.l,ving Qertinsu�ax 8igharn Sh�ep {pvi.s r,�r�adensis
cremnob�tes) �"�Bigharn" car "Bi�horn 9heep" ar "Penxnsvlax
B�.ghorn") and the �ct�..vities of the $xgh�rn zns�itute (the
"Institu�te"). In additidrt� � would like bzi�f�,y �o comment
an the discussion ir� the i]EIR t�f c�ertain ather poti�ntxal�y
high].y signxficanfi env�.zonmen�al impac�s of tk�e propo�ed
project to biological values and h�bitat in the ar�a.
�
Stat� Clearirtghdug� Number 9191205Z, dis�ributed
5/14191.
2
�ar more detai?.ed �nfarmatipn relating �o m�
bacicgxound and �x,peri�ence on thes� issues. �leas� see my
Respor►s� to Pacif�c Southwes��. eio�,ogical Services
Qu•es�ic�nnai.re, date February 22, 1991, wh�ch is included �.n
Ap�end�,x C of the DEzx and wh��ch 2 incorporate herea,n by
r ef € r enc e. Enciosure 1�o the Letter �o Phil Soy
.,�x�om J�s A. G�ocaris anc� Peter L.
P.O. BOX 252 f. PRL.M D�SERT, CAC.iFORNIA �Z�'�� dated 5une_27, 1991
. -.. ,�_., ...., ..;...
FAX (619j 340-3967
���OF�Fl3NDRAISING
oereld R, Forc1
$91h PRWdartt
pJ Ihe UMIr! SMha
BOARD Of DIREC'I�JRS
Kent A. Roberts'
P+..�d.�
Eme�l Heht�'
ExeeuUue v�a PKMdmr
Charle9 u1• JennRr, O.V.M,'
vn. �ena.�u
Cove 5tocklon"
V�N Pil�kenf
Atier �• Cyrog, D�1.M.`
S�talory
Rkh4rd C. McCiung'
T�ea�ur�r
Ctndy Au}qn
Woll9ang F Baere'
WqNem Bone
Jxk &11tMghem
I.avnenca A• Cona. M,D.
Miehoel Dea
John �. tia�hen
Bob i�oword
J. Rcbcrt MtGowen
Bruce NVcNsfl
Flqn M011ar
$Ipn L. T�mm�n�
'EaeVrlw Co�nt�l
ADMINISTRATION
Jpmae R. paForga
e.ro�+v� rn�rro�
RauaeA Bialoght
flalne i�0, 8antn
n„oe�me tkKao,
e�o�o�,�
nav�saas
Roben Presley
r�IQe,nin S�a. s.noro,
Membh. S�ne�� Commh(ae On
N01um1 RtlOUR'Ii O�d UAldllje
Llonefd C. �utw
Hv n�er • eoneerveHo nls�
Tcny E� Casha D�I,M„ Ph.D�
Cd WKrtnory DWgn01Hc (-a6eiasnY
H�tdchl & Clark
[�g01 CounNl
Dawd A. Jesiup. AV.M.
Catllo��b Oep4 01 Fhh end Gan�
Merk C. Jagensen
Anw,6erfe8o Oewrt S�we Park
Gienn R• 5l4wari, Ph.b.
cei vuv tmrw�.n�+. PoMa�
RFuI Veldva. Ph.D
NeW M�rke Smre U��ue.s��y
Mkheel ValenNe
Lio�un ro Vh�d Sheep S�udi.�
In Mtxka
A Nanproht
7bx•Exema► Chganiaqiron
Bighor� Ir�s�i�ute
Dedicat�d to the .conseruatton cf !he warld's w(!d sheep thmugh resear�h �nd educatlon
June ?7, 1991
Mr. Phil Joy
Assaciate planner
C�.ty ai Palm D�s,ert
'T3-510 �'red War a,ng Dr ive
Palm Des�rt. CA 92260
Re: Camments on May 1991 Draft �nv�ronmental Impaot �t�par�
�or the proQosed Altamira Gauntry C1ub pro�ect
Aeaz 4�r. Joy:
� This let�er sets forth a number cf commen�s I tr€�ve
wi�h xes�p�c� to t�e Draft Environmental.�xmpaat Repor�
("b�I�t"a1 prepared tor the C�ty a� Pa1m D�aert, Ca.�iEarnia
("Cityn ) by. Culksertson,. Adam�s & Associat�s, rnc.. ("DEI1�
prep�rer" i�1hiC]1 inGlu.de8 the Biologicai RQport �"DE�R �.R.")
of P,acif iG Sauth�t�st Bivlogical, Servi�•es � InC. t"k�iol�ogioa7.
c�nsultant(.s?") fbr the proppsed Alt�mira Country ��ub
project (the "�ro�ect") in ti�e City.
Y�m �ommenting as Execu�ive Di�ector and Research
�ib�ogi�t of �he B:igharn institute, with nearl�► 24 year� of
experience s�.udying bigh4rn sheep2.
I wQul� l�.ke to foc�s the .majority oi my comments or�
issues involving P�eninsu�ar Bighorn Sheep (Ovie ,����si_s
cremnob�tes) t"Bigh�orn" or "�ighorn Sheep" ar "�enins�alar
Hi�gY�arn") and �he ac�tivi�ies oF �he Bxghorn xn$�itute fthe
"znstitu�e"). In addition, z would like briefly ta aamment
on the discussion in the �sEZR oi cert�in other pot�ntia�ly
highly signiE�cant environmental �.mpacts o� the propased
projec�t to biologx�al values a�na habite� �t� �.he area.
1
State Clearinghous� Nnmber 91912061r distribufied
5/14191.
�
For more detailed in€orma�ian re�.ating ta my
backgraund and expeiience on these iss.ues, please see my
Respanse to Pac�f'rc Sauthwest Biological Services
Questiannai,re, date Febru.ary 2z, 1991,r Wh�Ch is �.ncluded in
Appendax C of the DEI�t ar�d wh�ch I incorparate herein by
referenc�.
P.O. BOX P62 / PALM D�SERT, GALtFpRNtA 92261•0262 / TEL�PHONE (619j 346•7334
FAX (619) 34p•39$7
�
�r e P��� ���
Sun� 27, 1991
Paqe 2
.�i.�.�Il �� ��� .a�.d. s.7L�Jax
1 � �tatvs. of �he �ighorn
While the DEI� devotes a mumber of pages of
discussion to iesues relatinq to �he got�n�ial imp.aats a;E the
�zopasea Project on the Bighoxn, it fai�,s ta prflvi�e cextain
impert.ant irform�tian xezat�.ng to ths current status o� the
�ighorn iri the wild. �'Qr example► �he A�IR does na� appeaY
ta indicate t�r� eXaCt leV�18 af po�su].at�ion and pog�a]�ation
decline a� Peninsular Bighorr► wi�hin the Ur�ited States. A1.$o
�h� discus�ior� af the root cause$ of �his dramat�c gopulation
��c7.in� is very brief. Se� e.g. page� ?7.
Peni.nsular gighorn exis� only in Riverside and Sah
�piego counti.es o£ s�authezn Cali��rnia and r�o where sZse. i.n
the United�S�ates. fi drastic declirt.� in thia zemai�ning
��ninsu3.ar,Bigharn pd�ulation has been dpcumented ior at
le�st �he past 12 y�ars. Agpxoxima�.e3.y I,171 8e.n�t���ular
�iqhorn irthabi�ed Ca�.i�oznia �n 1979 (Weave=, �979?, but
today the es�ima�ed papul.ation in t�e s�ate has dropped ta
ottly 380. The P�rii.z�sular Highorn of the Sant� Ros� MQu�.tains
wez� on�ce desi:g.n��►tecl as the largest herd of deser� �igh�orn in
Cali�orna,a. However; the Santa Rasa k.�erd has d�a�ined
d�ama'tiaal�y �ince 1979, from an e��ima�ed 5�0 {Weaver. I.979)
to 120 �oday. This estimat�e o� i20 $igharn tde�exmi.ned by
th� z.nstitute'�. �all �.9�90 helicopter +census) is. down �rom an
�stima�ed popula�ion oi 220 in the Sant�a Rosas �a�ing the
In$tit+��e's 196�9 cen�us, represen�in.g a d�cl�ne of a.lmos� 553
ir� �ust one y�ear.
The Peninsu�.ac gighorn o� �lne Santa Rosa Mount�ins
have been continua].ly su��er�ing f�om an appraxima�e 90� lamb
mortali�y first d���ated by the Cali�'qrnia Departm�ent of �ish
ar�d Game in 1977. This high martali�,y rate is a princ�.p�3.
caus� a� the vverail decline af the species in �h�s range 3.
�he Highorn Yn��itut� was �,n fact foxm�d ar�ginal],y �o
inve$tiga�e th� caus� of this lamb mortali�y.
. The State of Cal�.fflrn�a has tecogr�izea the sensi�ive
natur� �f th�. peninsu�ar �igharn� and the�r can�inned
decline, by listing it as hthrea�.ened" ur,der the C�liiern�.a
�ndangered Speci.es Act and by }.ist�ng it as a"�ully
3 "
An add�,ti.ona.l importan� cause of the apecies decline
is habitat ioss due to develop.ment and other hum�n
�ol�ivi.ties.
Mr. Fhil Jay
Ju�e 27r 1991
Yag� 3
protec��d mammal" under �he Cali�arnia F�sh and
Additionally, the U.S. �ish and Wildlife S�rv�ce
considering i�sting these anima�s as threa�ened
at �he fede�al level.
G�me Code.
currently is
ox endangered
It is importan� for the pu�lic to be �ware o� the�e
detai�s �n the presen� case, in order to appreciate the
�xtremely grave potenti�� conse�uencas of the �raposed
Fzaject, �nd any miscalculatian r�lating to Project impa�ts
an �he 8ighorn. This in�orma�tion shauld be inalud�d in �he
discussion af impacts �n the fi.nal EIR. T�h�s� data
i,llustrate Che �act that the Pen�.nsu�ar Sighorn is on the
very edqe o� survival, and give c.ot�text to th� ep�nians ot
th� �z�ty'� cansulting bialcgist that the proposed Pro�eCt
would "signif i.car�tly impinge" on. the prospect for �y�vaz a�
fre�-rat�ging Pen�.nsul�r &ighorn populations. See D�I�t, page
1�0.
This situation - i.e., �he f�ct tha� �he .spe.cies
on the �dge o£ survfv,al - demands extr�me caution with
respec� ta any acti.vity which may have an adverse impac�
the sp�cies. zn part�,cular, if �here �.� any �easanab],e
ahanc�, az even remote chanc�� t,ha� an actS.vit�y will
jsopaxdi�e survival of a s�eciesr th�n we must avoid tha�
acti'vi�y. .
2. Role o� the �ighorn Institute
is
vn
The Repo�t o� the Ci,ty's aonsu�.ting biologist
provid�e a valuabie t�vi�w of the impar��na� a�f th� Ins�itute
i�n s�pporting �he Bi.ghorn and r�i,nt�od�acinq �iqhorn into the
wild. See D�TR �.R. page 43. The BigYiorn Institu�e is the
n�.,1y organizatian working specifiealiy on the reseazch �nd
cons�rvation �f the P,eninsul.ar Bighorn in ti�e S�nta Rosa
Mvuntains, ar�d is the vnly facil�.t�y •successfully
zeintred�ucing penznsular Bigharn inta th� wil�. The
Institute is pl�ying a vita7. ral� in �he� repo,p�ula�t�ori a�
these wi],d sheep in the r�Qr�hern Santa Rosa� l�.ighway 74 to
Cathedral Citx). .As noted a�n �he Biologist's Repor�, the
Institute has been instrumenta� �ln supparting �h�.s highly
en�dangered population, and has pxavi�ed directly for a h�.gh
percentage of the �opula�ion at wi.ld S�a.qhorn in �he nor�hern
Sar►ta Rosa Mountain popula�ion. The Ins�it�a�e'� res�arah
activiti.es have permitted vs to successfuily_a,solate seve=al
viruses�whi�ch have b�en af�ecting the ba.gh4ra in �he ��e�.
It 5hould be recognized in the D��R that if i� hac�
not been �or the Bighorn Ynstitute's opera�ions, th�,
.p
M�. Phil Joy
�une 27, 1991
page 4
�eninsu�ar Bighorn po�ulatian �n �he narthern Santa R�sas
would mos� likely not exis� toda�.
�he need oF the sgecies for successful and ongoing
r�search, �ehabi�itatian oF wi�d Caugh� lambs, Zambing and
release activiti�s simply is absolutely cr�tical, and the
znstitu�e has been �ble to serve th�se needs. These iacte,
and our experience with �he Bighorn over �he years, i.ndicates
to us that �t as. coxr�ct to �onalude that �he ope�ation� ot
the Znstitute are "...critica� ta the suzviva� of the wiid
�eninsuiar Bighorn sheep populations� par�icularly in the
Sa�ta Rosa, Mountains." �,�.�„�.. DEIR page 110 (referr�n� to
sta�emenl�,ot several bigharn ex��rts). mhe Ci�y sfiould adopt
this �onc].usion.
3. Campari�son o� the T�nstftute to The Lxving Desert
�he D�IR makes faulty comparisar►s between �he
Bigharn Institut� arr,d The L�ving De$er�t, and in fact us�es
these irtcorrect cvmparisens �s a ba�is for its disccss�ion o�
�h� criti.�ca]. issue� of a protective bu�fer fo�r the zn.s�itu.te's
facili�ie.s. S�e A�iR �ages �.06, �,99 and I50. Despite �the
fact �ha� .nQ strang compa�isons were made between t�e
In�stitute-and The Living Desert in the co�sulting bialogist$'
report, the DEIR preparer attempts to identify $�milariti��e
between the two Faci�.it�es which do nat exfst. The D��R,
�owever, Pails to prov�.de infarmation about each a# the�e
organizations� th�i.r purpo�se �and operations, tp enabl� an
inEoxmed ev�luation Qf the �wo iacixities by the p�blic.
