HomeMy WebLinkAboutRes 09-13 TT31676 Cornishe of Bighorn - Allen MatkinsREQUEST:
SUBMITTED BY:
APPLICANT:
CASE NO(s):
DATE:
CONTENTS:
Recommendation:
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
Reconsideration of 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.
Phil Joy
Associate Transportation Planner
Cornishe of Bighorn
P.O. Box 789
Ceres, CA 95307-0789
TT 31676
February 12, 2009
Allen, Matkins, Leck
Gamble & Mallory LLP
515 S. Figueroa St. 7th Fl.
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3398
A. Resolution of approval
B. Exhibit A CEQA Findings
C. Legal Notice
D. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
E. Comment Letters
F. Resolution of denial
G. Staff Report dated 11-20-08
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. 09-13 approving TT 31676 and certifying the EIR,
subject to the mitigation measures attached as "Exhibit A"
j
Staff Report
TT 31676
February 12, 2009
Page 2 of 2
Background and Discussion:
The subject matter was heard by the City Council on November 20, 2008, and
staff was instructed to prepare a resolution of denial. Subsequently, the City
Council voted to reconsider the application and staff re -noticed the public
hearing and prepared resolutions of both denial and approval.
Staff continues to recommend approval of the project as mitigated. The original
detailed staff report is included in the complete agenda package. A comment
letter received between November 20, 2008 and the agenda deadline for the
February 12, 2009 meeting is included with this report.
Submitted by:
Phil Joy /9'4'
Associate Transportation Planner
Approval:
Homer Crc&
ACM for Development Services
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
APPROVED ✓✓ DENIED
RECE D
MEET DATE of • i, 9 •
AYES: ' (:S 9q. 1 . %//c4 r�7d -`0GD/ J
NOES: (,
ABSENT: /1r3r1
ABSTAIN:
VERIFIED BY:
Original on File with City
OTHER OCc
rk's Office
Department Head:
Lauri Aylaian
Director of Community Development
tin
Inter'
McCarthy
City Manager
* Approved staff recommendations, including
adoption of Res. No. 09-13, as amended to
include additional language regarding in-
demnification of the City, and with the
understanding that the City will continue
to work with the other agencies in this
process to resolve any remaining issues.
3-1 (Finerty NO, Benson ABSENT)
G:\Planning\Tonya Monroe\word files\City Council Staff Reports\2009 - February 12 Council Staff Report for TT 31676.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 09- �s
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CORNISHE OF BIGHORN PROJECT (SCH
# 2004091012), ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS PURSUANT
TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT, ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND
APPROVING THE SUBDiVISION OF 11.87 ACRES FOR TWO HOME
SITES 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 12`h day of
February, 2009, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Cornishe of Bighorn,
LLC for approval of the above noted; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, previously considered
the Project at its hearing held on November 20, 2008; and
WHEREAS, at its November 20, 2008 hearing, the City Council heard testimony from the
public and other interested persons regarding the Project and its impacts, including those
discussed below, and consideration of the Project was continued until February 12, 2009, for
further consideration; 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 the said request and by its
Resolution No. 2486 approved 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
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 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 design of the subdivision leaves 10.41 acres of undisturbed or
renaturalized open space which is consistent with the study zone
designation on the general plan which is intended to review the project
based on the property's hillside characteristics.
2. That the site is physically suitable for residential development.
RESOLUTION NO. 09- �3
• 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.
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 density of the 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. The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Final EIR in
evaluating the Project, that the Final EIR is an accurate and objective statement
that fully complies with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and that the Final
EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The City Council certifies
the Environmental Impact Report based on the following findings and conclusions:
a. All significant environmental impacts from the implementation of the
proposed Project have been identified in the EIR and, with implementation
of the identified mitigation measures, all impacts will be substantially
lessened, though even with implementation of all feasible mitigation
2
�l
RESOLUTION NO. 09- 13
measures, some impacts will remain significant and unavoidable. As to
those impacts that remain significant, the City Council finds that specific
economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project
outweigh those adverse impacts, as explained in the attached Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
b. Other reasonable alternatives to the proposed Project that could feasibly
achieve the basic goals and objectives of the proposed Project have been
considered and rejected in favor of the proposed Project.
3. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081, the City Council hereby adopts
the CEQA Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations attached to this
Resolution as Exhibit A.
4. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the City Council hereby
adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan attached to this Resolution. In
the event of any inconsistencies between the mitigation measures as set forth
herein and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program shall control.
5. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which
these Findings have been based are located at 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm
Desert, California 92260. The custodian for these records is the City Clerk. This
information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code section 21081.6.
6. That the City Council does hereby approve TT 31676 subject to conditions
attached.
7. Staff is directed to file a Notice of Determination with Riverside County within five
(5) working days of final Project approval.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this day of , 2009, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
3
�
�
RESOLUTION NO. 09- 13
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. TT 31676
Department of Communitv Develoument:
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, including, but not limited to, obtaining any necessary permits
from such agencies as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
California Department of Fish and Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board, among
others, 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. The dwelling and landscape design for the two single-family residences shall comply with
the architectural guidelines for the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn.
8. All mitigation measures identified in CEQA FINDINGS (26 pages, attached as Exhibit A)
shall be incorporated into the planning, design, development, and operation of the project.
9. The applicant, its successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the
City of Palm Desert (including its agents, officers, and employees) from any action or
proceeding against the City that attacks or seeks to set aside this approval. If the City is
aware of such an action or proceeding, it shall promptly notify the applicant and cooperate
in the defense. This condition does not prohibit the City from participating in the defense of
the action or proceeding.
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
4
�
P�
RESOLUTION NO. 09- 13
aforementioned landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owners
association. Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review simultaneously with
grading plans.
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.
14. All public and private improvements shall be inspected by the Public Works Department.
5
'"1
RESOLUTION NO. 09-13
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. In the
event any archaeological resources, historic resources, or traditional burial sites are
unearthed or discovered, the Project shall comply with the provisions and conservation
measures set forth by CEQA (§§ 21083.2, 21084.1) and the CEQA Guidelines (§
15064.5).
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.
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.
6
f?'
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 "ProjecY')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 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�ocated 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 ana�ysis of the Original Project, the City circulated the New Preferred Afternative
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. 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 alterations 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
lessen 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 Suqervisors (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 Countv 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 Vallev v.
Board of Suqervisors (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 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.)
C. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
At a regular session assembled on November 20, 2008, the City Council 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 1�
agencies, the following environmental impacts associated with the Project are: 1) less than significant and
do not require mitigation; or 2) potentialiy 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 all 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 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:
,�
3
• Agricultural Resources
• Historic and Paleontological Resources
• Geology/Soils
• Hazards/Hazardous Materials
• Mineral Resources
• Population/Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Utilities/Service Systems
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.
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 full in the EIR. The potentially 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 Imuact
The Project would alter the natural appearance of the Project site and introduce new sources of light, but
such alterations would not be significant.
Findina
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.
Rationate
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 Municipal 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 IZ
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 approvai 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 ProjecYs 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 DevelopmenUPlanning 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 �ighting 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
Im acts
The Project will have a less than significant effect on cultural resources.
Findina
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 �
�1
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 u�timate 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 l�
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
Im acts
The Project will have a less than significant effect on land use planning.
Findina
CEQA does not require the imposition of mitigation measures where impacts wili 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 Project'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 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.
References
7 '1
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
Im acts
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.
Findina
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 ProjecYs 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 ProjecYs 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
as it would incorporate energy reducing features such as the installation of efficient appliances, fixtures,
and infrastructure.
8 ' �
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 possible 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 "identifiable 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. A632 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 scafe 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 thresho�d 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 overall consideration of
this projecYs emissions and their ultimate significance. Specifically, at 39 metric tones per year of CO2eq,
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.
Mitipation 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.
9 t !
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
Im acts
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.
Findina
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, lega�, social ,
10 ��
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 switak�), the desert tortoise
(Gopherus agassizr), 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 Bi horn
biologists and others having knowledge and familiarity with bighorn sheep opg ed as toJa 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 estab�ish 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 tnstitute. The Cornishe
Property was specifically 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 �ots 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 visib�e 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 complete elimination of the impact is not
possible given the proximity of the Project site to the lambing pen in its current focation.
,1 �9
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 wails, 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 biologicat 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 Mu�tiple 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
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.
12 ���
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 1 St to August 31 S'), 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 faifed 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 shal� 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 altowed 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
Guide�ines 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 P�an and Natural Community
Conservation Plan (MSHCP) and the Final Recirculated Coachella Valley MSHCP Environmental Impact
Report/Statement(September 2007).
NOISE
Im acts
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 would not adversely affect nearby residences,
and project-level operational noise impacts would be less than significant.
2 �
13
Findina
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 feasibie. Specific economic, lega�, 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 woutd 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 cumu�ative 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.
14
Zz
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 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 1�through September 30th and between the hours of 7:00
a.M. and 6:30 P.M., 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.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.
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. Cumulative construction
is 2 >
traffic associated with build-out of the Canyons at Bighorn plus the Project would also be considered
cumulatively considerable.
Findina
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 fifl soils would cause a short-term significant
impact on private streets within the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community. The ProjecYs 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 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 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 wou�d affect areas immediatefy
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.
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. 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
16 Z `
----r---_..__—
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 ProjecUNo
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 (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 compatible with surrounding residential communities.
2. Design Objectives
• Provide residential streets, access roadways, drainage facilities and other infrastructure
consistent with City of Palm Desert municipal codes and design standards.
• Provide attractive architecture and landscaping that enhances the project site while
complementing the surrounding desert landscape.
• Provide a complementary outdoor lighting plan that promotes safety and avoids adverse
lighting impacts on surrounding uses.
3. Economic Objectives
• Maximize the value of the site with c�ustered 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.
�
17 25
• 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 �ambing 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
Diepo(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 Sepuovah 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 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 Vallev 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 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 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
t s ���'
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 viabfe 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 Atternative 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 accomptish the clustering objective to a much greater degree
than the Reduced Project Alternative. Similarly, the Reduced Project A�ternative would 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. Hillside 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
19 ��
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 com letel
character that appears as natural when seen from the lambin p Y passive
can be reasonably accomplished. Access would be providedf om the e�ast via the�diantlCove seption 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 ProjecYs unmitigable
significant impacts to less than significant levels. Based on that assessment, the Hi�lside 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 floodp�ain 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
ProjecYs economic objective of maximizing the site's value.
Having considered and balanced these economic, environmental, and social factors, the City Council
finds this Alternative to be infeasibte and rejects it on that basis.
D. New Preferred Alternative
�• 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
20 � �
_ ------------_
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
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 severe than those that would occur under the Hil�side 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
21 �.1
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 afternatives 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 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 ProjecYs 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 thresho�d at which significant noise impacts can be expected to occur; and
• Construction traffic impacts to the Canyons at Bighorn community.
A. EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONS
The Citys 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
22 ��
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 Coachelfa 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 Vafley 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. Environmentatly 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
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 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
21 �'�
�.;ug�.''_ iis=�•. � 1 �' f � I 1 � � �� � L J � f� � . /
_.'Y..-
,.���.�.'"e f�
�'�� 73-5io F�n WnRiNc DxroE
�'
PALA1 DESER'f,CALIFURNIA 922G0-2578 • f
rEt.:760 346—o6n
Fnx:760 34i-7og8
� , infuC�palm-dcsert.org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO.TT 31676
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City
Council to re-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
M011NTAIW �
� 74
r.� � w4YsrACK RD S UITE HILLS DRIVE
� b A. ME Q
� B. PALM ROAD
� C. CANYON ROAD
� � D. LANTANA VIEW
' ¢ E. ANDRFJ�S CANYON DRIVE
E F. SUMMIT COVE
�o �� G. ROCKY CREEK
F H. ARROY VIEW
I. INDIAN COVE
J. PINNACLE CREST
� -
PROJECT SITE
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, February 12, 2009 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 conceming 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 City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Previous testimony and
correspondence for this application does not need to be repeated.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun Rachelle Klassen
January 30,2009 City Clerk
�--
��._
�7 ..>
ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION� 18-103 ,
VI. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM:
NEW PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
This 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 of Palm Desert (City) is the lead agency for the proposed
Cornishe of Bighom project and is, therefore, responsible for administering and implementing
the MMRP. The decision-makers must define specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements
to be enforced dwing project implementation prior to final approval of the proposed project. The
primary purpose of the MMRP is to ensure that the mitigation measures identified for the New
Preferred Alternative-an Addition to the Draft EIR and any subsequent changes in the mitigation
measures included in this document are implemented, thereby minimizing identified
environmental effects.
The 1VIMRP for the New Preferred Alternative would be in place throughout all phases of
the project, including during design (pre-construction), construction, and operations
(post construction both prior to and post-occupancy). The 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. Furthermore, 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 below) will track
and document compliance with mitigation measures, note any problems that may result, and take
appropriate action to remedy problems. _
Each mitigation measure is cited within the environmental topic for which an impact
needing mitigation has been identified (e.g., air quality or hydrology), with accompanying
identification of:
• The enforcement agency;
• The monitoring agency;
• The monitoring phase (i.e., the phase of the project during which the measure should
be monitored);
o Pre-construction
City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighoro
SCH No.2004091012 September 2008
Page VI-1
;,�
ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION NO.G.. .03 VI. Mitigation Mo,...�ring and Reporting Program: -
New Preferred Alternative �
o Construction*
o Post-construction(prior to and post-occupancy)
• The monitoring frequency; and
• The action indicating compliance with the mitigation measure(s).
A. AESTHETICS
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 azchitect 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 azeas shall be
retained and maintained in accordance with the Landscape Plan.
Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community
Development
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community
Development
Monitoring Phase: Pre-construction and Post-construction
Monitoring Frequency: Plan check review (landscape plan) and annually
during project operation (maintenance)
Action Indicating Compiiance with Mitigation Measure(s): Issuance of
building permits and compliance certification
report submitted by the applicant
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 the nearby
residential uses, and shall be confined to the site.
Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community
Development �
* For the purposes of this document, construcfion is defined as grading, excavation,framing, siding, roofing,
landscaping, installation of doors and windows, and arry interior work that utilizes pneumatic tools or
compressors that would be located outside the proposed residences.
City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighom
SCH No.2004091012 September 2008
Page V I-2 7
� (
ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION NO. _.-103 VI. Mitigation N�..__,ioring and Reporting Program:
• New Preferred Alternative
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and
Safety
Monitoring Phase: Pre-construction and Post-construction
Monitoring Frequency: Plan check review and final inspection
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Approval of
site plans and issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy
B. AIR QUALITY
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
Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert,Department of Public Works
Monitoring Phase: Construction
Monitoring Frequency: Throughout construction during field inspection
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly
compliance certification report submitted by
project contractor
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.
Enforcement Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works
Monitoring Phase: Construction
Monitoring Frequency: Throughout construction during field inspection
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly
compliance certification report submitted by
project contractor
Ciry of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighoro
SCH No.2004091012 September 2008
Page VI-3
�g
ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION NO.�.,-103 Vl. Mitigation Mo.,,toring and Reporting Program: °
New Preferred Alternative
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.
Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works
Monitoring Phase: Construction
Monitoring Frequency: Throughout construction during field inspection
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly
compliance certification report submitted by
project contractor
Mitigation Measure IV.B-4: All construction equipment shall be properly tuned and
maintained in accordance with manufacturer's specifications.
Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and
Safety
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and
Safety
Monitoring Phase: Construction
Monitoring Frequency: Throughout construction during field inspection
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly
compliance certification report submitted by
project contractor
Mitigation Measure IV.B-5: General contractors shall maintain and operate _
construction equipment so as 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.
Enforcement Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and
Safety
Monitoring Phase: Construction
� Monitoring Frequency: Throughout construction during field inspection
City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn
SCH No.2004091012 September 2008
Page VI-4 ?�j
v �
f
ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION tv.,.08-103 VI. Mitigation,..onitoring and Reporting Program:
• New Preferred Alternative
Actioa Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly
compliance certification report submitted by
project contractor
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 andlor gasoline power generators.
Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and
Safety
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and
Safety
Monitoring Phase: Construction
Monitoring Frequency: Throughout construction during field inspection �
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly
compliance certification report submitted by
project contractor
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.
Enforcement Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and
Safety
Monitoring Phase: Construction,Post-construction
Monitoring Frequency: Field inspection
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigatioa Measure(s): Quarterly
compliance certification report submitted by
project applicant
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.
Enforcement Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District
Monitoring Agency: � City of Palm Desert, Design Review Committee
Monitoring Phase: Design Review
City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn
SCH No.2004091012 September 2008
Page V I-5 C��
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 Hiliside 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 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 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.
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 futl 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
22 ��
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 acceptable at one time, but
no longer considers it acceptab�e, 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.
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.
1 �23 �'°
ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION NO.�„-103 VI. Mitigation M�,�itoring and Reporting Program; "
New Preferred Alternative -
Monitoring Frequency: Pre-construction and Post-construction
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Approval by
Design Review Boazd Issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy
Mitigation Measure IV. B-9: The Applicant shall, as feasible, install energy-efficient
appliances (i.e., ENERGY STAR)to reduce energy consumption.
Enforcement Agency: South Coast Air Quality Management District
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and
Safety �
Monitoring Phase: Design Review
Monitoring Frequency: Pre-construction and Post-construction
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Approval by
Department of Building and Safety; Issuance of a
Certificate of Occupancy
C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure IV.C-1: Garage openings shall be oriented easterly away from the
lambing pens to the maximum extent practicable.
Enforcement Agency: City of Pa1m Desert, Department of Community
Development
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and
Safety
Monitoring Phase: Pre-construction
Monitoring Frequency: Design Review
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Issuance of
building permits and a Certificate of Occupancy
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
vehiculaz 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 pernutted to
City of Palm Desert
SCH No.2004091012 Cornishe of Bigboro
September 2008
Page Vl-6 �j
�
ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION N� ,&103 VI. Mitigation i. ,nitoring and Reporting Program:
New Preferred Alternative
allow one-story above finished floor elevations no higher than g2p and
809 feet above sea level on Lots 1 and 2,respectively.
Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community
Development
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works
Monitoring Phase: Pre-construction, Construction
Monitoring Frequency: Pre-construction and during grading activities
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Issuance of
City building and grading permits
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, incIuding indoor and outdoor residency, landscape and other
maintenance, mechanical equipment, recreational facilities, etc., aze located to
the north of the residences or screened from view from the lambing pen by
bazriers high enough to be effective.
Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community
Development
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and
Sa.fety
Monitoring Phase: Design Review
Monitoring Frequency: Pre-construction
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Issuance of
building permits and Certificate of Occupancy
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 1� to August 31 s`), all suitable
habita.t in the developmend 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 aze 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.
Enforcement Agency: _ City of Palm Desert, Department of Community
Development
City of Pslm Desert
SCH No.2004091012 Cornishe of Bighorn
Sepiember 2008
Page VI-7 ��
ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION NO.'._-103
VI. Mitigation]Wc,.,,toring and Reporting Program: •
New Preferred Alternative
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community
Development
Monitoring Phase: Pre-construction and Construction
Monitoring Frequency: Field inspections prior to construction if during the
nesting season from February 15 to August 31�`and
during all times of vegeta6on removal
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Field
inspection sign-off and issuance of certification
report by biologist
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 conshuction management and
ongoing operational practices shall be prepared.
Enforcement Agency: US Fish and Wildlife Service
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Deparqnent of Community
Development
Monitoring Phase: Pre-construction
Monitoring Frequency; Prior to commencement of construction
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Field
inspection sign-off and issuance of certification
report by biologist
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.
Enforcement Agency: US Fish and Wildlife Service
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community
Development
Monitoring Phase: Pre-construction
Monitoring Frequency; Prior to commencement of construction
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Field
inspection sign-off and issuance of certification
report by biologist
City of Palm Desert
SCH No.2004091012 Cornishe of Bighorn
September 2008
Page VI-8 � �
ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION h�.08-103 VI. Mitigation1 Monitoring and Reporting Program;
New Preferred Alternative
Mitigation Measure IV.C-7: In order to minimize stress and disturbance to Peninsular
bighorn sheep at the Bighorn Institute, no dogs sha11 be permitted on the
project site, either as residents or as visitors.
Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community
Development
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community
Development
Monitoring Phase: Post Construction
Monitoring Frequency: Periodic Field Inspections
Action Indicating Compliance wit6 Mitigation Measure(s): Semi-Annual
compliance certification report by City of Palm
Desert Department of Community Development
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 oceur outside
the fence to prevent sheep from being attracted to the site and exposed to
danger or human activity.
Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community
Development
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community
Development
Monitoring Phase: Pre-construction and Construction
Monitoring Frequency: Prior to construction and periodic field
inspections —
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Compliance
certification report by a qualified biologist
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 annuai
increase of the Local Development Mitigation Fee is projected at
3.29 percent.)
Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community
Development
City of Palm Desert
SCH No.2004U91012 Cornishe of Bighorn
September 200g
Page VI-9 �� `� F`�
� '�F
ATTACHMENT TO RESOWTION NO..,,,-103 VI. Mitigation M� ..aring and Reporting Program: ,
New Preferred Alternative -
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community
Development
Monitoring Phase: Pre-construction
Monitoring Frequency: Prior to Project Approval
Action Indicating Compliance wit6 Mitigation Measure(s): Receipt/
Report of compliance by appropriate regulatory
agency
D. NOISE
Mitigation Measures for noise impacts include Mitigation Measures IV.C-1 through
IV.C-3 above, in addition to the following:
Canyons at Bighorn
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 conshuction equipment for
use throughout the duration of project construction.
Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community
Development
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Comrnunity
Development
Monitoring Phase: Construction
Monitoring Frequency: Periodic field inspections
� Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Periodic field
inspection sign-off and quarterly compliance
certification report by the applicant or contractor
City of Palm Dnert Cornishe of Bighora
SCH No.2004091012 September 2008
Page VI-10 ���'-
j �
ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION t. .08-103 VI. Mitigation,..onitorin and Re rtin pro
g Po $ grattl:
New Preferred Alternative
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,
Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Communfty
Development
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and
Safety
Monitoring P6ase; Construction
Monitoring Frequency: Periodic field inspections, especially during the
rainy season(October 15 through December 31)
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Periodic field
inspection sign-off and quarterly compliance
certification report by contractor
Mitigation Measure IV.G-3: Engine idling from construction equipment such as
bulldozers and haul trucks shall be limited, to the extent feasible.
Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community
Development
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works
Monitoring Phase: Pre-construction and Construction
Monitoring Frequency: Plan check review,periodic field inspections
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Issuance of
building permit and Certificate of Occupancy .
Mitigation Measure IV.G_4; The conshuction staging area shall be located as far as —
feasible from sensitive receptors.
Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community
Development
Monitoring Agency; City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and
Safety
Monitoring Phase: Construction
Monitoring Frequency: Periodic field inspections
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Periodic field
� ir�spection sign-off and quarterly compliance
certification report by contractor
City of Palm Desert
SCH No.2004091012 Cornishe of Bighorn
September 2008
Page Vt-11
��
ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION NO: 103 VI. Mitigation N. .toring and Reporting Program: -
New Preferred Alternative
Mitigation Measure IV.G-5: Construction activities sha11 be limited to between the
hours of 6:00 A.Nt. and 7:00 P.tvt., Monday through Friday from July lst
through September 30�' and between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 6:30 P.t�t.,
Monday through Friday from October 1� through December 31�`. On
Saturdays, construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of
8:00 A.tv�. and 5:00 P.Nt. 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.
Enforcement Agency: City of Pa1m Desert, Department of Community
Development
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Public Works
Monitoring Phase: Construction
Monitoring Frequency: Plan check review,periodic field inspections
Action Indicating Compliaace with Mitigation Measure(s): Issuance of
grading permit by City Engineer
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.
Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community
Development
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community
Development
Monitoring Phase: Construction and Post-construction --
Monitoring Frequency: Periodic field inspections
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Periodic field
inspection sign-off and annual compliance
certification report by applicant
Mitigation Measure IV.G-7: Stationary equipment (i.e., pool machinery and HV�AC
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.
City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighorn
SCH No.2004091012 September 2008
Page VI-12 �,�''�
ATTACHMENT TO RESOLUTION N�. .,8-103 VI. Mitigation�t..,,nitoring and Reporting Program:
� New Preferred Alternative
Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Community
Development
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Departmen� of Building and
Safety
Monitoring Phase: Pre-construction and Post-construction
Monitoring Frequency: Plan check review, periodic field inspections
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Quarterly
compliance certification report submitted by
applicant for three yeazs after the conclusion of
construction
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.
Enforcement Agency: City of Palm Desert, Departxnent of Community
Development
Monitoring Agency: City of Palm Desert, Department of Building and
Safety
Monitoring Phase: Construction and Post-construction
Monitoring Frequency: Plan check review, periodic field inspections
Action Indicating Compliance with Mitigation Measure(s): Periodic field
inspection sign-off and quarterly compliance
certification report by applicant for three years
after the conclusion of construction __
E. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Mitigation Measure IV.C-2 above is also proposed to reduce potential transportation and
circulation impacts of the Preferred Alternative.
City of Palm Desert Cornishe of Bighom
SCH No.2004091012 September 2008
Page VI-13 �j�
4
History of Bighorn Institute and Importance of the Captive
Breeding Wild Population Augmentation Program
Bighorn Institute's Mission
Bighorn Institute is dedicated to the conservation of the world's wild sheep through
research and education. Its primary goal is to conduct research into the ecology of
wild sheep populations with particular emphasis on Peninsular desert bighorn. The
Institute also conducts a Captive Breeding and Wild Population Augmentation
Program to provide genetic and demographic support to declining Peninsular
bighorn populations. Through field and laboratory studies,the Institute generates
scientific knowledge to assist in and promote the judicious management of wild
sheep.
History of Bighorn Institute
Bighorn Institute(BI) is a nonprofit,tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization that was founded
in 1982 by a group of biologists and veterinarians to investigate the causes of bighorn
sheep (Ovis canadensis)population declines. Although we have worked on wild sheep
projects in ten western states, Mexico, Mongolia, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan, our
primary focus continues to be the ecology and recovery of desert bighorn sheep in the
Peninsular Ranges of southern California.
When the Institute formed, 90% of the lambs were dying from pneumonia in the
Peninsular Ranges and no one knew why. In 1982, the Institute began bringing in sick
lambs from the wild to study the disease process. Not much was known about bighorn
diseases then and in the early 1980s it was believed that a sick bighorn was a dead
bighorn. Bighorn Institute did intensive health testing on the sick lambs and found that
one of, or a combination of, four viruses were predisposing the lambs to bacterial
pneumonia. This was a landmark discovery. Overall between 1982 and 1998, Bighorn
Institute captured 39 sick lambs from the Santa Rosa, Jacumba and In-Ko-Pah Mountains
and successfully rehabilitated 33 of them. Seven of these lambs became breed stock for a —
captive breeding herd at the Institute while the other 26 were released back into the wild.
The captive herd was a result of a successful disease research study,but in 1995, the
program changed its focus to augmenting wild populations with captive-reared bighorn.
In March 1998,bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges were federally listed as an
endangered species.
Captive Breeding Facility at Bighorn Institute
Bighorn Institute has maintained a captive herd of Peninsular bighorn since 1984.
The primary goal of this program is to produce healthy animals that are genetically
and behaviorally suitable for augmenting or re-establishing free-ranging bighorn
populations. The captive herd is also used for disease, genetic,nutritional, and
behavioral research,providing the animals' ability to survive in the wild is not
jeopardized. A captive breeding program incorporating genetic and demographic
management provides a safeguard for the Peninsular bighorn gene pool and helps
ensure that optimal augmentation strategies are feasible.
� I
Ewes and their juvenile offspring are maintained in a 30-acre enclosure
encompassing a rugged hilltop with elevations ranging between 870-1150 ft. Adult
rams are maintained in a similar 7-acre enclosure. Rams and ewes are selectively
combined for breeding between August and December. A 10 ft chain-link fence
with an additional 1 %2 ft of barbed wire on top and 2 %z ft of chain-link underground
prevents mammalian predators from entering the enclosures as well as keeping
bighorn from escaping. Alfalfa hay and pellets supplement native vegetation in the
enclosures. Water, salt and mineral blocks are also provided. The health and
behavior of all captive bighorn are recorded twice daily. Captive animals are not
available for public viewing and a standardized feeding and observation routine is
followed so that exposure to humans is limited and controlled.
Bighorn Sheep Lambing Behavior
Bighorn ewes isolate away from all disturbance when they are ready to give birth. They
want solitude for lambing so they also move away from other bighorn sheep. Ewes
require steep escape tenain as another prerequisite for lambing to help insure the safety
of their lambs from potential predators. Ewes give birth almost exclusively on north-
facing slopes. Over 90% of all lambs born at the Institute have been born on the
north/northeast side of the lambing pen(the side facing the Cornishe of Bighorn
property). There have been over 1301ambs born at the Institute since 1984, which
provides statistically defensible scientific data in support of this behavior.
Results of Bighorn Institute's Captive Breeding and Augmentation Program
Since 1985, a total of 120 captive-reared adult bighorn (62F, 58M) have been released
from Bighorn Institute into the wild. The northern Santa Rosa Mountains (NSRM)
subpopulation of Peninsular bighorn sheep dropped down to 21 adults, with just 11 ewes
in 1996. At that time, 76% of the NSRM subgroup consisted of captive-reared bighorn
from the Institute. There have been 97 adult bighorn released into the northern Santa
Rosa Mountains near Rancho Mirage since 1985. The Recovery Plan for Peninsular
bighorn sheep indicates that for recovery to begin taking place there must be at least 25 _
ewes in each subgroup. The NSRM bighorn population has finally reached that goal
since there are currently 35 ewes there. In 12 years the number of ewes tripled in the
NSRM, due in part to the augmentation efforts of Bighorn Institute.
T'he San Jacinto Mountains (SJM) subpopulation of bighorn sheep got down to perilously
low numbers in 2002,with only 4 adult ewes. At that time, the Institute was directed by
the U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish& Game to begin
focusing augmentation efforts on the SJM subgroup of bighorn. Bighorn Institute has
now released 23 adult bighorn into the San Jacinto Mountains near Palm Springs. There
are currently 14 adult ewes in this group,with 93% of these females either directly
released or offspring of released sheep from the Institute. The SJM ewe population has
, more than tripled in a mere six years due to the captive breeding and release program of
Bighorn Institute. While this ewe group is still well below the necessary 25, recovery
appears to be underway with the number of ewes increasing.
history of BI&behavioral info.doc 2 ��_�,�
In addition to increasing the number of females in the SJM, in 2006, Bighorn Institute
also successfully released captive-reared bighorn rams into historic,unoccupied sheep
habitat north of Chino Canyon. This type of project had never before been attempted
with captive-reared bighorn sheep. The fact that two of the three rams lived and
integrated with the rest of the SJM herd proves that captive-reared bighorn could be used
to re-establish herds in other vacant sheep areas. This provides an option for increasing
the core group of wild sheep in a herd and allows for the expansion of their range.
It is widely believed and accepted by sheep experts on the Peninsular Bighorn Recovery
Team that the NSRM and SJM subgroups would have gone extinct without the captive
breeding and augmentation efforts of the Institute.
Why Bighorn Institute's Captive Breeding and Augmentation Program Works
Bighorn sheep are able to breed in zoo facilities and captivity without much difficulty.
However, captive-reared bighorn sheep in zoos and other places have not been
successfully released into the wild. Typically the animals are too habituated to humans
and don't act like wild sheep upon their release and thus don't survive. Bighorn
Institute's recovery facility conducts an incredibly unique program that has been
amazingly successful. The following are a number of reasons the Institute's captive
breeding and augmentation program has been successful:
1) Bighorn Institute is not open to the public. Captive animals are not available for
public viewing. The Institute has personnel on site 24 hours a day 7 days a week to help
insure that there aze no trespassing issues or other situations that could be harmful or
disruptive to the captive herd.
2) Bighorn Institute follows a standardized feeding and observation routine that
strictly limits and controls exposure to humans. This is a key component in the
success of the captive breeding program. It is imperative that the captive herd does
not become habituated to human disturbance and development, which is why the
400 yard buffer established by a panel of bighorn experts has played such an _
important role. The Institute mimics wild sheep ecology to the extent possible to
ensure that when the captive-reared sheep are released, they act like wild sheep and
are accepted by the wild herd.
3)All of the Institute's interactions with the captive herd take place on the southwest side
of the enclosure(same side as Hwy 74), the opposite side that lambing takes place. The
captive herd utilizes the southwest side of the enclosure merely for supplemental feeding.
At night and in the afternoon, the captive herd retreats to the north/northeast side of the
enclosure(same side as Cornishe of Bighorn)where there is less disturbance. Having the
northeast side of their enclosure away from development for lambing is crucial to the
success of the program. This allows the bighorn to act like normal wild sheep in their
pursuit of a quiet, steep, north-facing slope on which to give birth. If lambing at the
Institute is compromised by development on the north/northeast side of the pen,recovery
efforts for the entire Peninsulaz bighorn population would be negatively impacted.
history of BI&behavioral info.doc 3 � �
4) There is a 400 yard buffer of no development or unauthorized personnel around the
lambing pen. The numbers speak volumes: 130 lambs born at Bighorn Institute, 120
bighorn released from the Institute into the wild, and 2 of 9 subgroups saved from
extinction due to Institute augmentation efforts. With the scientific evidence supporting
the success of the captive breeding and augmentation program, it is impossible to justify
infringing on this minimum distance away from the pen since the 400 yard buffer has
obviously worked.
history of BI&behavioral info.doc 4 � �
. J
RESOLUTION NO. 09- 13A
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE SUBDIVISION OF 11.87
ACRES FOR TWO HOME SITES, 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 12�h day of
February, 2009, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request by Cornishe of Bighorn,
LLC for approval of a subdivision of 11.87 acres for two home sites, west of Indian Cove Adjacent
to the "Canyons of Bighorn" Golf Club ("ProjecY'); and
WHEREAS, the Project, as proposed, was evaluated in the "New Preferred Alternative, an
Addition to the Draft Environmental Impact ReporY' (SCH # 2004091012), which was circulated for
public review in March, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the Project would be located in an area of desert hillsides, hydrologic features,
rock outcroppings, and is directly adjacent to property used by the Bighorn Institute, a non-profit
organization dedicated to the conservation of the world's wild sheep through research and
education; and
WHEREAS, the Project would require approximately 28,754 cubic yards of raw fill import in
order to create building pads at elevations above the natural terrain, approximately 809 to 820 feet
above sea level, to permit views of the Coachella Valley (Final EIR, at p. II-6; Letter to City Council
from Patrick Perry, November 12, 2008); and
WHEREAS, as a result of the grading and imported fill that would be required to construct
building pads with sufficient elevation to allow views of the Coachella Valley, several significant and
unavoidable impacts would result, including air quality, biology, noise and traffic; and
WHEREAS, evidence was also presented to the City Council, including, but not limited to in
comment letters presented in the Final EIR, that project operations will also result in significant and
unavoidable adverse impacts to the nearby Peninsular bighorn sheep, a federally listed
endangered species; and
WHEREAS, unavoidable adverse impacts of the Project to the bighorn sheep would result
from activity associated with normal residential occupancy, including vehicular arrivals and
departures for occupants, visitors and guests, maintenance, mail delivery and other deliveries, as
wetl as some of the associated outdoor activities and nighttime illumination of outdoor and indoor
spaces (Final EIR, page II-11; Letter to Phil Joy, City of Palm Desert, from Therese O'Rourke,
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, May 9, 2008); and
WHEREAS, such activities cannot be completely screened from the view of the lambing
pens, even through the erection of visual barriers, as such barriers would in some cases have to be
as high as twenty-six feet, which would result in significant and unavoidable aesthetic impacts
(Final EIR, Response to Comment 2-3); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, previously considered
the Project at its hearing held on the 20th day of November, 2008; and
��
RESOLUTION NO. 09-13A
WHEREAS, at its November 20, 2008 hearing, the City Council heard testimony from the
public and other interested persons regarding the Project and its impacts, including those
discussed above, and consideration of the Project was continued until February 12, 2009, for
further consideration; and
WHEREAS, having considered all public testimony and all matters present to the Council,
the City Council has determined that the significant adverse environmental impacts of the Project
cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, and has determined on that basis to deny the
Project.
