HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 08-103 TT 31676 Cornishe Bighorn - Allen Matkins *Co�tiinued the matter to the meeting of / /��_ ��
1?ecember 11, 2008, in order for staff �����'��" ���`��
`" to prepare a Resolution of Denial for �u,,F,��.,���ay,.j`����_�Q
the Project. 4-0 Ferguson ABSENT
CITY OF PALM DESER � �''�`'�''�T� �`�� ��'�"3���.
b
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Certification of an environmental impact report for the subdivision
of 11.87 acres into two home sites with 9.09 acres of dedicated
open space west of Indian Cove, a private street within the
"Canyons at Bighorn Golf Club", and south of Dead Indian Creek,
and approval of a tentative tract map for the project known as
Cornishe.
SUBMITTED BY: Phil Joy
Associate Transportation Planner
APPLICANT: Cornishe of Bighorn Allen, Matkins, Leck
P.O. Box 789 Gamble & Mallory LLP
Ceres, CA 95307-0789 515 S. Figueroa St. 7th FI.
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3398
CASE NO(s): TT 31676 o c ;� �-� �' a� ' �' '
n t� �v t� �u' t.� r.`�`(�r"�b
w � y � r�n � � �° ��z
DATE: November 20, 2008 N. ,� y z o. •• H � H o
w i za) � dd
CONTENTS: A. Draft and Addition to the Draft EIR � d " �� �'
B. Final EIR �'
� �Z � °� (�
C. TT 31676 and grading plan ,� •• � � � � S
D. Resolution No. os-io3 �; `
E. Legal Notice m
F. Cornishe of Bighorn Fiscal Analysis µ � �
G. Tentative Tract Map No. 31676; Cornishe Buffer Exhibit �
H. Planning Commission Res. No.2486; meeting minutes fo � ' � x z
I. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated 9-16-08 O � �
J. Information supplied by Applicant ,,� c
K. Comment Letters of Final EIR �
Y
K
x �
Recommendation:
�
i;
That the City Council, waive further reading and: �
� ( �
1) Adopt the Findings of Approval � !
2) Adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the subject project
3) Adopt Resolution No. 08-�o3approving TT 31676 and certifying the
EIR subject to mitigation measures described in "Exhibit A"
/
Staff Report
TT 31676
November 20, 2008
Page 2 of 12
Executive Summary:
Adoption of the attached resolution certifies the EIR and approves a two-home
subdivision map. As currently proposed, the project represents a balance
between the City's overall planning goals for the area, including implementation
of the City's General Plan, protection of the property owner's right to develop the
property, the public's interest in protecting an endangered species, and
responsible planning in a hillside location.
The most controversial aspect of this project is the disputed potential impact on
the captive breeding herd of sheep at the Bighorn Institute. The project site is
almost entirely within 400 yards of lambing pens for captive, federally listed and
endangered Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. The sheep are managed by the Bighorn
Institute. A 400-yard buffer between the Institute and the adjoining residential
development was created as part of a settlement agreement involving a separate
project, the development at Bighorn. The project site, however, was excluded
from the buffer area. If this same buffer were required on this project,
development on the project site would effectively be prohibited.
The project initially consisted of 38 townhomes and was analyzed in an EIR.
The project was scaled back repeatedly until, in consultation with the City, it was
reduced to its present configuration of two home sites that provide a minimum
240 yard buffer from the sheep pens.
The buffer requirements forced development into a small portion of the property,
some of which is zoned "hillside planned residential." Since the date of the
Planning Commission approval, the applicant has slightly reconfigured the lots,
reducing pad sizes, so the project now fully complies with the hillside zone
requirements also.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the project with a 3-2 vote
after hearing testimony in opposition to the project from the attorney representing
the Bighorn Institute, a representative from the Bureau of Land Management,
and the adjacent homeowner who incorporated the access road to Cornishe into
his landscaping plans. The Commission also received letters in opposition
(attached) the day of the hearing from the Institute, an attorney representing the
Sierra Club/Center for Biological Diversity, and the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, which requested further study. Over three hundred legal notices
were sent out and staff received two calls from residents wanting to make sure it
wasn't a ridge top development.
G:\PlennirpUanine Jutly�W ord Files\P�il Jo�AiT 316]6 10-9 cC Sr rcv110508 2.Oac
�
Staff Report
TT 31676
November 20, 2008
Page 3 of 12
The project has been exhaustively studied, including additional studies
performed at the request of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Staff
believes further delays would unnecessarily stall a project that has been
comprehensively studied for several years. The Fish and Wildlife Service is
simultaneously proposing to designate the 400-yard buffer area as critical habitat
for free ranging sheep. This designation is contrary to studies done by biologists
from the Bureau of Land Management and California Department of Fish and
Game when the Institute originally located its facility. At that time, the studies
determined the area was not critical habitat, since that was a primary concern
when locating the facility. (Study attached with the applicant's information.)
In siding with the majority, Commissioner S. Campbell stated that the sheep
were accustomed enough to noise from Highway 74 that the homes would not
affect them that much and the proposed homes were compatible to the
surrounding area.
The dissenting Commissioners stated that the location was not appropriate for
the type of developed lots that were adjacent, and preferred smaller lots or no
development at all.
Discussion:
I. BACKGROUND:
A. Property Description:
Cornishe is an irregularly shaped properry between "The Canyons at
Bighorn" and "The Bighorn Institute", and is zoned Planned Residential - 5
dwelling units per acre for roughly 90% of the properry, with the balance
zoned Hillside Planned Residential along the eastern portion of the
properry.
The subject property is characterized by a plateau that slopes from south to
north of roughly five acres in the center of the property. Approximately two
acres of the site is comprised of the slopes of a rock outcropping at the
western property corner. The balance of the site is comprised of the slopes
and creek bottom of Dead Indian Creek along the northern property
boundary and a ravine along the eastern property line, separating it from
new homes within Bighorn Golf Club.
The plateau is generally 25' above Dead Indian Creek, and varies in
elevation from 850' at the south property line, to 810' at the northeastern
end. The rock out-cropping reaches an elevation of 929'; the highest point
on the property.
G:\PlennlnqUeni�Jutl�AW ortl Files\Phil JqATT 316]6 10-9 cc sr rea110508 2.dac
—�
�
Staff Report
TT 31676
November 20, 2008
Page 4 of 12
Although the only access to the project is from Bighorn, Cornishe is not part
of "The Canyons" at this time. The present legal access to the site is
across Dead Indian Creek and a fairway at Bighorn. When "The
Canyons" was developed, a secondary access from Indian Cove was
provided so that a road across the golf course wouldn't be necessary.
The average slope of the property is between 20% and 25% and is identical
with most of the slopes that were developed at"The Canyons".
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
B. General Plan Designation:
Study Zone Overlay / Low Density Residential (The study zone was placed
on the properry to analyze if it should be re-designated Hillside Reserve
based on the average slope).
C. Property History:
The only portion of the property outside of the 400-yard buffer line, if it
extended across the property, is an approximately 10,000 square feet area
entirely within Dead Indian Creek at the extreme northeast corner. The
buffer deliberately excluded the subject property since it was not part of
"The Canyons at Bighorn". A chronology of "The Canyons" (formerly
Altamira) is as follows:
1) Altamira project is submitted in 1989 and eventually approved with an
EIR in 1991 that incorporated a 400 to 600 yard buffer. At
approximately the same time, the Bighorn Institute received approval for
a zone change and conditional use permit from Riverside County for
their captive sheep facilities finding that the use is compatible with
adjacent planned uses and city zoning of PR-5. When this adjacent
area (including the Cornishe site) was annexed in 1983 the City was
entertaining proposals for a 464-unit condominium project and a 500-
unit hotel with 600 dwelling units on 155 acres.
2) A lawsuit was filed by the County and Bighorn Institute challenging the
Altamira approval, and a settlement agreement was reached with the
G1PlanninqUanine JuE�Word FileS\Phil JanTT 31616 10-9 a sr rev110508 2.da
�/
Staff Report
TT 31676
November 20, 2008
Page 5 of 12
Institute resulting in an addendum to the Altamira EIR removing the
buffer and providing for relocation of the pens on August 21, 1992.
3) The California Department of Fish and Game determined that the
Institute did not have authority to enter into the agreement and the pre-
agreement configuration of the pens is the only place the pens could be
located. A second addendum to the EIR for the project, now referred to
as "The Canyons", was approved on June 3, 1997 that reinstated the
400 yard buffer and also excluded the Cornishe site.
4) The subject application is made in August 2003, initially for 38 units.
Staff determines an EIR is required, and a preferred alternative
consisting of two home sites is identified. Plans are prepared for this
alternative and an addition to the EIR is prepared based on this two
home site design.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. General:
Cornishe consists of two home sites that are concentrated in the northeast
corner of the property so that they are a minimum 240 yards from the
Bighorn Institute pens. This placement forced the majority of one site
within the portion of the property zoned Hillside Planned Residential. In
response to concerns over this portion of the project, the applicant revised
the plans after the Planning Commission meeting to decrease pad sizes
to comply with the hillside ordinance.
The home sites are elevated above Dead Indian Creek to the north and
the ravine to the east, providing down valley views similar to sites within
Bighorn that are adjacent to the streambed. Access is from a lettered lot
extending from Indian Cove (adjacent to a recently constructed home)
extending to the rear of the home sites with a cul-de-sac.
The home sites now consist of Lot 1, which is 1.26 acres with 23,254
square feet of pad area, and Lot 2, which is 1.61 acres with 25,054 square
feet of pad area. The access road (Lot A) is .26 acres, leaving most of the
property undeveloped with an open space (Lot B) 8.74 acres. Including
2.09 acres of Lots 1 and 2 to be re-naturalized, the open space area totals
10.41 acres of the 11.87 Cornishe property, or 88% of the land.
The density of two homes on almost 12 acres is well within the density
restrictions of the Hillside Planned Residential Zone, even though only a
small amount of the property is actually zoned Hillside. The lots were re-
configured so that only 10,000 square feet of pad area for Lot 2 is within
the "hillside planned residential zone" with the 12,048 square foot balance
G:\PlenninpUenirie Jutl�W ord FileS\Phil JoydT7 31676 f 0-9 a sr rev110508 2.Ea
��
Staff Report
TT 31676
November 20, 2008
Page 6 of 12
outside the zone. Previous to the Planning Commission meeting, there
was approximately 20,000 square feet within the hillside zone.
Similar to the adjacent homes at Bighorn, all grading must be done
outside of lambing season (January 1 to June 30). Cornishe is
conditioned further by mitigation measures in the EIR to require all
construction to be performed outside of this period.
B. Home Design:
It is the applicant's intention to fully develop the home sites for future sale,
so home designs are not available at this time but would be subject to the
design criteria contained within the EIR and those at Bighorn Golf Club;
even though it is not part of that project yet. The pads being provided
could support homes up to 10,000 square feet, similar to the adjacent
home sites at Bighorn.
One of the EIR criteria is that outdoor activity areas be located away from
the lambing pens, which is also the most common way to develop the
homes so that the view of the valley would be across the rear yard area.
This necessitates that the parking on the south side of the homes be
"tucked under", creating a split level type of home. The reason for this
requirement is to make the parking less obtrusive by, in essence, burying
it since the parking will be on the "sensitive side" of the home facing the
lambing pens. This requirement also minimizes soil import.
C. Grading:
The project involves a considerable amount of soil import needed both to
provide a ravine crossing, and also to create a buildable pad where the
ravine meets Dead Indian Creek, similar to what was done at Bighorn.
The terrain makes the lower level garages possible since the cul-de-sac is
within the ravine at an elevation of 795' and the pads are elevated at
heights of 820' for Lot 1 and 809' for Lot 2. The lower garages help to
minimize the amount of soi� imported, which is part of the other potentially
significant environmental impact identified in the EIR.
The earthwork quantities are conservatively estimated at 5,611 c.y. of cut
and 34,185 cubic yard of fill, resulting in an import of 28,574 cubic yards.
Lot 1 (820' pad height) involves cutting 6 feet into a high point of the
plateau on the west side and filling in an adjacent area on the southeast
side. Lot 2 (809' pad height) involves a small amount of cut into the
plateau, and mostly fill again to the southeast to create a view lot.
G'.\PlennirpWanine J W�AWorG Files\Phil Jo�1TT 316]6 t0-9 cc sr rw110500 2.Ooc
�O
Staff Report
TT 31676
November 20, 2008
Page 7 of 12
Adjacent lots to the east at Bighorn have pad heights of 789' and 809',
while Dead Indian Creek rises 20 feet adjacent to the 200' of developed
area from 780' elevation to 800'.
The six foot "cut" area for Lot 1 is adjacent to a small peak in the plateau
that would be thirteen feet above the pad area, which helps to screen the
home from the pens. Berms are proposed adjacent to the cul-de-sac to
help provide screening.
Any grading in the ravine and Dead Indian Creek will be subject to review
by the Army Corps of Engineers since they are deemed "waters of the
United States".
Neither pad is on a ridge as defined by and depicted in Ordinance 1136.
III. ANALYSIS:
A. General:
The proposed lot sizes, density and elevation are similar to the nearest
existing adjacent development, therefore, the analysis of the project
centers on the impacts to the Bighorn Institute and the imposition of a
buffer on the property. During the EIR process the applicant consulted
with the City to establish an appropriate buffer distance for Cornishe. After
careful analysis of the distance between the lambing pens and the
Institute Director's residence, a 240-yard distance was identified as being
appropriate.
The Institute points out that the sheep utilize the east side of the pens
facing Cornishe more than the west side facing the highway where the
Director's residence is situated. However, it should also be noted that the
sheep are fed by Institute staff from the west side, and no one will be
approaching the pens from the east side (Cornishe side) of the pens.
The sheep become habituated to people when they see them in close
proximity. Institute employees feed the sheep on the west side so there
will still be more human activity on the west side than on the Cornishe side
and, consequently, there is greater likelihood of habituation from Bighorn
Institute employees than from Cornishe residents.
The EIR points out that the 400-yard figure is not a scientific number. It
was a compromise among conflicting expert opinions with some
recommending more, some less. Given the residential zoning on and
adjacent to the site where the Institute is located, it is the City's
G:\PlBnninqWenlne JuONWwtl FileS\PM1iI Ja/�TT 31616 10-9 cc sr ree110508 2,tloc
/
Staff Report
TT 31676
November 20, 2008
Page 8 of 12
responsibility to mitigate the adverse impacts of the project to the extent
feasible while balancing the development rights of the property owner
against the need to protect an endangered species.
With the sheep being a federally listed endangered species, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service has ultimate authority over the Institute's operations.
At their request, line of sight drawings were prepared and included in the
EIR. The drawings depict where screening will be necessary to visually
shield from the sheep all human activity within 8' of the ground within the
entire project. Mitigation in the EIR requires such screening to the extent
feasible. The adjacent homes at Bighorn have their activity areas facing
the pens with no requirements to visibly shield human activity.
B. Home Design/Exception:
The EIR addresses impacts on the Institute of human activity at the
homes through home design. Review through the City's Architectural
Review Commission will address those issues previously listed in addition
to light, glare, architecture and re-naturalization of disturbed areas. The
applicant has stated that the architectural guidelines of the homes will be
identical with those at Bighorn, with the idea that this property could be
absorbed by a Bighorn Homeowners Association once entitlements are
received, with maintenance of any common areas to be completed by a
separate Cornishe Association.
The project has been revised so that an exception to the Hillside Planned
Residential Ordinance (Sec. 25.15.030.D of the Municipal Code) relating
to the pad size of Lot 2 is no longer needed.
Cornishe involves considerably less grading than the directly adjacent
"Canyons" project that was developed under the prior hillside ordinance.
That ordinance determined development criteria based on the average
slope of the parcel, which fell between 20-25% for both projects. Under
the prior slope/density formula that was used for "The Canyons", 37.5%
(4.5 acres) of the 11.87 acres and nine homes could have been
developed on this property, rather than the 12% (1.4 acres) and two
homes that are now proposed. This compares to the recently proposed
hillside projects where the average slope of the parcels was probably in
excess of 50%.
C. Grading:
The pad heights represent a balance between the project objectives of
providing down valley views, staying as far away from the lambing pens as
G1P�anninqUanin¢Jw�AWord Files\Phil Jo�ATT 316]6 10-9 cc sr rev110508 2.doc
7
C�
Staff Report
TT 31676
November 20, 2008
Page 9 of 12
possible and minimizing soil import to the site. The import of 35,879 cubic
yard of soil was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact in the
EIR. A number of mitigation measures are proposed in the EIR to
minimize this unavoidable impact. One down valley view obstruction from
the property is a berm that's part of "The Canyons" golf course, which the
City has been told is an integral part of the course that can't be removed.
D. Findings of Approval:
1. That the design or improvements of the proposed map is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
• The design of the subdivision leaves 10.41 acres of
undisturbed or re-naturalized open space area which is
consistent with the "Study Zone" designation which is
intended to review the project based on project slopes that
exceed 10%.
2. That the site is physically suitable for residential development.
• There are adjacent utilities close by and preliminary review of
grading plans has shown the site is physically suitable. Similar
residential development has been successfully accomplished
on adjacent property.
3. That the design of the tract map or the proposed improvements are
not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially
and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
• An environmental impact report has been prepared that has
identified potential significant environmental impacts, and a
statement of overriding considerations has been included.
4. That the design of the parcel or the type of improvements is not likely
to cause serious public health problems.
• The subdivision will be developed in concert with oversight by
all applicable governmental agencies to avoid any public
health problems.
G\PlanninqUenine Jutl�W ord Files\Phil JqATT 316]6 10-9 cc sr rev110508 2.Ex
�
Staff Report
TT 31676
November 20, 2008
Page 10 of 12
5. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.
• Preliminary review of plans has shown that the site is
physically suitable for the project as proposed. There is
access to the site, utilities are available and the grading and
construction necessary to develop two homes are regularly
accomplished on similar sites in the vicinity.
6. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
• The map proposes two residential lots which are consistent
with the study zone of the general plan. The study zone was
placed on the property in recognition of the PR zoning on
property that appeared over 10% slope, which would make it
eligible for HPR zoning. The project's density is consistent
with HPR density requirements even if it were re-designated
as hillside residential. There is no specific plan applicable to
the property.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
An environmental impact report has been prepared for the Cornishe project
which analyzes all environmental impacts for the project. The report identified
short term construction and long term operational impacts to the lambing pens
and short term construction traffic impacts to the surrounding Bighorn community
as potentially significant and unavoidable for Cornishe.
The EIR included consideration of alternatives to the project. One alternative
was identified that would reduce impacts to the Institute. That alternative would
place all development within the Dead Indian Creek, however, which would result
in additional biological impacts. Further, the Applicant has presented evidence
that even if permits could be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers and the
California Department of Fish and Game to develop within the streambed of
Dead Indian Creek, the cost of such development would exceed the resulting
value of the property. According to information provided by the Applicant, based
on the value of comparable property within the adjoining "Canyons at Bighorn"
development, the market value of the portion of the property that would be
developed under this alternative would not exceed $2,000,000. Development
costs to date exceed $3,500,000. Development of that alternative would,
therefore, not be economically feasible. In addition, that alternative would fail to
satisfy many of the goals of the project, as well as the City's planning objectives
for the area. No other alternatives were determined to be feasible
G:\PlenninqWanlneJud�worE Files\P�II Jo�TT 316]fi 10-9 a sr rev1105082.doc
/G%
Staff Report
TT 31676
November 20, 2008
Page 11 of 12
A "Statement of Overriding Considerations" is included in the resolution which
states the City has considered all aspects of the project and has imposed all
feasible mitigation measures to lessen project impacts. The "Statement" stresses
that this is being done only in an abundance of caution and that the City is
persuaded by the expert opinion of the EIR consultants and those representing
the applicant that feel no buffer - or one smaller than 400 yards - is necessary to
mitigate all effects.
V. CONCLUSION:
All feasible mitigation measures have been placed on the project to lessen the
project's significant impacts. Those mitigation measures will not interfere with the
development rights of the properry owner. The inclusion of tuck-under parking,
screening of all human activity, prohibition of all construction during lambing
season, and elimination of most, if not all, light and glare in the construction and
operation of the homes, are all in excess of restrictions placed on Bighorn homes
that were built with a 400-yard buffer from the lambing pens. The start of
lambing season on January 1 St is also more restrictive than the March 1 St date
that the Bighorn Institute observed during construction of its own site (attached
letter).
Further, the City's General Plan provided for residential use of the project site
when the Bighorn Institute located its facilities. Therefore, the Institute is
presumed to have had full knowledge of potential residential uses when it
located its facilities. When this adjacent area was annexed in 1983, proposals
for a 464-unit condominium project on 103 acres and a 500-unit hotel with 600
dwelling units on 155 acres were planned. Scientific consensus does not
support imposition of a 400-yard buffer on this property. Imposition of a 400-
yard buffer zone would likely render the project infeasible and likely lead to
litigation by the developer against the City.
G:\PlennlnpUenine JuONW ortl Flles\Phil JofTT 316)6 10-9 cc sr rev110508 2.tloc
//
Staff Report
TT 31676
November 20, 2008
Page 12 of 12
Staff believes that Cornishe has taken great strides towards mitigation of the
impacts in a very complex situation. The 240-yard buffer equates to almost 2'/2
football fields, which many experts believe is an acceptable buffer distance. The
two home sites should produce a unique opportunity for additional homes in the
Bighorn area that the City can be proud to have within its jurisdiction, while
eliminating most, if not all, impacts to operations at the Bighorn Institute.
Submitted by: Department Head:
� .
Phil Joy Lauri Aylaian
Associate Transportation Planner Director of Community Development
Approval•. �
�,.
�� �
Homer Croy Carlos Ortega
ACM for Dev o ent Services City Manager
G:\PlOnninqUenine JutlyAW ord Files\Phil Joy�TT 31fi76 10-9 cc 5r rev110508 2.tla
�.\
RESOLUTION NO. os-io3
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION OF 11.87
ACRES FOR TWO HOME SITES AND CERTIFICATION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, WEST OF INDIAN COVE
ADJACENT TO THE "CANYONS OF BIGHORN" GOLF CLUB.
CASE NO. TT 31676
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th
day of November, 2008, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by
Cornishe of Bighorn, LLC, for approval of the above noted; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 16th day of September, 2008, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider said
request, and by its Resolution No. 2489, recommended approval of Case No. TT 31676;
and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined
that the project may significantly impact the environment, and certification of the
environmental impact report is hereby adopted with a statement of overriding
considerations (SCH # 2004091012); and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council
did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the approval of said request:
1. That the design or improvements of the proposed map is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
• The two-home site design of the subdivision is within the underlying
5 d.u./acre general plan designation and that of the study zone, as is
the approximate nine acres of undisturbed or renaturalized open
space.
2. That the site is physically suitable for residential development.
• There are adjacent utilities close by and preliminary review of
grading plans has shown the site is physically suitable. Similar
residential development has been successfully accomplished on
adjacent property.
� �
RESOLUTION NO. os-1o3
3. That the design of the tract map or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
• An environmental impact report has been prepared that has
identified potential significant environmental impacts, and a
statement of overriding considerations has been included.
4. That the design of the parcel or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
• The subdivision will be developed in concert with oversight by all
applicable governmental agencies to avoid any public health
problems.
5. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.
• Preliminary review of plans has shown that the site is physically
suitable for the project as proposed. There is access to the site,
utilities are available and the grading and construction necessary
to develop two homes are regularly accomplished on similar sites
in the vicinity.
6. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
• The map proposes two residential lots which are consistent with the
study zone of the general plan. The study zone was placed on the
property in recognition of the PR zoning on property that appeared
over 10% slope-which would make it eligible for HPR zoning. The
project's density is consistent with HPR density requirements even if
it were re-designated as hillside residential. There is no specific plan
applicable to the property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the City Council in this case.
2. That the City Council does hereby approve TT 31676, subject to conditions
attached.
3. That the City Council does hereby certify the Environmental Impact Report
as complete, subject to mitigation measures attached as "Exhibit A"
2
y'
RESOLUTION NO. 08-103
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
City Council, held on this day of , 2008, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JEAN M. BENSON, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE D.KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
3
/�
RESOLUTION NO. os-1o3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. TT 31676
Department of Communitv Development:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file
with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following
conditions.
2. All requirements of any law, ordinance or regulation of the state, city and any other
applicable government entity, shall be complied with as part of this map.
3. Recording of final map shall take place within 2 years of the date of this approval
unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null,
void and of no effect whatsoever.
4. Building design and landscaping on the properties shall conform to design
standards in Section 25.15.050 (Hillside Planned Residential) of the City's Zoning
Ordinance in addition to the mitigation measures contained in the EIR.
5. Garage floors shall be a minimum 10 feet lower than pad heights.
6. A conservation easement shall be recorded on Lot B acceptable to the City
Attorney.
7. All mitigation measures identified in CEQA FINDINGS (20 pages, attached as
Exhibit A) shall be incorporated into the planning, design, development, and
operation of the project.
Department of Public Works:
GENERAL
1. Landscaping maintenance of any common areas and property frontages shall be
provided by a homeowners association and or property owner, shall be water
efficient in nature and in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape
design standards. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of
Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by
the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration
shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners
association; (b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the
recordation of the Map; and (c) the aforementioned landscaping shall be the
responsibility of the property owners association. Landscaping plans shall be
submitted for review simuttaneously with grading plans.
4
/�,
RESOLUTION NO. 08-103
2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils
engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public
Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
3. The maintenance of any retention areas shall be by the homeowners association
and stipulated in the CC&R's.
BONDS AND FEES
4. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
5. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
6. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
7. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
8. Grading bonds are required.
DESIGN PLANS
9. Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a
drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction.
10. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electronic files
shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval
prior to issuance of any permits.
11. Improvement plans for utility systems shall be approved by the respective
provider or service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of
Public Works prior to project final. Easements for utilities on private streets shall
be granted on final map.
12. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and
modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION
13. Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in
accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be
provided.
5
/�
RESOLUTION NO. 08-103
14. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works
Department.
15. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section
24.12, Fugitive Dust Control, as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management
and Discharge Control.
16. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence
to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit
for storm water discharges associated with construction. Developer must contact
Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
17. All grading shall be done under direct supervision of a registered soils engineer.
18. Provision for the continuation of any existing access rights which may be
affected by this project shall be included prior to recordation of the final map.
19. Prior to recordation of the final map and the issuance of any permits associated
with this project, applicant shall provide evidence of legal access rights.
Fire Department:
1. All buildings shall be accessible by an all weather roadway extending to within 150'
of all portions of the exterior wall of the structure. The roadway shall not be less
than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Dead-end roads in
excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around.
2. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted
by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials
being placed on the lot. Three sets of water plans are to be submitted to the Fire
Marshal.
3. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal's office
for approval, a site plan designating required fire tanes.
4. Blue dot retro-reflectors shall be placed in the street 8" from centertine to the
side that the fire hydrant is on, to identify hydrant locations.
6
��.
RESOLUTION NO. 08-103
EXHIBIT A
CEQA FINDINGS
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Palm Desert (the "City") has considered the proposed project, as submitted by Cornishe of
Bighorn, LLC (the "Applicant"). The proposed Cornishe of Bighorn project (the "Project") consists of the
subdivision of a 12 acre site to create two residential lots for the development of one single family home
on each lot. The City's findings regarding the Project are as follows:
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The original tract map for the Project was filed in August of 2003. The original tract map proposed the
development of up to 57 dwelling units on four residentiai lots. The initial application was revised to
propose 38 dwelling units, which was evaluated as the proposed project (the "Original Project") in the
Draft EIR. The 38 units were to be located in seven multi-unit structures on five residential lots occupying
approximately 4.32 acres of the Project site. The remaining undeveloped areas were intended to remain
in perpetual open space. Access to the Project site was to be provided via two access points, a 30-foot
easement that would traverse Dead Indian Creek north of the Project site, and a 20-foot road connecting
to the Indian Cove neighborhood within the Canyons at Bighorn community to the east. As an alternative
to the Original Project, the Applicant proposed an eight-lot single-family subdivision with access restricted
to the east at Indian Cove. Impacts of the eight-unit alternative were evaluated in the Draft EIR as the
Reduced Project Alternative. In addition, the City directed its consultant to include a two-unit residential
alternative for analysis in the Draft EIR. Impacts of the two-unit alternative were evaluated in the Draft
EIR as the Hillside Limited Alternative.
In response to the comments received on the Draft EIR, the Applicant explored options for a smaller
project and in November 2006, submitted to the City a newly revised tentative tract map for a two-lot
residential alternative, herein referred to as the New Preferred Alternative. The New Preferred Alternative
provides specific lots, pad areas for each residence, and associated garages as well as the grading
necessary to create those pads. Although the Draft EIR complied with CEQA and the State CEQA
Guidelines regarding the analysis of the Original Project, the City circulated the New Preferred Alternative
for public review and comment to augment the Draft EIR. The Project addressed in these findings is the
New Preferred Alternative.
B. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
Public Resources Code section 21002 states that "public agencies should not approve projects as
proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]" Section 21002 further states
that the procedures required by CEQA"are intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying
both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation
measures which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects."
Pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City may only approve or carry out a
project for which an EIR has been completed that identifies any significant environmental effects if the
City makes one or more of the following written finding(s) for each of those significant effects
accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:
1 �I
RESOLUTION NO. 08-103
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impact as
identified in the EIR; or
2. Such changes or aiterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of a
public agency other than the City, and such changes have been adopted by such
other agency, or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or
3. Specific economic, social, legal or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.
Notably, section 21002 requires an agency to "substantially lessen or avoid" significant adverse
environmental impacts. Thus, mitigation measures that "substantially lessen" significant environmental
impacts, even if not completely avoided, satisfy section 21002's mandate. (Laurel Hills Homeowners
Association v. Citv Council (1978) 83 Cal.App.3d 515, 521 ("CEQA does not mandate the choice of the
environmentally best feasible project if through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures alone the
appropriate public agency has reduced environmental damage from a project to an acceptable level");
Las Virqenes Homeowners Federation, Inc. v. Countv of Los Anqeles (1986) 177 Cal. App. 3d 300, 309
("(t]here is no requirement that adverse impacts of a project be avoided completely or reduced to a level
of insignificance . . . if such would render the project unfeasible").)
CEQA requires that lead agencies adopt feasible mitigation measures or alternatives to substantially
�essen or avoid significant environmental impacts. An agency need not, however, adopt infeasible
mitigation measures or alternatives. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subds. (a), (b).) Public
Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a
successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental,
social, and technological factors." State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 adds "legal" considerations as
another indicia of feasibility. (See also Citizens of Goleta Vallev v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d
553, 565.) Project objectives also inform the determination of"feasibility." (Citv of Del Mar v. Citv of San
Dieqo (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417.) "`[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to the
extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental,
social, and technological factors." (Id.; see also Sequovah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. Citv of Oakland
(1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.)
Environmental impacts that are less than significant do not require the imposition of mitigation measures.
(Leonoff v. Monterev County Board of Supervisors (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337, 1347.) For those
significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the public agency is required to
find that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the proposed
project outweigh the significant effects on the environment(see, Pub. Res. Code§21081(b)).
The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a
delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local
officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply
it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Valley v.
Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.) In addition, perfection in a project or a project's
environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be
produced "to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned."
Outside agencies (including courts) are not to "impose unreasonable extremes or to interject[themselves]
within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken." (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com.
v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cai.App.3d 274, 287.)
C. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
At a regular session assembled on November 20, 2008, the City Councii determined that based on all of
the evidence presented, including, but not limited to, the Final EIR, written and oral testimony given at
meetings and hearings, and submission of comments from the public, organizations and regulatory
2 �c:;
RESOLUTION NO. os-1o3
agencies, the following environmental impacts associated with the Project are: 1) less than significant and
do not require mitigation; or 2) potentially significant and but can be avoided or reduced to a level of
insignificance through the identified mitigation measures. This document contains the findings required
under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.) and
the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, title 14, §§15000 et seq.).
A Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") has been prepared pursuant to Public
Resources Code Section 21081.6, which requires adoption of a MMRP for projects in which the lead
agency has required changes or adopted mitigation to avoid significant environmental effects. The City is
the lead agency for the proposed Project and is, therefore, responsible for administering and
implementing the MMRP. The primary purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the mitigation measures
identified for the Project are implemented, thereby minimizing identified environmental effects. The
MMRP would be in place throughout atl phases of the Project, including during design (pre-construction),
construction, and operations (post-construction both prior to and post-occupancy). The City Department
of Community Development shall be responsible for administering the MMRP activities via staff, other City
departments (e.g., Department of Building and Safety, Department of Public Works, etc.), consultants,
and contractors. The Community Development Department will also ensure that monitoring is
documented through reports and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The designated environmental
monitor (e.g., City building inspector, project contractor, certified professionals, etc., depending on the
provisions specified in the MMRP) will track and document compliance with mitigation measures, note
any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to enforce the implementation of the mitigation
measures as required.
No comments made in the public hearings conducted by the Planning Commission or City Council or any
additional information submitted to the City has produced any substantial new information requiring
recirculation or additional environmental review of the Final EIR under CEQA because no new significant
environmental impacts were identified, no substantial increase in the severity of any environmental
impacts would occur, and no feasible Project mitigation measures or Project alternatives as defined in
State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5 were rejected. Additionally, no substantial evidence exists which
indicates that any of the circumstances described in State CEQA Guidelines section 15162 would require
preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR.
II. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
These findings summarize the data and conclusions contained in the final environmental impact report
("FEIR") for the Project, which includes the Draft EIR, dated December 2005, the New Preferred
Alternative, an Addition to the Draft EIR, dated March 2008 ("DEIR Addition"), the Responses to
Comments, and the entire administrative record, all of which are incorporated into these findings as if set
forth in full. Consistent with the requirements of CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines, the FEIR
discusses environmental effects in proportion to the severity and probability of occurrence. The FEIR
identifies a number of potentially significant adverse environmental effects of the Project. The FEIR also
identifies mitigation measures which would reduce or eliminate potential adverse effects. These effects
and the mitigation measures are summarized below.
A. IMPACTS DETERMINED TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, the FEIR described categories of potential effects
that were not found to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the FEIR. An Initial
Study was prepared for the Project in September 2004 and is included as Appendix A in the FEIR. The
Initial Study indicates why the ProjecYs potential effects on these issues were determined not to be
significant and were therefore eliminated from further consideration in the FEIR. The issue areas
determined to be less than significant by the Initial Study include the following:
3 --�1/
RESOLUTION NO. 08-103
• Agricultural Resources
• Historic and Paleontological Resources
• Geology/Soils
• Hazards/Hazardous Materials
• Mineral Resources
• Population/Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Utilities/Service Systems
Based on the Initiai Study and the whole of the record, the Project was determined not to result in
significant impacts in any of the foregoing issue areas.
B. EFFECTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The City Council finds that the following environmental impacts identified in the EIR are potentially
significant but can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Other impacts set out below were
determined to be less than significant, but were considered in fuil in the EIR. The potentiaily significant
impacts and the mitigation measures which will reduce them to a less than significant level are set out in
the EIR and are summarized as follows:
AESTHETICS
Potential Impact
The Project would alter the natural appearance of the Project site and introduce new sources of light, but
such alterations would not be significant.
Findinq
Mitigation measures are not required for impacts that are less than significant. Nevertheless, pursuant to
CEQA section 21081(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project
which further reduce the already less than significant effect.
Rationale
The Project would alter the natural appearance of less than half of the area of the Project site. The
dwelling and landscape design for the two single-family residences would comply with the architectural
guidelines for the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn, appearing as a minor extension of that community.
Compliance with the Comprehensive General Plan policies and Municipai Code requirements and
completion of design review by the City's Architectural Review Commission, will ensure that the Project
would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site or surrounding area,
notwithstanding the area required for site preparation and grading. Therefore, the impacts to on-site
aesthetic resources would be less than significant.
4 �?�
RESOLUTION NO. os-1.o3
The Project would not substantially affect views from the surrounding residential uses to the east and
north or from public views across SR-74, a state scenic highway. Therefore, the Project, well over 1,000
feet from the highway, would not substantively affect the scenic content of such views.
All related projects would be subject to the City's permitting and approval process. Furthermore, each
related project, identified for cumulative impacts assessment, is located sufficiently distant from the
Project site as to have a minimal cumulative effect. As such, no significant cumulative impacts regarding
aesthetics, views, and light or glare would occur.
Overall, the Project's aesthetic impacts would be less than significant. However, mitigation measures are
imposed to further ensure that aesthetic impacts remain less than significant.
Mitiqation Measures
Mitigation Measure IV.A-1: All open areas not used for buildings, roadways, driveways, parking areas,
or walkways shall be landscaped to reduce visibility of the Project improvements from adjacent properties
in accordance with a Landscape Plan to be prepared by a licensed landscape architect to the satisfaction
of the Community Development/Planning Department. The Landscape Plan shall specify plant materials,
heights upon planting or box sizes, and locations. Remaining existing natural landscape areas shall be
retained and maintained in accordance with the Landscape Plan.
Mitigation Measure IV.A-2: All night lighting installed within the Project site shall be shielded and
directed in a manner so that such lighting does not shine upwards or towards the lambing pen to the
south of the Project site and, thus, is generally not visible from the existing sheep pens. In addition,
lighting shall not be a high glare type of lighting, shall be directed away from nearby residential uses and
shall be confined to the site.
References:
DEIR Addition, at pp. 25-29.
CULTURALRESOURCES
Impacts
The Project will have a less than significant effect on cultural resources.
Findinq
CEQA does not require the imposition of mitigation measures where impacts will be less than significant.
Rationale
The Project would not disturb, damage, or degrade any potentially unique historic, archaeological or
paleontological resources or sites and, therefore, would have no adverse impact upon such
resources/sites.
A field survey was also conducted to inspect the ground surface for prehistoric and historic artifacts and
cultural features. Based on the results of the cultural resources record search, there were no recorded
historic resources within the boundaries of the project area. Additionally, no recorded cultural resources
were discovered during the field survey conducted for the project site. However, six cultural resources
were recorded within a one-mile radius of the project area. Thus, the project could potentially encounter
sub-surface archaeological resources during grading and construction activities at the site.
5 �2__�
RESOLUTION NO. 08-103
In the event any archaeological resources, historic resources, or traditional burial sites are unearthed or
discovered, the Project would be required to comply with the provisions and conservation measures set
forth by CEQA (§§ 21083.2, 21084.1) and the CEQA Guidelines (§ 15064.5). As such, impacts of the
Project would be less than significant.
As with the Project, all other related projects would be required to comply with CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines. Therefore, cumulative impacts regarding historic, archaeological and paleontological
resources would also be less than significant.
Mitiqation Measures
None required.
References
Draft EIR, at p. 171.
DEIR Addition, at p. 44-45.
Final EIR, Response to Comment 4.
HYDROLOGY
Impacts
The Project will have a less than significant effect on hydrology.
Findinq
CEQA does not require the imposition of mitigation measures where impacts will be less than significant.
Rationale
The Project would introduce a relatively small amount of impervious surface areas on-site altering the
site's hydrology marginally. Runoff flows and volumes, and sediment loads would be increased slightly
over existing conditions for ultimate discharge into Dead Indian Creek.
The Project would require permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of
Fish and Game, the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the Coachella
Valley Water District for the construction of the access road over the natural drainage channel along the
site's eastern boundary. However, no access roads are proposed across Dead Indian Creek. Therefore,
impacts to "jurisdictional waters" would be reduced in comparison to the potential impacts of the Original
Project.
The Project would also include on-site drainage improvements in accordance with City requirements. As
such, with compliance with the applicable rules and regulations, impacts regarding hydrology and surface
water quality attributable to the Project would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be
required.
Cumulative impacts regarding hydrology and surface water quality would also be less than significant with
the Project. Each related project would be required to comply with City, state, and federal requirements.
In addition, each related project would be evaluated individually by the City to ensure adequate system
6 0?y
RESOLUTION NO. os-1o3
capacity. As such, cumulative impacts regarding hydrology and surface quality would be less than
significant.
Mitiqation Measures
None required.
References
DEIR Addition, at pp. 45-47.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Impacts
The Project will have a less than significant effect on land use planning.
Findinq
CEQA does not require the imposition of mitigation measures where impacts will be less than significant.
Rationale
The Project would be consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning code. The Project would appear
as a minor extension of the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community and would be subject to
Architectural Review by the City. Therefore, no adverse compatibility relationships with the adjoining
residential land uses or the Bighorn Institute are predicted to occur, and no division of community effects
would ensue. The ProjecYs impact on Land Use and Planning would be less than significant, and no
mitigation measures would be required. As each related project would be required to comply with the
City's land use policies and zoning regulations, and as the location of the Project would be located distant
from other related projects, no cumulative impacts would occur.
Additionally, the CVMSHCP's Land Use Adjacency Guidelines are intended to avoid or minimize indirect
effects from development adjacent to, or within Conservation Areas. Indirect effects are referenced as
"edge effects" and include noise, lighting, drainage, intrusion of people into adjacent conservation areas
and the introduction of non-native plants, or predators (i.e. dogs,
cats, etc.), and does not apply to existing permitted land uses or development. While it is noted that these
are guidelines only and that the City determines whether or not these guidelines are applicable on a case-
by-case basis, the Project would be required to conform with these
land use adjacency guidelines. Mitigation Measures IV.C-1 through IV.C-9, see below, which are
required as part of the Project, are concurrent with these guidelines as they are intended to
minimize indirect effects of the project by limiting when construction would occur, prohibiting
dogs on-site, and by requiring that mechanical equipment and activities be screened from view or
be located to the north of residences such that noise, lighting, and intrusion of predators, and etc.
would be avoided. With the implementation of those recommended mitigation measures, the Project
would be consistent with the land use adjacency guidelines.
Mitiqation Measures
None required.
7 ;�.`_�
RESOLUTION NO. 08-103
References
DEIR Addition, at pp. 47-49.
Final EIR, Response to Comment 2.
C. EFFECTS THAT WILL REMAIN SIGNIFICANT DESPITE IMPOSITION OF ALL FEASIBLE MITIGATION
MEASURES
The City Council finds that the following environmental impacts identified in the EIR are potentially
significant. Mitigation has been identified that will reduce the impact to the extent feasible; however, there
is no feasible mitigation that will completely eliminate that significant impact. The potentially significant
impacts and the mitigation measures which will reduce them to the extent feasible are set out in the EIR
and are summarized as follows:
AIR QUALITY
Imqacts
The Project would exceed localized significance thresholds for NOX emissions during construction, which
would be a significant impact. All other emissions associated with the Project are less than significant.
Findinq
Pursuant to CEQA section 21081(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project which mitigate this effect to the extent feasible. Specific economic, legal, social ,
technological or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible any other mitigation measures or alternatives
identified in the environmental impact report for the project. As explained in Section IV, below, specific
overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the project outweigh this significant
effect on the environment.
Rationale
During construction, emissions from the Project would not exceed regional and local SCAQMD
significance thresholds for ROC, CO, SOX, PM,o, or PM2,5. The Project would, however, exceed localized
significance thresholds for NOX. As such, mitigation measures IV.B-1 through IV.B-9, among others, shall
be imposed to reduce NOX and other emissions from the Project. Specifically, mitigation measures IV.B-4
through IV.B-7 will reduce NOX emissions during construction by reducing engine use as much as
possible. However, even with implementation of the mitigation measures, the Project's construction
emissions would exceed NOX threshold levels, resulting in significant construction air quality impacts.
Utilizing SCAQMD localized significance thresholds (LST) for humans as an indicator of potential impacts
upon the bighorn sheep during construction, the Project would have a less than significant impact on
sheep in the nearby lambing pen.
Emissions during the operational phase of the Project would be approximately five percent of those
forecast for the Original Project, which the Draft EIR (December 2005) determined to be less than
significant.
The DEIR Addition analyzed the Project's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Operational emissions
would be less than one-tenth of the ProjecYs construction emissions, which the DEIR Addition found to be
a level of statistical insignificance. The Project would also comply with the goals of the State of California
$ � �
RESOLUTION NO. 08-103
as it would incorporate energy reducing features such as the installation of efficient appliances, fixtures,
and infrastructure.
Regarding the City's determination of significance, State CEQA Guidelines section 15064(b) provides that
the "determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful
judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possibie on scientific and factual
data" and further that an "ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible because the
significance of an activity may vary with the setting." The State CEQA Guidelines further indicate that
even when thresholds are established, they may include "identifiabie quantitative, qualitative or
performance level of a particular environmental effect[.]" (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.7.)
Some suggest that a zero emissions threshold would be appropriate in a climate change analysis;
however, the City rejects that suggestion. First, prior CEQA case law makes clear that the"one additional
molecule" rule is not consistent with CEQA. (Communities for a Better Environment v. California
Resources Agency, 103 Cal.App.4th 98 (2002).) Second, such a rule appears inconsistent with the
State's approach to mitigation of climate change impacts. AB32 does not prohibit all new greenhouse
gas emissions; rather, it requires a reduction in statewide emissions to a given level. Thus, A632
recognizes that greenhouse gas emissions will continue to occur.
The California Air Pollution Control Officers Association published a White Paper (January 2008) that
explored several options for setting numeric, non-zero thresholds. The White Paper acknowledges
medium to high uncertainty as to each potential numeric threshold "due to the uncertainty associated with
the effectiveness of AB 32 implementation overall, the new character of GHG reduction strategies on a
project basis, the immaturity of GHG reduction technologies or infrastructure (such as widespread
biodiesel availability), and the uncertainty of GHG reduction effectiveness of certain technologies (such as
scientific debate concerning the relative lifecycle GHG emissions of certain biofuels, for example)."
Application of those thresholds, however, may first require enactment of a specific Climate Action Plan in
a general plan or other large scale policy document. Based on the above, the City finds that none of the
potential numeric thresholds would be appropriate for application to this Project. Thus, for the purposes
of analyzing this Project, and consistent with one of the CAPCOA's identified approaches to climate
change analysis, the City has analyzed potential climate changes impacts without setting a specific
threshold.
Nevertheless, the City notes that several air districts have attempted to develop numeric thresholds. For
example, the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District recommended a threshold of 38,477 metric
tons of COzeq for a dairy project; though, it has not proposed formal adoption of that threshold at this
time. Also, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is currently in the process of
setting a greenhouse gas threshold. At this time, and for discussion purposes only, the SCAQMD's
Working Group proposed a threshold of 3,000 metric tons of CO2eq, plus exceedance of Title 24
requirements. While not determinative, these thresholds are relevant to the City's overatl consideration of
this project's emissions and their ultimate significance. Specifically, at 39 metric tones per year of COZeq,
the Project falls far below either of the two proposed thresholds described above. Based on all of the
above, the City finds that the ProjecYs contribution to climate change will not be cumulatively
considerable.
Finally, as the Project would be consistent with the underlying growth assumptions on which the Air
Quality Management (AQMP) is based, the long term increase in emissions that would occur as a result
of development of the Project site would not be cumulatively considerable.
Mitiqation Measures
Mitigation Measure IV.B-1: Water three times daily or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers according to
manufacturers' specifications, as needed to reduce off-site transport of fugitive dust from all unpaved
staging areas and unpaved road surfaces. Additionally, install AQMD approved track-out prevention
devices for construction vehicles leaving the Project site.
> �
g �ti ,
RESOLUTION NO. os-io3
Mitigation Measure IV.B-2: All private streets shall be swept as needed during construction, but not
more frequently than hourly, if visible soil material has been carried onto adjacent paved roads.
Mitigation Measure IV.B-3: Construction equipment shall be visually inspected prior to leaving the site
and loose dirt shall be washed off with wheel washers as necessary.
Mitigation Measure IV.B-4: All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and maintained in
accordance with manufacturer's specifications.
Mitigation Measure IV.B-5: General contractors shall maintain and operate construction equipment to
minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and vehicles in loading and unloading queues
shall have their engines turned off when not in use to reduce vehicle emissions. Construction activities
should be phased and scheduled to avoid emissions peaks and discontinued during second-stage smog
alerts.
Mitigation Measure IV.B-6: To the extent possible, petroleum powered construction activity shall utilize
electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesel power generators and/or gasoline power
generators.
Mitigation Measure IV.B-7: On-site mobile equipment shall be powered by alternative fuel sources (i.e.,
methanol, natural gas, propane or butane) as feasible.
Mitigation Measure IV.B-8: The Applicant shall, as feasible, install solar or low-emission water heaters
that exceed the requirements of the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) and the
American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), to reduce energy
consumption.
Mitigation Measure IV. B-9: The Applicant shall, as feasible, install energy-efficient appliances (i.e.,
ENERGY STAR) to reduce energy consumption.
References
DEIR Addition, at pp. 29-36.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, "CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and
Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality
Act," (January 2008).
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, "Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, Van Der
Kooi Dairy (SCH #2006011107),"Appendix C.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, "Draft Guidance Document — Interim CEQA Greenhouse
Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold," (October 2008).
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impacts
The Project would not adversely affect sensitive biological communities or species. However, the Project
could adversely affect captive Peninsula Bighorn Sheep at the Bighorn Institute. Therefore, the Project is
presumed to have a significant adverse biological impact.
10 ��
RESOLUTION NO. os-io3
Findin
Pursuant to CEQA section 21081(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project which mitigate this effect to the extent feasible. Specific economic, legal, social ,
technological or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible any other mitigation measures or alternatives
identified in the environmental impact report for the project. As explained in Section IV, below, specific
overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the project outweigh this significant
effect on the environment.
Rationale
The New Preferred Alternative would not adversely affect sensitive communities, nesting habitat for
sensitive birds, sensitive plant species, the barefoot gecko (Coleaonyx switaki), the desert tortoise
(Gopherus agassizi), the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), wildlife movement, nor free roaming
specimens of the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnobates), as the site either does not
provide such habitat or is well removed from the established ranges of the respective species. Impacts to
wildlife movement would also be less than significant.
Concern for impacts to captive adult bighorn sheep and born lambs in the lambing pen on the Bighorn
Institute property south of the Project site has been a significant factor in developing several previous
alternatives, as well as the New Preferred Alternative (the "ProjecY' addressed in these findings). As set
forth in the FEIR, documented evidence is inconclusive regarding the threshold of disturbance that would
be detrimental to the captive breeding program for Peninsular Bighorn Sheep operated by the Bighorn
Institute. In connection with the approval of the Altamira (now Canyons at Bighorn) project, forty
biologists and others having knowledge and familiarity with bighorn sheep opined as to a reasonable
separation between ongoing human activity in a built environment and the lambing pens at the Bighorn
Institute. The biologists provided a wide range of opinions, varying from no separation to over a mile. In
an effort to settle litigation regarding the Altamira project among the City, the Bighorn Institute, and
Altamira, a legal, not biological, compromise was ultimately agreed upon to establish a 400 yard buffer
between construction activity on the Canyons at Bighorn property and the lambing pen at the Bighorn
Institute. There is thus no definitive scientific basis to establish that a buffer of 400 yards or any other
distance is required to protect the captive breeding program at the Bighorn Institute. The Cornishe
Property was specifical�y excluded in the legal settlement from the buffer area. (Final EIR, at pp. II-2 to II-
4; also Response to Comment 5.)
Bighorn sheep are understood to be more responsive to visual stimuli than they are to audio stimuli. Site
preparation for and construction of two large homes with subsequent landscaping would occur in plain
view of the lambing pen. Such intense visual construction activities could be expected out of an
abundance of caution to significantly impact the bighorn sheep in the pen. For the purposes of the FEIR,
construction is defined as grading, excavation, framing, siding, roofing, landscaping, installation of doors
and windows, and any interior work that utilizes pneumatic tools or compressors that would be located
outside the proposed residences.
Following construction, the orientation of the access driveway from the Indian Cove Neighborhood to the
southerly side of two proposed residential lots dictates that all vehicular access must approach the
lambing pen prior to approaching the two residences even though construction of the driveway would
remain within the lower elevations of the Project site with berms or walls along the alignment as
necessary to reduce glare and views of on-coming traffic from the lambing pen. As no design information
is available, it cannot be said that the two residences would be entirely oriented to the north, leaving
entirely passive facades facing the lambing pen to the south. Thus, activity associated with normal
residential occupancy, including vehicular arrivals and departures for occupants, visitors and guests,
maintenance, mail delivery and other deliveries, as well as some of the associated outdoor activities and
nighttime illumination of outdoor and indoor spaces can be presumed to be visible from the pen. The
understanding of sheep behavior is not sufficiently refined to specify an activity level (i.e., 38 dwellings or
two dwellings) at which the sheep's response is activated. Therefore, it must be conservatively assumed
11 a 9
RESOLUTION NO. 08-�03
that the New Preferred Alternative could still have the potential to significantly impact captive adult sheep
and born lambs in the lambing pen through visual and, to a lesser degree, auditory habituation. Mitigation
is recommended to attempt to reduce this impact, although complete elimination of the impact is not
possible given the proximity of the Project site to the lambing pen in its current location.
With implementation of the mitigation measures, such as Mitigation Measure IV.C-3, which provides that
the proposed homes shall be designed to screen activities from the lambing pen to the extent feasible,
impacts of the Project on biological resources would be substantially lessened. However, in the absence
of definitive scientific evidence, the City conservatively assumes that the Project would still have the
potential to significantly impact captive adult sheep and born lambs in the lambing pen through visual
and, to a lesser degree, auditory habituation.
In response to comments received from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, additional studies
were performed to determine the feasibility of erecting visual barriers to screen activities on the Project
site from the lambing pen on the Bighorn Institute's property. (See Final EIR, Response to Comment 2.)
The visual analysis demonstrates that the obstruction of views of the proposed residential lots from the
lambing pen can be feasibly accomplished in large part through the erection of a system of barriers
consisting of a combination of walls, berms, and vegetation ranging in height from zero to 12 feet. Visual
barriers required to screen all activity on the Project site, however, would have to be as high as 26 feet in
some locations. Visual barriers higher than 15 feet are not feasible in the Project setting due to adverse
visual impacts caused by such barriers. A series of several short, parallel barriers of 12 to 15 feet in
height located perpendicular to the line of sight northwest of the on-site access road could screen visible
roadway activity from some portions of the lambing pen. This system of barriers in conjunction with
others designed to screen activity on the residential lots would substantively accomplish the intent to
screen the visibility of on-site activity from the view of sheep in the lambing pen. However, such a system
of barriers cannot be expected to completely screen all visible on-site activity from the lambing pen.
Thus, impacts to biological resources during construction and operation of the Project remain significant
and unavoidable. Mitigation measures identified above substantially lessen potentially significant
environmental effects on biological resources to the extent feasible. Based on the FEIR and the whole of
the record, feasible measures are not available to further reduce potential impacts on captive adult sheep
and born lambs in the lambing pen through visual and auditory habituation to below a level of
significance.
The Project is one of thirty-two private projects that was analyzed for cumulative impacts and is covered
in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP), for which a take permit
has recently been issued. Under the CVMSHCP, any loss of habitat can be mitigated through a donation
of public and privately owned land to the Reserve or through payment of fees for habitat restoration.
Therefore, implementation of the New Preferred Alternative would not have a significant cumulative
impact on naturally occurring plant and wildlife species. The cumulative impact on the Bighorn Institute
would remain significant.
Mitiqation Measures
Mitigation Measure IV.C-1: Garage openings shall be oriented easterly away from the lambing pens to
the maximum extent practicable.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-2: Site preparation and grading of the site shall be designed to balance on-site
to minimize new import of fill materials to the extent feasible. Grading shall be restricted to that necessary
for 1) reasonable vehicular access from the Indian Cove section of the Canyons at Bighorn to access the
residences, 2) development of proposed building pad elevations, and 3) reasonable foundation
excavations. To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height
shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations no higher than 820 and 809 feet
above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-3: The proposed residences shall be designed so that, to the maximum extent
practicable, all activities and facilities associated with their occupancy, including indoor and outdoor
12 ��
RESOLUTION NO. 08-103
residency, landscape and other maintenance, mechanical equipment, recreational facilities, etc., be
located to the north of the residences or screened from view from the lambing pen by barriers high
enough to be effective.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-4: No construction activities, as defined in this document, should occur during
the lambing season, which extends from January 1 to June 30. If any construction activities should occur
during the nesting season that extends beyond the lambing season (July 1St to August 31St), all suitable
habitat in the development/disturbance area of the Project shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence
of nesting birds by a qualified biologist prior to removal. If any active nests are detected within a 300-foot
buffer of the construction activity, a buffer of at least 100 feet (300 feet for raptors) shall be delineated,
flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycie is complete or the nest has failed as determined by the
biological monitor.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-5: A biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey, per USFWS protocols,
to ensure that no desert tortoises are affected by the project. If it is determined that tortoises may be
affected, a desert tortoise conservation plan addressing the appropriate construction management and
ongoing operational practices shall be prepared.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-6: A pre-construction survey, conducted according to reserve agency
protocols, shall be performed in order to ensure that no burrowing owls are affected by the Project. If it is
determined that burrowing owls may be affected, a burrowing owl conservation plan addressing the
appropriate construction management and ongoing operational practices shall be prepared.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-7: In order to minimize stress and disturbance to Peninsular bighorn sheep at
the Bighorn Institute, no dogs shall be permitted on the Project site, either as residents or as visitors.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-8: A permanent fence and/or wall shall be constructed around the developed
parts of the Project site to prevent free-roaming sheep from entering developed areas. The design and
location of the fence and/or wall shall be developed in consultation with a biologist and the Bighorn
Institute. No landscaping or surface water shall be allowed to occur outside the fence to prevent sheep
from being attracted to the site and exposed to danger or human activity.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-9: The Applicant shall pay the applicable Local Development Mitigation Fee.
The estimated Local Development Mitigation Fee is $5,730 per acre of development for the first year of
plan implementation. (The average annual increase of the Local Development Mitigation Fee is projected
at 3.29 percent.) Final Project design shall comply with and incorporate the Land Use Adjacency
Guidelines and all other applicable portions of the MSHCP.
References
DEIR Addition, at pp. 36-44.
Final EIR, at pp. II-2 to II-4; Responses to Comments 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 17, 19, and 22.
Final Recirculated Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community
Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and the Final Recirculated Coachella Valley MSHCP Environmental Impact
Report/Statement(September 2007).
13 '� �
RESOLUTION NO. 08-103
NOISE
Impacts
The Project would result in construction noise that could adversely affect captive Peninsula Bighorn
Sheep at the Bighorn Institute. The Project would also contribute a cumulatively considerable impact
related to roadway noise at Cahuilla Way. Construction wouid not adversely affect nearby residences,
and project-level operational noise impacts would be less than significant.
Findin
Pursuant to CEQA section 21081(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project which mitigate this effect to the extent feasible. Specific economic, legal, social ,
technological or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible any other mitigation measures or alternatives
identified in the environmental impact report for the project. As explained in Section IV, below, specific
overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the project outweigh this significant
effect on the environment.
Rationale
The ProjecYs construction noise impacts at the nearest residential sensitive receptors would be less than
significant. Due to the amount of proposed site preparation and grading, the earthwork and concrete
work for two large residential homes and associated auxiliary structures would require more than three
months to complete resulting in a likely significant construction noise impact on captive adult sheep and
newborn lambs in the nearby lambing pen. Vibration impacts associated with construction would be less
than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.
After construction, the occupancy and use of the two dwellings under the New Preferred Alternative would
increase noise levels from on-site operations due to vehicular movement and normal occupancy of the
premises relative to the existing conditions. However, the incremental increase in noise levels would be
well below the 3 dBA CNEL significance threshold. Therefore, impacts to the existing and future sensitive
residential receptors within the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community would be less than significant.
Operational noise impacts upon bighorn sheep in the lambing pen would be less than significant.
Nonetheless, mitigation measures are proposed.
As the Project would result in a potentially significant noise impact during construction to the lambing
pens in the Bighorn Institute, it is anticipated that the cumulative noise impacts would also remain
potentially significant to the Bighorn Institute during construction.
Cumulative roadway noise impacts would be significant, as buildout of the Canyons at Bighorn would
exceed the 3 dBA CNEL incremental threshold by 4.5 dBA CNEL along Cahuilla Way, east of SR-74.
The New Preferred Alternative would contribute to these cumulative noise levels resulting in significant
cumulative noise impacts on Cahuilla Way. No other public or private roadway segments would result in
a cumulative noise impact.
Mitiqation Measures
The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts of the New Preferred Alternative.
Please note that Mitigation Measures IV.C-1 through IV.C-3 are repeated here from Subsection 3,
Biologica► Resources above.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-1: Garage openings shall be oriented easterly away from the lambing pens to
the maximum extent practicable.