Th� fir�al �IR should�clari�y the difie�ences af
purpase and opera.t.�on o�' the faail3ties. Th� Bighorn
Ins�itute .is primaxily� a rese�arch and conse�rvation
organiza�ian for bigharn sheep. The In�t9,tute's main �urpose
and original xeasan �for fo�rming is to lvok fn�o �.he aausea a�
b�.ghorn decline with its primary toaus an the Peninsular
Bighorn ofl th� Santa Rosa Mountains. In order to carr�y out
thi$ m�ssion, the Institut� has l�aa a M�morandtirn af
Und�rs�an�ding with �h� California nepartment oE Fish and Game
to a11ow Tnstitute personnel to, amang other things, vondu ct
research, capture sick ar�d dying lambs far. s�udy�at disease
proc8sses, biological samp�ing and treatment (rehabi].i�ation);
and release heal�hy adult�bighorn into the wild. The captive
bighorn experience very l�.mited exposure �o Institute
per5onnel who iollow stric,� prot�ocol For the�care ot the
capt�ive Y�erd to avoid Such th.ings as stz�ss� disease
transmxs$ian, and habituation. This �ro�acol fs followed to
maintain healthy Bighorn in as much o� a"wildla,ke"
Mr. Phil Joy
�une 27, �991
Page 5
e�v�,ronment as po�sible. We �e�l these factars hav� play�d
an imgar�ant gart in the succe�s of �he Znstitu�e's
a�erations to date. The Ynstitute is not open to th� publ�c
for reqular touring vf the Facilities o� viewing o� the
captive 8ighorn.
The Liv�ng Desert is a botanical g�r�en and
zoologica� reserue ("zoo" ty�e o� t$cYlity) �h�t is regularly
open �o �he pubiic for the speci�ic purpose of tours and
viewing of its capt�ve animals and gaz�en�_. This �acility
greatly serves the puzpa.se o� praviding the pub�ic the
dpgoxtunity tQ see and���a�n about varfaus species of an���ls
and plants �ha� exist in wo.xldwide�desert ecosystems� As
eXpect�d for this �ype Of �aGilftyr �he LiVing D�sert
erieaurages human exposuxe �o �t� 8.�g.horn Sheep, c�reating �
sm�il di�tance between the pub�ic viewing path and the
bigh�rn enclosure of only 30 �eet.
The Living D�s�rt does no� keep fts Bighorn Sheep
�or �he sb1.�� p�urpose af zesearch, rehabilikatian of aa��tu�ed
lambs trom the wild and re�ease, as th� rnstitute does. The
layout af � i�s, facilit�,es refl�ects its usag� of the bighorn
gen £�r displ�y. C].e�riy the goals and opera�ioris af i�he �wo
��cilities are very differen� and justifiab�y so.
The ��IR preparer directly and �,corr�etiv aompa�es
Peninsular Bigharn breec�ing. and release programs of the
Ins�it�ate an,d The i,ivin� nesert. See DEIR pages �06 a.rid ,150.
While The Liva,n� Deger,t has in� the past �ngaged �n breeding
and release oE Bighot�nr to my kriowledge these activi,ties no
long�er are a part of its zeqular vperations. The DEIR
preparer sugges�s tha� The Living Aesert has had ,�,u��grsfui
re�r�traauctia.ns of its S�gharn into the wfld and con�i�,aes to
do so. To my knowl�dg� this i,s no� t�rue.
Records shaw that three raaio collared Bigharn born
at The S�iva.ng Des�ert, one releasecl in May 1985 and �wo
released in May 1988r all wer�e fo.und dead a short tim� aEte=
�hea,r re�ease. These were �7.1 .adul� r�ms appear�,ng healthy
a� the �.ime oi release and should haye had a good chance of
surviva�,. The DETR Biolagicai Report, page �1, mekes ment�.on
of Raxer� 5ausman's tLiving De�ert ExeC�l�ivE Direc�or)
knowledg� of "the aber�ant behavior and apparently st�ress�
induc�d mQrtali�,y within 29 haurs of a bighorn xeleased Fzom
�h� Livi.ng DeS�Ct." .
I believe, tha� the May ].986 Bighorn reiease$ were
�he I�st pexiarmed by The �iving Desert. I.n fact, as
d.iscus.sed in the.DEZRr page 106, th� Calxfornia Department a�
Mr. Phil �oy
3une 27r 1991
�age 6
�ish �nd Game no lariger allaws The L�vinq �esert ta rel�as�
pen�n�ular 8ighorn inko the wi�d, paxtl� due to pa$�
unsuccessiul a�t�mpts, and because af the Bighorn'a expvsure
ta diseases of exotic species wi�hin their faci�it��es a�d th�
possibility ot disease transm�ssion to Bigharn in �he w��d.
This infozmatian is not pre�ented ta downp�ay th�
importance or successes of Th� L�ving n�sert, but Gather to
subst�ntia�e ths fact that °zoo" type faciliti�es have n�ot
been able to succes�ful�y release Bigharn Sheep. �he reason
ior this is unc�e�r, but as stated by a number of th� D�IR
questionnaire respand�nts, habi�uation from cloge �Q�aciation
w�th hu�mans i� expected �o lessen the abilaty of released
Highorn 5h�e�p to survive in the wild (also see la�er
discussion on h��ituat�an). Acc�ordingiy, Th� Lia3ng De�ert
daes nvt serve as a valid com�ar�son for the Zri��S�Ute's
ongoing re�e�se program.
The DEIR prepazer alsa a�c�zrec�ly sugqests that The
L�ving Desert is �tfl� successfully breeding their Bzghorn�
with a lamb born in spring, 1991. Se� DEIR paqe Z06, While
�.tt�eed The Liva.ng Desert ha� be�n pr,eviausly s�ccesg.�ui in
br�eeding $it��,orn, to my knawledge i� is no Iortger. dofng �o.
The Depar�men� af Fish and Game res�riction on rel.e��e into
th� wild has also put a s�ap to The L:iving Desert's breeding
o.�eratioas �o prevent po.ten�ial oyexcrowded pen con�it�ons.
The DE�R .prepar�r also pravides a mis'�.eading
ana],ysi.s ot poa.nt� relatir�g �o "habitua�ion" prese.nt.ed by Th�
Li�ing Desert �nd other questionnaize xesponden�ts fAppe.n.d�.x C �
- DEiR mechnical Appen�ices, Volume 1) �s th� basi�s �'or
ana�her compaxzsan betwecn '�h�e Living Aesert and �he �ig.harn �
Institute. We ��el su�h compaz�,sons aze alsa iac����ct.
While B�ghorn at the xns�l�u�e tolerat� the v�ry
limited and pr�d�ictable ellCOUnter� w�,th Institu�e pera�anne�l r
they are no� habituat�d to human activity ri��rly to the
deg=ee thaC they are at The Llving Desert, �nd i'�.i� not our
intent to do so. At the ins�itute we are �rying ta maintain
th� integrity of th•e "wil,alike" h.abitat ptavided by the pen
fa�ilities ta a].low continued r�search that can be a.pplied ta
wi].d Bighorn, and �.o continue succes5ful breeding and rele�se
pxpgrams. See my explanation af Institute pen laoation
cri�eria � Appendix C DEIR Technical Append�ces, Volum� 1(my
quest��onnaire response -�ee ioo�note 2 ab�ve). This work
has pxaven v�luable and necessary �or th� survival ot �he
�ighorn �.n the Santa Rosa Mountains.. We believe, a�s
expr�ssed bx oth�r respanding bi�qhocn ex,perts and khe
biolog�.cal consul�ants themselves, that hxghly habi�u�ated
__ _ i'�, . _ .
Mr. Phil Joy
June 27, 1991
Pag� 7 �
Bighorn are not suitahle fo�r release. See DEYR B.R� page 45,
The i�ivi�nq Desert's rel�ase record appears to guppOrt t�ig
conclusian.
Additionally► it should be noted tha� Si�ghorn axe
ab�.� to co�exi5� with human activity to some degree wh�re the
sti.muJ.i �he she�p recei�ve are predict�able and nonthreatening,.
but sti3.1 become h�.ghly stressed through expasure to ],ess
�.imited and unpr�dictable contacts and stimu],i. Se� D�IR
B.R. p.age 39. T��s t�heory is a�,so based on the si,ghbrn�s
abili�y �o remove themse�.ves from situatians they find
stressful. �n additian, people canno� aacurately predict
what stimuli wi17, cayse stress in Bi.ghorn nor �he responses
to such stressors (behavioral �nd phy��blQgioal).
Habi�u.a�f�on fs not a guaranteed pxoc�ss and is hig}�ly
detrimenta.l ta efforts t4 rein�xaduc� Bighorn ittt�o �he �aild.
�he Ci�y�s biological consultants p�xovid� a weJ.l reasone�
ana�ysi,s of.these cancerns, (DEIR �.R. page�39), and are
correct in their canclusion that it would be i.l�. advise� to
base a buffer distance decisivn far th� prdposed Pzo��c� on
the abili�y o� th,e Bighorn to "h$bituate" to disturbanc�es.
Th.e Ca.ty sr,o�zld adopt �ha,s �onc7.ws�on �s part o� it�s
ev$lu�►�ion.
� Due �o the differences be�ween The Livi�ng De,s�r� and
$ighorn Tnstitute facilit�,es outli�ed abave, campar�sot�s �nade
by th�e D��R pr�ep�ar�r are ma.sl�eading and shauld� � be used as
a bas�s to dete�mine a n�cessary� buffer siz.e be�weert �h�
propps�d Al�tam��ra praject ,and the. Institate. The fac't t�at
The Living D�ser� has opera�ed with human activ�,ty (pub.lic
viewirYg) with�n on.�y 30 �eet of theiz 8��.horn pen, ��t
at all s�tggest Ghat such a dis�ance wowld be su�ficier,t a$ �
buffer Eor the 8ighorn kept at the Ins�i�ute.
Finally, the DEIR summar.y of the questi.onnaire
r�sponse pf �he Livinq Desert to a bu�fer reaommendati.on is
Yg��,+ mi .leaai�g. See nEZR pag�s 8�9 and 90. under th� "Size
of Buf�er/Recommend�ation" aolumn, 30 fe�t zs lis�ed as mhe
Living Desert's response'��wha.le the caxresponding �oa�note
��ads, "mre Living Desert d+id not recomm�nd a sp�ci�'3c buf ter
but rather deecribed their facili�y." The Liv�ng Deser�,
r�spanden�s in �act �c�'.!, �o rnake � buffer reaommen�atipn.
�ee gage 4 a� The Living Desert q,�estionnaire respvnse
Appendix C� D�zR Technic�.1 Appendiaes Valume 1. Also, at no
time did these respondents suggest that the 30 foot distance
that The Living Desert facilik�.��s ha,ve betweer► their Bighoxn
pen and the viewing pu�l�.c would be suit�able f�or the Bi.gherp
Znstitute in regards to the Altamira praject. The A�ZR is
rnisleading in sugge�sting otherwise. The reference to the 30
�, 4 . - _
Mr. Phil Jvy
June 27: 1991
P�ge B
foot dis�ance shoul,d be deleted, so that no deaision-maker �s
mi.sled fnto using this information ae a ba�is far any
decision regarding buFfer size or other m�tiga�ion measnrea.
�. potentiai impacts of the Pxoject on Highorn
a. ��pac�s an the $ighorn hel.d �t the Institute
We conaur w�th the statemer►ts oi the� biolog�ica�
aons►altant that indi.vidual �igho�n Sh�ep may reaCt
differenk�l� to diff�ren� disturbances and g:en�rally do not
toleca�e unpr�edictable stimulf. The large-scale p�opoe�d
A�,tamira deve�.opment prQject woulc] cre�te a gr�at dea� o�
u�pre�ivtable dis�urb.ance�, res�ulting in c�nsiderab�e $�ress
for the In$�i�ute's cdptiv0 herd. See a1,�8o D�IR S.R. pag�s
38 and 3�9: ("increased human activity also inczeases �h�
possibility o£ ungredia�able disturbances"�.
As noted in the Repor� o£ the Ga.ty's coflsultircg
bioloqi�t and �he DEY�i, the Bighozn, and e�sp�cially the lambs
tincluding ti,e lambing pr.ocess) ars eKtzemely sensi�iv� to
distu�ban�es and encroachmen� af �he�r habita�. Fo� .the most
part, bxgtiorn wi11 av4i�d develaped areas :and placea wher�
human activi�iea eake place. Biqhorn a�e h�ghl�y sensitiv� �r�
en�vitanment�l change, and have strcnq pbysiolagical xeavti,ona
to stress C�used by, for exampler intrusians in�p th�ir
habitat or �unpre�ic�ed env�,ronmental chang�. Thes.e x�ea�ta.ons
can result in lowered cesiS�Anc� 1co. dise�s�, redu�c�ion o�
home range s�ze into small., overcFowded areas, an� even
death. To ti,e extent bigharn b�come habituated to huma.ns.,
they �ar►d especiaily �he�l�mbs? becpme more suscep��,bie �o
d�at.h by prec]�t�.on.