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, in addition to those below,
constitute findings of the City Council in this case.
2. The City Council finds that it has reviewed and considered the Draft EIR, "New
Preferred Alternative, an Addition to the Draft Environmental Impact Report," the
Final EIR, including all public comments and responses to public comments (SCH #
2004091012), and all information submitted to the City Council by the Applicant, the
public and interested persons.
3. The City Council further finds that the Project as proposed will result in significant
and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, including:
a. Air Quality Impacts. As a result of the amount of imported fill that would
be required in order to achieve sufficient elevations to permit views of the
Coachella Valley, construction of the Project would result in emissions of
NOx during construction that would exceed applicable thresholds. That
significant impact of the Project cannot be completely avoided with
mitigation. (Final EIR, at p. II-9.)
b. Biological Impacts. Activities at the Project site, during both Project
construction and operation, will occur in plain sight of the lambing pen at the
Bighorn Institute. The Final EIR and letters from experts, including the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, indicate that allowing such activities
to occur within sight of the bighorn sheep could result in habituation to
human activity, and that habituation is a negative effect. Such activities may
also interfere with breeding and rearing activities at the lambing pen.
According to the Final EIR, completely shielding the Project from view of the
lambing pens is not possible. (Final EIR, page II-11; Letter to Phil Joy, City
of Palm Desert, from Therese O'Rourke, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service, May 9, 2008.) Impacts to sheep in the lambing pen may adversely
affect the species as a whole because the Bighorn Institute plays a
significant role in sustaining the endangered wild population of peninsular
bighorn sheep. (Letter to Phil Joy, City of Palm Desert, from John Kalish,
Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, May 5, 2008.)
Biological impacts will, therefore, remain significant and unavoidable.
The applicant's attorney, in a letter dated November 12, 2008, disputes this
conclusion, and has submitted a letter from a Professor Paul Krausman in
2 ��
RESOLUTION NO. 09-i3A
support of the applicant's position. The City has considered the information
in that letter, but chooses in its discretion to credit that letter with less weight
than other information in the record that supports the conclusion in the
Final EIR. Mr. Krausman's letter specifically acknowledges that differences
of opinion regarding such impacts exist. The City notes that CEQA gives it
discretion to resolve disputes among conflicting expert opinion, and hereby
finds that the expert opinion on which the Final EIR is based is more
credible than that supplied by the applicant, in part because the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service, the expert agency with the most
knowledge of bighorn sheep, concurs with the Final EIR's conclusion of
significance. (Letter to Phil Joy, City of Palm Desert, from Therese
O'Rourke, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, May 9, 2008.)
c. Noise Impacts. Noise impacts to the sheep at the Bighorn Institute's
lambing pens will be significant and unavoidable due to the amount of
proposed site preparation and grading, the earthwork and concrete work for
two large residential homes and associated auxiliary structures that would
require more than three months to complete. (Final EIR, at p. II-16.) The
applicant, through a letter from its attorney, disputes this conclusion
because in its opinion the sheep should not be considered sensitive
receptors. Sheep need not be specifically listed as sensitive receptors in
the City's General Plan in order for a significant impact to result. The City
notes 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 e�ent possible on scientific and factual data"
and that "[ajn ironclad definition of significant effect is not always possible
because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting." (State
CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(b).) Here, the construction activity would occur
within close proximity to the lambing pen of the Bighorn Institute, and while
the sheep's precise response to noise events is not known with certainty,
they are susceptible to auditory habituation. The City, therefore,
appropriately considers the sheep to be a sensitive receptor for CEQA
analysis. In addition to impacts to the sheep, the Project will also contribute
to significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts to Cahuilla Way. Thus,
noise impacts of the Project are significant and cannot be reduced to a less
than significant level through mitigation.
d. Traffic Impacts. As a result of the amount of imported fill that would be
required in order to achieve sufficient elevations to permit views of the
Coachella Valley, construction of the Project would result in significant traffic
impacts during construction. (Final EIR, at p. II-20.) Mitigation is not
available to reduce that impact to a less than significant level.
4. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code sections 21002, 21002.1 and 21081,
the City Council may only approve a project with significant and unavoidable
impacts if no alternatives or mitigation measures are feasible, and if the City Council
adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations finding that specific overriding
economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the project outweigh the
significant effects on the environment. The "New Preferred Alternative, an Addition
to the Draft Environmental Impact Report" found that a Hillside Limited Alternative,
which was analyzed in the Draft EIR, could reduce all impacts to a less than
3 �.�-�
RESOLUTION NO. 09-13A
significant level as compared to the Project that the applicant now proposes. In
addition, the City Council finds that it could not find that the Project's benefits would
outweigh the Project's adverse impacts. As a two-lot subdivision, the Project would
generate only limited amounts of property taxes, would not contribute greatly to the
City's jobs/housing balance and Regional Housing Needs Allocation goals, would
not create sufficiently large numbers of construction jobs, or otherwise result in
benefits to the City that outweigh the Project's adverse impacts.
5. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code sections 21002, 21002.1 and 21081,
and State CEQA Guidelines section 15042, the City Council may deny the Project
on the basis that it would result in significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.
6. Based on the findings in this Resolution, and the information contained in the
administrative record for this Project, the City Council does hereby deny Case
Number TT 31676.
7. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15270, CEQA does not apply to
projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council, held on this day of , 2009, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor
ATTEST:
RACHELLE KLASSEN, City Clerk
City of Palm Desert, California
4 �(�,
*Co�,inued the matter to the meeting of // 1�_ � (�
1}ecember 11, 2008, in order for staff MEETiNu f����'� 4tJ !l
to prepare a Resolution of Denial for
the Pro j ect. 4-0 Ferguson ABSENT ��'f'�i�i�u s�:!i��`��� �
a`�
CITY OF PALM DESER � PASSE'�TO <�����rnrac
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Certification of an environmentaf 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 0 � � ..�� � �, ,, �ro i
DATE: November 20, 2008 w � H trJ c�!) C/� ►-�3 ����
'',.� HHH �� �� z � c �
CONTENTS: A. Draft and Addition to the Draft EIR � a z �� �� �, d d
B. Final EIR � � � � -
C. TT 31676 and grading plan .. o � � �
D. Resolution No. 08-103 N � C
E. Legal Notice � �
F. Cornishe of Bighorn Fiscal Analysis � � �
G. Tentative Tract Map No. 31676; Cornishe Buffer Exhibit fi
H. Planning Commission Res. No.2486; meeting minutes fo � � 1 � z
I. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated 9-16-08 � H
J. Information supplied by Applicant � � C
K. Comment Letters of Final EIR
n `
N 1
� M
Recomrnendation: x i
� t
,.
That the City Council, waive further reading and: �
�n
r•
1) Adopt the Findings of Approval � � +
2) Adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations for the subject project
3) Adopt Resolution No. os-�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 wouid 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.
c:w�enronpvenine�unNwoa Fnxwne.iMn ais�s io9cc u rwi�osoe xeoc
���
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 Departrnent 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 applicanYs 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 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. Approximatety 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.
�:�Plrwr�Mn�na Judy�Way Fda1P1Yl JqATT 318]6 tP9 x v re�t 1050!2 da
`•��
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 devefoped 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 property 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
O:�Ndwrq�lenv�p JuW�WaC FIIq1P�M Jq1TT�I6]8 109 a v rev110509 2Es
�� �d
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 welt 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:�Plenr'vqUaninp�Wy,Wad FNs�M�iI.bNTr 716M t09 a ei�e�rl lOSOA 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 applicanYs 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 soit 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 1Pls+nrpWml�y JWy,Wop FileeWM Jq�Tf Jt8f6 t0A cc N MI10500].Oq
Y
��''"? �
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 "cuY' 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 wiA 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
�:�rw.urq`.�.n",�wy,waa�n.�vnu.ny,n s�me�ae cc a revno5o6 z.aoc .
�+�3 .{
Staff Report
TT 31676
November 20, 2008
Page 8 of 12
responsibility to mitigate the adverse impacts of the proiect 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 shiefd 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
c:wu.,n�u.wi.��,a�nwtra FiaPm.a�,n a�s�e�as eo w�«i�asoe z.ea
s !
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 ptans 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\PWnipUyuna JW�,Wad FNu�PM7 Je%TT 31618 t0A m s�rw�1105092 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 resutting
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
d'1PMMWq1JyyM JLO�AWON FibfWlll JO/1tt 316)6 109 G 6�Mrf 105C0 20pL
�3+�
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 rneasures will not intertere with 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 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 fuA 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�.1PWnndW��,Mp�,W py pyy��pyl JqATT 31E]!10�9 a a ravt t05082.tlx jE
F � �
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 2Y2
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 Senrices City Manager
61P4nMnp�,W�ina Jutly�Watl Fbs1PhM Jv/�TT J1876 IP8 cc er�evf IOSOB 2Eq /'��``°
f
RESOLUTtON NO. os-io3
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SUBDIViStON 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 foflowing 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. 08-103
3. That the design of the tract map or the proposed improvements are not
likely to cause substantial snvironmental 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 pfans.
• 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 recagnition 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
<�(�,,1
RESOLUTION NO. os-io3
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regu�ar 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
r'"�z
RESOLUTION NO. os-io3
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. TT 31676
Department of Communitv Development:
1. The development of the property shall conforrn 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 ptace within 2 years of the date of this approval
unfess an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approva! 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 afo�ementioned landscaping shall be the
responsibility of the property owners association. Landscaping plans shall be
submitted for review simuttaneously with grading plans.
4
�t.� �'
RESOLUTION NO. os-io3
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 e�ectronic 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�nal. 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. os-io3
14. All public and private irnprovements 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 Contro! 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 shati 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 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.
6
� ��
RESOLUTION NO. 08-103
EXHIBlT 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 "ApplicanY'). 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 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. 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 finro-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 altematives 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:
� /�{}
RESOLUTION NO. os-1o3
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which will avoid or substantially lessert the significant environmental impact as
identified in the EIR; or
2. Such changes or alterations 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 comp�etely 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
( [tJhere 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
tessen 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 Sunervisors(1990) 52 Cal.3d
553, 565.) Project objectives also inform the determination of"feasibility." (Citv of Del Mar v. Citv of San
Dleao (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 Seauovah 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 Countv 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 batancing 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 Vallev v
Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.) In addition, pertection 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 exiremes or to interyect[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 Cal.App.3d 274, 287.)
C. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
At a regular session assembled on November 20, 2008, the City Council 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
I�#;;�
2
RESOLUTION NO. os-io3
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 all 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:
I`!��
3
RESOLUTION NO. 08-103
• Agricultural Resources
• Historic and Paleontofogical Resources
• Geology/Soils
• HazardslHazardous Materials
• Mineral Resources
• Population/Housing
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Utilities/Service Systems
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.
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 potential�y
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 full in the EIR. The potentially significant
impacts and the mitigation measures which wilt reduce them to a less than significant level are set out in
the EIR and are summarized as follows:
AESTHETICS
Potential Imoact
The Project would alter the natural appearance of the Project site and introduce new sources of light, but
such alterations would not be significant.
Findins�
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 �andscape 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 Municipal 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. as-io3
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 ProjecYs aesthetic impacts would be less than significant. However, mitigation measures are
imposed to further ensure that aesthetic impacts remain less than significant.
Mitis�ation Measures
Mitigatton Measure IV.A-1: Atl 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.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Im acts
The Project will have a less than significant effect on cultural resources.
Findina
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 surtace 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.
����i
5 ,
RESOLUTION NO. os-io3
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 (§ 150fi4.5). 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.
Mitis�ation Measures
None required.
Refe— rences
Draft EIR, at p. 171.
DEIR Addition, at p.44-45.
Final EIR, Response to Comment 4.
HYDROLOGY
Imnacts
The Project will have a less than significant efFect on hydrology.
Findins�
CEQA does not require the imposition of mitigation measures where impacts will be less than significant.
Rattonale
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
RESOLUTION NO. 08—I03
capacity. As such, cumulative impacts regarding hydrology and surface quality would be less than
significant.
Mitis�ation Measurea
None required.
References
DEIR Addition, at pp. 45-47.
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Imaacts
The Project will have a less than significant effect on land use planning.
Findin�
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 canstruction would occur, prohibiting
dogs on-site, and by requiring that mechanical equipment and activities be screened from view or
be tocated to the north of residences such that noise, lighting, and intrusion of predators, and etc.
would be avoided. With the imptementation of those recommended mitigation measures, the Project
would be consistent with the land use adjacency guidelines.
Mitis�ation Measures
None required.
7 ��/
RESOLUTION NO. os-1o3
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
Im�acts
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.
Findlnt�
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 ProjecYs 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) deterrnined 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
8 ��:� ,,ry
RESOLUTION NO. os-1o3
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 CE(]A 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 possible 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 "identifiable 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,4�h 98 (2d02).) Second, such a rule appears inconsistent with the
State's approach to mitigation of climate change impacts. A632 does not prohibit all new greenhouse
gas emissions; rather, it requires a reduction in statewide emissions to a given level. Thus, A832
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 Ciimate 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 thresho�d 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 COZeq, plus exceedance of Title 24
requirements. While not determinative, these thresholds are relevant to the City's overall consideration of
this projecYs 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.
Mitis�ation 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 AoMD approved track-out prevention
devices for construction vehicles leaving the Project site.
I� '
�
9
RESOLUTION NO. os-103
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
minimi2e 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 andlor 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 feasib�e, 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
Imnacts
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 f �
RESOLUTION NO. 08-103
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
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 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 "Project" 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 specifically 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 finro large homes with subsequent fandscaping would occur in plain
view of the lambing pen. Such intense visuaf 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 afignment 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 finro 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 dweflings) at which the sheep's response is activated. Therefore, it must be conservatively assumed
11 ���
RESOLUTION NO. 08-103
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 signi�cantly 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. Visuat
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.
Mitis�ation 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, al� 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 1't to August 31gt), 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 cycte 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 consenration 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 khat 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 Mitigatfon 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 would not adversely affect nearby residences,
and project-level operational noise impacts would be less than significant.
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
The Project'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. 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 Bighom community would be less than significant.
Operational noise impacts upon bighorn sheep in the lambing pen would be less than signiflcant.
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.
Miti�ation 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 �'�
RESOLUTION NO. o8-io3
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 �nished 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, recreationat 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 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 of6:00,a.nn. and
7:00 P.M., Monday through Friday from July 19' through September 30�h and between the hours of 7:00
A.nn. and 6:30 P.nn., Monday through Friday from October 1$' through December 315'. On Saturdays,
construction activities shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 A.M. 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
Imaacts
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
tra�c 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 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 Project, less than significant impacts would occur along the private roadways within the
Canyons community. As with the Original Project, tra�c 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.
Mitis�atlon 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 ��v
RESOLUTION NO. os-io3
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 lndian 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-siory 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 identifled.
Each of the alternatives has been evaluated in relation to its ability to accomplish the Project objectives
set forth in the Draft EIR. The Project objectives are as follows:
1. Land Use Planning Objectives
• Accommodate projected regional growth in a location that is adjacent to existing
infrastructure, urban services, transportation corridors, and employment centers.
• Cluster development on the site to preserve regionally significant ecological areas and
other natural open space while reducing landform alteration and maintaining the scenic
views.
• Provide a range of recreational opportunities, including pedestrian paths that are
accessible to residents.
• Provide development that is compatible with surrounding residential communities.
2. Design Objectives
• Provide residential streets, access roadways, drainage facilities and other infrastructure
consistent with City of Palm Desert municipal codes and design standards.
• Provide attractive architecture and landscaping that enhances the project site while
complementing the surrounding desert landscape.
• Provide a complementary outdoor lighting plan that promotes safety and avoids adverse
lighting impacts on surrounding uses.
17 r.(u�
RESOLUTION NO. os-io3
3. Econom(c Object(ves
• 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 p�ace.
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 Subervisors(1990) 52 Cal.3d
553, 565.) Project objectives also inform the determination of"feasibility." (Citv of Del Mar v Citv of San
Dfeao (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 Se�uovah 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 Valle v
Board of Supervisors (1990j 52 Cal.3d 553, 576.) In addition, pertection 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. os-1o3
-
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 ProjecUNo 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 Feasibillty of the No ProjecbNo Build Alternative
The No ProjecUNo Build Alternative woutd 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 (Elght Single-Family Units)
1. Descrlptlon 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 Afternative, 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 Project's proposed pool and park.
The Reduced Project Alternative wou�d 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 �b�
RESOLUTION NO. o8-io3
than the Reduced Project Alternative. Similarly, the Reduced Project Alternative would 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. Hillside 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 woutd be provided from the east via the Indian Cove section of
the Canyons at Bighorn communiry.
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 ProjecYs 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 fandscape. 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
ProjecYs economic objective of maximizing the site's value.
20 ,/�.�c�:
RESOWTION NO.os-i�_
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
cansideration 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
economicaAy 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 considerabfy 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 ProjecbNo Build Alternative is considered the
environmentalty 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
RESOLUTI�N NO. 08-103
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
lnstitute 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 finat 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 bioiogical 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 Hilfside 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 Palrn 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 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 Project's significant and unavoidable adverse impacts are the following:
• Regional construction air quality emissions for NOx;
• Bio�ogical 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 tra�c impacts to the Canyons at Bighorn community.
22
l �
RESOLUTION NO. 08-103
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 acceptable at one time, but
no longer considers it acceptable, is a factor of internal concern to the Bighorn Institute operations. The
City of Palm Desert is not considering a general plan amendment or zone change on the Project site from
open space to residential, but rather an implementation of its existing General Plan. ff problems have
arisen that were not expected by the Bighorn Institute at the time that the Bighorn lnstitute established its
operations so close to residentially zoned property, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert betieves
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 Project's 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 estabtished,
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-_
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 oMy 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 e�evation 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
infprmation 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. Deve(opment 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 residentia!communities.
24 � � �
RESOLUTION NO. os-�
• 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 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.
C. OVERALL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council of the City of Palm Desert has for some time had an adopted General Plan,
comprehensivety 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 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 tra�c 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 ��'� 1
RESOLUTION NO. os-io3
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 �?�
.� . CI1� Y D � �' fltf��l � ESE (tl�
;-
'��^ ]j-510 FItED WARING DRIVE '�'
PALAt DESER'C,CALIFURNIA 92260-2578
r�.:760 ;46—o6�i
FAX:]GO ;4�-7o9g .
inEu@palm-dexercorg
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE
CASE NO.TT 31676
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVC�AI that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City
Council to consider a request by Comishe of Bighom,LLC for approval of a tentative tract map
and an environmental impact report to allow the subdfvision of 11.87 acres inta two(2)home
sites west of a private strset named Indian Cove within the"Canyons at Bighom Golf Club",
south of Dead Indian Creek. APN 771-030-008
1
IIOUNTAIN �
� � 4
J��� � HAYSTACK RD q, MESQUITE HILLS DRIVE
B. PALM ROAD
�' C. CANYON ROAD
4� � D. LANTANA VIEW
E. ANDREAS CANYON DRIVE
E F. SUMMIT COVE
�p �0� G. ROCKY CREEK
F H. ARROY VIEW
I. IND{AN COVE
J. PINNACl.E CREST
� �
P ROJ ECT S ITE
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 conceming all items covered by this public hearing notice sha{I be accepted up to the
date of the hearing. Information conceming the proposed project is available for review in the
Department of Communfty Developrnent at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m.Monday through Frfday. In addition,the environmental impact repoR 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)st,or prior to,the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun Rachelle Klassen
October 29,2008 City Clerk
' � f
��
— � x � Qc� � � T � � � � a �o3 � nn - amn „ � �
0 0 � o � A a 'o S A O a � �. S S � C, a e � N $. 9
3 N �' e � �i � N N �� � � ,o, n ', n � � � � n �. 3 � •. N �
n o3o t � 7D 3 n r A � � o � � � � A � '� � n o �
�e N n n � o � a � i'e n �n � 3 �O � vi w � _. y D
3 R n i � �. a N p � � � � N � a � � � � � o � N C
y a � c N a " � — �" � A n « n o n
� _ „ A oo c a 3 7t n o 0 0 � =
7 $ �" 'e 'p e Cf O w v� �
Nn a � � a � oN rN � � �
f► /� T y� N
.3i A � C N u�i
� �y d O
�[ � x �
n O H e��i
� D N � � �t
o � � � ° � � �
� a � � � a � a
.,, « w .n « «► .n a� .n .w r+ .n « «. .w .w « w in aw .n r. « « .� .., « .w L. «. « .w
T � �
� �
o �
�'o� � 9N^' �N,, � o �' v, � n
� �3 ° o $ �
y� N N M H N N M N N M N N N N � N N M N M M M N N M M M N N M N Z
� • � • '� _
$ p � T
�e
V N � J J � � O O O
N p
r V N OD O�D OD W
� � � � � � � � � i . � � � � � � � � . . � . � � i �
N M N N N N M N N N N M N M N M N M N fA N N H N N N N M N N M N =
yl • T �
� 1 � � �
� �., o. � � � �. _ � o Z
A N N N W W �
�� 0 O 00 OD pWD
' � � . � � . � � � � � � � . � � � � � . � � . � �
n '
'c N MP iA iA M N M M M M N N N M N H U H N N tA N N N M iR M N N N M M
� .* '11
S '� � �
o — � —
g � . '
� � ip N
p N .N w N O�i O� O� p N�,
� N <O �O .�p
0
y� H N N H N M N N M M M N N N �M YI M M��.M� N N M N fA M N M M M N N
V
3 T T T
o � � �
� N N N
f � .W � � � � � W (M
c !✓ w � � -
CI
f + � N N O O p
A � w — � . . . . � . . � � � . � . � . � � � � . � . �
�
3 a p�.{p p y M N V1 N N H H N N N N (A N N K N N w N N N M fA N N M M
8
� � � �
- » e1
� � � � pl N V N ~ W w �, a
`� V V 8
� v tn � � � pp O O
n 00 W P V W 01 O! A O
� O t✓ ,C
�
� 9 a -�
o A ° �`► 3
, � ,
s oo �' oao 'o
� n n � �
i � � 7
� O � O �
� 3 � 3 Q •
a ,� n A N
� �
n
s
� �
�
F a ,ma
0
ow
_-. o m t°ir�
" �° o
� o � N � O �7
S 3 ' ! f/
0
�\ ,,�` r , ' "
� � � � �:, , , a
. j�� V�. � `�#\ : s�� �"F�� .�� �.-� .g I � v�i
' � � C���� x �� �R� �
,'�� � . �� � , �' , ; �
. ��:'�� '_.�. - :1� (O
� . .... �� �A � �� . 6 F M Z z
�y �� �,� �awr. N e e w Q O
. � <r�/ '` - _ �;�� +� ...m u �A W �U'
� �J �.. �40' R � a O Fm
'r ,'°� T <�r (I �� �. (1 F-
� � � ,p' \ � Q �Q,G
. � � �/ � a W
._-`.'\' � �_}; � / LL ~N
��
r � �"� :
� ,�.. s Y p ;—
/� ���� a w � g�6 ,l : �
_ �'� :., A .� U QO
� � v
t Z
` �l. � �� tig���4\ qi., 1 � ° - �
\� \ �� `, l��e `� / � �?
� � 4�4�-: �' �'� p �' �
'a : '+�„ �: �� �.
o '
. R � ` � ��, \` C ��'' . � �
i
. . ��,� : m
� � ' � a�p \ � ' 4 ,
�, �.\' � • ,�., �' ����, ;� �,,; i E
` �' '��� „•�Camg, /` ,a. ��. . _ x a
� ,� �j ��� �; y ���
�„ � . � ,o.��,l i,�9 � �
Q ev .. 'a � aP�
\ � ��`` � "' ... � �, � T4„
� "' �� \� ' /a+ s. ' a a
'^ q -i '�, �, ` � S
�AY �\ ., ,� ���'4,� ,M� /� _mC � .I ^
,
',^` � ._ � . .. � ��
�1/ . ,\�,\ .. ���. � /, / . , . O$ a � �
� M � ` ` ,- �� � ��� � >a
> �''� � � F, i ;��, ��
g '_��"�� � g i� ,.
� O / ��\ �` `�/ / p � ro �
U � m � � �w �` .� � i\ _ , �
WN � .. '� W � Yp 4
� LL �� 1^ \'� \ / .�� . •O' � � I
N Q _. � �� j
� �j i� � .���ax ° �• `.. \ �
G w� li�F ..� � � � �
rc � z z .. t��,e `.ti\„� � ' � l' � � ' / �
o �� 3aG i d \ r � �
� ( 1 y � ♦ // w /. . �r� ,� : ��
O v s p •N� .�� `�8 /� /i �/�� m
� � �Q .i ' . .. . . '' :I �/ � f �
S � Fd 4 � �
nh :/ / /��'�
� •�• �� . . �' ' � � �"� I I�"� . .
> � � -'�' � 1 ,
� O .. I� '�� ' I
� 2 ... � .. . .,1' I \ � �`�.��
V � '`.' � • . � � �
'�.� ♦ M'� Q S�
2 � ' . . ... `4 - ,� ���� � .l��i
� .. .•��� � . 'p ��. ��
Z �ys� £ �
�,` � ' � �
W � , �,� .
,
F' ' �
.
,
_ , h� ��� . � � - ��, II �� �
� . .. � . 'y��.� 1, �/'�
. . . . . ye 1 \ ` .
'� ` �'. ` .
, / �" i���... �{_ \� .1 .
% � \ �_�;� � .,�,,�,�,��
-� � �'���a .
� � �e � ��a;�� � > .
�, rrt �3�; � ;
�° � �Ey$: 6 � " ���f%��'�y � S y�
�,..+� 't�` �Y � �#R".J 1- •� 6: �. 6� F � Y�r:-C
� r�' S Z p$a�:' w i�� ��3� � ��i��ff���� � �����e�
� �.� �, r� �, r� µ � : pg
� n�� � C A!4 a � e#'�.6di
4 ��,[ `�; �
Y „
�t I I I i i �
i, � F i v L�1 ', ', I
� p $
�i ,� � d � � ~�/� � I i ii i � O
�(bMH� -y._ y� �! I I I H
C SJtid�o R � w I � I � � I ` d w
O NQ
i S � Y �n r
�e mw
3 p h�r� � (��j�:
� � b6g � �a N
� �d�5 0 �a�'�b . p� ��
�i i o ��� W � tl ����� ^I �
� � �� s,� `.
���
�
_
�
�
� _
� a�
���s�e������ N �o
� �m
'� ~
� a<
a �_
LL
o �Z
0
��e3`9R��k� i z
I : v QO �
�,��j 1§
.� �I:'�� - W
I ~
i ' li
I ; R
-I � � � ' 3
S �
I � �m
� I � � �m�
' °�
I 1 �' E 'o
1I.�. s Er
J ..{�..I. . .� O .1 .
� � :
--�-}--� � �°j � °'
�
� , � � i�
� �� � �.I� �
� � ;�
�
�� �8 � I
•'3
1:'_I;
I:
i � I
� � € �
i g
t; '$ a ' �p
Q Yp m
� � Z P§
i ' ��',' , ��•.. k
W �v i 4 U���Z
N w
� I^ Q y
�. a
} I
I1
i'..
.� (
�� � ' -f�- �9
!a ( iw.
i '�
�
G
�� � � I:. �� ���.:A
I � i � -
'
I .,
I
I 3
I 'I: y
1 d
f �,
I � � �
i� �
,
� � $
, �
�Ye�:9P@@e�° i ���.
i i'
It �
i
- � �..., ;,@
�B�:S:�@ee�,
� ����
���r�o�nc
RESIDENCE
, � .. � _ �.�. ....�A.
e
i
°r�
�- .
�, �, , �.
�� �� L�lN�
�� �:
�� �;�.. .
� ' ��" �+
�
' "•,�e��
'� "�� ��.�� � �' ���$.
� � ��� ,�.;
�
���� 4 �� $���
�„� � �.` z �-
+� .
�� ;t t� "�!
x., � .'��;
„�,
M E
�
Carnishe Buffer
Legend
� Bighom Sheep Pen
Palm Desert Parcels
m..._._....._
i �. �_.' City Boundary
1 inch=500 feet �
�� �
MINUTES 1 �"
� PALM DEcFQT o� eru�u �� �nMMISSION SEPTF11At�G� ie �....�
V��• CONSENT CALENDAR
None.
V���• PUBLfC 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—CORNISNE 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
I 7(�
. MINUTES (
numerous revisions to that project, eventually 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 pe�, That was immediately challenged
in court; we were sued by a variety of folks. U(timately an agreement was
reached where funds were provided and ultimately no buffer was going to
be required at alt on this project in the areas Mr. Joy identified on the map;
however, he stated that when the
Department of Fish & Game stepped �r�and Sta ed tlha�ther g eeme�e
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 reafly 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 t1me, 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 expiained 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 eventuaHy
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, leavin
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 legal access
to their property, but said when The Canyons developed the
another access, so the access to these lots would be through he ac ess
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 ; �
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 undemeath so that would help screen
and get rid of a lot of the noise generated from any vehicular activity.
Looking at the project, reviewing ali the regional plans, he pointed out the
best place to develop home sites on these lots. He said one contour was
840 and goes a!I 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 bein
820 and 809, so they were quite a bit iower.�One of�the lapp�cant'st
. intentions was to keep the lots down as far away from the Institute as the
could, but also retain some kind of view looking down the valle . Th y
one of the considerations given. Y at was
Of the 11.87-acre parcel, 10.4 acres of it would be either undisturbed
natural open space, or renaturali2ed open space. They were basically
saying that of the entire property, 8g'/o 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 hiNside design
standa�ds.
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 letters 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 involve a lot more
grading because the area was really down in a ravine and was a natural
4
���
MINUTES `,
�
piace 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,
critical habitat for the peninsular bighorn sheep. He believed thee 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 bighom 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 football fields
away from the lambing pens, the original buffer for Bighorn was 400 ya�ds
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 Bi
when they were developed. First of atl, during construction of the hom�es
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 lambin
swimming pools, etc., facing toward the ambin aVe their activity areas,
being conditioned so that the swimmin 9 Pens. This project is
opposite side of the homes from he�a�mbinV�ry areas, will be on the
themselves would screen any kind of activity a d he noise tassociated
with those activities.
Also, one existing Bighorn home sits at approximately 850 feet in
elevation, while the home proposed for Cornishe wou(d 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 ( �
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 ail the
human activity within eight feet of the ground would be screened and the
wouldn't be able to see any kind of human activity at all at this project
They felt that was very significant aiso.
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 feit
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 firrn, 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
environmental documentation regarding what wasrat that t me ar erye ehy
different project than what was before them now. It went through quite an
evolution 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 gradin
became, he believed, the basis of the origin of what s ohw 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
��v
. MINUTES �.
(
Among those comments was a submittai by the U.S. Departm
and Wildlife Service which requested a sort of expansion of on
mitigatlon measures and an exposition of it with r ent of Fish
might be employed to provide barriers between what t e of the
might be able to see and the visual activi egard to barriers that
either of these lots it would be he sheep in the pen
ty zones themselves. Plainly on
have the activity area on the sid of each h meahatssrc ose Where they
that well rnight be visible from within the pen, and because the� the pen
that the sheep are more sensitive to visual stimuli, the Servi b�11eve
interested in seeing an evaluation of whether barriers could fe CQ Was
designed and placed. That was a little difficult in this case beca S�bly be
don't have actual home designs. They were told by the City that o
pads at 809 and 820 feet respectively they might p� aS use they
above that and for most of them, and most of the visual n those
occur as might be seen from within the pen m much as 18 feet
feet or less in height. So they took that as an in • activity that would
, ost of that would be eight
dication.
What was being shown on display were four section lines that t
from the highest point in the pen through Lots 1 and 2 and then t
that pick up a portion of the driveway access, which hey drew
from the Fish and Wildlife Service that was recei edmost rec n�lettes
greatest concern. He showed line of sight one and explained that what i
was attempting to do was the line of si ht fro today notes as
distance high up on the hill inside the pen looking dow�g toW point and a
He had a blow up of one in the documents. They could see a orti
the natural slope which intercepts the view line that • ard the lots.
view point high on the hill right down to a �n p on of
�s connected from that
might be, less eight feet high. This line of sig th happened ohbe in eeCe°tse
by the natural grade, notwithstanding that there have been excavatp ed
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 whe�e the excavation
praposed and yet the line of sight down to the eight-foot point down to he
structure needed to be some eight feet high in order to intercept that. Th
was considered feasible. By barrier, they weren't trying to design it or
trying to say it was a block wall, or iYs a berm of natural material, or iY
even got vegetation which might achieve the effect; iYs a barrier of some
form.
Line 3 was a bit more complicated because it was trying to interce
driveways that come from the cul de-sac at the southern end oft the
access road and then the two driveways split from there on their wa t to
Lots 1 and 2. What they could see was that the barriers, in order to y
have
7
���
. MINUTES �
r
the same effect, would be some 12.5 and 12 feet high respectivel in
order to achieve that. That was beginning to test the premise. On the o her
hand, that was the most cons e ry a t i v e v i e w b e c ause looking at an ei ht-
f oo t position on this side of the driveway, most vehicles weren't that taHg
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 cui-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
impractical. It could shelter a good part of the cul-de sacafit was a lesse
height, but due to the alignment of the access road, it was probabl
impractical. y
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 coutd 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 irnpact
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
(�'L.