14 `n�
RESOLUTION NO. os-1o3
Mitigation Measure IV.C-2: Site preparation and grading of the site shall be designed to balance on-site
to minimize new import of fill materials to the extent feasible. Grading shall be restricted to that necessary
for: 1) reasonable vehicular access from the Indian Cove section of the Canyons at Bighorn to access
the residences, 2) development of proposed building pad elevations, and 3) reasonable foundation
excavations. To reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height
shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations no higher than 820 and 809 feet
above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-3: The proposed residences shall be designed so that, to the maximum extent
practicable, all activities and facilities associated with their occupancy, including indoor and outdoor
residency, landscape and other maintenance, mechanical equipment, recreational facilities, etc., be
located to the north of the residences or screened from view from the lambing pen by barriers high
enough to be effective.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-1: Construction equipment shall be fitted with residential grade mufflers, where
readily available in the construction equipment fleet that regularly serves the City of Palm Desert area.
Prospective contractors shall demonstrate a good faith effort to locate such construction equipment for
use throughout the duration of Project construction.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-2: To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be scheduled so as to
avoid operating several pieces of heavy equipment simultaneously.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-3: Engine idling from construction equipment such as bulldozers and haul
trucks shall be �imited, to the extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-4: The construction staging area shall be located as far as feasible from
sensitive receptors.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-5: Construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00 A.nn. and
7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday from July 1St through September 30t" and between the hours of 7:00
A.M. and 6:30 P.nn., Monday through Friday from October 1St through December 31S'. On Saturdays,
construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 a.nn. and 5:00 P.nn. No construction
shall be allowed on Sundays, Federal holidays or during the January through June lambing season.
Such limitation shall be placed as a condition on the grading permit in a manner meeting the approvals of
the City Engineer and the Building Official.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-6: Power maintenance equipment including leaf blowers, mowers, sanders,
saws, and other similar equipment, shall not be used along the southern and western side of the
residences nearest the Bighorn Institute lambing pens.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-7: Stationary equipment (i.e., pool machinery and HVAC equipment) shall be
designed so as to be enclosed on all sides with sound attenuation treatment on the southern and western
side of the residences, nearest the lambing pens. In addition, mechanical equipment for the residences
shall be located on the northern side of the buildings or screened from view from the lambing pen by
barriers high enough to be effective.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-8: Additional CC&Rs shall be developed that implement noise restrictions in
the development and especially in the southwestern portion of the Project site. These would include
restrictions on fireworks, gas powered blowers, the use of loud vehicles and management of on-site
celebrations or similar events.
References
DEIR Addition, at pp. 49-53.
15 ��'
RESOLUTION NO. os-�o3
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Impacts
Construction traffic associated with haul trucks importing fill soils would cause a short-term significant
impact on private streets within the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community. Cumulative construction
traffic associated with build-out of the Canyons at Bighorn plus the Project would also be considered
cumulatively considerable.
Findins�
Pursuant to CEQA section 21081(a)(1), changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into, the Project which mitigate this effect to the extent feasible. Specific economic, legal, social ,
technological or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment
opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible any other mitigation measures or alternatives
identified in the environmental impact report for the project. As explained in Section IV, below, specific
overriding economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the project outweigh this significant
effect on the environment.
Rationale
Construction traffic associated with haul trucks importing fill soils would cause a short-term significant
impact on private streets within the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community. The Project's import of
35,900 cubic yards of soil, is estimated with 64 haul truck trips per day resulting in an increase of 0.1 or
more in the Traffic Intrusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index. A mitigation measure is
recommended to reduce the amount of fill soils to be imported by the Project to the extent feasible.
However, the amount of haul truck trips alone that would be required to import even a somewhat reduced
volume of fill to the Project site via the Canyon's private roadway system could be unexpected to the
Canyons at Bighorn residents, and perceived as intrusive. As such, construction impacts to the Canyons
at Bighorn community would be considered potentially significant.
During operations, the Project would involve a nominal incrementa� addition of 19 daily vehicle trips to
existing or future private traffic on the Indian Cove, Rock Creek, Canyon Drive private roadway segments
within the Canyons at Bighorn. This small increase on any existing/future private street volume of 90 or
more vehicles per day would not cause an increase of 0.1 in the TIRE index. Therefore, during the
operation of the Project, less than significant impacts would occur along the private roadways within the
Canyons community. As with the Original Project, traffic impacts of the Project (i.e., the New Preferred
Alternative) to the public roadway system would remain less than significant.
Cumulative traffic impacts would be localized for all related projects and would affect areas immediately
adjacent to or surrounding each particular project site. The nearest identified project is the remaining
buildout of the Canyons at Bighorn community. As such, the ongoing construction of that project along
with the Project would result in potentially significant cumulative impacts during construction. No
cumulative impacts are anticipated upon public roadway segments at roadway intersections operating at
levels of service worse than LOS D.
Mitipation Measures
Mitigation IV.C-2 is proposed above in Subsection 3, Biological Resources, and is recommended to also
reduce construction traffic impacts. The following below repeats the mitigation measure as presented
above:
16 ��
RESOLUTION NO. 08-�03
Mitigation Measure IV.C-2: Site preparation and grading of the site shall be designed to balance on-site
to minimize new import of fill materials to the extent feasible. Grading shall be restricted to that necessary
for 1) proposed building pad improvement and reasonable vehicular access from the Indian Cove section
of the Canyons at Bighorn to access the residences, 2) development of proposed building pad elevations,
and 3) reasonable foundation excavations. To reduce the impacts associated with the site
preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor
elevations of 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively.
References
DEIR Addition, at pp. 54-56.
Final EIR, Response to Comment 10.
III. FINDINGS REGARDING PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Three alternatives to the Original Project were identified in the Draft EIR, which included a No Project/No
Build Alternative, a Reduced Project Alternative (Eight Single-Family Units), and a Hillside Limited
A�ternative (Two Single-Family Units). In addition, the New Preferred Alternative (referred to in the
findings above as the Project) was analyzed in the New Preferred Alternative, an Addition to the Draft
EIR. Based on an analysis of these alternatives, an environmentally superior alternative was identified.
Each of the alternatives has been evaluated in relation to its ability to accomplish the Project objectives
set forth in the Draft EIR. The Project objectives are as follows:
1. Land Use Planning Objectives
• Accommodate projected regional growth in a location that is adjacent to existing
infrastructure, urban services, transportation corridors, and employment centers.
• Cluster development on the site to preserve regionally significant ecological areas and
other natural open space while reducing landform alteration and maintaining the scenic
views.
• Provide a range of recreational opportunities, including pedestrian paths that are
accessible to residents.
• Provide development that is compatib�e with surrounding residential communities.
2. Design Objectives
• Provide residential streets, access roadways, drainage facilities and other infrastructure
consistent with City of Palm Desert municipal codes and design standards.
• Provide attractive architecture and landscaping that enhances the project site while
complementing the surrounding desert landscape.
• Provide a complementary outdoor lighting plan that promotes safety and avoids adverse
lighting impacts on surrounding uses.
17 -� ._-
._; .:��
RESOLUTION NO. O8-1o3
3. Economic Objectives
• Maximize the value of the site with clustered residential uses consistent with the City of
Palm Desert General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and with anticipated market demands.
• Provide housing which supports the economic future of the region in an area in which the
necessary infrastructure is in place.
4. Resource Conservation Objectives
• Provide open space in a manner that is compatible with the protection of significant
natural resources.
• Minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources through site design and development
standards.
Unavoidable significant impacts can occur as a result of project impacts, cumulative impacts, and as a
secondary effect from the implementation of a mitigation measure. Based on the analysis contained in
the New Preferred Alternative document, the Cornishe at Bighorn project will result in the following
significant and unavoidable environmental impacts:
• Regional construction air quality emissions for NOx;
• Biological impacts (during construction and operation) to captive adult sheep and born
lambs in the lambing pen through visual and auditory habituation;
• Construction noise audible to the bighorn sheep at the Bighorn Institute could exceed the
3 month threshold; and
• Construction traffic to the Canyons at Bighorn Community.
Because significant environmental effects would remain even after application of all feasible mitigation
measures, the City Council must adopt findings on the feasibility of Project alternatives. If there is a
feasible alternative to the Project, decision makers must decide whether it is environmentally superior to
the Project.
Public Resources Code section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a
successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental,
social, and technological factors." State CEQA Guidelines section 15091 adds "legal" considerations as
another indicia of feasibility. (See also Citizens of Goleta Vallev v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d
553, 565.) Project objectives also inform the determination of"feasibility." (Citv of Del Mar v. Citv of San
Dieqo (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417.) "`[F]easibility' under CEQA encompasses `desirability' to the
extent that desirability is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental,
social, and technological factors." (Id.; see also Sequovah Hills Homeowners Assn. v. Citv of Oakland
(1993) 23 Cal.App.4th 704, 715.)
The California Supreme Court has stated, "[t]he wisdom of approving . . . any development project, a
delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the locai
officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply
it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Citizens of Goleta Vallev v.
Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.) In addition, perfection in a project or a projecYs
environmental alternatives is not required; rather, the requirement is that sufficient information be
produced "to permit a reasonable choice of alternatives so far as environmental aspects are concerned."
Outside agencies (including courts) are not to "impose unreasonable extremes or to interject[themselves]
18
�����
RESOLUTION NO. 08-103
within the area of discretion as to the choice of the action to be taken." (Residents Ad Hoc Stadium Com.
v. Board of Trustees (1979) 89 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.)
The four identified alternatives, as well as the identified environmentally superior alternative, are
summarized below.
A. No Project/No Build Alternative
1. Description of the No Project/No Build Alternative
The No Project/No Build Alternative assumes that the Project would not be developed, and that the
development of the Project site with new uses and structures would not otherwise occur. Thus, the
physical conditions of the site would remain as they are today, and all of the ProjecYs significant effects
would be avoided. (Final EIR, at II-5.)
2. Finding Regarding Feasibility of the No Project/No Build Alternative
The No Project/No Build Alternative would preclude development on the property, and as a result the
Land Use Planning, Design, and Economic Objectives that have been set forth for the Project would not
be met, leaving the Project site with no economically viable use. Thus, this Alternative was considered
but, because it would fail to achieve any of the Project Objectives identified above, the City Council finds
that it is infeasible and rejects it on that basis.
B. Reduced Project Alternative (Eight Single-Family Units)
1. Description of the Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative would develop eight single-family units. It would develop thirty dwelling
units less than the Original Project, but six units more than the New Preferred Alternative. Under the
Reduced Project Alternative, the single-family dwelling units would generally be located within the same
location as the larger townhome buildings proposed by the Original Project. The access road would
occur exclusively via the Indian Cove neighborhood from the east similar to the New Preferred Alternative
but different from the Original Project's proposed 30-foot wide access road from the north. This roadway
would be constructed similar to the New Preferred Alternative and would be approximately 25 feet in
width. Recreational amenities would not be provided under the Reduced Project Alternative, different
from the Original ProjecYs proposed pool and park.
The Reduced Project Alternative would not eliminate any of the significant and unavoidable impacts
resulting from the New Preferred Alternative; rather, it would result in greater impacts on the environment
than the New Preferred Alternative. (Final EIR, at II-5.)
2. Finding Regarding Feasibility of the Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative does not meet the Land Use Planning and Economic Objectives of the
Project to the degree possible under the Original Project. Further, because the New Preferred Alternative
would involve only two units located in relatively close proximity, while approximately nine acres would
remain as permanent open space, it would accomplish the clustering objective to a much greater degree
19
RESOLUTION NO. 08-103
than the Reduced Project Alternative. Similarly, the Reduced Project Alternative wouid not meet the
Resource Conservation Objectives to the degree possible under the New Preferred Alternative.
Thus, having considered and balanced these economic, environmental, and social factors, the City
Council finds this Alternative to be infeasible and rejects it on that basis.
C. Hiliside Limited Alternative(2 Single-Family Units)
1. Description of the Hillside Limited Alternative
The Hillside Limited Alternative would develop two single-family units, thirty-six dwelling units fewer than
the Original Project. Under this Alternative, the two dwelling units would be developed in the extreme
northeastern portion of the Project site, at a distance of approximately 300 yards from the closest point of
the lambing pen to the Project site. This Alternative would be designed to achieve a completely passive
character that appears as natural when seen from the lambing pen within the Bighorn Institute property as
can be reasonably accomplished. Access would be provided from the east via the Indian Cove section of
the Canyons at Bighorn community.
The assessment of this Alternative in the EIR was based on very conceptual design parameters, which
did not include any specific design studies. On that conceptual basis, the EIR concluded that, if
implemented, the Hillside Limited Alternative would reduce each of the Original Project's unmitigable
significant impacts to less than significant levels. Based on that assessment, the Hillside Limited
Alternative would also have less impact than the New Preferred Alternative in some respects. (Final EIR,
at II-6.)
Though the Hillside Limited Alternative would have fewer impacts that the Original Project or the New
Preferred Alternative, it would result in adverse environmental effects of its own. The northeastern corner
of the site identified for development under the Hillside Limited Alternative is largely located within the
floodplain of Dead Indian Creek. Thus, the Hillside Limited Alternative does not possess sufficient
elevation to permit views of the Coachella Valley. The portion of the site that does not lie within the
floodplain of Dead Indian Creek is not large enough to accommodate more than a single lot. (Final EIR,
at II-4.)
Significant grading would, therefore, be required to raise the building site above the floodplain of the
Creek in order to meet the objectives of the Project. Such grading would disturb riparian habitat and
permanently alter existing drainage patterns within the Creek. The City Council finds that these are
unacceptable biological and hydrological impacts.
2. Findings Regarding Feasibility of the Hillside Limited Alternative
The Hillside Limited Alternative fails to achieve many of the Project Objectives. Regarding the land use
planning objectives, this alternative would not achieve clustering that maintains scenic views and avoids
sensitive ecological areas because it would place development within the floodplain of Dead Indian
Creek. For the same reasons, this alternative would fail the design objective of creating a project that
complements the desert landscape. Similarly, by placing development within a floodplain, this alternative
would fail the resource conservation objectives of protecting and minimizing impacts to natural resources.
Additionally, and as explained in greater detail below, the cost to construct the Hillside Limited Alternative
would be higher than the expected residual land value. Thus, because this alternative would result in a
negative economic value, it is economically infeasible. As a result, this alternative would fail to satisfy the
Project's economic objective of maximizing the site's value.
20 �-�;�'
RESOLUTION NO.os-io3
Having considered and balanced these economic, environmental, and social factors, the City Council
finds this Alternative to be infeasible and rejects it on that basis.
D. New Preferred Alternative
1. Description of the New Preferred Alternative
The New Preferred Alternative would be similar to the Hillside Limited Alternative as it would develop two
single-family units, thirty-six dwelling units less than the Original Project. The units would develop less
than half of the eastern portion of the Project site, at a distance of approximately 240 yards from the
closest point of the lambing pen to the Project site. Similar to the Hillside Limited Alternative, the New
Preferred Alternative would be designed to achieve a passive character similar to the adjacent Canyons
at Bighorn community. Access would also be provided via lndian Cove. (Final EIR, at pp. II-6 to II-7.)
As with the Hillside Limited Alternative, the New Preferred Alternative would result in considerably less
environmental impacts in all issue areas when compared with the Original Project.
This reduced impact profile could potentially be reduced even further if the amount of imported fill soils
deemed necessary to raise the proposed pad heights sufficiently to provide Coachella Valley views from
one-story residences therein could be substantively reduced. Mitigation Measure IV.C-2 requires
consideration of such reduction in the development of the ProjecYs grading plan. Because the site plan is
preliminary, the exact amount of fill required is not known, and the EIR analyzed the worst-case scenario.
Reducing soil imports to the degree that views of the Coachella Valley are no longer achieved is not
economically feasible, however, as described in greater detail below.
Construction of the New Preferred Alternative would result in significant regional air quality impacts during
construction, biological impacts upon captive sheep in the lambing pen at the Bighorn Institute during and
following construction, noise and traffic impacts on the private roads within the Canyons at Bighorn
community during construction, though considerably less than the Original Project. (Final EIR, at p. II-4;
DEIR Addition, at pp. 57-59.)
2. Findings Regarding the Feasibility of the New Preferred Alternative
The New Preferred Alternative would achieve nearly all of the Land Use Planning, Design, Economic, and
Resource Conservation Objectives for the Project. At the same time, it would avoid or substantially
lessen all of the significant adverse effects of the Original Project.
E. Environmentally Superior Alternative
Of the alternatives analyzed for the Project, the No Project/No Build Alternative is considered the
environmentally superior alternative as it eliminates the significant impacts that would occur under the
New Preferred Alternative and the Original Project to less than significant levels. However, as explained
above, the No Project Alternative would not meet any of the Land Use, Design, and Economic objectives
established for the Project, and was rejected as infeasible.
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines requirement to identify an environmentally superior alternative
other than the No Project/No Build Alternative, the Hillside Limited Alternative is the environmentally
superior alternative. Implementation of the Hillside Limited Alternative would result in fewer
environmental impacts in all issue areas when compared with the Original Project and the New Preferred
21 �_���',
RESOLUTION NO. 08-103
Alternative. As construction of the New Preferred Alternative would resuit in significant regional air quality
impacts during construction, biological impacts on captive sheep in the lambing pen at the Bighorn
Institute during and following construction, noise impacts during construction, and traffic impacts on the
private roads within the Canyons at Bighorn community during construction, impacts of the New Preferred
Alternative would be more severe than those that would occur under the Hillside Limited Alternative.
Although some of these impacts could be reduced if the amount of imported fill soils could be
substantially reduced, the ultimate extent of such reduction cannot be known until final project plans are
produced. Therefore, the worst case scenario provided in the EIR is assumed to occur.
As explained above, however, the Hillside Limited Alternative would require development within the
floodplain of Dead Indian Creek. Such development could result in potentially significant biological and
hydrological impacts due to the need to undertake significant grading to raise the building site above the
floodplain of the Creek. Further, that Alternative would fail to meet several key project objectives. Finally,
that Alternative would not be economically feasible.
The New Preferred Alternative would achieve the Land Use Planning, Design, Resource Conservation
and Economic Objectives for the Project to an extent that the Hillside Limited Alternative would not. In
comparison, if it were feasible, the Hillside Limited Alternative would be more effective in achieving some
of the stated Resource Conservation Objectives than the New Preferred Alternative. However, as the
New Preferred Alternative would optimize a balance between the Original Project and the Hillside Limited
Alternative, it would meet most of the Project Objectives for the property.
For the reasons described above, the City Council finds that the New Preferred Alternative represents the
most appropriate balance between the competing economic, environmental, and social factors implicated
in the selection of the alternative described above, and rejects all other alternatives as infeasible.
IV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council of the City of Palm Desert finds that the mitigation measures described in the FEIR will,
when implemented, mitigate or substantially lessen most of the significant effects identified in the FEIR.
Nonetheless, certain significant environmental impacts of the Project are unavoidable even after
incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures. For such effects, pursuant to Public Resources Code
Section 21081(b) and State CEQA Guidelines sections 15093 and 15043, the City Council has balanced
the benefits of the Project against such unavoidable adverse environmental risks in approving it.
In this regard, the City Council hereby finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the FEIR
have been and wil� be implemented with the Project and that any significant unavoidable effects
remaining are acceptable due to the following specific economic, social, and other considerations,
including but not �imited to Project benefits, based upon the findings set forth above, in the FEIR, and in
the public record of the consideration of this Project.
The Project's significant and unavoidable adverse impacts are the following:
• Regional construction air quality emissions for NOx;
• Biological impacts (during construction and operation) to captive adult sheep and born lambs
in the lambing pen through visual and auditory habituation;
• Construction noise impacts due to the anticipated duration of construction in excess of the
three month threshold at which significant noise impacts can be expected to occur; and
• Construction traffic impacts to the Canyons at Bighorn community.
22 �,J
RESOLUTION NO. os-1o3
A. EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS
The City's General Plan has long designated the Project site as an area for residential development.
(General Plan, Land Use Element.)
The FEIR and the administrative record for this Project document that the Bighorn Institute located its pen
facilities with full knowledge, or with the potential for full knowledge, of the planning activities of the City of
Palm Desert. This includes a recognition, actual or constructive, that the Project site was and is zoned
and planned for residential uses. The evidence available in the public records of the Bureau of Land
Management even note that this consideration was taken into account, particularly in the appraisal report
establishing the value of the Bighorn Institute property. (Memorandum Appraisal Report, R&PP, Bighorn
Research Institute — CA — 14622, Lease with Option to Patent, Robert S. Leonard, June 20, 1984.) It
must be assumed that the Bighorn Institute knew of this issue and considered the location of its 30-acre
pen so close to the boundary with future development in the City of Palm Desert to be acceptable.
The extent to which the Bighorn Institute must have considered this proximity acceptabfe at one time, but
no longer considers it acceptable, is a factor of internal concern to the Bighorn Institute operations. The
City of Palm Desert is not considering a general plan amendment or zone change on the Project site from
open space to residential, but rather an implementation of its existing General Plan. If problems have
arisen that were not expected by the Bighorn Institute at the time that the Bighorn Institute established its
operations so close to residentially zoned property, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert believes
that it is incumbent upon the Bighorn Institute to look to its own site or another site to mitigate impacts to
its facilities as they now exist or may exist in the future.
The establishment of an open space buffer with no uses in it imposes a burden on the City of Palm
Desert of potential litigation, inequity, and loss of revenue. Such a burden is created by a a potential
conflict that the Bighorn Institute could have foreseen during the City's General Plan Update process.
There was ample opportunity through the planning and zoning process for the Bighorn Institute to make
the City of Palm Desert aware of any conflicts with its facility. However, the Bighorn Institute chose to
locate its 30-acre pen only 300 feet from the boundary of the Project site, which is the City's municipal
boundary. It would be unreasonable for the Bighorn Institute to assume that the City of Palm Desert
would now alter its general planning program to accommodate an adjacent land use which had willingly
moved so close to the City.
Precluding development of the Project site would also deprive the City of the substantial revenue from
this Project, as well as the ProjecYs contribution to the City's jobs/housing balance. It should also be
noted that the two single family residences proposed to be constructed as part of the Project will be
located approximately the same distance from the Bighorn Institute's 30-acre pen as the residence of the
Director of the Bighorn Institute.
These overriding considerations are only stated in an abundance of caution provided there is any impact
to the Bighorn Institute facility at all. As documented above, there is no scientific consensus that a buffer
of 400 yards, or any other distance, is required. The City of Palm Desert is persuaded by those experts
who believe that no buffer, or only a small buffer, is necessary to mitigate all effects. (Letters from
Professor Paul Krausman to Patrick Perry, dated June 25, 2008, and November 15, 2006.) Therefore,
there are no significant effects that need to be overridden in this sense. However, to the extent that
unanticipated impacts may occur, and recognizing the permanence of the Project once it is established,
the City Council of the City of Palm Desert sets forth the above rationale for proceeding with the Project in
view of the slight potential for these impacts.
,
23
RESOLUTION NO. os-1o3
B. ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
As set forth in the FEIR and in the administrative record for the Project, a 400 yard buffer was established
around the Bighorn Institute's 30-acre lambing pen in connection with the approval of the Altamira project,
now the Canyons of Bighorn development, in 1991. The establishment of the 400 yard buffer was the
result of a legal compromise agreed to in order to settle litigation regarding the Altamira project. The
Project site lies almost entirely within the 400 yard buffer area, but the City agreed as part of an additional
settlement of pending litigation, that the Project site is specifically excluded from the effect of the 400 yard
buffer and that development of the Project site would not be precluded due to its location within the 400
yard buffer area.
The only portion of the 12-acre Project site that lies outside the buffer area consists of approximately
9,900 square feet, or slightly less than %< acre, which lies entirely within the streambed of Dead Indian
Creek, which is designated as "waters of the United States" for purposes of the Federal Clean Water Act.
Development within waters of the United States would require approval of a permit by the United States
Army Corps of Engineers and approval of a streambed alteration agreement by the California Department
of Fish and Game. Development within the streambed would modify existing drainage patterns and
disturb existing riparian habitat areas to a greater extent than the proposed Project, thereby creating
greater environmental impacts with respect to those issues than the proposed Project. Because of the
existing development within the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn project, it would also not be possible to
provide vehicular access to the portion of the property located outside of the buffer area without crossing
a portion of the buffer. Restricting development only to that portion of the property located outside the
buffer area is therefore not environmentally preferable or physically feasible.
In addition to the foregoing limitations, the Applicant has presented evidence that even if permits could be
obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and Game to develop
within the streambed of Dead Indian Creek, the cost of such development would exceed the resulting
value of the property. (Letter from Patrick Perry to Mayor Jean Benson, et al., November 12, 2008.)
According to the Applicant, total costs incurred for the development of the Project through August 31,
2008 are $3,503,240, including the purchase price of the property as well as taxes, interest, consultants'
fees, and application fees, including the cost of preparation of the FEIR. The elevation of the portion of
the property located outside of the buffer area ranges from 780 feet to 776 feet above mean sea level.
Existing adjacent building pads located along Dead Indian Creek average approximately 12 to 14 feet
above the highest point of the adjoining creek bed. Construction of a building pad on the portion of the
property located outside of the buffer area would require extensive retaining walls and the import of at
least 6,000 cubic yards of fill, excluding the amount of grading required to provide access to the property.
According to evidence presented by the Applicant, total construction costs associated with the
development of the Project as proposed are estimated to be approximately $1,101,200. The costs
associated with developing only that portion of the Property located outside the buffer area are estimated
to be incrementally less by approximately $362,015, resulting in total costs of approximately$739,185. In
addition to costs already incurred by the Applicant, the total value of the resulting lot would have to be
$4,242,425 in order for development outside of the buffer area to be economically feasible. According to
information provided by the Applicant, based on the value of comparable property within the adjoining
Canyons at Bighorn development, the market value of the portion of the property located outside the
buffer area, if developed as described, would be less than $2,000,000. Development of only that portion
of the property that is located outside the buffer area would therefore not be economically feasible. Nor
would it effectively achieve the following stated Project objectives:
• Cluster development on the site to preserve regionally significant ecological areas and
other natural open space while reducing landform alteration and maintaining the scenic
views.
• Provide development that is compatible with surrounding residential communities.
C_ -y
24 �
RESOLUTION NO. os-1o3
• Provide attractive architecture and landscaping that enhances the project site while
complementing the surrounding desert landscape.
• Maximize the value of the site with clustered residential uses consistent with the City of
Palm Desert General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and with anticipated market demands.
• Provide housing which supports the economic future of the region in an area in which the
necessary infrastructure is in place.
According to evidence presented by the Applicant, the market value of the property if developed as
proposed is approximately $7,000,000. If the City were to limit development to only that portion of the
Project site located outside of the 400 yard buffer area, the economicaily viable use of the property would
be significantly diminished and possibly reduced to nothing, thereby exposing the City to a potential
regulatory takings action by the Applicant, which could result in a significant financial burden on the City's
resources. A restriction on all development of the Project site located within the 400 yard buffer area
would also eliminate possible revenue to the City in the form of increased property taxes that would
accrue as a result of the development of the Project site for two high-end single family homes.
C. OVERALL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council of the City of Palm Desert has for some time had an adopted General Plan,
comprehensively updated March 15, 2004 by City of Palm Desert Resolution No. 04-20, which has been
harmonized with the City's policies for overall growth of both housing and jobs. The City has chosen in its
general planning scheme to concentrate the job producing uses in the center of the City principally along
Highway 111, or in the northern portion of the City in proximity to Interstate 10, while using as residential
areas portions of the City away from Highway 111 and Interstate 10. (City of Palm Desert, General Plan.)
The Project site is the last remaining residentiaily zoned property located along the City's southern
boundary for which development has not yet been approved. The Project as proposed fully complies with
applicable use and density standards. The extent to which the Project is not developed, or is not
developed as proposed, would prevent the City from realizing its full expectation. In adopting these
policies, it is important to note that the City strove for balance between environmental quality objectives,
fiscal responsibility, and land use patterns.
Short term construction air quality impacts and traffic impacts on the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn
development will be limited in duration and will cease following completion of grading on the Project site.
Construction has been ongoing on portions of the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn development for a
number of years, including, most recently, in the adjacent Indian Cove community. The potential impacts
associated with the construction of the Project are not unlike those that the adjacent community has been
and still is experiencing. As discussed in the findings above, operational air quality and traffic impacts will
be less than significant. The ability of the City to implement its overall planning goals and realize the
economic benefits due to the Project outweigh the temporary and unavoidable impacts due to
construction.
The proposed two lot subdivision is designed to be sensitive to the existing landscape and compatible
with surrounding uses. It effectively balances the firmly established rights of the property owner with
protection of the environment and will place one of the last remaining pieces of undeveloped property
along the City's southern boundary into productive use. If developed as proposed, the Project will also
result in the preservation of approximately eight acres of the property as protected open space. (DEIR
Addition, at p. 19.)
�,
25
RESOLUTION NO. 08-103
D. SPECIFIC PROJECT BENEFITS
The City, after balancing the specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the
proposed Project, has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified above
may be considered "acceptable" due to the following specific considerations which outweigh the
unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts of the proposed Project. Each of the separate benefits of
the proposed Project, as stated herein, is determined to be, unto itself and independent of the other
Project benefits, a basis for overriding all unavoidable adverse environmental impacts identified in these
Findings. Each benefit set forth below constitutes an overriding consideration warranting approval of the
Project, independent of other benefits, despite each and every unavoidable impact. Project benefits
include:
• Accommodating an incremental portion of projected regional growth in a location that is
adjacent to existing infrastructure, urban services, transportation corridors, and
employment centers. (DEIR Addition, at pp. 47-49.)
• Clustering development on the site to preserve regionally significant ecological areas and
other natural open space. (Id. at p. 19.)
• Providing attractive architecture and landscaping that enhances the project site while
complementing the surrounding desert landscape. (DEIR Addition, at pp. 47-49.)
• Providing open space in a manner that is compatible with the protection of significant
natural resources. (Id. at 19.)
• Implementing the City's General Plan and Zoning Code for residentially zoned property
along the City's southern boundary. (Id. at 47-49.)
Based on the entire record of proceedings, the City finds that the foregoing equitable, economic, and
overall planning considerations outweigh the significant, unavoidable impacts of the Project as identified
in the FEIR. The substantial evidence demonstrating the benefits of the Project are found in these
findings, and in the documents found in the record of proceedings.
26 ',�,�
,.+,... .;... � 1 � � U 1 � 11 � �� U � J � �� �
•'1'.,.� ,.,`}�f �. /�
73-510 FRED WARING DR1VE -'�
, PALAf DEtiER'C,CALIFURNIA 92260-2578
TEL:760 ;46—o6u
FAX:�GO ;q�—�oq8 �
. inEuC�pal m-desert.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO.TT 31676
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV�AI that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City
Council to consider a request by Cornishe of Bighorn,LLC for approval of a tentative tract map
and an environmental impact report to allow the subdivision of 11.87 acres into two(2) home
sites west of a private street named Indian Cove within the "Canyons at Bighorn Golf Club",
south of Dead Indian Creek. APN 771-030-008
1
MOUNTAIN R �
G
( 74
1 �
t i
��� = w►YsrACK RD A. MESQUITE HILLS DRIVE
� 6. PALM ROAD
� C. CANYON ROAD
� � D. IANTANA VIEW
� a ' E. ANDRFAS CANYON DRIVE
E F. SUMMIT COVE
�o �No� G. ROCKY CREEK
F H. ARROY VIEW
I. INDIAN COVE
H J. PINNACLE CREST
i
PROJECT SITE
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 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 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. In addition,the environmental impact report is available
for review on the city's website, at the Palm Desert Library, in addition to City Hall. 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 correspondence
delivered to the Planning Commission(or city council)at,or prior to,the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun Rachelle Klassen
October 29, 2008 City Clerk
y5
��
r 2 � p G1 n 70 �+ � v� 'o m n �ri � �
°w � �' T v 3 = N � A � O n � � 's � � O � ? 0 3 �. y m � °
70 = m � A��i ` .. �' �� � :� K n 3'n � '� taoo � n �• 3 .� N � m
� � z � 7� 3 n tro � � ° � " .v�r � a�+ +°Qo ''r r'^r � n o
� ��.{/1 N A A O � At rf � ID f1 t/1 � 3 Q 3 UI Z 7 rr 3 �
� ;� 3 o A � w o O � » '� w "�' � ro a .^� a oT t' o °' D
� D � _ � !^ �y '�' � � 3 °-' y A � n n N � n � � A c
7 O N
I='t G •• � N � � ; C) � N N � y�j �. fY
N .ry '� fE `3 0 N ^ 'f ,.N In N � O
3 A � C y � N �n 7
"� N v�
n °
0o N � a o
n �
� c
.^� a
� o N �
� D N � o �
� T n o � � '� c
�
a °� tj1 y w °� a a
y� sa v+ bn v+ ta sv in vi ui �a t,n tn tn v� un v+ bn v+ v+ �n tn v+ �ta v+ v+ +w tn bn ba vi �n
�
� � �
0
0 0 �
w �
o� � !�a w 'O o `" "' �° n
� o O
� � °� 0 70
tA tn ev �n bn v� tA tn w tA vi v+ w tfl tn tfl v+ v+ tn rA tn t» tn tn v+ tn �n v� v+ v+ sn v� Z
�' � N
'� �' � _
o m
0 0 �o
� �' O
' � � o � � � _ o o ,n
A A O O p W
� � V N OD OD � '
fq fA'�i,A ifl di fA !A 1A (A {A (fl M !A fA V1 N� i+A fA Ni f�H 69 fq 69 !A Ni f!f fA 49 (A b9 1� (fi =
T O
� � � �
Q' p O Z
A �w o� — .a � .� — �
N N � (r O O
�. p O O O 00 OD pwp '
n
'c y� Vi���[a �W M tA iA Hi iA sA iA b+ fA fA fA fA ifl afl M Vi H+ d+ Vi t!1 iA Vi FA M iA Hi M iH
m
'11
' � � �
� — �
a � - �
O1 �w O� N �' � �' _ N'. N
p . N �.N w N O O �
� '�. OD �� � N t�D � �
0
', d1 ifl�fA 49 F,n �n M bn iIi M tA iA fp fp EA t,n tfl ifl afl�.t,A tA fA ba ifl i!� !A !A Vi 4n 4n 49 ff)
3 T T �
'o "� �( �
x N N N
�
� � ��.W P — � � � _ y,1� W
� ' j W ? W� p� � j �
° N �O � O O p
£ p .O N N �
w
� � � _ � � , � . � � �
3 ���. y1 fR��.EA iA tfl �n fA i,v fA in iA V+ Vr fq fq en tfl tA fA +f1 �N fA tfl in fA iA tfi 4n fA t�A in v/
0
� � � "'�
� � �
�^ wQ� '*' w; ., a
� A �. �D �O V � O1 C�71 V N � y,� �
_ ... W ��V O tn � V
�O A V � 0 �
`�° �. p .W P V W Of � � O p O
� ��.,, �o m �. .
0
�
� � �, a �
� o�'a w � o
� fD e'o �D a
_ ' �
� ^ � ^ `
� 3 0 ° o
m A � � Q •
o .. � .. n
o � �
A A
� a a
0
n w
o � � �
- o O1 U1
� O O
T �
� p � N � O
w �
o �
, \a
:
z � i
�\� �� __.. � �. ����"'^� : E /� o � & w
„ � \� �
,w'
`� , su- � g _-: � "s�'�� - r� 1il�� ruuoN �
I x
yP _�.; � ��5,�,�1 � �i� .'��--'n�l}�v r n � � y
` � �::
,
�� �
.. •����� ��& ; y � �� � �
.
.
� :� �
� : � �`.9� A� . � -��. � - M m
V .
,: � '�y \g -. � �� ♦ � F �
._..
.� .._ \ `� U _ w �
�' ♦ � F �� '' — T � � `���-� U C�
' , � '�/ . ,.. ._ � � �$ (�
�Yrl
� i , �nu:.. �tloo. F a� .� '� a _ Q U m t�
` -�" , +./ i '_.i � . a.
A i � T
, ��;` F , � �'C •'R�, `�.�� �� � � V � �a t0
. , '
� ... �•� ...o A` � � , . . ��� I ��� �/� LL ~_
• g � � �
� ' � o�' a�� ' ' `... _ � 111Z
�
\ � r� > `°
: ,
��� � �� ���� � _ ,�.,. ' �� . _ F p �
� w 3s:
� ,
'�c` . � Q
, � � �� ., � � . � - � A
y
� � _ � , ,.�� �
; U
\\�� ,� ....`" ���� '.\ _ , ..�� - \/,�' i6'i� W
� ��g X
w �
\�.
r�„�
� .� _ . . � `&r
, . _ .. . �„ , < . �-,;
.
:�'
�
�, � \ �, �.
�. "� ` ���� \ � ��- .
;� '$ � , ,� �` � ���°` � ��, �
�` . � ¢��� ��
�� �'� _� ,.. �;� '� �� �,� �o , _ �
� °� f �
� �
�
�
� ,��a ,�
�� : � ��'i� �, �:- �
� � �,%� �a �. � a
\ �, �P�\ e�R � � ' Z
.�\\ + /,� `�\, %��• �'°x i/ b, 1 .. �
�
. � s+ c
� . �' � \ �� � :�- �, � ��/ °ro /� o -
� �
//� � i /' m ��1
t1J - � . :`� " i '.. , .p _ _ . ..
) �
�' . �� �� � � � �' j% � �� � � ��
< M . � ,�- � ,_,--.� �, _ I
� -- i �� �'. i ��'�
° �7 � � /y' � `��� � ���i � �� �`° ` � � �
O ` Wy �-'� / �` � ,� ..;J�` � i� � .
(
W -
a Fui 4 \`6� / � = �Bp � � � ��, _
0 � Om � ��. � �\`j \\� �
q � Ge . ;' �; . . .. . � �%.
w lu� \ � � f ../ �/�/.
K � ZO� k�' � � �`, / ��/�/
. ,, s ` ,, ::; ,'
O �O .��� ...\ � � � k
�w � .A � ` � r ,' :..� ■
� � Wo � / j/ // A//.
o r w �' / / '� ,
U
W � ZQ / �... '�' I �,'� /�
� � �_ � �
� O� � �� .. � � ' / / A
\
aa � ��. a� ��,•' y�� � ��_
O � a� , ,�:.. .i '` �r':` ,
p ` � 1 1
rt � Z \\ ' � I \ ,`�
" H \ ,,�'e , � �\ \'�
Q p ' �
� � � � �,
Z ng �i
— L •...�.„ � ` a �....,m �' , �
Z \ X I /' I�
e� � ` �
W � � .
!— � �� �� ' ' ,� _
�`` ' ' ��
,
- � he �� \ . �� M1�/ ��//.
�' / � I
i I
. . CFB . , �� I . .1
' ♦ \ �,
.
� '� 'B � �. � � � - \
��
�
' � i� � \ � .. ', i ���\
.' j.-�� �� �.0'fi, .....
� .
� . .- , ..., . '.. ..,� �....: �` � . �\ \ �� 1
/ // . � �N �r., ' � �R�� � _
E kkC��o
_ �7.
a �� u i3sei� ;
4 >?sc.� � } �
�W F �� m . w< c"W�k' � e
�a Q :� a_ n. _ ;�w���a�F a ; �
q- F aso - a Y� �� au=;e; � gs"`oa
UY J da=' Q 6. '�gay a o.._$<a�d$ � N d
���n � �,_ .� y� Ew � Y;�'dz8
5 y a� � tn aRz�„ 0 �1� • s ��;���ce� � ��a�'y�
� � � rc� wanr Ov 3e N a§ 3a'ac 3 � Wa'��`e
� � � �5��£ � rE� ��I I I • n J
J �W � � `� � I I I j II �
y } yY �
�� � � 3�' s� ~ ' I � I i I Z
0
Tb,NH.�H�� sriym,e. fi � I I I F-
° S�Nd�bd �,� o � I � , � I - � N
� �' > ; ��
4 �.s.e 3 Q 3m = �4 � g � ��'
� �: �s a � Z _ = � o � o - "' �
w sa� W ' e - Wo : w a
z N }
O ��'u W �k � k 8 g S � F
0
i-
x
N
�
�
M �
� a� m
��amRm��m^$g � �o
a o �
� ; �m
� �Q
I I LL F=
o w�'
� �Z `�
�o �
F.. V �V w
;&
m$m�m��$�$� I Z
$ W
��� F
i
i
' � li
I � S
..� �..' "' .:8
II N —
2 N
I ~
� i � E
N
I �.i O
��. ', .I�II ,8 V m�
W
K..—�.._ ,y 5
� i 1�
� � � � � �
� � �8 -;�=
_:$
: ,
,
�
� � �
, �
, g -
_� .�� a -� m
Q o§ f m S:
�� ��..� I I O�e� k
I � , �„�Y i N g�'
� �
f,. 8 (.
�
I
I-
µ�} I
�i II ....f ���.8
� ��
r,
i �
� ti� I
f, � �� '8
$
�
:I� I
�"
I 'g II ,�
` � l
I � �
� '`
I�� � I�, '.S
.,� . ;:,I.,8
�&m m m�x��Q� i
I I
� 8
�m�m m m�$$�$�
�/ y
MINUTES � �`
� PALM D RT PLANhING COMMISSION SEPTEMB R ia �n g
V��• CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
����• PUBLIC HEARINGS
Anyone who challenges any hearing matter in court may be limited to
raising only those issues he, she or someone else raised at the public
hearing described herein, or in written correspondence delivered to the
Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing.
� A. Case No. TT 31676 — CORNISHE OF BIGHORN
, Applicant
Request for a recommendation to the City Council to
approve a tentative tract map known as Cornishe, and
certification of an Environmental Impact Report for the
subdivision of 11.87 acres into two home sites west of Indian
Cove, a private street within the "Canyons at Bighorn Golf
Club," south of Dead Indian Creek.
Mr. Phil Joy explained that this is a project that involves a federally listed
endangered species and hillside development, so it was something that
staff has really analyzed very carefully. The application was made over
five years ago. That showed how closely they had been looking at this
project.
He said he would give them a brief presentation and background on the
project. The City required an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on this
project and hired a consultant at the applicant's expense to prepare it.
They were also present and would go into further detail on some of the
finer points of the EIR.
Mr. Joy showed a picture of the project site, noting that it is approximately
12 acres adjacent to Bighorn Golf Club. He pointed out the location of the
lambing pen that was really staff's biggest concern, Indian Cove, and the
access point provided to the property.
He explained that this is a hillside piece of property and the slopes on this
property were approximately the same as The Canyons when that area
was developed. There is a large rock outcropping and an identified ridge
line; they made sure there was no development close to that area.
To review the history of the project, Mr. Joy stated that originally the
project known as Altamira was submitted to the City, and through
2
�U
MINUTES i
PAL.�A DESERT P ANNIN(� COMMIS�ION
SEPT MRRQ �c 008
numerous revisions to that project, eventualiy a project was approved that
showed a 400 to 600 yard buffer on that project with the 600 yards on the
more sensitive side to the lambing pen. That was immediately challenged
in court; we were sued by a variety of folks. Ultimately an agreement was
reached where funds were provided and ultimately no buffer was going to
be required at all on this project in the areas Mr. Joy identified on the map;
however, he stated that when the project started construction, the
Department of Fish & Game stepped in and stated that the agreement
was really void because they were not a party to it and the sheep
belonged to the State of California at that time. They weren't federally
listed. That resulted in a new project that put the 400-yard buffer back on
the project; instead of 600 yards it came down to 400 yards.
Agreements were signed. He felt it was really important to note that these
agreements did not pertain to the Cornishe property. This property was
not part of the Canyons at Bighorn. No project was being proposed on the
Cornishe property at that time, so they could not put conditions on a piece
of property where a project was not being proposed. It would stand on its
own.
Mr. Joy stated that this resulted in the application five years ago on the
subject piece of property. He explained that the project is zoned five units
per acre for most of the property. There was a portion zoned Hillside
Planned Residential. At five units per acre, initially 57 units were applied
for; that was scaled down to 38 units and that was what they eventually
started the EIR process on. It got scaled back repeatedly and the EIR
identified a hillside limited alternative that scaled it down to the two home
sites. The applicant prepared plans for that two home site project, which
was before the Planning Commission now and that was re-circulated for
comments through the EIR addition, the small volume before the
Commission.
He explained that the project basically consists of two home sites, leaving
everything else by itself, and they would be identical to those home sites
scattered around this neighborhood size wise with basically 20,000 square
foot pads. Using the map, Mr. Joy showed the existing and legat access
to their property, but said when The Canyons developed, they provided
another access, so the access to these lots would be through the access
provided by Bighorn and would follow down inside the ravine area, quite a
bit lower than the driveways coming up to the pad sites. The activity areas,
swimming pool, etc., would be on the side of the lots away from the sheep
pens.
3
�����
MINUTES �� (�
PALM DESERT PLANNIWG COMMIS��dN SEPT�MFt�Q �c
Another point staff worked on with the applicant was that the garages
would be facing toward the Institute, which they were very sensitive to,
and the mitigation measures listed that these be sunken garages, or
tucked under, so they would not be at the same height as the regular
ground for the houses, but tucked underneath so that would help screen
and get rid of a lot of the noise generated from any vehicular activity.
Looking at the project, reviewing all the regional plans, he pointed out the
best place to develop home sites on these lots. He said one contour was
840 and goes all the way up to 850; there was an 830 contour; so
conceivably they could have a lot at an 840 elevation and the other would
be approximately 830. The homes were being proposed with elevations at
820 and 809, so they were quite a bit lower. One of the applicant's
. intentions was to keep the lots down as far away from the Institute as they
could, but also retain some kind of view looking down the valley. That was
one of the considerations given.
Of the 11.87-acre parcel, 10.4 acres of it would be either undisturbed
natural open space, or renaturalized open space. They were basically
saying that of the entire properry, 88% of it would be open space and not
including the driveways or the road.
Mr. Joy said the applicant intended to develop these lots and sell them off.
As potential buyers come in, they would submit house plans. They would
have to conform to all mitigation measures listed in the EIR and try to
replicate the design standards at Bighorn. They would also go through the
City's Architectural Review Committee in meeting our hillside design
standards.
He explained that how they arrived at the proposal had a lot to do with
what was already done; they kind of used the existing house at the
Institute as the basis and it went from there. Seeing where these house
sites could be located on that plan and trying to mitigate the project so that
all of the human activity would more or less be screened from the pens
and they wouldn't see what was going on at these houses. That was also
a mitigation measure.
Addressing some of the tetters received on this project, yesterday staff
received a letter from the Fish and Wildlife Service and they were
requesting additional time to review this. On this letter they were
requesting that we study relocating the driveways to the north part of the
lots and staff looked at that previously in great detail. That would force
these lots closer to the Institute and would probably invotve a lot more
grading because the area was really down in a ravine and was a natural
4
�
,, .
MINUTES �� �
� LANNING COMMISSION SEPT MRFR 1R
place to run the access street where it sunk down lower quite a bit. He
also pointed out where the access would be for the other lot and stated
that it would not be conducive.
One of the important parts in the Fish and Wildlife Services letter was that
approximately two weeks ago they came out with a listing where they are
proposing that this site, and also the entire buffer area, be designated as
critical habitat for the peninsular bighorn sheep. He believed the City
would be responding to this because what we were told was that when the
Institute was located at their facility, it was judged not to be bighorn habitat
through their environmental assessment. Now they were coming back
after this hearing was published for public hearing, after it was advertised,
that's when they came back and said no, we're looking at this as critical
habitat area. And that wasn't stated in the letter, but the City found out
about it more or less. He thought that was important to note.
To put things in perspective, he stated that they were out looking at the
property again today, and it would still be two and a half footbatl fields
away from the lambing pens, the original buffer for Bighorn was 400 yards
away, four football fields, and now they were down to two and a half fields.
That was still quite a significant distance. What they have tried to achieve
with the houses being closer, what could they do to these house sites to
make them less of an impact to the sheep.
He thought they had done quite a bit compared to the houses at Bighorn
when they were developed. First of all, during construction of the homes
themselves, the homes at Bighorn are limited to no grading at all during
lambing season. They could still do outdoor construction, just no grading.
What they put as mitigation on this project is that no construction period
could be done during lambing season and they felt that was a very
significant mitigation measure to be placed on these houses. Second, all
of the homes that back up to the lambing pens have their activity areas,
swimming pools, etc., facing toward the lambing pens. This project is
being conditioned so that the swimming pool, activity areas, will be on the
opposite side of the homes from the lambing pens so the homes
themselves would screen any kind of activity and the noise associated
with those activities.
Also, one existing Bighorn home sits at approximately 850 feet in
elevation, while the home proposed for Cornishe would sit at
approximately 820 feet in elevation. So that home is actually 30 feet
higher than the proposed Cornishe homes and staff felt the height
difference was very significant also.
5
_� .`-�
MINUTES C- � �
� PALM DE�ERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPT MR�p iR
One of the mitigation measures he alluded to before, and PCR would dive
into those a little more thoroughly, is that there would be enough screen
walls, mounding, planting and vegetation, things like that, so that all the
human activity within eight feet of the ground would be screened and they
wouldn't be able to see any kind of human activity at all at this project.
They felt that was very significant also.
The last point he wanted to provide clarification on had to do with the
proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations contained in their
packets. Some of the letters received alluded to it. One letter (from The
Williams Lindberg Law Firm dated September 16, 2008) stated that there
would be significant impacts to the sheep from this project because a
Statement of Overriding Considerations was being done. The way staff felt
on this project was that they've mitigated this project enough that there
would be minimum or no impact to the sheep and the Statement of
Overriding Considerations was being done more or less in an
overabundance of caution rather than stating that there will be impacts.
This was similarly done when processing The Canyons at Bighorn project.
Staff felt that this project was mitigated to death more or less and they put
everything practical on this project and it was ready to be built without
impacts to the Institute.
He turned the presentation over to the consulting firm, Mr. Greg Broughton
from PCR, who also had some people with him who might want to speak.
After hearing his presentation, they would all be open for questions. Staff
asked if the public hearing needed to be opened. Ms. Aylaian said no, our
consultants worked as an extension of staff. Chairperson Tanner said he
would wait to open the public hearing.
Mr. Greg Broughton with PCR Services Corporation explained that they
were obtained by the City a number of years ago to prepare the
environmental documentation regarding what was at that time a very, very
different project than what was before them now. It went through quite an
evotution from what he understood was well over 50 units originally, to 38,
and they evaluated that. The draft EIR identified a number of significant
unmitigatable impacts due to that project. They looked at a series of
alternatives, an eight-unit project, a four-unit project and they proposed a
two-unit solution without a design or grading plan. That subsequently
became, he believed, the basis of the origin of what is now called the new
preferred alternative and the proposal that is before them. They prepared
an evaluation of that alternative as an addition to the Draft Environmental
Impact Report; that was circulated for public review and they obtained a
considerable amount of comments on that, they prepared responses to all
of those, etc.
6
�-Y,
, MINUTES � ��� (��� � �
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTFMR��2 �c �nne
��+. G�IVO
Among those comments was a submittal by the U.S. Department of Fish
and Wildlife Service which requested a sort of expansion of one of the
mitigation measures and an exposition of it with regard to barriers that
might be employed to provide barriers between what the sheep in the pen
might be able to see and the visual activity zones themselves. Plainly on
either of these lots it would be possible to build a structure where they
have the activity area on the side of each home that is closest to the pen
that well might be visible from within the pen, and because they believe
that the sheep are more sensitive to visual stimuli, the Service was
interested in seeing an evaluation of whether barriers could feasibly be
designed and placed. That was a little difficult in this case because they
don't have actual home designs. They were told by the City that on those
pads at 809 and 820 feet respectively they might be as much as 18 feet
above that and for most of them, and most of the visual activity that would
occur as might be seen from within the pen, most of that would be eight
feet or less in height. So they took that as an indication.
What was being shown on display were four section lines that they drew
from the highest point in the pen through Lots 1 and 2 and then to others
that pick up a portion of the driveway access, which the most recent letter
from the Fish and Wildlife Service that was received today notes as
greatest concern. He showed line of sight one and explained that what it
was attempting to do was the line of sight from the highest point and a
distance high up on the hill inside the pen looking down toward the lots.
He had a blow up of one in the documents. They could see a portion of
the natural slope which intercepts the view line that is connected from that
view point high on the hill right down to a point against where the house
might be, less eight feet high. This line of sight happened to be intercepted
by the natural grade, notwithstanding that there have been excavations
contemplated in this area. What that told them was that no wall in that
particular area or barrier of any sort was needed.
Going to line two, however, they could see where the excavation was
proposed and yet the line of sight down to the eight-foot point down to the
structure needed to be some eight feet high in order to intercept that. That
was considered feasible. By barrier, they weren't trying to design it or
trying to say it was a block wall, or it's a berm of natural material, or it's
even got vegetation which might achieve the effect; it's a barrier of some
form.
Line 3 was a bit more complicated because it was trying to intercept the
driveways that come from the cul-de-sac at the southern end of the
access road and then the finro driveways split frorn there on their way to
Lots 1 and 2. What they could see was that the barriers, in order to have
7
J �
MINUTES �� �
� PALM DESERT P ANNING COMMI�SION SEPTEMBER 1� �nnA
the same effect, would be some 12.5 and 12 feet high respectively in
order to achieve that. That was beginning to test the premise. On the other
hand, that was the most conservative view because looking at an eight-
foot position on this side of the driveway, most vehicles weren't that tall.
The fourth one, which was really trying to pick up the question if it was
possible at the westernmost end of the cul-de-sac to have one large
barrier that would be high enough there to obstruct views of the entire
access road and what might be of most concern might be the headlights of
the folks coming home shining up the hill as they approach the cul-de-sac.
The answer was essentially no, it would have to be some 26-feet high he
believed in order to shelter this entire area. It probably was simply
impractical. It could shelter a good part of the cut-de-sac if it was a lesser
height, but due to the alignment of the access road, it was probably
impractical.
Mr. Broughton said what they did in the final graphic was to identify where
barriers might go and were indicated by dark lines. He said these could be
quite successful in conjunction with whatever the built form of the units
themselves might be. It could be quite successful in screening activity and
these areas. He believed that was feasible. He also thought they could get
sorne good screening with a series of barriers here, but didn't think it was
practical to screen all of the activity that might be associated with this, all
the vehicles coming and going and whatever other activity there might be
from view of the pen. They could get a long way towards it, but he doubted
it could be perfect.
In summary, they concluded that even with this kind of mitigation, that in
view of the sensitivity of the sheep, of the recognized listing of the sheep
as State and Federal sensitive species, and due to the what is known, as
well as what is not known about the sheep and their sensitivity, they were
recommending that the City err on the side of conservative appraisal and
that was why they said even under all these circumstances they still think
it is advisable to suggest that there could well be still a significant impact
on sheep in pen.
Ms. Aylaian said that concluded staff's report. The recommendation was
for approval of the proposed two-home subdivision and staff was available
to answer questions, either from the consultant or the planner.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if anyone knew the elevation of the pens.
Mr. DeForge spoke from the audience and said 1,000 feet.
8
,.
� �.
MINUTES � <
COMMISSION SEPTFMa�Q ,c $
There were no other questions for staff or the consultant; Chairperson
Tanner o ened the public hearing and asked the applicant to address the
Commission.
MR. PATRICK PERRY, 515 S. Figueroa Street in Los Angeles,
said he was appearing on behalf of the owner of the property,
Cornishe of Bighorn. He believed that one or two of the
Commissioners were here when the project first came before the
Planning Commission. At that time what they were reviewing was a
proposed four-lot subdivision. To go back through a little bit of the
history of the project, and Mr. Joy touched on some of it, the
majority of the property is currently zoned PR-5, which allowed five
units per acre, Planned Residential. There was a portion of the
property zoned HPR, Hillside Planned Residential, which permits
one unit per five acres. Mr. Joy alluded to that on the map.
Along the extreme eastern portion, he didn't necessarily agree with
the location where the line had been drawn; he thought it was
further toward the east, but it hasn't yet been determined exactly
which portion is Hillside Planned Residential. When the original
analysis was performed by the applicant back when they first
submitted this project, it was determined that a total of 57 units
could be developed on this property, at least under the density
limitation pursuant to the zoning.
A plan was presented subsequently which proposed 38 units and
six separate structures. They were multifamily residential
condominium-type units. That was what was studied in the original
Draft Environmental Impact Report. One of the issues with that
particular configuration was that it required two means of access to
the property for Fire Department purposes. One of the means of
access that was proposed was an existing easement of record
which goes from the northern property boundary up through the
fairway of the 14 hole of the golf course at the Canyons at B.ighorn
project. That was not received favorably by Canyons at Bighorn. So
in further consultations with them, he agreed to study a smaller
project, and also they were concerned that they were proposing
multifamily units; there are no multifamily units in their project. They
felt it was not consistent with their development standards. He
agreed to study an alternative which was eight single family
residential home pads which would require only one means of
access and they began discussions, negotiations, to effectively
vacate / terminate his easement to the north in exchange for them
allowing him an easement across their roads to gain access to his
9
. MINUTES ��
PALM DESERT PLANNINC GOMMISSION SEPTEMBER i a �nnA
property to the east. That was studied as an alternative in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report.
There was also an alternative in the original Draft Environmental
Impact Report which was called the Hillside Limited Alternative
which was proposed by the City which would have shoved all
development up into the extreme northeast corner of the property
and it was determined that that would not result in any significant
and avoidable impacts on biological resources or any other
category of impact.
Subsequent to the circulation of that Draft Environmental Impact
Report, it became apparent to him that there were remaining
impacts or basically traffic impacts associated with any
development that would have more than five single-family
residential homes. At that point they agreed in order to eliminate
that particular impact, to reduce the number of pads to four. That
was the project that came before the Planning Commission and
City Council two years ago. They undertook additional discussions
with City staff and with personnel at The Canyons at Bighorn and
understanding various other aspects of the project and impacts on
the Bighorn Institute and other aspects, they further reduced the
project to what they were seeing now. Even though this project
results in fewer impacts than what was studied previously, out of an
abundance of caution the City felt it was appropriate to re-circulate
this particular alternative for public review and comments so that
there was no question that the public did have sufficient opportunity
to review this project and it was now coming before them again
after a two-year period of discussion, further analysis and review,
and so forth.
Mr. Perry said they felt this was an appropriate project, both in
scope and in scale. It left approximately 10 acres of the property as
undeveloped natural open space which they were prepared to
either place a conservation easement on or dedicate to a resource
agency or an appropriate means of preserving that space. The end
results in development of a little over two acres of the property.
They have made the effort to push development as far to the
northeast away from the lambing pen at the Bighorn Institute as
they could and still have developable lots. They reviewed the
correspondence received stating that any development within the
400-yard buffer that was originally established in connection with
the approval of The Canyons project would not be acceptable and
that all development should be placed outside the buffer. That only
10
�-i '�,Y
MINUTES t r
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMI�SION SEPT n�R�Q �a
included a small triangle in the very northeast corner, which was
entirely within the streambed of Dead Indian Creek, approximately
a quarter of an acre or 10,000 square feet in area. They felt that
was not an economically viable alternative given the development
costs and everything else associated with that, and the potential
ability to sell that, it would not be possible to get any type of
economic return and therefore, because that was economically
unviable, being forced into developing on only that portion would
result in a regulatory taking and would require payment of just
compensation for the entire parcel.
He stated that it was also significant to point out that in the
Environmental Impact Report, as well as other studies that have
been done in connection with this property, no impacts were ever
identified with respect to free roaming sheep; the only impacts that
have been identified were to the captive breeding herd that is
maintained by the Bighorn Institute. The 400-yard buffer line was
not established on the basis of any type of scientific consensus.
There was a consortium of various biologists who were consulted
when The Canyons at Bighorn project came forward to opine as to
what an appropriate limit would be in order to protect the breeding
activities of the Bighorn Institute. The recommendations were
anything from zero feet to a mile. Ultimately, the 400 yards was
established on the basis of a Settlement Agreement because of
litigation that arose after the approval of The Canyons at.Bighorn
project. He had a copy of the Settlement Agreement which provides
specifically, and this was a Settlement Agreement signed by the
Bighorn Institute, and by the City, and by the then owners of the
Cornishe of Bighorn project, who are the current owners as well,
and he would explain that in a moment, which specifically provides
none of the mitigation measures or conditions of approval that
applied to what was then called the Altamira project would apply to
this project or development on this property except to the extent
that those mitigation measures were identified in connection with a
particular development application; meaning that those mitigation
measures do not apply to this property, that this property stands on
its own in terms of impacts and potential mitigations, so there was
no carryover and the Bighorn Institute agreed with that, as did the
City.
The owner of the property is a limited liability company that was
established in 2003. The property was conveyed into a limited
liabi�ity company at that time. The members of the limited liability
company are the original owners of the property who purchased the
11
..t--.
MINUTES � r �
G COMMI ION SEPT �u�t�Q ,c �.,
property in 1977. The Bighorn Institute established its operations in
1984 or 1986, so the ownership of the property predates the
establishment of the Bighorn Institute; it predates the approval of
The Canyons at Bighorn project, and the establishment of the
buffer. This was something that was imposed over their objections
at that time and was specifically recognized as something that did
not appty to development on this property.