'�he C�ty's consuStir►g blqlagi�st ana the D�IR ref�.r
also to concerns.zela�ed to chronic stress situa�i.o�is tsee
DEIR, page I05)► wh�ch we would��imply like to hiq�l�.t�ht.
The evidence s�ggests that the �dverse�reactio.ns �i Bigha.rn
�a stre.ss are par�ticulaziy noted in animals which en�ounter
prolongea s�ress�ul situation5 from t�h�.ch they. cartnoE �ind
relief . �'he bigMo�rn sheep i� the xnsti��ut�e's 30 ac�e �er�
wvuld b� Paced with such a prospect� if confront��d �wfth
continuing external g��ress fac�tors in a�jacent areas� withput�
an adequat.e t�uffer. �articularl.y eigniticant to Peninsular
�xghorn is the.stress-rel�ted parainflu�nza-3 v�.rus which has
been an initia�inq fa�to� �in �he pneumanic pro,c�ss pxes�ntly
causxn� h�.gh lamb martal.itX in the $anta Rosa Mountains. S�e
AEiR page 105.
Mr. Ph�l Jay
3une 27, 1991
P�qe 9
xhe proposed A7.tamira praject, withou� sdequat�
bu�fer �n natural condit�on (a� di.sCuss�d below], wou3.d
create thi,$ �ype of situation of �chranic s�resa for Bighorn
held and ra�,sed at the Irasti�ut�. In particular� this
deveYopmen� wovl.d potentially resui� in a eoncantration af
li,ngering str�ss factors which waul.d pr�dictab].y �roduce
sa.ckness, behaviara�, ma].Puncta.an and even. de�th amonq the
Biqharn at the Institu�e.
P�n additianal considera�kion and one that we would
like ta highli,ght i� the �act �ha� w�thaut an a8equate
protective buffer, w� cou�d e�ven exp�ct th� �ighoxn �within
the Insti�.ute's 30 acre pen �o abandon the north �n�
n�orthe.ast slopes that face the Altamir.a �proje�t due to
linger�.ng stress factors (UE�R B.R. p$ge 40). �he narth and
north�as� facinc� slopes have long se�ved as �,mpartan� lamiaing
gxounds, la�e dit��cnOOn �rowsing areas and evenin� bedc�ing
areas for the �nstitu��'s captive her� and abandonment
c�nstitut�s �oss af th�se nec�essary fuqctiona3� haba,�at areas.
Any slzqgestion that the$e. impacts wouZd not Q��u�
because the Institute B�gh�arn ar� s4me�haw ha�ituated to such
diaturbance is incorrect, for reasans �iscu�ssed a�bov�. ��e
�iscu�sio�n. on habituati4n on pages fi-$ abave.
Vari.ous a�.her tXpes o£ critic�J. impacts wou].d occur
from deve.�o}�m�rit without a� a�equ��e undisturbe.d buf�er. Fox
example, a par'tiaula�r conc�rn relates ta inaect�vec�ors which
are known �o transmit fatal diseases ta Bigho'rrt� whi�h cau�.d
be g�enera�ed from.�reestand�nq wa�er and moi.stare from the
type and lacation of the qvl:E course community propo�ed by
�.he Projea�t developer. �rsdley Mu�,lens, an expe,rt on these
blood�f�edi.nq gnats specif�caZly, affecti.ng t�e Bi�hozn,
"remain�t�] �onvfnced that i.n.creased water us� �ram
develogments and po��n.tia]. subseq►aen� vector productfor► in or
ad j�cent ta s3�e�p �zang� is a.n need o� serious inv�estig.�t.i�n
a�nd impinges on the prosp.ects ior th�� long-t�rm survival o�
�h� species." 5ee U�IYt �.R. page 43. A�so, domestic �nd
feral d�og.s, and aoyates associa�ed w�.th sach development
could he an�icipated to create seriaus s�ress and resulting
h�ealth pro�Zems for the Bic�hort�. See DEIR B.R. page 40.
These dist�ar�ar►c��s caused by the propased Prq�)eCt �tould
result in particularly damaging and nega�ive imgacts an the
higher sensitivity lambirig areas of th� north and noi:theas�
facing slopes of the Tnst�itu�e's 30 acre pen.
In sum, t�he adverse impacts of ��e proposed Project
would be direc� and enormous.- I believe that th� City's
c�rtsu].ting bia�.ogists have pxav�ded an �xceller►t and wel�
-- . /
�z. pr�i �oy
June a7. i941
Page 10
aon�i.d�red analysis of these individ,u�3 impacts o� the
prappsed Praject, and iul�y support their canclusion �.hat
"...the propos�d AltatniX� �aroject w�.11 resul� �n sa.g�i��,c�nt
adverse impacts tv the �pera�tions of �he �ighorn �nstitute
thr�ugh adverse im,pacts to the cap�ive bighorn sheep [andj...
�ri�1 signa.fiaantly impi»ge u�aon l�a�h the shor�-term and long-
term surviva3 of �ree-ranging Peninsul.ar Highorn Shee�
pvpulatian�, par�icularly i.n th� Santa Ro�a Mount�ins." See
I�EIR �.R. page 45. The D�TR and ��e City shcsald adopt this
oonclusion af its own aonsulting b�.ologist.
Separakely, the DEXR dbes not appea� ta consider
cumulative im.pacts of the Project on the B�ghara kep� at �he
Tnstitu�e. There is signi�icant potent�ial cancern tha��
fu�ure development �c�iviti�s an ot�,er prap�r�i.es whiah
neighboz the znstitute le.g.� �he Westing.house pro�perty t�
the noXth and wes�; t�hQ C.C. Myers property td the �outh?
aould add significantly to an� potential imQac�� of the
pr.oga�ed' Pro�ect.
The public needs ta know thi� type oE intoxma�i.on to
be able ta mak,e a Fu�,1 and fair anaXxsis nf th� po�entfal
impac�s of the Project�on �he Bigharn �ke.pt at th� znatitute.
The DEIR should have.evalu$teci this cdnpern.
b. pi�ec�. 7mpacts an Free-ranging Bi.gharn
The impacts of the propo��ed Pca�ect, withou�
adequat� bufF.er, .an free-��anging Bighorn �+au�.� a��o be diteC�
and exCremely adverse. The project s�ii��e extends i�nte �he
al].uvi.a]. fans and ].ow�r slopes o� � the mau�tai�s where th�
B�.qk�orn �ave been ob.served �a r�nger par�iaulaxYx in pexiads
of ].imi��d rainfall, and aca.ardingly contains es�sen�ial a�nd
occupied habitat area �or the Santa Rosa wild popul�atian. In
cor�neatipri with the activitfe� of the Institu�e, I and other
staif inembers have mad� a number of s.ightinqs ot wiid., �ree-
ranging bighorn on or adjacent to �he Ai�ami.ra pr�a�ect site.
5�e my questionna�re r�sp4nse., and �3�IR page �1�. Far
examp].e, th4s past ac�ober� we reaeived a zepor�ing of a w�.ld
b.ighort� ram within the potential buffer area a� the prajeot
site.
The City's consui�ing bi4loqist refer5 to these
factorg, and othexs, in ��.cumuiativ� con�.ext to con�clu�e that
�.he Projec�t wauld result in a aign�.fica�t cumulative adverse
�m{�aG� orn�the Bighorn. W� abso�utely concur with triis
oonclusfon as �learly stated by the cansulting biologist (and
in the tek� af th� u�IR) as tQllows: "pn a regiona],
.......... , �; , , --
...._ . ..... J ;_; - . , -, _
Mr. Phil Joy
June 27, �991
Fage 11
perspec�ive, in �ight af the alxeady extensiv� and cQntinuing
human encroaahmen� in�.o and upon Peninsular Bigk�orn Sheep
habi�a� in the 5anta Rosa Mountainsr with the �.mpartanc� of
margina� areas ta the lan��texm $urviv�]. ot biqk�vrn sY�eep►
...we conclade that the proposed Alt�miza projec�k wzll have a
cumula�fvely significant adverse biological impac� on
pen�n�ular �ighorn Sheep and th�ir h.abita�� in the SanGa Ro�a
Moun�ains, and that Furth�r human dev��apment�s along the
�].arik of the Santa i�os� Mouritaii�s iacing �he Coach�lla Valley
wil.l ex�cerbate cumulative adverse impacts to Penfn$ular
Bighorri 5he�p habitat." See D�zR �.R. page 35t D�IR �a�e 99.
�he C�.Ey sY�ould adopt this cOnClusiotl Q� i�s consul�inq
b�.ologist �
zn �adi�ion, however, I be].ieve th�� the gzapo-sed
�rojea� would alao have an indi�idua�ly signi�iaant adver�e
impact on �ree-=anging sigharn. Com�aar� DE�R, pa.gQ 98� �his
conclusi�n is taased on my xeading of the evidence no.t�d above
relati�g to the ra.ng� an� �.acation�of Bighorn on the propo$e�
Prvjec� sifie, o�her e�idence on th� r�co�;d, and th;e
precarious. �ondit�on and hxgh vulnerability �o dis�urbAnce oi
the speci��. See alsa my questionnaire respon�e d�..scussing
these cohcerns �n more det��,l. The Gi�kx should a�do�pt this
c�nclusioti in its analysis.
5. The Need for an Adequate Buffer
The discussian abover and the record in tnis cas�,
m.ake i�, clear tiha� the proposed p�va�et, witY�aut ad�q.uate
buffer, wauld harm, har�ss.and even ki11 i�dividua�. D�s��rt
Penxn�ulax Bigharn 5heep, des�roy substantial amounts o�
habi�at essentia]. ta �he eXistence �� this spec�es, �,n�
likely 7�ogardixe their co�tinued ex�stena�. These impac�s
waald be magn�fi�d at the cumulative levei.
A,CCOrd�ngl�r it is.absolut,ely egs�n�ia1 for the
propaseci �ra�eet to ir�corporate an adeqaate buEfer of n.��ural
open space as a conditian to projec� ap�gr.oval.
The DEz� indicates �hat�the Cit�y's cansulting
bio2vgis�. ".�.recommends that a bu£f�r which v�ri.e$ fzom 600
yazds ta 1,125 yards, west to esst► is nec�ssa.ry �a
adequately protect aigharn Insti�ute lambinq operations in
the adjacgnt �Q a�are pen."�- Se� DE�R page 214. Moreaver� the
biolog.ist also �canc'ludes that "...a larger buffer dis�ance
would b� highly beneficial..." See pEZR Qage X�.O.
__
- ._. _ �.r,�y
; , i' j' '� _ .
--., , _ ,,,�
Mr. Ph�.l Jay
June 27, 1991
Page 1�
Th� cansulting biologists' aonclusion on �his paint
is extremely impor�ant. mhese biologists w�re h�.red
expresslx to sift t�raugh the voluminous fnformation on t.he
buffer issue tand ce�rtain otheX issu�s)� and to ree�valuat�
tne bu�fer questiort on the pasis o� sounc3 biology.
While z have expresBec� on r�aord my view that t�he
o�r�imal bu�£ex would be 800 to 1.,500 yards of natural open
�pace, I am prepazed to accept �he conc�usion oi the Ci�y's
consu�ting biologist tha� 600 to 1,125 yards o� undisturbed
natur�t� buifer would b� adequate. T a�.so a�ree with and
would like to underscore th.e CdnClt�SiO.n of the Cit�'s
bxo].ogi.st that a larger buf�fer di.stance woula b� hiqhly
bertef ic�al.
I�n support o� this, Y wauZd like �ko d.raw �he C�,tx's
��t�ntion ta the �ttach�� 1�etters signed by all nine members
of ti�e Siqhorn A�viso�� Comm�ttee, which in��,cates �ha� these
m�.mb�rs Y�ave �ur�her r�eviewed t�ie r�c.azd in this �.ase, a�►d
wha b�l�eve a�so that the City shauld adopt �n �pen space
bu:ffez o£ 600 �0 1,��5 yards.
More generally, it is clear �a me �hat the record in
tta�s cas� overwh�lmingly supports the adopti�n of th�..s
conclus�an by tlie City. Th�e D�IR, however, fafls to make a
spccifi� r�,commend,atiQn �n �hzs point �nd fails t� �dogt t�he
carefuXly cot�•s�dered aonclusion of fts awn cQnsulting
bid�ogi�t fQr a bufPer of 60� to 1�125 �rards. Ins�ead, the
D�tR simp.ly stated that this is one ap�.nion amorig ma�ny (�g
DExR, page 5�a,). and highYfghts tY�e sta��ment that t�ere is
sig.nificant disag�reem�ent among e.x�er�s (,�eg same page) .
Mar.eover, �he ��zR suggests ti�at ",..for the purpos�s o�
evaluati,ng disagt�ementi �mar�� experts, al,:l exPer� opinio.ns,
incl:uding t�he consulting biplogis�s, have been trea�ed
equalZy."
Whi�e it is important �or the publi.c to be inEormed
a£ �he na�ure ancl extent oP disagr�e.ment among exp�x�s, t,he
C�.ty cannot simply igriare tk�� best biologi.cal evidenae on th�
grdunds that some disagreement exxsts. The�City canno� �nc�
must no�. use thS,s disag=eement as an excuse �o ��la�w an a�tion
which may jeopazdiz.e the survival of a species. At�d kh� City
cannot simply treat all biological oginions equalzx, where
they aris�e �rtim persons� of di:fferent quaZi.i�,cations who have
devoted dif�ering �evels af attent�on to the taG�s of this
case. I am aon�erned that this is wha�t is being dane in �he
pzesen�t case.
__., „ . , ` . � i ,
�: . . _ .
,;`; . .. . . ..