. MINUTES �
�
There were no other questions for staff or the consultant•
Tanner o ene the public hearing and asked the appiicant t� �hairperson
Commission. o address the
MR. PATRICK PERRY, 515 S. Figueroa Street in Los
said he was appearing on behalf of the owner of the Ao e1es,
Cornishe of Bighorn. He believed that o�e o� �ap perty
Commissioners were here when the project first came �fo f the
Planning Commissian. At that time what they were reviewin re the
proposed four-lot subdivision. To go back through a little bit of th
history of the 9 was a
project, and Mr. Joy touched on some of it, the
majority of the property is currently zoned PR-5, which allowed f•
units per acre, Planned Residential. There was a
property zoned HPR, Hillside Pianned Residential, whic 'Ve
one unit per five acres. Mr. Joy aliuded to th portion of the
at on the map.h permits
Along the extreme eastern portion, he didn't necessarily a ree '
the locatfon where the line had been drawn; he thou ht it w�th
further toward the east, but it hasn't yet been determined e Was
which portion is Hiliside Planned Residential. When the ori i
analysis was pertormed by the applicant back W Xactly
submitted this project, it was determined that a total g nal
could be developed on this prope h�n they first
limitation pursuant to the zoning, of 57 units
�'ty, at least under the density
A plan was presented subsequently which proposed 38 units
six separate structures. The and
condominium-type units. That was what was stlud ed'n thesorential
Draft Environmental impact Report. One of the issues W�th g nal
particular configuration was that it required two means of accesshat
the property for Fire Department purposes, to
access that was proposed was an existing�asemene ofe eco d
which goes from the northern prope
fafrway of the 14`n hole of the golf cour e at the Canyons at Bi
project. That was not received favorabl b ry p through the
in further consultations with them, he agreed to ghorn
Y Y Canyons at Bighorn. So
project, and also they were concerned that they weae proposiner
multifamily units; there are no multifamily units in their project. Th
felt it was not consistent with their development stand g
agreed to study an alternative which was eight sin ey
residential home pads which would require ards. He
access and they began discussions, ne ot' • g1e tamily
only one means of
vacate / terminate his easement to the north in exchange for them
g rat�ons, to effectively
allowing him an easement across their roads to gain access to '
his
9
( �3
MINUTES �
property to the east. That was studied as an alternative in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report.
There was also an aiternative 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 basicaliy 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 a
scope and in scale. It left a pp�opriate project, both in
undeveloped natural open spa eawh h thee We ehe property as
either place a conservation easement on or d dicate to a pesource
agency or an appropriate means ot p r e serving t hat 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
1 ��'
_ MiNUTES �
�
included a small triangle in the very northeast corner, which was
entirely within the streambed of Dead Indian Creek, approximatel
a quarter of an acre or 10,OOQ 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 potentiai
ability to sell that, it wouid 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
resuit 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 we11 as other studies that have
been done in connection with this ro e
identified with respect to free roaming sh ep; the only impacts that
have been identified were to the captive breeding herd that is
maintained by the Bighorn lnstitute. 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
aciivities 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 Agreemsnt 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 speafically provides
none of the mitigation rneasures or conditions of approval that
applied to what was then called the Altamira project would apply to
this project or development on this ro e
that those mitigation measures were dentifiecJ in connection with a
particular development application; meaning that those mitigation
measures do not apply to this property, that this ro e
its own in terms of impacts and potential mitigat ons, o 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
liability company at that time. The members of the limited liabiii
company are the original owners of the properry who purchased the
11
� �S
MINUTES ��
�
property in 1977. The Bighorn Institute established its operations '
�984 °r �986� so the ownership of the ro e
establishment of the Bighorn Institute; it predates the a 'n
The Canyons at Bi horn p A rty predates the
buffer. This was so ething that Was lmposed�oveb��Shm ntr ofathe
at that time and was specifically recognized as somethin that '
not apply to development on this ra e their objections
p p � 9 did
Again, this was determined to not be suitable habitat for
roaming sheep. When the Bighorn Institute was first establishe e
the 8ureau of Land Managerr�ent actually conveyed the ro d
the Bighorn Institute and conducted an environmental assess '
at the time and found that it was appro riate p pe� to
Institute to establish its o ment
perations on its pro e for the Bighom
property was not suitable habitat for bighorn sh ep S ncet hat time
the Bighorn Institute has established its operations. The Can on
Bighorn has devetoped a significant portion of its ro e y S at
US Fish and Wildlife Service is coming back and sayin o
think we need to designate all of the ro p p �� NOW the
as crit�cal habitat for the bighorn sheep.pt �emte+n this buffe ha ea
that when the entire area was undeveloped it was rnot u�th�m
habitat; now that there is development completely surroundin able
property, somehow that makes it more suitable as bighorn sheee
habitat.
P
Mr. Perry stated that there are some issues related as well to
grading that would take place. Some of the im the
one of them at least was trucks that woutd be hauling soil into th
pacts were identified;
project and it was estimated that approximatefy �ust under 36 OOQ
cubic yards of dirt would be moved in in order to be able to r �
the pads to what is proposed here. A portion of that a 9�ade
20%, was for the grading of the road. The remainder of that w
lar el g � pP�oximatety
9 Y goin into the tower pad shown as Lot 2 simply to geta t
above an elevation where it will not be impacted by flood wa
within the streambed. This was consistent with the surrounders
development. He had a drawing and pointed out Lot 2, and said ' '
at an elevation of 809, the same height as the pad directl 'ng
the ravine, so it was consistent with the existin he1 �t ►s
was that because they were willing, notwithstandin y across
units could potentially be deve1oped her 9 ght. The idea
number of units down to two and makin e' they wereh duc ng the
available as natural open space. In ord'er h o rach efveea h�h�
economic return, they wanted to be able to achieve views from the
pads. The access road was also moved araund to the south. Th
ey
12
I`�
_ MINUTES � ��
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 th
dld was push the pads farther to the south and closer to the shee t
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 shee
happens to be the residence of the directoeof the B ghorn i�nst tut�Iy
They felt that if it was appropriate for the Director of the Bi ho n
Institute, it would be app�opriate for these residential home si es a
well. S
Every effort had been made to limit the impacts to the extent
feasible on the Bighom Institute. They recognize the importance o#
the Bighorn Institute, the work that they do in trymg to ��crease the
wild herd of free-roaming bighorn sheep, AI� 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 wil! be actually located to the south and visible from the shee
pens. swimmmg 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 shee
mitigations they agreed to and they also agre dhwith The C ny ns
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�ust 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 ot the public.
Commissioner R. Campbell understood that Palm Desert was not art
the agreement for 400 yards and Mr. Per P of
asked for clarification. He understood that/tuwas abetween R vers He
(County) and The Canyons and Palm Desert was not a part of it. de
Mr. Perry said that was not his understanding. His understandin
was that the City of Palm Desert was a party to the Settleme n
Agreement that established the 400-yard buffer, There was a
13
Ig�
. MINUTES !
/
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 ovyn 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 Settiement 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 Ci
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 Iocation 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 14"'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 !
l
terminating this easement,
potential impacts on water flowen the c eek and Se reducing the
reducing impacts on the golfers on the golf course at�The� �ot only
at Bighorn. Canyons
Commissioner Schmidt asked for the location of the rav'
filling.
me that needed
Mr. Perry said it is along the eastern portion of the ro
the access road. He confirmed that it impacts the Lot A
There was a small ravine and the road Wo p pe� a�ong
terminate at a low point. They tried to keep that a proposal,
to reduce the visibility from the S uld follow it and then
important to recognize that the visual s S ��W as p°Ssible
heep pens. He thought it was aiso
Mr. Broughton presented were ail pertormed fromathe he h°ne that
within the sheep pen. They would anticipate that the sheest
not always going to congregate on the highest point pO1nt
on the slope they Wer�� the iess visible or the lower P Were
would have to be. They would also encoura and the lower
to the extent they are unable on their ro e the Screens
visual impacts, to erect screens on ge t�e Bigharn Institute
that would be an appropriate me p p � to effectively screen
their own property, Fie thought
they might even be willing to contribute tot Aga n, the ddidmething
to disturb the sheep any more than necessa y �t want
barriers on the Institute ro e ry• Ta the extent that
willing potentially to participate fi hat as we11ffective, they would be
There were no other questions and Mr. Perry thank
Commission. ed the
Chairperson Tanner said he would ask for testimony in F
project. There was no response. Chairperson Tanner asked for
in OPPpSITION to the project, noting that he AVOR of the
Speak cards and started with thern. He invited Mr. � testimony
had three Requests to
come forward. Craig Wi�Iiams to
MR. J. CRAIG WILUAMS, 1p0 Bayview Circle, South Tower
330 in Newpor� Beach, , Suite
Commission that he is a me belrfof the B gho ne n '
Directors. He was also its attorne , the Planning
Campbell might be pleased to know that st�tute Board ot
Y He thought perhaps Mr,
that drafted the Settfement Agreementh wi h Sthe eC f the peop�e
Institute and Altamira. At the time, he worked for Mr. Pe and the�
firm: Allen, Matkins, Leck, Gamble & Mallo ry S �aw
ry, and he would talk
15
� ��
MINUTES � i"
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 aiways has
been. �n 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 8 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
���
MINUTES � ` �
. ,
ALM DESFar o� eN��•�� ��MMIS�ION
- -- - - 4FDTCIUQ�n �w
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 iambing 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 entlre Uni#ed States. Severa!
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 lnstitute'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 concems 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 D�aft
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 �� (�
OMMISSION SEPTFIURco �� .�...,..
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 ruls 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
I�i2
MINUTES ` (
PALM DESERT PLANNIN � r_�+�!���SSION
- SEPT IuraGQ +c ��.,e
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 properiy 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
ove�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. If 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
��1.�
MINUTES � (
PALM DES R?'pLANhII�G COMMIS ION SFDT� .ors .� .,.,....
�+� �n �o cu u+
something the City needed to worry about or if it was something the
federal 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 teil 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 wetl, is that conftict
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
I`�'�
MINUTES � �
_ALM DESERT PLANNIJy.,C,��OII!".";�GinN
-- SEPT �uFtFp �� �nna
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 consuttation 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 frorn 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 Wildfife 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. !Ys 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 Institu#e 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 awfut 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
I�1�.
. MINUTES ` l
PALM D RT P ""'^ �'OMMISSION
SEPTFIUGecQ i c •sn.,e
decision. They were also standing there with their hand out saying
they will help. He believed that PCR has been to the lnstitute 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. Thirty-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, ThaYs about 10,000 to 11, 000 truckloads.
That is an operation that by itsetf 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
I��
. MINUTES �
(
They were there because they were spgnificantly concerned over
the potential impact to the Bighorn Institute and all the work the
and their partners have been trying to do to recover this species
Many many yea�s 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 aiso believed that the evidence and data
being gathered by the Bighorn Sheep Institute was virtuall
irrefutable in the value of those sheep, the lambin y
amount of recovery that is actually takin 9 Pens and the
now. She believed that all of the wildlife manageme t 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 slgnificant. 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 hab�tuated to humans and that activity. They supported full
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 result of a
legal settlement and not on the basis of scientific evidence. The
Y
23
(`�`�
MINUTES �
,
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 property 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 ravme. That those are just as visible and in fact would be more
visible. Mr. Perry maintained that activities wouid be more visibie 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, Ail of the issues had
been the lambing pen and thaYs 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 property owner didn't
participate in those particular sight line studies; those were done by
staff and their consultant, so he wasn't there to defend those.
Again, with the pubiic 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-da
is not required for a planned enviromm�a Ii�mpactmeporterAn
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 &
Wildlife, he stated that was a recent proposa�, 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 ta that
orally. They intend to prepare written comments. As far as they are
concerned, whether or not this becomes critical habitat is entirely
24
f 1`�''
MINUTES � �-
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 peop�e; pe� Gagnon, Guy Laliberte
and Mario Pascuccl. 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,
interest. They owned the ro e they still had a controlling
property at the time that the buffer�area was mtposed tov Wn the
objections and at the time that the Bighorn Instituter 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 lnstitute 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 abie to develop
its property in accordance with other laws app�icable 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 prope
here. This is what he referred to as the Yertle the Turt eaa se I am
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 couid 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
i��
MINUTES � (
SERT PLANNIN � �n�••■�ec�n � SEPTP�uRCQ �c �.,�e
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 & Wildtife 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 8► 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 ositivel they
would consider that possibility, IeYs discuss it; e 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
eartier, 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 couple of months. It was a temporary impact
26
2ov
MINUTES �
and they wouid do everything they could to minimize that impact on
the neighbors. Construction is a disru tive
nature. They would do what they ould to m nimiietstho e
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, HQ
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 qt�orney wanted to
address the inverse condemnation issue, and then they would ask the
consultant to piease 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
�
pu lished 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 wa
that renders that project economically infeasible then that y
agency is liable potentially for inverse condemnation. It was pa �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
`�� i
MINUTES �
before they consider their streambed alteration permits and their 404
perrnits. If the City were to condition the project in such a way that is
economically infeasible, the City would be patentially 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 mee#s 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, they
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 difficuli
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
,.� ���
MINUTES ` �
COMMIS ION SEPTPMa�Q i c �.,..e
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 co�rect 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
undevelopable. Commissioner Schmidt said it was overreMr.mJoy
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
.r�����
MINUTES `'� (
PALM DESERT PLANNiI��: t�pMMl ION SEPTFIu�t�Q �� �...,e
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 ex#ensive 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. CampbeN 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 peopte 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
7�.(-I
. MINUTES � (
pALM DESERT PLAh:�:�:^. ^OMMIS ION SEPTFIuacQ ,c •�.,..e
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 the�e. 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 property, This has
been going on a while. She was glad that at least had been brought up
because she didn't thinfc 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
� ,�s;
MINUTES � �
PALM DESERT PLaNNING COMMISSION SEPTE�ua�p �� �nnn
Bighorn; in other words, they didn't want to allow 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
rnany 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 property 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
� �
� S,r 41
MINUTES � �
PALAd DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION SEPT IUAFp �R �nnn
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).
�X• MISCELLANEOUS
None.
X• COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES
A. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
Commissioner S. Campbetl reported that the meeting would be
September 17.
33
���-�7
. (
CIIY Of P � �l DESER
T
7j-510 FRED WARING DR1VE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-257$
T� 760 346-06��
Fnx: 760 34i-7oq8
i nfo�Ppalm-desert.org
PLANNING COMMtSSION MEETING
NOTICE OF ACTION
Date: Septemher 17, 2008
Cornishe of Bighorn Allen, 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, 200$:
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 appea! 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.
_�
��. _�
Lauri Aylaian, Secretary >
Palm Desert Planning Commission
/tm
cc: Coachella Valley Water District
Public Works Department
Building & Safety Department
Fire Marshal
,
�� .
�ru�rmc��wr,�onm .
, � (
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOIUTION NO. 2486
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMEN�ING 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 comptied 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 prefiminary 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.
.� _�:.-
� j.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 248fi
• An environmentai 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 pubiic 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 finro 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, SCHMtDT
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
/, __7 l�?�vt,
VAN G. ANNER, Chairperson
ATTEST:
URI AYLAIAN, Secretary
Palm Desert Planning Commission
3
� i�-
� (
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
CASE NO. TT 31676
Deaartment of Community Develo�ment:
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 properry 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
shali 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 aforernentioned landscaping shall be the
responsibility of the property owners association. Landscaping plans shall be
submitted for review simultaneously with grading plans.
4
� ; �
, ,,.
(
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
2. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils
engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public
Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
3. The maintenance of any retention areas shall be by the homeowners association
and stipulated in the CC&R's.
BONDS AND FEES
4. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal
Code shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
5. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17
and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map.
6. The project shall be subject to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF).
Payment of said fees shall be at the time of building permit issuance.
7. A standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits.
8. Grading bonds are required.
DESIGN PLANS
9. Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a
drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and
approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction.
10. Complete grading and improvement plans and specifications on electronic files
shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval
prior to issuance of any permits.
11. Improvement plans for utility systems shall be approved by the respective
provider or service districts with "as-built" plans submitted to the Department of
Public Works prior to project final. Easements for utilities on private streets shall
be granted on final map.
12. Pad efevations, as shown on the ten#ative map are subject to review and
modification in accordance with Chapter 27 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code.
5
� i ��
� {
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, appiicant shall provide evidence of legal access rights.
Flre Decartment•
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
, �_ti::
;
( 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
.� ?��
(
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 t�averse 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 OriginaE Project, the Applicant proposed
an eight-lot single-family subdivision with access restricted to the east at Indian Cove.
8
� � �
t �
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
Impacts of the eight-unit altemative 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 Altemative 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 Originat Project, the Ciry circulated the New Preferred
Alternative for public review and comment to augment the Draft EIR.
Consistent with the requirements of CE�A, and the State CEQA Guidelines, the
FEIR discusses environmental effects in proportfon 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.
AI! 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 summariie 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
lmpacts
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 fo�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
� t �
( (
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
significant. The New Preferred Aiternative would not substantialiy 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 sufficientty 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.
Mitication Measures
Mltlgatlon 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.
Mitlgation 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 Sianiflcance After Mltiaation
As impacts of the New Preferred Alternative regarding aesthetics would be less
than significant, implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would fu�ther
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
Im acts
During construction, emission from the New Preferred Alternative would not exceed
regional and (ocal 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 irnplementation of the mitigation measures, the New Preferred
Alternative would result in exceedance of NOx threshold levels, resuiting 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 operationat 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.
Mitis�ation 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.
Additionalty, 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 houriy, 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 tempo�ary 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.
Mitigatlon 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
Consenration Act (NAECA) and the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), to reduce energy consumption.
Mitlgation Measura IV. B-9: The Applicant shall, as feasible, install energy-
efficient appliances (i.e., ENERGY STAR) to reduce energy consumption.
Level of Slaniflcance After Mitiaation
Even with implementation of the rnitigation measures, impacts of the New Preferred
Alternative would exceed NOx threshold levels, resutting in significant and unavoidable
canstruction air quality impacts. Mitlgation 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.
BIQLOGICAL 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
switaki), the desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizi), the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia),
wildlife movement, nor free roaming specimens of the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis
canadensis cremnobates), as the site either does not provide such habitat or is well
removed from the established ranges of the respective species. Impacts to wildlife
movement would also be less than significant.
Concern for impacts upon captive adult bighorn sheep and born 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
� ��
PLANNING COMMISSlON RESOLUTIQN NO. 2486
lambing pens at the Bighom 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 lnstitute, 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 #hat 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 ot 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 wauld remain significant. Although the
13
� Z.1
( �
,
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
CVMSHCP has been fully approved by all affected local jurisdictions, formal adoption is
not yet complete. It is reasonabie 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.
Miti ation Measures
Mitigation Measure IV.C-1: Garage openings shall be oriented easterly away from
the lambing pens to the rnaximum extent practicable.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-2: Site preparation and grading of the site shall be
designed to balance on-site to minimize new irnport 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 buitding pad elevations, and 3) reasonable foundation excavations. To
reduce the impacts associated with the site preparatioNgrading 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 shal� be thoroughly surveyed for the
presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist prior to removal. If any active nests are
detected within a 300-foot buffer of the construction activity, a buffer of at least 100 feet
(300 feet for raptors) shall be delineated, flagged, and avoided until the nesting cycle is
complete or the nest has failed as determined by the biological monitor.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-5: A biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey,
per USFWS protocols, to ensure that no desert tortoises are affected by the project. If it is
determined that tortoises may be affected, a desert tortoise conservation plan addressing
the appropriate construction management and ongoing operational practices shall be
prepared.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-6: A pre-construction survey, conducted according to
reserve agency protocols, shall be performed in order to ensure that no burrowing owls
14
'�� 2
. �
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.
Mltigatlon Measure IV.C-7: in order to rninimize 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.
Mittga#ion 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.
Mltigation 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 sunrey
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 Sianiflcance After Mitiaation
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 compiy with CEQA
and the CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, cumulative impacts regarding historic,
archaeological and paleontological resources would also be less than significant.
Mitiaatlon Measures
No mitigation measures are required as the New Preferred Alternative would not
have adverse impacts regarding cultural resources.
Level of Sianificance After Mittaation
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 Indian Creek. The New Preferred Alternative would require
permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the California Department of Fish and
Game, and the Colorado River Basin Regional Water Quality Control Board for the
construction of the access road over the natural drainage channel along the site's eastern
boundary. However, no access roads are proposed across Dead Indian Creek.
Therefore, impacts to `yurisdictional 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 surtace
quality would be less than significant.
Mitlaation Measures
The New Preferred Alternative would result in a less than significant impact
regarding hydrology and surface water qualifiy, and no mitigation measures are required.
16
�-� `�
� �
. i' l
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOIUTION NO. 2486
Level of Sianificance After Mitiaation
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 tand 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.
Mitiaation Measures
The New Preferred Alternative would result in a less than significant impact
regarding land use, and no mitigation measures are required.
Level of Slaniftcance After Mitiaatlon
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
� � �
f
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
However, the incremental increase in noise levels would be well below the 3 dBA CNEL
significance threshold. Therefore, impacts to the existing and future sensitive residential
receptors within the adjacent Canyons at Bighorn community would be less than
significant. Operational noise impacts upon bighorn sheep in the lambing pen would be
less than significant. Nonetheless, mitigation measures are proposed.
As the New Preferred Alternative would result in a potentially significant noise
impact during construction to the lambing pens in the Bighom 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.
Mitiaatlon Measures
The following mitigation measures are proposed to reduce the impacts of the New
Preferred Altemative. Please note that Mitigation Measures IV.C-1 through IV.C-3 are
repeated here from Subsection 3, Biologicai Resources above.
Mitigation Measure IV.C-1: Garage openings shall be oriented easterly away from
the lambing pens to the maximum extent practicable.
Mitlgation 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 preparatioNgrading phase, building height
shal{ 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
Zs2. �,
. � i
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.
Mitlgation Measure IV.G-3: Engine idling from construction equipment such as
bulldozers and haul trucks shall be limited, to the extent feasible.
Mitlgatlon Measure IV.G-4: The construction staging area shall be located as far
as feasible from sensitive receptors.
Mttigation Measure IV.G-5: Construction activities shalt be limited to between the
ho hrs of 6:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.nn., Monday through Friday from July 1s� through September
30 and between the hours of 7:00 n.M. and 6:30 P.nn., Monday through Friday from
October 1 gt through December 31 st. On Saturdays, construction activities shall be limited
to between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.nn. No construction shall be allowed on
Sundays, Federal holidays or during the January through June lambing season. Such
limitation sha�l be placed as a condition on the grading permit in a manner meeting the
approvals of the City Engineer and the Building Official.
Mitigation Meaaure 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.
Mitlgation 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.
�evel of Sianificance After Mltiaation
Even with implementation of rnitigation 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
iambing pen would remain significant and unavoidable. Mitigation measures identified
above substantially lessen potentially significant environmental effects on noise to the
19
_ ,l �
( �
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 act
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 nominai
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 #he 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 bui(dout 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.
Mitiaation 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 buitding 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 Sis�nificance After Mitiaatio�
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
z7�
` r,
PLANNING COMMiSSiON RESOLUTION NO. 2486
Based on the Initial Study and the whole of the record, the Project was determined
not to resuft 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:
i. Land Use Planning Objectives
� Accommodate projected regional growth in a location that is adjacent to
existing infrastructure, urban senrices, transportation corridors, and
employment centers.
� Cluster development on the site to preserve regionally significant ecological
areas and other natural open space while reducing landform alteration and
maintaining the scenic views.
• Provide a range of recreational opportunities, including pedestrian paths that
are accessible to residents.
• Provide development that is compatible with surrounding residential
communities.
2. Design Objectives
• Provide residential streets, access roadways, drainage facilities and other
infrastructure consistent with City of Palm Desert municipal codes and
design standards.
• Provide attractive architecture and landscaping that enhances the project
site while complementing the surrounding desert landscape.
• Provide a complementary outdoor lighting plan that promotes safery 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 Bulld 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 (Elght Single-Family U�its): 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
Originat 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 fram 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. Furtherrnore,
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 #he
23
� �>t
i
PLANNtNG COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
environment than the New Preferred Alternative. Thus, this Alternative was considered
but rejected.
Hillside Llmited Alternative (2 Single-Family Units): The Hiliside 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 accomplished.
Access would be provided from the east via the Indian Cove section of the Canyons at
Bighorn community. Although the assessment of this Alternative was based on very
conceptual design parameters and did not have the benefit of any specific design studies,
it was determined that if implemented it would reduce each of the Original Project's
unmitigable significant impacts to less than significant levels. It would also have less
impact than the New Preferred Alternative. However, the northeastern comer 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
etevation to permit views of the Caachella Valtey, 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 wlth a preliminary s�te
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 Lirnited Alternative, the New Preferred
Alternative wauld 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
? "?a 2,_
. ( (
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
known. Therefore, the relative effectiveness of this mitigation aiso 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 ihe
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 ProjecdNo 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 ProjecUNo 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 Altemative, 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 Vafley, 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
atternative is considered impractical and infeasible due to the difficulties of constructing
within an existing streambed.
25
2�;
( �
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2486
The New Preferred Alternative wouid 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 feasibie, 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 Aitemative would optimize a
balance between the Original Project and the Hillside Limited Alternative, it would meet
most of the Project Objectives for the property.
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council of the City of Palm Desert finds that the mitigation measures
described in the FEIR will, when implemented, mitigate or substantially reduce most of the
significant effects identified in the FEIR. Nonetheless, certain significant environmental
impacts of the Project are unavoidable even after incorporation of all feasible mitigation
measures. For such effects, the City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project
against such unavoidable adverse environmental risks in approving it. In this regard, the
City Council hereby finds that all feasible mitigation measures identified in the FEIR have
been and will be implemented with the Project and that any significant unavoidable effects
remaining are acceptable due to the following specific economic, social, and other
considerations, including but not limited to Project benefits, based upon the findings set
forth above, in the FEIR, and in the public record of the consideration of this Project. The
unavoidable adverse impacts are identified as follows:
• Regional construction air quality emissions for NOx;
• Biological impacts (during construction and operation) to captive adult sheep
and born 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 property. It must be
assumed that the Bighorn Institute knew of this issue and considered the location of its 30-
26
2. ='.t.�
. t (
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 residentially zoned property, the City Council of the
City of Palm Desert believes that it is incumbent upon the Bighorn Institute to look to its
own site or another site to mitigate impacts to its facilities as they now exist or may exist in
the future. The establishment of an open space buffer with no uses in it imposes a burden
on the City of Palm Desert of potential litigation, inequity, and loss of revenue for a
problem that the City of Palm Desert not only did not create, but made completely public
through its records. There was ample opportunity through the planning and zoning
process for the Bighorn lnstitute 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 tnstitute.
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 sclentific 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
?��'
i ;
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 exciuded 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 resutt of the development of the Project site for iwo
high-end single family homes.
OVERALL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council of the City of Palm Desert has for some time had an adopted
general plan which has been harmonized with the City's policies for overall growth of both
housing and jobs. The City has chosen in its general planning scheme to concentrate the
job producing uses in the center of the City principally along Highway 111, or in the
northern portion of the City in proximity to Interstate 10, while using as residential areas
portions of the City away from Highway 111 and Interstate 10. The Project site is the last
remaining residentially zoned property located along the City's southern boundary for
which development has not yet been approved. The Project as proposed fully complies
with applicable use and densiry standards. The extent to which the Project is not
developed, or is not developed as proposed, would prevent the City from realizing its fuN
expectation. In adopting these policies, it is important to note that the City strove for
balance befin►een environmental quatity 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
'2,°�,C�
i (
t
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 oufinreigh the significant,
unavoidable impacts of the Project as identified in the FEIR.
29
2';�,7
CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
RE�UEST: 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"' 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
il. BACKGROUND:
A. Property Description:
Comishe is an irregularly shaped property between`The Canyons at Bighorn"
and"The Bighorn I nstitute", 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 properly corner. The balance of the site is comprised of the slopes
and creek bottom of Dead Indian Creek along the northem 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.
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`?he 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 Overlay/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 properry outside of the 400-yard buffer line, if it
extended across the property, 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 (forrnerly 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
finro home sites is identified. Plans are prepared for this alternative and
an addition to the EI R is prepared based on this two home site design.
Z�C�
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31676
September 16, 2008
Page 4 of 10
III. 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 afl 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.
2�-I 1
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".
2'���,..
Staff Report
Case No. TT 31676
September 16, 2008
Page 6 of 10
IV. ANALYSIS:
A. General:
The proposed lot sizes,densiry 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 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. 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 substantiai 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 develope� 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.
2�t`�
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 "StatemenY'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 21h
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 Ciry
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. Comishe 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
2'�`�
' � � �
Clty of Palm Des�t
I
Statf Report
TQs Planning Commisslon I
DA1'E: October 4, 1983
CASE NO: GPA 02-83,C/Z 03-83 a ' C/Z 08-81
APPLICANT: Clty of Palm Desat I
REQUEST: Consideration of a general plan land use map designation of low density
resid�tiaf 3-5 dwellIng units per acre,a preannexation change of zone
from R-1(County of Riverside)to PR-S�planned residential5 units per
acre)and HPR,D(hillside planned�esidential,drainageway overlay)and �
a Negative Declaration of Environmeital Impact for 2S8 acres contiguous �
to the city's southern boundary east of Highway 74. I
L BACKGROUND:
A. DESCRIPTION OP SITE: '
Aside from approximately 30 acres located at the southeast caner, the area
has a gentle unfiorm topography with slopes less than 1096. At the southeast
corner, foothilis and canyons rise t20 feet above the Dead Indian /Carrizo
Creek Wash. A geological survey conducted in 1978 as part of an
�►vironmmtal impact report identified four long-lived perennial; creosote,
brittle brush, burro bush and golden chollet as constituting 409�6 of the
vegetation in the area. None of the plants obsaved are listed in the
"Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California" publlshed by the i
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 either the Siate
of California or the federal government.
. Prlor to any development, the area would have to be surveyed and any dese�t
tortoise found will have to be trapped and relocated to an appropriate
iprotected habitat.
I Prior to the completion of the Palm Valley Storm Channel, the area was
� subjected to flooding from Carrizo and Dead Indian Geek.
With the completion of the debris basin at the mouth of the washes al! water
will be directed down the Palm Valley Storm Channel eliminating the major
flood hazard to the area.
D. ANALYSIS:
A. BACKGROUND:
The establishment of the city's general plan� the prezoning and associated
annexation has been initiated at the request of two (2) large property oaners
who wish to submit development proposals to the City of Palm Desert.
Western Allied Properties is proposing 464 units on !03 acres adjacent to
Highway 74 and Hyatt Regency is proposing a 500 unit hotel, golf course as
� well as approximately 600 dweUing units on i53 acres. The proposed general
I plan and zoning designations allowing a density of up to (5) units per acre is
, consistent with the adjacent zoning and land use.
- 1 -
�
�_!�
. •' • • i
�
CASE NOS.GPA 02-83,GZ 03-83 and C1Z08-El
OCTOBF,It 4, 1983 I
B. ADJACENT ZONING/LAND USE:
North: PR-5/Vacant
South: R-1 Rivaside County/Vacant
East: R-1 Riverside County/Vacant
West: Villages of Hella Vista/R-1 Riverside County
Pcexoned 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 Genera! Pian
designation.
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSE55MENT:
The directo� of environmcita! services has determined that the proposed
implementation of the Palm Desert General Plan and preannexation change of
zone will not have a significant adverse impact on the environma�t and a
negative declaration has been prepared. Additional envlronmental review will
be required when development plans are reviewed.
E. D[SCUSSION:
The property to be prezoned.wiil make up Annexation No. 17. The annexation
is necessary in order that one large development, part of which is located i�
• the city, may be constructed under one jurisdiction. The development will be
urban in nature and would be best administered by the city. The prezoning is
necessary to complete the annexation of the praperty. The imposition of the
Palm Desert General Plan is necessary to pamit the prezoning. The subject
property is within the Palm Desert Sphere of influence.
F. REQU[RED FIfVDINGS:
1. Required Findings for Case No.GPA 02-83:
a. The proposed general plan amendment will facilitate the prezoning of
the property which is required as a pact of the anneuation process.
b. The proposed annexation is necessary in orda that proposed
developments on the property can be reviewed by one governmental
jurisdiction.
c. The proposed land use designation will be compatibie 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 weli suited to the subject
property.
f. The proposed land use designation will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or wetfare, 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 propoxd land uses.
-Z-
I
� �.�, 6
, .. � � '
I
CASE N06.GPA 02-83,C/Z 03-83 and C/Z 0&81
OCTOBER 4� l983 '
Justification; I
I
The proposed use of the site is residential which is also the use propos�d
for the adjacent property. The use of the site resulting from the zone
change will be compatible with adjacent proposed land usa.
b• That the density resulting from the change of zone would be cempatible
with densities permitted in the adjacent areas.
Justification:
The proposed PR-5 zoning, Is the same aa the adjacent property to the
north. Also, PR-S zoning is compatible with the adjacent zoning ln the
county. The density resulting from the change oi zone will be compatible
with densities permitted in adjacent areas.
c. That the proposed change of zone would be compatible with the general
plan.
JustificatIons
The Cove Communities'General Plan is the�urrent valid genera!p(an for
the property. It ls proposed to designate the site low drnsity residential
3-S dweliing 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 ls in conformance with
both the existing Cove Communities' General Plan and the proposed
designation pursuant to the Palm Desert General Plan.
1[[. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the findings contained above and in the draft resolutlon, adopt findings as
noted above and adopt Planning Comrr�ission Resolution No.
"A resolution of the pianning commission of the City of Palm Desert,California,
recommending to the City Council approval of an amendment to ihe General Plan
Land Use Element to extend the effective area of the Palm Desert Geieral Plan
to include that portion of the north half of Section 6,east of Hlghway 74 and
designating said area low density residential(3-S dwelling units per acre)and
recommending approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it
pertains thereto".
Based on flndings 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 pesert�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[mpact on property located on the east side of Highway 74
adjacent to the existing southerly boundary of the clty".
IV. ATTqCHMENTS:
A. Draft Resolutions
�. Locatfon Map
C. lnitial Study and Draft Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
D. Legal Notice
Prepared bYe���. ,� � �
_.L'�(
Reviewed and approved by: � ,
/pa �
-3-
��
• • � �
• � � � : :
J� ' � '
. � • • �
� � � �I.
y
� I
• -
i '
'�' - ' • •
f t - �
■'1�� ( ' '
■ 7 �
_ f
NI
�
�
�= ....... . .........
�::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.; :::::::::a
— _ :�
'EEc::s::e6E6ee:Ec3ce:eE:c:cee:?:::ccc:::ec:'- - ' — 6e3
:::cc:Ee:cce:cce:::c'sc:::c�
Ec6eE:6e=::cc:Ec:cec�c:
,.....::::•::....:.....:::::::E::::Eccc:::::e:::e:;:E::c:::e:::e6Eee::eee:ee:Ee:c::ee::e::e:
�9::::....:..::::.::::.::::::::::.:::::.:::::..::..: ::
::,.•
c:eE:c:ecE::::eec::::cc:::ec::e:cc:c::Ee:::E:ee::::c;: ,c
e:cc:::::::::9e:e:e:E::E:c:e::9ec::e:ccEcEcE::c:cEE::;-
:.