Again, this was determined to not be suitable habitat for free
roaming sheep. When the Bighorn Institute was first established,
the Bureau of Land Management actually conveyed the property to
the Bighorn Institute and conducted an environmental assessment
at the time and found that it was appropriate for the Bighorn
Institute to establish its operations on its property because that
property was not suitable habitat for bighorn sheep. Since that time
the Bighorn Institute has established its operations. The Canyons at
Bighorn has developed a significant portion of its property. Now the
US Fish and Wildlife Service is coming back and saying oh, we
think we need to designate all of the property within this buffer area
as critical habitat for the bighorn sheep. It seemed curious to them
that when the entire area was undeveloped it was not suitable
habitat; now that there is development completely surrounding the
property, somehow that makes it more suitable as bighorn sheep
habitat.
Mr. Perry stated that there are some issues related as well to the
grading that would take place. Some of the impacts were identified;
one of them at least was trucks that would be hauling soil into the
project and it was estimated that approximately just under 36,000
cubic yards of dirt would be moved in in order to be able to grade
the pads to what is proposed here. A portion of that, approximately
20%, was for the grading of the road. The remainder of that was
largely going into the lower pad shown as Lot 2 simply to get it
above an elevation where it will not be impacted by flood waters
within the streambed. This was consistent with the surrounding
development. He had a drawing and pointed out Lot 2, and said it is
at an elevation of 809, the same height as the pad directly across
the ravine, so it was consistent with the existing height. The idea
was that because they were willing, notwithstanding the fact that 57
units could potentially be developed here, they were reducing the
number of units down to two and making all the rest of the property
avaitable as natural open space. In order to achieve a higher
economic return, they wanted to be able to achieve views from the
pads. The access road was also moved around to the south. They
12
,;;_,�"",
, MINUTES �� (`
PALM DESERT PLANhING COMMISSION SEPTEMR�R i R �
did look in one of the studies at putting the access road to the north
of the property, or north of the pads. As Mr. Joy indicated, what that
did was push the pads farther to the south and closer to the sheep
pens. Right now the pads were no closer than 255 yards to the
sheep pens. That is the same location or the same distance as the
nearest residential structure to the sheep pens, which coincidentally
happens to be the residence of the director of the Bighorn Institute.
They felt that if it was appropriate for the Director of the Bighorn
Institute, it would be appropriate for these residential home sites as
well.
Every effort had been made to limit the impacts to the extent
feasible on the Bighorn Institute. They recognize the importance of
the Bighorn Institute, the work that they do in trying to increase the
wild herd of free-roaming bighorn sheep. All of the activities, as Mr.
Joy indicated, would be directed to the sides of the homes that are
away from the sheep pens. So there would be a passive fa�ade
that will be actually located to the south and visible from the sheep
pens: swimming pools, decks, outdoor terraces, and so forth, would
have to be away and out of visible range of the sheep on the other
side of the homes. They agreed that suitable visual screening that
consists of berms, walls, vegetation, however they could achieve it,
would be placed such that it would limit the visibility of any activities
on this property from the sheep pens. There were further
mitigations they agreed to and they also agreed with The Canyons
at Bighorn that this project would be consistent with their
architectural guidelines, with their landscape guidelines, that the
purchasers of these homes, even though they are not on Canyons
at Bighorn property, would be subject to all the limitations imposed
on all the residents of the Bighorn Country Club project. Therefore,
this would just appear as an extension of that particular project.
He stated that he was available for any questions and would
appreciate some opportunity to respond to any comments they
might receive by members of the public.
Commissioner R. Campbell understood that Palm Desert was not part of
the agreement for 400 yards and Mr. Perry just stated they were. He
asked for clarification. He understood that it was between Riverside
(County) and The Canyons and Palm Desert was not a part of it.
Mr. Perry said that was not his understanding. His understanding
was that the City of Palm Desert was a party to the Settlement
Agreement that established the 400-yard buffer. There was a
13
�
MINUTES � '
_ PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER �a �nnA
complicated series of transactions. At one time there wasn't a letter
and there was an agreement that in fact that the Bighorn Institute
was going to relocate its pen such that it would have the buffer
entirely on its own property. That was vetoed by the Department of
Fish and Game, and in fact there was originally a 600-yard buffer
proposed. The 400-yard buffer was then established, again, with
the restriction that it would not apply to development that's going to
happen on this particular property that is now the Cornishe at
Bighorn property. He had a copy of the Settlement Agreement and
he submitted it when he was here two years ago at the request of
the Planning Commission at the time, so it is in the file and the City
was a party to that particular Settlement Agreement.
Commissioner R. Campbell thanked him.
Commissioner Schmidt asked for clarification as to the road easements.
She asked for the location of the one established in 1959.
Mr. Perry identified it on the plan as two dash lines that said
existing 30-foot access easement for Instrument Number 90727
recorded 10/23/1959. He further clarified that it was the one that
went through the Canyons golf course, across the 14th fairway.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if it was still an existing easement.
Mr. Perry said yes. They have agreed with The Canyons that in
exchange for allowing them to use this easement across their
roads, they would terminate that easement.
Commissioner Schmidt said the other access that shows the cul-de-sac
and Lot A went off the drawings. She asked where it went.
Mr. Perry indicated that it connected to Indian Cove, which is a cul-
de-sac. He showed the location of the Cornishe property, the Indian
Cove cul-de-sac, and said there's an access easement that comes
across which would become the access road for this property.
Commissioner Schmidt asked which of those went over the Dead Indian
Creek.
Mr. Perry explained that the one that would go over Dead Indian
Creek would be the one to the north. Dead Indian Creek is directly
to the north of the Cornishe property. They were right along the
edge of the streambed. So by vacating this particular easement, or
14
� �
, MINUTES � (
PALM DES RT PLANNING COMMIS�IQN SEPT MR�o �c
--��1
terminating this easement, they would again be reducing the
potential impacts on water flow in the creek and so forth, not only
reducing impacts on the golfers on the golf course at The Canyons
at Bighorn.
Commissioner Schmidt asked for the location of the ravine that needed
filling.
Mr. Perry said it is along the eastern portion of the property along
the access road. He confirmed that it impacts the Lot A proposal.
There was a small ravine and the road would follow it and then
terminate at a low point. They tried to keep that as low as possible
to reduce the visibility from the sheep pens. He thought it was also
important to recognize that the visual studies that were done that
Mr. Broughton presented were all performed from the highest point
within the sheep pen. They would anticipate that the sheep were
not always going to congregate on the highest point and the lower
on the slope they were, the less visible or the lower the screens
would have to be. They would also encourage the Bighorn Institute
to the extent they are unable on their property to effectively screen
visual impacts, to erect screens on their own property. He thought
that would be an appropriate measure on their part and something
they might even be willing to contribute to. Again, they didn't want
to disturb the sheep any more than necessary. To the extent that
barriers on the Institute property would be effective, they would be
willing potentially to participate in that as well.
There were no other questions and Mr. Perry thanked the
Commission.
Chairperson Tanner said he would ask for testimony in FAVOR of the
project. There was no response. Chairperson Tanner asked for testimony
in OPPOSITION to the project, noting that he had three Requests to
Speak cards and started with them. He invited Mr. J. Craig Williams to
come forward.
MR. J. CRAIG WILLIAMS, 100 Bayview Circle, South Tower, Suite
330 in Newport Beach, California, informed the Planning
Commission that he is a member of the Bighorn Institute Board of
Directors. He was also its attorney. He thought perhaps Mr.
Campbefl might be pleased to know that he was one of the people
that drafted the Settlement Agreement with the City and the
Institute and Altamira. At the time, he worked for Mr. Perry's law
firm: Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble & Mallory, and he would talk
15
"�T
;���'" "`' .
MINUTES � i
PALM DESERT PI ANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMR�R �a
about that a little bit later because he had some concerns about
that. But it was in 1992, he believed, when he was last in these
chambers and he marveled then, as he marveled again, at the
beautiful mural that sat behind them and looked up into the
mountains, because that was Palm Desert to him and always has
been. In the 20-some years he has been coming out here, as a
member of the Institute's Board after he was its attorney, it had
always caused him to love this place and hopefully retire out here
once he got done practicing law in Newport Beach.
Since he began to talk to them about the history a while ago, he
would talk to them briefly about a number of issues, but starting a
little bit with the history. At the time when the Institute was formed
in 1982, the sheep were listed as a State endangered species
controlled by the California Department of Fish and Game. And
back in 1998, they were listed as a federally endangered species.
So there are two regulatory agencies that control the Institute. They
have a memorandum of understanding which they operate under
with the California Department of Fish and Game, and they have a
Section 10-A permit from the United States Fish & Wildlife
Services. Both of those agencies supervise their work and provide
comments to them in the Draft Environmental Impact Report.
To move forward, there was an extended lawsuit. Of the people in
this room, perhaps only Mr. Joy, Mr. DeForge and he himself were
the only three people in this room who were here back in 1992
when that lawsuit was going on. The City was sued by the
developer, Altamira, as was the Institute for the Institute's speaking
out, as he was doing today, against this project. They essentially
beat back that lawsuit as a slap lawsuit that was brought by the
developer to prevent their speaking to the Commission. The court
sustained their side and they entered into the Settlement
Agreement.
Mr. Williams said they were correct that the City agreed to the 400-
yard buffer. Mr. Perry was partially correct that the Agreement
exempts the Del Gagnon property. What was known at the time
was that the Del Gagnon property, subject to a later application by
Del Gagnon for this, but as far as the Institute, the County, which
was also sued, and the City was concerned, they all agreed that
there would be a 400-yard buffer. That decision came as a result of
approximately a year of consultations among 29 different biologists.
He added that one of those, or two or three of those biologists,
included biologists that were appointed by Altamira, the
16
t:,
_ r
MINUTES �� �
. ,
PALM DESERT PLAI�f�II�G COMMISSION
SFpTEMB�R �� �008
predecessor to Canyons at Bighorn. So it was not a solely one-
sided event.
Those discussions took the course of a year and ranged from a
mile to less than a mile, and ultimately agreed upon a minimum
buffer of 400 yards to protect the lambing pen. There wasn't much
discussion, and hadn't been much discussion, in either the Draft or
the Final Environmental Impact Report of the ram pen, which was
located slightly to the south west of the lambing pen. It is a seven-
acre pen; it is higher than the lambing pen. There are presently two
rams in the pen. During the rut period, some of the ewes are moved
to the ram pen and one of the rams is moved to the lambing pen for
breeding purposes. As they knew, the Institute is a captive breeding
program that is known as a recovery center approved by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Senrice. It is a treasure to the Coachella
Valley. There are less than ten Federally-sanctioned recovery
centers for endangered species in the entire United States. Several
of them, not surprisingly, are located in California: San Diego,
Catalina and Palm Desert. They should be proud that the recovery
center has sustained this species for generations to come.
In the course of the Institute's proceedings, those 29 biologists all
agreed that the 400-yard buffer would be in place as a protection
for the lambing pen. They had some concerns for the sight lines
presented tonight because the sight lines were taken without the
benefit of coming to the pen itself. .lf they had been in the pen,
which he didn't think any of them had and he himself had not in fact
having been on there for 20 years, but he had seen it. There is a
rise below the top of the pen and there is a sight line from the right
hand side of the pen that they would only know if they had been
inside of the pen. Those sight lines were not analyzed in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report or the Final Environmental Impact
Report. In addition, there was no sight line analysis from the ram
pen, which is equally the reason for the 400-yard buffer. He thought
that was something that needed to be considered.
They heard from Mr. Joy that the Fish and Wildlife Service has
requested a continuance, and he again would request a
continuance of the decision tonight for a couple of reasons. First,
from a practical stand point; the public notice was issued on
September 3, 2008. This hearing is September 16. That is 13 days.
He believed the City ordinance, and the City Attorney could correct
him if he was wrong, but he believed it required at least a 21-day
17
MINUTES � (
PALM DESERT PLANI`ING COMMISSION SEPTE�ua�o ,c Q
rr�■ ■� �000
notice period and he believed comments for a Final Environmental
Impact Report required a 30-day comment period.
Mr. Williams stated that he submitted written comments earlier this
afternoon to Mr. Joy. Unfortunately, they didn't make it to the
Commission. He submitted a copy (see attachment). He said it
wasn't his intent to go over those comments in depth tonight and he
would entrust them to their reading, because they comment on the
Final Environmental Impact Report and the issues they see there.
So in that event, because of the shortened time period from a
practical stand point, he thought it was appropriate for them to
spend the time to read the four or so pages that the combination of
the Institute and himself wrote this afternoon to submit to them
tonight. He hoped they would get here earlier and into their packets
earlier, and he apologized if it didn't.
The Fish and Wildlife Service, as noted in the end of that letter, has
on August 28, rather recently and just a few days before the public
notice was provided, issued a proposed rule designating the
property, the entire property of Cornishe, as a critical endangered
habitat, which once adopted would preclude any development on
the property. Surprisingly, the Final and Draft Environmental Impact
Reports take this kind of cavalier attitude, and he was going to call
it cavalier and he wasn't one to use a lot of adjectives, but it was a
little frustrating because it says that the Fish and Wildlife Service
has propounded these things the Draft and Final Environmental
Impact Report calls landscape designations of critical habitat for the
sheep. That was quite like saying that it's okay to build in the
Joshua Tree National Park because it contains a lot of acres right
along the edge where no one ever goes and they could stick a
couple of homes in there because it was kind of just a landscape
designation. It seemed to him to be a bit incongruous to say on the
one hand that they have to comply with the law, but on the other
hand choose which laws they were going to disregard.
Going back to the sight lines, Mr. Williams said there were a couple
of problems with the Environmental Impact Reports beyond the fact
that they are not sighted properly from the pens, they don't use the
right basis for the decision. If they looked at the map that was up on
the screen, the map says that the sheep are three feet high. They
are about three feet high at shoulder, but not three feet high at eye
height. They were substantially higher than that, so the sight line
was not actually correct from that standpoint. And the impact
reports don't mention the fact that sheep have eyesight that is
18
,
�;,�,
. MINUTES ' (
PALM DESERr oi eNNING COMMIS�ION SEPT MR�R 1 R �nnQ
equivalent to using binoculars for humans, about eight times our
eyesight. They can see a lot farther. Their hearing is actually a lot
better than ours as well. The 29 biologists who met for
approximately a year, one of the reasons they required the buffer
was because of the hearing of the sheep. They specifically
disclaimed Altamira's proposal to build a wall and said it wouldn't
work, that it would actually frighten the sheep even more and stress
them more because they couldn't see what they heard. So blocking
the view with a wall didn't cut it then and doesn't cut it now.
The issue that Mr. Perry raised about not understanding why at the
time the Institute got its patent from the Bureau of Land
Management not designating the property as critical habitat or even
sheep habitat at the time was largely because nobody surveyed it,
nobody knew--there was no one there at the time looking at it over
an extended period of time. So there was a surveyor that came out
and looked at it and said there was no environmental impact
because there are no sheep there. The Institute has been there
over the years and has seen sightings on it. The Institute is not the
one who designated it critical habitat that was Fish and Wildlife
Service. In fact, they didn't even know that this designation on
August 28, this proposed rule to designate that entire property as
critical habitat; they found out from Mr. Perry surprisingly enough.
They didn't find out from Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mr. Williams stated that Mr. Perry also raised the issue of
condemnation and says that the developer has been there on that
property long before the Institute and long before Altamira. At the
time, back in the early 90's when the Institute was battling it out
with Altamira was owned by Del Gagnon and the map company.
Perhaps Mr. Perry could clear the issue up, but what he thought
was interesting was that Mr. Perry didn't mention, which was how
much the Del Gagnon's and the map company presently own in
that new LLC that has been formed and what the percentage of
interest is, whether they have controlling interest or non-controlling
interest. tf they don't have the controlling interest, then the question
becomes what due diligence was done by the new investor to find
out whether the buffer was in place there before or not.
As far as the condemnation was concerned, he wasn't sure that it
was an issue for the City as much as an issue for the federal
government. They are the ones that are designating it as critical
habitat so it can't be developed. They get their advice from the City
Attorney and he could advise them on that issue on whether it was
19
MINUTES � (
PALM DESERT PLAhNING COMMISSION SEPTEIu�Q�Q �a
something the City needed to worry about or if it was something the
federai institute needed to worry about. Mr. Perry also made some
noise about the Institute house being about 240 yards away from
the pen. Having been to that house himself and knowing the
restrictions that are in place, he could tell them that there is no one
who would want to live there and no one who would want to buy
that house given the restrictions the Institute places on the use of
that house. It's there as part of, hopefufly, a research facility and
hospital that they plan to build on it for housing purposes, but not
for the purposes of...there's no pool outside, there's virtually no
cars that come up to it, and the use of it was tightly controlled and it
is used as a point for watching the sheep, and also for keeping
trespassers off the property. To liken the uses that occur at the
Institute's house on the property to the two houses that are going to
be built, the uses aren't going to be the same. They don't hold
parties there, they don't have music blaring outside, there's virtually
no use that goes on outside the house.
One of the concerns he had, in addition to the things mentioned in
the letter he submitted to them, one of the concerns the Institute
has is this kind of underlying thread that goes through the Draft
Environmental Impact Report and the Final Environmental Impact
Report, and in talking to staff, that ultimately these two parcels may
be annexed into or brought into or purchased by Canyons at
Bighorn. To him that seemed a pretty easy way to work their way
around this buffer and, well this buffer doesn't apply to me, let me
build two houses and then *wink wink'' later on I'm just going to sell
it to Canyons at Bighorn and now they have two houses inside the
buffer. Sounds like a law firm might be at work here, but that was
just him.
Lastly, Mr. Williams thought the thing that concerned the Institute
most is, he thought should trouble this body as well, is that conflict
of interest that he referenced earlier. This lawsuit was worked on by
Allen Matkins, the one that involved the City. Allen Matkins is the
law firm that now represents the developer and represented the
Bighorn Institute during that lawsuit. He knew; he worked there.
There are other lawyers who still work there who worked on this
project who have what he considered to be attorney-client
privileged information about communications with the Institute and
the lawsuit. It troubled him, and they've raised it with Allen Matkins,
with the developer, and have not received a satisfactory response.
But it troubled the Institute that its former attorney is now directly
opposite at advocating something that is not in the Institute's best
20
`�.
. MINUTES ��
SERT PLANNING COMMI�SION SEPTEMRFR i a
interests. He thought that should weigh into their consideration in
approval of the project.
The Fish and Wildlife Service asked them to continue this hearing
for the purposes of further study from the stand point of the August
28 designation of critical habitat on this property. They didn't think
they had been given enough notice to them to be able to comment
on it appropriately, although they have provided comments. They
thought it would be appropriate to continue the hearing for a short
period of time to allow some consultation with Fish and Wildlife
Service. He noted that, and he admitted that he didn't read every
single word, but read most of both reports; he didn't see anything
from the Fish and Game approving the take or harassment of a
threatened species. So there was no permit or approval from the
State at this point approving this project. That's required under the
California Endangered Species Act. There is no approval from the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service for the take or harassment
of the sheep under Section 10, and they have not conducted a
Section 7 consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service for a
permit to develop the property. There was no streambed alteration
agreement in front of them from the California Department of Fish
and Game. You see a wash, you see them dealing with a ravine,
but there's no agreement. Fish and Wildlife Service in their letter to
Commission said they need to have a streambed alteration
agreement under California Fish and Game Code. It's not here.
So despite the fact that this thing has been going on for five years
in various iterations and moving around quite a bit, it appears that
not all the homework has been done yet. So for those reasons and
for some of the reasons in the letter he didn't specify to them
tonight because he would commend it to their reading, he
requested that they not deny the project, but at least continue it.
On a final note, and hopefully to end on a positive note, the very
end of that letter says that the Institute will work with Cornishe and
the Bureau of Land Management, who they have a very good
relationship with, to see if they can assist in a land exchange, a
swap of property for property. Bureau of Land Management owns
an awful lot of land. There's an opportunity here for that land to be
put in a conservation easement that is open space to the City and
for the developer to obtain equivalent value of land somewhere else
that he could build on or do whatever they could do with it, but it's
not the Institute's intent to stand there as a roadblock. It's their
intent to ask them to consider all the issues before they make a
21
�
. MINUTES � �
LANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER i a �
decision. They were also standing there with their hand out saying
they will help. He believed that PCR has been to the Institute at
least once, if not twice, and spoke with Mr. DeForge as the Director
of the Institute. He said they have been very cooperative, provided
data and information and was happy to continue that cooperation.
He spoke to Mr. Perry maybe once, he made this offer, but it's still
on the table and they were still happy to talk about it.
Lastly, he would play the sympathy card. He gave them some
photographs of what it is they were dealing with. The top
photograph showed a ewe and a lamb immediately after birth. If
they looked closely at the top photograph, they could see that the
lamb was still wet in terms of the birth. So that's exactly what they
are dealing with at the Institute and what they are trying to protect
and he hoped they were as well. He thanked them.
MR. GEORGE LINGENBRINK, 623 Indian Cove, stated that he is
the direct neighbor to the Cornishe project. Until March or April of
this year he hadn't heard about Cornishe. His neighbors, who urged
him to be part of this, informed him about the project. He received a
copy of the report and voiced his concerns to Mr. Phil Joy. He
couldn't speak about the bighorn sheep. He heard a lot of things
today regarding mitigation issues, yet in this report buried was the
fact that the developer wants to import 36,000 cubic yards of dirt.
His concern was not necessarily whether the property is divided
into two, three, four, five properties, that are, what they heard
today, are going to be for sale would refer to 36,000 compacted
yards will appear on the property. Thiriy-six thousand (36,000)
cubic yards when transported are 45,000 to 52,000 cubic yards.
That usually represents uncompacted fill and when dirt gets
transported, it is uncompacted. That means that about 4500 to
5200 truckloads have to be imported right onto the property and
drive off the property. That's about 10,000 to 11, 000 truckloads.
That is an operation that by itself will take months and all they've
heard here from his perspective is about all mitigation issues taken,
yet there is more stress being put on the environment and most
likely the bighorn sheep and of course the residents. He thanked
them.
MS. HOLLY ROBERTS, 76-947 Tricia Lane, stated that she
represents the Bureau of Land Management. She is the Associate
Field Manager for the Palm Springs Field Office. She said their
mission is to insure multiple uses on public lands. They normally do
not stand behind any Council on things dealing with private issues.
22
�
l.;
. MINUTES � f
They were there because they were significantly concerned over
the potential impact to the Bighorn Institute and all the work they
and their partners have been trying to do to recover this species.
Many many years ago they gave them (Bighorn Institute) a
recreation and public purpose lease specifically to see if they could
get captive breeding and research going that would allow many of
their partners to see if they could reestablish and have sustainable
levels of this sheep. They also believed that the evidence and data
being gathered by the Bighorn Sheep Institute was virtually
irrefutable in the value of those sheep, the lambing pens and the
amount of recovery that is actually taking place in the field right
now. She believed that all of the wildlife management agencies
including Fish & Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service also
stand behind that. They are seeing significant recovery in some
areas.
She started her career many years ago working with bighorn sheep
on the Arizona strip district, including captive breeding in outside
pens; nothing quite like this Institute, but the amount of success
they were seeing is quite significant. They wanted to make sure
that people understand that these animals are flighty, they are
nervous, they are difficult to manage and they didn't want to see
them habituated to humans and that activity. They supported fully
the minimum 400-foot buffer to keep activity away from the
breeding pens. This was the third time that BLM has stood up to
say what their concerns are over this project and they would be
delighted to entertain any other resolution, including the exchange
that could help solve the impacts that have been identified for the
Institute. They were for development, but in a manner that was
going to recognize the needs of these sheep and not just on this
instance, but in many instances to come as development continues
in this valley. She wanted to leave them with two words that came
out of the document regarding impacts to the sheep: significant and
unmitigatable.
There was no one else wishing to speak. Chairperson Tanner asked the
applicant for rebuttal comments.
Mr. Patrick Perry, appearing on behalf of Cornishe of Bighorn, 515
S. Figuero in Los Angeles, said he had a few points he would like to
make in response to the comments they had heard. The first one
concerned the 400-yard buffer and the justification for that buffer.
Again, he maintained that the buffer came about as a resutt of a
legal settlement and not on the basis of scientific evidence. They
23
�
MINUTES � �
COMMISSIpN ecoTEMHFGt �� �nno
have materials that he submitted to them from Dr. Paul Krausman
who is a professor of wildlife conservation at the University of
Montana. He has been on the property, has surveyed the situation,
is a recognized expert in bighorn sheep behavior, has reviewed all
the documents that have been prepared in connection with this
case and in his professional opinion, a 400-yard buffer is not
justified on the scientific literature and his opinion from having
walked on the properly was that placing the potential home sites in
the proposed location would be no more impactful on the sheep
than the homes that are outside the 400-yard buffer directly across
the ravine. That those are just as visible and in fact would be more
visible. Mr. Perry maintained that activities would be more visible on
those homes because they did not have to meet the mitigation
measure that those activities be located on the opposite side of the
house from the side that the sheep would be able to view. They
would be able to review Dr. Krausman's comments at their
opportunity.
Mr. Perry stated that this was the first time he had heard that there
were any issues associated with the ram pen. All of the issues had
been the fambing pen and that's the only thing they have ever
heard from any of the representatives of the Bighorn Institute. With
respect to potential environmental impacts associated with that, he
would leave that to City staff and the environmental consultant, as
well as issues related to the sight lines and whether they were
taken in the appropriate location. The
participate in those particular sight line studies�p o e were done by
staff and their consult a n t, s o h e w a s n't t here to de fend those.
• Again, with the public notice issue, he would let staff discuss
whether or not proper public notice was provided. He stated that
contrary to what Mr. Williams said, a 30-day public comment period
is not required for a planned environmental impact report. An
environmental impact report needs to be made available to public
agencies for ten days prior to hearing on a certification and he
believed that was done in this case.
With respect to the rule on a critical habitat by the U.S. Fish &
Wildtife, he stated that was a recent proposal. It is a proposal and
has not been adopted. This is not critical habitat. A representative
of Cornishe at Bighorn appeared at the hearing last week that was
conducted by Fish & Wildlife and testified in opposition to that
orally. They intend to prepare written comments. As far as they are
concerned, whether or not this becomes critical habitat is entirely
24
..�
. MINUTES � �"
PALM DESFQT pLANNING COMMISSION
SEPT MR�Q ic 700
speculative at this point. It has not been ultimately approved and
they don't know when it will be even if it were approved.
Who owned the property at the time that it was originally
purchased, there were three people: Del Gagnon, Guy Laliberte
and Mario Pascucci. Del Gagnon sold out his interest at one point.
They purchased the property together in 1977. Del Gagnon sold out
his interest and the Limited Liability Company was formed in 2003.
Guy Laliberte and Mario Pascucci remained members of the LLC.
As two out of the three members, they still had a controlling
interest. They owned the property in 1977 and continued to own the
property at the time that the buffer area was imposed over their
objections and at the time that the Bighorn Institute was
established.
With all due respect to the Bighorn Institute and to the Bureau of
Land Management, they understand that the work that the Bighorn
Institute does is very important. The Bighorn Institute established
itself in 1984 on property that it knew was directly adjacent to
property that was residentially zoned and planned for residential
development. For the Bighorn Institute to come in now and say,
okay, we located here knowing that the property was designated
and zoned for residential development, however, our very presence
is going to preclude that property owner from being able to develop
its property in accordance with other laws applicable requirements
is to him, and he wouldn't know if he would go so far as to call it an
outrage, but was certainly not something he believed a private
property owner had the right to do to another private property
owner. In their view, if the Bighorn Institute feels that the presence
of these two homes will impact its operations, the Bighorn Institute
should relocate its operations. The Bighorn Institute should not
come and say, no, you can't develop your property because I am
here. This is what he referred to as the Yertle the Turtle approach
to land use planning: I am lord of all that I see or all that my sheep
see. And that was simply not an appropriate position, they feel, in
this particular context.
In terms of conflict of interest, Mr. Perry was not going to go into the
issues related to legal conflicts of interest here. That was
something they could discuss privately. It was something they
examined and found not to be an issue from their perspective.
Fish & Wildlife permits, they do not require a 10A permit from the
Fish & Wildlife Service because they were not developing within
25
MINUTES �( �
ALM DESERT PLANNING GOMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16
critical habitat. What is required here is a permit from the Army
Corp of Engineers. There is a Section 7 consultation required
before the Army Corp of Engineers could issue its permit. It had to
go through Fish & Wildlife Service for a biological opinion. Fish &
Wildlife Service does not have direct permitting authority here. They
would be applying for an Army Corp of Engineers permit. They will
be applying for a Fish & Game streambed alteration during that. He
has been in contact with representatives in the Army Corp of
Engineers and with representatives of California Fish & Game.
What they have said is he needed to get the approvals from the
City before they would approve the permits. Therefore, they have
not obtained those permits because of instructions they received
from those permitting agencies.
As far as offers to do a land exchange or some other
accommodation, Mr. Perry stated that he has been working on this
project for six years and this was the first time he has ever received
an offer from the Bighorn Institute, the Bureau of Land
Management or anyone else with respect to doing some land
exchange or some accommodation. They were not prepared to
continue this item tonight to explore those possibilities. Yes, they
were open. And he took back what he said. They did get an
exploratory question from U.S. Fish & Wildlife if they would be
willing to sell the property. They responded positively, yes, they
would consider that possibility, let's discuss it; he never heard back
from them. That was three or four months ago. That was the only
time they've ever been approached. Yes, they would be willing to
undertake those discussions, but they were not willing to continue
further proceedings with respect to this. It has been six years and
they were finally here and were prepared to go forward at this time.
With respect to Mr. Lingenbrink's comments, they were sensitive to
impacts on the neighboring landowners. They understood that it is
a significant amount of dirt that is being brought in. As he explained
earlier, Mr. Perry said they felt it was justified given what they are
giving up on the property in terms of development potential. It is a
temporary impact; yes, it would be a couple of months, maybe two
and a half months, there will be truck trips going in and out passed
these houses. The Canyons at Bighorn, and he spoke with
representatives of the developer who moved over 700 million cubic
yards of dirt in connection with that development; the development
which includes Mr. Lingenbrink's home and the homes of the other
neighboring landowners with respect to this property. They would
be moving dirt for a coupte of months. It was a temporary impact
26
„
�.;
�
MINUTES � ��
PALM DESFRr pi eN ��yG COMMISSIQN SEPTEMB A �a �n $
and they would do everything they could to minimize that impact on
the neighbors. Construction is a disruptive process by its very
nature. They would do what they could to minimize those
disruptions, but there would be some disruption. So they were
sensitive and would do what they could.
He believed that covered all the issues that were raised that were
worth discussing. He was available for any questions and thanked
them for their time.
MR. J. CRAIG WILLIAMS, 100 Bayview Circle, South Tower, Suite
330 in Newport Beach, stated that he needed to withdraw a
statement. He said Mr. Perry was correct on the ram pen. He'd
been advised by the Institute, not ever having been in it himself,
that there are no sight lines from the ram pen to his property. He
apologized for his misstatement and asked them to please consider
that withdrawn as far as that issue was concerned. He thanked
them.
Ms. Aylaian stated that she would like to address a couple of issues. One
was the legal noticing. She believed that the City Attorney wanted to
address the inverse condemnation issue, and then they would ask the
consuftant to please explain some of the mitigation measures that have
been identified for the import operations during grading.
The legal notice was first published in the Desert Sun on August 25, 2008,
not on September 3, and the local ordinance requires that the notice be
published in a paper of general circulation no fewer than ten days and no
more than 30 days in advance of the public hearing. Mr. Hargreaves
concurred. He looked at the notice issues and concluded that the notice
was appropriate. He hadn't seen the letter, but as far as he knew, the
notice was appropriate.
Mr. Hargreaves stated that the issue of inverse condemnation was
somewhat complicated, but stated simply, if a governmental agency be it
the State, Federal Government or the City conditions a project in a way
that renders that project economically infeasible then that particular
agency is liable potentially for inverse condemnation. It was a rather
complicated calculation. In this case, as they heard, this is the City's
chance to entitle or condition a project. After this, it will go to the Federal
government and the State government will have opportunities to issue
permits and condition the project. As Mr. Perry stated, and in Mr.
Hargreaves' experience, the Federal and State government will wait until
the City acts first because they want to know what the project looks like
27
7���
MINUTES �
PALM DESERT PLeNNING COMMISSION SEPTE�1ARFr� ,a �nnQ
before they consider their streambed alteration permits and their 404
permits. If the City were to condition the project in such a way that is
economically infeasibte, the City would be potentially liable for inverse
condemnation. If the City exercises in its own discretion and its own codes
and feels the project is appropriate under its criteria and approves the
project, then the Federal government and the State government get their
opportunity to look at it pursuant to their own independent criteria and
decide whether or not it meets their criteria and then they can condition
and face that same inverse condemnation liability. With respect to the
conflict of interest, he thought that was amongst the parties and wasn't
really a City issue.
Ms. Aylaian asked if Mr. Broughton would address some of the issues
contained in the reports that are required mitigation measures for import
during the grading operations.
Mr. Greg Broughton said there were a couple of aspects regarding
mitigation that he would like to address. One of the mitigation measures
they proposed and recommended is that, recognizing that the amount of
import that's proposed in order to create the pads, as well as the street or
the access road about in the flood plain requires the import of a fairly large
amount of soil, nearly 36,000 cubic yards. And that would be noticeable
within the Canyons at Bighorn development. They recognized that, the
were sensitive to that, and so what they specified on page II-12 of the
Final EIR Mitigation Measure IV.C-2, "Site preparation and grading of the
site shall be designed to balance on-site to minimize new import of fill
materials to the extent feasible. Grading shall be restricted to that
necessary for 1) reasonable vehicular access from the Indian Cove
section of the Canyons at Bighorn to access the residences, 2)
development of proposed building pad elevations, and 3) reasonable
foundation excavations. To reduce the impacts associated with the site
preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-
story above finished floor elevations no higher than 820 and 809 feet
above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively." What they were
recommending there was a serious exploration of what is feasible in the
way of achieving this and presumably that would take subsequent study.
As they knew, they had a grading plan proposed, they didn't have
structures, and until they have designed architecture it was a little difficult
to understand exactly what might come into play. That also applied with
regard to the sight lines and the potential for barriers. He thought Mr.
Williams mistook the intent of the sight lines they examined. The purpose
of that was not to do a design study by any sense, but to test the premise
could barriers be effective in this situation. He thought they satisfied
28
�v,
/ .
MINUTES � ��
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBEa 1 a �nnA
themselves that the potential for barriers to be effective does exist, but
until, again, they have structural design, there's no point in trying to get
specific.
Mr. Broughton said Mr. Williams was correct that the topography of the
pen is highly variable. Needless to say, they didn't try to take a sight line
from every point within the pen that would have been infeasible. The detail
Mr. Williams mentioned about the height of the sheep he thought was
pretty close to moot. If they were talking about bighorn giraffe, there might
be sufficient height to make a difference, but the difference they were
talking about might be a foot or two maximum above the three feet. Over
that distance and over that height would make very little difference
whatsoever—inches, in fact. What is recommended is once architecture is
proposed and they know what it is they are trying to screen, a screening
study be conducted to determined what sorts of barriers should be
appropriate, what they would be comprised of, whether they would be
solid or landscaping, etc. That concluded his remarks and he was
available for questions.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if any of the residences in the Canyons built
or proposed to be inside that 400-yard limit. Mr. Joy replied that all of the
homes within the Canyons project were all required to stay outside the
400-yard area. Commissioner Schmidt asked if there was any
undeveloped property that could come in after this that would have the
same problem. Mr. Joy said no. As part of that project, the Canyons was
required to provide a conservation easement available to the Department
of Fish & Game for that 400-yard buffer area. So it was pretty much
undevelopable. Commissioner Schmidt said it was over. Mr. Joy
concurred.
Ms. Aylaian noted that if there were any questions the Commissioners
might have regarding the processing, either by the State or Federal
agencies after it goes through the City approval, the consultant could
address those as well.
Commissioner Schmidt asked if the City did not act on this, then the
Federal agencies that would be involved will not act because the City did
not act. She asked if that was correct. Ms. Aylaian said yes.
Commissioner R. Campbell wasn't sure where he would get the proper
answer, but thought if he asked the question, he imagined the people out
there would know which one should respond to it. One of his concerns he
read in all the material, and he did spend some time doing that, but what
he read in there was in one letter that stated that actually the 250 yards is
29
(' �
MINUTES
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16 2nna
less of a concern as hikers out in the wild and they attempt to approach
the sheep and he was told that was more unsettling than what this project
would cause and he was told they normally don't move until you are about
200 yards from them and then at that point they will move. He asked if that
was somewhat correct or if he was way off base. Ms. Aylaian indicated
that generally it would be appropriate to ask questions of staff at this point
if the public hearing was closed. Commissioner R. Campbell thought the
lady who had been involved in it could answer that question, but it had to
be staff.
MR. STEVE NELSON, Director of Biological Services at PCR Services
Corporation, One Venture Suite 115 in Irvine, California, said the answer
to that question depended on who you asked it of. One of the things they
found in their extensive research and interviews with sheep experts and
others knowledgeable about sheep is that there is actually not a lot that
everybody agrees on based on their anecdotal observations or the
empirical science that has been done on the animal. In some cases they'll
have a report that there was no flight response by a sheep when someone
approached within a certain distance, and someone else would report that
there was a flight response when they approached them and they were at
a rnuch greater distance than that. They haven't been able to find anybody
that can say, and have it agreed to by everybody, that this is the distance
that they will flee. A hiker is going to illicit a greater response in sheep
than a home; that might be simply a function of habituation, quite frankly,
that they don't flee when there is a home as opposed to on a trail
someplace.
Commissioner R. Campbell said that brought up something that he
believed happened some time back. He thought it was during the drought
and bighorn sheep were drifting down into the Rancho Mirage area and to
the City Hall and no one seemed too terribly concerned about it other than
they were afraid that cars or vehicles would be hitting the sheep. He had
to assume, because he never saw anything after on TV, radio or in the
newspaper, that after they satisfied their thirst and drifted back into the
hills, that there wasn't any adverse effect, which then made him wonder
how much of an effect these two homes were going to be if they do
interact on occasion with humans, along with the people feeding him. It
made it very difficult for them to make a decision and make a proper
decision if that was even possible.
Mr. Nelson completely understood that; he is a Planning Commissioner for
the City of Diamond Bar and he was faced with this all the time. He
pointed out that their documentation and conclusion was that the
conservative thing to do here was to say that there remained potentially
30
�_,
,� ;�'
MINUTES �� �
M DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16
significant adverse impacts due to the visual and noise effects that could
spill over onto the pens. That is the conclusion they had come up with and
that was what they put before them, not for them to decide whether that
conclusion was correct or incorrect, that was what they came up with.
Commissioner R. Campbell stated that he still had a bit of a problem with
some of this because he was sure the sheep could hear the planes going
over, the helicopters going over, they could hear traffic up and down
Highway 74 and he thought that probably something that goes on on a
daily they get accustomed to and he didn't think they felt threatened. He
thought they felt threatened if they see something coming at them,
something out of the ordinary. The homes being placed there would cause
some problems, but not while the lambs are there. And once the homes
are there, then the possibility exists that they would become quite
accustomed to whatever noise that is different between 400 yards and 250
might make. That was his concern.
Mr. Nelson wished he could say he was right or wrong, but he couldn't. He
could simply tell him what the literature said; it is all over the map.
Commissioner R. Campbell thanked him.
Chairperson Tanner closed the public hearing and asked for Commission
comments.
Commissioner Limont stated that she actually had an opportunity to go
with Phil Joy up to the property and her concerns right off the bat when
looking at this property and knowing it is not within Bighorn and looking at
the staff report, were that the pad sizes were right against our hillside
ordinance and right against what they were trying to accomplish as far as
hillside building in this city. So immediately the pads she believed were too
large. Because she wasn't sure exactly where they would put the home
sites, so she couldn't comment on that, but thought they would be taking a
look at the things that would affect what they've promised our residents as
far as that hillside goes and start there. She could empathize with the
concerns for the bighorn sheep and a really good point was brought up. If
this is such a critical area, why hasn't Fish & Game, why hasn't BLM, why
hasn't the Bighorn Institute stepped in and bought this properly. This has
been going on a while. She was glad that at least had been brought up
because she didn't think the City of Palm Desert should be running
interference on that issue. But also with regard to that Environmental
Impact Report, as far as sending it forward, as long as Cornishe, since it
isn't part of Bighorn and doesn't fall under that agreement, it was hard to
stand up and say they had to have a 400-foot buffer; it was just not part of
it. She thought there was also a concern that it could end up under
31
MINUTES �� � �
PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16. 2008
Bighorn; in other words, they didn't want to ailow a lesser buffer just so
they could get the homes built and then fall under Bighorn. She had a
huge problem with the pad sizes.
Commissioner S. Campbell stated that at the time when the Bighorn
Institute built their pen, they knew what the boundaries of the City of Palm
Desert were going to be in that area, yet they chose to go ahead and build
their pen very close to that boundary and it was acceptable at the time, but
it was now no longer acceptable as it is. Also, as far as this project was
concerned, she was a Commissioner also in 2006 and thought that the
developer had come down a long way from the 30 plus homes they were
trying to build to just two pads. Actually the way these pads would be
stationed in that area, would be very well camouflaged to the Bighorn
Institute and the pens. She concurred with Commissioner Russ Campbell
regarding to the sheep. The sheep are accustomed to all such noises. The
traffic, the barking of dogs late at night, while asleep; they could have a
dog barking and hear it when everything was silent. So they are
accustomed to humans as they are being fed by humans at the present
time. Also, if Mr. DeForge can have his home 255 yards away from the
pens, she could see no reason why these other homes wouldn't be able to
have the distance to the pens.
Commissioner R. Campbell said basically his comments were in his
questions.
Chairperson Tanner stated that he looked at this and spent quite a bit of
time looking at what has been done over the last, not just six years, but
many years prior to that also. He looked at a project that was proposed
with demands put on for 37 homes and he, too, was a Planning
Commissioner in 2006 when this project was brought before them, and the
comments were that there were too many homes for that particular area. It
has come down to two homes. He was a little concerned about the lot
size, but thought it was a give and take. He felt that the bighorn sheep are
very valuable to the Coachella Valley and Palm Desert in particular, but he
also thought there could be a working relationship between the two homes
that were going to be constructed and the bighorn sheep. So he would be
in favor of the project going forward, and that was his motion.
Commissioner R. Campbell seconded the motion.
Commissioner Schmidt said she had some comments. It was a very
complicated issue; it has been on the table for a long time. Commissioner
Lirnont made the assumption that the properiy in question was available to
buy, and she had a feeling maybe it wasn't available for some sort of
trade. As a designer, she knew a little bit about land development and
32
' . �
MINUTES
PALM DESEAT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 16 nnA
developers and she was appalled that anyone would come in with a
project for 70 units, or 38 units, or 10 units on that piece of ground. She
saw two. Also as a designer she looked at that property and probably one
home on it within the 400-yard minimum setback would work. But it was
probably not economically feasible to the developers because it is an
absolutely hideous site to develop; a ravine to get a road across and it
was more like 70,000 cubic yards of dirt. She didn't think there was any
landscape barrier that would do what the Institute would like for shielding
the sheep. The sheep are very used to wild prey such as the hundreds of
coyotes they have up on that hill. She didn't think they were worried about
the dogs, although they might be. She didn't feel a continuance was in .
anyone's best interest on this. They have been told that and she heard it
very clearly, so to her it was either a vote up or down. The reason she
asked Van to let everyone else speak was because she wasn't quite sure,
maybe she missed something, but she would not be in a favor of this
project as presented to them. She thought for the sake of getting everyone
out of square one, they either approve it or turn it down, but don't continue
it.
She asked if they were sure that the public notice was clearly the way it
should have been. Mr. Hargreaves stated that he discussed it with Mr.
Williams and he was still confident that they have proper public notice on
this item. She thanked him.
Chairperson Tanner noted that they had a motion and a second on the
floor. He called for a vote. Motion carried 3-2 (Commissioners Limont and
Schmidt voted no).
It was moved by Chairperson Tanner, seconded by Commissioner R.
Campbell, approving the findings as presented by staff and adopting
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2486, recommending to City Council
approval of Tentative Tract 31676, subject to conditions. Motion carried 3-
2 (Commissioners Limont and Campbell voted no).
IX. MISCELLANEOUS
None.
X. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
Commissioner S. Campbell reported that the meeting would be
September 17.
33
� �
CITY OF P � �1 DESE
RT
73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2575
'r�.: 760 346-06«
Fnx: 760 34i-7oq8
info@pal m-desert.org
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: September 17, 2008
Cornishe of Bighorn Alien, Matkins, Leck, Gamble & Mallory, LLP
P.O. Box 789 515 S. Figueroa S., 7th Floor
Ceres, California 95307-0789 Los Angeles, California 90071-3398
Re: TT 31676
The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and
taken the following action at its regular meeting of September 16, 2008:
THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WITH A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, APPROVED THE
FINDINGS, AND ADOPTED PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
2486 RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CASE NO. TT 31676, SUBJECT
TO CONDITIONS.
Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk, City of Palm
Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.
�---J`��
�
Lauri Aylaian, Secretary �
Palm Desert Planning Commission
/t m
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
jrutuoctrtactoruti ` �
, i �
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL
APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION OF 11.87 ACRES FOR TWO HOME
SITES AND CERTIFICATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT, WEST OF INDIAN COVE ADJACENT TO THE "CANYONS OF
BIGHORN" GOLF CLUB.
CASE NO. TT 31676
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did
on the 16th day of September, 2008, hold a duly noticed public hearing to a consider a
request by Cornishe of Bighorn, LLC, for the project described above; and
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined
that the project may significantly impact the environment, and certification of the
environmental impact report is recommended with a statement of overriding
considerations (SCH # 2004091012); and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said Planning
Commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify granting approval of
said tentative tract map:
1. That the design or improvements of the proposed map is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans.
• The design of the subdivision leaves 10.41 acres of undisturbed
or designation which is intended to review the project based on
project
2. That the site is physically suitable for residential development.
• There are adjacent utilities close by and preliminary review of
grading plans has shown the site is physically suitable. Similar
residential development has been successfully accomplished on
adjacent property.
3. That the design of the tract map or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
r, '.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
• An environmental impact report has been prepared that has
identified potential significant environmental impacts, and a
statement of overriding considerations has been included.
4. That the design of the parcel or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
• The subdivision will be developed in concert with oversight by all
applicable governmental agencies to avoid any public health
problems.
5. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.
• Preliminary review of plans has shown that the site is physically
suitable for the project as proposed. There is access to the site,
utilities are available and the grading and construction necessary
to develop two homes are regularly accomplished on similar sites
in the vicinity.
6. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
• The map proposes two residential lots which are consistent with
the study zone of the general plan. The study zone was placed
on the property in recognition of the PR zoning on property that
appeared over 10% slope-which would make it eligible for HPR
zoning. The project's density is consistent with HPR density
requirements even if it were re-designated as hillside residential.
There is no specific plan applicable to the property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City
of Palm Desert, California, as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of
the Commission in this case.
2. That the Planning Commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
certification of the Environmental Impact Report, including the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
3. That approval of the Tentative Tract Map 31676 is hereby recommended to
the City Council for reasons subject to the attached conditions.
2
(
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 16th day of September, 2008, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: CAMPBELL, CAMPBELL, TANNER
NOES: LIMONT, SCHMIDT
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
� �� � /�?�.
VAN G. ANNER, Chairperson
ATTEST:
�
URI AYLAIAN, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
3
�� ��
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. TT 31676
Department of Cornmunitv Develoament:
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file
with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following
conditions.
2. All requirements of any law, ordinance or regulation of the state, city and any other
applicable government entity, shall be complied with as part of this map.
3. Recording of final map shall take place within 2 years of the date of this approval
unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null,
void and of no effect whatsoever.
4. Building design and landscaping on the properties shall conform to design
standards in Section 25.15.050 (Hillside Planned Residential) of the City's Zoning
Ordinance in addition to the mitigation measures contained in the EIR.
5. A conservation easement shall be recorded on Lot B acceptable to the City
Attorney.
6. All mitigation measures identified in CEQA FINDINGS (20 pages, attached as
Exhibit A) shall be incorporated into the planning, design, development, and
operation of the project.
Deaartment of Public Works:
GENERAL
1. Landscaping maintenance of any common areas and property frontages shall be
provided by a homeowners association and or property owner, shall be water
efficient in nature and in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape
design standards. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of
Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by
the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration
shall specify: (a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners
association; (b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the
recordation of the Map; and (c) the aforementioned landscaping shall be the
responsibility of the property owners association. Landscaping plans shall be
submitted for review simultaneously with grading plans.
4
,
i, ' .
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils
engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public
Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
3. The maintenance of any retention areas shall be by the homeowners association
and stipulated in the CC&R's.
BONDS AND FEES
4. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
5. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
6. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
7. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
8. Grading bonds are required.
DESIGN PLANS
9. Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a
drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction.
10. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electronic files
shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval
prior to issuance of any permits.
11. Improvement plans for utility systems shall be approved by the respective
provider or service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of
Public Works prior to project final. Easements for utilities on private streets shall
be granted on final map.
12. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map are subject to review and
modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
5
,
(� �
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
REQUIRED CONSTRUCTION
13. Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in
accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be
provided.
14. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works
Department.
15. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section
24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm water Management
and Discharge Control.
16. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence
to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit
for storm water discharges associated with construction. Developer must
contact Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS
17. All grading shall be done under direct supervision of a registered soils engineer.
18. Provision for the continuation of any existing access rights which may be
affected by this project shall be included prior to recordation of the final map.
19. Prior to recordation of the final map and the issuance of any permits associated
with this project, applicant shall provide evidence of legal access rights.
Fire Deaartment:
1. All buildings shall be accessible by an all weather roadway extending to within 150'
of all portions of the exterior wall of the structure. The roadway shall not be less
than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Dead-end roads in
excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn-around.
2. The required water system including fire hydrants shall be installed and accepted
by the appropriate water agency prior to any combustible building materials being
placed on the lot. Three sets of water plans are to be submitted to the Fire Marshal.
6
�,�:.
(� f
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
3. The applicant or developer shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal's office for
approval, a site plan designating required fire lanes.
4. Blue dot retro-reflectors shall be placed in the street 8" from centerline to the side
that the fire hydrant is on, to identify hydrant locations.
7
i
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
EXHIBIT A
CEQA
FINDINGS
INTRODUCTION
The City of Palm Desert has considered the proposed project, as submitted by
Cornishe of Bighorn, LLC (the "Applicant"), and has chosen to adopt the plan, subject to
the imposition of feasible mitigation measures. The proposed Cornishe of Bighorn project
(the "Project") consists of the subdivision of a 12 acre site to create two residential lots for
the development of one single family home on each lot.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et
seq.) ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regulations §§ 15000 et seq.)
require that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives, where feasible, to
avoid or mitigate significant impacts that would otherwise occur with implementation of the
proposed project. Project mitigation or alternatives are not required, however, where they
are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the proposed project lies with
another agency. (CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a), (b)).
For those significant effects that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level,
the public agency is required to find that specific overriding economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh the significant effects on
the environment (see, Pub. Res. Code § 21081(b)).
These findings summarize the data and conclusions contained in the final
environmental impact report ("FEIR") for the Project, which includes the Draft EIR, dated
December 2005, the New Preferred Alternative, an Addition to the Draft EIR, dated March
2008, the Responses to Comments, and the entire administrative record, all of which are
incorporated into these findings as if set forth in full.
The original tract map for the Project was filed in August of 2003. The original tract
map proposed the development of up to 57 dwelling units on four residential lots. The
initial application was revised to propose 38 dwelling units, which was evaluated as the
proposed project (the "Original Project") in the Draft EIR. The 38 units were to be located
in seven multi-unit structures on five residential lots occupying approximately 4.32 acres of
the Project site. The remaining undeveloped areas were intended to remain in perpetual
open space. Access to the Project site was to be provided via two access points, a 30-
foot easement that would traverse Dead Indian Creek north of the Project site, and a 20-
foot road connecting to the Indian Cove neighborhood within the Canyons at Bighorn
community to the east. As an alternative to the Original Project, the Applicant proposed
an eight-lot single-family subdivision with access restricted to the east at Indian Cove.
8
,�
f �
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
Impacts of the eight-unit alternative were evaluated in the Draft EIR as the Reduced
Project Alternative. In addition, the City directed its consultant to include a two-unit
residential alternative for analysis in the Draft EIR. Impacts of the two-unit alternative
were evaluated in the Draft EIR as the Hillside Limited Alternative.
In response to the comments received on the Draft EIR, the Applicant explored
options for a smaller project and in November 2006, submitted a newly revised tentative
tract map for a two-lot residential alternative to the City, herein referred to as the New
Preferred Alternative. The New Preferred Alternative provides specific lots, pad areas for
each residence, and associated garages as well as the grading necessary to create those
pads. Although the Draft EIR complied with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines
regarding the analysis of the Original Project, the City circulated the New Preferred
Alternative for public review and comment to augment the Draft EIR.
Consistent with the requirements of CEQA, and the State CEQA Guidelines, the
FEIR discusses environmental effects in proportion to the severity and probability of
occurrence. The FEIR identifies a number of potentially significant adverse environmental
effects of the Project. The FEIR also identifies mitigation measures which would reduce or
eliminate potential adverse effects. These effects and the mitigation measures are
summarized below, as is the City Council's determination whether or not to incorporate
such mitigation measures and its rationale for such determination.
All mitigation measures have been incorporated into a mitigation monitoring and
reporting program pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21081.6. The drafting of these
measures has been designed to ensure compliance during project implementation, as
explained further in the FEIR.
These findings merely summarize data in the FEIR administrative record for
purposes of identifying the significant impacts and mitigation measures for the Project.
The FEIR is incorporated by reference into these findings as substantial evidence therefor
as if set forth fully in these findings.
AESTHETICS
Impacts
The New Preferred Alternative would alter the natural appearance of less than half
of the area of the Project site. The dwelling and landscape design for the two single-family
residences would comply with the architectural guidelines for the adjacent Canyons at
Bighorn, appearing as a minor extension of that community. With compliance with the
Comprehensive General Plan policies and Municipal Code requirements and completion
of design review by the City's Architectural Review Commission, the New Preferred
Alternative would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site or surrounding area, notwithstanding the area required for site preparation and
grading. Therefore, the impacts to on-site aesthetic resources would be less than
9
r.,
t �,
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
significant. The New Preferred Alternative would not substantially affect views from the
surrounding residential uses to the east and north or from public views across SR-74, a
state scenic highway. Therefore, the New Preferred Alternative, well over 1,000 feet from
the highway, would not substantively affect the scenic content of such views. Overall,
aesthetic impacts under the New Preferred Alternative would be less than significant.
However, mitigation measures are recommended to ensure that aesthetic impacts remain
less than significant. As with the New Preferred Alternative, all related projects would be
subject to the City's project permit and approval process. Furthermore, each related
project identified is located sufficiently distant from the Project site as to have a minimal
cumulative effect. As such, no significant cumulative impacts regarding aesthetics, views,
and light or glare would occur.
Mitiaation Measures
Mitigation Measure IV.A-1: All open areas not used for buildings, roadways,
driveways, parking areas, or walkways shall be landscaped to reduce visibility of the
Project improvements from adjacent properties in accordance with a Landscape Plan to
be prepared by a licensed landscape architect to the satisfaction of the Community
Development/Planning Department. The Landscape Plan shall specify plant materials,
heights upon planting or box sizes, and locations. Remaining existing natural landscape
areas shall be retained and maintained in accordance with the Landscape Plan.
Mitigation Measure IV.A-2: All night lighting installed within the Project site shall
be shielded and directed in a manner so that such lighting does not shine upwards or
towards the lambing pen to the south of the Project site and, thus, is generally not visible
from the existing sheep pens. In addition, lighting shall not be a high glare type of lighting,
shall be directed away from nearby residential uses and shall be confined to the site.
Level of Siqnificance After Mitiqation
As impacts of the New Preferred Alternative regarding aesthetics would be less
than significant, implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would further
ensure that aesthetic impacts remain less than significant. Although no significant impacts
have been identified, changes or alterations have been incorporated into the Project which
substantially lessen any potentially significant environmental effects on aesthetics as
identified in the FEIR.
AIR QUALITY
Imaacts
During construction, emission from the New Preferred Alternative would not exceed
regional and local SCAQMD significance thresholds for ROC, CO, SOx, PMio, or PM2.5.
The New Preferred Alternative would, however, exceed localized significance thresholds
for NOx. As such, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce NOx levels for the Project.
10
�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
However, even with implementation of the mitigation measures, the New Preferred
Alternative would result in exceedance of NOx threshold levels, resulting in significant
construction air quality impacts. Utilizing SCAQMD localized significance thresholds (LST)
for humans as an indicator of potential impacts upon the bighorn sheep during
construction, the New Preferred Alternative would have a less than significant impact on
sheep in the nearby lambing pen.
Operation of the New Preferred Alternative would not result in a significant impact,
as emissions during the operational phase would be on the order of five percent of those
forecast for the Original Project which were also determined to be less than significant.
The results of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions calculated for the New Preferred
Alternative deterrnined that operational emissions would be less than one-tenth of the
Project's construction emissions, with impacts held to a level of statistical insignificance.
The New Preferred Alternative would comply with the goals of the State of California as it
would incorporate energy reducing features such as the installation of efficient appliances,
fixtures, and infrastructure. As the New Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the
underlying growth assumptions on which the Air Quality Management (AQMP) is based,
the long term increase in emissions that would occur as a result of development of the
Project site would not be cumulatively considerable.
Mitiqation Measures
Mitigation Measure IV.B-1: Water three times� daily or apply non-toxic soil
stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications, as needed to reduce off-site
transport of fugitive dust from all unpaved staging areas and unpaved road surfaces.
Additionally, install AQMD approved track-out prevention devices for construction vehicles
leaving the Project site.
Mitigation Measure IV.B-2: All private streets shall be swept as needed during
construction, but not more frequently than hourly, if visible soil material has been carried
onto adjacent paved roads.
Mitigation Measure IV.B-3: Construction equipment shall be visually inspected
prior to leaving the site and loose dirt shall be washed off with wheel washers as
necessary.
Mitigation Measure IV.B-4: All construction equipment shall be properly tuned
and maintained in accordance with manufacturer's specifications.
Mitigation Measure IV.B-5: General contractors shall maintain and operate
construction equipment to minimize exhaust emissions. During construction, trucks and
vehicles in loading and unloading queues shall have their engines turned off when not in
use to reduce vehicle emissions. Construction activities should be phased and scheduled
to avoid emissions peaks and discontinued during second-stage smog alerts.
11
` `
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
Mitigatlon Measure IV.B-6: To the extent possible, petroleum powered
construction activity shall utilize electricity from power poles rather than temporary diesei
power generators and/or gasoline power generators.
Mitigation Measure IV.B-7: On-site mobile equipment shall be powered by
alternative fuel sources (i.e., methanol, natural gas, propane or butane) as feasible.
Mitigation Measure IV.B-S: The Applicant shall, as feasible, install solar or low-
emission water heaters that exceed the requirements of the National Appliance Energy
Conservation Act (NAECA) and the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), to reduce energy consumption.
Mitigation Measure IV. B-9: The Applicant shall, as feasible, install energy-
efficient appliances (i.e., ENERGY STAR) to reduce energy consumption.
Level of Sictnificance After Miti4ation
Even with implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts of the New Preferred
Alternative would exceed NOx threshold levels, resulting in significant and unavoidable
construction air quality impacts. Mitigation measures identified above substantially lessen
potentially significant environmental effects on air quality to the extent feasible. Based on
the FEIR and the whole of the record, feasible measures are not available to further
reduce NOx emissions below a level of significance.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Im acts
The New Preferred Alternative would not adversely affect sensitive communities,
nesting habitat for sensitive birds, sensitive plant species, the barefoot gecko (Coleaonyx
switak�), the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassiz�), the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia),
wildlife movement, nor free roaming specimens of the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis
canadensis cremnobates), as the site either does not provide such habitat or is well
removed from the established ranges of the respective species. Impacts to wildlife
movement would also be less than significant.