Mz . Phil Joy
�71��e 27 r 1991
Page 13
In th3.s la�ter regard, a numb�r of comm�lnt� �r� 3n
arr�er rel.ating ta the statements �z�m biologists on th� D��R,
�ad Ehe summary af these statemet�ts in the DEXR. The D'�IR
clearly mi.srepresents th� bu£fer recammendatfona of thr�e oE
t�e questionna�.re res�ond�n�s. Mark Jozgensen was
�.ncarrectly liated as.sug�es�iag a buffer mini.mum af 44p
yaxds aut ta 600 yards nQr�heasterly. His actual
recommendati.an concurred with that of the Bighorri Adv�sory
�ommitte� of �a minimum bufFer of 400 yards (opt�m�I 600
y�rds) stret�ching northeasterlx �o �,100 yards. As disccassed
earlier, TMe �iving Desert pzav�ded no bu�Eer xecommenda�,ion,
yet the DEIR m�,9leadic�gly i.ridieat�s a buffex recommendation
o£ 30 ��eet (see above discussion). Third, the DEIR wro.ngl.y
suqqes�s that G�cry Ognibene mad� a bu�ter recomm��adation of
z00 �0 300 Xards.. in factr he made �,o butfer �recommendat.ion
and sta�ed that he has na foxmal education �n biology and is
not quali�i�d ta make a buffer zecommendation.
M�y buffez recammendation of 800 to 1r5�0 yards►
di��cussed above, has been d��igna�ed as the "Bighorn
xn-�titute� Praposed Bufier" in the nEYr page 2.1�. fTowev�r,
this recammendation.is not corr�ctly reg�es�nt�d Qn �he
Co.�responding £xhibit 3� of the DEIR page 211. �hxs mis��k�
ir, the UEiR should be corze�ted.
In c�rdez to make a f�ir evaluatfon o� the bu�'fer
tecommenda�ians�, i,t a.s neccssary for the publi� ta b� �ware
o�. the background an� manner in which �ame of �he
questiann.aire� respond�nts derived thea.r bu�E�r sugg�egt�one.
'She alear�.y f�vored majori�.y expert opinian reflects and
sup�orr� the cansulting biologist�s' bufEer recpmmendata.on of
600 to 1,125 yazds. In additi�anr th�r� are a�numbQ,r QE
c�ancerns rega�ding the opinions and analXsis af tk�e f.ew
zespond�nts wha favor�d a much smaller buffer.
5teven Caro�h�rs, f�r examp�e, has testi.fied befare
the Ci�y that he is � a blghorn exper�. Additxanall.y�, h�e
�is contracted by the I'KojeGt developer as a pai.d cansultant.
�n my opini.on, Cazo�hers does nat tiave the bighaxn expextzse
to make a sound bialogiCa}, judgem�nt fvr a baf�er distarice.
�t�er�faze, his re�ommendation o� no buffer �hould be
diszegarded.
Charles Ddug3.as► Pau,l Krausman and Jack �`urr�er are
also atfiliated wiCh C,azothers' ��irm, SCWA, as paid
consultants. Dauglas �ppears to base his de�ision pf no
buffer on the zoni.ng of the properti,es in question t�he idea
�ha� the �nstitu�e knew �he adjo�,r�ing lands w�re appzoved f or
� hausing developmen�), zather than en bio�.aqical eva�,uation
_ �� .
Mr. FhiJ, �oy
�une 27, 1991
Page 14
(see Douglas' questio�naire response). mhe app.area� bias Qi
Douglas' re�gonse and the bas�s of his buffer recommendation
mafcea his opinion un5uitable tQr comp��isan to the b�O�.Og1CdI
judgment of other bighorn experts who Xe�pon�ed t� the
c�u�stionnaire.
Addi�ianally► questionnai�e respondents �t.an
Cunningham, steve HolJ. and Pau� itrausrna�► have made thei�
hu�fer recammendations based on �he assumption that ei�t�ez
the Institute's Bighart� are already habitu�ted or wilY beco�e
habituated to human activities. As prev�.o�usly d�.sc�uss�d, th�,s
is a wrong asaumptS,an and against tMe intentions o.�' the
Ins��tute's operati.on�, and cont�ary to the evidence that �he
Institut� has �ucces�tullx released 8igharn in�o th� wil�
since 1��5. There�ore, these buf�er apinions are invalid in
tt�is c�se.
�n addi�ion, th� que��i�nr�aire did not provid�
sutficien� and neces,sary intarmation relating to the
zns�itu�e and the proposed Project (fa� e�c.ampie, Institute
�operatkons, projeat d�sign �►nd activities) , on whi.c�h a w�ll
i,�nformed buf�ez z�cammendatian coald be based.
On the basis af the above discussian, there is rto
s:ubstat►tial evi�enc� or opinion far th.� small ar �exo
baf���s discussed in �he flE.TR. Ra�h�r, t'he evidence cl�ariy
and strongly suppc�rt5 khe recommenda�ion oi ti�e c�ns�l,�ir�g �
biolog�sts.
6. Mitiga�ion Measu�res
Thete axe a►�umber of mitigation aotions in add�,tion
ta the pr�ovision of adequ�te bu�ier �wh�.ch ��e critic�l to
aubs�ant�ally reduce potenti�al nega��,v� imgac��s. o� the
�roject an khe 5iqharn and the instituta. Ali recommer►d�d
mi�igation acti,ons in th�s respec� (mi�igation measux�$:
�3-16, 34c, and 3� on AE�R pages 2�4��96 and �50), we �e��,
are wel7. thought atat and impor�ant pr�o�ective measures £ar
ad4ption. 4
Mitig�ti,on measur
inconsisten�. M�asure 3
msde consistent wf�h the
con�tzuation a�tivities'
es l� an� 3S appear to be
5�shvud�d nvt be adopted unZess it is
reatriGtions an �xading and
of ineasure 1�4.
� , 1 i �; . . . , _ ..
Mr. �'hil 3oy
June 27, 1991
Page 15
WithoU� dis���nting any of the abave referred
mitigation m�a�ur�s, I wauld like �o high�.ight those which I
te�l are absa�.utely necessary tin add��ivn ta the buf�er?:
Pro�ect perime�ez wa7,1, � qrading oz cans�ruction activities
be'�ween 3anuary 1 and June 3p, dag restri��ions and
managemen� of Biqhorn disease trat�smitt�ng insect v�ctors
(see ab.oue reference�l. It appears �a me that these
mitfga�iort measures �r� feasible, and must be t�quirsd as a
cond�tion to any P�oject approval.
�. �he Planninq Commission Reca.mmer,d��tions
On May 2Z, 1991, the City of 1?alm Des�r� planning
Commission held a p�ab].i.c h�axing t� �eV1QW the U�IR �qr ti��
propo,sed A].tamira p�O��Ct f d�ld 1(18{fe recomm�nd�tf.ans �0 ��lH
City Councii. �he Planning Gommfssion r�camrnsnded in �avQr
�� the De�elvper's �roject desiqn with virtvally no b.u�ier,
and fail�d �o recomm�nd adogtian o� same of th.e mos� basi.E
�nd necessar.y mitiga�ion measures {e.g., na cvns�ru��ion
during lambing mon�hs?. S�ee Transctipt af 5-21-91 P],a»n�-ng
C�ommission he,aring.
Z`hese recommendatians of the Planning Commissior►, �t
ad�ptea, wou],d result in a projec� which does g�eat l�azm ��nd
des�ruc�ion ta �hE $ighorn and �o the sensi��.ve and hig.h�.y
va].uable desert ecology o� �he ar�a.. �h�e �e$ulte oP thi$
hearing have. sh�rply �heigh�ened ttty sense oF c.oncern and
urgency wi�h r�spect to the posi�tion o� the C,ity regardir�c�
�he poten�ia� impacts of the propdsed Proje�ct.
This appraach must nat be adopted �;� w� are to
pLot�eot �he Bighoxn anc3 th� other parts af the env�.ranment in
thi� aCe�+.
The Pl,anning Cammission also zecammendsd aq�ainet
�indings of signi�icance in respect ta key envir�onmental
issues in �his ca��. This re�commend�tion is agai.n�t the
averwh��m3ng weight af the evidenCe fa the present cas2, and
without any subseantiaY basie.
I am also tcoubled by �he fact that tl�e Plann�ng
Cammission hearing was held on�y sev�n d�ys a�fter the relea�e
far ca,roa].at�on ai the D�zR. �'h� DEIR is an �xt,remely
].eng�hY and camplex document. As a resuJ.t► the shart ti,me
period between the rel.ease and �he hearing d�.d �ot �Xlow
sufficien� time for our s�af� to adequately review �he
d4cument �ar part�Cipation at the hea�inq.
Mr. Phii J4�
June 27, 1991
Page 16
�� �i'�.L��1� t�. � ���� Va u �
Finally, I would Iike simply to note mX aancern in
relati�on to potential nega�ive impac�� o� t,he Pxojeat or,
a�her sfgn�.ficant and 3��ghly sensi�ive bialogic�l va��.u�s in
the area, ar,d i.n partfcular the t�ead Indian Cr�sk wash taad
its community o� �lants and �nfmals) and the deser� tortoise.
While 2 am nat an �xpet�• in res�e�t ta th�se issue$,
I am fama,liar witn the local ecoloqy and wash habitat area.
I can xn�orm the City that staif inemE�ers t�f t�e I.n�titute
'hav� spo�ted siqns of the desert tortal6� within the area
recammend�� as butfer. S�e aE1R B.R. p�g� 2Q. T a�,.so wauJ.d
r�gistec my sup�ort faz th� cancluSion af the Cit�'s
consultinq bialoq3st relating �o the signa.£ican�e a� �he
xmpacts of tne pxo�ased proj�ct on �.he wash, a�nd the
impar�ance foz .habi�at values af mazntiaini.ng the wash as
"dedicated oper► space." 5ee D�I�t B.R� pag� 46 and AEZR
paq.e � 11.
Fina]. R�mar. ks
In closing, T wou7.d like to reiter��e our cenoern
�ox maintai.ning t�h� continued succ�ssful ape�ati�n.s of the
Instit�ute and u�timat�e�y ti�e �urvival af ti�e �eninsular
�3��g�+azn Sheep. �he uni�u�n�ss o� the Biqhorn Institute
�acilitieg carinot be treatec� Iightly.. We are no� heze to
dwe1�. on Qur accomplishment�. nor �o downplay the g.ual.ity and�
val.u� af the AJ.tamira pzo jec� to tH� City of Pa1m De�s�rt.
We, as we�l a$ manX bighorn expertis �na tk�e Ci�y'e tiialoq ical
cQn$ultar�t, have shown the se��ousness af th� pligh� o�' the
Peni.nsular 9igi�ozn a�td fihe GriticaY need tQ adequa�ely
protect tk�e institute`e operations on their bshalf. Thes�
Bighorn are th� C4nCer1� not only c�f �he In•s�i�ute and its
staPf and dir�ctors, but of all �he surrounding �ommunit�es,
the State af CaliEarni� and soc�e�y at larg�.
We strongiy believ� thaC developm�nt af the Alta�m�ra
project withs�u� an adequate b�fier �r�d adciitiona�. ttecesaazy
ma.ta.ga�ion measures, outiined above, wi�.i seri.ous�.y
�eopardize the �urvival and it��ure .recoverX af th� Peninsulsr
�i�ghazn Sheep. Th� potential impact.s to the �n�titute's
activities, including the.loss af th� int�grity a� curren�
nat�ural. h�abi�at and envizonmen�tal p�rame�ers o� the research
faci�ities� the abzlity a� the captive Bighorrt.�o
suc�ess�ully b�reed and produce viab�e young, and �he ability
�o svccessfully r�elease �ighorn in�o the wild, woul� mean the
destruc�ion at �,his vitaJ. effort tc en�ure the survival of
_ --, - - --- - , - ��� � , , . ' .
_ . " . _. .i ,,i , _ . •
, . �l � . � . _ , _ .
'�r. Ph�l Joy
June 27, 1991
P�ge 17
these animals. In sum� The City's decision in �his cas� wil�
have a czitical �m��ct on whe.�her futur� generatiQns wiX1 be
a��orded the opportunity �.o wi�ness the ma�estxc presence o�
the �eninsular Bighorn in th� maun��ins o�rerlookinq th�
Cvache�la; Valley aad Palm Desert.
we stand fast for the needs o� the 8ighorn anc3
support �he Ci�y's bialoqical consultant's recamm�nd�ati.an of
an undis�urbed open space buffer a� 60p yard� to 1#125 yazds
west t� east, with �h� zncl�asfon o� t�he additional mitigat�.on
measuxes nated above.
Sina�rely,
� ��
�
J�ames R. DeFarg+�
Exectativ,e Direatar
tt�search Bio�ogi5t
A �A ����T
L�TTER.S FRO� BiGH�RN AbVISORY COM�ITTEE
' r . _ . : . . . � . . _ `
„� �� � �� 4 '.. _, � ` / �... �.�
. � � t`� �,'{'f`�
��91 JU�d Z4 ��fi 9� S6
C�,l�, ;�.::::'�:T �'+�T'�����t'
� IL';.� I�;:��c., G� ,
,Tune 21► 1991
M� s P1l11 1�Dy
Associate Planner
C�.ty of Palm nesert
73�510 Fred War�.ng Drive
Falm De$er�, CA 92250
Dear M�. �7oy:
r am a member o� the Biqharn Advisory Comm�ttee t�hat me� an
December 9► �989 �� help decfde upari a�n undisturbed
envf.ronmental buffer that would protac� the Bigharn
Ins.t�tut�'s op�rations ��d the peninsul�r Bighoxn Sheep
from th�e potentiel negative im�acts o;E th� pxQposed
A��amira Country C�ub prvjeet.