PLANMNG COMMLSSION R�SOLUTION NO.892
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANN[NG COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PAI.M DESERT, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL
OF A PREANNEXATION CHANGE OF ZONE FROM R-1
(RIVERSIDE COUNTY) to PR-S AND HPR, D AND A
NEGATIVE DBCLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
� IMPACT FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST 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 requesi by
the City of Palm Desert, for approval of a Change of Zone, upon annexatian from R-i
(Riverside County) to PR-5 and HPR-D and a Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact for 258 acres located east of Hlghway 74 south of the existing city boundary, more
particularly described as:
That portion of the north K 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 Envi�onmental Qua(ity Act,
Resolution No. 80-89", 1n that the dlre�tor of environmental services has determined that
the implementation of the Paim Desert General Plan and preannexation change of zone
witl not have a signi#icant or adverse impact on the environment ar�d a negative
declaration has been prepared.
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and J
arguments,if any,of all interested persons deslring to be heard, said planning commission
did find the following facts to justify their actions,as desc�ibed 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 foilows:
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings
of the commission in these cases;
Z. That the planning commission does hereby recommend to the City Councii
approval of a change 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 Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission, held on this 4th day of October, l983, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: CRITES, DOWNS,ERWOOD
NOES: NONE
ABSEN'f: RICHARDS,WOOD
ABSTAIN: NONE
�e���':�.�.�� ,
ATTESl': RALPH B. WOOD,Chairman
�� �
�<
RAMON A.DIAZ,Secr ary
�pa .
��>�-
i
��;, � _ ,
� _ _ . . . . .
Bighorn Institute
Dedicated to the conseruction oj the world's wild sheep through research and educotion
July 25, 1989 �
HONORARY CHAIRMAN
OF FUNDRAISING
Geold R. Ford
�en I�eoden�
d Na Un��ed Swa
Supervisor Patricia Larson
BOAROOFDIRECTORS County of Riverside
Cha�les W Jtnner, DVlN.' P.O. Drawer 1330
�L�~ Indio, CA 92282
Rkhard C.McClung.
Vkr pwrGnt _
14i�,,.R�,�• Dear Supervisor Larson,
v+R A.,�a.,.
w�.s�«k��� The Biqhorn Institute originated as a private nonprofit
�"'""�`"' corporation in 1982, dedicated to the conservation of the
F�cer E. Cyrog,OV.M.'
s.�.� world's wild sheep and specifically to the preservation of
eaeH�,a• the threatened Peninsular bighorn population of the Santa
r""""' Rosa Mountains of Riverside County. Throuqh a special
�'°�'R� "�" fund-raising ef fort supported solel b
a�av���• y y private donations,
,,,�„�F �,,, the Institute has obtained funding for the constcuction of
r�s.q.,,� a much needed animal care and research lab facility. With
Wi0lameo,,. this new state-of-the-art facility, Institute researchers
JackBntnnyh�m will be better equipped to combat the on oin battle
�'�"�`".c°"`, "1.D• against disease in order to help rebuild91oca1 dwindling
Jol+n E.Eal+an
�,.�H,h� bighorn herds. Suilding plans are currently being final-
n�.�M�,,,,,n ized with hopes of beginning construction in late September
F;^^M�„ or early October of this year and reaching completion by
Sbn L.Tlmmw March 1, 1990.
'Esan.w�Couwd
we are requesting the County's assistance in helping us
"°"""'s"`"n°" meet this completion date (March ist) by expediting the
'•'TM'RDe� processing of this baildinq project. It is important that
!,a„aw o..nw
�� construction is completed prior to spring lambinq at the
Institute to avoid any exoessive disturbance of the preg-
�n��soRs nant captive bighorn ewes that reside adjacent to the
���M�� building site. In order to accomplish this we would need
�.m....s.�.c.���..�, to begin construction no later than October. Additionally,
''""'""°°'"`"°^°'"`°'� beinq that the Institute is a nonprofit organization
�c. e�ti dependent on outside funding, we are asking that the County
Wym...cwn.nrw�wu�
��yE. c.�,o.vM_.v�.o consider waiving all building permit and application fees
cd�,�„��,,,.�,,�Y that we may be subject to.
HineNdiClark We hope that Riverside County will look favorably upon
t�pd ceww�
«�o.a�a�Mo� these requests and we would qreatly appreciate any assis-
tance you can provide in this matter.
Mark C. Joryens�n
Mo�Ao�p DetsK Swie Pbrf
c�,�a. s�.�.�,.o Sincerely,
Cd Polv Wwnq,Pbr,w„a
R�u(Vald�s. Ph.D ' � � '
Ner IWaca Sew Umue�rM _� .
Mkhad Vakna�
•_ __ A T��!Iw � •
i.�� ��.J :d
09/16/2008 10:54 FAa 7604315902 US FISH AND WILDLIFE (�002/003
• ,
United States Department of the Interior �
FISH AND WII,DLIFE SERVICE
�, Ecolo�cal Services
carlsbaa Fish ana wilalifo office
6010 Hidden Valley Road,Suitc 101
Carlsbad,California 92011
In Reply Refer To:
FWS-RIV-06B0008-U8TA0538
sEP i s Zoos
Mr.Pbil Joy,Associate Planner
City of Palm Desert Community Development Department
73-150 Fed Waring Drive
Palm Desert,CA 92260-2578
Subject Final Environmental Tmpact Report for the Comishe of Bighom Project(State
Clearinghouse Number 2004091012)
Deaz Mr.Joy:
We recenfly received the Final Environmental Impact Report(EIR)for the Cornishe of Bighorn
Project in September,and have becn reviewing the project's design,responses to comments,
mirigadon 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 invostigations
were completod,and they are presented in We Comments and Responses section of the Fina!
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 southern 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 bighom 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 residenees should be oriented to the north and the access mad should azrive at the
northern front of the residences. Such a design would functionally movo the impacts of the
development a greater distance away from the capdve bighorn sheep. Although it is well
accepted that bighom shsep 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.
rt�,p�Rtt�s����
tx�M�RIGA �,�•�
2 5�
09/16/2008 10:55 FA%_7B04315902 US FISH AND WILDLIFE �003/003
�
2
Mr. Phil Joy,City of Palm Descrt 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
bazriers,we suggest that qualified engineers and architects could accurately estimate these
quantities. The needed visual batriers could be shorter if the sttuctures 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 eaplored,because it appears there are measures that could be taken
to futther mitigate the impacts of the project.
The Bighorn Institute's captive breeding facility has produccd bighom shxp 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 probably prevented the eatirpation of bighorn sheep from the
San Jacinto and northern Santa Rosa Mountains. For example�by 2002,bigtlora ewes had
declined to}ust four individuals in the San Jacinto Mountains,and a release progcam was
initiated. Cutrently,there aze 12 adult ewes and 15 adult tams,with 67�'n of these bighorns
originating from the Bighom Institute or being offspriag of sheep released from the Institute. We
gready value the integrity of the captive breeding facility,and do not wish to see the prograrn
negatively influenced. Consequently,we find the statem�nt, "However,it must be coaservatively
assumed the New Prefernd Alternative would still have the potential to significantly impact
captive adult bighorn sheep and bom lambs in the lambing pen through visual and,to a lesser
degree, auditory habituatiott. Thus,impacts to biological resources during construction and
operation of the project remain significant and unmitigable"�cause for concern. 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 bighom 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,
�
(�Karen Goebel
� `Assistant Field Supervisor
2��
i
� WORDEN W[LLIAMS APC
Represenking Public Agencies, Private Entities, and Individuals
I
'� September 15, 2008
;�r-; ,;•� --.._.
��������i�
Via Facsimile and U.S. MB�I AREAS OF PRACTI
CE
:?rt�' � � 2U08
NUBLIC AGENCY'
I ;�
i0�lN.UI�!,: �t,�.�Fi.Oi'', .,•,,:���:���kT11fEN'T I �ntiousE,nNo
CIT'i'�F PALl1'�DESERT ENVIRONMENTAL
Honorable Planning Commission
City of Palm Desert REni ESTnrE
Community Development Department PERSONAL I�JURY
73-510 Fred Waring Drive ESTArE P�ANN�Nc
Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 ANo AOM�N�sTR,�r�oN
I CIVII LITIGATlON
' 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 TRACY R.RICHMOND
regard to matters involving Peninsular bighorn sheep. We write to urge denial of p wnvNE aKEc��T«
the above project because the impacts to the Bighorn Institute's lambing program
have not been reduced to below si nificance. Further the ' KE"A.c�R�FFE
g , proposed project ;
would represent an unacceptable violation of the commitment to maintain a 400 ' rERRY"'.�'eRs
,` yard buffer between development and the Bighom Institute and would jeopardize KR�sTEN M�sR��F
I`I the ongoing recovery af the endangered Peninsular bighom. 'I D.DWIGHT WORDEN
I.� '�i orcounse�
The Bighorn Institute's work is a critical part of the Recovery Program for w.scoTT w��uAMs
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
project proponents to design an alternative that honors the 400 yard buffer abz sTE�ENs nvENUE
SUITE 102
previously established as the minimum distance necessary to avoid impacts to the SnI.ANA RFACH
BlghOrn jn$tl�te. CALIfORNIA
92075
;
The City has no authority to modify the 400 yard buffer because it is a mitigation ,es8„s;-6���TE�E�H�,YE
measure for a different project, now referred to as The Canyons, and was adopted � �85���5�-S,y�FA«�M��E
as a condition of approval for that project in June, 1997. If the City wants to
www.wordenwil I iams.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
2��-�
`, - Planning Commission
W 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,
neverthelEss, the 400 yard number v✓as selected based an the input�f over 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.
1"his 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 infeasib(e 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
infeasibility. 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 resotution
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.
T'he 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
2 S�i
`` _ 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
commitrnent 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, 200$, Cornishe acquired the property in 2003, long after the
400 yard buffer which limits the development potential of the property, was in place.
Cornishe knew about this �levelapment restriction, an� purchased the pro�,erty anyway.
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 additiona( 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
sincerety 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 F�rechtel
dwb rr wordenwitliams.com
DWB:Ig
cc: Client
Z 5�S
TH E -
���- ll1/1 LL.IAMS
LINDBERG
LAW FIRM, P�. � QRIGINAL
scptembvr i6, 2ooa
Via Facs .__ e ' �
760.341-0574
Mr.Plrit Joy,A,ssociato Planner
Cxty of Palm Desext, Cornmtmity Developmont '
� Deparbment
73-5�0 Fred Warin�Drive
Pali�t�Descrk CA 92260�2578 �
Re: Cot�e�nts on Final Env�ironme�tat impact Re�ort or�Cornishe of Bighorn Project
Dea�N�. Joy: .
� �his law offic�has the p�easu;te of represrn�ing Bighom�stitutq a Ca�i€ornia non-profit
researc2r orgat�i�atlon located in thc County of Rivetside,itnmcdiately adjacent to the p=opvs�d
ComisIae of Bighorn Project. This letter communicates the Iastitute's camments on the Finat
Environine�tal Impact Report(FEIlt)for Comiahe of Bighom(�200409�012)aiad tbe City o�
Pa1m Desert's StaffReport(Star�Report) for tho Se�ternbet�6,2008 Planning Commission
pub�ic�eeating regarding Comishe of Bighom(Casc No. TT 31676): We remaia adaman�y
apposed to thte cw�z�eat pYana for the Comishe o#'Bxgi�orn project
� On,e of our main concer�s is a shockiz�g i�naccaracy in tl�e Exeoutive Suzamary of the
StaffRe,port(pg. 1)rega�ttl�itxg to thc captive herd, which incorrect}y statcs,"The_sheep beloug to
tha Blgb�om Institat�."The endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep i�a pnblic tn�st spccics and all
of them, including those�uu the.captive hcrd,ara the groperty of the public end ate under�the
maaagem.ent jwaisdiviion of the atate and£eder�l governmen� Bighorn Institute acts meroly as
caretakers of the ca.ptive herd, 1'he Instituto holds a,fedexa110(a�(1)(A)pennit and has eatered a
Memor�zzdum of Undcrstanding with and operates completely...w�der the super�ision aud
direction of the tlnited.Statcs Fish and Wildli£e Serv�ce and Califomia Depart�te,�t v;f Fish arid
Gam.e. Wo notc, convexsely,that the Cornishe of Bighorn deval4pec does not hold these requir�
permits,as disc�ssed fiwtthar bclow. ,
� �o0 6��vew ccac�e �
. ` 3wiH Towea,Su[ra!30
. , Neano�T 6RnCx,CA 9266a 2994
• T�urHONc 9a9.a33•3086
Fna�n.o: 949-!3 3•3058
W�.�LI'-I.A W�COM
J1�doxldoeN69V00A{2M19�OC . )CM�W�WLF-LAW.COM
• PllA34 Y]SiT OUA WBCLOG�WWSV,MAYL7�L�ti�*'n++�colmT�,Ccn�"�p00.DAtLY�S�n,yH6W9 ANO OadlRV/tT[ONS � c1
`} !
THE • .
' W�F ���-LrAMS � �
LINbBERG
�� ������ .
M�t.Pbil Joy,Associatc P�s�ner . . '
Saptember 16,2008
Page 2
There is a continuad,hlata�nt disregard for the importaace t�e cag�Ive hcrd has in the zole
of Perunsular bighor,�sheep rccov�ry. T�e FEIlt recogn�ze�that thcrc are st�l�si�nificant;
unmi;tigablc impacts to the captivc herd at B�lghorn Institute w�itbt tl�is projcct(FEZR pg. II-4 and
TY=14). A,s such,we remaia ae�ously concem�foz the welfere of the federal_ aad state-
c�tartercd recovery luogram for the endsuge�rcc�Peninsulaz blg�orn shec�arid the captive herd at
Higbax�n Tnstitutc. Bighorta T.�,stih,�te has released 124 bigham into the wi�d since 1985, and
- c�nTcnt3y 67%0 of ttxe San Iac�nto Mounta�s population of big�v�tn consists of sheep e.ither
xeleesad from the Inatitute or of�sprir�g of captive-zearcd sheap. In 2002,the San Jacfnto ewe
$mup dropped to,yust 4 aduh ewas and thc h�rat was i�se�riws dangcr of dy�r�g ou� Thc state
and fed�ral w�ildlife ag�ncies dec�ided to start reteasing capt{ye-reared bighor�$om the Institute
� tha�o anc��tow there are 12 adu�t ewes int the san Jacinto.Moufnnt��s. An eatire subgroup o.f wxld
bighom could have•been�ost,had it not beea for t}�e captivc hreeding and wild populatior�
aug�o�entation program at the Znstitute. � .
The Staf�'Re�w�ct al�u�es to the prospect that t1�at Com�i�he of Bighorn wi�l likely beco�e
the prope�rty of Canyons at Sighom in tb�e future. The Stsff Repart states that t1�c home designs
"wou�d be subject to t�e desi�critcria contai�ed within the EIlZ and those at Bigttorn Cvunlry
Cl.ub,eve�a thongh it is not part o�tl�at projcct yet"(Stzt�f Repork pg.4)."That said,it�ooks like
thia�oaed�roject is quickly be�oming a way;for Caay�ns at Bighort�to e�panc�thcir propc�ty
into the 400-yard buffer in violati�n of its ag�ent with the�sbituto. If the Comishe prvpezty
b�comes the p�co�petty of Canyons at Bighorn,then it mttst com�ly with ntl previous mitigation
me�su�es�ct fosfili for'Caxiyoias at Bighrnn,which has a 400 yard buffer of no developmen.t. ,
T}Ae City of Palm De�ert and persons involved in Coz�uisbe of Bighom acbitraz�y,
inexplicably aad vv�ith s�o fouadation decidod on a 240�yard buffar based on thc location of the
� conservation/houaing£�tc�lity at B.ighom Institute. The 400 yard buffet was derived at from a �
pane�0�29 bighorn sheep expe�ts a.fte�r sevcrai meatirigs,�izatense discussions and co�aszderation
of relevaat scientiflc ev�idence. Indc�ed,ezpe�cts appointed bSt�anynn�nt�xghoin�a�rticipated in
n�aking,that dccision,which'wa�Wtiuz�atcly adopted by tt�e City. Tl�e buffer wa�mot detetmined
• one day in an offitce a�ongst Cit�r plann,�s and reccnt�otent�al developers. WE catego�ically
• reject tt�e application o�a 240-yarc�buff�rto th�9 project.
We alsa take excepdon tQ thc posinort t�ken in tbc FEIR that the I�titut�relocate�ts
�acitities. First,we note that t�e devc�qper who pu#�eb�a„Qed tho property dxd sv after the CiEy had
approved tl�e 400-yarcl buf�'er end thgt buffcr was of record�in multip�e City documemts, Sinoe �
. tho�oveloper purchased the property wifh th�s�rnow�odge artd eun.ducted its own due dil�gence
regardicxg thc bona,J�des o£ttxe praperty,iE cannot�ow be heard to comp�ain as it docs. Such
gretenaions must be disreg�ded. Further, as the City knows�'rrnm t�te approvat procesa dwring
i1�6}10Pt11 i,1617�A0C
��i./
� THE �
wLF WILLIAMS
L.INDBERG
LAW FIRM, �G,
Mr.Phil Jay, Assaeiate Planx�er
� Septcmbe�r 16,2008 � '
Page 3 ' �
the Cauyons at Bighom pxo�,ect,Instiiute arid other sciattific experta earl�er consiciered the same '
re�uest but were unablc to fiud comparable praperty to'rclocata. More iraportaat,howevez�,is
the continuing success of the Inst�itute's captivo breeding pzo�arn. �It is unwise to filc samethiqg
that i,s not broken. •
� �t�addition, evety recovery prog�n must have on-site facilities to operate. Because the
Instituta's noarly 300 acres is not fenced off from public accoss, it hes mandatory protacols in
place to protect the eudaagered Peninsular bighorn,wku'tch include biotogists livi�g�on property .
to monitor the sheep,pens aad accea�by occasional trespassers, There a�re also nw�te,rou,y o��
protocols t,hat the Tnst�tute sta�ff follows to reduce human disturbance far tt�e f.acility. Bighorn
Institute is not open to the public. The ataffkeeps all f�cil�ity opecaHons on the south and west
side of the Iamhing pen,away from the most�ensativ�northeast side. -
T.�e FE�R respo�se to comments states"no emgirical evidence has beau prese�ted which
establishes t2ucesholds at wh{ch impacts do�ot occur to lrighom sheep, and witliit�vi►hich they do"
(FEIR pg.N-43)with regard to a 240-yard bu€fer versus a 400-yard 1�u�er, Bighorn sheep i�
th�ca,ptive herd are es�dangered; they erc not zoo animals. O$'spring released fi^arn Highox,ta �
� Inwtitute continue to he2p t.�e recovery af thts endangered species. That breed�ng pmgram make�
Highorn Institutc's program unique,gnd it has had the iminectsse success ove.�the yeara. The Ciry
caz�tiot simply p�toceed on�huach and approve this development vtrx��bstantiated and vague
hapes that a?40-yard buffer is suf�cient, The City shbuld net tum tha captive pens i�to az�
experimcnt. The captive breec�iug pragra��overseen bX both state$ud federal experts,has beer�
highly successful. Utuinformted�ec��ions suc�t as tIie 24U-yard buffex,made without sc�ientific
data,backup and cansu,�tahon witl�tb;ese�xperts,should be rejocted, In fact,scveral shoep �
experts from the pe�insul�t Bighorrr Reeovery Teac,n havc subtzutted letters to the City
cncourag�r�g thE City to upho�d the prcviously-appmved 400-yard bu�ea�.
Thc Comishe of Bighozn properiy 1�as bcen de�xgfled as bighom sheep critical habit$t and
,on August 26,2008,the U.S.Fish and Wilc}lifc Service�ubliahed its proposed rule for revised
critical habitat for b�gttorn sheep in tha Pe�,iasular ranges, The Coznishc of Bi,ghonn property is
desig�ated as cxitical habitat(Federal Register�N' 10I8-AV09). This designation now has a
two-fold impact o�n biginarrx,onc fram a"take"and"harassment"stastdpoit�t aind#he ot}�e�r from a
habitat use standpo�at. If Conuisho of Bighorn is includec}in the final dcsignat�o�for critical
habitat,theu it must first co�duct a t�aaridatory section 7 co�sultation with thc U.S.Fish and
Wildli�'e.Service�rior to the�Issuanc�af any developmezi,t perm,fts. Ciivcn that tk�e City and the
dev�toper now have fo�tnal notice of t�is ctiti.cal habitat designation,it would be irraYpox�sible to •
��mceed i�uurther without flrst tngaging ix�the mandatory s�ction 7 consultation with the USFWS. .
J:Iwdo�deaV4910�2U2S617.DOC ,
�.� 4
w'�'� L N��I�ERCs3 ..
PrIRM, PC,
M�'• P�Joy,Assoc�ia.tc Plam�ies
Septcmber 16,20pS
Page 4 ,
We also noto ttiat t�te State of CaIi;forn,�a D
t1�is specxes as Cbreatened,and cons ��e�t of Fish ar�d C3amo has degignated
pe��s to deveto�fl'�o�m the Catiforu�a p t1y't�e devcloper nttu�t likewisa consult with an obtain
' thas consu�tatio�o�p�,t;i�t�e FE1R. W�ho�y�i����F,°�We see no evidence vf
positIon, a�td rec�uests t�at the City anc�Aeveloper respoct a 400�pneter buffcrarts the Jnst�tutc s
xec}wiFcments. � . , �ong other
We e,ncoura$e t�o City and Coz�pishc vfBy �
� options for t�� �rn to�zplare a1I poseible altemative
PFaP�Y so�t is not duectly or i�versely co�ademned,i�acluding othex
o�Partwuties for larid exeh�ges or cans�rvadon easements. We offer our s�rvices to assist witb�
these ahemative ef�'orts, It is nat$ighorn;�stitut8's iztteut to cause the ro 'ryi
City undue�naadal har�ship,but�t is.thc Institute's intent to P P�Y o'a►ne,�s or th� .
biologica�eti�ic for the,protection of tlus species and con�i�aue to work t wazc�the re�cov� of
. this endattgered s,pedes for e1�of tlxe�many citixe�ts oFPa�m Desert,Riverside Co �
Coacho�la Va,lley,anc�tb�e CJnit�S.tates. �h',�e gte�ter .
We appreciate t6c uppoxttmit�to preset�t thcse commouts to th�City of Palm Dese,�t. W
� sincerely hopo thc City takes tticse and owr prevlous comznents into serious cons�deration. v
vcry truly yoou�s,
WLF�The Williams�undberg Law�irnn, PC
— / - -
,
� . J. Craag Williarns .
• JCW/
cc: Me,tzibe�cs of the Board o€Di�octors of B�g�orn Instit�to
Jim DeFoxge, Execut�ve Director,Bighorn Izxst�t�tte
p.s. I a►a�,ld�a�so iike to corFect a o
� B�P�kzC��rror in my May 8,2008 Iotter to the City. I
mistal�onl�y wrote"230 yea�",iu�st�ad of"240 yards"on a e 2
crror a�d a�ay c6n�s�kon it maX}�ave caused.� I appreciate the 'p°int f�2. I apologiza fo�t my .
oPportunity,to cortect the record.
, � ,
t�ewan�,a�en,00c
' ,.�� �.'.�.
Ra�sa�vs�ri at Planntnn C`.e�1miR�tlAn 117AA[11td
..........v...... ..........y� �.........�...�.....�....
..a
_/ J _ ._. -- _ .��
w_._. A4'I�/_/nSCw___ •�_ /! R 1/. 71.�
(J'd�� v t/j V/!U��� . �r r r ♦ 'r
_ _ . .��' .. .. _.
� -• i i .. '
c•,�•••• _7 /i.�a;a 41 J./l�h.n< .
�IVII�_ v. �....«--. .�rCiwi� � � .
���
J
,:.:: .'�s�'a.
...;.,�...,.
.. � �` ...��� ,..�:.
. ... . � � �� �.
�':. . . '�.�,:.�.., . �.. . .a.: .
. .'� �. _`^ ��<� �. "� ' �:�'� `..
, ��.r ,�;�r. ,aa��. . �,.ww ..
s�"y`��i�`;' .
� . _ � _,.
�' ,���=
tt�x;.; x
' �
'r
�.
�P�can�� �v ...:.�.. �
• . _t r-- -.L�..... I.,....L :... at... ,.,.«a:..,. L......�) .,+LZ:..I�.�.s-n Tneti+��tn
H eWf'+ illl(1 IiCT IICWUUI'IL[illllU til I.11G Ui1�JUYG i1G1U cil U1KItvt�1 uio�itu«,
x a
% s�;a �
, NOV, i 7. 2008 3:40PM FAX 2------— -__ N0, 3304 P. 2
, -
W��1IIr�
�::r,��,--
�i��.�i�ii
���,'�>'C■
IK�ir1�11
� .
Novanber 17,2008
RCE Consultants
7595 Irvine Center Drir►e
Sudte 1�0
Yrvine,Ca�2618
Attn:Mr.Frank Cahill
Subj e,ct: Tentative Tract Msp 31676—Markers
Fzank,
Pursuant to your roquest,Guida Sw�veying erccted 2 individual clustcrs of ballaons ovcr
rhe subject projec�t.The balloons wa�a sct at an elevation of 18'above the,proposed
finished pad elovatian as showu on your Ta�a�ve Tract Map.
The elevations used for the top of the ba�loons are listed below:
Lot#1—�levatioa 838.0 at the appmximate oe¢�ter of the pmposcd pad
Lot#2—Elevatiou 827.0 at tt►e approxima6e c�nte,r of the praposed pad
Please feel fra to call if you should havo a�y questiona,
Thattk you,
Lcnny Reidling
Sr.Project Manager
� ieameuo�aAawee� ,�o�nee� esu�nee�arme� e�cee�
IZNbvirBNq,iq:t06 ti11�0opR�A 117WNcIad�Op,Qi111W1 7{�MpCopor��rbr,�Ib1N b0168./uiiA�w,Sui�101t104
tnr�,c�sm+e o�ur+�a o�eee ar�rroo.,at noeo �oa�w,a v�s r.r,p.,a�snt
T(ON�lT/I0��F(W9�T7I.OD60 T(i2��04A00�F(0�/M-060i T I�1���F(710)78�421Y T(1/D)��Fpiq�R1�3S1 T(p0}10�2�F(�A3�piJ
w�OO�^0�� i��.oen� � ��AO�
�� ���@
� NUV, 1 l. 1U08 3;39PM FAX 2
N4. 3304 P. � --- —
, ��I1 �at�1S Facgim,tle
AJlen Matkuos Leck Gamble Mallory&Natsia LLP
. Attmmeyr at Xaw
ww�v.sllrnmnrki�acom
To: Philip J"oy From:�'atrick A.Perry .
Fax;760.34I,7098 � ,phont;760,776.6489
Date:Noyembor 17,2008
Tstephone:213.955.5504 .
E-wail:PPerry�eIlenm.atkIns.com
Filo Number:F3263-00?J.
Tota1 pages including covcir sheet;03
Commeuts:
Please see the attachod lctter regarding the place�ment af balloons on the Comishe pmperty,
Orf�inal rfill: ❑ be sent via mtdl ❑ be oent via me�sd�er ❑ be sent via f�dex/cou�ier
Q� aot be+mt
Note: 71+o bybrniador�co�fain�d in�lfsfocabnEle domo�n�tr eo►{�fder,Nai mid is inbedrd a�ly jor d��ur��'flie indlvfd�w!mm�d abova-0l'du�.adrr
qfrhis+�rnsqy�Lt no(fhr tndmded rsdpttnt,�+r ws he�p'�pdff+ed Ihat mlY d�a�i+aftoh.d!alrlbfrlton or co
A+�ud �yrou harr rsutwd Ri�r oor,�mu,Btatlon!n error,ploass�p�ediaesty,wq�Y uc al ��drti conumoitcotton i,r rnial�y
above adrlr+rra vra U.�Mail. iYi wiJl r�rJn�bwaa y�w�'or�Ie � �°�reM„ths or�irral doewnent M m ae rhs
Pa+raPa i7�ankyou.
Los Ang�les�Orange Courty�S�u blego i C�aauy Ciry�Sea Frnneisco�Dal Mer Heaigbn�Walaut Crodc
S 15 Sauth Figuerm,9�T+loor I�pngeles,CA 90071-3309�Telepboae:213.622,5335 I Facsimile:213.620.8816
2�o`J
� 1!i � I � �
1 �� �
� � � ��� �,�,;, �r! t � � ��
��"'�w,, �'
;, .
�� _,�,�!, ' ,, '' �' 4'�i�r(f�1� ;�
- ,
�.����,��� � _� ` �; �����d�,�-� � �,
� �� ` "
� � '`' .�1�1'� `�.����"�l : V�
t � .�
� �`�'��� ��.��r�`'^}`����������� � .
�•. y,:.r.� � - - . � �,�
4 �• + .
��f/����'�,.'�1��,`, .,,ti'!11�3�"1�r'�!{�� ir�'1► � I r�{
i�� �..r���� `� -.� y:ty,,r7��t1'��j�1; �� ' .r.
� l+r� '��1::. ;5...�..�`�` � ���1 'l1! I �
�� .��V�.,'-- '"��-.-..� �' '�VC��' ��!�.5��= �1� ,
�, .� �. ���,r� �r.� i.�'��'"►��",F'�w~` �'`�'���j�='�1'� ��i ,� ; s
`{ � .sti ti'� ��, �t� y � �.�
��� ��1 1'r��l.'lt�7i' 't 7 �v;�,��w=-��Ip,�;��\��i ` �
\! � � � t A _ ��� v {
��� `�r�► �,r � ,-;��►�,�,: ��'; �� `�� �;
��1�,�' 1 ����,�t!;s:..�,`,����.a�-��` �
�\��\.`��,��. \ ` �:_�
- .�' ���` +t�C�'`::::R�+rr �
�� .
�`� � �,,�'�j i��y��rt����-'' �1��JJ��%
r, �,�., �� �.
�. F� ' �ljf',��� ���,. 1 1 J�.�,
��,,� � ����; �����7_._,,,_ � �.�/
` �1��r ' =+ '���/.������ y" �.��,j,� f�y..
��`,\ � �
�� ,.
� a ~�.
;�ti�� � � �������-��5� ;�� +_ �
• ��.
��'�`!Cs.d.� ` r1�), ��
\��� V�'-� y..`.-�a►s, ''�/� '�' �
► ,
. � � �� z �
�, ���� '� � f
� ' �`f�"�.•� - - I
.������:�t,��,��j►� �`� 3`� �/�i� , A.auin��l
* y. �,. ������ ::.-�']` L��"'�,,�ti� r':�11111l1�
',�'� \ �fi..��,�`-=�"�` �'?:
�
- a ��,. -�,��_ ':�--� �,� -�
M�^ „,��-1.
� � �, . ��� � �c4'�K� �
,. �: � �
,�,�...�, :'\ � .- y'
4�� ���' ;��s�'�'� ���111111!!
�,,,,. ��,`f:1�j r,%� I:?IIII�III
; i� ,�-,�;� `1,' /, r:�lu�lu�
-. � � �
� � ;� '��� �
�.�. � �'�
� ��► �� �L �c��:
\
�� .�.�*. `�� � �
ti �. � � ,
� �,�y � ��
� , , �
� � ,�� ..:.
�� t ���
��. - ��. �,. `��
���w, ` —=
�.,
.,-f�. �I���f' :�
I v _ ;:; J „1 �., �y�
►
` !
� r� � �
� � -� � � .�!
.�
i�I��� V : � � `�,.
i y '
f
Allen Matkins
wwx�. allenmatkins. com
AII�Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP
Atianeys at Law
515 South Figuaua,7i6 Floor�Los Mgeles,CA 90071-3398
Telephone:213.622.5555�Facaimile:213.620.8816
PaMek A.Perry
E-mail:pparyQallenmatkins.com
Dirxt Dial:213.955.5504 File Number:F3263-002/LA808038.01
November 12, 2008 '`; �-,
,
VIA OVERNIGHT MAIL '; r`--`
� :� -,
,`�:�,
'„� 1. -�,1:' Y
Mayor Jean M. Benson �' r���- _���
Mayor Pro Tem Robert A. Spiegel -� �� '-'`�
'�,i��.a..
Councilmember Jim Ferguson ' ;-�.-.;�'�
�v•t:.�
Councilmember Cindy Finerty " c��;'
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 Pa1m 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
praperty(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 permitteri 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 residential lots 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 concerns
Los Angeles�Orange County�San Diego�Century City�San Francisco(Del Mar Heights
Z��
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP
Ariomeys at Law _
Mayor Jean M.Benson
November 12,2008
Page 2
regazding the use by Comishe of the existing easement to access the Property from the north.
Because the development of 38 units on the Property wauld 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 eliminate the requirement
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 2005, Fire
Marshal David Avila reviewed the plans for the proposed eigtit-lot subdivision a.nd determined that a
single means of access would be suf�'icient as long as adequate hydrants are provided on-site, the
buiidings are fully sprinklered, and the access road does not exceed 1,300 feet in Iength 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 iri the
draft environmental impact report("DEIR")that was prepared for the project pursuant to the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA").
The DEIR was prepared for the project and circulated for public review and comment from
Decernber 2 5,2005 through February l, 2006. 1'he 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 tentarive 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 2?,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 representarives 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 attache�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 pr4posed 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 sigc�ificant environmental
impacts that were identified in the DEIR for the origina138 unit project.
���
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP
Attomeys at Law
Mayor Jean M.Benson
November 12,2008
Page 3
A. The Develoument of Two Single Familv Homes Is Consistent with Applicable Planning and
Zorun�R _eq,uirements for the Pru�erty.
The General Plan land use designation for the Property is Low Density Residential Study
Zone, which would pennit the City to establish the appropriate residential density for the Property
through the pending tentative tract map review process. Approximately 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 thc residential density restrictions of
the existing zoning, 57 residential units could be developed on the Property. Comishe 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 squaze feet of pad area is within the portion of the Property located in the HPR
zone. The revised tentarive tract map showing the portion of the Property zoned Hillside Planned
Residential is attached as Exhibit D.
B. The Subdivision of the Cornishe Propertv into Two Residential Lots Will Substanrially
Reduce or Eliminate anv Potentiallv Significant Impacts on thg 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 DEIIt also concluded that construction traffic
associated with the anticipated import of approxirnately 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.
T'he 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 tt►e proposed homes have
�t�`�
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 farther 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 located in the
HPR zone. The proposed reduction in pad size will further reduce the amount of dirt required tb 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 Oualitv.
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 occur 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 r�ucing 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 thresholds for
particulate matter, and the amount of nitrogen oxide emissiQns,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 Bighom 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
Attomeys at Law
Mayor Jean M.Benson
November 12,2008
Page 5
that operarions 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.