Concern for impacts upon captive adult bighorn sheep and born lambs in the
lambing pen on the Bighorn Institute property south of the Project site has been a
significant factor in developing a sequence of several previous alternatives, as well as the
New Preferred Alternative. As set forth in the FEIR, documented evidence is inconclusive
regarding the threshold of disturbance that would be detrimental to the captive breeding
program for Peninsular Bighorn Sheep operated the Bighorn Institute. In connection with
the approval of the Altamira (now Canyons at Bighorn) project, an assemblage of 40
biologists and others having knowledge and familiarity with bighorn sheep opined as to a
reasonable separation between ongoing human activity in a built environment and the
12
, � i �
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
lambing pens at the Bighorn Institute. The biologists provided a wide range of opinions,
varying from no separation to over a mile. In an effort to settle litigation regarding the
Altamira project among the City, the Bighorn Institute, and Altamira, a legal compromise
was ultimately agreed upon to establish a 400 yard buffer between construction activity on
the Canyons at Bighorn property and the lambing pen at the Bighorn Institute. There is
thus no definitive scientific basis to establish that a buffer of 400 yards or any other
distance is required to protect the captive breeding program at the Bighorn Institute. The
Cornishe Property was specifically excluded in the legal settlement from the buffer area.
It is understood that the bighorn sheep are more responsive to visual stimuli than
they are to audio stimuli. Site preparation for and construction of two large homes with
subsequent landscaping would occur in plain view of the lambing pen. Such intense visual
construction activities could be expected out of an abundance of caution to significantly
impact the bighorn sheep in the pen. For the purposes of the FEIR, construction is
defined as grading, excavation, framing, siding, roofing, landscaping, installation of doors
and windows, and any interior work that utilizes pneumatic tools or compressors that
would be located outside the proposed residences.
Following construction, the orientation of the access driveway from the Indian Cove
Neighborhood to the southerly side of two proposed residential lots dictates that all
vehicular access must approach the lambing pen prior to approaching the two residences
even though construction of the driveway would remain within the lower elevations of the
Project site with berms or walls along the alignment as necessary to reduce glare and
views of on-coming traffic from the lambing pen. As no design information is available, it
cannot be said that the two residences would be entirely oriented to the r�orth, leaving
entirely passive facades facing the lambing pen to the south. Thus, activity associated
with normal residential occupancy, including vehicular arrivals and departures for
occupants, visitors and guests, maintenance, mail delivery and other deliveries, as well as
sorne of the associated outdoor activities and nighttime illumination of outdoor and indoor
spaces can be presumed to be visible from the pen. The understanding of sheep
behavior is not sufficiently refined to specify an activity level (i.e., 38 dwellings or two
dwellings) at which the sheep's response is activated. Therefore, it must be conservatively
assumed that the New Preferred Alternative could still have the potential to significantly
impact captive adult sheep and born lambs in the lambing pen through visual and, to a
lesser degree, auditory habituation. Mitigation is recommended to attempt to reduce this
impact, although elimination of the impact is probably not possible given the proximity of
the Project site to the lambing pen in its current location.
The Project is one of 32 private projects that was analyzed for cumulative impacts
and is covered in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
(CVMSHCP). Under the CVMSHCP, any loss of habitat can be mitigated through a
donation of public and privately owned land to the Reserve or through payment of fees for
habitat restoration. Therefore, implementation of the New Preferred Alternative would not
have a significant cumulative impact on naturally occurring plant and wildlife species. The
cumulative impact on the Bighorn Institute would remain significant. Although the
13
�; �
�, ��
( ;
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
CVMSHCP has been fully approved by all affected local jurisdictions, formal adoption is
not yet complete. It is reasonable to assume that if the CVMSHCP is not adopted, each of
the 32 private projects would be approved with mitigations and conservation measures
substantially similar to the ones proposed in the CVMSHCP. As such, the cumulative
impacts would be the same, with or without the CVMSHCP.
Mitiqation Measures
Mitigation Measure IV.C-1: Garage openings shall be oriented easterly away from
the lambing pens to the maximum extent practicable.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-2: Site preparation and grading of the site shall be
designed to balance on-site to minimize new import of fill materials to the extent feasible.
Grading shall be restricted to that necessary for 1) reasonable vehicular access from the
Indian Cove section of the Canyons at Bighorn to access the residences, 2) development
of proposed building pad elevations, and 3) reasonable foundation excavations. To
reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height
shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations no higher than 820
and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-3: The proposed residences shall be designed so that,
to the maximum extent practicable, all activities and facilities associated with their
occupancy, including indoor and outdoor residency, landscape and other maintenance,
mechanical equipment, recreational facilities, etc., be located to the north of the
residences or screened from view from the lambing pen by barriers high enough to be
effective.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-4: No construction activities, as defined in this
document, should occur during the lambing season, which extends from January 1 to June
30. If any construction activities should occur during the nesting season that extends
beyond the larnbing season (July 1 St to August 31 St), all suitable habitat in the
development/disturbance area of the Project shall be thoroughly surveyed for the
presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist prior to removal. If any active nests are
detected within a 300-foot buffer of the construction activity, a buffer of at least 100 feet
(300 feet for raptors) shall be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is
complete or the nest has failed as determined by the biological monitor.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-5: A biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey,
per USFVVS protocols, to ensure that no desert tortoises are affected by the project. If it is
determined that tortoises may be affected, a desert tortoise conservation plan addressing
the appropriate construction management and ongoing operational practices shall be
prepared.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-6: A pre-construction survey, conducted according to
reserve agency protocols, shall be performed in order to ensure that no burrowing owls
14
-y ;
�
F
�� i
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
are affected by the Project. If it is determined that burrowing owls may be affected, a
burrowing owl conservation plan addressing the appropriate construction management
and ongoing operational practices shall be prepared.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-7: In order to minimize stress and disturbance to
Peninsular bighorn sheep at the Bighorn Institute, no dogs shall be permitted on the
Project site, either as residents or as visitors.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-8: A permanent fence and/or wall shall be constructed
around the developed parts of the Project site to prevent free-roaming sheep from
entering developed areas. The design and location of the fence and/or wall shall be
developed in consultation with a biologist and the Bighorn Institute. No landscaping or
surface water shall be allowed to occur outside the fence to prevent sheep from being
attracted to the site and exposed to danger or human activity.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-9: In the event the CVMSHCP is adopted, the Applicant
shall pay a Local Development Mitigation Fee if he/she chooses to avoid biological survey
requirements, analysis of impacts, and mitigation. The estimated Local Development
Mitigation Fee is $5,730 per acre of development for the first year of plan implementation.
(The average annual increase of the Local Development Mitigation Fee is projected at
3.29 percent.)
Level of Siqnificance After Mitiqation
With implementation of the mitigation measures, impacts of the New Preferred
Alternative on biological resources would be reduced. However, in the absence of
definitive scientific evidence, it is conservatively assumed that the New Preferred
Alternative would still have the potential to significantly impact captive adult sheep and
born lambs in the lambing pen through visual and, to a lesser degree, auditory habituation.
Thus, impacts to biological resources during construction and operation of the Project
remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation measures identified above substantially
lessen potentially significant environmental effects on biological resources to the extent
feasible. Based on the FEIR and the whole of the record, feasible measures are not
available to further reduce potential impacts on captive adult sheep and born lambs in the
lambing pen through visual and auditory habituation to below a level of significance.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Im acts
The New Preferred Alternative would not disturb, damage, or degrade any
potentially unique historic, archaeological or paleontological resources or sites and,
therefore, would have no adverse impact upon such resources/sites. In the event any
archaeological resources, historic resources, or traditional burial sites are unearthed or
discovered, the New Preferred Alternative would be required to comply with the provisions
15
�`�� ��;
( ��
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
and conservation measures set forth by CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. As such,
impacts of the New Preferred Alternative would be less than significant. As with the New
Preferred Alternative, all other related projects would be required to comply with CEQA
and the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, cumulative impacts regarding historic,
archaeological and paleontological resources would also be less than significant.
Mitictation Measures
No mitigation measures are required as the New Preferred Alternative would not
have adverse impacts regarding cultural resources.
Level of Siqnificance After Mitlqation
No mitigation measures are required as the New Preferred Alternative would have
less than significant impacts on cultural resources.
HYDROLOGY
Im acts
The New Preferred Alternative would introduce a relatively small amount of
impervious surface areas on-site altering the site's hydrology marginally. Runoff flows and
volumes, and sediment loads would be increased slightly over existing conditions for
ultimate discharge into Dead In�ian Creek. The New Preferred Alternative would require
permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and
Game, and the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board for the
construction of the access road over the natural drainage channel along the site's eastern
boundary. However, no access roads are proposed across Dead Indian Creek.
Therefore, impacts to "jurisdictional waters" would be reduced in comparison to the
potential impacts of the Original Project. The Project would also include on-site drainage
improvements in accordance with City requirements. As such, with compliance with the
applicable rules and regulations, impacts regarding hydrology and surface water quality
attributable to the New Preferred Alternative would be less than significant, and no
mitigation would be required. Cumulative impacts regarding hydrology and surface water
quality would also be less than significant with the New Preferred Alternative. Each
related project would be required to comply with City, state, and federal requirements. In
addition, each related project would be evaluated individually by the City to ensure
adequate system capacity. As such, cumulative impacts regarding hydrology and surface
quality would be less than significant.
Mitiqation Measures
The New Preferred Alternative would result in a less than significant impact
regarding hydrology and surface water quality, and no mitigation measures are required.
16
:t:.1
. �s
• � �
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
Level of Sictnificance After Mitictation
No mitigation measures are required as the impacts of the New Preferred
Alternative regarding hydrology and surface water quality would be less than significant.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Im acts
The New Preferred Alternative would be consistent with the City's General Plan and
zoning code. The Project would appear as a minor extension of the adjacent Canyons at
Bighorn community and would be subject to Architectural Review by the City. Therefore,
no adverse compatibility relationships with the adjoining residential land uses or the
Bighorn Institute are predicted to occur, and no division of community effects would ensue.
The New Preferred Alternative's impact on Land Use and Planning would be less than
significant, and no mitigation measures would be required. As each related project would
be required to comply with the City's land use policies and zoning regulations, and as the
location of the New Preferred Alternative would be located distant from other related
projects, no cumulative impacts would occur.
Mitiqation Measures
The New Preferred Alternative would result in a less than significant impact
regarding land use, and no mitigation measures are required.
Level of Sianificance After Mitiqation
No mitigation measures are required as the New Preferred Alternative's impacts
regarding land use would be less than significant.
NOISE
Im acts .
The New Preferred Alternative's construction noise impacts at the nearest
residential sensitive receptors would be less than significant. Due to the amount of
proposed site preparation and grading, the earthwork and concrete work for two large
residential homes and associated auxiliary structures would require more than three
months to complete resulting in a likely significant construction noise impact on captive
adult sheep and newborn lambs in the nearby lambing pen. Vibration impacts associated
with construction would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be
required.
After construction, the occupancy and use of the two dwellings under the New
Preferred Alternative would increase noise levels from on-site operations due to vehicular
movement and normal occupancy of the premises relative to the existing conditions.
17
c"), .
i
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
However, the incremental increase in noise levels would be wetl below the 3 dBA CNEL
significance threshold. Therefore, impacts to the existing and future sensitive residential
receptors within the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community would be less than
significant. Operational noise impacts upon bighorn sheep in the lambing pen would be
less than significant. Nonetheless, mitigation measures are proposed.
As the New Preferred Alternative would result in a potentially significant noise
impact during construction to the lambing pens in the Bighorn Institute, it is anticipated that
the cumulative noise impacts would also remain potentially significant to the Bighorn
Institute during construction. Cumulative roadway noise impacts would be significant, as
buildout of the Canyons at Bighorn would exceed the 3 dBA CNEL incremental threshold
by 4.5 dBA CNEL along Cahuilla Way, east of SR-74. The New Preferred Alternative
would contribute to these cumulative noise levels resulting in significant cumulative noise
impacts on Cahuilla Way. No other public or private roadway segments would result in a
cumulative noise impact.
Mitiqation Measures
The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts of the New
Preferred Alternative. Please note that Mitigation Measures IV.C-1 through IV.C-3 are
repeated here from Subsection 3, Biological Resources above.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-1: Garage openings shall be oriented easterly away from
the lambing pens to the maximum extent practicable.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-2: Site preparation and grading of the site shall be
designed to balance on-site to minimize new import of fill materials to the extent feasible.
Grading shall be restricted to that necessary for: 1) reasonable vehicular access from the
Indian Cove section of the Canyons at Bighorn to access the residences, 2) development
of proposed building pad elevations, and 3) reasonable foundation excavations. To
reduce the impacts associated with the site preparation/grading phase, building height
shall be permitted to allow one-story above finished floor elevations no higher than 820
and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-3: The proposed residences shall be designed so that,
to the maximum extent practicable, all activities and facilities associated with their
occupancy, including indoor and outdoor residency, landscape and other maintenance,
mechanical equipment, recreational facilities, etc., be located to the north of the
residences or screened from view from the lambing pen by barriers high enough to be
effective.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-1: Construction equipment shall be fitted with residential
grade mufflers, where readily available in the construction equipment fleet that regularly
serves the City of Palm Desert area. Prospective contractors shall demonstrate a good
18
r.:;
. (
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
faith effort to locate such construction equipment for use throughout the duration of Project
construction.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-2: To the extent feasible, construction activities shall be
scheduled so as to avoid operating several pieces of heavy equipment simultaneously.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-3: Engine idling from construction equipment such as
bulldozers and haul trucks shall be limited, to the extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-4: The construction staging area shall be located as far
as feasible from sensitive receptors.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-5: Construction activities shall be limited to between the
hours of 6:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday from July 1St through September
30th and between the hours of 7:00 a.nn. and 6:30 P.nn., Monday through Friday from
October 1 St through December 31 St. On Saturdays, construction activities shall be limited
to between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. No construction shall be allowed on
Sundays, Federal holidays or during the January through June lambing season. Such
limitation shatl be placed as a condition on the grading permit in a manner meeting the
approvals of the City Engineer and the Building Official.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-6: Power maintenance equipment including leaf blowers,
mowers, sanders, saws, and other similar equipment, shall not be used along the southern
and western side of the residences nearest the Bighorn Institute lambing pens.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-7: Stationary equipment (i.e., pool machinery and HVAC
equipment) shall be designed so as to be enclosed on all sides with sound attenuation
treatment on the southern and western side of the residences, nearest the lambing pens.
In addition, mechanical equipment for the residences shall be located on the northern side
of the buildings or screened from view from the lambing pen by barriers high enough to be
effective.
Mitigation Measure IV.G-8: Additional CC&Rs shall be developed that implement
noise restrictions in the development and especially in the southwestern portion of the
Project site. These would include restrictions on fireworks, gas powered blowers, the use
of loud vehicles and management of on-site celebrations or similar events.
Level of Siqnificance After Mitictation
Even with implementation of mitigation measures, as construction for the New
Preferred Alternative is anticipated to exceed the three month threshold at which exposure
to the construction noise can occur, construction impacts to the bighorn sheep in the
lambing pen would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation measures identified
above substantially lessen potentially significant environmental effects on noise to the
19
, �
P
�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
extent feasible. Based on the FEIR and the whole of the record, feasible measures are
not available to further reduce noise impacts below a level of significance.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Im acts
Construction traffic associated with haul trucks importing fill soils would cause a
short-term significant impact on private streets within the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn
community. The New Preferred Alternative's import of 35,900 cubic yards of soil, is
estimated with 64 haul truck trips per day resulting in an increase of 0.1 or more in the
Traffic Intrusion on Residential Environment (TIRE) index. A mitigation measure is
recommended to reduce the amount of fill soils to be imported by the Project to the extent
feasible. However, the amount of haul truck trips alone that would be required to import
even a somewhat reduced volume of fill to the Project site via the Canyon's private
roadway system could be unexpected to the Canyons at Bighorn residents, and perceived
as intrusive. As such, construction impacts to the Canyons at Bighorn community would
be considered potentially significant.
During operations, the New Preferred Alternative would involve a nominal
incremental addition of 19 daily vehicle trips to existing or future private traffic on the
Indian Cove, Rock Creek, Canyon Drive private roadway segments within the Canyons at
Bighorn. This small increase on any existing/future private street volume of 90 or more
vehicles per day would not cause an increase of 0.1 in the TIRE index. Therefore, during
the operation of the New Preferred Alternative, less than significant impacts would occur
along the private roadways within the Canyons community. As with the Original Project,
traffic impacts of the New Preferred Alternative to the public roadway system would
remain less than significant.
Cumulative traffic impacts would be localized for all related projects and would
affect areas immediately adjacent to or surrounding each particular project site. The
nearest identified project is the remaining buildout of the Canyons at Bighorn community.
As such, the ongoing construction of that project along with the New Preferred Alternative
would result in potentially significant cumulative impacts during construction. No
cumulative impacts are anticipated upon public roadway segments at roadway
intersections operating at levels of service worse than LOS D.
Mitiqation Measures
Mitigation IV.C-2 is proposed above in Subsection 3, Biological Resources, and is
recommended to also reduce construction traffic impacts. The following below repeats the
mitigation measure as presented above:
Mitigation Measure IV.C-2: Site preparation and grading of the site shall be
designed to balance on-site to minimize new import of fill materials to the extent feasible.
20
,$
��:
. � �
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
Grading shall be restricted to that necessary for 1) proposed building pad improvement
and reasonable vehicular access from the Indian Cove section of the Canyons at Bighorn
to access the residences, 2) development of proposed building pad elevations, and 3)
reasonable foundation excavations. To reduce the impacts associated with the site
preparation/grading phase, building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above
finished floor elevations of 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2, respectively.
Level of Siqnificance After Mitiqation
Even with implementation of mitigation measures, construction traffic impacts
associated with the amount of fill to be imported cannot be ascertained to be reduced to
less than significant levels. Therefore, the New Preferred Alternative would result in a
significant and unavoidable impact regarding construction traffic to the Canyons at Bighorn
private roads. Mitigation measures identified above substantially lessen potentially
significant environmental effects on traffic to the extent feasible. Based on the FEIR and
the whole of the record, feasible measures are not available to further reduce traffic
impacts below a level of significance.
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS NOT FOUND TO BE SIGNIFICANT
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, the FEIR described additional
categories of potential effects that were not found to be significant and were therefore not
discussed in detail in the FEIR. An Initial Study was prepared for the Project in September
2004 and is included as Appendix A in the FEIR. The Initial Study indicates why the
Project's potential effects on these issues were determined not to be significant and were
therefore eliminated from further consideration in the FEIR. The issue areas determined
to be less than significant by the Initial Study include the following:
• Agricultural Resources
• Historic and Paleontological Resources
• Geology/Soils
• Hazards/Hazardous Materials
• Mineral Resources
• Population/Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Utilities/Service Systems
21
� .��..: �,
(� /
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
Based on the Initial Study and the whole of the record, the Project was determined
not to result in significant impacts in any of the foregoing issue areas.
EXPLANATION FOR REJECTION OF PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Three alternatives to the Original Project were identified in the Draft EIR, which
included a No Project/No Build Alternative, a Reduced Project Alternative (Eight Single-
Family Units), and a Hillside Limited Alternative (Two Single-Family Units). In addition, the
New Preferred Alternative was analyzed in the New Preferred Alternative, an Addition to
the Draft EIR. Based on an analysis of these alternatives, an environmentally superior
alternative was identified. Each of the alternatives has been evaluated in relation to its
ability to accomplish the Project objectives set forth in the Draft EIR. The Project
objectives are as follows:
1. Land Use Planning Objectives
� Accomrnodate projected regional growth in a location that is adjacent to
existing infrastructure, urban services, transportation corridors, and
employment centers.
• Cluster development on the site to preserve regionally significant ecological
areas and other natural open space while reducing landform alteration and
maintaining the scenic views.
• Provide a range of recreational opportunities, including pedestrian paths that
are accessible to residents.
• Provide development that is compatible with surrounding residential
communities.
2. Design Objectives
• Provide residential streets, access roadways, drainage facilities and other
infrastructure consistent with City of Palm Desert municipal codes and
design standards.
• Provide attractive architecture and landscaping that enhances the project
site while complementing the surrounding desert landscape.
• Provide a complementary outdoor lighting pfan that promotes safety and
avoids adverse lighting impacts on surrounding uses.
22
,,. ;�
�.
. (.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
3. Economic Objectives
• Maximize the value of the site with clustered residential uses consistent with
the City of Palm Desert General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and with
anticipated market demands.
• Provide housing which supports the economic future of the region in an area
in which the necessary infrastructure is in place.
4. Resource Conservation Objectives
• Provide open space in a manner that is compatible with the protection of
significant natural resources.
• Minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources through site design and
development standards.
The four identified alternatives, as well as the identified environmentally superior
alternative, are summarized below.
No Project/No Build Alternative: The No ProjecUNo Build Alternative assumes
that the Project would not be developed, and that the development of the Project site with
new uses and structures would not otherwise occur. Thus, the physical conditions of the
site would remain as they are today, and a reduced environmental impact would occur
when compared with the proposed Project. However, as the No Project/No Build
Alternative would preclude development on the property, the Land Use Planning, Design,
and Economic Objectives that have been set forth for the Project would not be met,
leaving the Project site with no economically viable use. Thus, this Alternative was
considered but rejected.
Reduced Project Alternative (Eight Single-Family Units): The Reduced Project
Alternative would develop eight single-family units, and 30 dwelling units less than the
Original Project. Under this alternative, the single-family dwelling units would generally be
located within the same location as the larger townhome buildings proposed by the
Original Project. Under this Alternative, the access road would occur exclusively via the
Indian Cove neighborhood from the east similar to the New Preferred Alternative but
different from the Original Project's proposed 30-foot wide access road from the north.
This roadway would be constructed similar to the New Preferred Alternative and would be
approximately 25 feet in width. Recreational amenities would not be provided under this
Alternative, different from the Original Project's proposed pool and park. Furthermore,
although this Alternative reduces impacts of the Original Project, it does not meet the Land
Use Planning and Economic Objectives to the same extent as the Original Project, nor
would it meet the Resource Conservation Objectives to the same extent as the New
Preferred Alternative. This Alternative would also result in greater impacts on the
23
�..
(
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
environment than the New Preferred Alternative. Thus, this Alternative was considered
but rejected.
Hillside Limited Alternative (2 Single-Family Units): The Hillside Limited
Alternative would develop two single-family units, 36 dwelling units less than the Original
Project. Under this Alternative, the two dwelling units would be developed in the
northeastern portion of the Project site, at a distance of approximately 300 yards from the
closest point of the lambing pen to the Project site. This Alternative would be designed to
achieve a completely passive character that appears as natural when seen from the
lambing pen within the Bighorn Institute property as can be reasonably accomptished.
Access would be provided from the east via the Indian Cove section of the Canyons at
Bighorn community. Although the assessment of this Alternative was based on very
conceptual design parameters and did not have the benefit of any specific design studies,
it was determined that if implemented it would reduce each of the Original Project's
unmitigable significant impacts to less than significant levels. It would also have less
impact than the New Preferred Alternative. However, the northeastern corner of the site
identified for development is largely located within the floodplain of Dead Indian Creek,
which would result in unacceptable biological and hydrological impacts due to the need to
undertake significant grading to raise the building site above the floodplain of the Creek,
and thereby disturbing riparian habitat and permanently altering existing drainage patterns
within the Creek. Furthermore, the Hillside Limited Alternative does not possess sufficient
elevation to perrnit views of the Coachella Valley, and the portion of the site that does not
lie within the floodplain of Dead Indian Creek is not large enough to accommodate more
than a single lot. Thus, the Hillside Limited Alternative does not meet the Project's Land
Use Planning, Design, and Economic Objectives to the same extent as the Original Project
and the New Preferred Alternative. To the extent that the feasibility of the Hillside Limited
Alternative depends upon the ability to construct within the floodplain of Dead Indian
Creek, the alternative is considered impractical and infeasible due to the difficulties of
constructing within an existing streambed.
New Preferred Alternative: (2 Single-Family Units with a preliminary site
design): The New Preferred Alternative would be similar to the Hillside Limited
Alternative as it would develop two single-family units, 36 dwelling units less than the
Original Project. The units would develop less than half of the eastern portion of the
Project site, at a distance of approximately 240 yards from the closest point.of the lambing
pen to the Project site. Similar to the Hillside Limited Alternative, the New Preferred
Alternative would be designed to achieve a passive character similar to the adjacent
Canyons at Bighorn community. Access would also be provided via lndian Cove. As with
the Hillside Limited Alternative, the New Preferred Alternative would result in considerably
less environmental impacts in all issue areas when compared with the Original Project.
This reduced impact profile could be reduced even further if the amount of imported fill
soils deemed necessary to raise the proposed pad heights sufficiently to provide
Coachella Valley views from one-story residences therein could be substantively reduced.
Subject to achievement of such views, mitigation to reduce the import has been
recommended as feasible. The extent to which such mitigation may be feasible is not
24
;.,
. ( (�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
known. Therefore, the relative effectiveness of this mitigation also is not known.
Construction of the New Preferred Alternative would result in significant regional air quality
impacts during construction, biological impacts upon captive sheep in the lambing pen at
the Bighorn Institute during and following construction, noise and traffic impacts on the
private roads within the Canyons at Bighorn community during construction, considerably
less than the Original Project. In addition, the New Preferred Alternative would achieve the
Land Use Planning, Design, and Economic Objectives for the Project.
Environmentally Superior Alternative: Of the Alternatives analyzed for the
Project, the No Project/No Build Alternative is considered the environmentally superior
alternative as it reduces nearly all of the significant impacts that would occur under the
New Preferred Alternative and the Original Project to less than significant levels.
However, this Alternative would not meet any of the Land Use, Design, and Economic
objectives established for the Project.
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines requirement to identify an environmentally
superior alternative other than the No Project/No Build Alternative, a comparative
evaluation of the remaining alternatives indicates that the Hillside Limited Alternative is the
environmentally superior alternative. Implementation of the Hillside Limited Alternative
would result in considerably less environmental impacts in all issue areas when compared
with the Original Project and the New Preferred Alternative. As construction of the New
Preferred Alternative would result in significant regional air quality impacts during
construction, biological impacts on captive sheep in the lambing pen at the Bighorn
Institute during and following construction, noise impacts during construction, and traffic
impacts on the private roads within the Canyons at Bighorn community during
construction, impacts of the New Preferred Alternative would be more when compared �
with the Hillside Limited Alternative. Although these impacts could be reduced if the
amount of imported fill soils could be substantively reduced, the extent to which such
mitigation may be feasible is not known. Therefore, the relative effectiveness of this
mitigation also is not known. With the Hillside Limited Alternative, however, development
within the floodplain of Dead Indian Creek would occur, which would result in potentially
significant biological and hydrological impacts due to the need to undertake significant
grading to raise the building site above the floodplain of the Creek, and thereby disturbing
riparian habitat and permanently altering existing drainage patterns within the Creek.
Furthermore, the Hillside Limited Alternative does not possess sufficient elevation to
permit views of the Coachella Valley, and the portion of the site that does not lie within the
floodplain of Dead Indian Creek is not large enough to accommodate more than a single
lot. Thus, the Hillside Limited Alternative does not meet the Project's Land Use Planning,
Design, and Economic Objectives to the same extent as the Original Project and the New
Preferred Alternative. To the extent that the feasibility of the Hillside Limited Alternative
depends upon the ability to construct within the floodplain of Dead Indian Creek, the
alternative is considered impractical and infeasible due to the difficulties of constructing
within an existing streambed.
25
,a
( /
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
The New Preferred Alternative would achieve the Land Use Planning, Design, and
Economic Objectives for the Project to an extent that the Hillside Limited Alternative would
not. In comparison, if it were feasible, the Hillside Limited Alternative would be more
effective in achieving the stated Resource Conservation Objectives than the New
Preferred Alternative. However, as the New Preferred Alternative would optimize a
balance between the Original Project and the Hillside Limited Alternative, it would meet
most of the Project Objectives for the property.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council ofi the City of Palm Desert finds that the mitigation measures
described in the FEIR will, when implemented, mitigate or substantially reduce most of the
significant effects identified in the FEIR. Nonetheless, certain significant environmental
impacts of the Project are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation
measures. For such effects, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project
against such unavoidable adverse environmental risks in approving it. In this regard, the
City Council hereby finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the FEIR have
been and will be implemented with the Project and that any significant unavoidable effects
remaining are acceptable due to the following specific economic, social, and other
considerations, including but not limited to Project benefits, based upon the findings set
forth above, in the FEIR, and in the public record of the consideration of this Project. The
unavoidable adverse impacts are identified as follows:
• Regional construction air quality emissions for NOx;
• Biological impacts (during construction and operation) to captive adult sheep
and born lambs in the lambing pen through visual and auditory habituation;
• Construction noise impacts due to the anticipated duration of construction in
excess of the three month threshold at which significant noise impacts can be
expected to occur; and
• Construction traffic impacts to the Canyons at Bighorn community.
EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS
The FEIR and the administrative record for this Project document that the Bighorn
Institute located its pen facilities with full knowledge, or with the potential for full
knowledge, of the planning activities of the City of Palm Desert. This includes a
recognition, actual or constructive, that the Project site was and is zoned and planned for
residential uses. The evidence available in the public records of the Bureau of Land
Management even note that this consideration was taken into account, particularly in the
appraisal report establishing the value of the Bighorn Institute properry. It must be
assumed that the Bighorn Institute knew of this issue and considered the location of its 30-
26
�F��`
. � �.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
acre pen so close to the boundary with future development in the City of Palm Desert to
be acceptable.
The extent to which the Bighorn Institute must have considered this proximity
acceptable at one time, but no longer considers it acceptable, is a factor of internal
concern to the Bighorn Institute operations. The City of Palm Desert is not considering a
general plan arnendment or zone change on the Project site from open space to
residential, but rather an implementation of its own general plan. If problems have arisen
that were not expected by the Bighorn Institute at the time that the Bighorn Institute
established its operations so close to residentialty zoned property, the City Council of the
City of Palm Desert believes that it is incumbent upon the Bighorn Institute to look to its
own site or another site to mitigate impacts to its facilities as they now exist or may exist in
the future. The establishment of an open space buffer with no uses in it imposes a burden
on the City of Palm Desert of potential litigation, inequity, and loss of revenue for a
problem that the City of Palm Desert not only did not create, but made completely public
through its records. There was ample opportunity through the planning and zoning
process for the Bighorn Institute to make the City of Palm Desert aware of any conflicts
with its facility. However, the Bighorn Institute chose to locate its 30-acre pen only 300
feet from the boundary of the Project site, which is also the municipal boundary. For the
Bighorn Institute to assume that the City of Palm Desert would change its general planning
program to accommodate an adjacent land use which had willingly moved so close to the
City is an unreasonable expectation. It also deprives the City of Palm Desert of the
substantial revenue from this Project, as well as the contribution to the City's jobs/housing
balance. It should also be noted that the two single family residences proposed to be
constructed as part of the Project will be located approximately the same distance from
the Bighorn Institute's 30-acre pen as the residence of the Director of the Bighorn Institute.
These overriding considerations are only stated in an abundance of caution
provided there is any impact to the Bighorn Institute facility at all. As documented in the
findings, there is no scientific basis to establish that a buffer of 400 yards or any other
distance is required, and the City of Palm Desert is persuaded by those experts who
believe that no buffer, or only a small buffer, is necessary to mitigate all effects.
Therefore, there are no significant effects that need to be overridden in this sense.
However, to the extent that unanticipated impacts may occur, and recognizing the
permanence of the Project once it is established, the City Council of the City of Palm
Desert sets forth the above rationale for proceeding with the Project in view of the slight
potential for these impacts.
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
As set forth in the FEIR and in the administrative record for the Project, a 400 yard
buffer was established around the Bighorn Institute's 30-acre lambing pen in connection
with the approval of the Altamira project, now the Canyons of Bighorn development, in
1991. The establishment of the 400 yard buffer was the result of a legal compromise
agreed to in order to settle litigation regarding the Altamira project. The Project site lies
27
,
, ,�
���
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
almost entirely within the 400 yard buffer area, but the City agreed as part of an additional
settlement of pending litigation, that the Project site is specifically excluded from the effect
of the 400 yard buffer and that development of the Project site would not be precluded due
to its location within the 400 yard buffer area.
The only portion of the 12-acre Project site that lies outside the buffer area consists
of only approximately �/a acre, which lies entirely within the streambed of Dead Indian
Creek, which is designated as "waters of the United States" for purposes of the Federal
Clean Water Act. The Applicant has presented evidence that even if permits could be
obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers and the California Department of Fish and
Game to develop within the streambed of Dead Indian Creek, the cost of such
development would exceed the resulting value of the property. If the City were to limit
development to only that portion of the Project site located outside of the 400 yard buffer
area, the economically viable use of the property would be significantly diminished and
possibly reduced to nothing, thereby exposing the City to a potential regulatory takings
action by the Applicant, which could result in a significant financial burden on the City's
resources. A restriction on all development of the Project site located within the 400 yard
buffer area would also eliminate possible revenue to the City in the form of increased
property taxes that would accrue as a result of the development of the Project site for two
high-end single family homes.
OVERALL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council of the City of Palm Desert has for some time had an adopted
general plan which has been harmonized with the City's policies for overall growth of both
housing and jobs. The City has chosen in its general planning scheme to concentrate the
job producing uses in the center of the City principally along Highway 111, or in the
northern portion of the City in proximity to Interstate 10, while using as residentia� areas
portions of the City away from Highway 111 and Interstate 10. The Project site is the last
remaining residentially zoned property located along the City's southern boundary for
which development has not yet been approved. The Project as proposed fully complies
with applicable use and density standards. The extent to which the Project is not
developed, or is not developed as proposed, would prevent the City from realizing its full
expectation. In adopting these policies, it is important to note that the City strove for
balance between environmental quality objectives, fiscal responsibility, and land use
patterns.
Short term construction air quality impacts and traffic impacts on the adjacent
Canyons at Bighorn development will be limited in duration and will cease following
completion of grading on the Project site. Construction has been ongoing on portions of
the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn development for a number of years, including, most
recently, in the adjacent Indian Cove community. The potential impacts associated with
the construction of the Project are not unlike those that the adjacent community has been
and still is experiencing. As discussed in the findings above, operational air quality and
traffic impacts will be less than significant. The ability of the City to implement its overall
28
//,�
!
I (
�
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
planning goals and realize the economic benefits due to the Project outweigh the
temporary and unavoidable impacts due to construction.
The proposed two lot subdivision is designed to be sensitive to the existing
landscape and compatible with surrounding uses. It effectively balances the firmly
established rights of the property owner with protection of the environment and will place
one of the last remaining pieces of undeveloped property along the City's southern
boundary into productive use. If developed as proposed, the Project will also result in the
preservation of approximately eight acres of the property as protected open space.
Based on the entire record of proceedings, the City finds that the foregoing
equitable, economic, and overall planning considerations outweigh the significant,
unavoidable impacts of the Project as identified in the FEIR.
29
//;r.,
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Recommend to the City Council approval of a tentative tract map,
known as Cornishe, and certification of an environmental impact report
for the subdivision of 11.87 acres into two home sites west of Indian
Cove, a private street within the"Canyons at Bighorn Golf Club", south
of Dead Indian Creek.
SUBMITTED BY: Phil Joy
Associate Transportation Planner
APPLICANT: Cornishe of Bighorn Allen, Matkins, Leck
P.O. Box 789 Gamble & Mallory LLP
Ceres, CA 95307-0789 515 S. Figueroa S., 7'h Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3398
CASE NO. TT 31676
DATE: September 16, 2008
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Adoption of the attached resolution recommends approval of a two-home
subdivision map and certification of the EIR to the City Council.
The project site is almost entirely within 400 yards of lambing pens for captive,
federally listed and endangered Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. The sheep belong to the
Bighorn Institute, which was granted a 400-yard buffer for development at Bighorn.
If this same buffer were required on this project, development would effectively be
prohibited.
The project initially required an EIR and consisted of 38 townhomes. It was scaled
back repeatedly until-in consultation with the City- it was reduced to its present
configuration of two home sites that provide a minimum 240 yard buffer from the
sheep pens.
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31676
September 16, 2008
Page 2 of 10
11. BACKGROUND:
A. Property Description:
Cornishe is an irregularly shaped property between"The Canyons at Bighorn"
and "The Bighorn Institute", and is zoned Planned Residential-5 dwelling units
per acre for roughly 90% of the property, with the balance zoned Hillside
Planned Residential along the eastern portion of the property.
The subject property is characterized by a plateau that slopes from south to
north of roughly five acres in the center of the property. Approximately two
acres of the site is comprised of the slopes of a rock outcropping at the
western property corner. The balance of the site is comprised of the slopes
and creek bottom of Dead Indian Creek along the northern property boundary
and a ravine along the eastern property line, separating it from new homes
within Bighorn Golf Club.
The plateau is generally 25' above Dead Indian Creek and varies in elevation
from 850' at the south properly line, to 810' at the northeastern end. The rock
out cropping reaches an elevation of 929', the highest point on the properry.
Although the only access to the project is from Bighorn, Cornishe is not part of
"The Canyons" at this time. The present legal access to the site is across
Dead Indian Creek and a fairway at Bighorn, but when "The Canyons" was
developed, this secondary access from Indian Cove was provided so that a
road across the golf course wouldn't be necessary.
The average slope of the property is between 20% and 25% and is identical
with most of the slopes that were developed at "The Canyons".
B. Adjacent Zoning / Land Use:
North: PR-5/ Buffer Area
South N-A, county zoning/ Sheep pens and undeveloped area
East: Hillside Planned Residential / Buffer area and single family
homes
West: PR-5/ Buffer Area
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31676
September 16, 2008
Page 3 of 10
C. General Plan Designation:
Study Zone Overiay/Low Density Residential (The Study zone was placed on
the property to analyze if it should be re-designated Hillside Reserve based on
the average slope).
D. Property History:
The only portion of the property outside of the 400-yard buffer line, if it
extended across the properry, is an approximate 10,000 sq. ft. area entirely
within Dead Indian Creek at the extreme northeast corner. The buffer was
deliberately left off the subject property since it was not part of The Canyons a
Bighorn. A chronology of The Canyons (formerly Altamira) is as follows:
1. Altamira project is submitted in 1989 and eventually approved with an
EIR in 1991 that incorporates a 400 to 600 yard buffer. At
approximately the same time, the Bighorn Institute receives approval
for a zone change and conditional use permit from Riverside County for
their captive sheep facilities finding that the use is compatible with
adjacent planned uses and city zoning of PR-5.
2. A lawsuit is filed by the County and Bighorn Institute challenging the
Altamira approval, and a settlement agreement is reached with the
Institute resulting in an addendum to the Altamira EIR removing the
buffer and providing for relocation of the pens on August 21, 1992.
3. The California Department of Fish and Game determines that the
Institute did not have authority to enter into the agreement and the
present configuration of the pens is the only place the pens could be
located. This results in a second addendum to the EIR for the project
now referred to as The Canyons, putting the 400 yard buffer back on
the project approved on June 3, 1997.
4. Subject application is made in August, 2003 initially for 38 units. Staff
determines an EIR is required, and a preferred alternative consisting of
two home sites is identified. Plans are prepared for this alternative and
an addition to the EIR is prepared based on this two home site design.
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31676
September 16, 2008
Page 4 of 10
I11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. General:
Cornishe consists of two home sites that are concentrated in the northeast
corner of the property so that they are a minimum 240 yards from the
Bighorn Institute pens. The home sites are elevated above Dead Indian
Creek to the north and the ravine to the east, providing down valley views
similar to those within Bighorn that are adjacent to the streambed. Access is
from a lettered lot extending from Indian Cove (adjacent to a recently
constructed home) extending to the rear of the home sites with a cul-de-sac.
The home sites consist of Lot 1 which is 1.17 acres and Lot 2 which is 1.35
acres. The access road (Lot A) is .26 acres, leaving most of the property
undeveloped with an open space (Lot B) with 9.09 acres. Including 1.32
acres of Lots 1 and 2 to be re-naturalized, the open space area totals 10.41
acres of the 11.87 Cornishe property, or 88% of the land.
The density of two homes on almost 12 acres is well within the density
restrictions of the Hillside Planned Residential Zone, even though only a
small amount of the property is actually zoned Hillside.
Similar to the adjacent homes at Bighorn, all grading must be done outside of
lambing season (January 1 to June 30) and Cornishe is conditioned further
by the EIR to include all construction being performed outside of this period.
B. Home Design:
It is the applicant's intention to fully develop the home sites for future sale, so
home designs are not available at this time but would be subject to the
design criteria contained within the EIR and those at Bighorn Golf Club, even
though it is not part of that project yet. The pads being provided could
support homes up to 10,000 sq. ft., similar to the adjacent home sites at
Bighorn.
One of the EIR criteria is that outdoor activity areas be located away from the
lambing pens, which is also the most common way to develop the homes so
that the view of the valley would be across the rear yard area.
/l� .
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31676
September 16, 2008
Page 5 of 10
This necessitates that the parking on the south side of the homes be"tucked
under", creating a split level type of home. The reason for this requirement is
to make the parking less obtrusive by, in essence, burying it since the
parking will be on the "sensitive side" of the home facing the lambing pens
while also minimizing grading.
C. Grading:
The project involves a considerable amount of soil import needed both to
provide a ravine crossing, and also to create a buildable pad where the
ravine meets Dead Indian Creek, similar to what was done at Bighorn. The
terrain makes the lower level garages possible since the cul-de-sac is within
the ravine at an elevation of 795' and the pads are elevated with heights is
820' for Lot 1 and 809' for Lot 2. The lower garages help to minimize the
amount of soil imported, which is part of the other potentially significant
environmental impact identified in the EIR.
The earthwork quantities are conservatively estimated at 3,921 c.y. of cut
and 39,800 c.y. of fill, resulting in an import of 35,879 c.y. Lot 1 (820' pad
height) involves cutting 6 feet into a high point of the plateau on the west side
and filling in an adjacent area on the southeast side to create a 24, 848 sq.
ft. pad. Lot 2 (809 pad height) involves a small amount of cut into the
plateau, and mostly fill again to the southeast to create a view lot. Adjacent
lots to the east at Bighorn have pad heights of 789' and 809", while Dead
Indian Creek rises 20 feet adjacent to the 200' of developed area from 780'
elevation to 800'.
The 6 foot"cut" area for Lot 1 is adjacent to a small peak in the plateau that
would be13 feet above the pad area, which helps to screen the home from
the pens. Berms are proposed adjacent to the cul-de-sac to help provide
screening.
Any grading in the ravine and Dead Indian Creek will be subject to review by
the Army Corps of Engineers since they are deemed "waters of the United
States".
;
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31676
September 16, 2008
Page 6 of 10
IV. ANALYSIS:
A. General:
The proposed lot sizes, density and elevation are similar to the nearest other
existing adjacent development, therefore the analysis of the project centers
on the impacts to the Bighorn Institute and the imposition of a 400 yard
buffer on the property. During the EIR process the applicant consulted with
the City to establish an appropriate buffer distance for Cornishe. After
careful analysis of the distance between the lambing pens and the Institute
Director's residence, a 240 yard distance was identified as being appropriate.
The Institute points out that the sheep utilize the east side of the pens facing
Cornishe more than the west side facing the highway where the Director's
residence is situated. However, it should also be noted that the sheep are
fed by Institute staff from the west side, and no one will be approaching the
pens from the east side (Cornishe side) of the pens.
The sheep become habituated to people when they see them in close
proximity. Institute employees feed the sheep on the west side so there will
still be more human activity on the west side than on the Cornishe side and,
consequently, there is greater likelihood of habituation from Bighorn Institute
employees than from Cornishe residents.
The EIR points out that the 400 yard figure is not a scientific number. It was
a compromise among experts with some recommending more, some less.
Given the residential zoning on and adjacent to the site where the Institute is
located, it is the City's responsibility to mitigate the project as much as is
feasible while balancing the development rights of the property owner against
the need to protect an endangered species.
With the sheep being a federally listed endangered species, the U.S. Fish
and Witdlife Service has ultimate authority over the Institute's operations. At
their request, line of sight drawings were prepared and included in the EIR.
The drawings depict where screening will be necessary to visually shield
from the sheep all human activity within 8'of the ground within the entire
project. The adjacent homes at Bighorn have their activity areas facing the
pens with no requirements to visibly shield human activity.
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31676
September 16, 2008
Page 7 of 10
B. Home Design:
The EIR addresses impacts of human activity at the homes on the Institute
through home design. Review through the City's Architectural Review
Commission will address those issues previously listed in addition to light,
glare, architecture and re-naturalization of disturbed areas. The applicant
has stated that the architectural guidelines of the homes will be identical with
those at Bighorn, with the idea that this property could be absorbed by
Bighorn once entitlements are received.
C. Grading:
The pad heights represent a balance between the project objectives of
providing down valley views, staying as far away from the lambing pens as
possible, and minimizing soil import to the site. The import of 35,879 c.y. of
soil was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact in the EIR. A
number of mitigation measures are proposed in the EIR to minimize this
unavoidable impact. One down valley view obstruction from the property is a
berm that's part of "The Canyons" golf course, which the City has been told
is an integral part of the course that can't be removed.
D. Findings for Approval:
1. That the design or improvements of the proposed map is consistent
with applicable general and specific plans.
• The design of the subdivision leaves 10.41 acres of undisturbed
or re-naturalized open space area which is consistent with the
"Study Zone"designation which is intended to review the project
based on project slopes that exceed 10%.
2. That the site is physically suitable for residential development.
• There are adjacent utilities close by and preliminary review of
grading plans has shown the site is physically suitable. Similar
residential development has been successfully accomplished on
adjacent property.
,
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31676
September 16, 2008
Page 8 of 10
3. That the design of the tract map or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
• An environmental impact report has been prepared that has
identified potential significant environmental impacts, and a
statement of overriding considerations has been included.
4. That the design of the parcel or the type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
• The subdivision will be developed in concert with oversight by all
applicable governmental agencies to avoid any public health
problems.
5. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.
• Preliminary review of plans has shown that the site is physically
suitable for the project as proposed. There is access to the site,
utilities are available and the grading and construction necessary
to develop two homes are regularly accomplished on similar
sites in the vicinity.
6. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and
specific plans.
• The map proposes two residential lots which are consistent with
the study zone of the general plan. The study zone was placed
on the property in recognition of the PR zoning on property that
appeared over 10%slope-which would make it eligible for HPR
zoning. The project's density is consistent with HPR density
requirements even if it were re-designated as hillside residential.
There is no specific plan applicable to the property.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
An environmental impact report-has been prepared for Cornishe which analyzes all
environmental impacts for the project. The report identified short term construction
and long term operational biological impacts to the lambing pens, and short term
construction traffic impacts to the surrounding Bighorn community as potentially
significant and unavoidable for Cornishe.
' ��
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31676
September 16, 2008
Page 9 of 10
In order to approve the project, a"Statement of Overriding Considerations"is
included in the resolution which states the City has considered all aspects of
the project and has imposed all feasible mitigation measures to lessen
project impacts. The "Statement" stresses that this is being done only in an
abundance of caution and that the City is persuaded by the expert opinion of
the EIR consultants and those representing the applicant that feel no buffer-
or one smaller than 400 yards-is necessary to mitigate all effects.
VI. CONCLUSION:
All feasible mitigation measures have been placed on the project while respecting
the development rights of the property owner. The inclusion of tuck-under parking,
screening of all human activity, prohibition of all construction during lambing season,
and elimination of most, if not all, light and glare in the construction and operation
of the homes, are all in excess of restrictions placed on homes that were built with a
400 yard buffer from the lambing pens at Bighorn.
Further stated is that the Bighorn Institute had full knowledge of the City's General
Plan for adjacent residential uses when they located their facilities, and the
imposition of a buffer on this property would place an unreasonable burden on the
City in terms of litigation, inequity, and loss of revenue.
Therefore staff believes that Cornishe has taken great strides towards mitigation of
the impacts in a very difficult situation. The 240 yard buffer equates to almost 21/2
football fields, which many experts felt is an acceptable buffer distance. The two
home sites should produce a unique opportunity for a couple more beautiful homes
in the Bighorn area that the City can be proud to have within their jurisdiction, while
eliminating most, if not all, impacts to operations at the Bighorn Institute.
VII. RECOMMENDATION:
Waive further reading and adopt Res. No. recommending to the City
Council:
1. Certification of the EIR with a Statement of Overriding Considerations
2. Adoption of the findings; and
3. Approval of TT 31676 .
/� �
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31676
September 16, 2008
Page 10 of 10
VIII. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution
B. Legal Notice
C. Cornishe EIR and Addition
D. TT 31676 and grading plan
Submitted by: Department Head:
.��,...- �
Phil Joy Lauri Aylaian
Associate Transportation Planner Director of Community Development
Approval:
Homer Croy
ACM for Devel ent Services
,
.- ,- � �
City of Palm Desat i
Staff Report
TO: Planning Commission �
DATE: October 4, 1983
CASE NO: GPA 02-83, C/Z 03-83 an' C/Z 08-81
APPLICANT: City of Palm Desert I
REQUEST: Consideration of a genera!plan land use map designation of low density
residentia7 3-5 dwelling units per acre,a preannexation change of zone
from R-1 (County of Riverside)to PR-5(planned residential S units per
acre)and HPR, D(hillside planned residential,drainageway overlay)and �
a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for 258 acres contiguous �
to the city's southern boundary east of Highway 74.
I. BACKGROUND:
A. DESCRIPTION OF SITE:
Aside from approximately 30 acres located at the southeast corner, the area
has a gentle uniform topography with slopes less than 10%. At the southeast
corner, foothills and canyons rise 120 feet above the Dead Indian /Carriw
Creek Wash. A geological survey conducted in 1978 as part of an
environm�tal impact report identified four long-lived perennial; creosote,
brittle brush, burro bush and goiden choller as constituting 9096 of the
vegetation in the area. None of the plants obs�ved are listed in the
"inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California" published by the
California Nature Plant Society.
Of the wildlife likely to inhabit the area, none except the "protected status"
desert tortoise are listed as rare, endangered or threatened by eith� the State
of California or the federal government.
Prior to any development, the area would have to be surveyed and any desert
tortoise found will have to be trapped and relocated to an appropriate
protected habitat.
I
I Prior to the completion of the Palm Valley Storm Channel, the area was
� subjected to flooding from Carrizo and Dead Indian Creek.
With the completion of the debris basin at the mouth of the washes all wat�
will be directed down the Palm Valley Storm Channel eliminating the major
flood hazard to Yhe area.
II. ANALYSIS:
A. BACKGROUND:
The estabiishment of the city's general plan, the prezoning and associated
annexation has been initiated at the request of two (2) large property owners
who wish to submit deveiopment proposals to the City of Palm Desert.
West�n Allied Properties is proposing 464 units on 103 acres adjacent to
Highway 74 and Hyatt Regency is proposing a 500 unit hotel, golf course as
�I well as approximately 600 dwelling units on 155 acres. The proposed general
plan and zoning designations allowing a density of up to (5) units per acre is
� consistent with the adjacent zoning and land use.
�
- 1 -
�
/ �;-;..�.n
' � � •
�
CASE 1Y05.GPA 02-83,C/Z 03-83 and C/Z08-Sf
OCTOBER 4, 1983 I
B. ADJACENT ZONING/LAIVD USE:
North: PR-5/Vacant
South: R-1 Riverside County/Vacant
East: R-1 Riverside County/Vacant
West: Villages of Bella Vista/R-1 Riverside County
Prezoned PCD/Vacant
C. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION:
The Cove Communities' General Plan designates the site low density
residential (3-5 units pec gross acre). It is proposed to designate the site under
the City of Palm Desert's General Plan, low density residential (3-5 units per
gross acre). The proposed zoning is in conformity with both the Cove
Communities' Plan and the proposed City of Palm Desert General Plan
designation.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The director of environmaital s�vices has determined that the proposed
implementation of the Palm Desert Generai Plan and preannexation change of
zone will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a
negative declaration has been prepared. Additional environmental review will
be required when developm�t plans are reviewed.
E. D[SCUSSION:
The property to be prezoned.will make up Annexation No. 17. The annexation
is necessary in order that one large development, part of which is located in
� the city, may be constructed under one jurisdiction. The development wili be
urban in nature and would be best administered by the city. The prezoning is
necessary to complete the annexation of the property. The imposition of the
Palm Desert General Plan is necessary to permit the prezoning. The subject
property is within the Palm Des�t Sphere of influence.
P. REQUIRED FINDINGS:
1. Required Findings for Case No. GPA 02-83:
a. The proposed general plan amendment will facilitate the prezoning of
the property whichis required as a part of the annexation process.
b. The proposed annexation is necessary in order that proposed
developments on the property can be reviewed by one governmental
jurisdiction.
c. The proposed land use designation will be compatible with adjacent
proposed land uses.
d. The density resulting from the proposed land use designation will be
compatible with densities permitted in the adjacent area.
e. The proposed land use designation is well suited to the subject
property.
f. The proposed land use designation will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or weifare, or be materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
2. Required Findings for Case Nos C/Z 03-83 and C/Z 08-81:
a. That the land use resulting from the change of zone would be
compatible with adjacent proposed land uses.
-2-
�
� �a �
� •' • �
• �
CASE NOS.GPA 02-83,C/Z 03-83 and C/Z 08-81 '
OCTOBER 4, 1983
Justification: I
The proposed use of the site is residential which is also the use proposed
for the adjacent property. The use of the site resulting from the zone
change will be compatible with adjacent proposed land uses.
b. That the density resulting from the change of zone would be compatible
with densities permitted in the adjacent areas.
Justification:
The proposed PR-5 zoning, is the same as the adjacent property to the
north. Aiso, PR-5 zoning is compatible with the adjacent zoning in the
county. The density resulting from the change of zone will be compatible
with densities permitted in adjacent areas.
c. That the proposed change of zone would be compatible with the general
plan.
Justification:
The Cove Communities' General Plan is the�urrent valid general plan for
the property. It is proposed to designate the site low density residential
3-5 dwelling units per acre pursuant to the Palm Desert General Plan.
This change in applicable general plan provisions will not affect the
proposed zone change. The proposed zone change is in conformance with
both the existing Cove Communities' Ceneral Plan and the proposed
designation pursuant to the Palm Desert General Plan.
[IL STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the findings contained above and in the draft resolution, adopt findings as
noted above and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.
"A resolution of the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert, California,
recommending to the City Council approval of an amendment to the General Plan
Land Use Element to extend the effective area of the Palm Desert G�eral Plan
to include that portion of the north half of Section 6,east of Highway 74 and
designating said area low density residential(3-5 dwelling units per acre)and
recommending approval of a Negative Deciaration of Environmental Impact as it
pertains thereto".
Based on findings contained above and in the draft resolution,adopt findings as
noted above and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.
"A resolution of the planning commission of the City of Palm Desert,California,
recommending to the City Council approval of a preannexation change of zone
from R-1 (Riverside County)to PR-5 and certification of a Negative Declaration
of Environmental Impact on property located on the east side of Highway 74
adjacent to the existing southerly boundary of the city".
IV. ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolutions
B. Location Map
C. Initial Study and Draft Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
D. Legal Notice
Prepared by:���,�
Reviewed and approved by: � .
/pa
-3-
/-,�'�=�
• ' � •
.
• i � � :
�� . • . • • •
. . I.
�� • .
.
• �
_ ! �
. - .
. � . - — _ _ ._ .
,..................:.......................:..........,,--------------------
....::::::::::::::::::::::::::e:::::::::::::::::::::::��..::::::::::::::::::::9E:e:
,::::..................................................;::.........................
. .....................................................,:::........................
......................................................., ........................
,.......................................................,...........................
....::•:-•:::•::e•::•�::::..............................�...:::�•::::•:::•:::•:�:::
N .. . . . . . .. ..............................,.:: .. . .
:�:::::�:::�::::::::::::�:::�::::::::::::::::::::::::;::�:��:::::::::::::::::;::::::
,�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.:•�:::::::::::::::::::::::;
.:........................................................,.::............. ..........
..........................................................,....:::::::::::::::::::::::
...........................................................,.
...........................................................,...........................
....................................�......................,:..........................
���uuoo���uouu��w�u�u�uu�a��u.u�uu�.uu����� •�i�iiiii�iiiiiiiiii�ii��•
a ouuu�uuuo�uuu�u�uuu�u�uuuuu��u�uu�u •u
ii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:iii��iiiiiiiiiiiiii�iiiiiiiiii:iiiiiiii�iii�iiiiiiiii�iiiiiiiiiiiii�
cuvuu�u������uu�uuuu��uu���u�uuuu�u�uu���iiii��ouu�u�uuu�uu�
,uu�uuw���u�u�uuuuuuu�o�uu��u�uu�u�uuu i �uuuuuuuuu�u■
�u�uu�uuu�uouu�uuuou�u��uu uuuo�uuu�u u�u�u��uuuuu�uuu�
■������������������������������������������������������������iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:iiii:iiiiiiii:iiuii::ii::::i:::::::::i:::::.u.. . ..u.. ... .. ... .
•o�u�n��uu�u�u�i • �■'��■ -�iiiii:iiiiiii::iii:::ii ii:�iii����iii�ii:iii�ii�i
�iu�vuuuuuuu�ui • r' • ��uo�u�ou�nu���o��uu�iio���ou�ui�u�•
uuu�uu��uu�u��n ._'_i •
•���uu�nuuu�u�u��u���ii_iiii:••�uu��u�w.0 nu�uu��u����uo��uu�u�uu•
���ou���nu��u���oo���a��u��u��uuo���uu���u ua������������uiiiiiiii.�i:iiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiii:�iii::iii:uli�i��ii��ii�iii ii��iGGiiGGGiiiGiii�iiiiiiiiiio��uuuwu��u�
��iii��iiiiiiiiiiii:iiii:iiiu�iiir�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�ii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii��iioiiiin
�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii�iiiii:iiiiiiiii:iiiiiiiiiiii:iiiiiiisiiii:iiiiiiiiiiiiii:ii:iiiiii�
u�uuu����o�u��uuuu�u�uu��w���uuo�u��uu�u�uu��u�uu��uuu��uuuo
uu��uu��uwu�u�u�uo�u�uu�u.uuu�u�uuuu�����uu�ou��u��uuuu��u•
iiiiiiiii�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:iiiiii:iiiiii:iii::iii:iiiiii�
■u��u�u�u�uu�u��o�uu�u�u�uuo�uu���u�u�uuu�u�uouu�w�uuuuu•
■�uuuuouuuuu��u�uuu�o�u�u��uuu u�u����u��uu.uuu.��uuuo�uv
uo�u�uu�ruu�wuu�uu�u�uuu����u�u��uu�uuu�ouuuu�uu�uu�uo.`�.
■i::::i::::::i::::::::::i::::::::::::i::::::::i:::i:::::::::::::::i::::::i::i:ii:::i:�V
�u�uu�u�u�uuo��uuouu�uuu�u�u�u����u�u��u�u�ouu�u��utuu�
•u��uu�uuu��u�u���uu�uuo���uu�u�u��uuuuu��u�uuuu�uv"
■uu�uu�uu�o�uu��u��uu�u�u.uuuu�o�u�u.uo�uououu�.---.•
uu�u�uuu��uu�����uuuuuuuouuuuu��u�uu�u���u��ur_'.u�r
uuuuuuuu��uuu�o�u�uuuu�un�u�u��u�uu�v-_'.��u�v
■iiiiiiiiu��uuu��uuu�uuuu�uuu�uu�u�.uuuuou��u�.��uuuo �
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:��iiiiiii:ii�
■uuu�uuu�uu�uuu���uo�uu�uu�uuuu���i�iiiu�u.unun�o�u•
•uu�u�uuuuu�uu����u�uuvuuu.uuuui� • u�-..uu�uu�ur
ouu�uuuu�uuu�uuu�u�u�uuu�u��uuu�uu�u•.�u�u�uu�ur
■uoo�uu�ouu����uuuuuu�uuuo�u�uuu�uuv.uuuu�uuun �
■��������������������������������������������iiiiiiiiii����:�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
u�uuuu..��u�uouuuu��u�u��uou
•�uuuu�uo�uuo�uu��uuuuuououuu�u�i:��iu�u��ouu�uu■
u��uue��uuu���u�uou�u��u�uuu�u�u�uu�i����uu��uu��u�o��
uuuuu�uuuu��uuu�u�u��uu�u�uuuuuu��uuuuuu���o�o��
�iii�����������������������������'��-��••••■•�■•••■•■■•r•Jiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
• ■�u��u�u��ur���uu�ouvu�u��vu��uuu��u� _ .____ __._
1�
PLANNING COMMISSION R�ESOLU7'ION NO.892
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
OF A PREANNEXATION CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1
(RIVERSIDE COUNTY) to PR-5 AND HPR, D AND A
NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL .
� IMPACT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAS"f SIDE
_ OF HIGHWAY 74 SOUTH OF THE EXISTING CITY
BOUNDARY.