I have t.aken the �ime to teview the May �991 Draft
�r�virontnental Im,pa�t Report (riEIR3 for th� Aitamira
development. �he bighorn sheep fssu�s addresse� in �h�
sialagi�aa.I Repbrt preduce�d b� �acifiC Sauthwes� �iologiaal
ServiC�s are very detailed an8 i,nfotmative. Th� responses
to the questionna.ire were aist� helpful xn evaluat�.ng the
op�nions o� my peers.
I believe �he bzologicai consuit�nts.' recommendea buf£ex of
600 y�rds ta 1,x25 yaXds west to east tD��TR TechniGal.
Append�.c�s volume 1. - App�ndi.x J� Figuze 4) shvuld be
ap.prov�.d by the Pa7m Desert Ci�y Council.
Sincer�ly,
� � '� �� � f���
Don Armentrout
cc: 8ighorn Institute�
� ti � : . � .
HONORAEiY CFIAIRMAN
OF FUNDRAl51NG
Garetd R. Fofd
s8�h Rrs�aaM
oJ ihe (1n�e siowt
BOARD OF DIRBCTORS
Kent A. Robane' '
Pre�MeN .
Emset Nahn'
EareuNva Vl�s Pra�rdenr
Cha�fe� W, Jcnner, D.V,M.'
• Vlc� Aealdenl
Davt Stvekton'
Wpc PR+idenl �
r�,� e� c��, a:v.M. •
s.��a�,
Rkherd C, McCiung'
rrsu,uRr
Clndy Ruptln
Wo�{geng F. Bapre'
Wtiiiam Beno
Jetk BAttingham
Lawrence A, Cone, hS,D.
Michael Des
dahn E Earhart
8ob HoWard
J, Robert McGowan
8tuca McM1lall
Flnn INo11R,
5[en L Tlmmins
•&�ecur+a. ce�nea
apMlNisTRATiON
JeTes R• DeFerge
Exec4i�ve D('16tor
Rheorch BMlpplir
Elelne M� Berren
A�tptrah ppecla
810fO�qflf
AbV1SbRS
itobcrt fre:lsy
tNl�omlo Smh Sendo�
Mtmbn, &hate C9m�mG�t on
Nclurol RnovKeo and 4MIdbJr
bonald C. Butts
HunranCon+e�vanewi
Tary �, Ceeuq D,V.M., Ph.A
Cd VeKflnary plapneMe L4beraory
Hinthl & Clarl+
� ���
bevld a Jeatup, ay.M,
Cah�pmk Dept, aJ Fqh ond Geme
Metk C� Jargensen
qervBerago A�w.t StoU Park
Glenn R, Stewdrt. Ph•D.
Cal E�o+y fJn�+�Nr, ��ne�o
Rpul Veidas, Ph,D.
Nsw Mweo Stap LhUucqfry
Mlchsel Valende
l�sa� b 4tMd SA.bp S�ud�a
M Me+�eo
A Nonprojlt
Tax•Exemp: CJrgantwdon
-
�Y���� ��������
Dedlcated ta the tvnseruptivn of the world's tuild she�p through research and education
June 21, I991
Mr , Phi1 ,7oy
Associat.e F�.anner
Ci�y pf Falm Desert
73�5�q Fr�d Waring Drive
�a1m Desert, CA 922G0
17ear Mr. �ay:
I�m a member of the �igharn ,A�visory Commxt�e� tk,at me� on
December 9, ].9$9 to help decide upon an undis�urbed
environmental �uf.:Eez that wpu].d pr��ec� �he B�ghorn
Institu�e's op.erations and t.he Pe.n�,nsulax Bighorn Sheep
From the potent�ai ncga�ive impacts of the pro�ased
Aitamira Coyntry C1ub proje�t.
I have tak.en tk�e txme to review �h� May 1991 Draff
Environmental Impact� Report� (D�TR) for the Altamira
d.�ve].opment. The biqhorn sheep issues addressed itt th�
�iological l��port produced by Pac.�f�c Sau�hw�r�, �iaiogiadl
Services axe very d���il�d and zniarmative. The r�s�ro»s�s
to the qu�rtionna�re were a],so h�lp£u.l in eva�..uatinq �he
opin�art� of my peers.
I believe �he bialogi.cal consul�artts' recommended butfer of
600. yazds to 1,125 yards we�t to east (DEIR Techrtical
Appendices Volu�ne 1- App�nd�x J, Figure 4) shAuld be
appr�ved by the Palm Aes�r� City CaunGil.
SinceXely,
!
� • � ��
�laine M, Barr�tt:
Associa�e Directox
glO�.00�].8t
P.O, BOX 262 / PALM DE5ERT, CAL1FpRNIA 9226�-0262 / TELEPHON� {6i9) 346•7334
FAX (6t4) 340�3987
. . .- ..� ^� - -- .. .` ` . . _ ' ' l�
�7une 21, 199�
Mr. Phil Joy
Assacx�te P�.anne�
City of Pa�.m nesert
73-510 Fr�d Waring Drxve
Palm Des�rt, CA 4�Z6Q
De3r Mr. Joy,
�L: � '
z a�m a m�mber of the �zghorn Advisozy Cammittee that met on
pec�mber 9, 1989 ta help decide upon an undisturbed
environmental buffe= th�t wauld pratect the �,ighorn
�nstitute's C�p�ratian and the Peninsular� Biqhara She�p
fzam the pot�ntial negative irnpacts o� the praposer�
A:lt.amira Country CZub pz�a j ect .
I have taken the ta.m� ta review the May Z991 Dra£t
Er�vironmontal Impact R�port ( DEI12 )�or the .�Cl.tama.z�a
d.�velopment. The bi.gt�arn sheep issues addr•�s$ed �.n. the
B�:ia�.ogica�. Repart produced by Paci.f�c Sout�hwes� 9ioloc�xca�.
5�rvices are very detaileri �nd informative. The r�sgansea
ta the questionnai.•re were a�.so helpfu� 3n evalnat��ng the
opinibns of my pE�rs.
r believe the biQlog3.cal consu�.tapts' z�commend�d buffsz o�
6d0 ya�ds to 1, iZ5 yrards w�st to eaet (DEIR �eCil•n].C$�
Append3ces Volum� 1- App�ndix ,7, Figure 4) s�ould be
approved by the Palm D�sert City C4uncil.
S�.nc�rely,
/ �1
Miehael De�, Curatar Qf Mammals
cc: Bighorn Ynst�tut�
5333 Z.flc► br�ve • Las Mgeles, CaliFcimia 9()027 •(213) 666•�r650 �AX (2t3) GC2•97H6 ..,d�..
��
HpjVIiRRRY CHAIRMAN
OF FUIYDRAISING
Gere�d R. Fad
3Ath P'audani
� u�� w��d s�Q�.�
aon�co oF arR��roRs
�m n. ae��
Pn.+dent
Emen }iah�'
Ex,.cudw vke Prc,+aeat
Chede� W. Jannsr, OV.M,'
V1N A+eiiQsnt
o��a s�e�k�a� �
V4� Pra+IdM!
��a� e. cyros, o.uM. •
��a�
RI�heTd C. McClung'
Tme•we,
Gndy Auscln
Woltgarl9 F, Baer¢'
WtG�aM eane
JetM Brihinghem
tawronee A� Cone,;M.D.
Mkhael Dee
JOh� E. Eatharl
Ro6 Hpward
,1, Roben McGowan
Bruce MciVall
Finn Mdticr
5ten l• TIMm1ns
�Ene�rtlur Ceunerl
AOMiN15TRAT10N
Jomes R. DcFargt
E+sck�fuf (�neCta
Re�Ferch 81ologltt
�laine M. BerraA
auat�. A�rec+o�
BloleqN�
nnvisaRs
Rabert S'rosley
CdUom�6 S}W� Senwp�
Nbmber. Srnme Corr�mlN�a on
Plo�ur6t Rnartu ontl WIIdA)e
UOPlId C. $VtIS
+Hunen•CbruO+VtilloNil
Tony E. Celtrat P.V:M., Rb•P�
Cel ueMilnap Pkg�w(1� La59�aaory
HtrxM & Clerk
c.�r c��w1
o�wa n. �a nv.M.
CollfernM L�.p1. OJ Fufi pnd Geme
Msrk G. Jvrganeen
Anm•eornyo p�urs Slatr Pa�k
Glenn R. Stewan, Ph.D.
cd Psry/ Unlu.rdty. Fvmone _
� Reu! valdes, ith.D,
Nt�v M1+�t6o $t� thnwn+N
h'�IG�1A� V6�8RSil
cta� re wud sr�ea s�udw
fn Me+e�m
A NonproJit
7hx-Exsmpt qrganisation
����or�n In�t�fiut�
fJedicated to the cons�ruatian of khe warld's wiJd sheep through resear�h and educptian
JUne 21r 199I
Mr . Phi1 �7oy
A�saciat� Planner
City a� Palm Desert
'i3-�7.0 Fred Warznc� �Driv�
Palm Desert, CA g2260
De�x Mr. �ay:
i am a member 4� the S�..ghorn Advisory Cammit�ee thak me� on
Aecember 9. 1989 ��o help decide upon �n undiaturbed
environmental buffer that would pratec� tk�e �f,gho�rn
Ins�.itute's op�rata.ans and �he Peninsul,ar Sigh�t� sreeg
fXom the potential negative iiripaCtB af the p�oposed
A].t�mira Country C].t�b pzojeG�.
I hav� taken the time to c�view Ghe May 1991 Dra�t
Envxranmen�al. Tmpact Report tt�EiR) for the Al�amira
d�velopment. The b�.ghorn sheep issues addr�es.sEd in h.iae
Biologic�]. Repdr� produCed by Paq�i�xc SOuth•we.st Bivlogical
Se=vices are very det�il�c7 and informa�a.ve. '�'h� responses
to ths questionnai.re were alsa he].pfu�. in evaluating tY�e
opinians o�' my peerg.
i believe �he biologicai co»su].��r�ts' Xecamm�nded bu��er af
60d y.�rds ta 1,1�5 y'ards wes� to east tDETR Teahnical
Ap�en.dice5 Volum� 1 � Append�.x J, Fiqure a} shauld be
appzoved by the Palm S3eser�. �ity Council.
8incerely,
�
J� �s R. DeForqe
Re arch �iologist
Ex utive D�rector
P.O- BOX 262 / pALM DESERT, CALiFORN1A 92261-0262 / T�LEPHaNE (619) 34fi•7334
� Fax i519) 34o-34a7
_ _ . ' ' . , . . _ :i� _ .,. . �. , . . __
ROSSMOOft-El DQIi,AbO AN{MALNOSPITAL,11lC.
3une 2]. , 1991
Mr. Phil 3oy
Associate Flanner
City of Pa1m Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Driva
Pa1m Deser�, CA 92260
Dear Mr. Joy:
i am a membex of th� 8ighorn Advi.sozy Cornmi.ttee tha� met on
Dec�mber 9, 1989 to help decide upon an undisturbed
environmental buft�x tha� wo�uld prot.ect �he �ighorrt
Institute's operations and the P�ninsular Big.ho�n Sh:e�p
'fxam th� potential negativ�� impact� af th� pxopased
f�1Lam�.ra Coun�ry Club proje�t.
I have �ak�n the time t4 review the May 1.991 Dx���
Environ�ental Impact R�port �DEI�) �or the A�Cam�r�
:development. The bi�horn sheep f.ssues addres.se.d in the
$iolagica�. Repar� produced by Pacific Sauthwest B�ological
S�rvic�s ar� vexy d�tail��1 an,d zntarmat�ve. The responses
to the q.uestionnai.re were al so he7.pfu1 i.n eval.uating the
opin�ar�s o� my �peers .
I believe the biolog�.cal cansultants' xeeommended buffer ot
6Q4 ygrds �0 1�125 yards west to east (D�IR Techni.cal
AppendiG�s Voltzme 7. - Appet�dix J, Figur� 4� shot�7.d l�e
approv�d by the Pa1m Des�r� City Council.
S�.n�erely,
�� � C�. �,,�r
Charles W. ,7e er, D.V.M.
cc: B�ghorn Institute
1p832 �05 Alamltos •Blvd, � los AlamitAs, C8lifornla 9072p • 213/598-8621
,.
.. .... . . .
• - ') i . : ., . . `
, n. . _ , . . _ . .
June 21 � 199].
Mr. Phi�. Jay
A�soci�te Flanner
City af Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Pa1m Deser�, CA 92Z60
Ae�r Mr. Joy�
� am a m�mber aE Che 8igharn Advisary Committee that me� on
tiec�mber 9, 1989 �o help deci,de upon an undigturbed
environment,al bu�fer th,at wouxd pKoteot the �Bigharn
�In�ti�ute's. apera�ians and �h� Penfnsular Sigha�n 6h�eg
fram the poten�,�a7. .neg��tive �mpao�s of ti�e proposed
A�,�amira Caun�ry Club pxaject.
z have �ak�n the time to r�v�iew the May 19'91 Dr�Et
�n.vi�ronmential Impac� Repor�. lDEzR) for the AlC�mira
�developmen�. The bighorn she�p issues addre$sed in the
:�Bialogiaa� Report produced by PaaiEic Sou�hvr�es� �3�lagic�l
:'Ser,'vices ar� very detafl�d ar�d in£ozmati.ve. �he re$pon�aes
ta tine quest�,annaire wer� also helpfuk in e�al.uat3,ng the
�pin�qns oi my pe�rs.
z believ� the bialogical co�sul,tan�s' xeGammerideci buf�ec o�
600 y.aras to ]. ►125 yard� w�st ko e�ast tAEIR Tea.Y�r�ica�
Appendices Volume 1.- A�pendix J, Figure 4� shoul� be
�ppx�ved bX the Pa].m Desert Ci�y Cou�,ci�.