Mvreover,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 bighorn 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 bighom 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 sensirive than that of sheep. Thus, the
inclusion of the Bighorn Institute as a sensitive receptor is not supported in tiie 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 would 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 consttuction 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 activiries 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 mirigated 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 the operations of the Bighorn
Institute. Footnote 122 on page 210 of the DEIR states that no scientific data was discovered to
�`? I
Allen Matkins Leck Garnble&Matlory LLP
Attorneys at Law
Mayor Jean M.Benson
November 12, 2008
Page 6
support an incremental increase in noise level threshold specific to highorn sheep. �In 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 the proposed
development of the Property. The conclusions in the DEIR regazding the potential impacts of the
proposed development of the Praperty on the adjacent Bighom Institute are therefore entirely without
foundation. Even if there were some support for the identified noise impacts, the FEIR co�cludes
that such noise impacts would be substantially reduced due to the reduction of the scope of the
praposed development&om 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 Feninsular 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 adversely impact the status of the Peninsular
Bighorn Sheep. In the absence of such a connection,it is not possihle 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 applicable City
development standards. Even if the operation of the Bighorn Institute were affect�by
development on adjacent property,it would be incumbent upon the Bighorn Institute to relocate#o a
more suitable location where it can cany 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 Bighom Institute,the original developer of the Canyons at Bighom
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 accomraodate the Bfghorn 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 the 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 adjacent properties has been
largely self-imposed by the Bighorn Institute. The property owned by the Bighom 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 govemment programs,
plans, zoning,and regulations applicable to the azea 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 aze 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 proximity to the urban
boundary. The Bighorn Institute cannot now legitimately argue that its mere presence in such
proximity should prokibit development on property that it neither owns nor controls. The two
2��
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&MaIlory LLP
Attomeys at Law
Mayor Jean M.Benson
November 12,2008
Page 8
lots proposed to be developed on the Property are designed such that the single family homes to be
constructed on the lots will be no closer than 25U yards &om 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 avail�able on its website,the Bighom
Institute plans to construct new facilities on its own property,including.offices,animal care units,
research laboratories, and a museum education center. For the Bighorn Institute to seek to preclude
development on adjacent property under these circumstances is accordingly disingenuous at best and
may constitute a violation of the terms according to which it acq�ired its property in the first place.
Even if the Bighorn Instltute could establish a right to protect its activihes 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 �
rec;ommended 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 bighom 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
locarion 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 Departrnent of Fish and Game] for the Santa Rosa
HMP (1980). No evidence of bighorn sheep use was observed on site. There aze 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 Lerd maintained by the Bighorn Institute; however, even the impacts
identified on the captive breeding herd are not clearly established,nor is it establisLed w�tL 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,however,less than
conclusive, and it is not clear from the evidence presented that the proposed development of the
'2"7`�
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP
nnorneys ac tsw
Mayor Jean M.Benson
November 12, 2008
Page 9
Property will necessarily interfere with the ability o�the captive sheep at the Bighorn Institute to
continue to reproduce. The most definitive statements in the DEIR with resgect 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 Bighom)in which the opinions of various experts regarding the optnnal size of
the proposed buffer area to be established between the l�mbing pens on the Insritute's property arid
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 activiry, including home construction,golf, and
vehiculaz 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 reintro�duotion program for bighom
sheep notwithstanding the fact that approximately 160,000 people per year�pass within 30 feet ofthe
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, Comishe
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 bighom 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
altemative,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 yazds 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 successfitl captive breeding programs:"
Copies of letters received frorn Professor Krausman are attached as Exhibit G.
Despite the lack of conclusi�+e evideiice 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:
27�
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 ma�cimum
extent practicable. .
• Site preparation and grading of the site shall be desig�ed to balance on-site to minimize
new import of fill materials to the extent feasible. Grading sha11 be restricted to that
necessary for 1)reasonable vehicular access from th'e 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 practicable, all
activities and facilities associated with their occupancy, including indoor and outdoor
residency, landscape and other maintenar�ce,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 lambing 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 and/or wall shall be developed in consulta.tion 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 the 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 activiries on the Project from the lambing pen on the Bighorn Institute's property.
The visual analysis demonstrates ttiat 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 baniers 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 aze not feasible in the project setting without creating
�' �1�.
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP
Anomeys at Law
Mayor Jean M.Benson
November 12,2008
Page ll
additional visual impacts in their own right. A series of several short,pa�allel barriers o�12 to 15 feet
in height located perpendicular to the lin�of sight norttiwest of the on-site access road cou}d screeri
visible roadway activity from some portions of the lambing pen. This system of bazriers in
conjunction with others designed to screen activity on the residential lots would substantially screen
the visibility of on-site activity from the view of sheep in the lambing pen. Any activiries that would
not be screened would be tocated on the portion of the Property farthest from the Bighorn Institute
and would have no more impact than similar activities to which the sheep have already become
habituated. •
The USFWS has fiirther suggested that the road providing access to the Property from Indian
Cove be relocated to the north of the proposed lots in order to fiuther screen vehicular traffic from
view of the lambing pen. The USFWS is apparently unaware that the fout-lot subdivision previously
submitted to the City in 20061ocated the mad 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 pro�osed 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 than by the two lots currently proposed.
Locating the roadway to the south of the lots a§presently proposed will�artially offset the reduction
in value that Cornishe will experierice 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 wauld also require
significantly more grading in the area adjacent to Dead Indian Creek. Moreover,it would be
physically impossible to Iocate 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 the project, including the
reduction in the number of residential lots and the erection of visual barriers to screen activities on
the proposed lots from the Bighom Institute,to substantially reduce,if not completely eliminate,
potential adveFse impacts of the proposed development of the Property on the operation of the
Bighorn Institute. �
C. Failure to Auprove Reasonable Development on the Propertv Will Result in a Regulatory
Takin►z of the Propertv for Which Cornishe Will Be Entitled to the Payment 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 IJnited 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 prohibiring 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�ies 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 Department 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 ameniries 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 mazginal,non-significant extension of these acrivities 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: ,
2. ��.
Allen Matkins I.eck Gamble&Mallory LLP �
Attorneys at Law .
Mayor Jean M.Benson
November 12,2008
Page 13
� � • � Comishe acquired the Property from Guy and Vanessie Laliberto, and Mario Pascucci in
2003: . :
� The Property was originally purchased by Guy and Vanessie Laliberte,Robert Del
Gagnon, and Mario'Pascucci for$25,0�0 in 1977,prior to the exec�ttion of the lease
between the Bighorn Institute and the BLM for the property currently occupied by the
Bighorn Institute. The Property was transferred to Cornishe for approxirnately$673,200.
Guy and Vanessie Laliberte and Mario Pascucci retained tlie�r interest in the Property as
members of Comishe. - �•
• 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 azea designed to protect the operations of the adjacent Bighorn Institute.
• The current mazket value of the Property if developed for two lots.for the construction of
single family homes as proposed is approximately$7,OOO,UOU, 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. Tota.l 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 azea 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
l.46 acres in size for the development of single family homes.
�� <W.,
� � �
Allen Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP
Attomeys at Law
Mayor Jean M.Benson
November 12,2008
Page 14
•� If the proposed subdivision is deni�d, and development is not permitted within the buffer
area,the Property witl have no economic value. According to information obtained from
repras�ntatives of'the C�nyons at Bighorn,the smallest lot located in the Canyons at
� Bigl�iorn developm�nt is 11,413 square feet in area and represents one of only three lots in
the Cartyons at Bighorn development that are less than 12,000 square.feet in lot area. .The
three lots in the 11;000 square-foot range are"villa" lots, each of which accommodates a
villa residence 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, fully fumished 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.
Canstrucrion 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. 1'he
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 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 almost nine acres of the Property as
� k``�
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 respeatfully urged to approve the
requested subdivision and permit the Property to�be developed as proposed.
Your careful attenrion to this matter is greatly appreciated. I am available to meet 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 t�uly yours, �
�i�
�� "
Patrick A. Perry"
PAP:Ivb
Enclosures
cc: Mr. Carlos L. Ortega �
Ms. Lauri Aylaian
2B1
' I � I 1111� 1111:'
' � li � [ :
, , _ �
_
� � � i � ���� � � � �
�d. �•-1�_ _ .��I
�''� � �� ��.Illri ::� '
..�.�:-�rc` - _� ■ i�— ��
� �►�C �� ��' ����i�i� :
'` � ��� .: ��11� 'O
�I. �;�i'�.� = is �w�`� �� ��
'�'�'I '� " � �"��C:al�'J0�
A� i r ��-� ���ii�4�� : �V ��� ■��
1: •,/ �i � II . �.�� `' �
r �
, � � �� ���r�� ;:: ,����.,.•� �i �_r� �.:�� ���,
�p- ••�Ii.,�`�I:I .����i�'�' �■�,��"� a': ake
�, ���i��::�._ ♦ :..1 `
�'��, .. ��� ` `�,��5 y�f1-�� �� . � , . �- .rn� .
�1�
��;. , �� � �. ., ti � '�e
• � � r ����
� ' � � .. r// r �•.,,tio\ � � _� . t.''i��'�ti j�Y��� �.
�._ ..� �'��� � � �� ������t ����.
;�, '����a �����- � � �,� ��� e���'s.�,3�,°� ,.
,�R �. �� , �� 3 y
� �l,���'sh t �^' =-`� ` V-Y �� �� ��u -l�la� � �i�
\ �
���ea5 . �, •�; ' r��`i V�,��s d�4' 1."��,
�� �'� , � i r� �`y .
� ., �, �^� i !r� t-�� �t. �4�- ��
. x . ^,r i� h } Fti .
._ '�� �i � _ � t �;-iy��1,��' R 4rSv .f�y >�' .�.
S� 1 }-���S`�I .�� , � Y:
' � � "'�.`` 1 ',�T.. ��}�,�y� ����'a� f��!�",w"N.�'
`i # � 'Y' �"all�`,r�I
'r � + ',�� :..:�I _''ia��^ „yu���� �j;���.
{.-�- . � �' - . � g'�" (� j .. t�." N}�'�,Sfl:.1� ■ � ��i. �;a'�.
� j �f" ��f , �r�• ��'� � r ��„� �� �''�`�u�,'�����i�������,��, �j��� ' �
' " � .� �r �1v0��� �'4L711�i���� '�
` ...1 ,iw �� Xii',.,. � •������:,'.i�:7r'�r�ll S■. . � �
��� °'/�F �'f�,"AYI'� t'Y r�II�Iq' ��
����:�: -1'� '` �� � ;►���;�, �,n���an��i����S�o� ��:L��1� �'y °� �
�.�' •�cs�r„� Iiuc17R 71liiY�i9ia,�rr�rrr-�+.r�R I� �� �
� � � !)���r� ��I�'�l�;' y„� '�
� 1� 1\��Itl:�j ���',��'LT i.�e�
1
r:i YwA� ._''�. 't�`;1� h' 7.��[ �
.��.�� � �� 1 �
" � — � � �� ,1i ��� G ���� �� T ' '.l� !
I J I � � i��i J�� �;•f n' � �.: ;..'af/'�+ �
����M�+�■ ��,_ �i�� � ��n`i� �����'� ��
�-- � ��y� �' � .�;;!., ;,,;.,� ,,�,1�,:.�
�
'�� � � ��..v��r� �+�.� � � ���a ♦ i ��!1�r;
'� � ,���l�i'�'1F ,� .f� y`_ ���;i�7■�C ���� ���
fi=iitF. p ��''G�:�n� i ` �;
ra f■�i i ` �j
. . . � ��!�'r��� I'��►\w4�`�1s i�r. � �II
F3a!1/IT���t �� E��r�iYn�■:�yr�y� �■■ ��.,�„�r
� " ! � ����te�ri� �d ���� ���'GS��i�. .
I �ry�/q. < 4 ���� � �Gi
��75� � y`'�`�•� �i`_ �� i
t �� 1.� r �- \ Ili�. �r�� fr���'1
�• ..iF �A'���_:.11 �, ������ �l�.�J ' I
��'� ��'� •��al / I�+r�F �
I J � 1 r.l � � �,
, / S.� `IRF !� �,��:���'1�,-l�I.-IA��I��.`±I����� � .r'.
x � 1I �_���g7.�Y ..' ���c�s'p� �
r . '�j?E7'`,�I�i.9l90�� +� ..�l.�f�l ��i.�,� .��''I• +i'i
'��_ „�f��l�+..�.l�rr���, �, �' Y.c+u �■.���r,�ij� `�'I.�C.,' C
� _ I !� ��..:�:�y, '�J Ir
, L�� s����..� :�^#y���?I��
��, „i 1 1� a ��. �. � �:
i e�Mr�"`Qt�\C �'�;.i�' rr--�• �r� �,
;�,� � .r„ �?��. r�r 7� ��
� �<�U� �,�� .. .i0� � �
•.�p�J�, � �' � IE� �il�� �'�.
,��+, ' i-� -: , a,!
++. � �!.,
7�R � s
k't� ���
Y, :w ' �. ��.
t�, �
==nn "'_ '. ..,".,.'I'���/..
/// ' �'� '\:- ,
�
� —--� �"-- -�
�\�������II�/ /1111111111►�►
�i � I,111111►�
I'•�� ���/, - �-;/
..�Irrn_,r,p'�� Cll�%3 ���
,
��� RIVERSIDE COUNTY
FIRE DEPARTMENT
� !n cooperation�vith thc
f California Dcpartment of Forestn•and fiirc Protcction
73710 Fred Waring Dc/102 . Palm Desatt,CaGtomia 92Z80 . CI60)346�187G . Fax(T60)779-1959
Crelg Antlwny
Fin Chlet •
�rouaty scV;n$w� Cove Fire Marshal's Office .
���� 73710 Fred Wari�g Drive#102 �
�,�y�� Palm Desert CA 92260 �
cities of: (760)346-I870 .
�a
� ����� .
Beaumonc TO: � DATE: �-/��d �
cetimesa '�'�`�
° 31� �� �
c�,y�n r.�r� REF:
�
���`� If circled,conditions anolv to �roiect
�
Desat Hot Springs
'� 1• Wit6 res ect to the coriditions of a
�na�aa weus P pproval regarding the above
�. referenced project,the fire departmcnt recommends the foliowing firc
�O protectioq meusures be provided in accordaace with City Municip�l
���� Code,NFPA, E,'FC,and CBC or any recognized Fire Protection
.� Standsrds: �
�Q�� The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire ilow for thc
`` � remodel or construction of all buildings ner LTFC article 87
Mon�no veuey
fi (_,?,,� A fire now of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual
P�� pressun mt�st be svailable before any combustible material is plAced
° on the iob site.
Paris -
.� Provide or s6ow there eiists a water system capable of providing a
�M�se gpm ilow of:
'° � 1500 gpm tor single family dwellings
�"J� 4. 2500
� gpm for m�ltifamily dwellings
Tan�s 5. 3000 Pnm for commercial buildings
The required fire flow shs�ll be available from a wet barret Saper
�.,-a ors���o„ $Ydrant(s)4"z 2'/s"x 2�4",located not less than 25' nor more ths�n:
� 200'from sny portion of a single family dwelling measured via
��d 1 vehicular ttavelway
7. 165' from any portion of a multifamily dwelling measured via
�T���a Z vehicular tnvelway
8. 150' from any portion of a commercia! buiiding measured via
J'°'�0°'��a vehicular travelwa
nna;a a
9• Water plans must be apprnved 6y the Fire Marshal and include
R°y Wa� verification thst the water stem will roduce the uired fire flow.
Distrid4
bUrion AsLiey,
District 3
..
, ,. : . . ....
.7g �
10. Please be advised the proposal project may not be feasible since the ezisting w;�ter
mains will not meetthe uired fire Baw.
Y1. Znstall a complete NFPA 13 fre sprinkier system. This applies to s�l! buildings with
a 3000 square foot total cumul�ttive floor area.The Fire MarshAl shall approve the
locations of a11 post indicator vatves and fire department coanections.All valves and
connections shall not be less than 25' from the building and witt�in 50' of an approved
h dran�Eiem ted are one and two fami dwellin s,
12. All valves controlling the water supply for automatic sprinkler systems and W�ter-flow
switcbes shail6e monitored snd alarmed er CBC Cha ter 9.
13. install a fire alarm stem as re uired b the UBC Cha ter 3.
14. Install porta6le fire eztinguishers 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 f,re
eztin uisher is r uired in all commercial kitchens.
�5• Install a Aood/Duct xutomAtic fire eztinguishing system per NFPA 96 in all public and
rivate cookin o erations exce t sin e-faroil residential usa e.
16. Install a dust collecting s�+stem per CFC Chapter 76 if conducting an oper�tion thRt
roduces airborne articks.
17• All building shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' f
all portions of t6e ezterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall not be less than
Z4' of unobstructed widtte and 13' 6"of vertica!clearance. Where parn�lel paricing is
required on both sides ot the street the roadway must be 36'wide and 32' wide with
parking on one side.Dead-end roads in ezcess oP 150'shaU 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 means provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over-ridc system to
allow for emergeacy ve6icle access.Minimum gate width shal! be�16' with minimum
ve ical clearance of l3'6",
19. A dead end�ingle access over 500' wi11 require a secondary access,sprinklers or other
mitigative measures approv�d by the Fire Marshal.Under no circamsta��ce.sl�Al1 a
dead end over 1300' b acce ted.
20• A second access is reyuired.7'h�s can be accomplished by two main access points from
a main roadwa or a eme enc ate from an ad'oinin dcvel ment,
.. . ... ..,. , .. ..
. .;� . �
.. .�
Z�y ...
21. This project may require licensing by a stste or county agency, to facilitrte plan
review the applicant shall pr�pare and submit to the Fire Marshal a letter of
intent detailin the ro sed usa e and occu anc e, .
22. All buildin s shall have illuminated addresses of s size a roved b the cit .
2� Alt 6re sprinkler systems, fixed fire suppression systems and alnrm plans must be
submitted se aratcl to the Fire Marshal for a roval r;or t construction.
24. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes,ordinances,laws or when
buildin ermits are not obtained within twelve months.
25. All elevators shall be minimum urn size.
All questions regarding the meaning of these conditions should be referred to the
Fire Marshal'a Omce at(760)346-1870 in Palm Desert.
Location: 73710 Fred Warin I�rive#102 Palm Desert CA 92260
Other.
a- �'3�-- g �e 1�- � �,,Q�Q "
,
. �
Sincerely,
�
avid A.Avila
Fin Marshal
2��
�t�
'�
. : � �;��"°.
.,,. �
� �
;, `�,.
� _
.
�:
;
� , � ��
.. �
�� ,�
,�1 ,s�,
, , �
� ,
. ,
,
f
\�•
_� ,� i ��
,�— � ���
� . �.r
��������E�, � ;,�����I� r� : . _
�1���111c� ��,.�
11111111� `,�, L�'�"'�
�i.
- ,,,,�� .�
� _ ` � � .
11111111�'. _�1�- �r I ���
11111111�� � �� � � �� , � -
_—,. � .�
_ .� �?� � .
�l — , i;��.�� ��
,i ,��� ��_��' , ��,, .
� ���_ , � ,
„� - ,,1''�..�,;� I�� � �' --''� �����
c/ , .�,�,�'��� �; �
��,
-��-„ �" - ,���'�.-���(��' "- !�
`-� ��,��-�`��� �`�.��.`�►�',1 .
�i�'��►l►'•^�' � ;a► �
��►�,•. �,:`,�.--:-. �,�..���,�,��:`a�
l�� y .,�,�_Y;..,��\� . �
. , �, �� �i,,�J►�' �`��y'��` ���5 ��
� � �! � ' ��T�� ��
, l �'n A lll\dMl`.�+u
� I��� �" , � ' ^� �F,� ,,�',�»
' t ` ��-��r�/'`�,.':'���)�E�.��i�. : :.-�.•�;+�',
�
� �� `I`► ,���i`'-,���� 3rrj��;��w �;�l�E.:7�
I �� ����,�? -���� _ :_`��fa1�,� �-:r►'� ,-`
��*�, � .,.f� Ilji,
I . �''�����.���``�r���=• ..�y Ii,
—�,___ .1� i,��+ �' ��.��.. —�%�•►�.�--
���-_.�`I�, ���:,`1L�'����\ r\4Y _._�- l
�„'.-��\.�� ��` .n�� 1�`,If����•�"*�i►���M�✓'y. I
1 �� ��..'�\` ������.
��� � � . ` �' v 5i�„�►
�� � �) , •�ll : �1�V'C�.�'
����1�ti��`�� ��:,, ,,` � �+ �`�
;.� ���— � � ,� ��
_ __ _------
---_—
� �
3P .-�
r C ITY OF �
v . .
= PALM DESERT .:
v J � .�
J
Q� .
. �Q I
2 9 ., .. , .
�� Q=� � � . .. .. . .
- :o��
. . •J:
. . :..,1•
. • ��
� • • . . .. ' .. �:
� ' .. • • . .. . �2;
. .. <:
��
.�:
� MOUKITAINOUS AREAS �
.� O -
oa ��.:
_ :�:
.�@. �
,
- ,
�� - � ,
�
. � �`o�
MOUNTAINOUS AREA$ �,�r
J�6
' ��i
' ��
�� , ��VO --
APP• 818HORN INSTITUTE � �i0C1T'�"'''� '''�
RAHCHO �
U:� NONCOMMERCIAI. MENA6ERY � .
Oist. C C A N 0 P D 5� � 4 1tIRA0E �
S�C. 6 T. 6 S..R.6 E. Aya��'s 8k.7 71 Pq.04p —... PALM
Ckculation HIOMMtAY 74 - ARTERIAI. Ilp' �E�� INDIAN
EINnMt e we'��s ,
:
Rd. B1a. PO. 1 I 3 Oot� 6-21-89 O�rp�t 8r R D S ...
� ("= 20 O O' R1NL�RSyQE CaIGM/TY FL'�LyNhl�I�s DIEPART11AE71/T
h-»-�-�ar
� ��
_--�_______
�
� ATTACHMENt �
. � ; NV(Il
� . . • ATTACFiMElVT �q�� . ° .
� ' Proposed ,
i
i - , • ' CLASSIFICATION OECISION f
. > >
�The followtng public lands have been examinrd and ' .
ioptlon to�purchase, under the Recreatior and PubTtc�p��
192b (44 Stat 74 ns suitable for )ease '
�are aPproved. � ��ded, and the petttfon fnr classifi�at&a��fortthf � with -
June 14, .
. ese lands '
' T. 6 5. ,. R. 6 E. . �S.B.B.M. � �
Section 6, Lot 1� E1/2 SWI/¢� E1%2 HW�,/�4 �2/q, 5E1/4
. `� (297.34 acres)
:7his'decision is based upon the follow;ng reasans. '
2• "If the lands are found t� be suitable for disposal � . •
criteria of this part will be given to whether the la�ds are ne .i
urban or suburhae purpases or whether they are c�tieif) �S�aeratipr� under the
purposes,. l,a�ds found to be valua6le for p�h�f� � edpd for �
chlefly valuable for public purpases. except in situationsuable for other � .
sites ar P poses w1)1 be constdered
e� availabte to meet the pubiic needs „
involved, "tter� a)ternate
' Z• "The 1and5 must be (43 CFR 2430.2(h),)
physically suitable or adaptable to the us�s or purposes
and other characteristicsfasdthe la
In addttior�� they must tnve such
� ' a particular •clnsslfication." w �lay reqy�re thern to have to quai�fal
. � {43 Cf'R 2410.1(a).� y fQr
' 3• "A11 pr.eseat and potentlal uses an:d users of the lands �wi11
. conslderation. A11 other thfngs bein
: attempt to achieve maxfmum future useS � taken lntp •
� equaT� �and. classificatlons Nili �
cation of ex�fstin users. `�d mi�+im� diaturhan�e ta or d�slo-
9 ` (43 CFQ 2410.�tb);�
. 4• "A1] iand classifftations must be consistent -N1th State and 1 �
progr mns� plans. zaning, and regulat:ons a
iands ta be classiffed are located to the pP�i��1e to the areaain9�Ver�ent
proqrams� plans� zonin �tent such State anG �a��ich 'the
_ pra9r�5 , g: and regulations are not inc�nsistent
� individual5�«icies anG uses, and xi11 not lead to in uit�ieS w1th Fedcral
. (43 CFR 2410.1(c)1�) e'9 auwng private .
� 3• "A11, �and classificatlans must be consistent Ktth Federa�- �r ' � '
?olicies� to the ext�nt that -thase� pro rants � P �9r�ns and
disposal of the pub]i� lands. � � a�icies affect the use or �
" (43 �CFR 2410,1(dJ�,)
� The lands petitioned for cora �
1 ands under the above c ited RecreaL fonhand Pub'I��p�r�S�SAct wi 11
frota a)1 app�..apriations, including �iecations ��assification of these
• PubTlcspu�der thc�mineral ieasing laws 3nd d �der minim 5���'9ate them
pose Ac., pplications �de�s�pxcept as to appti-
Recreatlon and
_ .. . . .... . > ..,. ....
.. . . . . ... .....
. . . .. . . . . . . . . .
� ��5�
I •
( ' / • .
� � � • �•
- = t .
t _ - • '
rhe fallowing petltion for classlficatlon 1s hereby: approved:
: Name of Petttioner: The Desert�8igharn Research Inst�ttute: (C1�-14622)
Narne af Petiticn: Recreation anG Public Purpose �
�
. j
3 .2 3 " S' :
e e a . er
Far the State Director
� �• �.
' . • . . � ' : .
. '.,
. . . ' • i
. . • . • ` . ���•�•
• . � . :s:.;r
. � ";6
- , , : . - �.. . ' , 4` �.^3'� f .�,i'�
..1� .� ��A
' .! '
. �
� 1.
i J
.. . . , _ . . . . . . .
.. .. . . ... . . . . ...� .. . .
� . � .. . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . � . .. ._ .. . . , . ��� .
:-r... . -
," . .
' .. ' -`�=-�
List of Revietire�s . . . .
� ,
Bonner B long � � ---''"~- '
. �ox 16I, 55050 Strong Drive Mr• Ramon A.• D1az ' e
. �dyi�wild. Callfornl�. gP349 • Dir�tor of �n�irorrmental Servtces•�
Universlty of California " ��ty of Palm Desert � �
P�Q• Baz 1977
� P Op 8oxyi738esearch Certter' Pa�m Desert� California gZz6
' Pa1m Oesert, Caltforr�ia 92Z61 �• Patricta Larson '
• � Riversld� Ceunt g � Yice C�alrman '
Universit.y of Callfornia P•0• Orawer 1330 oard of Supervt5o�s
ATTH: Dr. W11bur �I. Mayh�,�, � Indio� Cdlifornla 92202 �
Riverside, Callfornia 92502 � �
Living Oesert Museum Mr� J�� R� �F0"�e
Desert B��ighorn Sheep Research Instf�te
� p�: Karen Sausraan, Director P•0• Box 2g2
4�-900 South Portola Avenue p�Tm �sert
� P�.Tm Desert� Callforr�la gZ261 � � • � ��ifornia 92z61 -
Ironwoad Country Club ' � �
� 492�0 Mariposa Orive -
Palm Desert� Californla 92261 '
Californ�a Department of Fi.sh �
and Game, • ' .
�• Enviranrr�ntal Services �
� Za5 w. 8ro�way� S�ite 3�0 . � � �
• Lvnq @each, Cal ifornia 90802 �
Mr. Roqer Streeter, Dirtctor . • � • ' . '
Riversfde PTannlng' Gepartment�: • � `
4080 L'emo�� 9th'Floor - • • • . ' � • .
.Riversi�e� California 9250� , • ' • •• ' • . • �
Q _ . . . • • - r
, _ nSSG�'J��, . . � • • 7:. .
Y� Steve Clutes •. • - �
� c/o L 1 sa_Narrt son • � � � ' ' � • ��
45-235 Towne Street, N2 • " � • � .
Indio, Cnlifornie 92201
Ms. Kay Ceniceros� Chainaan
• R1vpr.side County 5uperyisars ' � � �
4�080 Lemon� 14th Fioo�' � ' � • �
�Riverslde� Cal.ifornfa 9250I . ' ' � •. , • . . , .
, F . . .
. � • ' f
� ' ,
' � � � . � � - . .. � � . . �.+"y�L�F�t'
L E 4?
�t 12 . d Jt2:. '--� �� ..._.��..
� i� h '�-.�� � �. � ; �, . ..-
'� �. C'�Tr' ....�1 ��...:' i �i. � .,�� �l 1: • lT • •
fl: � l, � t��'�����''� ..}: �. � t I .` '
�.«.�'�:.::;� '-;:., • :::.:�=�_ _ � c ' � � -.�. � `
� i.""R".,r � �� ` � .� - ' t � � ••�-� � �' �
�+ la� • __ rlT�tifrN . � • 4 ,� r ' � \ . � •� . �.
y ' _ _ r,".rn } �,t� ::i� � �' �,� � •.' = .�� +� 1 .' l�
� i~ �e : `'•' " �C � .
�: .�' �':'�IId' 0 <iµ+ , � �.a�p,o` ;\� �� • ;^� ' R� ,
�tA' .�•� �.rw •" , V�y, ��• 'S' ` Y
. � �i'� � .t: =5::�:':7.•. .. . .iL: i:.�•�".�:"'J���l-'� C� y0 _ . ,
� � � • '��� •�11�1�'•• : `�... ..7rr�.'ti . '��^ �v . . .
��� :�v :�.�^^: •1 Y�N ww.�i•��`��a„ '�� , `
�f � -tt f Zi f��i�•/� � r� �M;.'F��� •i�'Y` � • 't
� � 7} r;.;,�.,, _'�'� '�' 1�: • �'4�.n. ' �� .
,, ; �:� � � • � ������: 7.���� 1 �!
��1 • '"�'' �•rr ^ � � ' ' " , '.
i �., ' .:•w.. .•;� - . _ �� �
�.`=',� 1 .r �'� '.� ':'��':�;•.:•� ':..� . ::. '.1� a (
�� .�; ' � � �g•�a �o��np .: �' T! :r� .
� • � Q� I"�.'. 29 0' �}, `:�,q.i er.n� �� Y .
. , �� � 7�` 1 5 �/�: V�V �
� � � .r.Yir '�T. �/` ' _ • j � •
� / � `•J ••,••,' � .
� ���r �• • � , �l �� , •
r.1 � � � �• NL � � .�n. ' `��+'. 1�'T- . '
� �4�� •.• ..�� �•� �j; � ='1 �� �1 � „��i i
`���� S., • .� \ t� • • �r L j �� •� , �
���� '; . �.� �.. �.�.�T.. • J����."y �T��• �y r t�'l7':..'. . �
� �j�� 71� � �']3 � �'� � .1" .r• ' .
��i:�'� i � j ' j � ��,� •r � '�'' 4 r `J �'� =' .
� �.
' 's:
�...`�r� T � .s�j�i'• ; ; ; . ,`� .r �
�_ti.�. t j i ��� 1��. !�'.1.�•,. ,) � vi f��.,.�. . e� r �� T Fj .
�- � � ; ��,��6` .� C'
. .+;\�: ' " ; L� � i(, L:����.��7' � I ::5:. 'j'� ��� . , �.
r�f
,�� r r �'�'r:..y r�+a
�� �+� � E• ��' �� �$�'\i. :��`Ll:
� ' ' � � �it ��"\ ` y �y{ • i. .�
� 1'�� ��` •• i� , b• �i t,,� ' {1 .
,t � ,
�r. � 1�` • �r+',s �� y •�
� � s� ti �' r`'����C'� i �� � �•-�. � } L 4` .
�... .. „ Jo 't } - {
� �+���.�j" r�r.:. _ _� / :t- �� �� �' ` � r� �.�
, .� , a„ � ��. 1 Sn j,., ;� ; . ' '-; � . � , ,
��, �; •.. "��. ;,t'"' ' .
�; � .,. "�� ''�,;-� ,.., _•� „ :., +ti
�t.`��, ���� � _ _ � �_
��,, :
\r�?'� -'��= / } �i I" �� !�i � ..M � '�� t.! r
e �, •� ' a�
C �?� .�i' r ' ��• lt��• '�� \ „'.
�� � � � ,^ �''��" � � u,,•' �
~3 � �~ ��. iJ�' �,/� :` , �`j�'1 ! ; .,V �� j � ..
; y�-rt„�,Z,� ." •. �����-�:.� ..._ `! __ �`'�_>' ,
. �t��i��� t �'` .+ � . �► e-~-'�b�3�y.,�,;'L� �b :� � � r A �•. f.
! � � �.:Yl.��t..�'�R�� l.�'�t L' • � +.. �'/ `/`r� � �"� !.
,r�� � •� � � ` ~'v+.�,t},r •�i � �� i '?�r � ..
-r"u,`i�r � V�1';�.- � J +M� �' � � � � ��.^ � R
�_ � � rJ L . 1 : c� 3'�
�r��� ` f „ ,•'f•`� tL:1�.,"�wyw ..
��uS�'��`�r�.,' I ~ `��'''.�,���`' i t.`�r•�~`��`�'`�:� ` a j.� •.
t '�. �- ..L� .^_�.q„�'�.�9./^ � ,/:�.�'� ��� .
y: i1 ^'r•\�t I ��• 14 �^t ��1.��'����-rS� y` _ 1�
r_.�.. ;.�
� • CA-14E22 '
� �'�'+? — GES�r�- B;GHORN RESEARCH I�tSTITUi G PROJECT
. . " .
��t i . _ .
r ---------�ti___--
. , •� __.
' �
. ` ( _ �^_i.•GLc
, - . � A�ACHMENT NIX
� : � Eri v 7 C-oarn r _ " .
ental ,Assess,n�nt
' � . EA dCA-066-4-q • - ' �_
i• 8ack round , .
i : _ . : . .
�, Tfie Desert 8�ighc,rn Sheen Kese�rch � . ! ' -
has a ° : • � � ��
� PA1ied fnr a Recreation and PublictPur' a ��on � •
� land in the northerri 'Santa R�sa Mountains� N ofi�t organization�
Institute is workin p�Se p��m�t (R&PP
Hi tl� the Cal i fvrn ia90ep�rtrnen�na f f°sa Movr,ta f�s�5 ide Count � ���r• Pub i.i�
in cooperatioc�Twith
and related lamb mortality in the rare Peninsular b1 h
� , the Santa R (CUF&G) to study disease5
osa Mountains. g orn shee
II. toc��� . P herd in
The site is located d�e east o,f' the junct '
H�9hwsY 14 in the .,anta Rosa Mountains ( 1°6 Sf Oead 'Indiai� Ca: ,
1� E1/2 SW1/4� E1/2 NN1/4 SW1/4, SE1/4 .r. �YoR and
passes al i public 1ancJ ) tt�e RbPp� 6 �. � .Sect:�.on 6. Lot
. � sect ion. �297�34 acres) tn the southernphal atoFnth jsan-
The tract is situa[ed at the•base of' th
and includes a portton of the ru e Santa R�asa Mountains
and a wash at the nartherr� edge ofethe�bo�nddr�er A�n
� to the praperty vi a a dirt road south of the wdsh af f�N a �s'nal l terrace, ,..
ccess can be gained
III. =Proposed Actian � . � way �4. ,-
. . . . �.
'7'he InStitute plans t� aug�nent _existiny pen fac�i �t� .
. , permanent improre►nents: "" • , es Nith the followir�9
• • -. �cces s road •(9'r ave�) 12' x 3,300' of f �H ighway:74 • .
: = eiectrical service, buried 6ecause of Scenic Hig'hway re u �
water w�) �, septic tank ' � . .9 iren�ents
- laboratory facilities
- parking 1ot
. � � . � - museum/jnsritute he.adqua�ters ' •
. , . �
, - ra,apQns . �. - • � • .
. , • � . ,
. ' -. Perrnanen t she i t ers ins ide of pens
Affected Environment .