CASE NOS. C/Z 03-83 and C/Z 08-81
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on
the 4th day of October, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by
the City of Palm Desert, for approval of a Change of Zone, upon annexation from R-1
(Riverside County) to PR-5 and HPR-D and a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact for 258 acres located east of Highway 74 south of the existing city boundary, more
particularly described as:
�
That portion of the north f4 of Section 6,located east of Highway 74
WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of
Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmentai Quality Act, •
Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that
the implementation of the Palm Desert General Plan and preannexation change of zone
will not have a significant or adverse impact on the environment and a negative
declaration has been prepared.
y
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and
arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said planning commission
did find the following facts to justify their actions, as described below:
1. The land use resulting from the change of zone would be compatible with
adjacent proposed land uses.
2. The density resulting from the change of zone would be compatible with
densities permitted in the adjacent areas.
3. The proposed change of zone would be compatible with the adopted Palm
Desert General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Desert,as follows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the commission in these cases;
2. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the City Council
approval of a chan e of zone from R-1 (Riverside County to PR-5 and HPR,
D (upon annexation�as shown on attached Exhibit"A".
3. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the City Council,
certification of a lVegative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOP"fED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 4th day of October, 1983, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: CRITES, DOWNS, ERWOOD
NOES: NOIVE
ABSENT: RICHARDS, WOOD
AHSTAIN: IVONE '
�e,.�.i �� �`, /
���.�<:�'
� ��
� RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman
ATTEST:
� �
�c
RAMON A. DIAZ, Secre ary
b
/pa
�.`
�
'� �� � - .
;, _ � . . . � .
Bighorn Institute
Dedicated to the conseruation oj the euortd's wild sheep through research and educotion
July 25, 1989 "
HONORARY CHAIRMAN
OF FUNDRAISING
Gerald R. Ford
38th P.evdene
o�Me U���ed S/aei
Supervisor Patricia Larson
BOAROOFDIRECNRS County of RiverSide
Charles W Jenner. DVM.' P•�. Drawer 1330
�_�°°^� Indio, CA 92202
Richard C. McClung'
Vk�P'wdeM _
���A.R��• Dear Supervisor Larson,
v��se.��
oa�es�«k�o�� The Bighorn Institute originated as a private nonprofit
""`'"�°`"' corporation in 1982, dedicated to the conservation of the
v�"'E. c,���o��• world's wild sheep and specifically to the preservation of
e�H�a• the threatened Peninsular bighorn population of the Santa
T"°'�'� Rosa Mountains of Riverside County. Through a special
EloiseR. Agee fund-raising effort supported solely by private donations,
c°dyA"�°• the Institute has obtained funding for the construction of
Wdfga�9 f. 8aire
p„��,�„� a much needed animal care and research lab facility. with
WilBams�� this new state-of-the-art facility, Institute researchers
JackBnttingham will be better equipped to combat the ongoing battle
'�""°'�`". c°"`. `N.D• against disease in order to help rebuild local dwindling
JohnE.Earhart bighorn herds . Suilding plans are currently being final-
Emest Hahn
RobenMcGowan ized with hopes of beginning construction in late September
FinnMoUa+ or early October of this year and reaching completion by
Stan L. Timmms Ma r c h 1, 19 9 0.
'Facuaw Counal
We are requesting the County's assistance in helping us
rwM�N�srr�,nor+ meet this completion date (March ist) by expediting the
JamaR. OeFoqe processing of this building project. It is important that
�n� construction is completed prior to spring lambinq at the
Institute to avoid any excessive disturbance of the preg-
A��soRs nant captive bighorn ewes that reside adjacent to the
RobertPrcsley building site. In order to accomplish this we would need
`°"�°'"°�'°"�`"�°' to begin construction no later than October . Additionally,
M�mbn,Snaot Commime on
.ven.IorReou�coo�e Wdd6k being that the Institute is a nonprofit organization
oo„abc. s�� dependent on outside funding, we are asking that the County
Hunter.Corua.vouonut
Tony E. Caura D.V.M-, Ph.D. CO1151a2I waiving all building permit and appl ication fees
��� that we may be subject to.
cd un<nnd„t1)iaq�mc l�eow«y
Hirsch�&Clark We hope that Riverside County will look favorably upon
Ltgd Cou�uel
Dav+d A. Jessup,DV.M. tt1ESe requests and we would greatly appreciate any assis-
�°��^p°r�°�F�'°^°�°^� tance you can provide in this matter.
Mark C. Jorgensen
Anm�Bo.nyo Ocsar Stae Pwt
Gisnn R. S�cwart.Ph.D Sincerely�
Cd�Polv Umw.vty.Pb�nona � .
Raul VaW¢ Ph.D �
Neu�Mtnco Stau Umuerrry
Michael Vakncia +- -- � ,�_n,�__,� — «
/�� /
09/16/2008 10:54 FA% 7604315902 US FISH AND WILDLIFE �J002/003
R �
FJ+T OF e�r�
"� United States Department of the Interior
� �
�
FISH AND WII.,DLIFE SERVICE
yq�CH 3�� Ecologica]Services
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife O�'ice
6010 Hidden Valley Road,Suite 101
Carlsbad,California 92011
In Reply Refer To:
FWS-RIV-06B0008-08TA0538 .
sEP i s Zoas
Mr. Pbil Joy,Associate Planner
Ciry of Palm Desert Community Development Department
73-150 Fed Waring Drive
Palm Desert,CA 92260-2578
Subject: Final Environmental T�npact Report for the Cornishe of Bighom Project(State
Clearinghouse Number 2004091012)
Dear Mr.Joy:
We recendy received the Final Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the Cornishe of Bighorn
Froject in September,and have been reviewing the proje�t's design,responses to comments,
mitigation measures,and proposed changes to the New Preferred Alternative.
In our previous comments, we zequested additional detailed investigations be completed
concerning the screening of proposed residences and their associated activities from view of
bighorn sheep in the Bighorn Institute's adjacent captive-breeding facility. Further investigations
were completed,and they are presented in the Comments and Responses section of the Final
EIR. We appreciate the project proponent's effort to address our concems. From the
investigations,it appears that effective visual barriers are practical,and they should become a
required element in the project's design.
The greatest and hardest to mitigate visual impacts appear associated with the access driveway
from Indian Cove,which would end on the soathern side of the development,the side adjacent to
the captive-breeding facility. Re-routing the access road to the northern side of the development
would move a large proportion of associated activities away from the bighorn sheep in the
Institute's facility. Similazly,the document states, "As no design information is available,it
cannot be said that the two residences would be entirely oriented to the north ..." (Page II-11).
We believe the residences should be oriented to the north and the access road should arrive at the
northern front of the residences. Such a design would fiinctionally move the impacts of the
development a greater distance away from the captive bighom sheep. Although it is well
accepted that bighom sheep are very visual animals,it is not simply a matter of"out-of-sight
equals out-of-mind". Other factors,chiefly distance,influence their behavioral reaction to
perceived threats. Ewes are especially sensitive to the distance between their young and
perceived threats during the lambing season.
-Cp�C.�,FTttD'��,f
�r���l1�Ri�"�C
�a ��
09/16/2008 10:55 FA% 7604315902 US FISH AND wILDLIFE �003/003
� �
2
Mr. Phil7oy,City of Palm Desert Community Development Department
Other persons responding to the New Preferred Alternative raised issue with the amount of fill
material that would be used to elevate the building sites to acquire better views of the valley.
The document states that subject to achievement of the desired views,a reduction in fill material
is recommended as feasible(Page II 6). However it also states, "the extent to which such
mitigation may be feasible is not known." Similar to the efforts associated with the visual
batriers,we suggest that qualified engineers and architects could accurately estimate these
quantities. The needed visual barriers could be shorter if the structures are placed on less fill
material.
The lack of specific design information makes it difficult to fully evaluate the effects of the
project on the captive herd of bighorn sheep. The very sensitive nature of the setting and the
potential impacts that may occur to the captive herd make the design very important. Further
design alternatives should be explored,because it appeazs there are measures that could be taken
to further mitigate the impacts of the project.
The Bighorn Institute's captive breeding facility has produced bighorn sheep that are capable of
adapting to and surviving in the wild. In some cases,released ewes have been living as wild
sheep, avoiding predators,finding forage and water, and producing young for over five years.
The release of captive bighom has probabty prevented the extirpation of bighorn sheep from the
San Jacinto and northem Santa Rosa Mountains. For example,by 2002,bighorn ewes had
declined to}ust four individuals in the San Jacinto Mountains, and a release program was
initiated. Currently,there are 12 adult ewes and 15 adult rams,with 67%of these bighorns
originating from the Bighorn Institute or being offspring of sheep released from the Institute. We
greatly value the integrity of the captive breeding facility,and do not wish to see the program
negatively influenced. Consequently,we find the statement, "However,it must be conservatively
assumed the New Preferred Alternative would still have the potential to significantly impact
captive adult bighorn sheep and born lambs in the Iambing pen through visual and,to a lesser
degree, auditory habituation. Thus,impacts to biological resources during construction and
operation of the project remain signi�icant and unmitigable",cause for concem. We would like
to continue working with you to further reduce the potential impacts of the proposed project.
We thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project, and your interest in bighorn sheep
conservation and recovery in the Peninsular Ranges. Please contact Dr.Guy Wagner of our staff
at(760)431-9440 ext. 372 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
����
�Kazen Goebel
Assistant Field Supervisor
; :�
. ,
�� WORDEN WILLIAMS aPc
Representing Pub(ic Agencies, Private Entities, and Individua(s
I
I� September 15, 2008
Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail
� `���������'.��
AREAS OF PRACTICE
��>":;' � � Cl;,���
PUBLIC AGENCY
;O1�I�tJ�!!,': JL` �I U�''� �rN_���{[+yT�qEN`�' LAND USE AND
Honorable Planning Commission
CIT� �F'P��,i�i�E9ERT ENviRONnnENrn�
Cl� Ol PaITTl DeSeYt REAL ESTATE
Community Development Department PERSONAL INJURY
73-510 Fred Waring Drive ESTATE PLANNING
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 AND ADMINISTRATION
'I CIVIL LITIGATION
"� Re: Case No. TT 31676 — Cornishe Of Bighorn BUSINESS
Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission:
ATTORNEYS
This office represents the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity with TRncv a.R�cHnnoNo
regard to matters involving Peninsular bighorn sheep. We write to urge denial of o.wnvNE BaECHrE�
the above project because the impacts to the Bighorn Institute's lambing program
have not been reduced to below significance. Further, the proposed project KEN A.CARIFFE
would represent an unacceptable violation of the commitment to maintain a 400 TERRY M.c�Bss
f' yard buffer between development and the Bighorn Institute and would.jeopardize KR�srEN M�sR�oE
the ongoing recovery of the endangered Peninsular bighorn. o.ow�cHrwoROEN
Of Counsel
`' The Bighorn Institute's work is a critical part of the Recovery Program for w.scoTT w��unMs
;,,
Peninsular bighorn sheep. The entire Coachella Valley's population of bighorn �e"'e`'
will be affected if the captive breeding and wild population augmentation
Recovery Program at the Institute is impacted. The City and the region stand to oFF�cE
benefit from the success of the lambing program. We urge the City to require the
ro ect ro onents to desi n an alternative that honors the 400 ard buffer 46z srEVENs avENu�
P ] P P 8 � suirE,oz
previously established as the minimum distance necessary to avoid impacts to the SOLANA BFACH
Blgl 1Or11 111StItUte. CALIFORNIA
92075
The City has no authority to modify the 400 yard buffer because it is a mitigation �sss>>ss-66oa TE�EPH�NE
measure for a different project, now referred to as The Canyons, and was adopted � csss>>ss-s,ys FA�S�M��E
as a condition of approval for that project in June, 1997. If the City wants to
www.wordenwilliams.com
modify this mitigation measure, then the City will have to amend the approval for
The Canyons project by requiring additional mitigation of The Canyons prior to I,
modifying the 400 yard buffer. The fact that the buffer property may have
�:.
�.,.
Planning Commission
��/ September 15, 2008
Page 2
been sold to another entity after The Canyons project approval does not eliminate the
buffer condition. The new buyer purchased the property with full knowledge of the buffer
condition, and it is entirely proper to hold the new property owner to the standard which
was in place prior to the ownership transfer.
The City has made previous CEQA findings indicating that the 400 yard buffer was
necessary. The statements in the Staff Report that the 400 yard buffer number has no
scientific basis are not supported by the evidence in the record. As the Staff Report
indicates, over 40 biologists with knowledge of bighorn sheep were consulted before the
400 number was selected. (Staff Report, p. 12.) While the biologists did not agree,
neverthel�ss, the 400 �ard num�er was sel�cted �ased cn the input�f aver 40 scientists. :'o
now indicate that the number is meaningless is simply not credible.
The comparisons in the Staff Report and the letter from Patrick A. Perry suggest that
because the Bighorn Institute's Executive Director's house is closer than 400 yards, there
should be no issue with the proposed private development being within the 400 yard buffer.
This is not a proper comparison. There is a huge difference between the uses that are
conducted by Institute staff, which are to facilitate the lambing program, and the uses that
would be conducted on a private lot. Activities of all Bighorn Institute staff are carefully
regulated to ensure that they do not harm the captive breeding program. The same level of
restriction would not be possible with respect to privately developed parcel within the 400
yard buffer.
There is no evidence that the Hillside Limited Alternative is infeasible. The City's proposed
finding that this alternative is impractical and infeasible is conclusory, and is not supported
by substantial evidence. The Hillside Limited Alternative was not analyzed in enough detail
to document these conclusions. The fact that the alternative may need a U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers permit is not evidence of infeasibility. Certainly, such a project may be less
desirable, given that the down valley views may be reduced, but that is not evidence of
infeasibiliiy. The City cannot make the finding that feasible mitigation measures have been
implemented until this environmentally superior alternative is explored in greater detail.
The City also cannot make the finding that the design of the tract map or the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (Finding number 3 in the draft resolution
approving the Tract Map.) Finally, the City has no ability to enforce the mitigation measure
prohibiting dogs on the property, making the mitigation measure meaningless.
The Statement of Overriding Considerations seems to suggest that the whole problem is the
fault of the Bighorn Institute for locating the lambing pens in the current location.
Apparently the Bighorn Institute located its pen facilities "with full knowledge, or with the
potential for full knowledge." (Staff Report, p. 26.) In other words, the Institute should
�3�,
,\ _ Planning Commission
,W September 15, 2008
Page 3
have known that the City would be willing to approve development without appropriate
mitigation in violation of State law; that the City would be willing to enter into settlement
agreements without the intent to honor them; and that the City would be willing to ignore
previous CEQA findings regarding the establishment of the 400 yard buffer as mitigation for
significant impacts. Suffice it to say, we do not accept Staff's position that the City's prior to
commitment to a 400 yard buffer was a meaningless gesture.
The more relevant argument is that, as detailed in the letter from Patrick A. Perry of Allen
Matkins dated September 8, 2008, Cornishe acquired the property in 2003, long after the
400 yard buffer which limits the development potential of the property, was in place.
��::�ishe knew ubout #;�is �2velap:r.ent restricti�n, anu �urcha��d the ���pe�-ty ar►y-way.
Cornishe cannot now claim that such a restriction is a "taking".
Consideration of the Cornishe at Bighorn proposal must be delayed until adequate
environmental review is completed. The environmental review must include consideration
of additional mitigation measures and alternatives. They should, at minimum, honor the
long standing commitment to 400 yard buffer to protect the ongoing work of the Bighorn
Institute. To do otherwise would be a violation of the City's ethical and legal obligations to
prevent harm to an endangered species in violation of both State and Federal law. We
sincerely hope the City agrees and denies the project as proposed and directs that
additional environmental review and project modifications be done to ensure any new
proposal honors the 400 yard buffer.
Sincerely,
WORDEN WILLIAMS, APC
� w-�..� �-,.�--
U. Wayne �rechtel
dwb @worde nwilliams.co m
DWB:Ig
cc: Client
-��
THE -
���- ll1/I LL,IAMS
`��N�'��R� R INAL
�LAW FIRM, PC„ • � ��
�
Septeta�ber 16, 2005
Via Facafi,t�nu't�� � �
760-341-0574 .
Mr.Phit 7oy,A.ssociate Plaaner
C�ty of Palm Desext, Coznmunity Devel�opment �
Depa�ent
73-5�0 Fred Waring DrivE
Pa�zt�t Desert, CA 9226U 25?8 '
Re: Cor�naents on Final Env�ironrneata(Impact Report or�Coz7aishe of Bighorn Project
Dea�M�. Joy: ,
� �uis law of6c�has the p�easu:te of representing Bighom Iz�stitute, a Ca�i€ornia non-,�nofit
reseazclr organization Iocated in th�County of Riverside, irnmediately ad}acent to t�e proposed
Comishte of Bi�hom Project. �s letter communicates tl�e Itistitute's cvzrunents on the Fin�t
Enviro�e�tal Impac�Repart(FE�R) for Corn�is�e of Bigl�om(#�200409�012)axtd the City of
Pa1m Desert's StaffReport(Sta.#�'Report) for the Septembet�6, 2008 Pl�nning Commission
pub�xc�eaiing regarding Cornis,�e o:f�ighom(Case No. TT 31676J: We rexnai�adamsn�y
opposed to the cwz�ent p�a�s.for the Conusbe o�Bighorn proje�ct.
� On,e of our m�in co�cer�s is a shocipiz�g iu�accuracy in the Executive Sur.�,�aty of the
Staff Re,port(pg. �)xega�tding to the captiv�herd, wluch incorrectty stat�s, "The_sheep belong to
the Baghoz�Institute."The�ndangered�e�nansular bighorn sheep is a public tru.st species ancl all
of thcm, including those iva tl�e.captive herd, are the property of the public and are under�the
managem.ent juz�isdiction o�the state and�ederal goverriment. Big�orn�ustitute act�mtez�ely as
caretakers of the captive k�e�rd, The Institut�holds a,fedexa110(a)(1)(A)pesmit and has ex�tered a
,N,Ie�noxandum of Und�rstanding wit�aatd operates completely..uu�dez the supervision and
direction o�'the Llr�ated States Fish and Wi1dli�e Sezvxce and Califomia Departr�te,tat v�F�sh and
Game. We r�o�e, conversely,that t1�e Comishe of Bigharn deve.lQpez�does not hold these re.c�uired
permits, as dis�uss.ec�£u�c�be�ow.
' I00 iJA7w�W C[RCLE •
, ` S(TIfNTOWEA�Stt[rE330
. , N�wroaT�F,�c�,CA 92G60-299�
• TFI.EPHqNE: J49.8i3•3086
Fncs�u.E: 949-g 3 3•3 05 8
www,wyp-�w,COM
Mado�Moce�76910031121617�OC • )CRAIGWMS�wLF-LAW.COM
• PlEASS w1ciT OUR W[iOLOG�tVYVW.MAYt•7P�FIt��cO�RTd„('OA,,pOR DAtLY L66�LN6w5 ANO OBSEItVAT[ONS
THE
• W�� 1NtLLrAMS � �
LINbBERG
�,� pG .
��������
M�. Phil Joy, Assoc�i�tE P�anner _ . �
Septes�tber 16,Z008
Page 2 '
There is a continuEd, lslata.u�disregard for the xmportancE tge cagt�ve herd has i�t the role
of Pezuinsular bighorm s�eep recovery. �'he FEIR recogn�zes that therc aze st�i�.l gignificant;
wimktigable impacts to t�e capt�ve herd at Bxghorn Institute wxt�a this project(FE�,R pg, ZI-4 aud
TI=14). �9 such, wE reraain se�riously concernec�£oz'the welfare of the�ede�al- and state-
chartered r�covexy p�z�ogram for the endat�geret�Peninsulaz bigh.orn sh��and the captave herd at
Bigttaarn Znstitut�. Bighortx Tx�stiti�te has released 120 bighom into the w�i�d since 1985, a.nd
current�y 67%of tl�e San Jac�to Mountauas population of big��xn consists of sheep exthec
xeleased from th�Institute oz�o�€sprir�g of captive-zeared shEep. In 2002,the San Jacinto ewe
$roup d.�oppe�to,}ust 4 adult ewe,s at�d the ficra�was ir�se�.io�us danger of dyi,z�g ou� The state �
an�fEde�ral w�ildlife agencies dec�ded to start reteasing captive-reazed bighorri from tlze Institute
� th�rE anc��ow the�re are 12 adu�t ewes in the San Jaainto.Mountaims. An entire subgroup o.f wxXd
bighom covld have�been,lost,Y�ad it not been for the captive breedi�g an�wilc�populatio�
augt�entation program at the Zt�st�tute. • .
The Stafk'Repoxt al�uc�es to the prospEct that that Co�m�islae of Bigharn wi�l like}y bec�me
the p.rape�rtty of Canyons at Sighorn in t�ie future. The Staff Report states that t�►e home designs
"wou�d be subject to t�ae design c�itEria cdntai�ed with�the EIR and those at Bigbtarn Country
Cl.ub, even though it is not part.o�that project yet"(Sta�f Repotrt pg, 4). That said,it�ooks li�Ce
tlus proposed pxoject is quickly becoming a way�oz Canyons at Bighortx to expanc�their property
into the 400-yard buffer im violation of its agrcement with t�e�,stitute. If the Cornishe property
becomes the p�perty of Canyons at Bighorz�,th�en it must com,�ly wit�a�l previous mitigation
measu�es set forth for Canyoz�s at Bighom,which has a 400 yarc�buffe�r of no development:
�e City of P�lm Desert at�d peirsons involved in Coz��she of Bighorn azbitrazi,�y,
inex�licably a�d wxth no foundation decided vn a 240�yard buf�'ex based on the loca�ion of the
� eonservation/housing�£�cil,ity at B.ighom Institute. The 400 yard bu�f'ec was derived at from a �
pan��0�29 bighorn s�iEep expe�ts aftex severai meetings,�z�te�se discussions and co�aszderation
o�relevant scientific ev�idence. Ind�ed, experts appointed by. Canyon� at Bxghorn�articipated in
rr�ak�ng,that decision, which'was ultiu�ately adopted by the City. 71�e buffer was z�.ot deter�nined
, � vne day in an o��xce au�ongst CitX plarua.e�s and recEnt potential developers. We categox7ica11y
� reject tt�e application o��.240-yazd buffer to thi,s project.
WE alsa take excephion ta th�positio�taken in th�FE�R tl�a.t the I�stitutE relocate�ts
�acit�t�es. First,we note that t�e dev��oper who puzc,hased th��roperty dxd sv aftEr the City had
approved t1�e 40U-yard bu�e�r and that buffex was of recorc�in mu�tip�e CitX doeume�ts, SincE '
. the�eve�oper pure�ased t�e property with thxs�rnowtedg�artd cun.ducted its own c�ue diX�ge�ce
regaxdi.ng the bona f:d�s of tt�e p�vperty,iE caur�ot�ow be he�rd to comp}sin as it�oes. Such
p�etensions r�us�be diszegaFded. F�rther, as t1�e City knows £z�ozzx ttre approvat proceas c�uzing.
L�vdoxWaet�fi%OpiV 33617,AOC '
,, _ . ,
� rHE ' �
w�F WILLIAMS
LINI�BERG
LAW FIRM, PC,
Mr. PY�;iI Jay, Associate Planxke�r
� September 16,2008 � � .
Page 3 '
the Canyons at Bighom pxoject, Tnstitute and other sci�t�fic experts earl�er consic�et�ed the same �
rec�uest but were un�.bl�to fi�i�d camparable propertX to'rclocate. More irnportant, howevez,is
the continwing success of the Institute's captive breeding p.rogram. It is unwise to �Zx some�thir�g
that is not bro,ken. �
� �'n addition, every recovery pz�ogram nzust have on-site facilities to opErate. Because the
I�tatatute's neazly 300 acrea is not fe�nced off from public acc�ss, it has mandatory protocol,s in
�lace to pzotecc t1�e endangered Peninsular bighorn,wk��ch include biologists livis�g�on property .
to monitor the sheep,per�s aad acces9 by occasional tr�spassers. There a�re also nwrte�+ous ot�ier
protocols that thE YnsNtute staff follows to reduce human disturbance far tt�e f.acility. Bigtaorn
Inst�tute is not open to th�public. The sta�£keeps all �acility o�erahons on the south and west
sidE of the Iambing pe�, away from the most set�sativE northea5t side. �
�,e FEIIZ response to comzzxents states`ho em�irical ev�idence has bee�u presented wbuich
establishe�s thresholds at which impacts do nvt occur to bigh.om sheep, and withitt whuch they do"
(FEIR pg. N-43)with regat�d to a 240-yard buffer versus a 400-yard 1�u�er. Bighorn sheep i�
the captive herd are extda.ngered; they are not zoo aniumals. O�'spxang released�rom Bighoxtx '
� It�at�itute contiaue±o help t.�e recovery of t�s endangered species. Th,af breeding pz�ogram make�
Bighorn Institute's progxam unic�ue, and it has had the immecase success o�vez�the years. �'lae City
cat�vt simply pzoceed on a�unch and approve this development vc�ith unsubsta�t�iated and vague
hapes th,at a 240-yard buf�er is suf�c�ent. The City should not tUm the captive pens into an
experiment. The captive bree�ing progra�x, overseen by. both sta:te a.�d federal experts,has b�ee�
highly successful. U,ninformed dec�sions such as tIie 24a-yazd buffes,made without scie4ti�ic
data,backixp and consu�tation with�tbcese experts, should be rejectcd. In fact,several slaeep �
experts from the Pe�insular Bighorn�Recovery Teacn k�ave subr.ca�'ttted letters ro the City
E�courag�ng the City to u��io.ld the previ6usly-approved.400-yarci bu�ez�.
The Cornisk�e of Bighozm property�tas be�a desxg�ed.as bighozn sh�ep criti,cal habicat and
,on Augt�st 26, 2008, the U.S.Fish artd Wild3ife SexvicE�utrlished its proposed rule for rev�ised
criticat habitat for bigt�brn sheep iun th�Pez�azrsular ranges. The Coz�uishe of B#gk�orn property as
designated ag critical habitat(Federal Register RZN 10I8-AV09). This designation now has a
two-;Fold impact on bighaxrz?one fram a"take"and"harassmerxt"sta�d�oixtt and the oth.ez�from a
habitat use standpoizzt. If Conttishe of Bigktorn is inciudec�in the;f.tna�d�signatio�n for critical
]zabitat, thez�it must first co�duct a�aanidatory section? co.nsultation with t�e U.S. F�sh and
Wildl��e.Servic�pri,or to the�issuanc�af any dev�lopment pennita. Criven that t}ae City and t�e
devEtoper now have fo�-ma1 notice of th�is cxitical habitat des�gnation,it would be irresponsible to �
:proceed fiuthet without first engagiag iz�th�manda�ory s.ectio� 7 consultation with t�e USFWS. .
J:1wdo�doc��69`AU211YJ617.DOC .
" �
YH E ..
V1r�..1� W 1 L,.�I ih M S
L11�i��ERG
' LAW FIRM, PC,
NFr. P�ti�doy,Associate Plan3�ier
September 16,2008
Page 4 � �
We also note that the State of Cali�or�a D�a�rlx�ent of Fish asad Gam�has des�gnated
this specxes as Cbreatened, aad consequently, tlae dev�loper rztust lik�wise cozxsult with an obtain
pern��s to deve�op from,tbe Cati£or�ia Aegarfinent o;�Fish and Gat�ae, We see no evidence of
`� tk�uis const�tatio�or pErmi.t in t�e FEIR. We zaote,howe�ver,that CDFG supports the Inst�tute'9
position, a�nd rec}uests that thE City at�c�Developer z'espect a 400-meter buffcr, atz.tong other
xet�uasements. � . .
We encourage tt�e City and Coxxushe of B'igl�orn to expl�re a��possible a�temative
� options for Yh�s pFopErty so at is not.d�rectly or i�verse.ly condea�ned,imcluding othe.r
op;partwxifies for land exchanges,or co�asErvat�on e�sements. We offer our serv�ices to assist with
these a�temative e�'orts. It is nat Lighona �z�stitute's intent to caus�the propErty o�wn,eTs or the �
: Ci�ty unc�ue�inancial I�axds�ii.g,but it is.the Institute's intent to mai�tain its cor�ti�;u�ing, st�ict
biologica��thic for th��rotection of this species and cont��aue to work towarc�the recovery of
. tlsis endangered s�ecie,a for aI�of tF�e�many citize�s of Pa�m Desert,Riverside County,the gte�ter .
Coach��la Va11ey, anc�tb�e United S.tates.
We ap�srecia#e t�e oppoz�ttmit�to presetat t$ese comments to the City of Palm Dese.�t, WE
� si�cecely hope the City ta�ices ttiese and our previous commEnts into senious cons.�deration.
V�ry truly yours, .
WLF �Tb�e Williams,Lindberg Law�izm, PC
/ �
.
. . J. Cra�g Williams
. JCVt�'/ _
ce: l�exzabers of the�oard a€Duectors of B�g�orn Instit�te
Jir�.DeFoxge, Execu�ive I}irector, Bigliom Iztstxtt�te
P.S. I wot�ld a�so iike to cor�ect a txpograph�ca.� Error irt�,ny May S,2003 l�tter to tk�e Cifiy. I
mistal�en�y wrote "230 years" �instead of"24�yards"on page 2,point#Z. I apo�ogize foz my
errar an,c�auy coafu.s;�on it may. l�ave caused.� � appreciate the vppottuxuty.to co�rect the record.
. � '
J:hWoxldoe�69�W121173617,DOC
, . . . � . _. �� �;
j
�
°`� "° � �,� . `'�"° ., '' , v.�
� *r �, � � . ,,� �+ r
' . '=x'���` `� "'� '�� ;} � �k � �� 9 °'a'"".�,r.�. b IB➢
�� � �,�� �d ��:
. ,- .
� . ,r , ��i
A , 3 A J � i�'M'� � S' , 1 ' . "
/� � . ♦ + : .
i � �NYr � e � � � .!�`i 1� V.d.y ' sk+ � n'tR �,}� '$
� }�
t�� �` � $+� � Y .. � � iw .j � '.'.t �� 4. .
J � ��F} �� •� .. y�i�� �A ,�� �i
. �/f :E T Fy�`�M�tr�k R t� � .yp i'.3 .I 1k
y� Q( . �i'�"P� ',AM� .� .. �+"' g
R F'/ �
/ Y� �' 1v I�'� _�t A' p 1
*w iF T�� *�����b�. {�`� . ' 1�`'a"��� n
� w . � y� . . , .
. �.� p �"� r��� 1� . _ �
J'J. 'i' t:k'Sa�'YF'� . . , ..y t �•
p . �g'l ._ad.g�, . �. . p I �` H'
�ti ra .�.:, �N . .. . � � � � .. , CORNISHE��q t is�,`.
' ' ' '' � ' � � . r � � : • � OF BIGHORN ,.
.. ��. � . '^.
� BIGHORN ,�, ^ � � � �, ,.
�,�� RESIDENCE . � y�%;�„ � � � ��,,.
O t# .�u 5��"+,�. m 1'
�� Y I a.:.[`�2 � ���14q �fi � 5��.
G�F�� Y
�r �_t. p,� �.¢�Y+' ;,
� 1 �. ` ' «ri c � s +t,i�`- -
.� iR�' m� k �'.�`� �� Sfl
�:w �r N .. �b�n: � 7�, �
�» � � YF� ' :� �� �'
< v�4 � ' �x+�:.
ti, p
J, �RRDS i� .= . �^w ':i;.
- »�� 'w ' � � � :'.,.;� LAMBING PEN ��� �'"
� Y , - y
t � � ���'�
s� � .- . � � �' %���,
�kR^ y . . a . . . .
h
�,�� ,�,. }a -- � -t
;,� '215 YARDS 3
������t _
.ro"`{ ..'�.. ` , � `�`_ ,� �.
RAM PEN „,�rt� ��y
r ."�' c .iu� . n ,x�:. � �
� ,. � �a� � �'� � � :� �
, �4
f a. �q�
; T' t�' ��'. a�� "�
s t � k ��
• ; � ' �. �=�� '�'�n�''' � '� �'�*,��� ���
.
. . }�
� ,w, �� - ' ���` z�r�' 's: 4 '
.w4. Y £'v� . � F . W e 1
k . �r.'
-9, v'',,. .+,� S �": 4t�., v.¢'��; � �5r
, � �� �;�.�; Cornishe Buffer
, � ��.
� �;��b `��° �'� Legend
��..
���^yyzr� � ; ; u � Bighom Sheep Pen
: , � � �, �` � �' �,��s� ^y� � e � Palm Desert Parcels
• �� '' d � Y:i�. ru4 �g� t°�'�.� � �+, :
,� ���^' City Boundary
� ,i, e
a�, :t . .. _ . /.�
,
�:� 1 inch =500 feet
i ,��', .':� "W �
. � Y. �l` �..
� . a' p,.rt";
s •
�; .
{, �
Received at Planning Cammission meeting
Date• o� /� �Case No,, `TTS�G 7�
� �:.
From• • . C�a�a�1�l��a�ns �� � � ��� 1 �'�
��� ���� .i�` '�,. r4
� � i
.'.
� "�
.c l � � n F
,.. � ' r�'.rl _ , h�. ��v �„�k�A f^'. `�,. '.
�
' .,.. . l � ��. . r'• S ..
� � � l h
� -_ � � �� � ��a ��.
; ';x: ��.,. ��`� .
• . ,
�..+:...- ,.-:i I :'� ;s�.��
�A .� :I � . #'-�� a .#�°'�`'� _ �,
�� � s:«�9�� � �
�� �, �_. '3,'w - ,
. � �k ��� �• t� j �..
�v � ' h � �v��
�Y1 •��.�� "X�' � i ��������(�
�� 9k?. a,;„, f� ' �.
�� -,� . �� ��,, xfi"� � . L�:
...� � ��s a���1a-'�'�� ��`°•aiC »�yy�y .: '.
l'� r ;- . R� �\' x ,g��.,!'� �7 �� '4n,G+„�y/
�� � � e e t 3.��.'�� ��4x .�.1��
• s ,
�
fi � w .
��t . �f�Y��'.` , ' .4..'.. .�_.M.+r . �� j` .
�. '�s � i�' r`� . ; � � 4 �
� ' t�' � � ?,��=�
! _ ..: ' �r` � +� � `*�F r.`,
� Yy p� P�..`
,�:: ii
/ �5¢
^, ..� �� .� {.
„r, ^_�, � �� , ,�1 "`- ` �� �>
�'�, ,� e. ,a { �-� �: ,
KS�,-: . .� ^.t $ , � -�:;..�; � ����� .��y, � �'}��� ��,
�� �� y �YpD '.pe' d
rea
1� * � �y ,c::.A.mlrx^. � r Y +� we ,��
t.."s:} �.3� ...YF `.:.{��w. y a� '4 .a}'ajy. � "!1
'_.` �F.�` �� , ""- � � ,�r� ;� : � �'� ",
�, , ..� t �" , �� .�
�, ° �� " ` �'� �
, � � '
."
� ;.
. . yit #-- �
` ,s A . ,.� d�' �� '�.''iRf`�'��''�` $ 't � �`�•" +c�°.,
+�,
_ 4 � ��. . ..{ . . -.- r � r � , . . . _ `��a
A ewe and her newborn lamb in the captive herd at Bighorn Institute
:-� t f��� � � �. .;- �-••.��,,.
,,�,���,� �: �'
,.y,,, r� _ . �� �xr.t�v�k �g= ,�' � �x ,x.�.<sr��ti,F'�'�:�g;
r i - � � :� ",� .7:'�'`•-s y„ t'�Y, ^`+�� #�.. } ;
n ,}� � kaF.� '£�; Ai:S°�s. y..... � N .
., ,«+� ,� �.A���'"S�x���P �+��.� "�'� ' 1'.r,��«c.��
� .�. �..a'.,,r.''�a�rf r ,,�"�f" � '� _.,� . i
�.'j m � s
6 � �F +a K-*�''A Ytl .,Y� e,�,���,f�az x - � '�n�, <a�,,..�.,M
`�k J'�� � �� . � ��` ��� ,. r� r�epy'� ?�� � si r.i�9���R � 'Y s,�p`�{' tt�l,.`��
'�'n'� ,o��r��.� .zy�)+�p� ` t.� y� t d�R���'� p r*, 9t� ,. :ai'� y+; "
4�� ���7 ���y�+y .�T •r#iV�`� Nt7,a.�a t".r w.s T .�t �' r . ,� x. ?y;
d R d" ' �'„df "p'1 �����ty�„t�`�y*�?. Y��tll �_ ..M � �''
`:! � �} "�� : �� '"; ♦ t ,�.�a+���^�.yy{�n`fY1 �{.,� t4',ty7�j�,} Fy #�, �' �.f
� � � � rn -1"'.���, Y,����.dj'i,.�;✓!1+RT,�.�'�+ �+'T*{��F�. "�ry'�;
+' � �. � � N� „�'„��,t a'+A f�+'L�s� t ,:�� ���":�C F ie+�G'�� o ,a,
{ d�� � _ � �,� � .�',f ,. �P'+5�'„ 4y'" ��fk,�I.� t�'�� +r,p?� �
+ ��y�r-+�r`� 5 '�'r- �x. � y�-.��, Y�a{ �r�v ��"k� �w� y c.�� r:" s
c.p
� � ti f� � " _t`��k�i T��'.��� t .� +1� �rr�,'f+�k �'u..._„f y ��"O�' Nd
��I� � r F
C
�I��R � 4d. � �R. �A}y��'it}..y��£'k ^'�'`w.i.r E`�, °�`_i�k'`;^�;�y��-}' � •.`'�'�,��,.�^;
I` ri� L i ^�i�,v f F��4y!���11'�5+� Y�-��� "��d1L�j��'� � �t I�11.�°
.nl' ,e � �� }'� :�°�"Kb "'i:�n°7T t1 . 's„ t '���.w« ��' .
�: �g , ; �" ?��L�s x?:��;�`"� � «' M �,��Y
.�. � � a� 'sr- �`���'�`M n'' .�1� ��r" ' �
�"� �.. '��".i' 7� ;�* :Yc.:.f fi.w�.�,.�� ,4��`�, ��"•,,w��r� �„'��
,
*� +'��'" {�«+4,�x,�t'�Ag,�F��',� +�R ; a� �`��,��3
� � � � 'f fv� '�, y 7f>.�'x� '+,�"•
M ,t•' . -�'"� �, r,• c � � I��'�l� � i�ti"i� ��''
„��NA'9� �, ' � ��a i`�j�" t�� `+ I II I
�� Z ;�� '�� � ���� ��i
A 1i�'y 3�.,F _ �I^ :I� � ` II'I�II
. ,,
_ , c
. � -� �,,
,
, �
; v .
_
.�' ��;`,� -: �� . - �'},�*
I
_ ,.. ,. .
M , . „ ,
� �>. �1,�s
. �
� �, .
x.: �''°`'e�' a.: .'�
.� ���. �s-- - -�„�� ., . �e
��� "ily.'�. j � :,�; t. ��k. bi �}k� ��
����"Y _ ' � �� ��' � ��� � � * ..a�,c_ � �'�y! ..te .a. %�`':.
�, y ,..r, ��, , : ar r . . ' � -
y �.*., .t +! �"`�y '1�'r � � '—�'Ri �.s�'�' ���'
��� �<+,� ' �3 �..�r.�� ������ 4 �+F�. '7ke�� ; e��'�� $ .� � �" -.., y"� ,.. .
F��. �' s '�'4,`� �y »���y__��,��� �+�,���h-�t�� Y�3�'-'��� t �+f;.2.1`%n
,'y�s_r. � ' ,�� ac,. ,� ! A. T
,r 4.� c, "T.
�f. �� `", ' � `�'� , '4� •.. s i�' - , . ' ,. .S.t�`;�''`
µe�. ::� :'�� �-.� �'"��.,�,� ...�� � � �.�,- '� � :} � ,�'�L� �"`�y`�S«Y f� �t'�r.�
-
:4 " §��"�� k~ ' s f � r �. s_�.�� . �w��.'"'�'�16`7�en�+. � 1"�
-_ �. : �.
_ t ; iR
a"'g .'.. - ...sra^�.� ,._�_,�c, .._.� .. - .,._ i�.. � " .-Si...,� -
"� - ..�-�;� '.'� - _.
A one day old lamb in the captive herd at Bighorn Institute
�.�.�r
, NOV, 17. 2008 3:40PM FAX 2 N0. 3304 P. 2 -
" .
W�M1111�1�
�:°�-r�!"m�^—
• �:;::� �
� .., "'�I
w::.��■iM
���,-,�� G■
��ClriWi�f •
� �
November 17,2008
�CE Consultants
7595 Irvine Center�hiwe
SuYte 150
Yrviue,Ca�2618
<4ttn:Mr.Frank Cahill
Subject: Tentative Tract Map 31676—Markers
Fzank,
Pursuant ta your request,Guida Swrveying erected 2 inc#.ividual clusters of balloons over
tl�e subject project The balloans were set at an elevation of 18' above the proposed
finished pad elevaraon as shown on your Temtative Tract Map.
'�'he elevatians used for the tt►p of the balloons are listed below:
Lot#1—�Sleva�ion$38.0 at the approxin�ate center of t�e prapased pad
Trot#2�Elevation 827A at tbe approacimate center of the proposed pad
Please feel free ta ca11 if you should have any questions,
Thanlc you,
Lenny Reidling
Sr.Praject Manager
�ae�o� �.me� � � �
l211 Irvne BNd,Sk:iCG 67V1 Sief�B Cou�t 3uie A �45 Yalecpoa de Or0.&u�4� 7S�M0 Coipo�al0 CoMa►b�.Sulte 111 501b S-Aah Averx�e,�101�tOZ
urrN,ca 92a,e o�ar�+�c�a�see s�e�oa cn sa� �au�a,ca� �•
T(94�777-2�000�F{9��TT!�D50 T(925��04�05D0�F(A25j 104�0505 T C����F QBOf 769�71t9 T(7fi0�393�5959�F(!6p►9�-335/ T{�Ol BB9����F(�T75i925
psicorp�yudavWY�A.mm uSnlba�04i0d6�Y�� G:�9�.tom Qdpd�pui�A'q'in0.mm Y�O�D.�m
_ _ _
� NUV 1 /. 1UU8 3;39FM FAX 2 N0. 3304 P. 1 '
A �� . Facsimile
. t�.l�� �C�� A.11en Matldps Leck Gamble Mallory 8c Natsis LLP
Attnmeys at Law
. www.alla�ddus.com
To: Philip Joy From:�'atrick A,Perry
Fax; 760.34I,7098 ( Plaone:760�776.6489 Date:November 17,2008
Telephone:213.955.5504 .
E-xnail:ppenry�aIIenmatkias.corn
File Number:P3263-002/.
'Y'otal pages including eove�'sheet:03
Cornmet�ts: .
Please see the attached letter regarding the placement of balloons on the Comishe property.
Orf�inal wiil: ❑ t�e sent via mail ❑ be sent via messenger ❑ be sem via fedex/cow�ier Q not be s�nt
Nate: 17�e i►eforn�atton containad in thisfacsJmife doe�anent is cw fidenaa!and is�t�nded o,ily for the usa o,�'el,e indivtdaa►mm�ad aborva ,�ths„amder
af rhu messrxgs i�not the�rsndea!recipient,y0a aY8 heTCby ltp!'�eed LhQt!Ary dt.S'SE��+afi01l,dfSU'ibfrh4�or COpyl7ig qf Atu COm�u�llCQdOtt ts Sbfctly
prohibitsd Ijyou have rsceived th�r eonunrmicalion trt error,plaase immedfateiy nolify us by telephnns av�d ret'unt the or�gennl document to ut a1 rhe
abnve address via U.S Mail. fYs w;l!reimburse yon fnr ehe post�ge. Thenkyoa.
Las Angcles(Orange County�San biego�Ceninuy City�San Frsacisco�De1 Mar HeigHrs�Walnut Ct�eelc
515 South Figueroa,9'��'loor�Los Angeles,CA 90071-3349�Telepb�one:213.622.5555�Facsimile:213.62Q.$816
! 41� � ' , � ,
�, �'.�� �.-
�`�_ �. � �y.. � 1� � '. .
\��`,�"»'+'�!'!��`ti�y:'1 I Gt� i ��`�/��`'������� �� �-7 ��
�]I
a J �� .:
. ������, ♦k��1� iYa�`L�,� F � t� `� ���
��-.�_..+�. \�` � r
� j t_ y� s�� C
arl �c�'`��' V'� \�T.�1��� " 1\1l ���% :�
�`
- �-- � �i'.. �''�n �,,, 'r,f;� • ��
P1✓r.� ��\n'� �^A4y �f..��- '� �.
��✓"'•� ��l`�\�'k.� 'G"������ �� �� I hY
<r ���.�.-�i�"����1�����R���'t�► �
�,��,r�..'��rq�;��_ —%���: � . i _ 1
J,,,�r ,<-�;� �,.�.�-,�,��.���:�,�,+����►,�� C�
�/� �:�,.'� � �✓+�� i'
�, ,�}��,,,��r y-� � ���;��:a�c�s��.`�,ia��;�� �►��:�r �� : .� :,
. �E r�ls���^"'�.;;��li`��I��� ��n �i11�T��1�' � a
� ir � x �.,._-+�4� "' \'�1S,r���_.' �i� �� , : �
�,y �t�r't1�`!''��; r'� ��1
� �+� '�`� enS��� +..�f�J tiqr,�
5i�`� � �L "'rj►.`'�'�1wr
3�S�?� �����._._���C f��` i�_�
„� � � �
,�N },r! f� h*'i./�� • �-'�„•�1�
� t ;. �''��'-*-
�� ����,�• � ,�w���z,��,� -`- _
��, {�� ���►��., ��- �. _
�_ -
���I�`)�� � ��"� �', r'
� �r`�4� - r f
����' --�r. �-.
�-� }� , �
�,�� �' � �j� liS;�.1�`�?^�_'� ~��` �i p -
���� ��F:�' �,a�,� � _
1;�,����� •,� �,�a"i �-��� �_ ~�
---: . ��.��� - .�
� . --
- � ���. =� -
• � ��, ����� - _ �
�� � - ��-` _ ����i�t�lli
.,� �� '`,�;. `�1��.�,''�. � ,�--���:��y ���111111��
* �►..��� \ � .fi '��,
�'�*-�:,-�. .,.� �� _
�, :w � ��..-- �.�} ,
� r �� �4�
� ' � -
�,.,i!_� '�•, � r�� _(<�-'�' t-� E������f�j
� `,�. �,, ;
: � -. � � i��.7: ✓ ���������
� 11 � Jr�� �
,i �1 �) ��;
, \ � �
/ � ' � ' � � ���
�
�, �
y \ � 1
` � �
�� ��:
�
\ ;�� , �
� \\ �.
`� � �
, � .�
��
a .
;E'�
I i _ �Py:� `
Q �;_�}
•
e ►
� � -.�
,� i;' '
` � �
� :
� ^ *..
��� ,a � �
� .�
Allen Matkins
x�ww. allenmutkins. com
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP
Attomeys at Law
515 South Figueroa,7'"Floor�Los Angeles,CA 90071-3398
Telephone:213.622.5555�Facsimile:213.620.8816
Petrick A.Perry
E-mail:ppecry@allenmatkins.com
D'vect Dial:213.955.5504 File Nutnber:F3263-002/LA808038.01
�1�
��:_:, "3
November 12, 2008 `._=' ,
�_� ,': -�:
VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL � �;:� ��:;
,;-
.�:_ �. .
Mayor Jean M. Benson �' � ��--�
_� 3y `'r t.g
Mayor Pro Tem Robert A. Spiegel - -
Councilmember Jim Ferguson ',''` - `"'k `
w �`._, ..�
Councilmember Cindy Finerty .�, �:-
Councilmember Richard S. Kelly �''
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California
Re: Tentative Tract Map No. 31676
Dear Members of the Palm Desert City Council:
This firm represents Cornishe of Bighorn ("Cornishe")in connection with its application for
the above-referenced tentative tract map to subdivide approximately 12 acres of undeveloped
property(the "Property") abutting the southern boundary of the City as shown on the map attached as
Exhibit A. Cornishe filed its original tract map application in August 2003. The original tentative
tract map contemplated the development of up to 57 dwelling units on four residential lots,which
represented the maximum allowable residential density under the existing General Plan and zoning
designations. When the City updated its General Plan in 2004,the General Plan land use designation
for the Property was changed from Low Density Residential to Low Density Residential Study Zone,
which would permit the City to establish the appropriate residential density for the Property through
the pending tentative tract map review process. Cornishe was also informed at that time that 57
dwelling units would likely not be permitted to be developed on the Property. Cornishe accordingly
revised its tentative tract map application to reduce the number of dwelling units from 57 to 38,
which would be located in seven multi-unit structures on five residentiallots that would occupy
approximately 5.3 acres of the site. The remaining 6.5 acres would remain undeveloped open space.
Primary access to the Property was proposed to be provided by means of an existing 30-foot wide
easement of record traversing Dead Indian Creek north of the Property. Secondary access was
proposed to be provided by means of a 20-foot wide road connecting to Indian Cove to the east.
Following submittal of the revised tentative tract map, Cornishe had a number of discussions
with representatives of the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn development,who expressed concems
Los Angeles�Orange County�San Diego�Century City�San Francisco�Del Mar Heights
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP
Attomeys at Law '
Mayor Jean M.Benson
November 12,2008
Page 2
regarding the use by Cornishe of the existing easement to access the Property from the north.
Because the development of 38 units on the Property would necessarily require two means of ingress
and egress to accommodate emergency access, Cornishe studied a number of possible configurations
to reduce the proposed number of dwelling units on the Property in order to eliminafe the requiremerit
for two means of ingress and egress. A proposed eight-lot subdivision to be developed with single
family homes was submitted to the Riverside County Fire Department for review in July 20Q5, Fire
Marshal David Avila reviewed the plans for the proposed eigtit-lot subdivision and determined that a
single means of access would be sufficient as long as adequate hydrants are provided on-site, the
buildings are fully sprinklered, and the access road does not exceed 1,300 feet in length and is at least
25 feet in width. A copy of Fire Marshal Avila's comments are attached as Exhibit B. Cornishe
accordingly requested the City to review the proposed eight-lot subdivision as an alternative in the
draft environmental impact report("DEIR")that was prepared for the project pursuant to the
requirements of the California Environxnental Quality Act("CEQA").
The DEIR was prepared for the project and circulated for public review and comment from
December 15, 2005 through February l, 2006. The DEIR stated that the project would result in
significant impacts on air quality,biological resources, noise, and traffic. In an effort to decrease the "
environmental impacts identified in the DEIR, Cornishe further revised the tentative tract map to
create four residential lots to be developed with single family homes. The Planning Commission
considered the proposed four-lot subdivision on February 21, 2006, March 7, 2006, and April 18,
2006. The City Council considered the proposed four-lot subdivision on February 23, 2006, March 9,
2006, and Apri127, 2006. At the conclusion of its deliberations on April 27, 2006, the City Council
continued further consideration of the proposed tentative tract map to a date uncertain.
Cornishe subsequently engaged in further discussions with City Staff and representatives of
the Canyons at Bighorn development and, on the basis of those discussions, further revised the
tentative tract map to reduce the number of proposed residential lots from four to two. A copy of the
revised map for the proposed two-lot subdivision is attached as Exhibit C. Cornishe submitted the
revised tentative tract map to the City in November 2006. Although not legally required, the City
undertook additional environmental review of the proposed two-lot alternative pursuant CEQA. The
potential environmental impacts of the proposed two-lot alternative were evaluated in an Addition to
the DEIR,which was circulated for public review and comment from March 28, 2008, through May
12, 2008. The City issued the final EIR("FEIR") for the proposed two-lot subdivision in September
2008. The Planning Commission considered the proposed two-lot subdivision and FEIR on
September 16, 2008 and voted to recommend that the City Council certify the FEIR and approve the
two-lot subdivision. As set forth in more detail below,the prQposed reduction in the number of
residential units fully complies with the General Plan and zoning designations for the Property and
results in the reduction, if not the elimination, of many of the potentially significant environmental -
impacts that were identified in the DEIR for the origina138 unit project.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP
Attorneys at Law
Mayor Jean M.Benson
November 12,2008
Page 3
A. The Develo�ment of Two Single Family Homes Is Consistent with Applicable Plannin�and
Zonin�Re9uirements for the Propertv.
The General Plan land use designation for the Property is Low Density Residential Study
Zone, which would permit the City to establish the appropriate residential density for the Property
through the pending tentative tract map review process. Appraximately 11 acres of the Property are
zoned PR-5, which permits up to five residential units per acre. Approximately one acre along the
eastern edge of the Property is zoned HPR, Hillside Planned Residential,which permits one
residential unit per five acres, and which restricts development on that portion of the Property in
accordance with the City's Hillside Ordinance.
The proposed development of the Property for two single-family homes substantially
complies with the requirements of the Hillside Ordinance,notwithstanding the fact that more than 90
percent of the Property is not located in the HPR Zone. Under the residential density restrictions of
the existing zoning, 57 residential units could be developed on the Property. Cornishe proposes to
develop two residential lots,which would be the maximum number permitted if the entire Property
were zoned HPR. Moreover, in response to comments received from members of the Planning
Commission, Cornishe has further revised the tentative tract map to comply with the Hillside
Ordinance by reducing the size and altering the location of the proposed building pads such that no
more than 10,000 square feet of pad area is within the portion of the Property located in the HPR
zone. The revised tentative tract map showing the portion of the Property zoned Hillside Planned
Residential is attached as Exhibit D.
B. The Subdivision of the Cornishe Property into Two Residential Lots Will Substantiallv
Reduce or Eliminate any Potentiallv SiQnificant Imuacts on the Environment.
1. Traffic.
The DEIR concluded that the traffic volume projected to be generated by the development of
38 residential units on the Property would not result in any significant impacts on the public street
system,but that significant and unavoidable impacts would occur relative to the private roadways
within the Canyons at Bighorn development. The DEIR also concluded that construction traffic
associated with the anticipated import of approximately 118,375 cubic yards of dirt for the project
would result in a temporary but significant and unavoidable impact on the private roadways within ,
the Canyons at Bighorn development. The DEIR further concluded,however,that the operational
impacts on the private roadways within the Canyons at Bighorn development would be reduced to
less than significant levels by reducing the number of residential units to be developed on the
Property to nine townhouse/condominium units or five single family homes.
The revised map proposes to subdivide the Property into two lots for the development of
single family homes. The traffic impacts associated with the occupancy of tlie proposed homes have
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP
Attomeys at Law
Mayor Jean M.Benson
November 12,2008
Page 4
therefore been eliminated in the FEIR for the proposed two-lot subdivision. The reduction in the
number of proposed lots has also reduced the amount of dirt required to be imported by almost 70
percent from 118,375 cubic yards to approximately 35,88U cubic yards. Moreover, in response to
comments received from members of the Planning Commission, Cornishe has further revised the
tentative tract map by reducing the size and altering the location of the proposed building pads such
that no more than 10,000 square feet of pad area is within the portion of the Property loeated in the .
HPR zone. The proposed reduction in pad size will further reduce the amount of dirt required to be
imported from approximately 35,880 cubic yards to 28,754 cubic yards,a reduction of 7,306 cubic
yards. The temporary impacts associated with construction traffic will therefore be significantly
reduced relative to the impacts identified in the DEIR.
2. Air uality.
The DEIR concluded that even after the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures,
air quality impacts during the construction of the proposed 38 residential condominiums on the
Property would exceed the regional thresholds of significance for nitrogen oxide emissions and the
local thresholds of significance for particulate matter. The proposed two-lot subdivision would
eliminate much of the anticipated emissions due to the fact that only two residential units would be
constructed instead of 38, and,unlike the construction of the 38 residential condominiums, it is not
likely that construction of the two single family residences would accur simultaneously. Moreover,
due to greater balance between the amount of cut and fill under the two-lot configuration, less dirt
will be required to be imported, thereby reducing the amount of emissions generated by truck traffic
to and from the Property during grading operations. Construction air quality emissions are therefore
substantially less for the two-lot subdivision than for the 38 unit residential development. According
to the FEIR, construction of the two-lot alternative would not exceed regional or local thresl�olds for
particulate matter, and the amount of nitrogen oxide emissions, though still significant, would be
reduced.
3. Noise.
The DEIR generally concluded that the development of the proposed 38 residential
condominium units on the Property will not result in any significant noise impacts except for possible
effects on the captive population of Peninsular Bighorn Sheep maintained by the adjacent Bighorn
Institute. Potential noise impacts on the sheep are questionable,however, due to the absence in the
DEIR of conclusive scientific evidence regarding the effect of anticipated noise on bighorn sheep.
As an initial matter, the DEIR identified the captive sheep population as a sensitive receptor
for purposes of the noise analysis. According to the DEIR, the Noise Element of the City's General
Plan identifies residences, schools, libraries, churches,hospitals, nursing homes, and destination
resort areas as noise sensitive land uses. The Noise Element of the General Plan does not identify
captive animal populations as a noise sensitive land use. Yet, the DEIR, without explanation, stated
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP
Attorneys at Law
Mayor Jean M.Benson
November 12, 2008
Page 5
that operations at the Bighorn Institute are considered noise sensitive. No criteria to support such a
designation are set forth in the City's General Plan or any other source identified in the DEIR.
Moreover,the only documentation provided in the DEIR regarding the sensitivity of bighorn sheep to
noise seems to contradict this assumption. By way of example,the DEIR states on page 198 that
most community noise sources have the majority of sound content in the mid to low frequency range.
According to Figure 23 on page 199 of the DEIR, hearing in bighorri sheep is less sensitive than
human hearing at low to mid range frequencies. Moreover,the DEIR states on page 214 that sheep
are understood to be much less sensitive to audible stimuli than to visual stimuli. It is not possible to
conclude on the basis of this evidence that bighorn sheep will have the same sensitivity to noise as
humans occupying such noise sensitive receptors as homes, schools, and hospitals. In fact, it is clear
that for most common noise sources,human hearing is more sensitive than that of sheep. Thus, the
inclusion of the Bighorn Institute as a sensitive receptor is not supported in the DEIR or any of the
information on which it relied.
In addition to the lack of documentation for the characterization of the Bighorn Institute as a
sensitive noise receptor, the DEIR inexplicably introduced unprecedented thresholds of significance
that provide specific protections for the Bighorn Institute. Such thresholds of significance are
completely unsupported by any scientific evidence. The special thresholds of significance invented
to accommodate the Bighorn Institute provide that noise impacts vvould be considered significant
under the following circumstances:
• If construction activities would occur outside the allowable hours cited in the Palm Desert
Municipal Code, or if earth work associated with site preparation andlor concrete work
occur during the January through June lambing season and if the sum of these specific
activities requires more than three months of elapsed time to complete.
• If operational activities would exceed the ambient noise level by 3 dBA at the Bighorn
Institute.
All construction activities on the Property will fully comply with the allowable hours
restrictions in the Palm Desert Municipal Code, and no construction activities will be allowed to take
place from January through June. There is no explanation in the DEIR as to why the duration of
construction for more than three months would result in significant noise impacts. The three month
limit on the duration of construction activities appears to`be entirely arbitrary. Even if the three
month restriction on construction activities were valid, it is likely that the site preparation, grading,
and road construction for the proposed two-lot subdivision could be completed in less than three
months. Construction noise impacts could therefore be mitigated to a less than significant level:
There is also no explanation in the DEIR as to why sound levels in excess of 3 dBA over
ambient noise levels would result in a significant noise impact on t1�e operations of the Bighorn
Institute. Footnote 122 on page 210 of the DEIR states that no scientific data was discovered to
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP
Attomeys at Law
Mayor Jean M. Benson
November 12, 2008
Page 6
support an incremental increase in noise level threshold specific to bighorn sheep. �I�the•absence of
any scientific data to support such an assumption, it is not possible to conclude that the sheep �.
maintained by the Bighorn Institute will be adversely affected by noise generated by tlie proposed
development of the Property. The conclusions in the DEIR regarding the potential impacts of the �
proposed development of the Praperty on the adjacent Bighorn Institute are therefore entirely without
foundation. Even if there were some support for the identified noise impacts,the FEIR concludes
that such noise impacts would be substantially reduced due to the reduction of the scope of the
proposed development from 38 residential units to two single family homes.
4. Biological Resources.
The DEIR concluded that the potential impacts on sensitive plant or wildlife communities due
to the development of 38 residential units on the Property can be mitigated to a less than significant
level. The only potentially significant impacts on biological resources identified in the DEIR that
could not be fully mitigated affect the captive breeding program for Peninsular Bighorn Sheep
maintained by the adjacent Bighorn Institute. The DEIR failed to establish, however,that impacts on
the operation of the Bighorn Institute would necessarily adver�ely impact the status of the Peninsular
Bighorn Sheep. In the absence of such a connection, it is not possible to conclude that impacts on the
operation of the Bighorn Institute equate to impacts on the bighorn sheep population as a whole.
Moreover, mere proximity to the Bighorn Institute should not constitute an impediment to the
development of privately owned property that otherwise complies with all appGcable City
development standards. Even if the operation of the Bighorn Institute were affected by
development on adjacent property, it would be incumbent upon the Bighorn Institute to relocate to a
more suitable location where it can carry out its activities undisturbed.