&inc�re�y,
, �
��
/(� ��u�
�rti��
� '
Ma k Jorg n
oc: 8ighorn Xasti�ute
June 21► 19�1
Mz. Ph�l Joy
Associa�e P�anner
City o� �alm peser�
73-51Q Fred Waring D�ive
P��m DeS�r�� Cp 92260
D�ar Mr. �oy;
I am a member �� the B�ghorn Adviso.ry Comm�ttee that�me� an
Aeaemb�r 9, 1989 to help �ecide upon an undf��uzbed
environme�tal buffer ths� wou�d pr�otec� the Biq�orn
Inst�tute's aperat�ons and th� Feni�sular B�ghqrn She��
fxom �he po��ntial n�qative impac�� of th� gXoposed
Alkamixa Countxy Glub projsct.
,i have �aken �he �ime ta review the May 1991 Dra��
Environmen�al Ym�aet Repart �DESR� fox the Altam�ra
:developmen�. The bigh��n sheep issues addreese� in the
�iaZogi�al �eport produced by Fa�i�ic S�uthwes� �iologic�l
�Se'rvices axe very detail�d and in�ormative. xhe ��s�onses
to th� qu�stionna�re were also help�ul in evaludting the
ogin.iong of my pee�s. .
Y believe the biologicaZ cansultants' rQcommended buffer a�
600 yards ta 1,12�5 yards west to eas� (�$iR.TeahniCal
Append�ces Va�ume �- Appendix J, �iguxe A} ahaul� be
�pproved by the P�lm D�sert City Counc�l.
�incerely,
;1
1 .�Y /
�
.. . ,l
Raul. Valde�z, ph.D. �-�.�
cc: �ighorn �nst��ute
,� _ _ ; i: v i5,�..- - , -.,
June 2�, ► 1991
Mr. Phil JpX
Assaciate Planner
Cf�y o� kalm De��rt
73-510 Fred Waring nxiv�
Palm Desert, CA 92260
D�ar Mr. Joy:
, . � l' L ' , (- "'
I am a m�mber at the �iqhorn Advisory Commi�tee tha� m�� on
�ec�mber 9, 1999 to he�p decide upon an undisturbed
environmental baf�er that would prot��ct the Bi.g.hdrn
Inst.itute's Qpecat,ions and �Che Penxns'u�ar Bighorn She�p
f rom th� p.o�enti.al n�gative Smpac�s �a� tha pro�so$ed
Altam�ra Country Club prvjec�t�,
I have taken the �ime t4 review �he May 1991 D�af�
�nvi���onr�entaz Tmpact Report tAEIR) �t�r k�he A�.t�mir�
deve.lopmen�� The bighorn shee� i�sues addressed i.n the
B,iol�ag.3c�1 Repar� praduced by PaciPi.c �outhwe�t $iological
Serv.�ces are vexx d��ailed an.� in�arma�'ive. 'The respan�e$
to �he questionnaire wer� also help�ul in eva�..uat#,ng the
ppinions of my peer�.
x bela.eve t�ie bio].ogi�al consul�an�s' recommenc�ed buf��r o�
6p0 Xarde �0 1,125 yazds we�t� to eaat (D�ZFt Technical
�,ppendice�� Valume 1 � Ap�endix J, �i�gur� 4) shoul� be
apprc�v�d by ths Palm Des�rt City Counc�l..
�inaezely�.
�:� � ,�' �
, f / � �•tr.ra�
.-. �
ichard Weaver
cc: B�.ghosn Ins�itu�e
�
June 2J. r J.991
- I � ; - _ - ,. `�' . . ` ' '
- \ � '
Mr � Ph�.]. Joy
Associate Planner
City ot Palm Desert
73--51.0 Fred WaFi;ng Drive
�a�m Das�rt, GA 92260
Dear Mx. Jay:
I am a memb.�r ai �he Bighorn Adva,so�y Commit�e� t�hat me� on
pecembe:r 9, 1989 �.a help decide upon an undis�uxbed
envi,ranmentaJ. �uff�r t%�t wo.uld proCeat �he� Bfqhoxh
Ins.titU�e's operations �nd the Peninsul�r F�ighorn �h.e�p
�rom th�e poten�i.al hegative impa�ts a� the pxopose�
Al�amira Cauntry Club p�ojeet.
X hav� taken trie �ime �o review the May 1991 Draf�
�nvi�vnmen�al Impact Repert (DEIR) £ar Che Al�kami.ra
deve3.opment, mhe bighorn sh��p issues �ddr�ssed �.n th�
B�ological Repor� produced by Pacifi.c Southwest �iologiaal
5ervice� are veYy de��iled and i��ormative� The �e��onses
to th� qu�stionna�ire rrere �1so he.lp�ul in ev�luat3.ng th�
Qpini,ons o.f my pe�rs.
I be�.ieve �he. biolaqical aorisultants' recomm�r�d�d buf�er vP
600 y��ds �o i,�.25 yards w�s� ta ea�t tDExR ��ehn�.cal
Appertdic�s Volume 1- Appendfx J, Figure 4� shauld b�
ap�roved by t�ie Falm Desert Ci,tX C.ouncil.
S3nc�rely,
�
.✓''� f' "'� '� � �%
George W�lsh
ca: Biqhorn Ins�itute
`;`��.. � ' ' _ . � . � .� _ . . _ vV'I _ � , . . , .. . �' , � _
1
�1,� � �� ��ri�% � ♦
U. F�h � Wildti� Se�vic:e -� � "°".�
� ��a� wjrd�� a�� ,, � .
we�t
Carlst�ad, Cai"dorni� 9�t�08 w � �� � �
�PhaKte: �;� �r■,
��
O1-027
:, -
Feb�y 1, 20Q�
COnta�t: P�e Sqa�aso�, �ea COrey, Sc�Ct Ma�rt$j► ot 3ame �ea�ron, Carisb�ad, �a - 760/431-�4+10
��-�' �.�� `►� i� M. r r.7 c��.
M��_�� . :f �1 ��1��� , � �� 11' �i
_ . _. �. .� �. �. ~ � I � �( '
R�on�ut6 to a cotut aa+� E!� V.S. �ish apd aUt�d�fe Se�+ic,d tdday �ed 844,89T � af
land iu poriiQns af Saa D� Ioo�i�t, a�d Rivec�e c.oumies, Ca�rar� �s csitical hebitat 5Qr the
a�dam8r�cd ��o�suigr bi�haaA sbeeP•
�io�e than i�lf a�f t�e �x d�d as cr�icel babi�c is uu� s�e jeu�ic�, add �
patiot�s oft�e As�-BaRre�o D�t St� �C. Much of t1�a �'eat afth� la,ad is n�ed by Federal a�,,
i�eg tbe Bw� of Lamd � aad the U 5. Forr�t San►�c�, o�' is maas� by lvc�t �es.
,ripj,, �� �, M� ��,� � �y I3D,Q40 �res a�priv�,e laad is �tded int� 8�1 critiral habi�at d�on.
"'Tb� 8a�t�+ice de�igoa�ed o�y t1� Isnds t�t � e�rrpa�l ta tbe �ecie.�' ao� b�aed o� c�
� �mu��% arAloaR�T+ �I'�� BV�A�" $� � ,�. r5�7�1'� � �RYI(��$ 4�i��:Hsi�3 �
Mew�er. "Ota �l x8 #b get the Pe�r bighatn s� a�� r�,d �D �an sad �to t1�e r�a,d to
�•�
.
Crnicat e�s�aspa�°,�'a�ca�es�aree�pnial�t�ac.,�,,.�, ��,,, ,,, afa
ti�re�med a� �$pe�c� ��r ra��+e sp�qm� ,� c�n�c�re�u. 'k7� �s do nat
m�y ha�e to be occ�p�ed tip tt�e � at tbs ti� o,f' dcsign�rtiam. A Gritia�l � de�,an aoAes
not set v�1 a Pt�sttv� or �fug� �a,d onfY ap� i,p �itvatiom � Fa1aa1 fixnsc%og or a Fe�E pamit is
iavoived. If has n�o tre�ulat�pry imnpad an private �ecs ta�laag �o�s � t�r ]�d th�t �O aoR invodve
�'cdczat fimdi�o� orpetmits. �
� the �t d�oo. t�e � Savic�e ��s r�md�ed appc�ady 30,')'L1D aQe� afiead 'aa�d m tLe
pra►paged cxiacal � d�oa pqblis�d ea�r�r this y�ear. Some ]�iods a=igi�y pi+opos� we�t exc�ded
f� d� �1 � b� t�e Sbvi�ze was ab�e ta maQ� p�y �p � tt6at c�n.]�biO�t
. anioN� w�w n �r♦er • —
X �� FAx TRANSYtTTAL ��ae�pr�
� �..R ��`�... �. �t�ti �
��; .� ��� p...•.uoot�r�c ���tKa
�a°`��o � J%!�� � �.
�a�o�ot�rr.�a aon_m �a�ew. �,�a.�.a�a�+
---- � - �
- - - -
_ , __.��_._.. . --
� . •. �
_ , - .. _ '��'� r. -
csse�dsl iar the cons�avation of.the bighvrn sheep. Tbe more precise mappir�g made it pass�bls to e1i�n�te
mauty sigai��arrt utben ot develop�d �rcas that ao longet, co�ataia tha p�hysical and biulo�c�1 �e�iur�s
necessacy t� sugpc�rt the sptcies. Somie of tt�e lepds wo wers �e�b1e bo s�ttov� from thp criti�l �bitat .
boundari�s inc,�tde wtban inteafac:c axe8s itt the COschella Valley frOm F�ltn Spiings, easr to Ls izuintta..
Whi1a the 5avitx i� d�g aear�}► 645,000 �+es o£ ctiticat habitat, na an the are�s within t}+a�se
broad bo�adsries have habitat eledae�ds impartar�t to tt►e �enit�tar bighora �. Th� Se�rvioe will raquue
consultaacros a�jr in chose s�s tbat c�ntain the ptry�ic.�l end bialQgical i�atures �saes�ary £ar the species'
gurvival, Earast�g �aw�as, aqv�.ts; raairoads e�nd other devetapa�t areas would not be aonside�ed c�tica!
6�ita� ead Federai agancics w+o�vld �ot ne� ta con�uh v�►ith the Sctvicc on eucti,ons that aff�t oniy thase
$reas_
A�i'�i CCOAO�t1C �jIS1S �?r�l� $B � O�dC9t�l11g CI�� �fSh'li8t �b! t$C 5pCClE$ {ll�C� tjZ$L,
w�,e s�sme dev�lapment camps�aies ms3r be af�CE�d by the noed to m�lce.mods5c�pons to pro�ts, the
f�t;Sig'dffi10n ari� �Ot �18VC S&tg�CArit �0111iG itl�ACt oii ti1B t�gt�.
�O GD��I'i�B t�11S lIBhV�.`. �i�'I1 S� �0�, S C$pdV�� �li0$�'$iII bS$ �A �S�iS� $t
t�G �rlg�]OII'� �itlit�.m PA13l1 �, T� ��Ot7fi$ D8�8I'Ln1ERIt 0��1S�i BI1d �8II1e� �8 I�aiilIICltt Of
Park� a�md R�ia�, and. t1�e Buresu ofLend Man�gemern hawe dev�dapeci maaa�neat plu� far tbe sheep
in t#ia Aa�a Borrega I�essert Stst� Per� as weli as the Saata kos$ Maut�taieg aad Mc� Vallcy. Tb�ese
ageIIeies also i�ve ac�xired ar �x �, � �� �.. �, ,,dy 30,400 �s af i�abitat ia tbe �anta R�sa ]vlaun'tsins ema have
establ�s]ted tl�x e�ologicat re,�ecves t�t pro�tect va,h�blc wataing sites fot tbr {�ara r�eep. lu additioa, t�e
S�vice �rd�sad a rec�v�ry pl�a in Noveanber �400 tv p�omotc the ra:c�very o�the � in scruthern
Ca�a.
Appro�amatdy 18,184 acres erf a�ic�l babitat hea�►a bcer► d�ated on TnbN tn�st lanc�s of t�
Maroaga Band ofM'is�ion T�s� Atlua C��tc k�and of Cai�wlla Indis�s, �d Tarres-Mardnez 1]�
C�,ilt� Indi�t�s. `°We bav� bee� arork� with thc �+Ccted Trbts tn addrtss thdt wnc�as and deve�op
compatible m�na�mem� sera�eg�es; ' said Califa�rnua-Neva�ia lN'a�tger Spe�t. "Y'he �ibss sAd thc Service are
develcrpiag hahit�t � plans a�d pmtsx�o]s 'to Prpt�ct P�nins�lar bighottt s� amd mor� C1�arly
d�t'ine ho�* 7Yi�a� ]ands r� contnbute t�� the co�sewatian a� recovery af the �pecies.
'Ihe Pe�in�u]ar b�hvm sbeep'w+ls listed es a�n Gnda:�ger�d species, �d� ���P.� �,
m� 9q8. l�a t�p iai�abit tb� Pc�' Maam�im Rangcs fram ths $aa J�ci�to Mo�unt�ns south to the
'�olc�u Tras �u�� M�rtayns i� Baqa C,alifo�a, l��,aca aa� oca�r mnstt�r o�n opan �opes in the hat, d�Y
d�ti regioue wh� t�uc kud is rou�h, rocky and �parsdY vsgetmted. �hu►ng dri�r rno�ths, t]ze 51�xp tead to
g�ther near wate� svtue�s.