LV� Vevetatian . .
� yegetation at the site includes both creosote bus�ti scru
communities. Dominant p]ant species an the rocky hiilsbdesdinclude wasF�
�+'eosote dush� brittle bush, and burrabush.
barrei cactus occur tiere als�, �7�cass1onal ocotil ?o and
Perennial vegctatian in the dry Nashes . �
_
� . ' �: ..�.� �. � . 7.�`�'Z
• includes desert .a•rer�dar� sweethusF�� indigo bu � ans! braocleyea� an,ong
� � many otf�ers: This vec}etation .is fairly cc.�n�����,n in th'e Colo�ado desert�
.bat is decrea'siny in areas wittiin tl�e Coact�el ia Ya.l ley due to extensive
urban �xpansion. � .
. �
A records cherk of Indio Resour-ce lirea fi les �and Cal ifor•nia Nat (ve piant
Society Rare Plant ��iaps indicated� a po'ssibility of suitable habitat at
t}iis site for a rare and endange�red per�nnia.l plant s�ecies, "Caltfornta
ditaxis" (Ditaxis calif�rnica) . Tl�is species grorvs in sandy-soil tn the
. CaacFiella and � huckwa � Va eys� aften a[ tl�e base of mountains tn
; small 'washes: "California ditaxis" is a can�idate for federal listing
and is a BlM sensitive species.
. Although the soil and topoyra�hy appeared t� be poteritial liabitat for
, this plant , no individuals of th,is species were v6ser•v�d an site. �Tlie
� � racky hill� ide habitat`also to be ir�cluded iryside pens i.s not expected
to suppo�•t any rare or endangel•ed planls. � :
. , ,�
• ;.' kildlife � � ��
- The Pro��ct �rea is located within the Santa ltusa Habitat Manage�nent
Ared wh ich r+as estah 1 isi�ed for tlie rnan��gement of the State lSsted rare
Pen+nsuiar biyl�orn shepp (Ovis canarlensis) . One vf the prim�ry concerns
in finding a locatiun fur tlie ha1 ,�g pens was to mininiize any impacts
.,to the' Santa Rosa f�erd. The a�pl �cant;5el��ted this locatian in cunsul-
tation witl� pLhl stafF' bia�oyists bncause of i'ts re]ative isnlatian from
tl�e rest af the r�nge and easy access. Tt�ere are no�Nater sources '
tc�ated nearby and the ridge was nat considered•biyhorn sheep habitat �n
. ttie habitat. map devefv�,ed jointly by th�: p«i �nd COF�G for the Santa �
" RoSa 1�aF (l980),�: Hc evtdei,ce uF big�,or.c� sheeQ usz xas observQd on 5ite. �Y
�her•e a�•e•no other. r.�re, ti�reatened, 'enclar�gered, or sensiti�re;. sFecies
knoWn ta occur ort� site.�
/lrcfiaeoloq /Nativ� Arner�ican Con��rn� � • � � � �
- _.,,_,.,__ - ;
'+Ihile the project' fa11s witl�in an a��ea nf lorr/�nknown cultural reso�lrcz
sensitivity (Oesert Flan Sen� itivity ,�taps) , it adjuins an area oF very
tiigh sensitivtty (Polyyon 451) . Piost of the sites in thf.s pol,�gon are
located i� Deep Canyon. Ethnoyrapt�ir records indicate that the area was �
. used for seasanal colletting and hunting of deer and biqhorn sheep. A -'�
field {nspettion of the p�•opei•ty xas inacfe on Nove+nber �,• �1983. Tfte
terracq Kas surveyed at�lUOX ]e�el . Otl�er purtinns of tt�e .site wcre �
selectivety surveyed based o�, tl�e terrain's like.lil�ood to �untair� :�;
artifacts. No archaeolo9ical ma�erials kere lvcated. • � .
r. Anticipated Impacts � ;:r _
- . . . .::�; .
Veqetation • � �
Construct �on of the acc2ss road, pennanent she�p Shelter5, n�useum and �
� parking Iot xill r�sult in tfie r�r��vval oF �approximately 1p acr•es of
2 •
2�3
. ,
„ � � • _ .
� � - . . .
natiae ve� etation.. •
g Tti is wi 1 1 cause eit�i�r 1on
r�ernoval, of ha6itat �a� ��a� iye Piants at� the site
be disturbtd during CUnSt�UC[j�� of ���� � 9't�r�n or permanent
facilitfies, but this will nut result �� i� electricalylines��n�� � � also .
perrnanerit r�,uoval SQp���
Const��ction of these facilitie, ��a of habitat,
Y alt�r th :
tlirougl� the si te�� and r_onsequcnt)
in the wash. N�Itural dr�a��a � e dr�inage. of run-of f
y afFect th� �j9ar of indiyidual
• clianged b,y constr•ucti�n of floodadive�5ic�i� dikesarbuthfurtt�er�ad plants
t��� may a9d��� afFect distribution and vi y been
�n the xashes. ; 9a� of vegetatian established
. Soine surface disturbance wil ] OCCur *
. the proposed ra,n pens. but because therfer�ice�jsttoCbe�bu�)tfb�ces for
, impacts .snould ue negliy;j�1�, H��eYer� Veyetatiari inside th
R�ay experience a decline� in viqor and total biomass due to browsi�d.� the
bighorn sl�eep in a conFir�e� ar�d, Tt�ese impacts 'are expecled tocb��ures
ney 1 igiale Khen viewe� o� a desertwide scope. . 9 by'�•
e
. The proposed facilities are not expecteJ to impact threatened or
, gered p)ant speci�s� althouyt� tl�e area Has suspected to su endan- �
suitable f.or Caiifornia ditaxis (�it�� ��fdrnica), a rare species. '
founc! �a�a� �y q� sjR,ilar habitat. PPort �abitat'
vbserved by BLf4 staff r�l�er� �!,t site wasy�ieldss�urveyed Q�eNoven�bere7not
�'j983� although l�abtitat clid appea�• suilable.• �
. �
Wild)ife • _
, There wi_11 be minimal impacts tv Hildlife as a result oF this ro'
Peninsular� bi�t�orn sl�eep ar� not expected t� be ifipacted because ofcthe .
isolated nature of tliis ric�ye. Inq�dCtS to general wildlif� will be
re1at�ed to tli� minor surfac� cfisturba�ice resultiny from coristruction and
increased grazing pressur� witl�in tl�� pen 1re�5. Tlie 1mp�CtS are net
expected to 5lgnificantly alter ttie w; )d�;fe yalues of the general area
although the numt,ers af rodents u� site �nd predatar use on sit� is
� expected� to drop because �af tf�e huraan �pre,ence and incredsed grazing
pressure. 'N�- threatened or enda��y��-e� w; idl i fe speci es are expected to
be impacted. '
• Cultural Resaurces • • �
�ecause of the lack af a,-Chaeologica) sitcs, �no impacts are expected to
`� result from the proposed �project�. Since nwst of the property rill be us.
. for bighorn sheep, tihich are inciigenoiis to the area and aere hunted here
by Native Americans, no impacts are anticipated to Native American con- �
� cerns. Indeed, ti�e pur•pose of the project is to study oeclining bigharn
. �,opulations in an attemp.t to increase lie,•d F�ealth and numbers. If tl�e
project ti successful, it may enliance ttie survival of a species aF great
sign.ificance tv Native �nerica�s.
� . - 3 .
'a.:: , - .
.—• . ,
.. . . . . . ���
: — 8 '3� THU 1 ? : w .a LH I � � � . � 8
' F. .
• . � '
i , " � � _ .
, � • • ` .
, } � .
� aeconrnended Mitiqat ing Measures ,� � ��
�
The Oesert Bigharn Sheep Res'earch Institute sl�ould.p►•ovide tl�e B�M Indio
Resource Ar,ea Uffice wi�th �opies of all progress and final reports� and
an annual update on all artions taken on public land, including construc-
�ion oF faci 1 ities� and st�udies undertaken.
� Consultation and Coordination ' '•_ � .
� ; -
The following group5 were contacte4 •cancerning this p'ro��ct: � � �
� Un ivers ity oF Ca1�i forn i a Ph i 1 ip L. Boyd Deep
' CanyoR. Research Center � . �
. .4 .
� . � Cal i.for-n1a Oepartment af Fish and Garne . � � � � •
, •
. _ � . �
List af Pre�pare�rs • , . . `. -
z. .
,_ . . . • ,
' Faye Davis: Vtildlife Bialagist, Tea�n Leader• . � �
Robin Kabal�y: aotanist
Judyth Reed: Arch•aeologist ' � - � • ' .
� Mark Hatchel : Realty Specialist , • .
. _ i .
• . . ,
��� � • �. .
! ' .
" s . ' .
� ' , �+�� . � .
i .y• .
- . :1.
. � , . • .
, y . . .. • , . � �y>
, . � '� . .
.. . . .t .• • r'���
. . •r �r '
, . s
' , ' e .�
. . , ��
.. r-
.J .
�r . . . . , • � .��
4 i• Q/
� t`�
. � . ,
f ;• . • . , •
, - . ` � . . �
' . f
� . ' � �
� - • � �
: /CET.viwJ }l.r`'i�1 �(E ,c�+,iE • • } �
� r9�t'..ef,v ' �t � ' a _ � ' :
t�7E 1/J%O.c:.�i�'1� /:. .'.T�c.G
.C�.q:,c�'a !/r//,'�-,e .C�VPiP G'�9lyG.:Z Ei,vS• • � '
� .
, � . r�El�OrZ:���'CU�`t. :,?PRAISAL RE?On"; : .
� RbPP '
3i� NCZY Rejc��C:l I��� •
. � - G1-14fi22 -
. . L�ASc ttiITH OFTrON T � �
. 0 vqTcNT � � . .
he_ha=ds 1�r,vo1��: in ; � .- �
I:esu., � � 2�7,3� "" �
a_ �c :ia, t.,er� is ro I:;j?�acc'� , acre . arc �a„e�;�. �. -
c:.t.._5 ;i arES,^;�� ar-aviG?v �v Z 1055 lEX�S:iZ'� rC�lda2?S27a ��iC�d. AS eVth� .
�.�r;c,' .F:e - t; ;rassing � =t a•�t.
-�.. ,� � • re�ie:�s r::• �� .; an td �t; . �' `��'�5� :hysi:nl —
' � •�. erti « .:c �a. � utili2y .+ � � ^`rar.�a. � o:ma�. The
=�at ::;� sur25ur,;�y���r"'�'� ';5ai ra_� access. di5i ar�e. r:ir w:a:^ke: •ralue �
'�S1C8,^.=iZ� 3^Gi C�����Clci S�L••��T �o��^di C:crEn5lCr. S i5`Ct'+:? :� TdC2 Of C:iB faC:• o
G� � -�� � C_Y@�7Y�2�'i�. ard ;r�no:_ � • .:.
ZSr? �� 3CT(,+ �S?S �S S�L'.�'.. ir? t ���' CSC1����G� y9 =��Cil O �1i;he� V2�11? 'c •
�^�:'3�:� C� 3. 1:� 5 ��f CC" r 2�] 7Cc',^ � 3: I��r. V �r2 �e=* �
J i�.a � � �� .� . .i �c C::�iC:i �� a '1 nES�a.��ll, � SI:� dit $ e�.
,:n 2 ����:c Su � - ..` T�Presentir,g � �, 's,.i Jte. �r,�ar
o.'•su�.; �_ Fr��� u.. zr Sa�- • ::a� t ?� - an . .
h.' . ..e . h1S �__� tC�71�L� �_ -'Ca ZJO�.i� ��., a. L. 6ene�',t d}lo:•:dre� a .
k iC:1`cla Z'�8- e r '.1• �..r.7i��-�:.�C SA125 :� � •�el1:t.'.i.��r:2id 'i115 �'^ I n .
L�=�Q =-i�a,'�j �i_ ta h� s�bie=_•1=,�,�s d .`�3.� ra►• su�;,or� cf t�,; e-�ion � ,
vr ?ub:�c S:1e - C:s ._'s 7; Y�ra C"�a i i_d ur.��;- .. 5 �PF�a isa� �, �
-�... � �:r� r;r=a. �z�.ec::1a apprzi sa 1 ��'
' ••�-+. t::� Zr;;�,;�+ i„t � . • .
. rL.. = =5t�.�.�_2 �: • . -
��
C3:_:l:dt�� IIS • 'a -
���:.^.f��; � �1
.:r•^•::�i R�:►:a i �'-a::t�L ae:s ' ' • . 6 .��' S . •o �
� =�7.�= :,t . . . . �:
. :.r.� A .��LO. ��r� • . . r
_�3 :'CQ R�re = Si4'3,%+��.:C �ij`i�,r '��p . � : � n�
� X _:� ��_, of �e:ur�: , � ' " '�"9 •
_ � :a,s�i.Cd �:�i�. 'n
--�,?57.:,G' �•!+;:s 6f� _��� x/i•� : .?Gv.
. n��C�/�f:�;a a r `{
, • � S 7`1 J��V �L�� � ij�/r' ��r ,� /Y
R����a� Lo: � _ • J �J�j; .
. ��.�:�,^^ �
�,� rzr :�_r
. . � L � �] /G3!�i
%
� �� �.�'�,i. -;'� ` .
P:'��$I'a.i �)�� ���/ i J� i!�%J�! ' � • .
, . o ert s�[„���ay� . �
�
CO - L�is�ric_ rr^ra:52r •
Jur.e 2�. :SP� �` . . -
n I r�'�1 �v����Vy; • ' .
t•F►':vE�, :!; :�;i i i f1.� :' ;•a " '
'• �-1 SJ�
l.:l l�" ]`3 Ce '"-
� • `�i�..►Sar
-��V�!��,� .�:� � � �
• s
� 41� •
. . . _. . . - �� �
� E.C.— 7 — 8 9 ' T H U 1 — � ! -- - -- .. . ...__�.c��..o-.
r. � ... =1 N Z ' L G_=�
• . P . 10\
� ' f i
. , , � . r F "
. i 1
� i • ; . REC4MMENDqTIpN/RATIOtVACE � .
;
I . Recommendation .
� 1: It is recommended that a 20 year lease be issued to the 8ighorn Resear
Institute, fcr the purpose of establishing a blghorn sheep laboratory �h
to study diseases and related lamb morta]ity in the peninsular bighorn
sheep herd fn the Santa Rosa Mountains of•Riverside County in California.
. ` The Institute and its auxiliary facilities�xould be located on:
: T. 6 S. � R. 6 E. , S.B.B.M. , � �
Secton 6, Lot 1, E 1/2 SN j/4��
� • E 1/z NN I/4 SW 1/4, 5� 1/4. (2g7,3q acres) - -
2. The rental shoutd be reduced by 6aX to reflect the folloxing pub1ic
benefits:
1. Basic. PubliC 8enefit AlTowance: 40X
2. Public Support Allowance; ZOX •
. . • � 3. It is �also rec anmended that a s�ipulation be added to th� lease reQui�-in;
: the lessee to submi t year ly repo�ts on the.methods and results •oF al�l
r.esearch activittes conducted on the _subJect lands. , • �
'II. �Rd't ionale � • � ',
. The lands are physical]y suited for the proposed,use. The .environmental
. . impacts are cansidered to be instgnificant compared tv the benefits obtalneC
frorn the research of Bighorn sheep diseases.
A11 present and potent�ial uses and users have 6een taken •into consfderat(on.
Nv• lo�al, State vr Federal programs rrouid bc adrersely affe'ct�d.
� � The authority to.Tea�e or convey publfc lands fQr Lhe proposed use 4s� �� �
granted'•'to �he Secretary under the aec.�eatton and Pubtic Purposes Act o�.
- , June 14,�• 1926, as amended ($3 U.S.C. 869 et seq.) � �. • .
f -1 ��
., > .
ark acc e ate
. � Z�`�
----------_�__..
E�='—'• �' '� 8:9 T H �J 1 T : � � L ►i =
. •' , ' ' �' � - P - 0 9�
e : } � ,
. - �• , • � ;' , 5erial �
lAN.O REPURT ANO DECISION RECqRp � �A'. Z?
;Type cf Act ian R�F�P Lease ' �
011str ict Ca1 i for�ia Desert
� Applicant 's Name Bighorn Research Institute �
Resource Area Indto
Address P:O.� Box 26Z �
, State Callfornla
Palm Oesert, CA 92261-0262 County Riverside �
� [.at�os INVOLYEa • �
TaxnShi � �
. p Range Meridian Sect4on Subdiy�sion
6 S. 6 E., 5.8,8.:�1 6 lot 1 E acres length Nidth
, ,�N{�l�SW�S�SEk,E��; :
� A, Environmental Complfance � 291.34
� We haye reviewed the environmental assessment prepared ta analyze the
. environmental �ffects af the propcsed action and have dete.rmined that
the..proposed actlon and apRraved mitlgation measures would not have
• signific ant envlronm�ntal effects on the human enxironment.
an envlronmental lmpact statemerit is not required `to further analyzere�.
khe environmental effarts of the propased act.ion.
Environmental 'assessmeot reviewed by: • ' _
. _.,
_ Area Manager _ - ��.c„�� .��• � � �
� � ' ��,Oate_
� - �Environmental Coordi�nator �' . ���- � .. �f��
. �' / r Date�
I cancur: ' ' . � . � -
. � � , � �
AC7�N0 Dis�r ict Manager � ���: � ,L�-��:.-�—
--- �'� 0 a t2
: . • B. Revierr/Oec fs ion . • ' .
' . � ' Reviea, I have reviewed the recanmendatltins.an the land use prvpvsal
. contained •in• the Land .Report and f ind that they are techn ically ade-
• quate and that cnns.ider�G'ion ha$ been gtven to al� resourcp ralues. 1�ie
recanmend that the recommet�dation on the approved actian be approved as
. the Bureau's declsto� on the propa5ed actia�, •
� Pr ep ar ed �by: . � • ,
, ' Realty Specialist �"� �� Oate
,�` �--
. � Rzv i ewe�• by:- .
' Area Flanager �.� 1 '' �� ' 1 • �
. '- . � ¢ y �ate
� Oecision. I have revizwed the retcmmeridatien on the prvposed actton
• con�a ed 1n this Lnnd Aepart and approve the recanmendation(s� as �he
deci s ton of the Bureau c�r the propesed act fon.
�� ' .
� � ACTIHG Oistrict ,�fanager „��,�!_;_��f,,�.,(..-- _ � Date
�/19� �
. .� . :: :..:.. :. .. .� .. .. . ... � _ ���
. ATTACHM�NT NX � ` � . �
- � Fo���9= � � ��je �nifeb� �tat�� of � � . �
(January 1911i1 ' ms��� ,
� ' �0 ��� (0 �7�fli � , i 1�L .
Serial No. GCA 24020 �cs� Vcrscntt s�all cam�. f�trfiet�: � .
t
C'7,- ' . . � . , � m �� .
� � rc=.t.:Ei 'Yt�E . . . ' ^' .� '
� �� � � ���a
� � � � � a
� J,UL I 5 1989. . W "
����
. � a
� 4
' A PA . Highorn Inatitute; ;�,\ �
a Cali�oraia nonproFit corporation �� � �
• ia eatitled to a land atent �
P, pursuaat to the- Act of ,Tune I4� 1926, 'aa amended
and aupplemented (43 U.S.C. 869 '�
, et �tq,)� to= t� follawiag described ;laads
: Saa �erna=di�o Heridiaa, Ciltforn.ia •
'1 . •
' ' T. 6 S.; �x. 6 g,�� .. . ,
. aec. 6, lot 7, E;SS�7}, NE�Nfd�STJ�, E�SE�NN�Sil�.
: aad SE�.
' Contaialag 292.34 ac�res.
: ' �OW 1Q�I�W 7�E•. th:t there is, therefore, g=anted by �;.� �� g��s•unto .�
the B'ignorn Ia�t3tute, a Californla nonprofit cotporation� the .Iand d�aesibed
above far zeaearch purposes oal� in eonnectioa vi�h �proving Che 'sta ,
desert bighorn aheep papulations; ?p gAyg ' � t� og
_ : .. AND TO HOLD the said laad vith�all
. the rights, privileges, immunities � •
, ,aad appurteaanees, of vhatsoever na�are,
' " thereunto beloagiag, uaco the Bigbora Inatitute a . �� � �
. . Gliforni: nonprofit
corpor=Cion, forever;
EXCEPTIHC AND RESERVING Ip TE� p�T� STATES: �
. ' . 1' d n�ht-ef-vay'thereoa far diechea or canaU �o�tructed by the. +
. autbority of the IIaited Statea. llct af �,g�,e 3a� 1890 (43 Q.S.C.
945). , -
z• All miner�l de osits in the land so ateated and to it ar
p . P
' , peraons
au[harized b� it. the right to prospect� miae, and �temove such
deposits from the same uader applicable itv.
� � ��-b9_UO2;�; �
Pstent NuaCer • • ��•�� . �
. -•a��^�
. • �—C�
-----_.---
. �
i - ' .. � : •
� �Serial No; CACA 24020 � . • '
e
i � . ^ � �4�.
. • ',�
�. !"� ' . } �
'�t SUBJEG"� r0 t�oae righta �cr ;12-kn . . . -
� n . di�t�ibutioa,liae purpaees �
j � Lhe Southern CiliFornia Edisoa Cam aa ' $r=ated �a
i . .P Y� its su�eeaaors or abaigne, by
=i8hraE-vay Seri�l No, GGA 16652
; , + F�ranaat to Title D of the Act of
� Octaber Zl� 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1761), s� to the NE}�1i��W . .
sec. 6.
� and E�Sg},*�}SW� aaid
' Provided� that, ac the time the Highorn Iastitute'a Vi�itore
constructed, the patectee� or ici suCceaeor
maintaia i aign at the maln antra.n�e of eheicenaerreat �nter Is
vill iastall aad
I• ' Promineacly dlspla�ad and convey ;�he follovi � �° �i� ��ll be
made aysilable eo the Bighorn Iaatitute for bighorarahae��r�'�rn�he 'u;nda
throagtt a �pe�ial co ram ofEered•b p ' ;1e
P 8 . Y Che Bureau o! i,aad �Aagement. P ='poecs
Provided, further, that the patentee or ics ancce�sor in iatereat �
furai�h to ehe Bureaa ot I,and ,Hanagement'a Iadia g��urce Area Of �ii
January'I of each.calendar year an aaaaal report deacribing in detall che
� re�e[rch activities perfotmed duri
� . limited to aurvey and invenco � the jsreyious pear, Sncluding buc aot
�tudiei. �Y data, and aummz� =�parta of bighorn. rheep
, Iadio ResourcerArest�taAig�=ctatbenbeneficial1tac othithedBur��aed b
Ksasge=eac sad ehe . Y the
. aeaer�l public. . eau of Iaad
' Provided, �urther, that, tt�le shall revert upon a fiadin
and oppa�tunit� ;�or s hearing� that, vithout the a g+ ;fter notice
, . officer; , , • _ ppraval of the avtho*ized
I 1• ?he paten�ee ar its �.a � � ' '
pproved succeasor •Ctempta to cr:aafer title
to vr coatrol over the laad to another; -
Z• The land haa been devated ta � n�e other ehaa that for whleh che
; laad vaa conve�ed;
•3• '�e laad has not been uaed tor ehe
: conve�ed for a S-7ear period; ot pu�°�e for ,vhSch it vas
4• The patencee` haa failed to follov the approved developmeric plaa or
' man:�emeat plaa;
I � •
' Provided,� .furtber, that �the Secretas7r.o� the Interior. or �,i• deleaaee�
. � may take aetioa to revest Citle Sn-the'IInic�d States 1f the patentee directl�.
or iadirectly perri[s it� agents� empleyees. coneractors� or eubcontractora
(includiag rrichaut limitacion lesaees� aublesaeea, and peratctee�) to
prahibi[ or re�trict the use of aay part of the pacenced Iand or any of 'ehe
facili[ie� thereon b� aay per�oa beeause of such persod's raee� creed� color,
•es� or nacional ori�ia.
' Psteat No. �4—&9-��;��: '
� ' 1
. •7 -i •,
_ ' 'l/1�:
� " '� . ' .:. -. . .. �
. . .. � _. . . . . . � . . . . . . . . . �--������
- Focm I86O2S � �'
. . (Jutu 1.9841 .
.!"� - e _ .
Serial:No. C.� 2yp20 � ' "
� . �ti , . . - .
. � ; � ,
..� • . '
, T1 �s irant of th�h'srsia deienhed landa ia�abjea to tlu;(ollowin � . :. � y -
. i . • ' fl) 7hep�teneeeqrhi�lia)��mc��oeirtintersstaAalicesm � • ��reaervation�.coadiAoa�,andlimitapoax
. peoviaiona olTitle VI a!the,CiviJ Rithta Act of 198/ � D Y wic}��nd ahali not riolace aay oCtbe
. e+cdttf�d ar arnaaded,of the Secreu �'a 5�+��411:and r �m�or
Ne laada convaYed herein are uaed ry o����nten°�iuu�Dunuant eb �w�e°4 aith�.re��Q��
abovt.ar for anoeher v P tpaw far wFuel�t�e °M'0(�C�371[odtha p���at
D rPwe iavolvin�che ptoviiion of�imilu sraat wa�m�d�purauaaf to the acldt�d
` (2) IftlfepaLenereoehLrtt)�veeea�oeiniatesutdoeaaateom � �eaorbee�s6a: ;
the CIvit Ri�dn Acx of 1961. aad Ne re9uiremeab im P Yrvit�tht °
pursa�nt to ch4t tide,duria ehe Do�ed by ehe De terma or p��n�oCT(t!e VI at
tor rhieh We � Paiod dttriea�whieli the ry P+stm�nt oC ehe lacaioe la�ud
srutc w�u made parauant ta p P�re�dncriibed kereie,u�lor th�p,�y�,
PreYiaiae olaimilar�erri�a�or 6pnefiti.we S�e act•eiced abov er far anocher
ottlsu jra.nt tasu�inaced in whole or in past ��of�e��ororhiid�l Da�°u�"Ol��th�
� K��°ti�Y d�ue the term�
. (3) 'Ilie patentee.6y aeesptsae�5!thia patsn a .
thae adeelantion oftexmiaation in wholeorta ��fo'h�s�t�ve�°t�a CW�o
K+e.e.o raee w rev t ia the Unieed Sta Pueotthu�rantahall,at tl�eoptioo ofch�n m u��et
del pe ea
�t��ve�c�e lands involv���1e deetar��,�0��'
' (�) TA�L'nie�d 5taua ahali har�eheri�ht to aesk jodidal mlo�„ytnsnt of tlie
•,� . Gvi1 Ri�hu Aet af 19W.and th� arai� and eondieioaa ot che re
� . Secreesrr olth�Inurior iasucd pussuant m . n9ais�mei�t�of'1Td�Ylatth�
. said 7'tde iuladona.u modi6ad or•ammd.�of
f31 'Che yatsneee or hu(it�)�aeenaoe[ri interqt VI.ia the�venc of their riolaaoa'b�th�pateptM.
. dde�aee,poac and m�insaia oa�he prnpeKY eoav �����nest ot ehe Secre .
eoneernia�ehe appli�bilicy af T[de VI ot N� �'ed b�thi�doenmentsi �ett6e fae�or�hia.
• �v{!Rshu�►e�ot 1961 w tlse artaPos fa�a1��m s a�Kmd
. (b7 Tb�reaervatioru,eonditioaa,and limi4tioaa eo�t�p�ia Y��'
, ���nantnineia=rriththelaad,6indineoathtpat.�ata*aad}�i�(u��ypha(I)throa h 'r
-. . . . �+hiek�ehe land desaibad harie ia a�ed tor W� � (��hal]croeaacnt�a
Durrewin•olvie� Purpo��tor vAieh.ehu'�aeaiaiacese,tfo�eh�p��tor
, f the yrovi�ion o!simi:ar�esvlees or beneata. ��e w'�ma��,a: oe
. fn Z'h� w ' f aaae6es •
6enel�ariaunda�thea�COV�aant r�qa� by �eedona (I�{�.abev�.�hal1 '
. • CFR 17.13tl�. p tram for whieh thu rsaat ia made."LTICI�pit!�l�y�id"a�D�r tD 11IQmay , . .
• • , ats idmcse�in i3
{ 'i . = ; .
. � ' t
` �;;-�;;;�,:.iTeF J'l��:`'•:, �+` itsTwo�w,�R c��w,a�,; � .
. .zF t-` j�. �,, BureaoofLaadMaa� i�ed�a!}�oe�isad$�p� �W�
r�".���y..r� '•��'fi f f-� Liatc�d Saees,�e LT.19�S l62 Scat��T�� ehe aam�o�� .
• �':�.�.f f;'i�: . �i;� �= Sesl af tb�Suee� �Y �h�n��be mad�PaciaR and th•
}�r,�?..r��� t�.�:: Givey andee m in Saeramea ito •
:-r �'�;� . :«:,..•::. � „� el��TWENTY—�� da JAMJA.RY' C.�1 znia
: �.F+ � ••�::_.. ' .a.� • of our Lord aaa thoa�and r sf � HI�iE
•; ri ;..;:•'• ..'_"`.��i';:! and olche In�de endee p�ebnAdsed a�d EIGSIY—
' PSsi.:._t'S(.'•' ,,- and TBZRTEEI'�T$ert at th�Unteed Seaw�.t,.a hnndnd
. . f ,•;�' ,��•,
. .i' • • .
. . . 8y � ����
Psceas Yumba �4�8`�Q��!�+ aad cords
" a:aliloraia State Office
,."^ • 3� � !1':
• •..�, i
� • '
�'� __ "
. . .... . .. . .
. .: �
. ����
1
2 .
3 4RDINANGE NO. 348 �nga
4 AN ORDINAN _F OF F _nrnv�ry OF RIVER�rnF
5 AMENDING ORDINAN�F NO �dg FrATI� q`p 7QNTr,r
�
q _ The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside
g Ordains as Follows:
g Section 1. Section 4.10 of Oidinance 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/Palrn Desert District, Map No. 10.033, Chanqe 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: J�"���'� j -
20 � By `�' 1
• GERALD A. MALONEY - airman
21 Clerk of the Board
, , ,
, „ �
22 BY� ' ' � '� �r' '
JGV:re Deputy'
1473z
11/27/8923 (SFAT') ,
24 � �
25 �
26
27
� 28 .
cca��.cmt�.mcs
�ou�vn couns�.
sur��oo
as�s-ivrnsTxEer
��.cx�a�rn,►
.. ........ ... .. ..... ..: . ., ..• . .. . . .
. .. . . . . .. . .. .. . Q _
.... . .. ...... _ .. -..
, ., � 2
SEC. B T.BS. .R.6E. S.B.B. t Y.
�i.. �.ii t
u�r �.q �
�n r � �
o�r�
I 1
_� .
I [ i��r t�r �Q .
� u �M �� i / t
�ii i�i K �M �
� t[CI�� �
[ 1/f w 1�! � f{1/�M StCnM�
ftlpM �
f[tt��♦ �
I
!
�
� I .
1
1 '
LEGEND . •
,�..� ,..«,
�-A /RT�RAL AlftT! �
o soo
" YAP N0. 10.033
CHANGE OF OFFICIAL ZONING PLAN
CATHEDRAL CITY-PALM DESERT
� iSTRICT
CMANCE OF IONE CASE N0. SSSZ
AYENOIN� ORDINANCE N0. 34S
AD�PTED OY ORDINANCE N0. 348.30ld
OECEYlER s. 1ld1
„„„�,,,.,�,,,,,� R I YER51 DE COUNTY PLANN 1 N� COYY i SS I ON
: ...:. . . .. . . .
. . . .. . ... . . .: - . . . .
. . . . . . �.� . ..
1
2 �
3
4
5
� 6 '
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 � �
14
15 �
STATE OF CALIFORNI/V
16 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDEa ss. .
' �� I HEREBY CERTIFY thst at � r ular m�etin of the board of Su
e9 D pervisors of said counn
�8 held o� 5• 19_�22 the f
, orefloin� ordinance consisting of �
�g sections was adopt�d by said Board by the followinp vote:
20 AYES: Supervisors ('pni�� Am1aP. Larsoa�, Youiyqlave
27 NOES: I�Tcne
' 2Z /16SENT: �e
Z3 GEFiALD A,MALONEY
24
Dated: 12�5�89 Cle�lc of the Board
25 `~ -
' (Seal) BY' � �c"'�a ,De�
26
3.1
27
28
29
� 30 .,��,ex�
��
Zoning District: Cathedral City-Palm Desert CHANGE DF ZONE N0. 5552
Supervisorial District: Fourth PLOT PLAN N0. 11393
,� Reqional Team III � E. A. No. 34143
Pianning Commission: 9/13/89
Agenda Itern: 2-3
' RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNjNG DEPARTMENT
STAFF REPORT
���
1 . Applicant: Bighorn Institute �
2. Type of Request: Change of Zone from R-1 to N-A;
plot plan for a noncommercial menagerie
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. 5urrounding Zoning: R-1 , �N-A; and PR-5 within the City of Palm
Desert
10. General Plan Elements: LAND USE: WildIife/Vegetati�n
(Western Coachella OPEN SPACE: Wildlife/Vegetation
Valley Plan) CIRCULATION: Highway �4 �Variable)
11 . Agency Recommendations: ROAD: See transmfttal dated 8/23/69
FLOODs See RCFC transmittal dated
HEALTH: See transmittal dated 8/17/69 '
� WATER: See CVWD t�ansmittal dated 6/ib/69
FIRE: See transmittal dated 9/23/B9
12. 5phere of Influence: City of Palm Desert
• 13. Letters: No letters received as of B/28/89
ANALYSIS: .
The applicant for Change of Zone Case No. 5552 requests approvai of a
change of Yone from R-1 (One Family Dwelling) to N-A tNatural 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 predominetely 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 Fehruary 1989, the
BLM granted a patent to the HHI for the 290 acre site. The BHI
originated in order to - breed and study the rare 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 .
j��
PLOT PLAN NO. 11393 �
CHANGE OF ZONE Np. 5552 �
Staff Repor t
Page 2 �� �
: Plot Plan No. 11393 proposes a 6,800� square foot disease laborator /
administration building, a 2,900 square foot residential• structure with
four • bed�ooms and common kitchen/living facilities, and accessory grain
and maintenance structures. The plot plan also includes provisions for
a seven acre pen and a 30 acre pe� which will hou5e 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
mountain cottages. Immediately ncrtherl
site, within the City of Palm Desert, is a large 675�acreesitelon�hich
a conceptual specific plan (Bella Vista) has been approved for 350
acres of open space, 1'000 2ow density dw@llings pn 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 Zoa
environment for the viewfng and showing of desert animals and
vegetation. Th� Living Desert Reserve assisted in the commencement of
the HHI in 1985. The Livinq Desert has a small population of Peninsula
Bighorn Sheep for public viewing but is unable • to conduct breedinq
procedures because Such a process needs isolation. The two facilities
are different but yet compliment each other due to thei� caring for and
research of �he Bighorn Sheep.
ENVIRONMENTA pSSES�tw��= �
The Initial Study performed pursuant to Environmental Assessment No.