All but approximately '/ acre of the Property is located within a buffer area that was
established in connection with the development of the Canyons at Bighorn development in 1991.
The buffer area was designed to provide a 400 yard distance between development on the Canyons at
Bighorn property and the lambing pen maintained by the Bighorn Institute as part of its captive
breeding program. The 400 yard buffer was established as a legal compromise pursuant to a
settlement agreement among the Bighorn Institute,the original developer of the Canyons at Bighorn
project, and the owners of the Property regarding the development of the Canyons at Bighorn project.
The Property was never a part of the Canyons at Bighorn project, and the owners of the
Property never agreed to forego development in order to accommodate the Bighorn Institute.
It has always been understood by all parties that the Property could someday be developed for
permissible uses. The location of the Property within the buffer area therefore has no bearing
on the ability of the Property to be developed.
The Bighorn Institute is a private organization which acquired the property that it
occupies with full knowledge that tbe surrounding properties were planned and zoned for
residential development. It has no more right to preclude development on adjacent property
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP
Attorneys at Law
Mayor Jean M.Benson
November 12, 2008
Page 7
than any other private entity, regardless of the nature of its activities. Any incompatibility
between the activities of the Bighorn Institute and the development of adjacen,t properties has been
largely self-imposed by the Bighorn Institute. The property owned by the Bighorn Institute is located
in unincorporated Riverside County adjacent to the southern boundary of the City of Palm Desert.
The Cornishe Property is located in the City of Palm Desert immediately adjacent to the southern
boundary of the City and the northern boundary of the property owned by the Bighorn Institute. The
Bighorn Institute originally acquired its interest in the property it occupies pursuant to a lease from
the federal Bureau of Land Management("BLM") in 1984. A copy of the documents associated with
the original lease are attached as Exhibit E. The Memorandum Appraisal Report prepared by the
BLM in connection with the original lease of the property to the Bighorn Institute acknowledged that
"the surrounding area is under general expansion and transition to higher value residential and
commercial development." The findings adopted by the BLM in connection with its approval of the
original lease provide as follows:
All present and potential uses and users of the lands will be taken into consideration.
All other things being equal,land classifications will attempt to achieve maximum
future uses and minimum disturbance to or dislocation of existing users.
All land classifications must be consistent with state and local government programs,
plans, zoning, and regulations applicable to the area in which the lands to be classified
are located to the extent such State and local programs, plans, zoning, and regulations
are not inconsistent with Federal programs, policies, and uses, and will not lead to
inequities among private individuals.
On December 5, 1989, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No.
348.3098 changing the zoning designation of the Bighorn Institute's property from R-1 (One Family
Dwelling)to N-A (Natural Assets). According to the Staff Report prepared by the Riverside County
Planning Department in connection with the proposed zone change,the adjacent property located in
the City of Palm Desert was zoned PR-5 (Planned Residential, 5 units per acre). According to the
General Plan adopted by the City of Palm Desert in October, 1980,the land use designation for the
Cornishe Property was, and has always remained, Low Density Residential. A copy of Ordinance
No. 348.3098 and the associated Staff Report are attached as Exhibit F.
The Bighorn Institute clearly knew of the existing zoning of the surrounding property and
took its property subject to such knowledge. The Bighorn Institute therefore knew when it acquired
the property it now occupies that adjacent properties were zoned for residential development and
would likely be developed for residential uses. The terms according to which the Bighorn Institute
acquired its property similarly provide for the accommodation of existing and future users. The
Bighorn Institute knowingly and deliberately located its operations in proxunity to the urban
boundary. The Bighorn Institute cannot now legitimately argue that its mere presence in such
proximity should prohibit development on property that it neither owns nor controls. The two
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP
Attomeys at Law
Mayor Jean M.Benson
November 12, 2008
Page 8
lots proposed to be developed on the Property are designed sueh that the single family homes to be
constructed on the lots will be no closer than 250 yards from the lambing pen, which is
approximately the same distance from the lambing pen as the house occupied by the Director of
the Bighorn Institute. Moreover, according to information available on its website, the Bighorn
Institute plans to construct new facilities on its own property,including:offices, animal care units,
research laboratories, and a museum education center. For the Bigtaorn Institute,to seek to preclude
development on adjacent property under these circumstances is accordin.gly disingenuous at best and
may constitute a violation of the terms according to which it acq�ired tts property in the first place.
Even if the Bighorn Institute could establish a right to protect its activities from�
disturbance by adjacent property owners, there is no conclusive evidence that the proposed
development of the Property will result in adverse impacts.on the continued wellbeing of either
free roaming or captive Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. The DEIR correctly concluded that the
proposed development of the Property would not have an adverse impact on free roaming sheep
populations because "current numbers of free roaming bighorn sheep in the area of the project are.
very low and may or may not have increased in recent years." Moreover,."the resources on the
project site are of little importance to the sheep." Thus, "with the.implementation of the ,
recommended mitigation measures, development of the proposed project would not have a significant
impact on the free-roaming Peninsular Bighorn sheep population." The:Environmental Assessment
prepared in connection with the original lease of the property to the Bighorn Institute similarly states
as follows:
The project azea is located within the Santa Rosa Habitat Management Area which
was established for the management of the State listed rare Peninsular bighorn sheep
Ovis canadensis). One of the primary concerns in finding a location for the holding
pens was to minimize any impacts to the Santa Rosa herd. The applicant selected this
location in consultation with BLM staff biologists because of its relative isolation .
from the rest of the range and easy access. There are no water sources located nearby
and the ridge was not considered bighorn sheep habitat in the habitat map developed
jointly by the BLM and [California Department of Fish and Game] for the Santa Rosa
HMP (1980). No evidence of bighorn sheep use was observed on site. There are no ,
other rare, threatened, endangered, or sensitive species known to occur on site.
The only impacts identified in the DEIR on bighorn sheep are thus restricted entirely to
the captive breeding herd maintained by the Bighorn Institate; however, even the impacts
identified on the captive breeding herd are not clearly established, nor is it established w�th any
certainty that adverse impacts on the captive breeding program amount to adverse impacts on
the bighorn sheep as a species. The two primary impacts.on the sheep identified in the DEIR were
the possibility of stress and habituation in the captive breeding population due to the proximity of
human contact. Statements in the DEIR with respect to these impacts are, h�wever, less than
conclusive, and it is not clear from the evidence presented that the proposed development of the
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Ma11ory LLP
Attomeys at Law
Mayor Jean M.Benson
November 12, 2008
Page 9
Property will necessaxily interfere with the ability of the captive sheep at the Bighorn Institute to
continue to reproduce. The most definitive statements in the DEIR with respect to the e€fect of
human presence on bighorn sheep reflect the lack of clear agreement among experts on the subject.
The DEIR cited portions of the environmental impact report for the Altamira�Country Club
(now the Canyons at Bighorn) in which the opinions of various expeits regarding the optimal size of
the proposed buffer area to be established between the lambing pens on the Institute's property and
the development of the adjacent residential project. Opinions ranged from no buffer area to a buffer
area of up to one mile. Factors considered in the analysis included the predictability of the contact
and the size and design of the pen. Thus,the captive sheep maintained by the Bighorn Institute
appear to have adapted to maintenance staff servicing feed troughs and human movement within 100
yards of the pens in predictable routines. Human activity, including home construction, golf, and
vehicular traffic at the edge of the existing 400 yard buffer,has apparently not interfered with the
sheep's use of the portions of the pens from which such activity is visible,nor has it affected the
suitability of the young produced in the pen for release into the wild. According to the Altamira EIR,
The Living Desert maintains a successful captive breeding and reintroduction program for bighorn
sheep notwithstanding the fact that approximately 160,000 people per year'pass within 30 feet of the
pen in which the sheep aze kept. Evidence also indicates that sheep generally exhibit lower levels of
stress where, as here,the sheep are above the disturbance rather than below it.
Due to the uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of a buffer between the lambing pens on the
Bighorn Institute's property and the development of the adjacent residential project, Cornishe
contacted Dr. Paul R. Krausman, Boone and Crockett Professor of Wildlife Conservation at the
University of Montana and a recognized authority on the behavior patterns of bighorn sheep, to
analyze the potential impacts that the proposed project may have on the captive breeding population
at the Bighorn Institute. Based on Professor Krausman's review of the DETR,the proposed two-lot
alternative, and available literature,Professor Krausman concluded that the concerns expressed
regarding habituation of the captive breeding herd due to the construction�of two residences
approximately 250 yards from the lambing pen are not supported by "any literature or data that even
suggest that activities associated with the Project, as described,will cause habituation resulting in the
failure of lambs to survive in the wild. Professor Krausman has further stated that he is "not aware
of data that indicates a 400 yard buffer is necessary for successful captive breedingprograms:"
Copies of letters received from Professor Krausman are attached as Exhibit G.
Despite the lack of conclusive evidence regarding the potential impact of human presence
more than 250 yards away, the FEIR concluded that potential impacts of the proposed development
on the Property would result in significant and unavoidable impacts on the operations of the Bighorn
Institute and proposed the following mitigation measures to reduce such impacts to the extent
feasible:
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallo,ry LLP
Attorneys at Law
Mayor Jean M.Benson
November 12, 2008
Page 10
• Garage openings shall be oriented easterly away from the lambing pens to the maximum
extent practicable. `
• Site preparation and grading of the site shall be designed to balance on-site to minimize
new import of fill materials to the extent feasible. Grading shall be restricted to that.
necessary for 1)reasonable vehicular access from tlie Iridian Cove section of the Canyons
at Bighorn to access the residences, 2) development of proposed building pad elevations,
and 3)reasonable foundation excavations. To reduce the impacts associated with the site
preparation/grading phase,building height shall be permitted to allow one-story above
finished floor elevations of 820 and 809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2,respectively.
• The proposed residences shall be designed so that, to the maximum extent pracficable, all
activities and facilities associated with their occupancy, including indoor and outdoor
residency, landscape and other maintenance, mechanical equipment,recreational facilities,
etc., be located to the north of the residences or screened from view from the lambing pen
by barriers high enough to be effective. :
• No construction activities should occur during the lamb�ing season,which extends from
January 1 to June 30. �
• In order to minimize stress and disturbance to Peninsular bighorn sheep at the Bighorn
Institute, no dogs shall be permitted on the project site, either as residents or as visitors.
• A permanent fence/and or wall shall be constructed around the"developed parts of the
project site to prevent free-roaming sheep from entering developed areas. The design and
location of the fence andlor wall shall be developed in consultation with a biologist and
the Bighorn Institute. No landscaping or surface water shall be allowed to occur outside
the fence to prevent sheep from being attracted to the site and exposed to danger or human
activity.
Cornishe does not object to fhe implementation of the foregoing mitigation measures.
As discussed above,the duration of the construction period will likely be less than three months. The
dwellings would be designed to appear as natural as possible and would screen most normal
residential activities. In response to comments received from the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service("USFWS"), additional studies were performed to determine the feasibility of erecting visual
barriers to screen activities on the Project from the lambing pen on the Bighorn Institute's property.
The visual analysis demonstrates that screening the view of the proposed residentiallots from the
lambing pen can be feasibly accomplished in large part through the erection of a combination of
walls,berms, and vegetation ranging in height from zero to 12 feet. Visual barriers required to screen
all activity on the Property would be required to be as high as 26 feet in some locations. However,
effective visual barriers higher than 15 feet are not feasible in the project setting without creating
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP
Attomeys at Law
Mayor Jean M.Benson
November 12, 2008
Page 11
additional visual impacts in their own right. A series of several short,parallel barriers o�12 to 15 feet
in height located perpendiculaz to the line of sight nortfiwest of the on-site access road could screen
visible roadway activity from some portions of the lambing pen. This system of barriers in
conjunction with others designed to screen activity on the residential lots would substantially screen
the visibiiity of on-site activity from the view of sheep in the lambing pen. Any activities that would
not be screened would be located on the portion of the Property farthest from the Bighorn Institute
and would have no more impact than similar activities to wh'ich the sheep have already become
habituated. .
The USFWS has further suggested that the road providing access to the Property from Indian
Cove be relocated to the north of the proposed lots in order to further screen vehicular traffic from
view of the lambing pen. The USFWS is apparently unaware that the four-lot subdivision previously
submitted to the City in 20061ocated the road to the north of the proposed residences;however,
locating the road to north of the proposed lots required the lots to be located farther to the south and
closer to the lambing pen than presently proposed. Locating the road to the north of the proposed lots
was also more economically viable for the proposed four-lot subdivision because the potential
reduction in value due to the presence of a roadway in the principal viewshed of the proposed lots
could be more effectively absorbed by four lots rather thanby the two lots currently proposed.
Locating the roadway to the south of the lots as presently proposed will partially offset the reduction
in value that Cornishe will experience as a result of reducing the proposed number of lots on the
Property from four to two. Locating the road to the north of the proposed lots would also require
significantly more grading in the area adjacent to Dead Indian Creek. Moreover, it would be
physically impossible to Tocate the roadway entirely outside of the buffer area because the location of
the roadway is dictated by the pattern of development established in the adjacent Canyons of Bighorn
development and cannot be altered by Cornishe.
Cornishe has agreed to implement significant modifications to theproject, including the
reduction in the number of residential lots and the erection of visual barriers to screen activities on
the proposed lots from the Bighorn Institute,to substantially reduce,if not completely eliminate,
potential adverse impacts of the proposed development of the Property on the operation of the
Bighorn Institute. � .
C. Failure to Approve Reasonable Develoument on the Propertv Will Result in a Regulato
Takin�of the Propertv for Which Cornishe Will Be Entrtled to the Pavment of Just
Compensation.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part that private
property shall not be taken for public use without payment of just compensation. In Lucas v. South
Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), the iTnited States Supreme Court held that
regulatory action that denies a property owner all economieally beneficial or productive use of land is
compensable as a regulatory taking. Here, the effect of prohibiting development on the Property in
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP
Attomeys at Law
Mayor Jean M. Benson
November 12,2008
Page 12
order to protect the operation of the adjacent Bighorn Institute will not only serve to deprive Cornishe
. of all,economically beneficial use of the Property but will also constitute a taking of private property
for private, rather than public, use.
Only approximately '/ acre of the Property.lies outside the buffer area that was established for
the benefit of the Bighorn Institute. The '/< acre that lies outside the buffer area cannot feasibly
be developed because it lies entirely within Dead Indian Creek. Development within Dead Indian
Creek would require approval by the California Deparhnent of Fish and Game and by the United
States Army Corps of Engineers. Even if the necessary permits and approvals for such development
could be obtained, the portion of the Property located within Dead Indian Creek would be subject to
repeated flooding on a periodic basis which would result in potentially significant biological and
hydrological impacts due to the need to undertake significant grading to raise the building site above
the floodplain of the Creek, thereby disturbing riparian habitat and permanently altering existing
drainage patterns within the Creek. In order to avoid a potential takings claim,the City proposed an
alternative in the DEIR which considered the development of two single family dwellings on a
reduced area of the Property. The proposed alternative in the DEIR was extremely speculative
insofar as it did not provide any information regarding the size, location, or configuration of the
proposed lots other than to place them in the extreme northeastern portion of the Property,much of
which cannot be developed because it lies within the streambed of Dead Indian Creek as noted above.
The proposed alternative was designed to reduce all potentially significant impacts of development
on the Property to a less than significant level. Construction noise was considered to be less than
significant because site preparation and concrete work would require less than three months to
complete and because "sheep are known to be considerably less sensitive to unfamiliar sounds in
their environment than they are to the sight of unfamiliar activity." Occupancy of the proposed
dwellings would purportedly not have significant impacts on the sheep at the Bighorn Institute
because the design of the proposed dwellings would "present a completely passive, as natural as
feasible, appearance as seen from the pen, where normal residential activities within the dwelling and
adjoining functional amenities would be screened from view in the pen by the design of the dwellings
themselves. To the extent that certain activities such as normal vehicle access is visible, these would
represent only a marginal, non-significant extension of these activities within the adjoining Canyons
at Bighorn development, a condition to which the sheep are already habituating."
The proposed alternative provided few protections, if any, that would not be provided by the
proposed two-lot subdivision, and was clearly designed to do nothing more than appease the Bighorn
Institute, which would be allowed to have input into the design. As stated above, the Bighorn
Institute is a private organization. Any restriction on the development of the Property to benefit the
Bighorn Institute would therefore necessarily violate the constitutional prohibition against the taking
of property for private use.
The following information is provided pursuant to the requirements of City of Palm Desert
Ordinance No. 1104: '
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP �
Attorneys at Law
Mayor Jean M.Benson
November 12, 2008
Page 13
� � • ' Cornishe acquired the Property from Guy and Vanessie Laliberte, and Mario Pascucci in
2003: - .
• The Property was originally purchased by Guy and Vanessie Laliberte, Robert Del
Gagnon, and Mario�Pascucci for$25,000 in 1977,prior to the execi�tion of the lease
between the Bighorn Institute and the BLM for the properEy ct�nently occupied by the
Bighorn Institute. The Property was transferred to Cornishe for approximately$673,200.
� Guy and Vanessie Laliberte and Mario Pascucci retained their interest in the Property as
members of Cornishe.
• Approval.of the requested tentative tract map is necessary to permit development on the
Property that would be precluded if the City were to designate the Property as part of the
buffer area designed to protect the operations of the adjacent Bighorn Institute.
• The current market value of the Property if developed for�two lots for the construction of
single family homes as proposed is approximately$7,000;000, excluding site preparation
and development costs. The market value of the Property upon construction of the homes
on the two lots is projected to be in the range of$18 million.
• Since its acquisition of the Property, Cornishe has expended approximately$3,503,240 in
predevelopment costs for the Property through August 31, 2008,including the purchase
price of the Property as well as taxes, interest, consultants' fees, and application fees,
including the cost of preparation of the FEIR. Total construction costs associated with the
development of the project as proposed are estimated to be approximately$1,101,200. A
preliminary estimate of the projected costs to develop the Property as proposed is attached
as Exhibit H. The costs associated with developing only that portion of the Property
located outside the buffer area are estimated to be incrementally less by approximately
$362,015,resulting in total costs of approximately$739,185. A preliminary estimate of
the projected costs to develop a single lot outside the buffer area is attached as Exhibit I.
In addition to costs already incurred, the total value of the.resulting lot would therefore
have to be at least $4,242,425 in order for development outside of the buffer area to be
economically feasible.
• The Property is subject to assessments in the amount of$345 per year.
• The Property is currently undeveloped.
• The Property is proposed to be subdivided into two residential lots ranging from 1.41 to
1.46 acres in size for the development of single family homes.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP
Attomeys at Law
Mayor Jean M.Benson
November 12, 2008
Page 14
. � • If the proposed subdivision is denied, arid development is not permitted within the buffer
area, the Property will have no economic value: According to information obtained from
representatives of the Canyons at Bighorn,the smallest lot located in the Canyons at
� Bigliorn development is 11,413 square feet in area and represents one of only three lots in
� the Caxryons at Bighorn development that are le�s than 12,000 square feet in lot area. .The
threelots in the 11,000 square-foot range are"villa" lots, each of which accommodates a
villa reside�ce of approximately 3,500 square feet of floor area, and all of which have
either a view or access to water features or proximity to the golf course. The most
expensive villa residence sold in May 2006 for approximately$3.25 million for the house
and lot. The lot size of the forgoing villa residence is approximately 14,940 square feet in
area, and the size of the residence is 3,376 square feet, ful�y furnished and fully
landscaped, with a water feature, spa, barbeque, outdoor bar and fire pit. The portion of
. the Property located outside the buffer area is approximately 9,900 square feet in area and
is located entirely in the streambed of Dead Indian Creek. The elevation of the portion of
the Property located outside of the buffer area ranges from 780 feet to 776 feet above
mean sea level. Existing adjacent building pads located along Dead Indian Creek average
approximately 12 to 14 feet above the highest point of the adjoining Creek bed.
Canstruction of a building pad on the portion of the Property located outside of the buffer
area would require extensive retaining walls and ti�e import of at least 6,000 cubic yards
of fill, excluding the amount of grading required to provide access to the Property. The
lot would have no view and would have no access to either the golf course or to any water
features other than the periodic flooding of Dead Indian Creek. The resulting value of a
lot located on the Property outside of the buffer area would therefore be significantly less
than $3.25 million and would not provide any return on the investment already made in
the Property by Cornishe,much less justify the additional costs necessary to develop the
Property as proposed. Development of only that portion of the Property that is
located outside the buffer area would therefore not be economically feasible.
Information regarding the comparable value of�lots located in the Canyons at Bighorn
Development is attached as Exhibit J.
• None of the Property will retain any economic value if the proposed development of the
Property is denied.
• The value of the Property will be reduced from$7,000,000 to nothing, thereby resulting in
a loss of$7,000,000.
The proposed two-lot subdivision is designed to be s�ensitive to the existing landscape and
compatible with surrounding uses. It effectively balances the firmly established rights of the Property
owner with protection of the environment and will place one of the last remaining pieces of
undeveloped property along the City's southern boundazy into productive use. If developed as
proposed, the Project will also result in the preservation of almost nine acres of the Property as
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP
Attomeys at Law
Mayor Jean M.Benson
November 12, 2008
Page 15
protected open space. Denial of the requested subdivision will result in the deprivation of all
economically viable use of the Property. You are therefore respectfully urged to approve the
requested subdivision and permit the Property to•be developed as proposed.
Your careful attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. I am available to tneet with you to ' "
discuss any questions or concerns you may have regarding the proposed development of the Property.
In the meantime, please call with any questions or if I can provide further information with respect to
the foregoing. �
Very truly yours, �
///`�����
�
�
Patrick A. Perry
PAP:Ivb
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Carlos L. Ortega
Ms. Lauri Aylaian
�
�� ����� `''�II/II,
� Y�
♦�uu`i�i�u�������;,, CI
��_ �►— :r� I l l
� ���i ��
_.
�:
� _���
, ,;
�'I ry4r
� (!I - 1.
� ' � I C�I � �;<
7' ' �nue `� t ?
����0� ,�,,o�,��,,, J����.� � '�����
sf .'��,��, ���„�rn;����'� ��¢ ����
�3'( a� � �t 09
,{lYll�lliv ,\��� ��� �i��,4v4�� Q. �,y�fL
{ L� ��S � f
�. ��I '�� �� . .f�:P'ev'�,y� ��.1a�` �'��� ..� °.,1� J .,f �:. 2 f . 1 tr�
'�w 4'� v �`�"' � � �� r e t . . ., � w,r i�. .. '� I I
��■ ���w 4 �1 d �,�� � �"� � � �,- � 1
Q �� �i � t • i; ��asa�JM{ � �?.�,+ +"k�0���A � Y.i� ��
� i',�� i����n � '��� �IR� a`ri . ��9 Bito�"'. �����l� ,i'�^r� �
�
�� ���� �������� 1+i�� � �'� '�_ �e����� �""A -
I � �, I � g ��R�� fi? 4fw;���c� , 'y �� �
� ��o;a. �r �: ��'�� ���'� I �t
� (� � -� t �� �� �J� � d �-� � y,' ,
. .Ir .r��� ��6..�ft' . sg�f� Y�= ' I :i� I
� "' �� � I
� 'I ���`e+r���x'a�'�tl�5','�����f����^ � ; "� ��;
lu. �a E �9'`�,�u
r �G�� !■�� n �� �.%E��s kt3A°�.L ��+fe�y r r '� � ��.
f I �':!77��� �a ♦ '`�I'ta
■ k �
� ■r�
��� -,.�#�R� —�� `°�t+c C��:a ��i��,i���J t� '� �.,/ ��� �Y �I�1�`..
. �� I �� �an � �eu'.� ■ ��� � �fr ;.-/1 � ' �� .
�em�� n ,��� �
Ir � �� l�l 11�a !' t ��� I� '~� r s � � /// i �.'.
� �.�•' � ,� a�. ���. � � �! u-�
�w'ii ��a�. ' o��� '���' d�'� � ���t�s�� _.,� I a ��� �
��,- �n u � �
�� �. ""2J �� a�'� a r�. ; ��l�I,�' , r , �;� + k
I' i � � Jy �� . �
�� � e, ��� �5fr� ioa� q��' �.���t7����:E�� l�. ,�'�� f � r �
I I �.�'�'; � 3�1����1���,���F�.��,��i1 1�i �k 11 i �,-4f 1 i �Z� ��:�� L I '�
, ���� ����Fd MMi��!�:�G�r�4a_�'�� ,f�� F I � 7 � ' ;
r � �
II� ■ �A ���A���V��+ sy '�':''y�'�� k.l�+ �lf������ �,'I r,v ��;i� � � �
�� ��� r ���. ������� . �����Y����l� i � � � (� � � � {�I
I_ . f !��� � ,� �E4 . ���1M'�'y, ,a � u ,� :al k ti�
���� �� ' �E ��' s � � j �r oi r
M f�i 7' �'Y +y�'�a` '� � I:' '.
$ qr��`�' �'�fi l�4 ? rft}f.
��` i � I�. kiv�•l'' 7 h .:,{ � y i � _Y�' '�"':�I r,1 .
1� ti �(u 1 '�`��
e
�� +'��... ll ���=„�r�,3u��'��,� �,� ��� ��. a,�v.w ,; ���,� ' �, a��� �',; �� r4 ,-�
Ey�j�
..�:a r.�'�' i�s� ��' s^'1\jw' � .:aY �ir��i ' � ��i t �
���ec,ca.�� ���$ ' 7t�yh.� ti r �� rk ' '� ��� :�i( a � "h � ,,
r'�. �, � g� v �, r r� G t , i
��� � ��.��,�(.�i��al�.�� t� �+�' a -��"^ra �� d ' ��� rG ��+ : ,�� �`..
f � �! �I��i.{"�`' �.;� �t�'� , n ��� t rs,aaL+ f �r-.
� ��� ���'..,� `'�`�� �M ��ir� F 3�'� I F � 5 � �,'�',t„y��P�4�� � R � .
a I � i � Y 4��!;2 t �/ ��y�j�,, �,�+F�' 't i5.i f dil�� ����" i� �'������ �P��61�'�'r
r �
t �,�- �� �i
.�'. �. ¢ :�J� r I��'� y� °��i'��°,k� �����R� �����„`
�� c^� ,N ���� k t,'
i '�L Y� p ! ''�f �. ['r� Fy ... � ('t�r.
�� z y,;�� r � � i �'n� � Nq, a
� ����v 7 ``iT� ,g F tL�� L, �� . ^,-/� ' T { ��
..��!'K ��T ir +d�1� I �il � j� � � � . I� � ly��
F3 t�'f,�t�5��i � ,�r'i��i s: �` ��r i►�� � � �� ��� � fi��.
��' �.t�E�i�:,ni..�u _ �� � - �IQ��M • ./ �ai�
�
r� . ,�,+�1 ��irY��►' I . �'�;�1��. �� si;�l
„ �
rf�"'.�I�� Isi"��� I .� ,/���� .�� � .�. .., � -
;�i . ..,.' - :
�� • ��
�..I • �
I�I ���rll �--� ;_' liiii�"i � � , �
i1�11 I�'�C" :i � � �'-''� -
.
..:� '� %11 �: ��� � �
� _..���r�. �:� � �� �
���: !����.,, -�� �. � �
_ � ' — 'liii i�i
, _ � � � :
_ �, _ � ' , � , `
� 1.' ' i
�1■ . ■ , �
_��e� ..�t��
��� RI�IERSIDE COUNTY
�"���01�� FIRE DEPARTMENT
� �, . In cooperation�vith thc
oF California Dcpartment of Forestn�and Firc Protcction
73710 Fred Waring Dr.#102 • Palm Desen,CaGtania 92260 . (760)346-1870 • Fax(760)779-1959
Cralg AMhony •
Fire Chief
Proudly serving the Cove Fire Marshal's Office _
��m�� 73710 Fred Wari�Drive#102
�s ofR'�e�s`ae palm Desert CA 92260 �
County and the
cities of: (760)346-1870 •
�
� �N��%J`� . 2
Hesumont TO: DATC: �- � 'i'( � �
� �A� , :
Calimesa � � ( �'r�
¢ 3 �� ��
c�nyo�►r.� REF:
fi
Coachella If circled.conditions aaaly to uroiect
Desert Hot Springs
`` 1. With respect to the coriditions of approval regarding the above
Indian Wells referenced ro'ect,the fire de artment recommends the followin fire
�. P ] P g
Indio protectioq measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal
s Code,NFPA, CFC, and CBC or any recognized Fire Protection
Lake ELQinore ,
S1 Standards:
t,a Quint� The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the
•~ remodel or construction of all buildin s er UFC article 87.
Moreno Valley A�re now of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual
palmDesett pressure must be available before any combustible material is pl�ced
y on the iob site.
P`� Provide or show there exists a water system capable of providing a
xanct,o Htirage gpm flow of
'` � 1500 gpm for single family dwellings
santiacinto 4. 2500 gpm for m�ultifamily dwellings
T«necula 5. 3000 gam for commercial buildings
The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super
s�a afs���� HYdrant(s)4"x 2'/z"x 2 %z", located not less than 25' nor more th:in:
� 200 from any portion of a single family dweiling measured via
�°b��• vehicular travelway
��"�1 7. 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwetling measured via
)ohnTavagliaae, vehicular travelway
Distrid 2
8. 150' from any portion of a commercial building measured via
J����a vehicular travelwa
D"�it3 9. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include
�y W�"� verification that the water system will nroduce the required fire flow.
District 4
Marion Asliley,
Distrid S
10. Please be advised the proposal project may not be feasibie since the existing water
mains wili not meetthe re4uired fire tlow _ . - - - -
11. Install a complete NFPA 13 Tire sprinkler system. This appties to 111 buildings with
a 3000 square foot total cumulative floor area.The Fire Marshal shall approve the
locations of all post indicator valves and fire department connections.All valves und
connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and witl�in 50' of an approveci
hvdrant. Eaemuted are one and two familv dwellings
12. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and Water-flow
switches shall be monitored_and alarmed oer CBC Cha�ter 9
13, install a fire alarm system as reauired bv the UBC Chaater 3
14. Install porta6le fire extinguishers per NFPA 10, but not less than one 2A l OBC
extinguisher per 3000 square feet and not over 75' walking distance. A "K" type fire
' eatinguisher is reauired in all commercial kitchens
15. Install a Aood/Duct automatic fire extinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all pu6lic and
arivate cookin�operations excent sin�le-familv residential usa�e
16. Instalt a dust collecting s�stem per CFC Chapter 76 if conducting an oper�tion that
aroduces airborne oarticles
17. All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of
all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway sl�all not be less than
24' of unobstructed width and 13' 6" of vertical clearance. Where p�rallel parking is
required on both sides of the street the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with
parking on one side.Dead-end roads in eacess of 150' shall be provided with a
minimum 45' radius turn-around 55' in industrial develo ments.
;
18. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or
other me�ns provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Rox" key over-ride system to
allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16' with minimum
vertical clearance of l3'6".
19. A dead end single access over 500' will require a secondary access, sprinklers or other
mitigative measures approved by the Fire Marshal.Under no circumstance.sf�all a
dead end over 1300' be acceated.
20. A second access is requ,red. This can be accomplished by two main access points from
a main roadwav or a emergencv gate from an adioining development
_ __ _
21. This project may require licensing 6y a state or county agency, to facilitzte p11n
review the applicant shall prepare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of
intent_detailing the oroposed usa�e and occuaancy tvpe
22. All buildin s shall have illuminated addresses of a size a roved b the cit .
2� Alt fire sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and al:�rm plans must be
submitted separatelv to the Fire Marshal for approval prior to constructio�i
24. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws or when
building permits are not obtained within twelve months
25. All elevators shall be minimum gurney size
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the
Fire Marshal's Of�ice at(760)346-1870 in Palm Desert.
Location: 73710 Fred WarinQ I�rive#102.Palm Desert CA 92260
Other.
� A- ���- s �e�- � � '
,
. .�.,..�.
Sincerely,
�
avid A.Avila
Fire Marshal
�'� f ����� ' � �� tUl��tiz.- �r�� _ �i iJ���%-� i °
���� \. 1' ,,e,+��',�, .,I��- „-��f � � �
�� ' �✓�/ N3tlM! 2 .
N
`/ �
, / �
��.��.��� ....�1\V../,��
I�/— �/ • o °` . .� �� . � a� �
w ¢o
� /�� � :-,�.. _ _,�", �' W �� �
.
/ f �` 4 � �' f Um �
�-/ f' f '° . <, �• � a
��_� ' �
,r-' � _ �J ( � " a �_ �
� � � ''� � o wZ
\,�- ^ /'..�—� � _.- � �t 9 � , c�i �o �
\ �� .�.�"#� . Z v 1%
� � w
�� -�.�_ - F-
`�'���� �'..✓�• '^ ""—\ ,
,� ���'�,� �O .i ��^� ' ��—�. l.
�,�� ��-� _ -
��\��� � _
�-•..'\ A �F-.'"�_in �'1. �_), � �
�, � � . s � � _ ��/ a
��-> "` � � � � � �
-_.. � '�� - ----_ � � � �
::�� � 'n� / �C`J f �\. � a"-��y .
1 � .. _ ,�.�--;.:�� , �(� �
� --� i � ti g��
���`��. ... . ����� �1- �J�>���.��� � ^.� W ��a
��1� ' �� K �"
� 6
� \�-�'1 lJ S � * . L'�- �� �,,.------,..�, �?J` ��
r =\\. �;�:i( " � - � �
< � \ � f i ��
o M �\� �'`�.��J� �i� %�� r'� r' a
a ;�' . �.�---� � /� O � ��� �,L; aj�`/� � ��
u O m ,__-- • /�i '`�� � � �
aZ - `�" —=�:L--�' ��S� �� .
. , 4�^ \ / fr" �.
� �W '-''l\ \� \\�~��j � � ��f�\ � � �` .
,� A ,ri \`M1 ��♦ A^-,�J .i�'"��\�\l]?� �
� `� o vi �" �V� �^ .
� C �,; � a� � � � `1 _�____�-'�
� �� f �
'� t I
� L o� � � � f�b���`\ J �
\, s� ? o
j �... N� i_ � :��Z��'�\��/.--���/a =�`'S /, , � ��
a V =�. .� � 1`l \ �_ _
. Q �o ✓'- r � `�.•✓ \1 � � �
� � o W ��� „\ ~ � •.'
W � .
0 0� , �_ h.. . /
3 aQ ��.�� �� \�f�� • "'' �
a /� �\; � .,. ��
w <� -,, � `5��� ��� U ��
a > � � �.-- � \ � q
N.
U � i /�"�_--•.�� ��,��� \ ' °� � � .
/ f ,�
� a / � J � ' 0 �8 �
i � / .-IL-i..^J \ �" \
Z / " �^•�� �\µ � •�� ���
W r�/ / a \ �
;--�,.� 1��., •.
;
~ /-�/��.4 a ��� o ��
� � ' /
/ i
��� �/ :-� f
� f`T`/.
�'�'� � �� ' J� —
� �� � ������ ,-__
� �yy `y �� � ������ �y } �
�IR 4 ��� Y„ Ja� �������P � � J
�. «M°, �, >� � m�s�� � �� ��$�9Ep � Ig�;������ o ������
+,w c��i �� NI �� �!!➢ � 2 � �����!
; _� e . a
�
9 # � I � Iiil
� "e. a r 41 i i I 5
� �b '�jl. ~ � I � i i � Q �
��
� N
����" w I � Iiil " '�? w
o j� y¢
3 � � : N
� O �� � �� k i K.�i
j�� g i Vy
�i 9 � ��� � ���gE�� h ���� a
o �� � ������� s �
� � � .
Q
� C iTY OF � � �. � ;
= PALM DESERT �'
:> J � ��
J •
Q� , '
�� � .. , .
2 B �ao
v�� Q , : . . . . -. . .
. .��
� -J:
. . :�.
. . �:
• . . �:
� . . . . .. ' . . , �_:
� ' . . • • . . . t:
:�•
.;Z:
J��, � MOUNTAINOUS AREAS �:
O�'
O�� - ��:
U:
� • �
�
�
- . �
J.-, -
� , �
. , „��o
MOUNTAINOUS AREAS _ ��t'
J��
� ,��ti
. O�' -
74 .j�`�
APP• 818HORN INSTITUTE ��T�"µ ��
RANCHO �
Use NONCOMMERCIAL MENA6ERY �
Dist. C C A N 0 P D s� � 4 MIRAOE �
PALM
S�C. 6 T. 6 S..R.6 E. Aespsor�s 81t.T T 1 Pq„ 040 �
H INDIAN
CKCulatiotl HIOHMtAY 74 ARTERIA� I10' e DESENT= we�«s
El�msnt N :
...
Rd. Blc. Pq. 1 I 3 Dot� 8-21-69 prawn By R D S
� �"= Z O O O' l�F14SJ►AE COII�M/T Y /°L��AiO'YA+�A�a QE7°ART�E/l/T
.....-�-.�.
�•
�.
. ATTACHMENT NVtll �
. - _ .
� _ ATTACNMENT "q�� . ' � .
. - Proposed �
. t
? - : • ' CLASSIFICATION DECISION = . " �
=The f011owing Public lands have been examined and faund suitable fot )
�optton to�purchase, under the Recreatior, and Aublfc Purpose (R&PP) ActeofeJun�th =
19Z6 (44 Stat 74) as amended, and the petttion for classificat e 14,
�are aPRrQved. fon for these lands '
� 7. 6 S. . R. 6 E. , S.B.B,M. �
Section 6, Lot 7� EI/2 S�II/4� E1%2 �Li/4 SWI/�, 5E1/4
. ;' (297.34 acres)
.7h is' deci s ian is based upon the fo l lowing rensons. :
� 1• "If the lands are found t� be suitable for disposal� consideration unde;
criteria of this part will be given to whether the la�ds are need�d i the .
urban or suburhan purposes or whether they are cheif]y valuable for other
purposes,. Lands found to be vaivable for pu6lic
chiefly valuable for public purposes, except in s1 uationswwf�ereealternat�ed
sites are� available to meet the public needs involved.�� (43 CFR 243p,2(b).j
" 2• "The land5 must be physically suitable or adaptable to the uses or u
for whlch they are cinssified, In addltion, they must t�ave such physical
and 'other characteristics as the law rt�ay require them to have to qualif�sfor
a particular �clnssification." {43 CFR 2410.1(a).) • � y �
' 3• "A11 pr.esent and potential uses an�d users of the lands �will be taken i
. � consideration. A11 other Lhings being equaT� ]and. classificatlons wili�p
= attempt to achieve mnxlmurn future uses and minimum distur-bance to or dislo-
cation of ex-isting users." (43 CFQ 2410,��(b);j
. 4• "A1] land cla5siffcations must be consistent .Nith State and local government
progrems. pl ans. zan ing, ar�d regul at:ons appl icab 1e to the area in wh ich 'the
idnds to be c]assified are located to the extent such State and local
programs, plans� zoning; and regulatlons are not inconsistent wlth Federal
. . programs� policies, and uses, and wi11 rtot lead ta inequit�ies among private
individuals." (43 CFR 2410.1(c)f�) .
' 4
� - 3• "A17. �and cla5siflcatians must be consistent with Federal- programs and
po7icies, to the exterit that -tho�se� prcqrants �and paticies affect the' use or
disposal of the public lands." (43 �CFR 2410.1(d).j
� The lands petitioned for canply with the above �regulations. C7assification of these
lnrtds under the above cited Recreation and Pub1lc.Purpose Act wfll seqregate them
from a) 1 appropriations, includfng �iocations under minimg 1aws, except as to appti-
. cations under the mineral leasing laris 3nd applications under the Recreatlon and
• PUbT1C Purppse AC:.
� r , .
r •
. • , f
� . �
the fallowing petition for classification is hereby: approved:
: Name af Petitioner: The Desert�8igharn Research Instfitute: (CA-14622)
Name af Petition: Recreation and Public Purpose
� � t
3 �3 "� �
e e a . er
For the State Director
. 1, r
s
� • -
� • : .
�
. ' • i
. . , � ::�•�,
. • , • . L •T�Y
. �,,�
• � ,.. . ' ; �,, �-r,� � :;:�
- � � � . - . . � .s.� �,
� � - ..,�, ,� ;�
. , � -
� 2
,� �.
. �
-;-r-�. . .
�~ . ' ' • -=--:--_�
L i st of Rev i eti,re�s - _ � .
� _�-
,. _ _ :
Bonner Blong Mr. Rmnan A.• D1az �
. 8�ox 16I� 55050 Strong Drive Director of Envlronmental Services•
; �dyllwild, California. 92349 � City of Palm Desert '
� Un i�ers ity of Cal iforn ia . . P.fl. Boz 1977 .
Dee Can Palm Oesert� California 9226
. p yon Research Center� .
P;,O. Box 1738 Ms. Patricta Larson, Yice Chalrman y
• Palm Desert, Callfornia 92Z61 Riversld� County 8aard of Supervisors
� , P.O. Drawer 1330
Universit.y of Califvrnia • Indio, California g22p2
ATTH: Dr. Wilbur N. Mayhew . .
Riverside. California 9250Z . Mr. James R, deForge
Living Desert Museum �sert &ighorri Sheep Research Instltute
� AtTN: Karen Sausman, Director P•�• gox 262
4�-900 South Portola Avenue paTm Desert� California 92261 . '
� P��lm Desert� CallforAia 92261 . . � � ;, , �
Ironwood Country Club � .
� 49200 Mariposa Orive . : �
Palm Desert, Californla 92261
Caiifprn•�a Department of Fish �
end G ame r .
�� Environmental Services ._ ' -
� 2d5 W. Brod�way, Suite 350
. Long Beach, Callfornia 90802 � • .
. �
Mr, Rog�r Streeter, Dtrector . ' " � ' ' `
Riverside Planning Oepartment�� • • • • � � ' � �
4080 L'emvn. 9th� .Floor ' • � • . • �
-Riversi�e, Ca]ifornia 9250� , � . .� � � � , � � . ' . �
_ • Assemblyman Steve Clutet •. � � � • � • � �
c/o L 1 s a_ Harri son � . � • � - � �. � ' �
45-235 Towne Street, �►2 ' �
Indto, Cnlifor�ia 92201
MS. Kay Ceniceros, Chairman • ' � �
• R1v�r.slde County 5upervisors � � '
4080 Leman. 14th FZoor' � � ' �� • � �
� Riverslde. C,a].ifo�nia 9250.1 ' ' �. � • � ', . �
• • _ � • � -
, � . . . . . � .
, � , .
� .
�
-t 12 . ��a !fi% �i �,�r ^--F'. %y . •�j .�� l: • � 12 � �
� � �a-`Y'tI' .... IfrT.i+� �''" •' ��'o�{,��>•� •'•�. �-; •� � . '. •: -• -�� . . �
xtr!��rt-.'.�i .f�". :� •.r t L' . ^ , }
�.`-:++C'- .�t": ' =�':r�-a= I -,-. � i = �' 'Lk \ '� .
.� �....��w j`-.••. � -_ � . : � - � O � '►'`� : � • t '•: " a
, la�� _ � pw.w .. ! :• - '4 �; . �''
� L «::�� ll � • - ^. : la l3 . • .
� ' _-�'"".+n � I��;"7 "t� , � s 1}�'��e�w � ' .� . . �C� y �
..-� y , ...: � ..._ �p -�v •. -�- ,� c,� .
u ! r �•..�r:• � 1 '�,�y s" G��F ~ y1 .
^ a + � .y.'.s � �.� �rMl . 1��L '� I . ` ..l � �
�� �' _, '�::::::• �• ':.�•�"ti.�';.....��v ��� '�\/O _ ..
. � .,: � '. ; �'�71 .�j�f~��' � � Ir . ` `
Vi. � .`
� � -�M�i. ., " x'« rw,�:���•�t•... 2! � '
� 1p ��`�,,, . :i• ��' .Z] � .
, f •�i: 22 ,�..- 1�+�..;. , .��-�„ .
,? ! r` 2'i_h�:�. ' r_ : .'�.x ��; : I,+dfaa;4P�I4 . 4': ,
�� 7��. - i �: ��� �.�:• � ���y:a����• 7 11'-_`--•r r� "' ' ..
� -- r."i �:r�� - �.t, -.r. + y .
�, y • ; .:'arr � .a .yl . '^ � � °..�`•�ta (
� l r ..� •�� ' " *„�A;�' �� �'���y �+; • a
��]"'' '1 • ��' CS �.t. w..ea , ,�.� �\.. ,�._:.��1 _
, �, ' .. � -,�t a��i ee,..a� �v� �: 1� �,• .
� �� � Q• .�:.. Zg r' S � �y • �; ��� � . 1 ,
� � r` I � �.�,, � �� �'�4�`.-..`.'� � ~.. \
� � � ' � �~ � �\�• '� y�\�:=��,'� �.
�C : � � '--ti1�'���•_��.e.`�J A -
�. ,T• �w��r �• :�,�.` ..r••�.f�. • � � ` r�'"�..' -
f� 1'� s � Nl ' •'\, i 1 ` � ^���i •� � •`` � ' •
¢O •.�. •. � �: ,���� V 1..:'C'1" ') • �
.� � � I . � ) • � �
� • �\`1i�r �� \ � t j ` r�' `�,.,�, } �v, �
\• �� 1 �G�� i/. 1 .. . ������� ��/,J�'• #� ' ` ��' • �
,!r_.� {� � • �r .�.. ��..� �T. . � � i�J,r''s"�� � 1� �v �F ,� 1 wqyt '
ti . j..: 71 � '33' ] � �/i" ���� r L. .��: a. -
.�� � ' • , ``\i '2Vl"�'a,���S � �' , , �� I.... ' . . .
• � -�. : : � � r.��.. �•� _1. .. �.
�� •� cf �/� .. ,y
� \ � t �\�••-• � � ^y� \ �` - ,•L' f�r
l��G�\�'• t � J �• ��• •S� � • •�� ;�' y� ti "�. � . .
y 1 � i�� � �. � r:Y ..t�%:`-�+-�• • ►�� t'• .� — F�. s_r'
Y �: .� f j � � =.+L� )�•� ••� 1 �' � t < . �
�`!•„ �- n,,;� i t ''� � ' ry ��1� ,' � .. •.�:1. `-
� '� : � i( �:���w �r �a ��,`��, -
�\ 1 � �. ,� � • � r /� , � Y:..y•x+s. � �^� ""�� ?�
\`` ` � , ( •;�5� �`. A
' `\�• � � •` ,X` i' `t y \�� ��• ` ] . .
i� � � •\�`\i ��• � � �:� •�,• ' �
� . ��J� �J �, . �'�� ,Z• � � • h f�
_ ��L (�'��,� .�� �K: '�)�' \- � •Z
. �:. � �-~�r. ' ``�,; �`.� i. ��.�,� ' �:��, � � � �� �L`� � .
;� �f�I�,�' r.. r �..�•tiC'~. .�s+�'' �`� z � *�
:nw„ f;�� f Sj�` �; ' � '� �: �-;�;,,-. �`� �r�' �.�
, �r,,; ;^�,\ '��r- o�`��s - :, j1 , "°�.^. ;v.t• •,_ �L� ; � �
, � � r� y �....�, --- �
;��` , � -� ��. '� S%�.�y�., ; . ,r�--�� �'�, �'.,• ��' _���r'` ' .�.i�' -
��'� �.. ��.. �i. y,�--.� L'. •� \ ����. '. �. :, � ✓.^�
f'����" �.. `=�� '���t�v��.`}`���' �\y ��,�1 � }'-� , �. .
':ti � I�^- �. '�!!,"�� ,i�� � �� Lra.�=-J= Yf..� ~ .�'1�\r�' � �; 3 �;�CC�r �4.��1
� ��� `�Q,i. �r �'i�' �. •�:`� ' s�• �1�11� � ��I�� ` � ��]Y ii x.{ .
`� � � `� �� "` i 'A Q �r )� ,rj;
. �.j�.�• �^ ,���'�� l . � / � t i5� ��.' T �� /'� , ..
/. '
(+� '` ` �� �/\ ..�` S �i'� 1."�'� .1� h' i �
� � � ���\ a.tar t � • -_ I . ?• 7
.�S.• � �. i� � ��:%'r.`"S�•���`4� �\ ra �`�'�� �s. ♦� . t
� �� .v�`� 1 . ��^j�j���,��"i.` r..� �} �� ��������� '
+a^''1:..� 2,�lw ' .-�y �•�'.�tk�7 C � �:�C 3;h��C. _� \., • 1 f' ,�.
j yL�U���^+ �� r: r �' r�:'` � IcY r •,>. a 3`�-�' ;� i .1.`�� . !1+ ��iRi.
4�� �i .L' i �4``' v �1�. ��1�1..4�+�•t�L,� �' .i �jr�` � � y�
��...,n�1.Y f ��' N �,��� ' • ��;. : l f � ��`'� �'��� � .
�,N • ��' � ,...�'J�-�'� � ���`�-��� � ����� ,,,.t: (��{�,`'-..,, �, � .
�...�• ���� J y�� i..�.�fj,�1 L �r� +in�/ ,1���� a.
`i`�y�q�"{� �,,. � i ....�! � � L��d3i+."`��7�i��^'%���Lti/�r�' `„� \ V'(�',�jr. � ..
�_���' � � . �,� ',1n� �\ e�. C r t � �, �., �.
ji�.C{�Say;'a�� _ � �_�±. i ' l� _�II��iI� ' .n'�•�Iy^�.-.���J����� +� _ �1� � .. �
i`y� V•j• wT`� 1�. r����{:i�t��✓'�of•ISf r r' ^�+'.Yf.�-'�.� ��\. ��..•\^ .�ti/''
� � � CA-14E22 �
v M�? - GES��- BIGHORN RESEARCN 1rt5iITUiE PROJECT
. - „
-�
_ - �
' . i (. ' . Vn-1•:�cG
. � ATTACHMENT NIX -
i : Enviro�,rnental .Asses`su�ent � . ' �
� , . EA ACA-066-4-4 � ' . _
� I • 8ackqround ' , ' -
_------_ . . ,
� : _ - i ' - ..
. TFie� Desert 8tgf��rn �heen Research Institute, a �nonprof��t Qr,ani
has applied far a Recreation and Public Pur ase 9 zatian�
. iand in the nort�ern 'Santa� Rosa Mountains, pRiversidetCountP, �a�r' �ublic
Institute js working in the Sanla Rosa Ptountains in cooperatia�Twith
Hi th the Cal i forn ia Departrnent of F i sh ancl Game (Cl1F&G) to study di seases
and related iarnb �riortality in the rare Peninsular bighorn sl�eep herd in
. the Santa Rosa Mountains.
II • Location
--_ . .
The site 1s located d�e east o,f the junctian oF Oead �Indian Canyon and
H�9�WZY 1d in the Santa Rosa Mountairis T, 6 5.
7, E1/2 SW1/4� E1/2 NN1/4 SW1/4, SCl/4)( TE�e R3,Pp�applicdtion�encan_Lot
passes all public land (2g7,34 acres) in the southern ha1T• af this
sect ion. The tract is si �ua[ed at the �base of' the Santa R�asa Mountains
. and includes a po►-tlon oF the rugged mountain terrain, a srnall terrace, ,r
and a wash at the nartf�err� edge of the boundar
tv the property via a dir;, road south of the wash offeHighwayb7q9dS�ed .
III . =Praposed Actian � ' �.
----_ .
�7he Institute plans t� aug�nerit _existiny pcn fac�lities with the fol
. . permanent tmprov�e�nents: �" - � • lawi�g
� • • -. access road •(gi-ave�) 1Z' x �,300' off �Highway'•74 . '
: - eiectr�cal service, buried because of Scenic t�ighway requirements
- water xell, septic tank ' � � � �
- laboratory fa�ilities
- parking �ot , - . .
. � � . � — museum/�nstitute he.adquarter5 • ` .
- ra,n pens • �- • � � � � • .
' —, per{nanent shelters inside� of pens
Affected Environment � � . �
IY, Veaetation . �
� . Yegetation at the site includes both creosote bus�ti scrub and desert was�
communitips. Dominant p)ant species an the racicy hillsides include
[r•eosote bush� brl[tle bu5h, dnd burrobush, Q�casstonal ocOt1110 and
barrel cactus occur tiere als��. Perenniai vegetatiar� in the dry ►vashes . '
� includes desert .a•rer�dar, s�.�ee�husF�, indigo bu , ans� bran�eyea� an�ong
� many ot}iers: ThiS vec�etation .is fairly ce.�n����on in the Colo�ado desert, �
� but is decrea'siny in �reas within tlie Coachella Ya.liey due to exlensive
urban 2xpansion. , � �
,
� A records che�ck of Indio Aesour-ce, Itrea fi les �and Cal ifor•nie �lat iva Plant �
Society Rare Plant ���a�s indicated` a possi6ili [y of suitable hahitat at
tk�is site for a rare and� endangered per�nnia.l plant s�ecies� "CalifornSa
ditaxis" (Ditazis calif'ornica) . Tliis species grows Sn sandy-soil tn the
- Coac:F�el la and � hur. wa �a Va eys� often at tl�e l�ase of mountains in � -
� �• small 'wasiles: "Califor•nia ditaxis" is a canclidate for federal listing
� and is a BlM sensityve species. •
. Althouyh the soil and topoyra�hy appearec! t� �e poteritial i�abitat for
this plant , no �ndividuals of tt�is species were obser•ved on site. �Tlie
� '� rocky hillside habi�at`also to be i��cluded ir•�side pens i.s not e:cpected .
to support any rare or endanget•ed planls. : •�_. "
• ; ' Nildlife � . - �� : , ' .
- The projpct area is lacated r•rithin the Santa Rusa Nabitat �Manage+nent
Area which r+as estal� lislied for tfie tnandge�nent of the State listed rare
Pen�nsular biyi�orn sheep (Ovis canarlensi5) . One af the primary cuncernS
in f inding a locatiun fur t►�e h�d ing pei�s was to rn1111p�1Z2 any i�npacts
.,ta the� Santa ltosa t�er•d. The ��pplicant;.se�ected this locatian ir► cunsul-
ta� ion wi.t}� pLM staf� b�alogists b�cause o�F i�ts relative isalatian from
ttie rest af the r�nge and easy dCC255. Ttiere are no rraEer sources �
� lccated nearby and the ridge was nat censiderecl�biyhorn sheep habitat �n
, tt�e hahitat. map deveic��,ed joii►�ly �y th� 4Lhi ar�d CDF1�G for the Santa °,
' RoSa �G•1P (198Dj.� ; t10 evideh�e �f t,igl�or.r� slie�p u�z was observad an site.
Tf�ere ar•e-no ott�ei= r.are, �hr-eatened, �er�clar�gered, or sensitive: srecies .
. ' knoWn to occur on� �site.� . � . . •
hrc�taeoioqy/Nativ� Ar,ieric�n Conc^rns ' ' '
'�tfiile the project' fa11s wi�l�in an area ��f lor�/Ln�nown cultural resourcz
sen5�tivity (Oesert �lan 5en� itivity �taps) , it adjains an area of v�ry
high sensitivity (Polyyon 451) . Ptost of the sites in thfs pol�gon are
located in Deep Canyon. Etttinoyrapliie r-ecords indicate tliat tl�e area was �
used for seasonal collectirig and liunting of deer and bigfiorn slieep. A �''
� field inspettion of the p�•ope�•ty Yras �nacie on November 7,• '1983. Ti�e .
terrace +�as 5urveyed at�lUOX ]evel . Otl�er portivn�s of tt�e .site wcre . �
selectivety surveyed ba5ed or� t1�e ter�rain's 1�k�l itiood ta c.}vntain �s�
artlfacts. No archaeological m��erials were lvcated. , ' � -
. . ;r: .
f. Anticipated impacts . . r ::'.;;
Yeqetation �
ConstrucL ►on of the acc2ss road, pennanent she�p shelEerS, n�useum and
. parking )ot Niil r�sult in tf�e r�.moval of �approximately 10 acres of ,
Z � ..
. . t
. � _ .
� : _ • .
. � � _
nat i+�e ve�getat ion.. Tt� is wi 1 1 cause eitl,�er lon� terin vr
r�ernoval , of hahitat for na� ive piants at� the site . Veyetatiqnnwial also •
be disturbed duriny cunstruc[ iun oF buriicJ electrical lines `and 'septic
faci 1 i t�ies, but th is wl 1 1 nut resul C in permane►�t runoval of hab i tat.
Constr�ctian of these facilities inay alter the dr�inage. of run-off
tlirougt� the site�, and r_�nsequcntly affect the viqor of individual plants
in the wash. N�tural draina�e pat[erns ir, this area have already been
� clianged b,y con5t►•ucti�n of flood diversion dikes, but furtt�er con5truc-
tion may again affect di.stribution and vigar of vegetation esta6lished
in the washes.
. . �.
. So�ne surface disturbance wi 11 occur during construction of fences for
the proposed ra,n pens, but because the fer�ce is to be��built hy� hand , the
, impacts .snould ue neg lig;ibl�. Huwever, veyetatiari inside the enc]osures
n�ay experience a decl �ne� in vigor and total btomass due to browsing' by,
bighorr� siieep in a cor�Fi�ecl area. Tt�ese impatts �are expecled to be �
neyligiale �rhen viewe� o� a desert�ide scope. •
� . The propased facilities �re not expecteJ to impact threatened or endan-,�
• gered plant speci�s, altt�ougf� tlie area Has sus ected to su
P pport �t�abitat
suitable f.or California ditazis (Oitaxi� califo`rnica) , a rare species. �
found locally in s�n�ilar habitat. !nclividua)s vfi ti�is species r�ere not
�bserved by BL(4 staff r�lier� �t�� site was field surveyed on November 7,
�'j983, althougt� l�abitat did appear- suiGabl�.• '
Wild] ife r
-__-_______ .
� There r�i_ll be minimal imp�cts to N1 �d�1F2 as a result of this projec�. .
Peninsular bigt�orn siieep ar-� not expected t�o be impacted because oF the �
isolated natLre of tfiis ridye. Inr��aCtS to general wi ldlife wi t i ae
� relaGed to tli� minOr surface JisLurbaiice resulttiny from coristructian �i��
increased grazing pressur� witl�in tt�� pen areas. Tiie in�pacts are nflt
expected ta signif.icantly alter tt�e w� ldl�fe values of the genera1 area
although the numt,ers of rodent5 un site and predator use on site is
expected� to drop because �of l}�e hurr��n �pr�sence and in�reased graziny
pressure. �Nu- threaten�d or encJa�iyer-ed wti la 1 i fe speci es are expected [a
be i�npacted. � , , •
. Cultural Resources ' ' �
IIecause of the lack of arCliaeolvyicai sites, �no impact5 are expected to
'� result fram the proposed �project. Since nivst of the property xill be us�
. for bighorn sheep, r,hich are indigenaiis ta tfie area and r+ere� hunted hcre
by Native Americans, no inspacts at-e anticipated to Native American con- �
. cerns. Indeed, tl�e pur•pose of the project is to 5tudy aeclining b�ghorn
�iopulations in an attcrnp.t to increase t�e:•d F�ealth and numbers. If tlie
. � project t�5 successful , it may eniiance tl�e survival of a species oF great
sign.ificanc'e ta Native �nericans.
, - 3
:���.• � ' ' . ,
: - 8 �? TH U 1 r : w � LH I . P - 0 8
. , t. �
i ' _ = t_ � - � ` .
� t •
� + ' ....
Reconunendecl Mitiyating hleasures _
i . . .
The Desert Bighorn Sheep Res�earch Inskitute siiould.provide tl�e BlM Ind10 .
Resource Ar'ea Office wi�th copies of all proyress and final reparts, and
an annual update on all artians taken on pu�lic land, including construc-
tion of faci 1 ities, and st�dies undertaken. :
• i
� Consultation and Coordinat�on '
i rou s �rere contacted �concerning this p'ro��ct:� � � �
The following g P , . •
� Un ivers ity oF Ca1�i forn i a Ph i 1 ip L. Boyd Deep .
- Canyon.. Research Center � , ; �
� '�' . . . • . ' .
� Cal i.fot-nia Oepartment af Fish and Ga�ne . ; • . � �
. � - - • �
. �.�� .
List oF Pre�pare�rs • • . • . .
� Faye Davis: Wildlife Bialagist, Tea�n Leader • �
Fiobin Kobal•y: QOtdniSt • . � .
Judyth Reed: Arch�aeologist ' � ' �
� Mark Hatchel : Realty Specialist . • � .
' . . 5
,,`' - • • . . �- . . ..
� b •
'y , � •
• •� -
i _ . .`1,
4 -
V ' — •
� � ' � ,• � •
. . � �� ti• • t y
, '
, ,r ', .
' s '
. t ..
• • . i
. :`.
, � . ' 4 ' �•
. _���
. !
' � .
_ � _ ' • : .