Th�ce are ctmcre�tly abaut 40Q oiti�ta►e ma�estic tt�au�ls in. southern Calif�m�. The pop�on hes
su�GTed a Sigoi�r�tt daci'int 6e�se 4f i,�bitat tas� a�d fraga�nt�zon, hulma�t+el�ted distc�tb�ncees� Peedation
by mowntain Tions, atAd diseasc. The sperr�es is �or�&ida�ed g"distinct gopuiativn s�" ut�der t1� A�t
b�c it is gea�apbiC�lly isolated f�i an OtbCr papulatio�s ofdesert big�orA sheep, aaud i�ecause it meets
qu�fit�tiom for ea�dam�ered status umdez the A�t. �
2 e��
Th� Suvicc is wo�mg wit6 othe� pade� State and local
dev+dit►p the Coathella'V�l M agtn�[es as a�11[ as pnv�tc ir�dividuals ta
���'� s�� �t G�� Fgea- T�s pt�a avr� p�y�de for the
�an noeds �f a v�iery of netive specie,�, inc,iad►r� thQ Per�ia�ular b�n, �p.
'TadaY's �a�c�m� ie t�e result o�a lau►alit 51ed ag�iast the �vi� i� 1999 by the Ce�er far
Biola�i 1�iv�Y aad Iaes�tt 5urvivar�, UAder a s�tleme�t o�'llr�
critic� ba6it� far the P'auasular %gHprn �P �Y �e�nbor 31 � 2bbp, ��'� �`� �"� t° d�te
afrbe ori,giml d�a� �� the Se�vice u� Jaavary 15, 2001 r�► coa�pkte its �����'on.�me,asiaa�
T�e compktc tcxt of t�e �mal tuk to dcsi�nate aitica,t ��- tbe �'� �'
PaP�tioa ss��t will be publish�il in th,e Federall� rster oa �' ��`d� ��P �tina
�d oa.M�r1� 5, �apl. g �Y 1. 240I. The rulc w71 become
tbe CF.S. l�b �d Wpoli� S� ie � p�opel Fiedr�ai �C.7 r�p�bk fo�
ft�evild�ifaaud ���� �tbeca�imatn�g6mr1'ua�'d�eAma%appeppte,3�.�� �
NeriooatlN�de �mp�,eths�S30aa{�elw�e
�1 ma� Bt+Eas. �t �11v op� 6d pstiom�al �ig� ' �• � ai'�12 � aud atl�es
� The a� p� Fad�ai � �' �' �' �ae a�oes �d 73 eaoip�;c�l � �d
�est� �acio�aty �;� �,� � ��dm�i�s tI� L�oeamgpad Speaes pct. � �
�
�' � e�b�rt8. lt �so ova� E�1aFed�asl �,ydpro�,+r�� � as�adsud�' � � �'�w'�
���B�t�sane�hs�ti,7���, ���`f��nsofdolle�duexpsc�esa�
--F1�S�
:�:
� r'��iirld
.�.. ...�.... . . ,....
!%tii�.�!�i
�&'��;iiie�¢`oa ".`��' ::.. � �:;::.... .. ......... .. : . .�,
.. _ . s. ,..
���!'!�*r�'k�,��i�;�i.�'�a�;s�.�����`�• `'�.
��. ;;. ,;. .� ;�: .�e��:;:
.. ,..- . ... ... ... .. . . ... ..=:� ,.. .... ... �'`�.;I
3 of 3
�ATEq
��STRIG�
ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY
'�J �� t.�w�G � {% � �
.'� �'i
COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DIS'����pOPqqDE� RTARTMEN!
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE (760) 398-2651 • FAX (760) 398-3711
DIRECTORS: OFFICERS:
PETER NELSON, PRESIDENT STEVEN B. flOBBINS,
PATRICIA A. LARSON, VICE PRESIDENT GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
TELLIS CODEKAS MARK BEUHLER,
JOHN W. McFADDEN ASST. GENERAL MANAGER
RUSSELL KITAHARA JULIA FERNANDEZ, SECRETARY
January 24� ZOO6 DAN PARKS, ASST. TO GENERAL MANAGER
REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS
File: 1150.06
Phillip Drell
Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Mr. Drell:
Subject: Cornishe of Bi�horn Proiect, Palm Desert
Thank you for affording the District the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental
Impact Report for the Comishe of Bighom Project in Palm Desert.
After reviewing the document, the District would like to submit the following comments:
1. Pa�e 173, second nara�raph. The second to the last sentence of the paragraph should
be cited with the following reference: "100 % Design Hydraulics Report, The Canyons
at Bighorn, Tract Nos. 25296 and 28575, Dead Indian Creek Channel Improvements,
Palm Desert, Califomia, prepared by ASL Consulting Engineers, November 1997."
G.
3.
Pa�e 288, Fceferences. The reference in Item No. 1 above should also be added in t�Ye
References section on Page 288.
Pa�e 176, second nara�raoh. Please add "Coachella Valley Water District" to the
agencies listed in the third sentence.
If you have any questions, please call Luke Stowe, Environmental Specialst, extension 2545.
o s very ,
�
�
Mark L. Jol�nson
Director of Engineering
LS:dd\brd\eac\06�comishofbighom TRUE CONSERVATION
USE WATER WISELY
r.
i� .
FAX MESSAGE
�` �� � L 6�6
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT b�NARTM�N'�
CITY OF PALM b�5��"C
ro:
Fax No:
Tel No:
Date:
Mr. Philip Drell
Dir.Comm.Development
City of Pafm Desert
341-7098
30 January, 2006
FROM:
Fax No: 1-760-360-2257
Tel No: 1-760-345-2254
No. of pages :
Doreen Yaeger
Richard Yaeger
Mr. Drell -
We are fuil time residents of Palm Desert, and support all efforts
to preserve the continued existence of Bighorn sheep in the
area. We would hope that the Palm Desert City Council also
support these efforts.
We were #herefore surprised to learn about the Cornishe project.
The Bighorn Institute facilities are well known, and anyone
purchasing property in that area must have been aware of the
restrictions imposed to enable the institute to continue its fine
work. Of course, this may not have deterred aggressive
developers.
This project abuts the lambing pen of the Bighorn lnstitute - a
highly sensitive area - and in your Report you admit to
"Significant Environental Effects" during construction and
beyond. You mentioned proposed mitigation measures - but you
did not disclose what they might be.
Mitigation measures or not, we are completely opposed to the
buiiding of such a project in this highly sensitive area. ! wouid
hope that time will be given for re�idents in the Valley to become
aware of what is happening and potential danger to the Bighorn.
Respectfully,
_'��-�.G�/ .�("�.t.. c� ..�•
� �
�
�'`��. ., .-_ �- - °,�-�—S�Y�
Note:
Hard copy via US mail
Doreen & Ric:hard Ys�er
852 t�Aissian Creek Dr�ve
Palm Desert, Catifiomia 92211
. ��.
��� ct>��l �l�i��l >t:�c.�t�
) 4 _ �, ii! F. � .4`�,� .� �
� . _
�t,�-!..: C t_.'flE' >�p,'f .:(i�'f����r
�r,�t3� jtr.� ,'s���?r'�f �'E �_ �.'. �'n'i�(iq
rt, _ ' ,�f1
1 iirajtt' ,`3a"', ;E� J s
� �. . �..i �. m.'i ; , �. � �; j �
..,'%t` 4 • T _ 3 �'t la
�+1.=, .t f_ .
�,��,.�fi��)J•,li `�i.9.e./�.:'f
January 27, 2006
Mr. Philip Drell
Ciry o,f'Palm Desert
73-SIO Fred Waring Dr.
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260-2578
Dear Mr. Drell: Re: Cornishe of Bighorn Project
� �� o z zoos
t;OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
We are in receipt of your letter of December 14, 2005 and we are appalled
that the City of Palm Desert would consider an application for a building
permirt at the referenced location.
The area is extremely environmentally sensitive — particudarly to the
Bighorn Sheep. The impact is far greater then the 11-8 acres "Island ".
We feel that NO permits should be aldowed.
Not knowing the compiete history of this land parcel it appears some
major mistakes were made in the past but hvo mistakes do not make a
right. Thank you.
Si Iy,
�
Patricia and
cc. Charles
e
THE WHITEHEADS
38-661 Lobelia Circle
Palm Desert, CA. 92211
760-799-641 S
City of Palm Deser% Commundty Development Department
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
Attention:
Subject:
Mr. Philip Drell,
Director of Community Development
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN PROJECT, #2004091012
Dear Mr. Drell:
�E�EIVE�
FE� � 7 2��6
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
We have owned a contlo in Palm Valley Country Club for over 17 years. We recently became
aware of the subject project and are very concernet� This property is adjacent to the Bighorn
Institute's property and its lambing pen.
It is our understanding that there should be a minimum environmental cushion or barrier of at
least 400 feet between developments and these endangered newborn lambs. A significant
porlion of the property involved in this project is within this minimum buffer zone that is so
necessary to protect these newborn lambs.
According to the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the "undeveloped open space" wou[d be
along the western, eastern and northern perimeters, leaving NO buffer on the south where it is
most needec�
If this project is approved and 38 units are constructed, there could be over 70 persons (2 per
unit) residing there during the peak season. The continual closeness of human beings and the
additional noise will cause stress on these newborn lambs and their mothers who already have a
high mortality rate.
Those persons working for the Bighorn Institute are dedicated to hy and save these lambs and
have been for over 20 years. The construction of this project would undermine what they are
trying to accomplish.
We sincerely request that the aforementioned issues be considered and that this project, as
submitted, be rejected
Thank you,
l � � �%
� _ / Cy��"-�" �'� ��
rank D. Whitehead Helen Whitehead
'
:�KJ��`'�
':��� �
Amold
Schwarzenegger
C�ovemor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Governor's Uffice of Planning and Research
State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit
�Q`��F ��'�
�o ��0
� �� �
�'r�q�Q� �r,!aa`"
Sean Walsh �
Director
January 31, 2006
Philip Drell •
City of Palm Desert, Community Development
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-257$
.� ,
:/
��`� � � ���s
' -OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM pESERT
Subject: Cornishe ofBighorn
SCH#: 2004091012
Dear Philip Drell:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Drafi EIR to selected state agencies for review. The
review period closed on January 30, 2006, and no state agencies subxnitted comments by that date. This
letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft
environmental documents, pursuant to the California Enviranmental Quality Act.
Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the
environmental review process. If you have a question about the above,named project, please xefer to the
ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.
Sincerely,
•�--•-^-
�� -^'�
Terry Robe�s
Director, State Clearinghouse
1400 TENTH STREET P.O. BOX 3Q44 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 96812-3044
TEL (916) 44b-0613 F.AX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
Document Details Report
State Clearinghouse Data Base
SCH# 2004091012
ProJect Title Cornishe of 8ighorn
Lead Agerrcy Palm Desert, City of
Type EIR Draft EIR
Descriptlon The project applicant praposes a 38-unit residential subdivision with associated improvements and
amenities on approximately 11.87 acres of vacant land. The subdivision of the land would comprise 11
lots, consisting of five lots for 38 residential townhouse units, two lots for private streets, one lot for
access easements, and three lots for open space, as represented in the 7entative Tract Map 31676
Application filings with the City of Palm Desert. The townhouse units would be developed as seven
clusters of residential development with centrally located recreation areas, including a park and pool.
Parking to serve the proposed residences would also be provided.
Lead Agency Contact
Name Philip Drelf
Agency City of Palm Desert, Community Development
Phone (760) 346-0611
ema11
Address 73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Ctty Palm Desert
Project Location
County Riverside
Clty Paim Desert
Reglon
Cross Streets West from indian Cove
Parcel No. 771-030-008
Township 6S Range 6E
Proximity to:
Highways
Alrports
Rallways
Waterways
Schoo/s
Land Use
74
PR-5 and Hillside Planned Residential
Fax
State CA
Secfion 5
Zip 92260-2578
Base SB
Project /ssues AestheticNisual; Air Quality; Archaeologic-Historic; Cumulative Effects; Drainage/Absorption; Flood
Plain/Fiooding; Landuse; Noise; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Wetland/Riparian;
W ildlife
Reviewing Resources Agency; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 7; Department of Parks and
Agencles Recreation; Native American Heritage Commission; Department of Health Services; Department of
Fish and Game, Region 6; Department of Water Resources; Department of Conservation; California
Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 8
Date Recelved 12/16/2005 Start of Revlew 12116/2005 End of Revlew 01 /30/2006
Note: Blanks in data fields result from insufficient information provided by lead agency.
1�ECEI�EI�
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
ASSOCIATION Of
GOVERNMENTS
Main Office
8i8 West Seventh Street
�A� 2 s 2oos
January 23, 2006
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DE$ERT
Mr. Philip Drell, Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert, Community Development Department
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
RE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. I 20050825 Cornishe of Bighorn Project
Dear Mr. Drell:
i2th Floor Thank you for submitting the Cor��ishe of Bighorn Project for review and
Los Angeles, California comment. As areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG
9ooi7-3435 reviews the consistency of local plans, projects and programs with regional
ptans. This activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional pfanning
t(zi3) z36-i800 organization pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance
f(zi3) z36-i8z5 provided by these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project
sponsors to take actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and
www.scag.ca.gov (iO�ICI@S.