34143 identified environmental conc�rns associated with project
development as including:
Siopes _ . ' Wildlife
S�enic Highway Public Facilities
Cultural Resources
Circulation �
The initial study (a copy of � which is attached) determined that
approval of the proposed pro3ect would not have a siflnificant effecb 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 PLqN ND. ] 1393
CHANGE OF ZONE NO: �552
Staff Report � �
Page 3
C�ENERAI_ P� oN CONS i STF �s
. �
The site is designated "Wildlife/Vegetation" on the Western Coachel2a
Valley Plan tWCVP) , The Open Space and Conservation Policies of the
Comprehensive General Plan specify that aress that are ma
"Wildlife/Vegetation" on the open space map are for the tonservationpof
critical wildlife and vegetation. The policies also specify that only
the following uses are permitted in wildlife/v�getation designations:
open space, 'limited recreation� and research or educational uses. The �
applicant 's intention to use the land for researrh and educational uses
for the nurturing and breeding of the state rare Penins�lar Hiqhorn
Sheep is compatible with the "WildlifefVegetation" designation and the
open space policy requiring careful control and management of the
utilization cf natural resources including wildlife. The Open Space
and Conservatfon policies also specify that open space designated
parcels shal�l be appropriately zoned. The proposed N-A zone has been
applied within the Coachella Valley Preserve, for the threatened
Coachelia 1/alley Fringe-toed Lizard, and in other wildlife/vegetat�on
designated areas within the Western Coachella Valley Plan.
D I ST I NGT I ONS BETWE� TH� Fi 1 ANn to n �r„y�.-.._
7he existing R-1 zone primarily permits on�-family dwellings and
requires a minimum Iot size of _7,204 square feet. The R-i zone allows
growing of field crops and tree crcps along wfth such recreational
facilities as golf courses, country cluds, and ub�l�
playgrounds. Planned residential developments are P Parks and
the land division process. Piot pjin a permitted throuqh
shops, horticultural nurseries, kennels and catteries,�anditemporary
real est�tes offices, while mobilehome�park5 require a conditional use
permi t.
cro Sr�aosed N-A zone also permits one-family dwellings, field and tree ._-
P , piaries� and grazing of cattle, horses, sheep or qoats not
exceeding two animals per acre. Subject to
folinwing� uses are permitted; ublir utilit plot plan approval the
menageries, water weils, and agrPcultural worker mobilehomes. Fizhi�nq
lakes, golf courses, riding academies, well water extractinn, mining,
RV . and mohilehome parks, and resort hotels are all
sub3ect to the granting of a conditional use permit. PThe1a�ed uses
proposes a noncommercial menagerie for Peninsular Biqhorn Sheep ana
herd which in the past five years has not exceeded 25 shee
BHI 's origination, approximately 50 P• Since the
sheep located in thfs area of the SantaCeRosaf Mountainsnthavecbeen
released from the BHI; had these sheep not been released tha stock
would be next to extinction.
���
PLOT PLAN N0. 11$93
CHANCE OF ZONE N0. 5552
�Staff, Report
� Page 4
P�OT PLAN CONSIDERATIONS:
The applicant is proposing a noncommercial menagerie that for the most
part is a veterinary hospital and research center for sheep. The
following are a list of uses that staff is recommending approval of
pursuant to Plot Plan No, 11393 and a list of future uses that would
require additional permits: '
� RECOMMENDED FUTURE
Disease laboratory/ •
Aiiministration Building Future Museum
Existing Pe�S Concrete Helicopter Pad
• New Residence F�ture Site
Guard House
Grain 5torage
Car Storage .
23 parkinq spaces
' The applicant submitted the change of zone 'end plot p]an on Juiy 28�
1969 and the cases were expedited to hearfnq due to the need for
approval and construction of the �fac�ility before winter,
The r�oncommerciil � menagerie propo'sed by the ipplicant is not open to
the public, however� 6n occasion �n educational class will field trip
to the BHI . The BHI according to the applicant has .long range plans to
inc�ucie a museum and education ce�ter in the future wh�ch 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.
� �ITY SPHER� n� Iw t��tr�= .
The site ig within the sphere of influence 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 transrrmittai dated August 3, 1989.
The staff. of the City of Rancho Mirage �also reviewed the project and
their comments are attached in a transmittal dated Au4�gt 8, 1969. �
���
PLOT PLAN NO. 11393
CHANGE OF ZONE N0. 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 concurrently filed Plot Plan No. 11393 which is
an application for a noncommerciai menagerie and accessory
caretakers and research buildinqs. •
3. The applicant, The Highorn Institute tBHI > � has been in
existence since 1985 and has recently received a patent for
the 290 acre site from the U. S. Bureau of Land Manaqement.
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.
b. The findings of Environmental Assessment No. 34243 (a copy of
w�ich is attached) are incorporated herein by reference.
7. The Western Coachel'la Vailey Plan designates the site
"WildlifelVegetation. "
B. The Ope� Spa�e and Conservation Policies ofi the Comprehensive
General Plan specify that research and educational uses are
permitted in the "Wildlife/Vegetation" designation.
4. The Comprehensive General Plan lists the Peninsular Highorn
Sheep as a "Rare" species.
]O. The BHI has been responsibie for increasing the Peninsular
Bighorn Sheep herd at the �north end of the Santa Rosa
Mountains by approximately 50 percent.
11 . The site is� within the sphere of influence of the City of
Palm Desert.
j(a�
PLOT PLAN NO. 11393
CHAN6E DF ZONE N0. 5552
Staff Report
Page 6
RECOMMENDA ION:
ADDPTION of the Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment
No. 34143. Th� platiining Department has found that approval of thz
proposed project will not have a significant effect o� the environment-
and has completed a Negative Declaration;
ANDs
APPRDVF�, 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 conclusion3:
AND:
BPPRDVAL 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 desiqned for
the protecxion of the public health, safety and welfare.
3. The project" will conform to the logical development of the
land and is compatible with the present and future uses of
tlie surrounding property.
LAM:csa
8/31/89 ,
���
Tt�E uHn�Rsmr oF
School of Namral Resources ����1J`�ONA� 325 Biologkal Scimccs
College of Agricultun and Life Scicnces ��B��
Tl1CSON ARlZONA P.O.Box 210043
Tucson,AZ g5721-0043
(520)621-7255
Fax:(SZO)621-8801
15 November 2006
Mr.Patrick A.Perry
A11en Matkins Leck Gamble&Mallory LLP
�#,o�ys�t�
515 South Figueroa
7�'Floor
f.vs�cxx�ei�es,��4 9E�4��-33'3S
RE: Cornishe of Bighorn and the Bighorn Institute
Dear Mr.Perry:
I.re.Yiewed.all tlae.d�ocu�ts�au.sentme.�'i.e.,D�aft F,gyiro,�mentaL�ct Repor�
Cornishe of Bighorn Project,December 2005;document from the Williams Law Firm,pC that
comments on the Bighorn Institutes response to the Draft Environmental Report, l February
2fl8.Cr,�dac �,umeiYt fram�li�en�Iivi�s�#o�inembeis�of thc Pa�a�Dcseif���brmci},�ta Fe�r�r
2006;a�iap ofa 21of caace�t.plaa,tentative tract inap`nd:�31676;and`a�lsre woilaag �
d�aft�o�respdnses�o co�nmenits ielated to ttie��i�aft�ivittininerit�l Co�of Bighorn
Repo�;
Frojec�,��fe;cem"6ei'2(�0�5j: AfEe;raa�'ng'ffiese�focuaients�fi�ve�corictuded�ttiat`thecdri�iict•'� .
between the Cornis}ie of Bighoin T'roject'and the Bighoai InsEifute is disagreemeat�ver the
influence the construction of 2�homes approximately 100 ys.ids'froai the Bighorn Iastitute may
have on bighorn sheep(free-ranging and captive). The Bighorn Institute is concerned that
hnman activity within 400 yards of the pen wili be detrimental to the captive sheep. I am not
aware of any literature or research tbat supports this concern for captive animals. CertainlX,
these animals are alread si �''`
y griificaatly influenced by the acfiions of the Bighorn Institute. Desert
bighorn sheep have large home ranges(> 1001�2,Krausman et al. 1989). Simply enclosing the
a�s i�$s�esElos�+e is�•si���ta�e�i�e h�o�c eha�t+�Fist��.ge€�eser�
bighom sheep. ,
�tte�ig�ra�stiinte is a�nc�t�a t��n af 2��res ad7�eiit f 2�z��
to the pens will resuit in detrimental effects causing habittuation of shcep to humans. It is
unlikely this will occur(mora than cutrent habitituatioa)with the development of the 2 homes.
Tfie studies cited�in tliese documents related�to liabituation address&ce-ranging populations.
The captive.herd�inaintai.ned by the Bighorn Institute is not free-ra.nging. Furthermore,Mel��n "
and Ellis(1996)discuss habituation of captive�aaimals to h�matis;unless ttiere is a repeated
presentation b�►humans tliat ait.�rs some�spcct'of the life lristory' chaiaCteristi�cs�of the�a4imal,
babitiiatioi��will not�be an isstie: IV'on�of'fhe��ci'Ced work svggests tbat}�abitation vvill`tie ati issue.
�p$�d��t^ijnrprnc y�tQ.$i�1�.48S30C1�Wl�.�t1�8tl1�,bS'Qt�LCC`1II1�]QL'�dII�8S�`'S:�:
(i:e.,repi�imduction�'aii�humaas'aze telate�t�i htunai�s being'"ciose""(i:e.,�in the cage)to aaimals
' (Kleunan`et.ai.�199�. T�ie homes ni�qiiestion�sie not"close"� �uitheimore;tti��proposed' �
�!1
� ,l1,
, � - ,�,
_
�
+ -..+ � �-..-�.
` _�~ • ���
�� �� �__ � �� _ �� �
� � ; , _ - \
;� � � ��
, r�a
����
' � �,�����i���.'�
'�'�..� � .
- '��-�'"� �
-...__ � �
� � �;
, �„c=�., -. ��� I� �� �
, ..� �:,�►-� t�► , � �: t
:.�.�,•�,,.�•�.��,' , � f�.
�.r
I �` � ��-� , � �
� ����;�� ��� (,\�'� .
� � .r� '"'� --� . - � ,�� .
. :����`. ���t�!,.�.•.��� ��� �
�"'S��' �w`�`J�" �
•,� �i�..�� .�,��'�,��
��'��,,;,;���i�i���t `.- � ,��',
/ ,,, �-�.-..-.,� \��%�// :.��
��•� ���s ,�.�:,�� ��;,��/��, 1�k�:.t;�I. �.
��� .' ���/ � � � �z�—_��r� �� �j��;;c �
� ``��..,-'�'��►�=-=�-%��•.. ;�`��t��-� �!1..3►�i``���.; �,C �
`F��:.� �.��~,�►���` r�1`�� �.,�'�\,�+Mr��„-tf���, ����
�f'�1,�ri/t1.;111��'�►!'�.�-.� i11 ^� �'��-�J��.�����
� ...._..
l � ,�1��N��� � ,,�y.......,�,E�j�,�......�•���--..:��_�.�--��? �
�,t���,�3:�.,���` �;:�►�����:,!��,��;�,,��,�!�4`
: �� =- �^-- �
� ��/:!!�'�v����r,��.����� ��.���+_,��1��'��,
r -_�.�..•-- .��-- ��. �,.���� ,;.
�� ���• � ��..�f����i.7�:\\`�.���,�,_��c<-rr,-�-�.
• a-�-.. +►+�:��a� i��� ��. -�;��►
� - � � �. ,
,, �� ' :►'`� ��� -�i"`�!\\�\7� ��r�1,..�,
� `�.�_ , ,
� �..�+\�' ,��.�. �,�?3����~'%,-'�'^' .r;y
.w
� !j�:�'r',,:i�«..�'��j��.,,;�--�'��-� '-� _
�'-' `� -.:-:� � ����1��� `il��� �w�\�:'..���� �
� �� � � ��••�"� � �'`.���.A\\ �,
�
��;���`r►,��` ��r�-�.. . �
� �� ' ,\� \\,`'�,��,`G,���- �•�` .
-�.� ) ���'=_ �>,� ,.���...��`'-- -
�:. '. 7 �\\���r((T���d��� _` ,.� `.�� -- -�
: ��� I ���� - - �_ � , ��y,
----------------- ------
4L J J J G __�__,
f f7V1 VV`✓ `V���.�4
G
s � � �. _ ... .
� }� p-1-12000� . •� •� �
_ � r' P,R:e C !T Y OF '. � :�: ...:. �:P:o:� •-
� Q. PA ...�,.
� J A-�-� � � M DE S E R T-. . . � ' . . ::,:: :
4` � P.R-T '. , . P.R.-7 . ... *
~� 4 R-1 20,000 ' . .�' : .. • .:. .
' _�� ' . . ' ' • . • . . • • ..� .
Q 4' . �.'�.• '� � O.S. . .••;::.;::•:�;�
.. � . . ,� ��. :�-.���: �� • :P.�t-s�o
- - - ' a • ' P-R.1.D H.P.RyD . ' - .. . . ..
. Q ' ... . . .. � :
� •' . .." ' . . : � :�
� • . .�
. '_ P.R-S • ;�
� . . �. : .'�,: �. � �� � 3
1 4 �:
' •n�
� •2�
i�:
.�.�: ��e. :�:
- . ;�..:
. �:
� �
. }
t
. .
. �� . - N-q � ;
--.
� .°�- .�
i
. �
. 74 --
ADP• BfOHORN INSTiTUTE �+oc�TaN� �
Us� NONCOMMERCIAL iME1VA6ERY RIINCHO �
�Dt�f. C C �R N 0 P D c..,�.�� 4 MIRAOE �
.r..r
S�C. 6 T 6 S..R.6 E. Ay��'s 9k.7 T t Pq, 040 _... PALM
Ckculation HIpHWAY T4 - ARTERIAL 11p� INDIAN r
EI«n�nt e oE se+e t� w E«a I
:
Rd. 8k. !�. I!3 pbt� 9-21-s9 p�� g� ROS •"
'.-� I"= 2 O 0 0' /��V�'/�►QE COr.rVTy f'Lr�tiMl� DEP,4/�77�fE]yT
rr-r�-e-nw
. . . . . .. . -- ... 3 � 3 .
. . '- ,
;� . • . .
n . , . CITY Of . . . . .. =.
� PALM DES�FtT i:i�.
..� J . . �_ : � � _ . . .. ::: �
Q� . .�. . . . . .+ '
P� : ..: �° .- . . : . . - . .. . . .
5�' ���►�' . . . .� � . .
� ' Q . . ' � : � . .' . .'
� � . ..
. . ... . � ... . ��.�. :.. �. . . � � �
�. , .. . �
. " .. .. �
� �' � �
P�ay :�
� �
OJ� . 'o
!�` .
:>-
�y
- .�P�
� � �� 4
� �
1 � - � '
� � �
�
� . ,
, �
a� �
.
. OJ��P . P�� . �
!* v
� �� . --
ADP• S18NORN INSTITUTE iaC4T1pMA�
Us� NO NCOMMERCIAL ME NA6 E RY pANCNO �
Oist. CC AND PD S�� 4 MIRAOE �
�C. 6 T 6 $.�F�.6 E. �sor's 9k.7 T1 F,q, 040 ... PAIM
CirCulalion N16HM1AY T4 - ARTERfA� Ilp' {MOIAN r
E�' eDESER� IMELL: 1
N
Rd. Bk. Pd, 113 Dat� e-21-6s Dro�nl 9y R08 "'
� ��• 2 0 0 0� �►vV.�/ / a/4u�r; ��n�o�vT �
r�-��-�-xs
. .��"l .
activities and restrictions imposed on homeowners m;n;r,,;,p
the captive sheep. However, it must be reco �°t�b���ental�nfluences to
of knowledge regardin B�ed that there are deficiencies in the current state
g mammalian reproduction. It is fairly well established that anim�als that
are not handled ProPe�'lY or are fearfiil of humans have
�P�'°Per1Y managed and are not fearful of humans P�rer reproduetion thau those that have
consh uction of the 2 homes in question will have any ple�ons o the breedin t�unlikely the '
Bighorn Institute. S Pro�am at the
Aaother concem is that the project site is used by desert bi
the human aotivity aro�d�e site it is unlikely the site has been +����e�nt pas�i,°���
used in the future as outlined in the document.
F'��Ore��e concerns related to noise wi11 not likely enhance ambient noise leveIs so
�ey�e�etrimen�tal to bighorn sheep in the enclostu�e. The heari�g of desert u�
includi.ng bighorn sheep v�less than A—weighted noise e. Sulates
aPPro�ates human h � g�, ��d pressute levels that
sound e�ects on �g and usually the most appropriate sound metric used when studying
1°��s'���et al•2�04)• In one of the few studies available that
contrasted the bebavior of desert ungulates in areas witl�
�'�m��a1•(2004)did not document changes in beha.v���son�p��e levels,
with(65.3 dB)and without military activity(35 dB). p ��rn in areas
Clearly,there are d��nt opinions related to raisin
based on my experience on rais ���e bighorn sheep, Hav�,ever,
bighorn sh �S�aPtive desert bighorn sheep,testing hearing of desert
characteristics�of d sert b'ghom�f desert bighorn,and my understan • �,
eep,it is my opinion that the construc�ti n of 2 homes 100
. Yards from the latnbing pens will have no detrimental infl u e n c e o n t he s heep enclosed at the
Bighorn Institute,
Please consider this a prelim��,�ort. I plan to visit the site,discuss the project with
you in more detail,and obt�n$d��o��o��on at a mutually agreed time. Please contact
me if you have any questions,
Sincerely,
�
���
Paul R Krausman
Professor
Wildlife Conservation and Management
PRK/vc
Cc: Michelle MeKenzie �
. , � . : . ...;.:.. . ::...: . . . . .
_ ... ) �.:
.�� �
References
�3ems�o�tb,P_3�A Bsand,a�d.�_�illems,. 1981,. T.�e.L�baxiw�al respaw�se a£so.�rs.ta.tl�e
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, Chicaga�:
il1'�^^�LI�A..
Ktausman,P.R,B.D.Leopold,R F. Seegmiller,and S. G.Tomes. 1989. Relationships
bet�recir descrt�ig�hor�r�s�Oeg��abitat izr�� w�d�c�Cmvg�•�$�.
Krausma�,P.Ry i..K.Hazris,�.L.Blasc�,K.K G.Koenen,aad J.Fraacine. 2004..�cts of
miirtary opera6ons on Bebavior aadhearing of"endangered�onoraa prong'hora.`s�r'ii dl�e
Monographs 157.
►��r�t 1'/
Mellen,J.D.,and S.Ellis. 1996. au�nallearning and�.t�usbandty tec�q�s p�es 88-99 in D.
C. Kleinman,M.E.Allen,K V.Thoxnpson,and S.Lu�pkin,ed.itors. Wildl mammals in
ca.ptivi�y:�rinci.ples and techai�ues. .The University. of Chic�press,Chic�go,Illi.nois,
U3A.
,��b
__ .__________—
. --------
J''P '� The Universi of Boone and Crockett
� 9�' l,V Wlldlife Conservation Prognm
NJ Coliege of Forestry end Conservetion
.'ry O� � The Uuivasity of Montana
� Missoula,MT 59812
Dveccor. (406)243-56011
, Assistants(4p�243-5272
, FA.X:(406)243-4557
25 June 2008 .
Mr.Pahick A. Perry
Allen Matldns I,eck Gamble Mallory&Natsis LLP
. 515 South Figueroa Street, 7�'Floor
Los Angles, California 90071-3398
RE: Response to comments related to Cornishe of Bighom 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 Land Management;
D. Wayne Brechtel of Worden Williams,APC; and J. Craig Williams of the Williams
Lindberg Law Firm,pC. Each Ietter criticized various aspects of the Comishe of Bigham
Project(i.e.,Project)because it would be detrimental to the conservation of Nelson's
bighom sheep(Ovis canadensis nelson:�in the Peninsular Ranges of California. 1'he
letters express 2 general biological reasons the Project will be detrimental to the recovery
and conservation of bighorn sheep in the Coachella Valley,Califomia.
1. The Project will be within the 400 yazd buffer azound the Bighoxn Institute(BI)
and, thus,be too close to the captive breeding facility.
2. Bighom sheep in the enclosure at the BI will be able to see the Project and heaz
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 aware of studies or
data in the primary literature that support the concerns raised in the letters.
The basis for the 400 yard buffer is uncleaz. I am not awa.re of data that indicates a
400 yazd buffer is necessary for successful captive breeding programs, Researchers 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(Ma�Arthu�.�� 19g2� paPouchis et a1,
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 Iarge mammals are more
._ J��
concemed 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,Th6venon et al.2003,Nielsen et a1. 2pp7), gased on my experience
and the literature, I cannot find evidence for this concern.
I was not able to find support for the second concern either. Tlze animals are already
habituated to aztificial conditions(i.e.,the enclosure, supplemental feeding,and care
takers)as is necessary for captive populations. I am una�yare of any literature or data that
even suggest that activities associated with the Project,as described�will�,�e
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 prograxn, 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 Bighom Transactions 36: 54-57.
Kleiman,D. J. 1989. Reintroduction of captive mamrnaIs for conservation. BioScience
39:152-161.
MacArthur,R.A.,V. Geist, and R.H.Johnston.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.
Ostermanri, S. D.,J.R. Deforge,and W.D. Edge. 2001. Captive breeding and
reintroduction evaluation criteria: a case study of Peninsular bighorn sheep.
Conservation Biology 749-760.
Papouchis, C. M.,F.T. 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. Claro,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 addirional information or address other issues. I
_ 7
���.
would be pleased to do so.
Sinserely,
�� .�. . }�.
Paul R Krausman, �
Boone and Crockett Professor of Wildlife Conservation and
Certified Wildlife Biologist�
_ ���
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMA.TE
TRACT NO. 31676
2 LOT-RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
CITY UF�PALM DESERT
CO1tNISHE OF BIGHORN,LLC '
PRELiNIiNARY COST ESTIMATE
BASIS OF COST ESTIMATE-TENTATIVE TRACT i�p DATED 9/08/08
CATEGORY TOTAL �TT
$ COST $ COST COMMENTS
CLEARING,DEMOLTTION&RELOCATIONS $ 1,750 $ g�s
ROUGH GRADING 251,793 125,896
CONSTRUCTION WATER 18,293 9,147
EROSION AND DUST CONTROL 61,084 30,542
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM..OFF-TR.ACI' �
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM..ON-TRACT �
SEWER SYSTEM..OFF-TRACT 89�200 44,600
SEWER SYSTEM..ON-TRACT � 0
WATER SYSTEM..OFF-TRACT 40,000 20,000
WATER SYSTEM..ON-TRACT � 0
STREET IMPROVEMENTS„pFF_TRACT 18,800 9,400
STREET IMPROVEMEN'I'S,.ON-TRACT � 0
STREET LIGHTS AND'TRpFFIC SIGNALS 46,635 23,317
WALLS AND FENCES 7,635 3,817
LANDSCAPING 6,050 3,025
UTILIT'Y TRENCHING 2���� 100,000
UTILITY COMPANY CpNTRpCTS 2'�� 1,000
CNIL ENGINEERING FEES 3�1g2 1,591
SOILS AND GEOLOGY FEES 76,600 38,300
OTHER CONSULTANT'S FEES 5'�32 2,866
INDIRECT ALLOCATIONS 105,000 52,500
REIlvIBURSEMENTS � 0
BONDS �2►182) (1,091)
16,237 8,119
SUBTOTAL $ 9�47,9 $ 47-�90
CONTINGENCY(10%) 94,781 47,390
PERMITS AND FEES 9. 06
GRAND TOTAL $1,10��1,�20 $ 550,601
NUMBER OF BUILDABLE LOTS (UNTTS) 2
NUMBER OF ACRES 11.87
PROJECT DENSITY(DU/ACRE) 1�g
UNIl'PRICES USED HEREIN pRg gASEp UppN FIfE�g,[�C�g�,pROVIDFp IAlFpg�yA770N OR FROM BFST AVAILABLE IWpU37RY DATA AT THE 771yg OF
PRFPARATION,CONSULTqNT ASgifMg,S NO RESppNSIBILiTY FOR'CHB fiXACI'MpSS OF SUCH UNiIT pRlCgg M gTT}��.�.
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN T��NO.31676
PRELIMINARY ESTIMp'TE
���
CLEARING AND DEMOLITION
ouarrrrry �
ILAND CLEARING(INCLUDES TREE REMOVAL UN P-�� OST C��NfC
LAND CLEARING(INCLiJDES TREE REMOVAL) 3 5 AC 5�•� f 1,750
STRUCfURE DEMOLTTION s�•� S -
WATER WELL ABANDONMENT � 2500.00 S .
REIACATE EXISTING WATERLiNES � 5000.00 S .
IItR1GATION LINE ABpTVDpN]y(ENT �' 0.00 s _
l'I'EM � 0.00 S .
iTE1Vi E�1 0.00 S _
i1'EM � 0.00 S .
� 0.00
GRADING SUB TOTAL ��
� oonrrri� � S�T co►rn�nrrc
Move IN � � 2�s o 0o S 2s,000
S1TE PREPARATION 3.5 AC 200.00 S 700 --
EXCAVATION AND COMPACTION 3,9 2 1.0 3 C Y 2.0 0 S 7,842
OVEREXCAVATION CY i� S
EXPORT MATERIAL CY 6.00 S
IMPORT MATERIAL 35,879.52 CY 6.00 S 215,271
ALLWIUM REMOVAI.AND REPLACEMENT CY 1.00 t
CAP/I'RANSTI'ION LOTS CY 1.U0 s .
BUT77lESSINC3 8c STABILIZATiON FILLS CY 2.10 S
FINISH PADS 2 EA 500.00 S 1,000
BACKDRAINS LF l0.00
SUBDRAINS L,F I1.00
PCC GUNITE DTfCH DRATNS 6 FEEI'WIDE y� �8� '
PCC DOWNDRAINS LF 16.U0
FAULT TRENCH RFMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT CY 1.00
STREEf BALAIVCE SF 020 .
'CURB aRADE LF 0.75
SIDEWALK GRADE SF 0.50
ROUGH LOT PULLS 2 EA 250.00 S S00
FINAL LOT PULiS 2 EA 250.00 S S00
TOE DITCH �, �Z�
SPLASFi WAI.LS HA 500.00
BROW STICH LF 12 00 -
HII.LSIDE DRAINAGE SWALE � �� '
�� � 0.00
�� � 0.00
� � 0.00
�� � 0.00
1TEM � .
TI'EM 0.00 _
� EA 0.00 -
� 0.00
SUBTOTAL s �
CONSTRUCTION WATER
ou,�+rrtz�r u�r Piucz cosr co�rrr�
M�R DSPOSIT AND RENfAL 1 BA 2000.00 S 2,000
CONSTRUCTION WATER ON-S1TE 2 fiA 1000.00 2,000
TRENCH BACKF[[,L WATER 2 EA l000.00 2,000
SPRINKLER RENT,4I, LS 0.00
GRADING WATER 122,926 CY 0.10 12,293
�� EA 0.00
1TEM EA 0.00
SUBTOTAL S 18 293
EROSION AND DUST CONTRO .
�T
�' M ouwxri� cl�t PRICE S.OST con�rrrs
SAND BAGS 400 EA 1.50 S 60p
DESII.TING BASINS(MWOR) 1 EA 5000.00 s,ppp
STREET SWEEPIIV(3/WASHINd 1 LS 5000.00 5,�0
POLYMER COATING 130,000 SF 0.30 45,000
SII.T FENCE 1,994 LF 2.75 5,48,
Tl'EM
�M 0.00 _
0.00 �
s���' S 61,040
TRACE NO.31676
CORNI3HE OF BIGHORN pg��MIN�l,��,�,E
. . ,_
����.
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM OFF ar�r
1�P ounrrrrry � � co�. co�rrrs
14"RCP � 45.Op g .
30"RCP � 60.00 S -
36"RCP �' 75.00 S _
42"RCP I-F 9p.pp s _
48"RCP �'' 105.00 $ .
18"FII)PE PIPE � 120.00 S .
24"HDPE PIPE � 36.00 S .
30"HDPE PIPE � 48.00 S -
4"PVC �' 60.Op s .
6"PVC � 8.00 $ _
8"PVC � 12.00 S _
CATCH BAS W W/I,p W�4' u' 16.00 S -
CATCH BAS1N W/LD W�7' � 4300.00 S -
CATCH BASIN W/LD W=14' � 3300.00 S .
CATCH BAS1N W/[.D W=21' � 7500.00 S .
GRA'fE D+TLET CATCH BASIN SINGLE GRATE � $s�•� S -
GRA7'E INLET CATCH BASIN DpL►g(,E(}�� � 8�•� S -
CiRATE A1LET CATCH BASIIY TRIPLE GRATE � 10000.00 S .
GRATE INLEf CATCH BASIN SINGLE GRATE W/pRY yVELI, � 12000.00 S _
GRATE INLEf CATCH BASIN DOUBLB d1tATE W/DRY WELL � 18000.00 S -
GRATE INLET CATCH BAS1N TRIPLE L3RATE W/DRY WELL � 20000.00 S .
J[JNCTION STRUCNRE NO. ( �` 22�00•00 S -
JIJNCTION STRUCI'URE NO.2 �` 1400.00 S .
'1'RANSit'ION S'fRUCTURE NO.1 � 3000.00 S -
TRANSITION STRUCTURE NO,2 � 1500.00 S _
MANHOLE � 3200.00 S -
REINFORCED CONCREIB HOX � 3�.00 S _
AC ACCESS ROADS � 300.00 S -
DRY WELL SF 0.95 S -
RIP RAP � 15000.00 S _
GO[.F COURSE OUTLET STRUCT[JRg SF 15.00 S _
ENERGY DfSSIPATER � 18�•� S -
CIBM � 35000.00 S _
3UBTOTAL � 0.00 �
S -
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM ON TRACT
1�P ounNrrr�r rJ[ r� ,� s S�T �o�iv�rs
24"RCP
30"RCP 30 � 60.00 S .l,gpp .
36"RCP � 75.00 S -
42"^RCP 3� � 1�,� S 33,100
48 RCP -
18"F�PE PIPE � 120.00 S -
24"I�IDPB P1Pfi � 36.00 S -
30"FIDPE P1PE �' 48.00 S _
6"PVC � �•� S -
8"PVC � 12.00 S - (YARD DRAINS)
12"PVC � 16.00 S - (YARD DRAINS)
CATCH BASIN(YARD DRAQ� � 24.00 S - (1'ARD DRAINS)
CATCH BASIN W/LD W=7' � 100.00 S - (YARD DRAINS)
CATCH BASIN W/LD Wslq' � � S�•� S - S,S00
CATCH$ASIN W/LD W�21' EA 7500.00 S -
GRATE INLST CATCH BASIIY SINGLB GRATE � 8�.� S .
GRATE INLET CATCH BASIN DOUBIE(3RATE � 8000.00 S .
GRATE IIVLET CATCH BASIN TRIPLE(iRATE � 10000.00 $ _
GRATE 1NLEi'CA7'CH BAS1N SINGLE GRATE W/DRY WEI.L �` 12000.00 S .
GRATE WLET CA'PCH BASIN DOUBLE GRATE W/DRY WELL � 18000.00 S _
GRATE INLET CATCH BASIN TRIPLE GRATE W/DRY WSLL � 20000.00 S .
JLINCTION STRUCTIJRE NO. 1 � 22000.00 S _
JUNC1'ION STRUCTURE NO.2 � 1400.00 S -
TRANStfION STRUGTURE NO.1 � 3000.00 S -
TRANSITION STRUCTURENO.2 � 1�.� S -
MANHOLE � 3200.00 S -
REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX � 32�•� S -
CONCRETE HEADWqLi, � 3�•� S -
DRY WELL 2 LS 20000.00 S 40,000
R1P RAP �► 15000.00 S -
OITfLET STRUCfURE&SAND F[I,TER 120 SF 15.00 S 1,800
ENERGY DIS3IPATER 1 SF 5000.00 S 5,000
SUMP PUMP 8c PIPING � 15000.00 S _
� 20000.00
SUBTOTAL �
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN TRA�NO.31676
PRELIMINARY ESTIMp'I'E
.i�?
SEWER SYSTEM OFF-TRACT
arvc ou.�,rrr� � �
PRICE COST �o��
6"VCP � 500.00 S _
s^vcP � is.00 s .
1��Vf.P � ZS.00 S .
12"VCP �' 35.00 $ _
15"VCP � 43.00 S .
24"VCP � 60.00 s _
4"ABS � 75.00 S .
6"ABS � 5.00 a _
8"ABS �' 7.SU s �
io^,+Bs � io.00 s -
�z^nss � iz.so s -
l8"ABS � 13.00 S _
za^nss � u.so s .
MANHOLE � 30,00 S .
DEEP MANHOLE � 18�•� S -
DROP MANHOLE � 2300,00 s .
CI.EANOiIf � 2200.00 S -
CONCRETE ENCASEMENT � ���� S -
SAND BEDDWC) � ZU•UO S -
BREAK AND JO1N EXiSTING LINE � 5.00 S .
PAVEMENT REMOVAL AND REPI.ACEMENT � 350.00 s .
ADNST MANHOLE TO GRADE,1°'�'LiFT SF 4•� S -
ADNST MANHOLE TO GRADE,2i7D LiF'f � Z�S•� S -
FORCE MAIN � 275.00 S _
SEWER LIFT STATION �' 15.00 S -
CLEAN,MANDREL,AND MIRROR SEWER � 350000.00 s .
TV TEST SEWER � 2.00 S -
CLEAN MANHOLES �' 1.00 S -
Pl'EM � 125.00 S -
T!'EM EA 0.00 S .
ITEM � 0,00 f _
rfENI � 0.00 S -
1'I'EM EA 0.00 S _
SUBTOTAL � 0.00 �
SEWER SYSTEM ON-TRACT -
4"�VCP LATERAI, oUANTITY � � COgT CO^��
6 VCP 500.00 S I,000
8"VCP 625 � 15.00 S
10"VCP 30.00 S 18,750
12"VCP � 35.00 s .
18"VCP � 45.00 s .
24"VCP � � 60.00 s .
4"AHS � 75.00 s _
6"ABS � 5.00 S -
8"AHS . � 7.30 S -
l0"ABS � 20.00 S .
12"ABS � 12.50 S -
18"ABS � 15.00 S •
24"ABS v' 22.50 S -
MANHOLE � 30.00 S _
DEEP MANHOLE 5 � 2500.00 S 12,500
DROP MANHOLE EA 2500.00 S -
CLEANOUT � 2200.00 S .
CONCRETE ENCASEMENT � 1000.00 S .
SAND BEDDWG � 20.00 s .