_ � . . . � t-
� , . r a
� � ' ' . . � �
; /CE T.v�w/ }�v`7!1 •�CE __.4�'.G E_ , � � '
. . � � . _�. _ ; •
/9'�FiV'!'7E I/J%Oi.t�f� /.: �7�c.L .�E/N ' .
.C.r.s:.E-b i/���E.� .C'vPP G'�9�yG-.:Z � ' .
� -
, . r�E:-SG,'�:.��CU�`1. �?PR,�IS� Rc?On� ' .
. RLPA
3i� HCR`I R=5'c;;RC;I I;15TIiL?c - C,�-1�fi22 �
; L`�1cc l.;ITH OPT;ON TO ?ATc?4T • . • . I
. �
-he la^ds ir.volvz: �.� *fz su�;j'c` 297.3�i �r� 'A � �
, ` a � parczl ar-� ia^d:�� '�d s .
a= :I' . t ro 1:^�; � . c. As h
c�C�S! 15'�7rE5c� ,i'f �75'JV1G�?.ri��v dCr�as ��X1S:1:�� rCcld 23S2T?!;:j a�C:IC'J5l �f1f51�:,) - �'�
;r-as5�ns • .
.:�:-�_= i;i :i:e a��= re�ie:ts r�:;:c�a tar.' u• ��� an td;,:ten� rr:vs.t� c:�rne�. The •
�=�' -r'G�2:'T.125 :.�* ��552551:�C '? .�+ �= LJ ar'r 3 �0`s7E:' i3:r' �.-:3T�w2` `l3�UE o
5n i r^v3.. ec^p ;;
rrar� .• � -- . - ..�55. 1 7S 1S tt::? ;q TdC2 Of C:I f �
- '�- -.�� �lll'.^^.L'^:.i il� ]1'Ed i� J.^.�:�T ��^-�a� ^dR5 � � 0 aC r• �'
�=51C.?.^.:id� 3.^.� :.����_�Clei C�i/�'�7�«�5;�. 7ne�e5tlil'c�s�r� �r3n'__:Cl �3 t1:,^�hal' VdlUn � •
.^.:i^� r•�•� 3CT'2 �S:S 15 ��riS�'.. �1:? d�:'��7C��'., 3; /3111e 0' ��2 Sl:h;,E-- �df1�S •
_ �Sr .�.^3�.�, C�::_. l'°�5 r^f ��+ �`'� .� I��r:1 n25�a.��l1 _-5`si:i1: . ""
J_ �„`. .0 Zv.r. � j� CC=i f_ i:��rC:� representir.� :,ei�C ��L. .� 6C'l1i�i�r �^`21' dil � n •
t�.a :: � . • � d 1 � .
u' •s u:. �:�i:c �Frc^,. u:�zr =�_:c� Z 4� � �` ;.. . ' .. , lo:•:ar.c_ J o .
�..'e=- �:75 �=�:1 LCw7�?=��. ar.:r.T�'+�^� � � 1..% � -:'� �G!SL'.'.� . :�2id'if15�eC�1 c r
::Il.i�1 c�n ��^.:.2���i� t9 !}I� °.�57E=: l a.�;� e sa�es`C�d��`i:r- SUCrG1':. UT ��Y:S 30Ff3 i od 1 � l � :
d�_e: �-i��-a'� �ar ?u5:9 2 _ t ,__i,s ar� cr.��i'se� �^c:r ie^zc::i.a 3�prz�stl :^ .
C S2 C� �n .33 a s �'i�.t".7 F'►l'�8.
' • v'�
• '`��, :�:� cf.;;:.�'. r���=� =5�:;.�_ ' . ' r. •
�' _. �... '2 ]� �'s:C:1:dC�� dS {�°:�o-��: �1
,;..�. �; ��,_�� �_-a:;ta':e;s ' • 6-.��- �f . � �
- . • �
. G�T..'.� n�::'�] : .�:Lo. r�:'" n�!'� . p =t�� — .� ,.n . . �r .f_ � �1 a C
+ �%+JL.�:u ,�!f�� J •r'� + .1�?'f/ .
:��,:CG Y __� ��_; of R2:'���. � j :7,��i.CO �"`i>. X//i r .1Gv,
�:c =�i ;:;,; - . �? ' .
� .:l�i �5 Gl:.i � r+.��::+�1��:�:? = j 5 S�'7 r� .�a::I. � ✓✓/• .`S�� � ��
.--�. _/ ,�.i
.,
R�c:��z� t�: j c- - J .
U��:li.v��.' N?� �o�(' p �
, �JG�!�
. . _ � _ � _� �j� ---_ � - � . . . - .
. �-;-, .
���.�(;`�����•i•}'�� - �
P�'�4�='i =Y' . r ert 9.�lz�:ar�� � '
' C� - L�i s�ri_- rpy^r�;s�r • -
Jur.e 2�J, :9PT ' . .
' `'';;, �. f -s',..; •
�-� ..•v—���
r+vCi:':E�; �.... �,r� � -_ , �i
�l• � I i lu... :i. ;��2 SJ:i
�.:I1C �..�.LC .,i.�:� •tC��
.�:1111 IV 7 �7.� . .
� 41� � '
� � � � ���'� '� ��' �� �' ' —�. .. . ...S��.G►a.��� G�=�
i.
t E.C.- 7 - 8 � THU 1 - : 47 5 L H I ' P . 1 0\
r•
. , • r' _ r F -
� � � _ .
� i
. ; • : RECOMMENDATIOt�/RATIONALE ' -
; � -
I . R�commendatton �
1: It is recommended that a 20 year lease be issued to the 8fghorn Research
Institute, for the pur-pose of establishing a bighorn sheep laboratory
to study diseases and related lamb mortality in the Peninsular bighorn
sheep herd in the Santa Rosa Mauntains vf -Riverside County in Californta.
- • The Institute and its auxSliary facilities�would be located on:
' �. T. 6 S. , R. 6 E. , S.B.B.M. , . '
Secton 6, Lot 7, E 1/2 SN 1/4. • �
� . E 1/z NN 1/4 Sw 1/4, 5� 1/4. (297,34 acres) • �
2: The.rental should be reduced by 60X to reflect the folloNing pub1ic
benef its: �
1. Basic. Public 8enefit Aliowance: 40X
2. Puh11c Support Allor.ance: 20X � .
. . 3 3. It is 'also reco�runended that a stipulation be added to the lease requi�rin}
, the lessee to submit yearly report5 on the,methods and results •of a]�1
- r.esearch activities conducted on the .sub�ect lands, , �. �
'II . � R�'tionale � � - ' �
. . .--_._______ � •
, The lands are physic aily suited for the proposed_ use. The .enviranmental "�
. . impacts are considered to be insSgnificant compared to the benefits obtaineC
frorn the resea�ch of Bighorn sheep disEases.
A31 present and potent�ial uses and users have been taken •into cons(deration.
Na� local , State o� Federal programs r+ould be adversely affe'cted.
' ' 7he authority to,Tease or convey public lands fnr Lhe proposed use is� � �
9ranted�•�to "the Secretary under the aec�eattion and Public .Purposes Act o�.
- . June 14,�� 19Z6, as amended (�3 U.S.C. 869 et seq.) � . ' � ,
. ,
, /, � .
_,
aric a cc e ate
Er=�--. �' - 8;9 T HU i � : �-+ � L H Z
.. • ',�
P - 0 �'
..
' c ' � i ` ' - _-
� . - -: . � ;' , Ser1a1 �CA_—I4°22
LAN.O REPURT ANO DECIS(ON RECORQ � �
:Type of Act ion Rb�'P Lease Ot�str ict Gal i fo-rn�a pesert
Applic ant 's Name B�ghorn Research Institute Resource Area Indto
Address P:0.� 8ox 262 � State Californta
� Palm Oesert, CA 92261-026Z County Riverside �
� - LAf1D5 INVOLYED ' � -
;.
Tawnship Range Meridtan Section SubdiYision Acres Length Nidth
� 6 S. 6 E., S.B.B.;�I 6 lot 7,E�H{rl'�SW�S�SE�,E��,�; :
� - . 29T.34
� A, Environmental Complfance •
� We have reviewed the er.vironmental assessment prepared tc analyze the
. environmental �Ffects af the propased actton and tiave dete.rmined that
the..proposed act 1an and approved mi t igat ion measure� would not have
. significant environmental effects on the human env,-ironment. Therefare�.
an envlronmental lmpact statemerit is nvt required `to further analyze
� the environmental efforts of the propased act.ion. .
Environmental 'Assessme�t reviewed by�: ' -
. _„ . . .
_ Ar e a M an�ge r �_ L,ct.t�.i..z� ���� � � C� ' 0 a t e_
a �/
� - �Envlrcnmental Caordinator G��.�;; rT�'-� �...��- � / +� Uate�
I cancur: ' �
. .� . � � �
AC71Na Distr ict Manager �i ���'�����-x��--�— � � �'� Oatz
� . • 6. Revie�/OeclSion � � . . �
' � � Review. I have revie��+ed the recanmendatlons. an the land use prapQsal
' contained �in� the Land .Report and f ind that they are techn lcal ly ade-
� �. quate and that cons.idera�'ion ha5 been gtven to all resourc� values. ue
rec anmend that the recanmendation on the approved acttan be approved as
the Bureau's deciston on the prapa5ed action. ��
� Pr ep ar ed �by: • � ' �
• Reait 5 ecialist � . ,s�� .3" Oate
Y R �
. � R2v i erre�� by:� �
� Area hianager �-.� ' � �/. � � !� y S Oate
° Decision. I have revi2�•t� the retcmmendatien on the praposed actton
' _ � contained 1n this land Aeport and approve the recanmendatlon(s) as the
decSsion of the Bureau on� the propa5ed actfon.
. • /,
� � Distrlct �Mana er . E! •��/,,��[---- � f �/��,Oate
ACf iNG 9 ._1�--�-- •- - - - /
- . � � .
. ATTACHM�NT NX � � � .
- � Fo���9. � _ ��je �nit��- �ta t�� of �m�rir . _ . , .
(Janw�y 19i111 ' ^ a . �• •
� Serial No. CACA 240Z0 �� =j� � ��� ��sc persenis �a[i camc� �te:tirc�: � '
; �y � -
� } � _ _ s� 0°0'� � .
• � -
C'�`2�� � t�c c x�E I v t : �i�1 � ���o
C''� - �EREAS, . . � � „
� � J,UL ? y 1989. . � . Q ���� ,
. c� ;��
� A PA . Bighora Inatitute; •+
a Californ�a nonprofit corporation �� �
� .
• is eatitled to a land pateat pursuant tc the- Act of June I4, 1926, �aa amended
• and supplemented (43 U.S.C. 8b9 et se � ;
, q.), f or the follawing de6cribed land:
. San Hernar.dino Heridiaa, California . �.
.4 . . : • '
. ' T. 6 S.; 8. 6 E., ' .. ' .
sec. 6, lot 7, E;Sil�, NE�NiJ'�ST�1�� E�SE�.NG1}.Sp�� . �
� : and SE�. .
, Containiag 292.3b acres.
- � NOu IGT04T YE.� [hat there is, therefore, graated bp t�e UI�TITED STATES�unto �
the B:igbora Institnte, a Galifornia nonprofit corporation, the .land d�acribed
above foz research parposes only in connectioa vith impraving tbe 'status of `
desert bighorn sheep papulations; ?0 FIAVE AND TO fiOLD the said land vith;all
� . " the rights, privileges, immunicies, .and appurteaa�ees, of vhatsoever natare,
� * thereunto beloagiag. unco the Bighora Iaatituce� a California nonprvfit
' corporaCion, forever; .
EXCEPTING AND RESERVING TO Tf� ITNITED STATES: �
. 1• A right—of-vay'thereon for ditches or canale conatructed by the. ,
� suthority of the IIaited States. Act cf Auguat 30� 1890 (43 Q.S.C.
945). . ' •
Z. Al1 minersl depaeits in the land ao pateated, aad to i[, ar peraons
authorized by it, the right to prospect� mine, and x�emave euch
depoeits from che same uader applicable iay.
� � v�—b9�UO2;�; � � :�•� i • �
Pa�eat Nur ber . -•`��^—
�
" �
� . x . ,
i �Serial No: C.1CA 24020 ' °- • '
n t 'af?
1.
� �.
1-
' } � . '
' : ' .. ' • s • . . ._ . . .
� � SUBJEC� I'0 t�oae righta fcr ;l2-kv dietribution,line purposea granted ta
; �
� Cj the Southern California Edison Campany, ita succe�aara or a'saigns, by
� �:e:{ ' :
• � righ r of-vay Serial No. CACA 1665�, pursuaat to Title V of the Act of �
, October 21, 1976 (43 U.S.C, 1761), ss to the NE}Nid�Sii� and E'�SE}.*�7}SW� .said
j
� sec. 6.
j Provided� that, at [he [ime the Bighorn Institute's Visitore Center ia
, • constructed, the patentee• ar ita suCceseor in in[ereat vill inatall aad
maintain a sign at the maia entrance of the cea�er. The aiga shall be �
�. • promiaeatly dieplayed and caavey the folloving iafotxaation: "These .landa are
made avai2able to the Bighorn Institute for bighorn aheep research' purpoees
throuph a apecial program offered• by the Bureau of Land Hanagement.'
Provided� further� chat the patentee or its euccesaor ia intereat ehall
furuiah to the Bureau of Land .Hanagement'a Indio &eaaurce Area Office by
January�I of each.calendar year an anaual repert de�cribing in decall the
i re9earch activities perfor.aed dariag the p�reviaaa year, includin.g 6ut not
! . limited to aurvey and invencor-y data, and aummary reparta of bighorn. aheep
atudiea. T?,e report ahall contain•Eildli�� iafcriaation deLera±aed 6y the
Indio Resource Area Kanager to be beneficlal to both the Bureau of Iand
� Zisaage=eac snd the gnaersl public. � �
- Provided, farther, that, title ahall revert upen a finding, after notice
and opportnnit� ;for a isearing, that, vithout the approval of the autho 'rized
officer: . , . ' - • . �
_ r , .
I. The pa[en�ee or its �•approved succeasor attempta to traa�fer title
� to or control over the laad to another; -
T. She land has been devoted to a uec other thaa that for whlch the
laad vaa conveyed; '
� 3. The land hae noc been�used for the purpose for �rhich it vas
conveyed for i S�ear period; or .
' 4. The patenLee` ha� failed to follov the approved developmerit plaa or
• managemeat plan; � '
i , .
� Pzovided,, .further� that the Secretary.o� the Iaterior, or hie delegate,
. • may take actian to revee[ ti[le in [he' IIni[�d States if the patentee directly
• or indirectly perxita itn agents, employeee� contractors� or aubcontractora
, (includiag vithout Iimication lessees, aublesseea, and persiittee�) to
prahibit or reetrict the use of any parc of the patented Iand or any of �the
f aciliCien Chereon by any per9on becauae af such persod's race� creed, calor,
sex, or national origin.
' Patent No. 04—�9-�'�'�
� 2
•�� .i •,
. •l J 1•!
• i.
Form 186Q25 . . .
� � (J�use 1,9841 - ' : .
.t..j • ' _ ; ' �
�� • Serial_No. CA 24020 ` � � • � .
. . � � - h ' , t t -
1„� 'I7�e;rant of the h's�in deacrihed landa ia�nbject to the jollowin�reservationa,tvndifiona;aod timitzpa�
. -- ` - • (1) Thep�tenereorhi�(iu)�weceaaoeininterr.�uhaUedmplyvricha�dahallnotviolateanyo(thetcrmaos
� ' , proviiioea ofTitle VI o![he Ciril RiQhu Aci of 1964('8 S4t 241J,and requiremeut�c{tk�n�ulariaaa�as
modilf ed or amended,of the Secretary ot the Interior iuued purauaat chereu(43 CFR 17)fotNe peri�od th�L
� the laada coaveyed herein are naed far the purpase tor whieh the�rant wu mede puauanf to the ac-!eiLed
abave,ar for another yurpase involvin�the p�vi�ion of aimiIu servieea or beAeSca_ ti
f2) If the pauntee oe hii Gcs)sueesaaor in iaternt doa aot eomply witf�cke tsrma or psovisioas ofT5tle VI ot
the Ciril Riahu Ac5 of 19N, and the requirement� imposed by the Departmen�o{�� jA�rio���y�
yursa�nt m that cide,durias the period duzin�whieh the property dncribed herein iu use�for the purpos�
tor xhieh the�rint w�u made parauant w tlse acs•ciced above, ar far another Dnrpose iavolvia�th�
prowiae of nimilar serrieea or benefi�s,the Secrecesy ot the Interior or hia dele=au may dedua the ksm�
at thia;rant terminaced ia whole or in past
; (3) The patenese.6y aceeptaner b!thia patent,aaTen far himself C►t�eln ot hia(ita)aycee�on���t
that a deelaration o(te2aiination in whole or in part of thia�rant ahall,at the opeiaa of the S�ecretary pr hy
• ddeYace,operate w revest in the Uniced Staw tu11 title to tl�e landa involv�M�y�a�jui�oa.
• (4) The L'nited Staua ahall bave the riQht to�eek jndidal snforeemeac of the reqaisemet�ta atZy$e YI of th�
° , Civil Rishra Act oi 196�1, and the term� and eondiqona of tl�e re�uladona,a�modi6ed or•ame�a�,of
��`` Sectetary of the Incsrio�iasued punuant m sald Ttda VI.ia t,he eveat oltt�eir violadoa�br eh�patr.at�,
. I31 The pateneee or hu(itsl ineenaar in iaeereat�ril�apan requnt of the Seattary of'the Interioe or hi��
, delefat;poat and mainuln on ttse pmperty conveyed by thia documentai�su and pa�k���t a le�end
eancernin`the applicability of'I�tle VI ot the Civil Ri�hu Aet of 1964 ta the ar+ea or faciliry mnreye�
' (� T�e reaervations,cnnditiona,and limieadona eontained ia para�rapha(1)thrna�h(��hall conadtnte a `
' cgvenanc rdnnia�With the land,bindin�oa the pauatee aad his(iul aueeaa�aa in iacereattoe ch�yeriod for
_ ' . �+hich ehe laed de�eribed kerein ii aaed for the Purpoae for whi�.�� ��yt wr�ma�+s,a:foe anatl�er
. . pur,,os�involvi:s�the yroviaion of aimi:ar�ervieea oz 6es�eata, ' .
f� T3e uanranera aad coveaant required by secaona (1�{b7 •above.�hal] not aPply to nlamate ' .
• beaefiaarie�undes the pro�ram for which thii�saat is madn"Uicimate beaefidarid"ats ideadfied ia{3 , �
. CFR 17.22(h).
.��.5
� , '����Jhi����'' . ' .
� ••.."A',!.r j�� Irt T�tMor+�r WxrattoF the uades�i�ed�atl�orizcd`offiea oi th�
^..ti��. � 111 f�fi�f: BureanofLandMaaa;emes��inaccordanee�„icb�heymviaiona �
, : ' , �' "� ^ f:.' oi the Act of Jnne�7.1948(62 Stat�7�.has,ia the nams oi the
' -•µ -',y :' ' • :• [iAiced Stacea.eaaaed lette be ma�e Pacea
�.._ �.,. � .� � c�ne tt-to t,aad tb�
�:::Yi,f,,;.;�,. �t= '�' Seal o[the Bureau m be hereunto ttfued. '
' . �f:' �� Givr.�vader m �,s�R ie Saerament�, Calif ornia
f�"' z�'. '��� � �'" �e TiigNTy—S�I,7(T� day of JANUARY
.�r ��, _K �� .? — in tbe pear '
� � �' �_ '- of ous Lord ooe thoa�aad niae handsed and EIGHTY—HINE
.�1 S • '�` �� :
� '• },. .�; :., .,--�''.Gy �� and olcfie[ade ndenea of tlse United S4tei t6�twra hnndred
••� 'C�J'Iw. ;S*��.`�^ = ' and THIRT�ENTH•
. . ':�` ` ,.'-�
. . �'. • - - H � �
. Y
e � raac j
d4—�S-Qd,`c,�,;c� aad ecords
Paceas:lamber a;aliforaia State Office
' � I1': -
,•;^ ' 3� . •.,� i
� .
,•� __ . . � . . .... . �. .- . . , �
1
2
3 ORDINANCE NO. 348.3098
4 AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
' S AMF.N1lTNG ORD�NAN�E NO. 346 RFLATING TO ZONING
�
7 The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside
8 Ordains as Follows:
9 Section 1. Section 4. 10 of O�rdinance No. 348, and
10 Cathedral City/Palm Desert Zoning Plan Map No. 10, as amended
11 are further amended by placing in effect the zone or zones as
12 shown on the map entitled "Change of Official Zoning Plan,
13 Cathedral City/Pa1m Desert District, Map No. 10.033, Change o
. 14 Zone Case No. 5552, " which map is made a part of this ordinan
15 Section 2 . This ordinance shall take effect 30 days
16 after its adoption.
17
18 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COU
� OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORN
19 ATTEST: ,,•'� _�•`1 .
� � %
20 ' By �/' i
, GERALD A. MALONEY - airman
21 Clerk of the Hoard
� � �L , „ ,�
�:' ,� �r.
22 B� , � � � �
JGV:re Deputy'
1473z
11/27/8923 (SEp�I,) �
24 " '
25
26
27
� 28 .
GFRALD J.GEERLINGS
COUPfiY CWNSEI.
SUI7'E 300
3535-107'H 51REET
RIVERSIDE.CALIFORNIA
SEC. 6 T. 6S. .R . 6E. S.B.B. � M.
��.. ,.it �
�i�w �.�� i
.�i�K � i
�er�..� i i
_a ' .
� u��/irt�st � �
�� w tq r tM[
s����x 1
' f[Ci M/ �
[ 1/I N 111{ � S[ �/� 0� SIC11M f
St 1 J� R �
f[Ct�Mi• �
I
1
1
' I :
I
I '
I
LEGEND . -
sau u r[[r
N�A MATYRAL ASSET! �
0 S00
" YAP NO. 10.033
CHANGE OF OFFICIAL ZONING PLAN
CATHEDRAL CITY-PALM DESERT
DiSTRICT
CHANCE OF ZONE CASE M0. SS52
AYEMOIN6 ORDINANCE N0. 34S
ADOPTED oY ORDIMANCE N0. 348.30l6
DECEYBER S. 1le�
nusues w.r.m�N R I YERS 1 DE COUNTY PLAI�IM I NG COMY I SS I ON
1
2 �
3 .
4 .
5
� 6 �
7
8
9
10
11 .
12
13
14
15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
16 ) as. . .
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
� �� I HEREBY CERTIFY that at a regular meeting of the board of Supervisors of said count}
�8 held o►+ �r 5• 19_82, the foregoing ordinance consisting of �
�9 sections was adopted by said Board by the following vote:
20 AYES: Supervisors ��ceros, DurLlap, Larson, Younglvtte
21 NOES: Na�e
� 22 ABSENT: Na�e
23 GERALD A.MALONEY
24
Dated: 12�5�89 Clerk of the Board
25 `y ���sr�,,;s �..,_ �, De'
• (Seaq '
26 3.1
27
28
29
� 30 „»rea
_ .. . ...
Zoning District: Cathedral City-Palm Desert CHANGE DF 20NE N0. 5552
Supervisorial District: Fourth PLOT PLAN N0. 11393
,� Regional Team III � E. A. No. 34143
Planning Commission: 9/13/89
Agenda Item: Z-3
• RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
N,� AG 5: .
� 1 . Applicant : Highorn Institute
2. Type of Request: Change of Zone from R-1 to N-A;
plot plan for a noncommercial menegerie
and accessory caretakers and research
buildings
3. Location: Easterly of Highway 74, southerly of
Cahuilla Way
4 . Parcel Size: 290 acres
5. Existing Roads: � Highway 74
b. Existing Land Use: Mobilehome, pens
7. Surrounding Land Use: Residence, vacant, mountainous
8. Existing Zoning: ' R-1
9. Surrounding Zoning: R-1 , �N-A; and PR-S within the City of Palm
Desert
10. Generai Plan Elements: LAND USE: Wildlife/Vegetati�n
(Western Coachella OPEN SPACE: Wildlife/Vegetation
Vailey Plan) CIRCULATION: Highway 74 (Variable)
11 . Agency Recommendations: ROAD: See transmittal dated 8/23169
FLOOD: See RCFC transmittal dated
HEALTH: See transmittal dated 8/17/89 �
. WATER: See CVWD transmittal dated 6/16/69
FIRE: See transmittal dated B/23/99
lc''. Sphere of Influence: City of Palm Desert
� 13. Letters: No letters received as of 8/28/84
pNALYSIS• .
The applicant for Change of Zorte Case No. 5552 requests approval of a
change of zone from R-1 tOne Family Dwelling> to IV-A (Natural Assets>
on 290 acres. The site is located easterly of Highway 74, southerly of
the City of Palm Desert. The applicant concurrently filed Plot Plan
No . 11393 for a noncommercial menagerie and accessory caretakers and ,
research build.ings. The site is predominately vacant with natural
mountainous vegetation, sheep pens, and a caretakers mobilehome.
Immediately west of the site is a Iarge residence where the
headquarters of the Highorn Institute (BHI ) currently exist. The HHI
began operations of the 290 acre site in 1985 through a lease by the
United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM> . In February 1989, the
BLM granted a patent to the HHI for the 290 acre site. The 8HI
originated in order to - breed and study the �are Peninsular Bighorn
Sheep . There are approximately 50 sheep in this area, the north end of
the Santa Rosa Mountains, of which 23 have been released into the wild
by the BHI .
PLOT PLAN NO. 11393
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5552 �
Staff Report �� "
Page 2
: Plot Plan No. 11393 proposes a 6,800� square foot disease laboratoryt
administration building, a 2,800 square foot residential� structure with
four � bed�rooms and common kitchen/living facilities, and accessory grain
and maintenance structures. The plot pian also includes provisions for
a seven acre pen and a 30 acre pen which will house the current stock
of 19 lambs. and sheep, a figure which usually ranges between 15 and 25.
Surrounding land uses are vacant and mountainous with scattered
mount�in cottages. Immediately northerly and northwesterly of the
site, within the City of Palm Desert , is a large 675 acre site on which
a conceptual specific plan (Bella Vista) has been approved for 350
acres of open space, 1'000 low density dwellings on approximately 300
acres, and a 13 acre hotel site with amenities. Farther northeasterly
of the site along Portala Avenue is the Living Desert Reserve, a zoo
environment for the viewing and showing of desert animals and
vegetation. The Living Desert Reserve assisted in the commencement of
the HHI in 19B5. The Living Desert has a small population of Peninsula
Bighorn Sheep for public viewing but is unable � to conduct breeding
procedures because such a process needs isolation. The two facilities
are different but yet compliment each other due to their caring for and
research of the Bighorn Sheep.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: �
The Initial Study performed pursuant to Environmental Assessment No.
34143 identified environmental conc�rns associated with project
development as including:
Slopes . ' Wildlife
S�enic Highway Public Facilities
Cultural Resources Circulation �
The initial study (a copy of ^ which is attached) determined that
appraval of the proposed project would not have a significant effect on
the environment . All environmental impacts would be clearly mitigated
to a level of insignificance. A monitoring program was incorporated
into the initial study. '
PLOT PLAN NO. 11393
CHANGE OF ZONE N0. 5552 �
Staff Report
Page 3
GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:
The site is designated "Wildlife/Vegetation" on the Western Coachella
Valley Plan (WCVP) . The Open Space and Conservation Policies of the
Comprehensive General Plan specify that areas that are mapped
"Wildlife/Vegetation" on the open space map are for the conservation of
critical wildlife and vegetation. The policies also specify that only
� the following uses are permitted in wildlife/vegetation designations:
open space, 'limited recreation, and research or educational uses. The �
applicant ' s intention to use the land for research and educational uses
for the nurturing and breeding of the state rare Peninsular Highorn
Sheep is compatible with the "Wildlife/Vegetation" designation and the
open space policy requiring careful control and management of the
utilization of natural resources including wildlife. The Open Space
and Conservation policies also specify that open space designated
parcels shal�l be appropriately zoned. The proposed N-A zone has been
applied within the Coachella Velley Preserve, for the threatened
Coach�lla Yalley Fringe-toed Lizard, and in other wildlife/vegetati.on
desig nated areas within the Western Coachella Valley Plan.
DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE R-1 AND N-A 2�NE,�:
The existing R-1 zone primarily permits one-family dwellings and
requires a minimum lot size of .7,200 square feet . The R-1 zone allows
grawing of field crops and tree crops along with such recreational
facilities as galf courses, country clubs, and public parks and
playgrounds. Planned residential developments are permitted through
the 2and division process. Plot plan approval is required for beauty
shops, horticultural nurseries, kennels and catteries, and temporary
real estates offices, while mobilehome parks require a conditional use
perm i t .
The proposed N-A zone also permits one-family dwellings, field and tree ._-
crops, apiaries, and grazing of cattle, horses, sheep or goats not
exceeding two animals per acre. Subject to plot plan approval the
following� uses are permitted: public utility substations, museums,
menageries, water wells, and agricultural worker mobilehomes. Fishing
lakes, golf courses, riding academies, well water extraction, mining,
RV . and mobilehome parks, and resort hotels are all permitted uses
subject to the granting of a conditional use permit. The applicant
proposes a noncommercial menagerie fvr Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, a
herd which in the past five years has not exceeded 25 sheep. Since the
HHI ' s origination, approximately 50 percent of the current stock of
sheep located in this area of the Santa Rosa Mountains have been
released from the HHI ; had these sheep not been released the stock
would be next to extinction.
PLO�T PLAN NO. 11393
CHANCE OF ZONE NO. 5552
Staff_ Report
• Page 4
PLOT PLAN CONSIDERATION5:
The applicant is proposing a noncommercial menagerie that for the most
part is a veterinary haspital and research center for sheep. The
following are a list of uses that staff is recommending approval of
pursuant to Plot Plan No. 21393 and a list of future uses that would
require additional permits:
� RECOMMENDED FUTURE
Disease laboratory/ ' Future Museum
Administration Huilding Concrete Helicopter Pad
Existing Pens Future Site
� New Residence �
Guard House
Grain Storage
Car Storage �
23 parking spaces
• The applicant submitted the change of zone �and plot plan on luly 28,
1999 and the cases were expedited tn hearing due to the need for
approvai and construction of the facility before winter.
The r�oncommercial � menagerie propo'sed by the applicant is not open to
the public , however, on occasion an educational class will field trip
to th e BHI . The BHI according to the applicant has .long range plans to
include a museum and education center in the future which will be open
to the public. These uses would require additional permits prior to
construction. The proposed project is not expected to generate
traffic , it is however subject to the TUMF fee as adopted by the Board
of Supervisors in January, 1989.
� CITY SPHERE OF INFLUENGE: •
The site is within the sphere of infiluence of the City of Palm Desert .
The city staff participated in the review of the project plan. The
city responded with "No Comment" on a transmittai dated . August 3, 1969.
The staff. of the City of Rancho Mirage �also reviewed the project and
their comments are attached in a transmittal dated August 6, 1999.
PLOT PLAN NO. 11393
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 5552
. Staff Report
Page_5 .
FINDINGS•
1 . The applicant requests approval of a change of zone from R-1
to N-A qn 290 acres located easterly of Highway 74.
2. The applicant concurrentiy filed Plot Plan No. 11393 �which is
an application for a noncommercial menagerie and accessory
caretakers and research buildings. '
3. The applicant, The Bighorn Institute tBHI > , has been in
existence since 1985 and has recently received a patent for
the 290 acre site from the U. S. Hureau of Land Management.
4. Surrounding parcels are zoned R-1 , N-A; and PR-5 within the
City of Palm Desert .
5. Surrounding land uses are predominately vacant with
mountainous vegetation, and scattered mountain cottages.
6. The findings of Environmental Assessment No. 34243 (a copy of
which is attached) are incorporated herein by reference.
7. Tt�e Western Coachel'la Vailey Plan designates the site
"Wildlife/Vegetation. "
B. The Open Space and Conservation Policies of the Comprehensive
General Plan specify that research and educational uses are
permitted in the "Wildlife/Vegetation" designation.
9. The Comprehensive General Plan lists the Peninsular Bighorn
Sheep as a "Rare" species.
10. The BHI has been responsibie for increasing the Peninsular
Bighorn Sheep herd at the � north end of the Santa Rosa
Mo�ntains by approximately SO percent.
11 . The site is� within the sphere of influence of the City of
Palm Desert .
PLOT PLAN NO. 11393
CHANGE OF ZONE N0. 5552
Staff Report
Page 6
RECOMMENDATION:
ADDPTION of the Nega�ive Declaration for Environmental Assessment
No. 34143. Thz �lar�ning Department has f�und that approval of thz
proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment�
and has completed a Negative Declaration;
AND:
APPRDVAL of Change of Zone Case No. 5552 from R-1 to N-A in
accordance with Exhibit 2, based on the above findings and the
following conclusion�:
AND:
APPROVAL of Plot Plan No. 11393 subject to the attached conditions,
based on. the findings listed above, and on the following conclusions:
1 . �The project is consistent with all the elements of the
Comprehensive General Plan and the Western Coachella Valley
Plan.
2. The project ' s overall development of the land is designed for
the protection af the public health, safety and welfare.
3. The project" will conform to the logical development af the
land and is campatible with the present and future uses of
the surrounding property.
LAM:csa
8/31/99 �
THE LINNERSi1Y OF
School of Natural Resources �����.�1�Oi �L ,� 325 Biological5ciences
College of Agriculmre and Life Sciences East Building
TUCSON ARIZANA P.O.Box 210043
'Iucson,AZ 85721-0043
(520)621-7255
Fax:(5Z0)621-8801
15 November 2006
Mr.Patrick A.Perry
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP
�o�a�ys a��u
515 South Figueroa
7�'Floor
�.vs�,�� �'��-3398
RE: Cornishe of Bighom and the Bighorn Institute
Deaz Mr.Perry:
�xeyie�ed al��ie.docu�aeats�au.sent�aae.�i,..e.,II��F�a.��eStaL I�act Rego�t,
Cornishe of Bighorn Project,December 2005; document from the Williams Law Firm,pC that
comments on the Bighom Institutes response to the Draft Environmental Report, 1 February
2flflCr,�iiozunieat from����r ri�embeis�of the�Paiur•DeseiE'�eaurici�,��E}Fe�ir�
2006; a inap o�a 21of conce�t,plan,tentative tract inap no:�31 G76;and`a�preliminary workiag �
dtaft'of responses�o co�inmen'ts ielated to tlie�7Draft�',riviionniental Re�iort;Coriiishe of Bighom
Froj�ec�,�i�ecem�ier���: �er rea�ng'tfiiese c�ocuments��ve�coric�u�ed�t�ia��t�he cdri#Iict•'� �
between the Cornishe of Bighoin Project�and the Bighorn Institute�is disagreemeiit over the
influence the constrtruction of 2 homes approxi.mately 100 yards�frorii the Bighom Iustitdte may
have on bighom sheep(free-rangi.ng and ca.ptive). The Bighorn Institute is concerned that
human activity within 400 yazds of the pen wili be detrimental to the captive sheep. I am not
aware of any literature or research that supports this concern for captive ani.mals. Certainly,
these animals aze already sigriificantly influenced by the actions of the Bighorn Institute. Desert '�'+
bighorn sheep have lazge home ranges(> 1001an2,Kiausman et al. 1989). Simply enclosing the
�s i��.s�ss�i��.sigA��i�ea�a��t,o-t�life�E���s�s-o���
bighorn sheep. `
�e�gh�orff i�stitut�i�cxj�ti�at t��csr�tru�tron af 2�iivui�es��j�aceiit�2r4f�rd�s�
to the pens will result in detrimental effects causing habYtuation of sheep to humans. It is
unlikely tlus will occur(more than current habitituation)with the development of the 2 homes.
Tlie studries cited�m tliese documents related�to fiabituation address free-ranging populations.
The captive.herd inaintained by the Bighorn Institute is not fiee-ranging. Furthermore,Mel�en
and Ellis(1996)�discuss habituation of captive�animals to hiimat�s;unless#tiere is a repeate�
presentation;by humans tliat alters some$specY of the life lustory chaiacteristics�of tlie�a�imal,
habitaation jwill not�tie an isstie: Non�of'�ie�cited work`s�ggests ttiaf habitation i�rill`l�e aii issue.
Mos�uf�th�con.ceins.ielatad,-td�niii�ia]s.associ�tei�v.ui.th lia�iitati:on.bi'athei��mpoitaaf as�ecCs;�:
(i:e.,repibduction)!and�iumans'aTe tela�ed to hiimaas`being""ciose"�(i:e.,�in the cage)to airihials
�eiman et aI. 199 . �'Ttie homes i�question are not"close": Furthermore;ttie�proposed
. . . . � . . . � . . - .
� / ��1
�
"M
,
� �
\' ���
�
.: ,L
\
/ II�II�
I.
� _ ��
r�- �
.
��` ,�� � _,,, -,r ��"� � .
,,
_.. '�� � •���.
SAs� � i.
--..�� � -
��1 � -.__.M�'�- ,�r•, ,r.,�„��� ! �� � l
, ^�
� � ' ,�-
' ��..��='� // ' r
�/ �r*' I'`� /�.,.
� � '�:�:� :_ t�� ��, .
� �: ► =� ���
�����.e�:..-
'�,,w,,,...�,�� .�,
� ��,� ����� �►'' �'� ��'�
.��� � ♦ � :�
►`";,o � , �:s� ,l. ,��i
�Q►` • .yy. --� `� . ���c.�
F � ..,����ii�,r� ���; ��►`��`j,,�j,�n,��
� �,�j, �w���■r..�.'��, �;�� ' , � 1 �`\\`:°�:� '
� �.�- •.♦ 1� �� � � . ._. _,__ ' �� -
`���,,�.,�..J '.►`r,�`����►l.i "��,�.����,` ��,�
���� �t'J1�1�`\aJ!`�►`,7 '1 �`�,� -������}1)Ij�' n �
� ,�������� y��"'�:��,w,j�r`� ��-��i �f,���,
����� 'r��" � ��'� �)��►.�►.����'�y ,�..�--.�+�/,/►�)�l;� •
`���,��� � ����y`y � `�~�'�.:i��I,///�;;` �
� � .��;�,���,�—� �����``.�o�.� -��� '`��,r, �.�.����.;�
� �''�/ l:t��_�,���t11�..�������,tl �``
� ,� ♦ �"^��.�.�_���,�\i"Alir�\\\\\` � � '1/
� �
1 ��, ;. _��:.�`� .� `�;�.-�.�.`.,,/ �,
�'��, �-`'�'�.�_�`��� ���-..,,. ��'
''� ,�— --�� 1 \ ,�_
� �� ` �,�`�� \"��\,. �`'��-''".�:
+ ��,v"1\1��.;� ,\���� �
r `�� � � ��►�'�. `a r'r''���, �;;�w
t��`�v' , ��` �,�'� �`�rr �. s�
���M;��\ `��a���. ��'�`�y �� �
'��`�:��. � _-��`�^\\ ��� �`��`� 1 ;� —.—�
��\�'� `��%��� ���� � �� �f=.�-�_—
' �r�,���,����.���,�.�11�.�����a:��—
"7 "°I'll� J;a�,r� \ � , r,� .,.�" �n
�=-' � ���,---i��:`���`�"�t lt�,' .�r�� �� ,
� � ' �����o.�.�.?�5' ������1���si\ t
a..�. JJJL rnv� v��v �.....�... �
� y . :
. }Q R-1-12000� • .� �� :
� - C !T Y OF . .... . . .. . ::P.o.� ::::. .:
r P.R.-6 . . . . . • :
c' PA M DESERT - � � '�!��
� � J .R-1-1� ,Ze q • . • . �. . . . . . . • �i
Q� i P.R-7 ' . � P.R.-7 . • . . .
� � � � �'� . . .
�� 4 R-.1_2A.000 . ..... '.' . ; • . .. .
' - ?� 4� . . . ' � ' O.S. . '.. . - . ' " . .......
. . Q � . • r—� . . . . . . _' .. .�P•R-7�D
. h • ' • P.R.1.D H.P.A..D . •� ::
- - - �, ' � � � � . .
4'... . . . . . �
� � . .' . . ." ' • • . . : • •-1-
:�
. '_ P.R-S • . �-
. . . - .: . . : . 3:
, . : .��.. . . � �z:
� +�: 4:
, �:
. 2:
- i�:
�� �:
'�'-
+� - . :t-�
-U:
� �
.
� �
. � . — N_A ' '
�
—� • �
�
� ,
. N�.�
- - - T{ --
APP• 810HORN INSTiTUTE ��T�A� �
RANCHO �
Use NaNCOMMERC1Al 1�AENAGERY
' Oist. C C A N 0 P D S� � 4 MIAA(3E ,� __
PALM
S�C. 6 T.6 S..R.6 E. A�tpt�s 81t,7 T t Pq, 040 ,j
INDIAN �
CKCulOtion HIGHWAY 74 - ARTERIAL 110� e oESERTt wE��s
EIam�M N ' :
...
. �
Rd. 8k. P4. I t 3 D�t� e-2�-89 pro�� ey R 0 S
: I"= 2 O 0 0' I�MVL�RSYDI E CO�U'VTY Pr.4J1�Y/yMl�s DEPARTARE7NT
ro-��-�-��w
- - -- .
� . .
Q . . . :
n :_�. . �. C IT Y OF � � � : : :: . .:�:�:-:.��
� J �� �r :�_� PALM DESER3 � . . :�:::::+..:
. � - : . . �
V . . .
QQ . . � . . ,
��� . ..: .�� - . . : . • . .-. : � : � . . • � . .' . .
5�'P . `� . . . � � . : . .
. . Q� : � : . . . .
- - - � � . '. � � ..
. . . ._ . . . .� � :cn
. . ,J
. .. . . . . • . . . . • •• : :' ' : ' �
�' • . . . �
PN, �. . �
y � �� �
�, ;�
�ca� - '�.
J�' '�
�►� . ">-
�
�`'
� !
. � J��P t
�1►� �
I � �
! � — .
� ,
. ,
� � .
_ 5
�P�� PN'� .
, �`�J� " �pG .
- - - Te � --
ADP• 818HORN INSTITUTE ����� �
RAMCHO �
Us� NONCOMMERCIAL 1NEMA6ERV
Oist. C C A N D P D � S� �� 4 M�RAGE �
S�C. 6 T 6 S..R.6 E. A��'s �.T�1 Pq. 040 PAIY
� 11f0lAN
CKCulation H16HMIAY T4 - ARTERIAI 110' D E S E R� W E I L i �
E�,.�, . e :
� �
Rd. Bk. Pq, 113 D�f� 8-21-89 prp� � qOS �
� !"= 2 O O O' l4f�VE�RS�►OIE' C�U'VTY /°L�.��'IN9f19Nri alE'pARTA1�71IT t
.._,.-�_n.
activities and restrictions imposed on homeowners m;nim;�e potential detrimental influences to
the captive sheep. However, it must be recognized that there are deficiencies in the current state
of knowledge regazd.ing mammalian reproduction. It is fairly well established that animals that
are not handled properly or aze fearful of humans have poorer reproduction than those that have
been properly managed and are not fearful of humans(Hemsworth et a1. 1981). It is unlikely the '
construction of the 2 homes in question will have any implications to the breeding program at the
Bighorn Institute.
Another concern is that the project site is used by desert bighorn sheep. Because of a11
the human activity around the site it is unlikely the site has been used in the recent past or will be
used in the future as outlined in the document.
Furthermore,the concerns related to noise will not likely enhance ambient noise levels so
they aze detrimental to bighom sheep in the enclosure. The heariag of desert ungulates
including bighom sheep was less than A—weighted noise(e.g., sound pressure levels that
approximates human heari.ng and usually the most appropriate sound metric used when studying
sound effects on mammals;Krausman et al. 2004). In one of the few shidies available that
contrasted the behavior of desert ungulates in areas with different sound pressure levels,
Krausman et al. (2004)did not document changes in beha.vior of Sonoran pronghorn in azeas
with(65.3 d.B) and without military activity(35 dB).
Cleazly,there are different opinions related to raising captive bighorn sheep. However,
based on my experience on raising captive desert bighorn sheep,testing hearing of desert
bighorn sheep,habituation studies of desert bighom,and my understanding of the life history
characteristics of desert bighorn sheep,it is my opinion that the construction of 2 homes 100
. yards from the lambing pens will have no detrimental influence on the sheep enclosed at the
Bighom Institute. �
Please consider this a preli.minary report. I plan to visit the site, discuss the project with
you in more detail, and obtain additional infonmation at a mutually agreed time. Please contact
me if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
�
s���
Paul R Krausman
Professor
Wildlife Conservation and Mana.gement
PRK/vc
Cc: Michelle McKenzie
References
NPmcwnrt�g���,.$���.���1�]3�.5... �.�-l�� �.�J�YIQl]T�.I�S�S�A���tB-�
presence of human beings and its relation to productivity. Livestock Productin Science
8:67-74.
Kleiman,D.G.,M.E.Allan,K.V. Thompson, and S. Lumpkin, editors. 1996. Wild mamma���
in captivity: principles and techniques. The University of Chicago Press, Chicagd��
�;,,�; �,-
Krausman,P. R,B.D. Leopold,R F. Seegmiller, and S. G. Torres. 1989. Relationships
k�et�veert r�esse���s�ee�r at��rabi#at�rr��s�e�-� �di�cli�e-�k�ii3n�vg�a��#��.
Krausma�,P. R;L. K.Harris,�C.L. Blasch,K. K. G.Koenen, and J.Francine. 2004. �`ects of
mi'�'tary operations on�ietiavior at��hearing o�en�angered��onoran prongfiiora.'�°ti dli�e
Monographs 157.
,�1,,►cr�,
Mellen,J. D.,and S.Ellis. 1996. a�mal learning and�.l�usbandry techniques. Pages 88-99 in D.
C. Kleinman,M.E.Allen,K.V.'Fhompson, and S. Lu�npkin,editors. Wild1 mammals in
ca�tivity.:�rinciples and techn�ues. .The University of Chicagn Press, Chicago,Illinois,
U3A.
Boone and Crockett
J�P� J�9 The University of Wildlife Conservation Program
O ; �' College of Foreshy and Conservafion
� •� The Universi of Montana
N " r �� � Missoula,MT 59812
� � � � Director. (406)243-56011
� Assistants(40�243-5272
• FAX:(406)243-4557
25 June 2008
Mr. Patrick A. Perry
Allen Maticins Leck Gamble Mallory&Natsis LLP
. 515 South Figueroa Street, 7�'Floor
Los Angles,California 90071-3398
RE: Response to comments related to Cornishe of Bighorn Project
Deaz Mr. Perry:
I reviewed the letters you sent to me from Therese O'Rourke of the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service; John R. Kalish of the United States Bureau of Lan.d Management;
D. Wayne Brechtel of Worden Williams, APC; and J. Craig Williams of the Williams
Lindberg Law Firm, PC. Each letter criticized various aspects of the Comishe of Bighorn
Project(i.e.,Project)because it would be detrimental to the conservation of Nelson's
bighom sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni)in the Peninsulaz Ranges of California. The
letters express 2 general biological reasons the Project will be detrimental to the recovery
and conservation of bighorn sheep in the Coachella Valley, California.
1. The Project will be within the 400 yard buffer around the Bighom Institute(BI�
and, thus,be too close to the captive breeding facility.
2. Bighorn sheep in the enclosure at the BI will be able to see the Project and hear
construction,become habituated, and not be able to survive in the wild.
Because the BI plays a role in the conservation of this endangered subspecies threats
to the captive rearing facility are serious concems. However, I am not awaze of studies or
data in the primary literature that support the concerns raised in the letters.
The basis for the 400 yazd buffer is unclear. I am not awaze of data that indicates a
400 yard buffer is necessary for successful captive breeding programs. Reseazchers that
have examined bighorn sheep responses to humans have concluded that hikers cause the
greatest disturbance to sheep when compared with vehicles,mountain bikers, and �
combinations of vehicles and mountain bikers (MacAxthur et al. 1982, Papouchis et al.
2001). Even under free ranging conditions bighorn sheep did not respond to hikers until
they were approximately 200 yards from the sheep (if they responded) (Papouchis et al.
2001). Researchers investigating captive breeding programs for large mammals are more
concerned with genetic issues that may have serious consequences to captive herds and
do not even address buffers associated with the breeding facilities(Kleiman 1989, Elliott
and Boyce 1992,Thevenon et al. 2003,Nielsen et al. 2007). Based on my experience
and the literature, I cannot find evidence for this concem. ,
I was not able to find support for the second concern either. The animals aze already
habituated to artificial conditions (i.e., the enclosure, supplemental feeding, and care
takers) as is necessary for captive populations. I am unawaze of any literature or data that
even suggest that activities associated with the Project, as described, will cause
habituation resulting in the failure of lambs to survive in the wild. Researchers have
evaluated how well captive reared sheep from the BI survive in the wild; they did not do
well (i.e., "did not result in population growth or establishment of a viable population..."
[Ostermann et al. 2001:749]). The authors (Ostermann et al. 2002) that examined the
captive breeding program, operated by the BI, did not attribute failure to habituation.
Because there are no published data to support either concem I find no basis for a wall
that will "break the line-of-sight"between bighorn sheep and the Project as discussed in
the documents. The literature cited in this letter is listed below.
Literature Cited .
Elliott, L. F., and W. M. Boyce. 1992. Implications of captive breeding programs for the
conservation of desert bighom sheep. Desert Bighorn Transactions 36: 54-57.
Kleirnan,D. J. 1989. Reintroduction of captive mammals for conservation. BioScience
39:152-161.
MacArthur, R. A.,V. Geist, and R.H. 7ohnston.1982. Cardiac and behavioral responses
of mountain sheep to human disturbance. Journal,of Wildlife Management
46:351-358.
Nielsen, R. K., C. Pertoldi, and V. Loeschcke. 2007. Genetic evaluation of the captive
breeding program of the Persian wild ass. Journal of Zoology 272:349-357.
Ostermann, S. D., J. R. Deforge, and W. D. Edge. 2001. Captive breeding and
reintroduction evaluation criteria: a case study of Peninsular bighom sheep. _
Conservation Biology 749-760.
Papouchis, C. M.,F. J. Singer, and W. B. Sloan. 2001. Responses of desert bighom
sheep to increased human recreation. Journal of Wildlife Management 65:573- �
582.
Thevenon, S., A. Bonnet, F. Clazo,and J. Maillard. 2003. Genetic diversity analysis of
captive populations: the Vietnamese sika deer(Cervus nippon pseudaxis)in
zoological parks. Zoo Biology 22:465-475.
Please let me know if I can provide additional information or address other issues. I
would be pleased to do so.
Sinserely,
�� �.. . 1�
Paul R. Krausman, �
Boone and Crockett Professor of Wildlife Conservation and
Certified Wildlife Biologist�
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE
TRACT NO. 31676
2 LOT- RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
CITY OF PALM DESERT
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN,LLC
PRELINIINARY COST ESTIMA3'E
BASIS OF COST ESTIMATE-TENTATIVE TRACT MAP DATED 9/08/08
TOTAL UNIT
CATEGORY $ COST $ COST COMMENTS
CLEARING, DEMOLITION&RELOCATIONS $ 1,750 $ 875
ROUGH GRADING 251,793 125,896
CONSTRUCTION WATER 18,293 9,147
EROSION AND DUST CONTROL 61,084 30,542
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM..OFF-TRACT 0 0
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM..ON-TRACT 89,200 44,600
SEWER SYSTEM..OFF-TRACT 0 0
SEWER SYSTEM..ON-TRACT 40,000 20,000
WATER SYSTEM..OFF-TRACT 0 0
WATER SYSTEM..ON-TRACT 18,800 9,400
STREET IMPROVEMENTS..OFF-TRACT 0 0
STREET IMPROVEMENTS..ON-TRACT 46,635 23,317
STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS 7,635 3,817
WALLS AND FENCES 6,050 3,025
LANDSCAPING 200,000 100,000
UTILITY TRENCHING 2,000 1,000
UTILITY COMPANY CONTRACTS 3,182 1,591
CIVIL ENGINEERING FEES 76,600 38,300
SOILS AND GEOLOGY FEES 5,732 2,866
OTHER CONSULTANT'S FEES 105,000 52,500
INDIRECT ALLOCATIONS 0 0
REIMBURSEMENTS (2,182) (1,091)
BONDS 16,237 8,119
0
SUBTOTAL $ 947,809 $ 473,905
CONTINGENCY (10%) 94,781 47,390
PERMITS AND FEES �_=',$�_ 29.306
GRAND TOTAL $1,101,202 $ 550,601
NUMBER OF BUILDABLE LOTS (LTNITS) 2
NUMBER OF ACRES 11.87
PROJECT DENSTTY (DU/ACRE) .178
UNIT PRICES USED HEREIN ARE BASED UPON EITHER CLIENT PROVIDED INFORMATION OR FROM BEST AVAILABLE INDUSTRY DATA AT THE TIhfE OF
PREPARATION,CONSULTANT ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE EXACTNFSS OF SUCIi iJNIT PRICES IN EITHER EVENT
TRACT NO.31676
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
CLEARING AND DEMOLITION
UNIT
ITEM OUANTITY LAVIT PRICE COST COMMENTS
LAND CLEARING(INCLUDES TREE REMOVAL) 3.5 AC 500.00 $ 1,750
LAND CLEARING(INCLUDES TREE REMOVAL) AC 500.00 S -
STRLICTURE DEMOLITION EA 2500.00 S -
WATER WELL ABANDONMENT EA 5000.00 S -
RELOCAI'E EXISTING WATERLINES LF 0.00 $ -
II2RIGATION LINE ABANDONMENT LS 0.00 S -
�M EA 0.00 $ -
TTEM EA 0.00 S -
TI'EM EA 0.00 S
SUB TOTAL S 1,750
GRADING
iTNIT
ITEM OUANfITY UNIT PRICE COST COMhIENTS
MOVE IN 1 LS 25000.U0 S 25,000
STTE PREPARATION 3.5 AC 200.00 S 700
EXCAVATION AND COMPACTION 3,921.03 CY 2.00 S 7,842
OVEREXCAVATION CY 1.00 S -
EJ�ORT MATERL4L CY 6.00 S -
IMPORT�IATERIAL 35,879.52 CY 6.00 S 215,27'7
ALLLTVNM REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT CY 1.00 $ -
CAP/TRANSITION IATS � CY 1:00 $ -
BUTTRESSING&STABILIZATION FII.LS CY 2.10 S -
FINISH PADS 2 EA 500.00 S 1,000
BACKDRAINS LF 10.00 -
SUBDRAINS LF I1.00 -
PCC GUNTTE D1TCH DRAINS 6 FEET WIDE LF 18.00 -
PCC DOWNDRAINS L,F 16.00 -
FAULT TRENCH REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT � CY 1.00 -
STREET BALANCE SF 0.20
"CURB GRADE LF 0.75
SIDEWALK GRADE SF 0.50 -
ROUGH LOT PULLS 2 EA 250.00 S 500
FINAL LOT PULLS 2 EA 250.00 S S00
TOE DTTCH LF 12.00 -
SPLASH WALLS EA 500.00 -
BROW STICH LF 12.00 -
HILLSIDE DRAINAGE SWALE LF 60.00 -
TI'EM EA 0.00 -
pi'� EA 0.00 -
�M EA 0.00 -
TTEM EA 0.00 -
TTEM EA 0.00 -
I'I'� EA 0.00 -
�M EA 0.00 -
SUBTOTAL S 251,793
CONSTRUCTION WATER
UNIT
ITEM OUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST COMIVIENTS
METER DEPOSTT AND RENTAL 1 EA 2000.00 S 2,000
CONSTRUCTION WATER ON-SITE 2 EA 1000.00 2,000
TRENCH BACKFILL WATER 2 EA 1000.00 2,000
SPRINKLER RENTAL LS 0.00 -
GRADING WATER 122,926 CY 0.10 12,293
T('ENI EA 0.00 -
TI'g[v1 EA 0.00
SUBTOTAL S 18,293
EROSION AND DUST CONTROL �
U1vIT
ITEM OUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST COMMENTS
SAND BAGS 400 EA 1.50 S 600
DESILTING BASINS(MINOR) 1 EA 5000.00 5,000
STREE'f SWEEPING/WASHING 1 LS 5000.00 5,000
POLYMER COATING 150,000 SF 0.30 45,000
SILT FENCE 1,994 LF 2.'75 5,484
1TENI 0.00 -
TI'EM 0.00 S -
SUBTOTAL $ 61,040
TRAC"1'NO.31676
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM...OFF-TRACT .
ITNIT
ITEM OUANTITY iTNIT PRICE COST COMMENTS
18"RCP LF 45.00 S -
24"RCP LF 60.00 S -
30"RCP LF 75.00 $ -
36"RCP LF 90.00 S -
42"RCP LF 105.00 $ -
48"RCP LF 120.00 $ .