Officers: President: Toni Young, Port Hueneme •
Fist Vice PresidenC rironne Burke, los An;eles
County • Second Vice President Gary Ovitt, San
Bernardino Countv • Immediate Pasf President:
Ron Roberts, Temecula
Imperial County: Victor Carrillo, Imperial County
• �on Edney, EI Centm
los Angeles County: Yvonne Burke, I.os Angeles
Counry • Zev Yaroslaysky, Los Angeles County •
�im Aldinger, Manhattan Beach • Harry Baldwin,
San Gabriel • Paul Bowlen, Cerritos • Todd
Campbell, Burbank • Tony Cardenas, LosAngeles
• Stan Carroll, La H abra Heights • Margaret Qark,
Rasemead • Gene Daniels, Paremount • Mike
Dispenza, Palmdale • ludy Dunlap, Inglewood •
Rae Gabelich, Long Beach • David Gafin, Downey
• Eric Garcetti, Los Angeles • Wendy Greuel, Los
Angeles • Frank Gumle, Cudahy • lanice Hahn,
Los Angeles • Isadore Hall. Compton • Keith W.
Hanks, Azusa • Iose Huizar, Los Angeles • Tom
La6onge, Los Angeles • Paula Lantz, Pomona •
Paul Nowatka, Torrance � Pam 0'Connor, Santa
hbnica • Alex Padilla, Los Angeles • Bemard
Parks, Los Angeles •�an Perry, Los Angeles • Ed
Reyes. Los Angeles • Bill Rosendahl, �os Angeies
• Greig Smith, Los Angeles • Tom Sykes, Walnut •
PaulTalbot, Alhambra • SidneyTyler, Pasadena •
Tonia Reyes Uranga, Long Beach • Antonio
Villaraigosa, Los Angeles • Dennis Washburn,
Calabasas • Iack Weiss, Los Angeles • Herh �.
Wesson. Ir., Los Angeles • Dennis Zine, Los
Angeles
Orange Couoty: Chris Norby, Orange County •
Christine Bames, La Palma • lohn Beauman,
Brea • Lou Bone, Tustin • Art Brown, Buena Park
• Richard Chavez, Anaheim • Debbie Cook,
Nuntington Beach • Cathryn DeYoung, Laguna
Niguel • Richard Dixon, Lake Foresi • Marilynn
Poe, Los Alamitos • Tod Ridgeway, Newport
Beach
Riverside County: Ie(f Srone, Riverside County •
Thomas Buckley, Lake Elsinore • Bonnie
Flickinger, Moreno Valley • Ron Loveridge,
Riverside • Greg Pettis, Cathedral Ciry • Ron
Roberts, Temecula
San Bernardino County: Gary Ovitt, San
Bernardino County • Lawrence Dale, Barstow •
Pau! Earon, Montclair • Lee Ann Garcia, Grand
Terrace • Tim lasper, Town of App1e Valley • Larry
McCallon. Highland • Dehorah Robertson, Rialto
•Nan Wapner, Ontario
Venturo County: �udy Mikels, Ventura Counry •
Glen Becerra, Simi Valley • Cad Morehouse, San
Buenaventura • ioni Young, Port Hueneme
Onnge Counry Transportation Authorlty: Lou
Correa, Counry of Orange
Riverside Counry haasportatfon Commission:
Rabin Lowe, Hemet
Ventura County Transportation Commisslon:
Keith Millhouse, Moorpark
� Pnnted on Recyded Paper 559-�=/�BIoS
We have reviewed the Cornishe of Bighorn Project, and have determined that
the proposed Project is not regionally significant per SCAG Intergovernmental
Review (IGR) Criteria ,�nd California Environmental Quality Act (�'�QA)
Guidelines (Section 15206). Therefore, the proposed Project does nat warrant
comments at this time. Should there be a change in the scope of the proposed
Praject, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time.
A description of the proposed Project was published in SCAG's December 16�31,
2005 2006 Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse Report for public review and
comment.
The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all
correspondence with SCAG concerning this Project. (;orrespondence should be
sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have any questions,
please contact me at (213) 236-1851. Thank you.
Sincerely,
� �����
BRIAN WALLACE
Associate Regional.Planner
Intergovernmental Review.
Dac. #t 17553/lj
�
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
DATE: February 21, 2006
CASE NOS: GPA 6-1, CZ 6-1, TT 31676
REQUEST: Approval of a tentative tract map and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
to allow the subdivision of 11.87 acres into 7 lots to allow construction of
4 single family homes adjacent to the "Canyons at Bighorn Golf Club",
west of Indian Cove and south of Dead Indian Creek; and a request by
the City of Palm Desert on same property for a general plan amendment
from Low Density Residential (Study Zone) to Hillside Reserve and zone
change from a combination of Planned Residential, 5 units per acre and
Hillside Planned Residential, to Hillside Planned Residential on the
entire property:
APPLICANT: Comishe of Bighorn, LLC City of Palm Desert
P. O. Box 789 73510 Fred Waring Dr.
Ceres, CA 95307 Palm Desert, CA 92260
I. BACKGROUND:
A. Site Description
The 11.87-acre triangular shaped property is located between "The Canyons at
N Bighorn" and "The Bighorn Institute" and is characterized by a sloping plateau,
c3, from north to south, of roughly 5 acres in the center of the property.
Approximately 2 acres of the site is comprised of the slopes of a rock outcropping
at the western property comer. The balance of the site is comprised of the
-- slopes and creek bottom of Dead Indian Creek along the northern property
boundary and a tributary along the eastern property line.
- The plateau is generally 25' above Dead Indian Creek, which varies in elevation
C...: from 827' at the western boundary to 725' at the eastern end. The rock
outcropping reaches an elevation 929', the highest point on the property. The
average slope of the property is generally between 20% and 25%. Generally any
property over 10% is zoned hillside planned residential if it is adjacent to the
foothills.
B. PROPERTY HISTORY
The site is almost completely surrounded by a 400 yard no development buffer
that was placed on the Canyons project for lambing pens at the Bighorn Institute
for captive, federally listed and endangered Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, but
STAFF REPORT
TT 31676
February 21, 2006
deliberately left off the subject property since it was not part of that project. A
chronology of The Canyons (formerly Altamira) is as follows:
1) Altamira project is submitted and eventually approved with an EIR that
incorporates a 400 to 600 yard buffer. Approximately the same time the
Bighorn Institute receives approval for a zone change and conditional use
permit from Riverside County of their captive sheep facilities finding that the
use is compatible with adjacent planned uses and city zoning of PR-5.
2) A lawsuit is filed by the County and Bighorn Institute challenging the Altamira
approval and a settlement agreement is reached with the Institute resulting in
an addendum to the Altamira eir removing the buffer and providing for
relocation of the pens.
3) The California Department of Fish and Game determines the Institute did not
have authority to enter into the agreement and the present configuration of
the pens is the only place the pens could be located resulting in a second
addendum for the project now referred to as The Canyons putting the 400
yard back on the project.
4) Subject application is made initially for 57 units and staff determines an EIR is
required.
The only portion of the property outside of this 400-yard line, if it would extend
across the property, is an approximate 10,000 sq. ft. area entirely within Dead
Indian Creek at the extreme northeast corner. The lambing pen is approximately
200 yards from the property's southerly property line at the center of the site.
C. ADJACENT ZONING / LAND USE:
North:
PR-5 / Buffer Area
South
N-A, county zoning / Sheep pens and undeveloped area
East:
Hillside Planned Residential / Buffer area and single family homes
West:
PR-5 / Buffer Area
D. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Study Zone Overlay / Low Density Residential ( Study zone was placed on the
property to analyze if it should be re -designated Hillside Reserve based on the
average slope).
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The 4-unit map under consideration is revised from the initial application for 57 two-story
town homes, which was later reduced to 38 after the applicant was informed by staff that
a portion of the site was zoned hillside, and the maximum density by the current zoning
was 38 units. While the number of units (38 to 4) and height of buildings (2 stories to 1),
have been reduced, the amount of area to be developed (roughly 5 acres) remains the
same.
K
STAFF REPORT
TT 31676
February 21, 2006
Access to the 4 lots is from an easement between lots 11 and 12 on Indian Cove Dr. in
The Canyons from a 400 foot long cul-de-sac along the northern part of the plateau with
the lots facing away from the Bighorn Institute, as was stipulated in the eir.
No house plans have been submitted as of yet with the applicants intent being to create
4 lots comparable to those that are adjacent within Bighorn, with house plans to be
developed separately.
III. EIR SUMMARY
An environmental impact report was required for this project due to the probability of
impacts to The Bighorn Institute. The Fish and Wildlife Service has stated that the
Institute's work is critical to the recovery of the sheep and impacts to the captive
sheep are an impact to the species. The city can only approve a project that does not
significantly impact the environment unless it adopts a statement of overriding
considerations. This was done for The Canyons, even though impacts in the EIR
were reduced to below the level of significance, in an extreme amount of caution.
The draft EIR studied the 38-unit project as submitted, an 8-unit alternative and a 2-
unit alternative. The 2-unit alternative was the only alternative that could be
developed, according to the report, with no significant impacts after implementation of
mitigation measures (primarily a restricted grading area of roughly two acres, including
one acre of the plateau and innovative home design).
The current 4-unit application is judged to have no more impacts than the 8-unit
alternative, both of which developed the entire 5-acre plateau but would result in
significant environmental impacts after mitigation due to the potential for induced
stress and habituation of the Iambs to human activity. These impacts are both visual
and aural in nature and would occur during site preparation, the construction of the
homes and with their ongoing use. A critical mitigation measure is the halt to
construction activity during lambing season, which extends from January through
June.
EIR CONCERNS
A mitigation measure for the 2-unit alternative is a 35' high screen installed during
construction. Staff feels this would not be feasible and would create more impacts
than it would mitigate during its construction due to the construction necessary to
withstand anticipated wind loads.
A clarification is on page 261 showing a the developable area for the 2-unit project
within Dead Indian Creek and staff will work with the consultants to work out this issue.
Reaulatory Takinas
With respect to inverse condemnation, the federal and state Constitutions provide that
private property not be taken for public use without the payment of just compensation.
Courts have held that a regulatory action which denies a property owner all
economically viable use of the property constitutes a compensable "regulatory
3
STAFF REPORT
TT 31676
February 21, 2006
taking". The exact standard has varied over time, and from court to court. Generally
speaking, the property owner is not guaranteed the most profitable use of the
property, as long as the property owner retains some economically viable use of the
property, no "regulatory taking". The applicant has submitted information in
conformance with our "regulatory takings" ordinance and the city attorney has
requested additional time to study this issue.
When the buffer was imposed on The Canyons it removed approximately 15% of the
land from the development. In this case the buffer would consume roughly 98% of the
property and 100% of the usable property.
The comments from the Institute and the various wildlife agencies primarily requested
the imposition of the 400 yard buffer on the project, which stated above, only leaves
the 10,000 sq. ft. area (which may also be potential tortoise habitat identified in the
Canyons EIR) that could be developed. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service
was the only agency that said a minor deviation could be made to the buffer.
IV. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONE CHANGE
The City of Palm Desert is the applicant for the general plan amendment from Low
Density Residential to Hillside Reserve and zone change from the combination HPR and
PR-5 to HPR on the entire property. The general plan amendment was not part of the
latest general plan revision on request of the property owner and a "study zone" was
placed on the property until it could be determined whether the property had hillside
characteristics that would make a "Hillside Reserve" designation appropriate.
The applicant has submitted a slope analysis that shows an average slope in the 20-
25% range that makes the Hillside Reserve land use and HPR zoning designations
appropriate.
The Hillside Reserve designation limits development to 1-unit per 5 acres allowing only
2-units on the property making it impossible to approve the 4-units unless the Low
Density Residential designation remained on the property.
V. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
The city hillside ordinance's major standards at this point of a project relate to density
and building pad areas. The ordinance dictates one unit per 5 acres while the maximum
allowable pad areas are 10,000 sq. ft. The recently adopted ordinance created an
exceptions section so that exceptions to the ordinance could be reviewed individually.
Notwithstanding impacts to the Bighorn Institute, the project is comparable with the
adjacent home sites at "The Canyons" and, together with the plateau condition, could be
eligible for the "Exception" section of the hillside ordinance relating to density and pad
area. The average slope of the property is skewed somewhat by the over 35% slopes
surrounding the plateau area which is in the 10-15% range, similar to The Canyons.
This minimizes grading by leaving the steeper portions of the property undeveloped.
4
STAFF REPORT
TT 31676
February 21, 2006
VI. CONCLUSION
CEQA dictates that cities not approve a project that, even after implementation of
mitigation measures, still has significant impacts on the environment. In this case the
only project that meets this description is the 2-unit alternative that generally
comprises the area of Lot 1 of the proposed map (roughly one acre of the plateau)
with the understanding that 1-unit in the same area would have equal or less impacts.
Staff however needs more time to work on this 2-unit alternative, to work with the city
attorney to resolve the regulatory takings aspect, and to allow the consultant more
time for a response to comments.
The findings in the EIR would be adopted by the commission/council unless it is
swayed by other expert opinions during the hearing process.
VII RECOMMENDATION:
Accept public testimony and continue matter to the meeting of March 2, 2006.
VIII. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Legal notice
B Draft Environmental Impact Report
C. EIR comments
C. Tentative Tract Map 31676
Prepared by: 4:"� z-/
Phil Joy '
Associate TransDortation Planner
Reviewed and Approved
Reviewed and Approved by:
Homer
r of Corrfnunity Development
Manager for Development Services
5