18"HDPE PIPE LF 36.00 S -
24"HDPE PIl'E LF 48.00 S -
30"HDPE PIPE LF 60.00 S -
4"PVC LF 8.00 � -
6"PVC LF 12.00 S -
8"PVC I.F 16.00 a -
CATCH BASIN W/LD W=4' EA 4500.00 S -
CATCH BASIN W/LD W=7' EA 5500.00 S -
CATCH BASIN W/LD W=14' EA 7500.00 S -
CATCH BASIN W/LD W=21' EA 8500.00 S -
GRATE INLEI'CATCH BASiN SINGLE GRATE EA 8000.00 S -
GRATE INLET CATCH BASIN DOUBLE GRATE EA 10000.00 S -
GRATE INLET CATCH BASIN TRIPLE GRATE EA 12000.00 S -
GRATE INLET CATCH BASIN SINGLE GRATE W/DRY WELL EA 18000.00 $ -
GRATE INLET CATCH BASIN DOUBLE GRATE W/DRY WELL EA 20000.00 S -
GRATE INLET CATCH BASIN TRIPLE GRATE W/DRY WELL EA 22000.00 S -
J[JNCTION STRUCTURE NO. 1 EA 1400.00 S - '
JUNCTION STRUCTURE NO.2 EA 3000.00 S -
TRANSTTION STRUCTIJRE NO.1 EA 1500.00 S -
TRANSITION STRUCTURE NO.2 EA 3200.00 S -
MANHOLE EA 3200.00 S -
REINFORCED CONCRECE BOX LF 300.00 S -
AC ACCESS ROADS SF 0.95 S -
DRY WELL EA 15000.00 S -
RIP RAP SF 15.00 S -
GOLF COURSE OUTL.ET STRUC'TURE EA 1800.00 S -
ENERGY DISSIPATER EA 35000.00 S -
l7'SIv1 EA 0.00 �
SUBTOTAL S -
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM...ON-TRACT
IJIYIT
ITEM OUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST COMNIENTS
18"RCP LF 45.00 S -
24"RCP 30 LF 60.00 S 1,800
30"RCP LF 75.00 a -
36"RCP 390 LF 90.00 S 35,100
42"RCP LF 105.00 S -
48"RCP LF 120.00 S -
18"HDPE PIPE LF 36.00 S -
24"I-IDPE PIPE I.F 48.00 $ -
30"HDPE PIPE LF 60.00 S -
6"PVC LF 12.00 S - (YARD DRAINS)
8"PVC LF 16.00 S - (YARD DRAINS)
12"PVC LF 24.00 S - (YARD DRAINS)
CATCH BASIN(YARD DRAII� EA 100.00 S - (YARD DRAINS)
CATCH BASIN W/LD W=7' 1 EA 5500.00 S - 5,500
CATCH BASIN W/LD W=14' EA 7500.00 S -
CATCH BASIN W/LD W=21' EA 8500.00 $ -
GRATE INLET CATCH BASIN SINGLE GRATE EA 8000.00 S -
GRATE INLEf CATCFI BASIN DOUBLE GRATE EA 10000.00 S -
GRAT'E INLEI'CATCH BASIN TRIYLE GRATE EA 12000.00 S -
GRATE INLEI'CATCH BASIN SINGLE GRATE W/DRY WELL EA 18000.00 $ -
GRATE INLET CATCH BASIN DOUBLE GRATE W/DRY WELL EA 20000.00 S -
GRATE INLET CATCH BASIN TRIPLE GRATE W/DRY WELL EA 22000.00 S -
NNCT'ION STRUCTURE NO. 1 EA 1400.00 S -
NNCTION STRUCTURE NO.2 EA 3000.00 S -
TRANSTTION STRUCTURE NO. 1 EA 1500.00 S -
TRANSTTION STRUCTURE NO.2 EA 3200.00 S -
MANHOLE EA 3200.00 S -
REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX LF 300.00 S -
CONCRETE HEADWALL 2 LS 20000.00 $ 40,000
DRY WELL EA 15000.00 S -
RIP RAP 120 SF 15.00 S 1,800
OUTLET STRUCTURE&SAND FILT'ER 1 SF 5000.00 S 5,000 '
ENERGY DISSIPATER EA 15000.00 S -
SUMP PUMP&PIPING LS 20000.00 S
SUBTOTAL S 89,200
TRAC1'NO.31676
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
SEWER SYSTEM...OFF-TRACT
tJNIT
ITEM OUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST CObIl�fENTS
4"VCP EA 500.00 $ -
6"VCP LF 15.00 S -
8"VCP LF 25.00 S -
10"VCP LF 35.00 S -
12"VCP LF 45.00 S -
15"VCP 1-F 60.00 $ -
24"VCP LF 75.00 S -
4"ABS LF 5.00 S -
6"ABS LF 7.50 S -
a��nss r.� Zo.00 a -
io^Ass � iz.so a -
iz^ass r.� is.00 s -
is��ss r.� ZZ.so a -
24"ABS LF 30.00 $ -
MANHOLE EA 1800.00 S -
DEEP MANHOLE EA 2500.00 $ -
DROP MANHOLE EA 2200.00 S -
c�,vvov�r En i000.00 a -
CONCREI'E ENCASEMENT LF 20.00 $ -
SAND BEDDING LF 5.00 $ -
BREAK AND JOIN EXISTING LINE EA 350.00 $ -
PAVEMENT REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT SF 4.00 $ -
ADNST MANHOLE TO GRADE,I�LIFT EA 275.00 S -
ADNST MANHOLE TO GRADE,2''7D LIFT EA 275.00 $ -
FORCE MAIN LF 15.00 $ -
SEWER LIFT STATION EA 350000.00 $ -
CLEAN,MANDREL,AND MIItROR SEWER LF 2.00 S -
TV TEST SEWER LF 1.00 S -
CLEAN MANHOLES EA 125.00 S -
TTEM EA 0.00 $ -
p('gM EA 0.00 S -
TTEM EA 0.00 S -
�M EA 0.00 $ -
TT� EA 0.00 ��
SUBTOTAL S -
SEWER SYSTEM...ON-TRACT
iJNIT
ITEM OUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST COMNIENTS
4"VCP LATERAL 2 EA 500.00 S 1,000
6"VCP LF 15.00 S -
8"VCP 625 I,F 30.00 S 18,750
10"VCP LF 35.00 S -
12"VCP LF 45.00 S -
18"VCP LF 60.00 S -
24"VCP • LF 75.00 $ -
4"ABS LF 5.00 S -
6"ABS LF 7.50 S -
s^nBs r.� so.00 a -
io^nss � i2.so s -
i2^a.ss � is.00 s -
is�nss � a2.so s -
24"ABS LF 30.00 S -
MANHOLE 5 EA 2500.00 S 12,500
DEEP MANHOLE EA 2500.00 S -
DROP MANHOLE EA 2200.00 S -
CLEANOiTf EA 1000.00 S -
CONCREfE ENCASEMENT LF 20.00 S -
SAND BEDDING LF 5.00 S -
JOIN EXISTING MANHOLE 1 EA 500.00 S 500
PAVEMENT REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT 200 5F 10.00 S 2,000
ADNST MANHOLE TO GRADE,15T LIFT 5 EA 275.00 S 1,375
ADNST MANHOLE TO GRADE,2`'7D LIFf 5 EA 275.00 S 1,375
FORCE MAIN LF 15.00 S -
SEWER LIFT STATION EA 350000.00 $ -
CLEAN,MANDREL,AND MIItROR SEWER 625 LF 2.00 S 1,250
T'V TEST SEWER 625 I,F 1.00 S 625
CLEAN MANHOLES 5 EA 125.00 S 625
TTEM EA 0.00 S -
TI'EM � EA 0.00 S -
1TEM EA 0.00 S -
ITEM EA 0.00 S -
TI'EM EA 0.00 S -
SUBTOTAL S 40,000
TRAC'T NO.31676
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
WATER SYSTEM...OFF-TRACT -
i7NIT
TTEM OUANTITY U1VIT PRICE COST COMMENTS
6"PVC CL200 WiTH FITTINGS LF 12.00 $ -
8"PVC CL200 W1T'H FITTINGS LF 16.00 S -
10"PVC CL200 W1TH FITTINGS LF 20.00 S -
12"PVC CL200 WTTH FiTTINGS LF 24.00 S -
6"DIP WTfH FITTINGS LF 18.00 S -
8"DIP WITH FITTINGS LF 32.00 S -
12"DIP W1TH FITTINGS LF 45.00 S -
18"DIP WITH FITTINGS LF 60.00 $ -
24"DlP WTTH FITTINGS LF 75.00 $ -
4"GAT'E VALVE EA 500.00 S -
6"GATE VALVE EA 650.00 $ -
8"GATE VALVE EA 900.00 S -
10"GATE VALVE EA 1150.00 S -
12"GATE VAI,VE EA 1600.00 S -
18"BLJTTERFLY VALVE EA 2500.00 S -
2"BIAWOFF ASSEMBLY EA 450.00 S -
4"BIAWOFF ASSEMBLY EA 1400.00 S -
6"BLOWOFF ASSEMBLY EA 800.00 $ -
AIR TtELIEF VALVE EA 1400.00 S -
FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY EA 2500.00 $ -
HOUSE WATER SERVICE DU 400.00 S -
LANDSCAPE WATER SERVICE EA 750.00 S -
RAISE GATE VALVE COVERS TO GRADE 1�LIFf EA 175.00 S -
RAISE GATE VALVE COVERS TO GRADE 2ND LIFT EA 175.00 S -
HOT TAP WTTH FITTINGS EA 4250.00 S -
REMOVE AND REPLACE PAVING SF 2.00 S -
BOOS1'ER PUMP STATION EA 125000.00 S -
PRESSURE REDUCER STATION EA 0.00 S -
REMOVE PLUGS AND JOIN EA 100.00 S -
REMOVE AND REPLACE AC PAVING SF 2.50 $ -
TTEM EA 0.00 S -
TfEM EA 0.00 S -
TfEM EA 0.00 S
SUBTOTAL S -
WATER SYSTEM...ON=TRACT
UNIT
ITEM OUANTITY iJ1vIT PRICE COST COMMENTS
6"PVC CL200 WTTH FITTINGS LF 12.00 S -
S"PVC CL200 WITH FITTINGS 625 LF 16.00 S 10,000
10"PVC CL200 W1TH FITTINGS LF 20.00 $ -
12"PVC CL200 WITI-I FITTINGS LF 24.00 S -
6"DIP W1TH FITTINGS LF 18.00 S -
8"DIP WITH FITTINGS LF 32.00 S - •
12"DIP WTTH FITTINGS LF 45.00 S -
18"DIP WTTH FiTTINGS LF 60.00 S -
24"DIP WTTH FiTTINGS LF 75.00 S -
4"GATE VALVE EA 500.00 S -
6"GAT'E VALVE EA 650.00 S -
8"GATE VALVE 3 EA 900.00 S 2,700
10"GATE VALVE EA 1150.00 S -
12"GATE VALVE EA 1600.00 S -
18"BUTTERFLY VALVE EA 2500.00 S -
2"BIAWOFF ASSEMBLY EA 450.00 S -
4"BLOWOFF ASSEMBLY EA 1400.00 S -
6"BLAWOFF ASSEMBLY EA 800.00 S -
AIR RELIEF VALVE EA 1400.00 S -
FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY 1 EA 2500.00 S 2,500
HOUSE WATER SERVICE 2 EA 400.00 S 800
LANDSCAPE WATER SERVICE 1 EA 750.00 S 750
RAISE GATE VALVE COVERS TO GRADE 1�LIFf 3 EA 175.00 S 525
RAISE GATE VALVE COVERS TO GRADE 2�'1D LIFf 3 EA 175.00 S 525
HOT TAP WTTH FITTINGS EA 4250.00 $ -
REMOVE AND REPLACE PAVIlVG SF 2.00 S -
BOOSTER PUMP STATION EA 125000.00 S -
PRESSURE REDUCER STATION EA 0.00 S -
REMOVE PLUGS AND JOIN EA 100.00 S -
REMOVE AND REPLACE AC PAVIIdG 200 SF 2.50 S 1,000
TTEM EA 0.00 S -
ITEM EA 0.00 S -
TI'EM EA 0.00 �
SUBTOTAL $ 18,800
TRAC'T NO.31676
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
STREET IMPROVEMENTS...OFF-TRACT
iT1YIT
ITEM OUANTITY iJ1vIT PRICE COST COMMENTS
6"CURB AND 24"GUTTER LF 7.50 $ -
8"CURB AND 24"GUTTER LF 8.00 $ -
5"WEDGE CURB I.F 8.00 $ -
6"WEDGE CURB LF 9.00 S -
6"CURB ONLY LF 8.00 $ - M�»�
8"CURB ONLY LF 7.00 S _
VARIABLE HEIGHT CURB AND GU'ITER LF 8.00 S -
VARIABLE HEIGHT CURB ONLY LF 8.00 S -
CONCRETE CROSS GUITER SF 4.50 $ -
CONCRETE DRIVE APPROACH SF 225 S -
CONCRETE SIDEWALK SF 1.75 S -
ALLEY GUTfER(3'WIDE) ' SF 7.00 S -
2"AC OVER 4.5"AB SF 1.25 S -
1"AC FINISH LIFI' SF 0.25 S -
3"AC OVER 5"AB SF 1.40 S -
I"AC FINISH LIFI' SF 032 S -
AC BERM(BY OTHERS) LF 6.00 S -
HANDICAP RAMPS EA 250.00 S -
RAISE MANHOLES TO GRADE FINAL LIFf EA 300.00 S -
ADNST WATER VALVE COVERS TO GRADE EA 100.00 $ - 3�LIFT
RAISE STORM DRAIN MANHOLES TO GRADE EA 300.00 S - 1�LIFT
RAISE STORM DRAIN MANHOLES TO GRADE EA • 300.00 S - 2�'7D LIFT
SAWCUT AND REMOVE AC PAVEMENT SF 2.00 S -
SAWCUT AND REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LF 9.00 S -
REMOVE SIDEWALK SF 2.00 S -
TfEM LS 12000.00 S -
POINT AND PATCH DU 100.00 S -
TTEM EA 0.00 S -
TTEM EA 0.00 $ -
TTEM EA 0.00 S -
1TEM EA 0.00 $ -
TTEM EA 0.00 S -
ITEM EA 0.00 �
SUBTOTAL S -
STREET IMPROVEMENTS...ON-TRACT
iJ1VIT
ITEM OUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST CONII�IENTS
6"CURB AND 24"Gi]TTER LF 7.50 S -
8"CURB AND 24"GUT'fER LF 8.00 S -
5"WEDGE CURB I.F 8.00 S -
6"WEDGE CURB 1,150 LF 10.00 S 11,500
6"CURB ONLY 165 LF 8.00 S 1,320
8"CURB ONLY LF 7.00 S -
VARL4BLE HEIGHT CURB AND GUTTER LF 8.00 $ -
VARIABLE HEIGHT CURB ONLY LF 8.00 S -
CONCRETE CROSS GUTTER SF 4.50 S -
CONCREfE DRNE APPROACH SF 2.25 S -
CONCRETE SIDEWALK SF 1.75 S -
ALLEY GUTTER(3'WID� SF ?.00 S -
2"AC OVER 4.5"AB 13,684 SF 1.50 S 20,526
1"AC FINISH LIFT 13,684 SF 035 S 4,789
3"AC OVER 5"AB SF 1.40 S -
1"AC FINISH LIFI' SF 0.32 S -
AC BERM(BY OTF�RS) LF 6.00 S -
HANDICAP RAMPS EA 250.00 S -
RAISE MANHOLES TO GRADE FINAL LIFT 5 EA 300.00 S 1,500
ADNST WATER VALVE COVERS TO GRADE 10 EA 100.00 S 1,000 3�LIFT
RAISE STORM DRAIN MANHOLES TO GRADE EA 300.00 $ - I�LIFT
RALSE STORM DRAIN MANHOLES TO GRADE EA 300.00 $ - 2ND LIFT
SAWCUT AND REMOVE AC PAVEMENT 2,000 SF 2.00 S 4,000
SAWCUT AND REMOVE CURB AND GU'ITER LF 9.00 S -
REMOVE SIDEWALK SF 2.00 $ -
ENHANCED PAVEMENT LS 50000.00 S -
POIIVT AND PATCH 2 EA 1000.00 S 2,000
TfEM EA 0.00 S -
TTEM EA 0.00 S -
TTEM EA 0.00 S -
TTEM EA 0.00 $ -
TTEN'I EA 0.00 S -
1TEM EA 0.00 S
SUBTOTAL S 46,635
TRAC1'NO.31676
CORNISHE OF sIGHORN PRELIMINARY ES7TMATE
STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS
IJNIT
ITEM OUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST COMMENTS
STREET NAME SIGNS 1 EA 285.00 S 285
STOP SIGNS 1 EA 125.00 S 125
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS 10' EA 200.00 S 2,000
REFLECTOR PANELS EA 25.00 S -
STRIPING 1 LS 5000.00 S 5,000
STOP BAR STRIPING 1 EA 225.00 $ 225
BARRICADE GUARD RAILS EA 750.00 S -
STREET LIGHTS EA � 1500.00 S -
STREET LIGHTS EA 1500.00 $ -
ENERGY CHARGES EA 379.00 $ -
REIACAI'E STREEI'LIGHT EA I500.00 S -
TRAFEIC SIGNAL EA 125000.00 S -
EA 0.00 $ -
EA 0.00 $
SUBTOTAL S 7,635
WALLS AND FENCES �
UNIT
ITEM OUANTITY iJNIT PRICE • COST COMMENTS
PERIMETER BLACK WALL LF 60.00 S -
BIACK WALL 110 LF 55.00 S 6,050
16"x24"PILASTERS EA 300.00 S -
LAW 16"x24"PII.ASTERS EA 150.00 S -
TUBULAR STEEL FENCING LF I5.00 S -
LAW MASONRY WALLS LF 25.00 S -
VIEW WALLS 12"MASONRYl48"TUBULAR STEEL LF 25.00 S -
VIEW SOUND WALLS 36"MASONRY/24"STEEL LF 35.00 S -
CONCRETE MOWSTRIP LF 6.00 S -
CONCRETE TURF BLACK LF 8.00 S -
FIRE ACCESS GATES • EA 3500.00 S -
VAR.HEIGHT RETAINING WALLS(5.0'MAX.) SF 20.00 S
TTEM EA 6.00 S -
TTEM EA 8.00 S -
TTEM EA 1000.00 S
SUBTOTAL S 6,050
LANDSCAPING
iTNIT
ITEM OUANTITY UNIT PRI E COS COMA'IENTS
ENTRY STAT'EMENT EA 100000.00 S -
PARKWAY LETTERED IATS SF 6.00 $ -
COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING 1 LS 200000.00 S 200,000
REAR YARD LANDSCAPING SF 0.00 S -
SLOPE PLANTING SF 2.50 S -
SLOPE IRRIGATION SF 1.50 S -
RETENTION BASIN AREA PLANTIIVG SF 1.25 S -
RETENTION BASIN AREA IRRIGATION SF 0.75 S -
I.AKR ENHANCEMENT AC 200000.00 S -
4'CONCRE'TE SIDEWALK SF 4.00 S -
COMMUNTTY POOL EA 100000.00 S -
COMMUNITY SPA EA 15000.00 S -
LAKE SHORELINE LF 25.00 S -
LAKE LINER SF 0.35 S -
TTEM EA 0.00 S -
TTEM EA 0.00 a -
TI'gbI EA 0.00 S -
TTEM EA 0.00 S -
ITEM EA 0.00 S -
TTEM EA 0.00 S -
1TEM EA 0.00 S -
TI'FM EA 0.00 S -
TTEM SF 4.50 S -
TTEM SF 4.50 S -
ITEM SF 0.00 S -
ITEM 5F 0.00 � -
SUBTOTAL S 200,000
TRACT NO.31676
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN PRELID'IINARY ESTIMATE
UTILITY TRENCHING .
UNTT
ITEM OUANTITY UNTT PRICE COST COMMENTS
DRY UTILTfIES ESTIMATE 2 DU 1000.00 S 2,000 ESTIMATE
JOINT TRENCH DU 0.00 S -
BACKBONE SYSTEMS LF 0.00 S -
BACKBONE SYSTEMS LF 0.00 S -
PRIMARY TRANSFORMERS/SPLICE P1TS EA 0.00 $ -
PRIMARY TRANSFORMERS/SPLICE PITS EA 0.00 S -
1TEM EA 0.00 S
SUBTOTAL S 2,000
UTILITY COMPANY CONT'RACTS
iJNIT
ITEM OUANTTI'1' iJNIT PRICE COST COMMENTS
IID 2 EA 500.00 S 1,000 ESTIMATE
TELEPHONE 2 EA 203.00 $ 406
GAS 2 EA 888.00 S 1,776 �
CABLE TV 2 EA 0.00 $ -
rr� o.00 a -
iTEM 0.00 S -
TTEM 0.00 S
SUBTOTAL S 3,182 '
CIVIL ENGII�7EERING FEES
UNIT
ITEM OUANTITY UN1T PRICE GOST COMMENTS
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING(TOPO,BDY,EfC.) 1 IS 50000.00 S 50,000
FINAL ENGINEERING 2 EA 5000.00 S 10,000
CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING 2 EA 5000.00 S 10,000
STAKING ADDENDUM 2 EA 500.00 S 1,000
PIAT AND PRECISE GRADING PLANS 2 EA 1500.00 S 3,000
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PLAT PLANS 2 EA 300.00 S 600
OFFICE ADDENDUM 2 EA 1000.00 2.000
SUBTOTAL S 76,600
SOILS AND GEOLOGY
UNTf
ITEM OUANTITY UNIT PRICE C ST COMMENTS
PRELIMINARY 1NVESTIGATION 2 EA 50.00 S 100
SEISMIC STUDY 2 EA 25.00 S 50
FINAL SOILS REPORT 2 EA 50.00 $ 100
UTILTTY BACKFILL REPORTS 2 EA 25.00 S 50
R VALUE TEST'S 2 EA 25.00 S 50
ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION 35,879 CY 0.15 $ 5,382
TTEM EA 25.00 �
SUBTOTAL S 5,732
OTHER CONSULTANTS
U1VIT
ITEM OUANTITY UN1T PRICE COST COMMENTS
DRY iTTIL.TTY CONSULTANT 1 LS 10000.00 S 10,000
ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT LS 10000.00 S -
WETLANDS CONSULTANT DU 400.00 $ -
LANDSCAPE ARCHTIBCT 1 LS 50000.00 $ 50,000
PLANNING CONSULTA2V'T 1 LS 20000.00 S 20,000
BLiJEPRINTS AND REPRODUCTION 1 LS 10000.00 S 10,000
TRAFFIC ENGINEER 1 EA 15000.00 15.000
SUBTOTAL S 105,000
TRAC'T NO.31676
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
INDIRECT ALLOCATIONS .
iJ1YIT
ITEM OUANTITY i7NIT PRICE COST COMMENTS
GRADING LS 0.00 S -
STORM DRAIN LS 0.00 S -
SEWER LS 0.00 $ -
WATER LS 0.00 S -
STREETS LS 0.00 S -
iTI'ILTTIES LS 0.00 S -
TRAFFIC SIGNAL PARTICIPATION LS 0.00 �
SUBTOTAL S -
REIMBURSEMENTS
U1vIT
ITEM OUANTITY UNTT PRICE COST COMMENTS
IID EA 0.00 S -
TELEPHONE 2 EA -203.00 S (406)
GAS 2 EA -888.00 S (1,776)
% 0.00 $ -
% 0.00 S -
EA 0.00 �
SUBTOTAL $ (2,182)
BONDS
iJ1vIT
ITEM OUANTITY iTNIT PRICE COST COMMENTS
MONLIMEIJ'T BOND 1 LS 4000.00 S 4,000
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE 1.5% LS 147220.00 $ 2,208
MAINT6,TTANCE BOND 1.5% LS 14722.00 S 221
LETTER OF CREDIT 5% I.S 58800.00 S 2,940 CVWD
GRADING BOND 1.5% LS 251793.00 S 3,777
LANDSCAPE BOND 1.5% IS 206050.00 3.091
SUBTOTAL S 16,237
TRACT NO.31676
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
AGENCY FEES
U1vIT
ITEM OUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST COMMENTS
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FEE EA 4000.00 S -
DEVELAPMENT AGREEMENT REVIEW FEE EA 2500.00 S -
ZONE CHANGE FEE EA 2710.00 S -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FEE EA 262.00 S 271
FIRE DISTRICT FEE EA 400.00 S -
SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW FEE EA 5165.00 S -
TENTATIVE TRAC'T MAP FEE 1 EA 3500.00 S 3,500
PLAT PLAN REVIEW FEE 1 EA 835.00 $ 835
COUNTY CLERK FEE EA 78.00 S -
FISH AND GAME FEE 1 EA 1300.00 S 1,300
COMPATIBII.TTY REVIEW FEE 1 EA 835.00 S 835
ENTITLEMENT FEE SUBTOTAL S 6,741
FINAL MAP CHECKING FEE 1 EA 2240.00 S 2,240
STREET PLAN CHECKING FEE 6 SH 750.00 S 4,500
PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION FEE 5.00% % 54270.00 S 2,714 '
STORM DRAIN PLAN CHECK FEE 6 SH 750.00 $ 4,500
STORM DRAIN INSPECTION FEE 5.00% EA 89200.00 $ 4,460
HYDROLAGY PLAN CHECK FEE 0 EA 0.00 S 0 INCL W/STREET PLAN
SEWER PLAN CHECK FEE 3 EA 50.00 S 150
SEWER INSPECTION FEE 3 EA 150.00 $ 450
WATER PLAN CHECK FEE 3 EA 50.00 $ 150
WATER INSPECTION FEE 3 EA 150.00 S 450
GRADING PLAN CHECK FEE 0 SH 750.00 S 0 INCL W/STREET PLAN
GRADING PERMTT FEE 1 EA 5000.00 S 5,000
LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK F'EE 4 SH 750.00 S 3,000
LANDSCAPE INSPECTION FEE 3% % 206050.00 S 6,182
ENCROACFIMENT FEE(MISCELLANEOUS) 1 EA 2500.00 S 2,500
SWPPPMOI FEE 1 EA 500.00 S 500
RECORDING FEE 1 EA 50.00 S 50
FIRE REVIEW FEE I EA 500.00 S 500
PRECISE GRADING PLAN CHECK FEE 2 SH 750.00 S 1,500
PRECISE GRADING PERMIT FEE 1 LS 10000.00 S 10,000
RECORD OF SURVEY FEE EA 0.00 S 0
LAT LINE ADNSTMENT FEE EA 0.00 S 0
ME1'ER'/." 1 EA 2500.00 S 2,500
METER 1" EA 300.00 S 0
METER 1'/s" 1 EA 525.00 S 525
BOND VERIFICATION FEE EA I50.00 S 0
EA 0.00 S 0
EA 0.00 S 0
RECORDATION FEE SUBTOTAL S 51,871
CWSD SCHOOL FEE 0 SF 2.07 S -
CVWD SANiTATION CHARGE EA 1925.00 $ -
CVWD WATER SYSTEM BACK UP CHARGE EA 2400.00 S -
1"ME'!BR SURCHARGE 0 EA 1600.00 S -
1'/x"MEI'ER SURCHARGE 0 EA 5550.00 $ -
ART IN PUBLIC PLACES FEE 0 EA -500.00 S - .25%OVER S200K OF VAI.UATION
INFRASTRUCTURE FEE 0 EA 0.00 S - 225%OF VALUATION
SMI FEE 0 EA 0.00 S - .Ol%OF VAI,UATION
1D4PAC'P FEE DU 1907.00 S -
TI'EM DU 0.00 $ -
1'� DU 0.00 S -
1T� DU 0.00 $ -
1'I'E1K DU 0.00 $ -
�� DU 0.00 $ -
1TEM DU 0.00 �
BUILDING PERMIT FEE SUBTOTAL s -
SUBTOTAL S 58,612
TRACT NO.31676
COItNISHE OF BIGHORN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE
TRACT NO. 31676
1 LOT-RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
CITY OF PALM DESERT
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN,I�LG
PRELINIINARY COST ESTIMATE
BASIS OF COST ESTIMATE-9,900 SQUARE FOOT LOT
LOCATED OUTSIDE OF BUFFER AREA
TOTAL UNIT
CATEGORY $ COST $ COST COMMENTS
CLEARING,DEMOLITION &RELOCATIONS $ 125
ROUGH GRADING 62,050
CONSTRU�TION WATER 16,293
EROSION AND DUST CONTROL 61,084
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM..OFF-TRACT �
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM..ON-TRACT 89,200
SEWER SYSTEM..OFF-TRAC'T �
SEWER SYSTEM..ON-TRACT 40,000
WATER SY5TEM..OFF-TRACT 0
WATER SYSTEM..ON-TRACT 13,900
STREET IMPROVEMENTS..OFF-TRACT �
STREET IMPROVEMENTS..ON-TRACT 45,635
STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS 7,635
WALLS AND FENCES 6,050
LANDSCAPING 100,000
UTILITY TRENCHING 1,000
UTILITY COMPANY CONTRACTS 1,591
CIVIL ENGINEERING FEES 58,300
SOILS AND GEOLOGY FEES 1,072
OTHER CONSULTANT'S FEES 105,000
INDIRECT ALLOCATIONS 0
REIMBURSEMENTS (1,091)
BONDS 11,586
SUBTOTAL $ 619,430
CONTINGENCY(10%) 61,943
PERMITS AND FEES $ 5�
GRAND TOTAL $739,185
NUMBER OF BUILDABLE LOTS (UNITS) 1
NUMBER OF ACRES 11.87
PROJECT DENSIT'Y (DU/ACRE) .084
UNIT PRICES USED REREIN ARE BASED UPON EITHER CLiENT PROVIDED INFORMATION OR FROM BEST AVAILABLE INDUSTRY DATA AT THE 7IME OF
pgEPpRATION,CONSULTANT ASSUMES NO RESPONSIB[LTCY FOR THE EXACIT7ESS OF SUCH UNIT PRICES IN EfCF�R EV6NT
TRAC'I'NO.31676
CORMSHE OF BIGHORN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
CLEARING AND DEMOLITION
[T1VIT
TI'EM QUANI'ITY TJNIT PRICE COST COMMENTS
LAND CLEARING(INCLUDES TREE REMOVAL) .25 AC 500.00 $ 125
LAND CLEARING(INCLUDES TREE REMOVAL) AC 500.00 $
STRUCTURE DEMOLITION EA 2500.00 S
WATER WELL ABANDONMENI' � EA 5000.00 S -
REIACATE EXISTING WATERLINES LF 0.00 S
IRRIGATION LINE ABANDONMENT LS 0.00 S
�M . EA O.OU .; _
�M EA 0.00 S
�� EA 0.00 �
SUB TOTAL S 125
GRADING
ZJIVIT
TTEM OUANf1TY iJNIT PRICE OST CONIIVIENTS
MOVE IN 1 LS 25000.00 S 25,000
STTE PREPARATION .25 AC 200.00 S SO
EXCAVATION AND COMPACTION CY 2.00 a
OVEREXCAVATION CY 1.00 $ -
EXPORT MATERIAL CY 6.� a -
IMPORT MATERIAL 6,000 CY 6.00 S 36,000
ALLWNM REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT CY I.00 S -
CAP/TRANSTTION IATS CY 1.00 � -
BUTTRESSING&STABII,IZATION FILLS CY 2.10 S
FINISH PADS 1 EA 500.00 S 500
BACKDRAINS LF 10.00
SUBDRAINS LF 11.00 - �
PCC GUNTfE DTTCH DRAINS 6 FEEI'WIDE � lg.p0
PCC DOWNDRAINS LF 16.00 -
FAULT TRENCH REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT CY 1.00
STREET BALANCE SF 0.20
CURB GRADE . LF 0.75
SIDEWALK GRADE SF 0.50
ROUGH LOT PULLS 1 EA 250.00 S 250
FINAL LOT PULLS 1 EA 250.00 S 250
TOE DTTCH LF 12 00
SPLASH WALLS EA 500.00
BROW STICH LF 12 00 �
HILLSIDE DRAINAGE SWALE LF 60.00
TTEM EA 0.00
1TEM EA 0.00 .
TTEM EA 0.00
�M EA 0.00
�M EA 0.00
TfEM EA 0.00
TT� EA 0.00
SUBTOTAL S 62,050
CONSTRUCTION WATER
iT1vIT
TTEM OUANTiTY iTNIT PRICE COST COMNIENTS
METER DEPOSIT AND RENTAI, 1 EA 2000.00 S 2,000
CONSTRUCTION WATER ON-STTE 1 EA 1000.00 1,000
TRENCH BACKFILL WATER 1 EA 1000.00 1,000
SPRINKLER RENTAL LS 0.00
GRADING WATBR 122,926 CY 0.10 12,293
�M EA 0.00
TfEM EA 0.00
SUBTOTAL S 16,293
EROSION AND DUST CONTROL
iJNTT
ITEM OUANTITY UN1T PRICE COST COMMENTS
SAND BAGS 400 EA 1.50 S 600
DESILTING BASINS(MINOR) 1 EA 5000.00 5,000
STREET SWEEPING/WASHING 1 LS 5000.00 5,000
POLYMER COATING 150,000 SF 0.30 45,000
SII,T FENCE 1,994 LF 2.'IS 5,484
TTEr�t
1.I,EM 0.00 -
0.00 -
SUBTOTAI, �
TRACT NO.31676
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM...OFF-TRACT �T
ITEM OUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST CObIMENTS
18"RCP LF 45.00 S - �
24"RCP LF 60.00 S -
30"RCP LF 75.00 S -
36"RCP � �.� S -
42"RCP LF 105.00 S -
48"RCP LF IZ0:00 S -
18"HDPE PIPE LF 36.00 S -
24"HDPE PIPE LF 48.00 $ -
30"HDPE PIPE � �.� a -
4"PVC � g'� �
6"PVC LF 12.00 S -
8"PVC ' LF 16.00 S -
CATCH BASIN W/LD W=4' EA 4500.00 S -
CATCH BASIN W/LD W=7' EA 5500.00 S -
CATCH BASIN W/LD W=14' EA 7500.00 S -
CATCH BASIN W/LD W=21' EA 8500.00 S -
GRATE INLET CATCH BASIN SINGLE GRATE EA 8000.00 S -
C,RpTE INLEI'CATCH BASIN DOUBLE GRATE EA 10000.00 S -
GRATE INLET CATCH BASIN TRIPLE GRATE EA 12000.00 S -
GRATE INLET CATCH BASIN SINGLE GRATE W/DRY WELL EA 18000.00 S -
GRATE INLEf CATCH BASIN DOUBLE GRATE W/DRY WELL EA 20000.00 S -
GRATE INLET CATCH BASIN TRIPLE GRATE W/DRY WELL � 21400.00 S -
JUNCTION STRUCT[JRE NO. 1 EA 3000.00 S -
JLTNCTION STRUCTURE NO.2
TRANSITION STRUC'TIIRE NO.1 EA 1500.00 S -
TRANSITION STRUCTURE NO.2 EA 3200.00 S -
MANHOLE EA 3200.00 S -
REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX LF 300.00 S -
AC ACCESS ROADS SF 0.95 S -
DRY WELL EA 15000.00 S -
��, SF 15.00 S -
GOLF COURSE OUTLET STRUCTURE EA 1800.00 S -
ENERGY DISSIPATER EA 35000.00 S -
TTEM EA 0.00 �
SUBTOTAL s "
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM...ON-TRACT
ZTNTT
ITEM OUANTTTY UNIT P I COST COD'IIVIENTS
18"RCP LF 45.00 S
24"RCP 30 L,F 60.00 S 1,800
30"RCP LF 75.00 S
36"RCP 390 LF 90.OU S 35,100
42"RCP L.F 105.00 S -
48"RCP L.F 120.00 S -,
18"HDPE PIPE LF 36.00 S -
24"HDPE PIPE LF 48.00 S -
30"HDPE PIPE � �.� S -
6"PVC LF 12.00 S - (YARD DRAINS)
8"PVC LF 16.00 S - (YARD DRAINS)
12"PVC LF 24.00 S - (YARD DRAINS)
CATCH BASIN(YARD DRAIN) EA 100.00 S - (YARD DRAINS)
CATCH BASIN W/LD W=T 1 EA 5500.00 S - 5,500
CATCH BASIN W/LD W=14' EA 7500.00 S -
CATCH BASIN W/LD W=21' �` gs�'� a �
GRpTE INLET CATCFI BASIN SINGLE GRATE EA 8000.00 S -
GRATE INLET CATCH BASIN DOUBLE GRATE E/\ 10000.00 S -
GRpTE INLET CATCH BASIN TRIPLE GRATE EA 12000.00 $ -
GRATE 1NLEI'CATCH BASIN SINGLE GRATE W/DRY WELL EA 18000.00 S -
GRpTE INLET CATCH BASIN DOUBLE GRATE W/DRY WELL EA 20000•00 S '
GRATE INLET CATCH BASIN TRIPLE GRATE W/DRY WELL EA 22000.00 S -
JiJNCTION STRUCTURE NO. 1 EA 1400.00 S -
JUNCTION STRUCTURE NO.2 EA 3000.00 S -
TRANSTTION STRUCTURE NO.1 EA 1500.00 S -
TRANSTTION STRUCTURE NO.2 EA 3200.00 S -
MANHOLE EA 3200.00 S -
REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX � 3�•� $
CONCRETE HEADWALL 2 LS 20000.00 S 40,000
DRY WELL EA I5000.00 S
�� 120 SF 15.00 S .1,800
OUTLET STRUCTfJRE&SAND FILTER 1 SF 5000.00 S 5,000
ENERGY DISSIPAT'ER EA 15000.00 S -
SLTMP PUMP&PIPING � 20�.� �
SUBTOTAL S 89,200
TRACT NO.31676
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
SEWER SYSTEM...OFF-TRACT
ITEM IT
4"VCP • QUA�� �IT p�CE COST COMMENTS
EA 500.00 $
6"VCP LF 15.00 $
8"VCP LF 25.00 a
10"VCP LF 35.00 S
12"VCP LF 45.00 $
15"VCP LF 60.00 $
24"VCP LF 75.00 �
a^nBs � s.00 a
6"ABS LF 7.50 �
8"ABS LF 20.00 $
10"ABS LF 12.50 $
12"ABS LF 15.00 $
18"ABS LF 22.50 S
24"ABS LF 30.00 a
MANHOLE EA 1800.00 a
DEEP MANHOLE EA 2500.00 a
DROP MANHOLE EA 2200.00 S
CLEANOLTI' EA 1000.00 $
CONCRETE ENCASEMENT LF 20.00 �
SAND BEDDING LF 5.00 S
BREAK AND JOIN EXISTING LINE EA 350.00 $
PAVEMENT REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT SF 4.00 a
ADNST MANHOLE TO GRADE,1ST LIF"T Ep Z�5 00 $
ADNST MANHOLE TO GRADE,21"1D LIFI' Ep Z�5 00 $
FORCE MAIN LF 15.00 $
SEWER LIFI'STATION EA 350000.00 a
CLEAN,MANDREL,qND MgtROR SEWER LF 2.00 $
TV TEST SEWER LF 1.00 a
CLEAN MANHOLES EA 125.00 S
ITEM EA 0.00 S
TT� EA 0.00 S
�M � 0.00 $
�M � 0.00 S
�M � 0.00 S
SUBTOTAL s _
SEWER SYSTEM...ON-TRACT
UNIT
�M QUANTITl' UNIT PRICE COST COMMENTS
4"VCP LATERAL 2 EA 500.00 $ 1,000
6"VCP LF 15.00 $
8"VCP 625 LF 30.00 $ 18,750
10"VCP LF 35.00 S
12"VCP LF 45.00 $
18"VCP LF 60.00 $
24"VCP LF 75.00 S
4"ABS LF 5.00 S
6"ABS I-F 7.50 a
8��`�S I.F 20.00 S
10"ABS LF 12.50 $
iz•Ass r.� is.00 a �
is�nBs � ZZ.so s
24"ABS LF 30.00 S
MANHOLE 5 EA 2500.00 S 12,500
DEEP MANHOLE EA 2500.00 S
DROP MANHOLE EA 2200.00 $
CLEANOUT EA 1000.00 S
CONCRETE ENCASEMENT LF 20.00 $
SAND BEDDING LF 5.00 S .
JOIN EXISTING MANHOLE 1 EA 500.00 S S00
PAVEMENT REMOVAL AND REpLACEMENT 200 SF 10.00 S 2,000
ADNST MANHOLE TO GRADE,1�LIFI' S EA 275.00 S 1,375
ADNST MANHOLE TO GRADE,2M'LIFT 5 EA 275.00 a 1,375
FORCE MAIN LF 15.00 S
SEWER LIFT STATION EA 350000.00 a
CLEAN,MANDREL,AND MIRROR SEWER 625 LF 2.00 S 1,250
TV TEST SEWER 625 LF 1.00 S 625
CLEAN MANHOLES 5 EA 125.00 � 625
TTEM EA 0.00 a
TTEM EA 0.00 $
1TEM EA 0.00 $
�M EA 0.00 a
TT� EA 0.00 �
SUBTOTAL S 40,000
TRACT NO.31676
CORNI5HE OF BIGHORN PRELIMINARy ESTIMAI'E
WATER SYSTEM...OFF-TRACT �T
ITEM QUANTITY UNTT PRICE COST CONIII�IENTS
6"PVC CL200 WTTH FITTINGS LF 12.00 S -
8"PVC CL200 WTfH FITTINGS LF 16.00 $ -
10"PVC CL200 W1TH FITTINGS � 20'� �
12"PVC CL200 WITH FITTINGS LF 24'00 $
6"D1P W1TH FTI'TINGS LF 18.00 S
8"DIP W1TH FITTINGS LF 32.00 $ -
12"DIP W1TH FITTINGS LF 45.00 S -
18"DIP WTTH FITTINGS LF 60.00 S -
24"DIP WITH FITTINGS LF 75.00 S -
4"GATE VALVE EA 500.00 S -
6"GATE VALVE EA 650.00 $ -
8"GATE VALVE EA 900.00 S -
10"GATE VALVE EA 1150.00 S -
12"GATE VALVE EA 1600.00 S -
18"BUTTERFLY VALVE EA 2500.00 S -
2"BIAWOFF ASSEMBLY EA 450.00 S -
4"BIAWOFF ASSEMBLY EA 1400.00 S -
6"BLOWOFF ASSEMBLY EA 800.00 S -
AIIt RELIEF VALVE EA 1400.00 S -
gIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY EA 2500.00 S -
HOUSE WATER SERVICE DU 400.00 S -
LANDSCAPE WATER SERVICE EA 750.00 $ -
RAISE GATE VALVE COVERS TO GRADE 1�LIfT EA 175.00 S -
RAISE GATE VALVE COVERS TO GRADE 2''1D LIFT EA 175.00 S -
HOT TAP WTTH FITTINGS EA 4250.00 S -
REMOyE priD REPLACE PAVING SF 2.00 S -
BOOSTER PUMP STATION EA 125000.00 $ -
PRESSURE REDUCER STATION EA 0.00 S -
RIIvIOVE PLUGS AND JOIN EA 100.00 $ -
REMpVE AND REPLACE AC PAVING SF 2.50 $ -
TI,EM EA 0.00 S -
TI,EM FA 0.00 S -
TTEM EA 0.00 S _
SUBTOTAL a "
WATER SYSTEM...ON-TRACT UHI,I,
TTEM QUANTITY iJNIT PRICE COST CONIMENTS
6"PVC CL200 W1TH FITTINGS LF 12.00 S
8"PVC CL200 WTTH FITTINGS 625 LF 16.00 S 10,000
10"PVC CL200 WTTH FITTINGS LF 20.00 S -
12"PVC CL200 WTfH FITTINGS LF 24.00 S -
6"DIP WTTH FTI'T1NGS LF 18.00 S -
g"DIP WTTH FITTINGS LF 32.00 S -
12"DIP WTfH FITTINGS LF 45.00 S -
18"DIP WiTH FITTINGS LF 60.00 S -
24"DIP WTTH FITTINGS LF 75.00 S -
4"GATE VALVE EA 500.00 $ -
6"GATE VALVE EA 650.00 $
8"GATE VALVE 2 EA 900.00 S 1,800
10"GATE VALVE EA 1150.00 S -
12"GA'TE VALVE EA 1600.00 S -
18"BUITERFLY VALVE EA 2500.00 S -
2"BLAWOFF ASSEMBLY EA 450.00 S -
4"BIAWOFF ASSEMBLY EA 1400.00 S -
6"BIAWOFF ASSEMBLY �` $�'� �
pIR RELIEF VALVE EA 1400.00 S -
ggtE I-IyDRANT ASSEMBLY 1 EA Z500.00 S 2,500
HOUSE WATER SERVICE 1 EA 400.00 S 400
LANDSCAPE WATER SERVICE 1 EA 750.00 S 750
RAISE GATE VALVE COVERS TO GRADE ln LIFT 2 EA 175.00 S 350
RAISE GATE VALVE COVERS TO GRADE 2ND LIFT Z � 4250.00 S _ 350
HOT TAP WTTH FITTINGS SF 2.00 S -
REMOVE pND REPLACE PAVING gp 125000.00 S -
BOOSTER PUMP STATION gp 0.00 S -
pgESSURE REDUCER STATION EA 100.00 $ -
REMOVE PLUGS AND JOIN
REMOVE AND REPLACE AC PAVING 200 SF 2.50 S 1,000
�M EA 0.00 S -
�M EA 0.00 S -
ITEM EA 0.00 S -
SUBTOTAL S 13,900
TRAC'T NO.31676 .
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
STREET IMPROVEMENTS...OFF-TRACT
UlYIT
�M UUAN'I'TI'7C UNIT PRICE COST COMMENTS
6"CURB AND 24"GiITTER � �50 a
8"CURB AND 24"GUTTER LF 8.00 $
5"WEDGE CURB LF 8.00 $
6"WEDGE CURB LF 9.00 S
6"CURB ONLY LF 8.00 a - M���
8"CURB ONLY LF 7.00. S -
VARIABLE HEIGH'f CURB AND GiJTTER LF 8.00 S
VARIABLE HEIGHT CURB ONLY LF 8.00 S
CONCRETE CROSS GUTTER SF 4.50 $ -
CONCRETE DRIVE APPROACH Sg Z 25 S
CONCRETE SIDEWALK SF 1.75 $
ALLEY GUTfER 3'WIDE
2"AC OVER 4.5"AB ) SF 1.25 S
1"AC FINISH LIFT SF 0.25 S
3"AC OVER 5"AB SF 1.40 S
1"AC FINISH LIFT SF 0.32 S -
AC BERM(BY OTHERS) LF 6.00 $
HANDICAP RAMPS EA 250.00 S -
RAISE MANHOLES TO GRADE FINAL LIFT gp 300.� a -
ADNST WATER VALVE COVERS TO GRADE EA 100.00 S - 3�Lg-T
RAISE STORM DRAIN MANHOLES TO GRADE EA 300.00 S - lsr L�.
RAISE STORM DRA1N MANHOLES TO GRADE EA 300.00 S - ZitD Lg-T
SAWCUT AND REMOVE AC PAVEMENT SF 2.00 a .
SAWCUT AND REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LF 9.00 S
REMOVE SIDEWALK SF 2.00 $
TT� LS 12000.00 S
POINT AND PATCH DU 100.00 S
TT� EA 0.00 �
�M EA 0.00 S
TT� EA 0.00 S
�M EA 0.00 a
TT� EA 0.00 S
�� EA 0.00 �
SUBTOTAL a .
STREET IMPROVEMENTS...ON-TRACT
UNIT
ITEM OUANTITY UNIT PRICE COST COMMENTS
6"CURB AND 24"GUTfER LF 7.50 $
8"CURB AND 24"GUTI'ER L.F 5.00 S
5"WEDGE CURB LF 8.00 �
6"WEDGE CURB 1,150 LF 10.00 $ 11,500
6"CURB ONLY 165 LF 8.00 S 1,320
8"CURB ONLY LF 7.00 S -
VARIABLE HEIGHT CURB AND GLITTER LF 8.00 S
VARIABLE HEIGHT CURB ONLY LF 8.00 S -
CONCRETE CROSS GUTTER SF 4.50 S -
CONCRETE DRNE APPROACH SF 2.25 S
CONCRETE SIDEWALK SF 1.75 S -
ALLEY GUTTER 3'WID
2"AC OVER 4.5"AB � 13,684 SF 1.50 S 20,526
1"AC FINISH LIFT 13,684 SF 0.35 S 4,789
3"AC OVER 5"AB SF 1.40 $
1"AC FINISH LIFT SF 0.32 S
AC BERM(BY OTFIERS) LF 6.00 S -
H.4NDICAP RAMPS EA 250.00 S
RAISE MANHOLES TO GRADE FINAL LIFT 5 EA 300.00 S 1,500
ADNST WATER VALVE COVERS TO GRADE 10 EA 100.00 $ 1,000 3RD LIFf
RAISE STORM DRAIN MANHOLES TO GRADE EA 300.00 S - 1�LIFT
RAISE STORM DRAIN MANHOLES TO GRADE EA 300.00 S - 2"7D LIFT
SAWCLTT AND REMOVE AC PAVEMENT 2,000 SF 2.00 S 4,000
SAWCUT AND REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER LF 9.00 S
REMOVE SIDEWALK SF 2.00 S -
ENHANCED PAVEMENT LS 50000.00 S
POIN1'AND PATCH 1 EA 1000.00 S 1,000
TT� EA 0.00 S
� EA 0.00 a
�M EA 0.00 S
TTEM �+ o.00 a �
TI'EM EA 0.00 $ -
ITEM EA 0.00 S
SUBTOTAL S 45,635
TRACT NO.31676
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNALS �VI,I,
ITEM OUANTITY UNTT PRICE COST COMMENTS
STREET NAME SIGNS 1 EA 285.00 S 285
STOP SIGNS 1 EA 125.00 S 125
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS 10 EA 200.00 $ 2,000
REFLECTOR PANELS EA 25.00 S
STRIPING 1 LS 5000.00 $ .5,000
STOP BAR STRIPING 1 EA 225.00 S 225
BARRICADE GUARD RAILS EA 750.00 S -
STREET LIGHTS EA 1500.00 S -
gTREET LIGHTS EA 1500.00 S -
ENERGY CHARGES EA 379.00 S -
RELACATE STREET LIGHT EA 1500.00 S -
TRAFFIC SIGNAL EA 125000.00 S -
gp 0.00 S -
EA 0.00 ��
SUBTOTAL S 7,635
WALLS AND FENCES �T
�M QUANTITy iJNTT PRICE C�OST COMMENTS
PERIMETER BLACK WALL LF 60.00 $
BIACK WALL 110 LF 55.00 $ 6,050
16"x24"PILASTERS EA 300.00 S -
LAW 16"x24"PIL.ASTERS EA 150.00 S -
TUBULAR STEEL FENCING LF 15.00 S -
IAW MASONRY WALLS LF 25.00 S -
VIEW WALLS 12"MASONRY/48"NBULAR STEEL LF 25.00 S -
VIEW SOUND WALLS 36"MASONRY/24"STEEL LF 35.00 S -
CONCRbTE MOWSTRIP LF 6.00 S -
CONCRETE TURF BI.00IC L.F 8.00 S -
FIRE ACCESS GATES EA 35W.00 S -
VAR.HEIGHT RETAINING WALLS(5.0'MAX.) SF 20.00 S
1TEM EA 6.00 S -
�M EA 8.00 S -
I,r,EM EA 1000.00 �
SUBTOTAL S 6,050
LANDSCAPING �T
�M pZJANTITy LTNIT PRICE COST COI�IIVIENTS
ENTRY STATEMENT EA 100000.00 S -
ppRKWpy I,ETI'ERED LOTS SF 6.00 $
COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING 1 LS 100000.00 $ 100,000
REpR ypRD LANDSCAPING SF 0.00 $ -
SIAPE PLANTING 3F 2.50 S -
SLOPE IRRIGATION SF 1.50 S -
RET'EIVTION BASIN AREA PLAN'TING SF 1.25 S -
RETENTION BASIN AREA IItRIGATION SF 0.75 S -
LpKE ENHANCEMENT AC 200000.00 S -
4'CONCRETE SIDEWALK SF 4.00 S -
COMMUNTTY POOL EA 100000.00 S -
COMMUNTTY SPA EA 15000.00 S -
LAKE SHORELINE LF 25.00 S -
LAKE LINER SF 0.35 S -
�,� Ep 0.00 S -
�M EA 0.00 S -
TTEM EA 0.00 S �
TI,EM EA 0.00 S
�M EA 0.00 S -
TTEM EA 0.00 S -
ITEM EA 0.00 S -
�M Ep 0.00 S -
ITEM SF 4.50 S -
TI,EM SF 4.50 S -
�M SF 0.00 S -
�M SF 0.00 S -
SUBTOTAL S 100,000
TRACT NO.31676
CORNISHE OF sIGHORN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
UTILITY TRENCHING
ITEM �T
DRY UTILTTIES ESTIMATE �UA�� U�T p1�ICE COST COMbIENTS
JOINT TRENCH 1 DU 1000.00 $ 1,000 ESTINfATE
BACKBONE SYSTEMS DU 0.00 S -
BACKBONE SYSTEMS LF 0.00 S -
PRIMARY TRANSFORMERS/SPLICE PTfS � 0.00 a _
PRIMARY TRANSFORMERS/SPLICE PTfS � 0.00 S -
TT� � 0.00 $ _
� 0.00
SUBTOTAL �
UTILITY COMPANY CONTRACTS
ITEM QUANTITY UNPT P� COST COMMENTS
� 1 � 500.00 S 500
TELEPHONE 1 EA 203.00 $ 203 �T�ATE
GAS 1 EA 888.00 $ 888
CABLE T'V 1 EA 0.00 $
TTEM -
1TEM 0.00 $ .
�M 0.00 S -
0.00
SUBTOTAL S _1591
CNIL ENGINEERING FEES
ITEM OUANI'ITY UNIT P� COST COMHIENTS
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING(TOPO,BDY,ETC.) 1 LS 50000.00 $ 50,000
FINAL ENGINEERING 1 EA 5000.00 S 5,000
CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING 1 EA 5000.00 S 5,000
STAKING ADDENDiJM 1 EA 500.00 S 500
PLAT AND PRECISE GRADING PLANS 1 EA 1500.00 S 1,500
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW PLOT PLANS 1 EA 300.00 . S 300
OFFICE ADDENDUM 1 EA 1000.00 �
SUBTOTAL S ���
SOILS AND GEOLOGY
I'!'EM U�
OUANTITY � ITNIT PRICE COST COMMENTS
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION 2 EA 50.00 S 50
SEISMIC STUDY 2 EA 25.00 � ZS
FINAL SOILS REPORT 2 EA 50.00 S 50
U1'ILiTY BACKFILL REPORTS 2 EA 25.00 S 25
R VALUE TESTS 2 EA 25.00 S 25
ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION 6,000 CY 0.15 a 900
�� � 25.00 �
SUBTOTAL $ 1,075
OTHER CONSULTANTS
TTEM �TT
QUANfTTY UNI1' PRICE COST COMMENTS
DRY UTILTfY CONSULTAIVT 1 LS 10000.00 S 10,000
ACOUSTICALCONSULTANT LS ]0000.00 S
WETLANDS CONSULTANT DU 400.00 $
LANDSCAPE ARCHTTECT 1 LS 50000.00 S 50,000
PLANNING CONSULTANT 1 LS 20000.00 S 20,000
BLUEPRINT'S AND REPRODUCTION 1 LS 10000.00 S 10,000
TRAFFIC ENGINEER 1 EA 15000.00 is_non
SUBTOTAL $ 105,000
TRAC1'NO.31676
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
INDIRECT ALLOCATIONS UHIT
ITEM OUANTITY U1VIT PRICE COST COMMENTS
GRADING LS 0.00 S .
STORM DRAIN LS 0.00 S -
. � 0.00 S
SEWER � 0.00 S -
WATER � 0.00 S -
STREETS � OAO S
UTILTTIES � 0.00 S —
TRAFFIC SIGNAL PARTICIPATION S�T�� S -
REIMBURSEMENTS UNIT
�M QUANTITy iJNIT PRICE COST COMMENTS
EA 0.00 S
� 2 EA -203.00 S (203)
TELEPHONE 2 EA -888.00 S (888)
G� % 0.00 S -
�/, 0.00 S - .
gp 0.00 S
SUBTOTAL S (1,091)
BONDS �TT
OUANTTTY UNTT PRICE COST COMMENTS
ITEM t � 4000.00 S 4,000
MONiJMENt BOND 1 So�, � 143595.00 S 2,154
FpTI'HFUL PERFORMANCE 1.5% LS 14359.00 S 215
MAINTENANCE BOND 5% � 53900.00 S 2,695 CVWD
LETTER OF CREDIT 1 5% j,$ 62050.00 S 931
GRADING BOND l,so�o � 106050.00 S 1.59
LANDSCAPE BOND gj7BTOTAL S 11,586
TRACT NO.31676
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
AGENCY FEES
ITEM �IT
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FEE OUANTITY U1VIT PRICE CpST COMMENTS
DEVELOPMENI'qGREEMENT REVIEW FEE EA 4000.00 $ -
ZONE CHANGE FEE � 2500.00 S -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FEE �` 2�10.00 S -
FIRE DISTRICT FEE EA 262.00 $ 271
SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW FEE EA 400.00 $ -
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FEE � 5165.00 $ -
pIAT pLAN REVIEW�E 1 EA 3500.00 S 3,500
COtJNTY CLERK FEE 1 � 835.� a 835
FISH AND GAME FEE EA '7g,pp a _
COMPATIBILTTY REVIEW FEg 1 � 1300.00 S 1,300
ENTITLEMENT FEE SUBTOTAL 1 � 835.00
S 67
FINAL MAP CHECKING FEE 1 EA 2240.00 S 2,240
STREEI'PLAN CHECKING FEE 750.00 S 4,500
PCJBLIC WORKS INSPECTION FEE 5.00% %; 53270.00 S 2,664
STORM DRAIN pLqIV CHECK FEE 6 SH 750.00 S 4,500
STORM DRAIN INSPECTION FEE 5.00% EA 89200.00 S 4,460
HYDROLOGY PLAN CHECK FEE 0 EA 0.00 $ p
SEWER PLAN CHECK FEE 3 EA 50.00 S 150 INCL.W/STREET PLAN
SEWER WSPECTION FEE 3 EA 150.00 S 450
WATER PLAN CHECK FEE 3 EA 50.00 $ 150
WATER INSPECTION FEE 3 EA 150.00 S 450
GRADING PLAN CHECK FEE 0 SH '75p_pp � �
GRADING PERMIT FEE I EA 5000.00 S 5,000 INCL.W/3TREET pLAN
LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK FEE 4 SH 750.00 S 3,000
LANDSCAPE INSPECTION FEE 3% % 206050.00 S 6,182
ENCROACHMENT FEE(MISCELLANEOUS) i EA 2500.00 S 2,500
SWPPP/NOI FEE 1 EA 500.00 S 500
RECORDING FEE 1 EA 50.00 a 50
FIRE REVIEW FEE 1 EA 500.00 $ 500
PRECISE GRADING PLAN CHECK FEE 1 SH 750.00 $ 750
PRECISE GRADING PERMTT FEE 1 LS 10000.00 S 10,000
RECORD OF SURVEY FEE EA 0.00 S 0
IAT LINE ADNSTMENT FEE � p� a 0
METER'/." 1 EA 2500.00 $ 2,500
METER 1"
METER 1'h" EA 300.00 S 0
BOND VERIFICATION FEE 1 EA 525.00 S 525
� 150.00 $ p
� 0.00 a p
RECORDATION FEE SUBTOTAL � 0.00
S 510
CViJSD SCHOOL FEE 0 SF 2.07 S
CVWD SANTTATION CHARGE EA 1925.00 S
CVWD WATER SYSTEM BACK UP CHARGE EA 2400.00 S
I"METER SURCHARGE 0 EA 1600.00 S
1%:"METER SURCHARGE 0 EA 5550.00 S
ART IN PUBLIC PLACES FEE 0 EA -500.00 S .25%OVER$200K OF VAI,UATION
INFRASTRUCTURE F'�E 0 EA 0.00 $
SMI FEE - 2.25%OF VAI,UATION
IMPACT FEE 0 DU 1907.00 a .Ol%OF VAI,UATION
ITEM -
TT� DU 0.00 S -
TTEM DU 0.00 S -
�M DU 0.00 S -
1TEM DU 0.00 S -
�M DU 0.00 $ _
BUILDING PERMIT FEE SUBTOTAL DU 0.00 ��
S -
SUBTOTAL S 57,812
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN T�CT NO.31676
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
�
i" ;
. BIGHQRN �
November 11,2008 -
. ;:
Patrick A.Perry,Esq. �
' Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory&Nat:�is LLP
515 South Figueroa Street,9th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3398 � '
Dear Patrick: •
I have been at BIGHORN for appro�:unately 18 years,beginning at the very eazly stages
of grading�activities for the Mountains at BIGHORN. I am both V.P.•of Development for
BIGHORN Development and Director of Sa�les for•BIGHORN Properties. Uuring my tenure,
BIGHORN has developed both the Mountains and Canyons at BIGHORN and has participated �
not only in the development of the comrnun'.ity,but also,in almost 1000 sales transactions. At
your request,I have reviewed the tentative tract map for the Comishe of Bighorn project. Based
on our experience in developing and mazketing high end residential property, it would reasonable
to expect the proposed residential lots at the Comishe property to sell in the range of$3,500,000
each. This estimate assumes that each of th�building pads is approximately 20,000 square feet
in area, and the homesites have generous,wiobstructed views.
.I have also examined the development potential for the portion of the Cornishe property
that is located outside of the buffer azea. Bf�sed on your calculation that the azea.of the property
outside of the buffer is approximately 9,900 square feet and based on its location within the
streambed of Dead Indian Creek at an eleva.tion of between 776 and 780 feet,the value of that
portion of the property, if developed as a ho�mesite,would likely be much less than$2 million.
No comparable homesite at the Can;yons exists that can be used as a measure of value of
this prospective lot. The smallest homesite at the Canyons is 11,413 square feet in area,and,
altogether,only three lots at the Canyons aze in the 11,000 square-foot range. All others are
larger, The three 11,000 square-foot lots are"villa" lots,each accommodating a villa residence
of approximately 3,500 square fee� The m�ost expensive villa residence was sold in May,2006,
for$3.25 million for the house and lot. ThE:residence has 3,376 square feet of floor area and
features four bedrooms,4.5 baths, a tUr'ee-car garage and golf cart garage,drive court and
outdoor entry courtyard, outdoor living roo:m,with pool,water feature, spa,BBQ/baz(with pizza
oven) and fire pit in the reaz yazd. The house sold fully furnished,and the lot,which is 14,391
square feet in size, was completely landsca�ped.
BIGHORN PROPERTIES
535 MESQuITE HI�lS, PALMt DESfRT; CALIFORNIA, 9226o U 5 A ' •
� . a 760 773-5300 • �Boo 55�-5578 • FAX 760 7T9-�983 �
� -
Patrick A. Perry,Esq.
November 11, 2008
Page two .
___
View at#he Cornishe location is eritical to obta.in value. Were a homesite to be in the .
stream bed of Dead Tndian Creek,view would be minimal(I'm not even sure that the golf course
would be visible), and value vaouldb.e negatively and substantially impacted. Even the villa�
residences ha.ve either view,water, golf or some combination of the three.
It would not be possible to construct a comparable villa residence on the proposed, 9,000- �
square foot lot and have any of the amenities that added value and allowed the vilia residence to
sell for$3.2 milliom. However, assuming that one were to proceed with construction of a
comparable villa residence, construction and furnishings costs would be quite high and likely not
provide any return on investment. Construction costs would be a minimum of$450/s.f. or
$1,519,200; furnishings would be a minimum of$200,000 for a total inveshnent of$1,719,000.
This would not take into account any clevelopment costs of developing the homesite and bringi.ng
infrastructure to the site. As I understand,your anticipated costs of lot and infrastructure
� development would be approxima.tely$750,000 and,therefore,total costs of lot and finished,
furnished residence would be$2,469,000. Tn the location you described,with the smallez sized
lot,I don't think it's possible to realize more than$2,500,000($740/s.f.) and that value would be �
primazily attributed to being a part of BIGHORN.
I hope the foregoing information is helpful. Please let me know if you have any
questions or wish to discuss this issue any fiu�ther. •
Very ttuly yours,
. ��
Carl Cazdinalli
-2- � .