JOIN EXISTATG MANHOLE � s•� S -
PAVEMENT REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT 1 � 500.00 S 500
ADNST MANHOLE TO GRADE,1�LIFT Z� SF 10•00 S 2,000
ADNST MANHOLE TO GRADE,2''7D LIFT s � 2T5.00 S I�7g
FORCE MAlN S EA 275.00 S 1,375
SEWER LIFT STATION � 1S•00 S -
CLEAN�MANDREI,AND MIRROR SfiWER � 350000.00 s _
T'V TEST SEWER 6� � Z.00 S 1,250
CLEAN MANHOLES 625 L!' �•00 S 625
iTFM S � 123.00 S 624
fTEM . � 0.00 S -
1TEM � 0.00 S .
1TEM � 0.00 S _
17'EM � 0.00 S _
SUBTOTAL � 0.00 �
�
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN TRA rCT NO.31676
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
Ws#TER SYSTEM OFF-TRACT
TT tTf11T .
6"P C CLZ00 WTfH F1TTIN(3S OUANITI'V �Z p�CE s COgT COMME�
8"PVC CI.200 WiI'H FITTIN(}S � 16� s -
10"PVC CL200 WTfH FTCTQVGS � � �
12"PVC CL200 WTTH FTI1'INGS 20.00 S .
6"DIP W1'fH g17TIN(3S � 24.00 S .
8"DIP W1TH F1TTAiGS � 18.00 S _
12"D1P WII'H F1TfINGS � 32•00 S -
18"D1P W7TH FITTINGS � 45.00 S _
24"DIP WTTH FITTINGS � 60.00 S _
4"GATE VALVE � 75.00 S _
6"CiATE VALVE � 500.00 S _
S"GATE VALVE � 650.00 S -
10"GA'['E VALVE � �•�0 S -
12"GATE VALVE � 1150.00 5 -
18"BUT'f'ERFLY VAI.VE � 1�.� $ .
2"BIAWOFF ASSEMBLY � 2�.� S _
4"BIAWOFF ASSEMBLY � 4�.� S _
6"BLOWOFF ASSEMBLY EA 1�.� S .
AIR RELIEF VALVE EA 800.00 S _
FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY � 1400.00 s _
HOUSE WATER SERVICE E'� 2500.00 S -
LANDSCAPE WATER SBRVICE DU 4�•� S -
RAISE GATE VALVE COVERS TO GRADE 1sT L1Ff � 7�.� S -
RAISE GATE VALVE COVERS TO GRADE 2�'1D LiFP � ��s'� s '
HOT TAP WlfH FITTINGS � 1 T5.00 s .
ItEMOVE AA1D REE'LACE PAVING � 4250.00 S -
BOOSTER PUMP STATION SF 2.00 S _
PRESSURE REDUCER STAT[ON � 1��•� S -
REMOVE PLUGS AND JOIN � �•� S -
REM�VE AND REPLACE AC PAVING � 1�•� S .
�� SF 2.50 S -
1TpN � 0.00 S -
� � 0.00 S -
� 0.00 ��
SUBTOTAL S
WATER SYSTEM. .ON-TRACT '
OUANITTY i��
6�"P�V�C CL200 W1TH FITTINC3S �- � s � COMMENTc
8"PVC CL200 WiTH Pi'IT1NGg 625 I.F 16.00 S 10,000
10"PVC CI.200 WTTH FTI'1'INGg LF 2�00 S
12"PVC CL200 WPI'H FI'I'I7NGS LF 24.00 S
6"DIP WTfH FIl1'INGS LF 18.00 S
8"DiP WTI'E[FITTINGS LF 32.00 S
12"DIP W1TH FTiTINGS LF 45.00 S . .
l8"DIP WITH FiTTINCiS LF 60.00 S .
24"DiP W1TH FITTINGS LF 73.00 S
4"GATE VALVE EA 500.00 S
6"GATE VALVE EA 650.00 S
8"GA7E VALYE 3 EA 900.00 S 2,700
10"GATE VALVE � 11�.� S
l2"GATE VAi,VE EA 1600.00 j -
18"BUTI'BRFI,Y VALVE EA 2500.00 S
2"BIAWOFF ASSEMBLY EA 450.00 s -
4"BLOWOFF ASSEMBLY EA 1400.00 S .
6"BLAWOFF ASSEMBLY FA 800.00 s
AIIt RELiEF VALVE EA 140Q.00 s .
FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY 1 EA 2500.00 S 2.500
HOUSE WATER SERVICE Z EA 400 00 S $pQ
IANDSCAPE WA'fER SERVICE 1 EA 730.00 S �SO
RAISE GATE VALVE COVERS TO GRADE 1�L1FT 3 EA 175.00 S 525
RA[S8 GATE VALVE COVERS TO QRADE 2''1D LIFT 3 EA 175.00 S 525
HOT TAP WPTH FITTINGS EA 4230.00 S
RFMOYE AND REPLACE PAVWG SF 2.00 S
HOOSTER PUMP 37'ATION EA 125000.00 S .
PRESSURE REDUCER STATION EA 0.00 S
RPMOVE PLUGS AND 701N EA l00.00 S
REMOVE AND REPLACE AC PAVINp 200 SF 2.50 S 1,000
� � 0.00 S
TTEM -
�� � 0.00 S -
� 0.00
SUBTOTAL ��
TRACI'NO.31676
CORNISHE OF HIGHORN PRELIMINARY ESTIMp'('E
���"1
STREET IMPROVEMENTS...OFF-TRACT
ITEM OUANTITY iTN1T p� CO�.
6"CURB AND 24"GITITER LF T.50 S COMMR�v'r'q
8"CURB AND 24"GUTCER LF 8.00 S .
S"WED(}E CURB . LF 8.00 S .
6"WEDGE CURB LF 9.00 S
6"CURB ONLY -
8"CURB ONLY � 8.� S - M����
VARIABLE HEICiHT CURB AND GU7TER � 7.00 S _
VAR[ABLE HEIGHT CURB ONLY � 8.00 S _
CONCREfE CROSS GLII'TER � 8.00 S -
CONCRETE DRNE qppROACH SF 4.50 S -
CONCREI'E SIDEWALK SF 2�5 S -
ALLEY GU7TER(3'WID� • SF 1.75 S _
2"AC OVER 4.5"AB SF 7.� S _
1"AC FINISH LIFI' SF 1.25 S _
3"AC OVER 5"AB SF 025 S -
1"AC FINISH LIFI' SF 1.� S •
AC BERM(BY OTHERS) SF 032 S -
HANDICAP RAMPS � 6.00 S -
RAiSE MANHOLFS TO GRADE FIIVAL LdFI' � 250.00 S _
ADNST WATER VALVE COVERS TO GRADE EA 3�•� S .
RAISE STORM DRAIN MANHOLES TO GRADE � 1�'� s ' 3RD LIF['
RAiSE STORM DRAIN MANHOLES TO GRADE � 3�'� s " 1�LIFI'
SAWCUT AND REMOVE AC PAVEMENT � ' 3�•� S - 2''1°I,�I'
SAWCUT AND REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER SF 2.00 S -
REMOVE SIDEWALK � 9.00 S -
fTgD,( SF 2.0p S .
PO1NT AND PATCH � 12000.00 s .
� DU 100.00 S .
�y � 0.00 S -
� � 0.00 S -
� � 0.00 S _
IfEM � 0.00 s .
�� �+ 0.00 S -
� 0.00 ��
3[7BTOTAL s
STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON-TRACT '
_ �
��xu 2a^ctrrrER ouwivrrry � gg��o s cosr co�x�a
8"CURB AND 24"GUITER LF 8.00 S .
5"WEDGE CURB LF 8.00 S
6"WEDGECiIRS I,150 LF ]0.00 S 11,500
6"G'URB ONLY
$.C�D�Y 165 LF 8.00 S 1,320
VARfABLE HEIGHT CURB AND GLRTER �' 7.00 S .
VARIABLE HEIGHT CURB ONLY � 8.� S _
CONCRETL�CROSS GViTER � S•00 S -
CONCREfE DRIVE APpROACH SF 4's� S -
CONCRhTE SIDEWALK SF Z25 S -
ALLEY GL!'!'I'ER(3�V1�� SF 1.75 f _
2"AC OVER 4.5"AB SF ?.00 s _
1"AC FINISH LIFI' 13,684 SF 1.50 S 20,526
3"AC OVER S"AB 13,684 SF 035 S 4,789
I"AC FINISH L1FT • SF 1•� S -
AC BERM(BY OTf�RS) SF 0.32 S .
HANDICAP RAMPS � 6.00 S -
RAISE MANHOLES TO GRADE FINAL L1Fi �` 230.00 S _
ADJUST WATER VALVE COVERS TO GRADE s � 300.00 S 1,500
RA1SE STORM DRAIN MANHOLES TO aRADE 10 EA 100.00 S 1,000 3��
RAISE STORM DRAW MANHOLES 1'O(3RADE � 300.00 S - 1�''LIFI'
SAWCVI'AND REMOVE AC PAVEIVIENT � 3�.� S - 211D L,IF`f
SAWCUT AND REMOVE CURH AND�3U1Tgtt 2.000 SF 2.00 S 4,000
REMOVfi SIDEWALK � 9•� S -
ENHANCED PAVEMENT SF 2.00 S _
POINT AND PATCH zs 50000.00 S .
�p�q 2 SA 1000.00 S 2,000
TfEM � 0.00 S -
1TEM �► 0.00 S _
1TEIvi � 0.00 s _
CI'6M � 0.00 S -
1'TEM �► 0.00 S -
SUBTOTAL � 0.00 ��^
CORMSHE oF s[GHORN T��'NO.31676
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
_
. . . _
.. ... .
, . . . ... . ,
,.��4,,,„.
� � ,�
STREET LIGHTS APTD TRAFFIC SI NA_i_5
T�'
STREET NAME SIGNS OUANTITY jj� PRICE COST ��
STOP SIGNS 1 � 285.00 S 285
TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS 1 � ��•� S 125
REFI.ECT'OR PANELS 10 � 200.00 S 2,000
STRIPIIJG � 23.00 S _
STOP BAR STRIPING 1 � 5�.� S 3,000
BARRICADE GUARU RAILS 1 � 225.00 S 225
STREET LIGHT'S � '750.00 S .
STREEI'LIGHTS � • 1500.00 S -
ENERGY CHARGES � 1500.00 S -
REIACAI'E STREET LIC3HT � 379.00 S -
TRAFFIC SIGNAL � ��•� s -
EA 125000.00 S .
� 0.00 S _
� 0.00
SUBTOTAL 's"'��S
WALLS AND FENCES '
3...►Nla
PERIMETER BLOCK WALL OUANTITY jj 1� PRICE s. COST C0�
BLACK WALL 110 LF 53.00 S .6,050
16"x24"PILASTERS EA 300.00 S
IAW 16"x24"PII.ASTERS EA IS0.00 s
TUBULAR STEEL FENCIIYG LF (5.00 S
LOW MASONRY WALLS � 25.� S '
VIEW WALIS 12"MASONRY/48"TUBULAR STEEL LF 25.00 S .
VIEW S�UND WALLS 36"MASONRY/24"5T8E[, LF 35.00 S
CONCREfE MOWSTRIP LF 6.00 S
CONCREfE TURF BLACK LF 8.00 S
FIRE ACCESS GATES � 35�.� S
VAR.HEIGHT REI'AIIVING WALLS(5.0'MAX.) SF 20.00 S -
�M BA 6.00 S
�M EN 8.00 S
1TEM EA l000.00 .
SUBTOTAL ��
LANDSCAPIIVG
ITEM ouwNrrrsr y� pg� co� co�rrrc
ENTRY STATEMEN'C EA 100000.00 S -
PARKWAY I.EITERED I,p7'S SF 6.00 S
COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING 1 LS 200000.00 S 200,000
REAR YARD LANDSCAPING SF Q.� S
SLOPE PLANTING SF 2.50 S -
SLOPE IRRIGATION SF 1.50 S
REI'ENCION BAS1N AREA pLAN'[7NG SF 1.25 S
RETEN'1'ION BASIN AREA IRRIGATION SF 0.75 S
LAKE ENHANCEMENT AC 200000.00 S .
4'CONCREI'E SIDEWALK SF 4.00 S
COMMUNITY POOL EA ]00000.00 S
COMMUNITY SPA EA 15000.00 S
LAKE SHORELINE LF 25.00 s
LAKE LINER SF 0.35 S
�� EA 0.00 S
� � 0.00 S
� BA 0.00 S
� � 0.00 S .
� � 0.00 S
� fiA 0.00 S
� BA 0.00 S
� EA 0.00 S
�� SF 4.50 S
�� 5F 4.50 S
�M SF 0.00 S
� SF 0.00
SUBTOTAL s��
TRACT NO.31676
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN PRELINIDYARY ESTIMATE
_ 3�,.
UTILITY TRENCHING
DRY UI'iLiT1ES ESTIIvIATE OUANTITY UNIT � COST CO_��_� .
)O1NT 1'RENCH 2 DU 1000.00 S 2,000 ESTA4ATE
BACKBONE SYSTEMS DU 0.00 S -
BACKBONE SYSTEMS � 0.00 E -
PRIMARY TRANSFORMERS/SPLICE PiTS � • 0.� s .
PRIMARY TRANSFORMERS/SPLICE P1TS � 0.00 s _
1TEM � 0.00 S .
� 0.00
UTILITY COMPANY O�g,,�S SUBTOTAL ��
� °U,�x�nT �r �
TELEPHONE 2 � 500.00 S �Opp ��;�.E�
GAS 2 � ZU3•00 S 406
CABI.E TV 2 � 888.00 S 1,776 �
1TEM 2 � 0.00 S -
ITEM 0.00 S .
iTEM 0.00 S -
SUBTOTAL 0.00
CIVIL ENGINEERING FEES � �
P�INARY ENGINEERING(TOPO,BDY,ETC. OUANTITY j�YI'S � �03T COMMENTc
FINAL ENGINEERING � 1 LS 50000.00 S 50,000
CONSTRUCfION SURVfiYING 2 � 5��� S 10,000
STAKING ADDENDUM Z � 5000.00 S 10,000
PLOT AND PREC[5E GRADING PLANS 2 � 3�.� S 1,000
AtLCf�IITEC'fUltpI,REyIEW pLpT pl,qNs 2 � 1500.00 S 3,000
OFFICE ADDENDUM 2 � 300.00 S 600
2 EA 1000.00
SUBTOTAI, S 76 n600
SOILS AND GEOLO Y
PRBLIMINARX INVESTIGATION �U�� � � s S��� COMM�NTR
SEiSMIC STUDY 2 EA 25.00 S 50
FIIVAL SOILS REPORT 2 EA 50.00 S 100
L11'IL1TY BACKFILL REPORTS 2 EA 25.00 S SO
R VALUE TESTS 2 EA 25.00 S
ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION 35�879 CY 50
�� � 25.00 $ 5,382
OTHER CONSULTANTc SUHTOTAL ��3Z
oUANTTTY ��
DR VTlLTTY CONSULTANT i � 10�W0,00 S Ol�0 �
ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANT LS 1000�00 S
WECLANDS CONSULTANT DU �� s -
LANDSCAPS ARCHTfECT 1 LS 50000.00 S 30,000
PI,AWNING CONSULTANT 1 LS 20000.0p S 20,000
BWEPRIN'I'S AND REPRODUC770N 1 IS 10000,00 S 10,00p
TRAFFIC ENGiNEER 1 EA 15000,00
SUBTOTAL S 1�
CORNI9HE OF BIGHORN TRACT NO.31676
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
�Z �
INTIIRECT ALLOCATTONS
GRADING OUANTITY � P$[� s .`�sT. �OMMEnrrc
57'ORM DRAIN LS 0.00 S -
SEWER LS 0.00 S
WA� LS 0.00 S
STREETS LS 0.00 S
LfTIL1TIES LS 0.00 S
TRAFFIC SICrNAL PARTICIPATION y� 0� ��
SUBTOTAI, s
REII�IBURSEMENTS -
j�
�T ov.v�rrrr�t yx�rr gg� s 5�9�£� co�rrrs
IID
TEI.EPHONE 2 EA 203.00 S (406)
G� 2 HA -888.00 S (1,�76)
�6 0.00 S -
°� 0.00 S -
EA 0.00
SUHTOTAL s�(;182�
BONDS
l�IQ
�Errr soxn ouw��ry t�r r PRICE �T contn�nrrs
i ts a000.00 s a,000
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE 1.5% LS 147220.00 S 2,208
MAWTENANCE BOND 1.5% LS 14722.00 S 221
LETTER OF CREDIT S% IS 58800.00 S 2.940 Cy�yp
GRADING BOND 1.5% L5 251793.00 S 3,777
LANDSCAPE BOND 1.5'N. LS 206030.00 �
SUBTOTAI' S 16,237
TRACT NO.31676
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN PRELID�IINARY ESTTMATE
_ � � �
AGENCY FEES
��
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT FEE �UA�� � � �- COD�LMF.NTC
EA 40(10.00 S --
DEVEIAPMENT AGREEMENT REVIEW FEE EA 1500.00 S
ZONE CHANGS FEE EA 2710.00 S -
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FEE EA 262.00 S 271
FIitE DISTRICT FEE EA 400.00 S
SPECIFIC PL.Al�i REVIEW FEE EA 5165.00 S
TENTATNE TRACT MM FEE 1 EA 3300.00 S 3,500
P�T p����'�'� 1 EA 835.00 S 83S
COUNTY CLERK FEfi EA 78.00 S
FISH AND GAME FEE 1 EA 1300.00 S 1,300
COI�ATIDII.ITY REVIEW FEE 1 EA 833.00
ENTiTLEMENI'FEE 3UBTOTAL S 6 741
FINAL MAP CHECKIIVG FEE 1 EA 2240.00 S 2,240
STREET PLAN CHECKING FEE 6 SH 750.00 S 4,500
PUSLIC WORKS 1NSPECTION FEE S.00Ye °iG 5427Q.00 S 2,714
STORM DRAIN PLAN CHECK FEE 6 SH 750.00 S 4,500
STORM DRAIN INSPEC'fION FEE 5.00% EA 89200.00 S 4,460
HYDROLAGY PLAN CHECK FEE 0 EA 0.00 S 0 1NCL W/STREEI'PLAN
SEWER PLAN CHECK FEE 3 EA 30.00 S 130
SEWER INSPECTION FEE 3 EA 130.00 S 450
WATER PLAN CHECK FEE 3 EA 50.00 S 1 SO
WATER INSPECTION FEE 3 EA 150.00 S 430
GRAD[Nf3 PLAN CHECK FEE 0 SH 750.00 S 0 IIVCI.,VN/STREE!'pLAN
GRADING PERMIT FEE 1 EA 5000.00 S 5,000
LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK FEE 4 SH 730.00 S 3,000
I.ANDSCAPE INSPECTION FEE 396 'i6 206050.00 S 6,182
ENCROACHMENT FEE(MISCELLANEOUS) 1 EA 2500.00 S 2,500
SWPPP/NOI FEE 1 EA 500.00 S S00
RECORDING FEE 1 EA 50.00 S 50
FIRE REVIEW FEE 1 EA 500.00 S S00
PRECISE GRADIIVG PLAN CHECK FEE 2 SH 750.00 S I,S00
PRECISE CiRAD1NCi PERMIT FEE ! LS 10000.00 S ]0,000
RECORD OF SURVEY FEE EA 0.00 S 0
IAT LINE ADJUSTMEM fEE EA 0.00 S 0
MEI'ER'k" 1 EA 2500.00 S 2,500
MEPER 1" EA 300.00 S 0
ME1'ER 1'/�" 1 EA 525.00 S 525
BOND VERIFiCAT10N FEE EA I50.00 S 0
EA 0.00 S 0
EA 0.00
RECORDATION FEE SUBTOTAL �
CVUSD SCHOOL FEE 0 SF 2.07 S
CVWD SANITATION CHARGE EA I923.00 S -
CVWD WATER SYSTEM BACKUP CHARGE EA 2400.00 S
1"ME1'ER SURCHARGE 0 EA 1600.00 S
1'fi"METER SURCHARGE 0 EA SSS0.00 S .
ART W PUHLIC PLACES FEE 0 EA -500.00 S - .25°/.OVER S20pK OF VALUAT[ON
iNFRASTRUCTURE FEE 0 EA 0.00 S - 2.25'/e OF VALUA'iTON
SMI FEE 0 EA 0.00 S .01%OF VALUATION
�A�� DU 1907.00 S .
�� DU 0.00 S .
�� DU 0.00 S
�� DU 0.00 S
� DU 0.00 S
�� DU 0.00 S
�� DU 0.00 S��
BUILDIIVG PERMIT FEE SUBTOTAL S -
SUSTOTAI' S 58,612
TRACT NO.31676
CORPiISHE OF BIGHORN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
- , �� f
PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT COST ESTIMATE
TRACT NO. 31676
1 LOT-RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
CITY OF PALM DESERT
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN,I�LC
PRELIMINARY 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
CONSTRUCTION WATER 16,293
EROSION AND DUST CONTROL 61,084
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM..OFF-TRACT 0
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM..ON-TRACT 89,200
SEWER SYSTEM..OFF-TRACT 0
SEWER SYSTEM..ON-TRACT 40,000
WATER SY5TEM..OFF-TRACT 0
WATER SYSTEM..ON-TRACT 13,900
STREET IlVIPROVEMENTS..OFF-TRACT 0
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
CNIL 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
PERMTTS AND FEES $ 5�
GRAND TOTAL 5739,185
NUMBER OF BUILDABLE LOTS(UNITS) 1
NUMBER OF ACRES 11.87
PROJECT DENSTTY (DU/ACRE) .084
UNfI'PRICES USEA HBREIIY ARE BASED UPON EYfHER CLIENT PROV IDED INFQRMA710N OR FROM BFST AVAlLABLB INDUSfRY DATA AT 7'F�TOrIE OF
PREYARATION,CONSULTANT ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBIL.ITY FOR THS BXAClNESS OF SUCH UN1T PRICES iN EC['HER EVENT
TRACP NO.31676
CORMSHE OF BIGHORN PRELIMINARY E3TIA4ATE
. . -. ,.. .... . . . ., ,.. ..._. .. . . ��
CLEARING AND DEMOLITION
TTEM 4u.�rrrrr�r � �
LAND CLEARING(INCLUDES'1'ItEE REMOVAL) .25 AC � �NTS
LAND CLEARING(INCLUpES TREE REMpypI,) � S 125
STRUC7iJRE DEMOLTI'ION AC SOU.UO S .
WATER WELL ABANDONMENT � 2500.00 S -
RELACATE EXISTING WATERL.INE$ � � 5000.00 S _
IItRIGATION LiNE ABqNDpNMENT' � 0.00 S .
�M � 0.00 S -
TTEM � O:OU ; _
1T� � 0.00 s _
0.00
GRADING SUB TOTAL �S
ITEM ou.�tv�rrrsr �
MOVE IN
CQ� �OMME�c
STTE PREPARATION 1 � 2� S 25,000
EXCAVATION AND COMPACfION 'ZS AC Z�•� s 30
OVEREXCAVATION CS' 2.00 S -
EXPORT MATERIAL CY 1.00 S _
IMPORT MATERIAL Cl' 6.00 S .
ALLUVIUM REMOVAL AND REPLACEMEN'f 6.000 CY 6.00 S 36,000
CAP/I'RANSiTION LOTS Cl' 1.00 s _
BLI7TRESSING&STABII,IZAT[ON FILLS �' 1.00 S .
FINISH PADS CY 2.10 S .
BACKDRAINS 1 EA 500.00 S S00
SUBDRAINS � 10.00 _
PCC GUNITE D1TCH DRAWS 6 FEET WmE � 11.00 . .
PCC DOWNDRAINS � 18.00 .
FAULT TRENCH REMOVAL qA►p REpI,pCEMENf � 16,00 .
STREEI'BALANCE Cl' 1.00 .
CURB dRADE $F 0.20
SIDEWALK GRADE � 0,75
ROUGH LOT PULLS SF 0.50
FINAI.LAT PLJLLS i � 250.00 S 250
TOE D1TCH � � ZSO•DO S 250
SPI.ASH WALLS � 12.00 _
BROW STICH � 500.00 _
HII,LSIDE DRAINAGE SWALE 11' lZ•� _
1TEM � 60.00 _
1TFM � 0.00 .
iTEM � 0.00 .
iTEM � 0.00 .
II'EM EA 0.00 .
11'EM EA 0.00 _
1'CEIv[ �1 0.00 _
� 0.00
CONSTRUCTIOIY WA'I'�R sU��� S 6�050
n� ou,�nrrrrYl �T P�B�
METER DEPOSIT AND R$M',4I, COST CQ��
CONSTRUCTION WATER ON-STfE �•� S 2,000
TRENCH BACKFILI,WATER 1 �► 1000.00 1,000
SPRINKLER REIV1'AL � � 1000.00 1,000
GRADING WATER � 0.00
�p,�q 122,926 CY 0.10 12,293
� � o.oa _
�► o.00
EROSION A�D DUS Sn SUBTOTAL S 16,2 �93
3'_��TROL
L�T
snxn BwGs °U�-aoo � �o s °�� co�Nrs
DESILTING BASIIVS(MINOR) -
STR&ETSWEEPING/WASHIIVG � � 5000.00 5,000
POLYMER COATING 1 � 5000.00 5,000
SII,T FENCE 150,000 SF 0.30 45,000
TTEM 1,994 LF 2.'75 5,484
iTEM 0.00 .
SUBTOTAI, 0.00 �
S 61,040
CORNISHE OF BIGHORIV T�CT NO.31676
PRELIMINARY E3TIMATE
. ��1
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM...OFF-TRACT
i1�iIT
]�'EM OUANTiTY Jj� F�F SrQa�T CONII�IENTS
18"RCP LF 45.00 S -
24"RCP LF 6p.pp s _ -
30"RCP LF 75.00 S -
36"RCP I„p gp pp s _
42"RCP LF 105.00 S -
48"RCP LF I20.00 S .
18"HDPE PIPE LF 36.00 S -
24"I-IDPE PIPE LF 48.00 S -
30"�PE P1PE � �.� S -
4"PVC LF 8.00 S -
6"PVC LF 12.00 S -
8"PVC • LF 16.00 S -
CATCH BASIN W/LD W-4' EA 4500.00 S .
CATCH BASIlV W/LD W=7' EA 5500.00 S -
CATCH BASIN W/LD W=14' EA 7500.00 S .
CA'['CH BAS1N W/LD W=21' EA 8300.00 S -
dRATE INLET CATCH BASIN SINGL6 GRATE g,� gppp,pp S .
CiRATE 1NLEI'CATCH BASTN DUUBLE CiRATE EA 10000.00 S -
GRATE INLET CATCH BASIN TRIPLE GRATE EA 12000.00 S -
GRATE INI.El'CATCH BASIN 31NGLE dRATE W/DRY WELL EA I8000.00 S -
GRATE INLET CA7'CH BASIN DOUBLE dRATE W/DRY WELL EA 20000.00 S -
GRATE INLET CATCH BASIN TRIPLE GRATE W/DRY WELL EA 22000.00 S -
JUNGTION STRUCNRE NO. 1 EA 1400.00 S -
NNCTION STRUCTURE NO.2 EA 3000.00 S -
TRANSITION STRUCTURE NO.1 p,A �Spp,pp s �
TRANSITION STRUCfURE NO.2 gq gZpp,pp S .
MANHOLE EA 3200.00 S -
REiNFORCED CONCRETE SOX LF 300.00 S -
AC ACCESS ROADS SF 0.95 S -
DRY WELL EA 15000.00 S -
��' SF 15.00 S -
GOIF COURSE O[JI'LET STRUGTURE EA 1800.00 S -
ENERGY DISSIPATER EA 35000.00 S -
1T� EA 0.00 ��
sus�rarai. s -
�TORM DRAIN SYSTEM...ON-TRACT
I!!�C
�M ounrrrrrY r�r E� S�9�T co�rrrs
18"RCP LF 45.00 S -
24"RCP 30 LF 60.00 S 1,800
30"RCP LF 75.00 S -
36"RCP 390 LF 90.00 S 33,100
42"RCP LF ]OS.00 S -
46"RCP L.F 120.00 S -
18"HDPE PIPE LF 36.00 S -.
24"H1�PE PIPE IF 48.00 S -
30"FIDPE P1PE I.F 6p.pp S -
6"PVC LF 1Z.00 S - (YARD DRAINS)
8"PVC LF 16.00 S - (YARD DRAQIS)
12"PVC LF 24.00 S - (YARD DRAINS)
CATCH BASIN(YARD DRA1N) EA 100.00 S -
CATCH BASIN W/LD W�1' 1 EA 5500.00 S . S�Spp n'ARD DRAINS)
CATCH BASIN W/LD W=14' SA 7500.00 S -
CATCH BASIN W/I.D W=21' EA 8500.00 S -
GRATE INLEf CATCH BASIN SINdLE GRA7'E EA gppp,pp S _
GRATE IIVLEI'CATCH BASIN DOUBLE GRATE EA 10000.00 S -
GRATE INLET CATCH BASIIV TRIPLE flRATE EA 12000.OU S -
GRATE INLET CATCH BAS1N S1NdLE GRATE W/DRY WELL EA 180pp.pp g .
GRATE INLEf CATCH BASIN DOUBLE dRATE W/DRY WELL EA 2pppp.pp S -
GRATE 1NLET CATCH BASIIY TRIPLE GRATE W/DRY WELL EA 22ppp,pp S _
JUNCTION STRUCTURE NO.1 � �qpp,pp s .
JUNCITON STRUGTURE NO.2 EA 3000.00 S -
TRANSITION STRUCIVRE NO.1 EA 1500.00 S -
TRANSITION STRUCTURE NO.2 Ep 32pp.pp S -
M'°`NHOu' EA 3200.00 S -
REINFORCED CONCRETE BOX LF' 3pp,pp s .
CONCRETE HEADWALL 2 LS 20000.00 S 40,000
DRY WELL EA 15000.00 S -
�'� 12Q SF 15.00 S 1,800
OLTCLET STRUCfURE 8c SAND FII.TER 1 SF 5000.00 S 5,000
ENERGY DISSTPATER EA 15000.00 S -
SUMP PUMP&PIPING LS 2W00.00 S
S�TOT� S 89,200
TRAC'f NO.31676
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN PRELIMINARY ES7'IMATE
. ���
---- ---------____-
�EWER SYSTEM OFF-TRACT
�� , aU� � � �os�r co��c
6"VCP EA �pp f _
8"VCP � IS.00 s _
10"VCP � 25.00 S .
12"VCP LF 35.pp S -
l5"VCP � 43.00 S _
24"VCP LF 6p.pp S -
4"ABS � �S.UO s .
6"AHS 1-F' 5.00 S -
8"ABS � 7.50 S -
lO"ABS � TO.00 S _
12"ABS � 12.50 S -
18"ABS � 15.00 S _
24"ABS � 22.50 S -
MANHOLE � 30.00 s .
DEEP MANHOLE EA 1800.00 S -
DROP MANHOLE �► 2300,00 S -
CLEANOVf � 2200.00 S -
CONCREfE ENCpSEMENT �1 1000.00 S -
SAND BEDDING � 20.00 s .
BREAK AND JOIN EXISTING LINE � S•� S -
PAYEMENI'REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT � 350.00 S _
ADNST MANHOLE TO GRADE,1sT LIFrI' SF 4•� S -
ADNST MANHOLE TO GRAD&,211D LIFf � 275.00 S -
FORCE MAIId � 275.00 S _
SEWER LIFf STATION � 15.00 S _
CLEAN,MANDREL,AND MIRROR SEWER � 350000.00 S .
'N 7'EST SEWER � 2.00 s _
CLEAN MANHOLES � 1.00 S _
iTEM � 125.00 S -
TI'EM �"` 0.00 S -
1TEM EA 0.00 S -
TTEH1 � 0,00 S _
ffFd13 � 0.00 S .
SUBTOTAL � 0.00 �
SEWER SYSTEM ON-T ACT s -
a�I.n.rEx�[, ouwtrrrrir y� � C�T co�&ivrc
6"VCP 2 � 500.00 S 1,000 "
8"VCP � I5.00 S _
10"VCP 6Z5 LF 30.00 S 18,750
12"VCP � 33.00 $ _
18"VCP � 45.00 s .
24"VCP t-F 60.Op S .
4"ABS � 75.00 S _
6"ABS � 5,00 S -
8"ABS � 7.30 S -
10"ABS � 20.00 S _
�r nss � iz.so a .
18"AHS � IS.00 S _
24"ABS � 22.50 S _
MANHOLE � 30.00 S _
DEF:P MANHOLE s '�` 2500.00 S 12,500
DROP MANHOLE � 2500.00 S _
CLEANOUT � 2200.00 S -
CONCRETE ENCASEMENT � 1000.00 S -
SAND BEDDIIVG � 20.00 S .
JOIN EXISTING MANHOLE � 5.00 S -
PAVEMENT REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT 1 � 300.00 S S00
ADNST MANHOLE TO GRADE,1�L1F!' 200 SF 10.00 S 2,000
ADNST MANHOI„g Tp GRpDE,2ND LIFT s � 275.00 S 1,375
FURCE MAIIV 5 � 275•�0 S 1,375
SEWER LiFT STATION � ls•00 S -
CLEAN,MAND1tEi,AND MIRROR SEWER � 350000.00 S _
TV TFST SEWER 625 I.F 2.00 S 1,230
CLEqp MpNHOLES 623 LF 1.00 S 625
1"I'EM S � 125.00 S 625
TI'EM � 0.00 S -
� � 0.00 S _
� � 0.00 S -
� � 0.00 S -
SUBTOTAL � 0.00 �
�
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN TRAC7'NO.31676
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
_ .
. .. . , . . ;. .��l�
WATER SYSTEM...OFF-TRACT
l�
� ov,�rrttit u� PRICE COST co�rrrs
6"PVC CL200 W1TH FITTINGS LF 12.00 S -
8"PVC CL200 WiTH FITTINGS LF 16.00 S -
10"PVC CL200 WTI'H FTTTINGS LF 20.00 S -
12"PVC CL200 WTfH FITTINGS LF 24.00 S -
6"D1P W1TH FTCfINC3S I.F 18.00 S -
8"DIP W1TFI FfITINGS I.F 32.00 S -
12"pIP W1TH FiITINGS LF 45.00 S -
18"D1P WTI'H FITTINGS I.F 60.00 S -
24"DIP WtfH FTITINGS LF 75.00 S -
4"GATE VALVE EA 500.00 S -
6"GATE VALVE EA 650.00 S -
8"CiATE VALVE EA 900.00 S -
10"GATE VALVE BA 1130.00 S -
12"GAT'E VALVE EA 1600.00 S -
IS"BUTTERFLY VALVE EA 2300.00 S -
2"BIAWOFF ASSEMBLY EA 450.00 S -
4"BIAWOFF ASSEMHLY EA 1�00.00 S -
6"BLOWOFF ASSEMBLY EA 800.00 S -
AIIt RELIEF VALVE EA 1400.00 S -
FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY EA 2300.00 S -
HOUSE WATER SERVICE DU 400.00 S -
LANASCAPE WATER SERVICE EA 730.00 S -
RAISH GATE VALVE COVERS TO GRADE 1°T LIFT EA 175.00 S -
RAISE GATE VALVE COVERS TO GRADE 2''1D L1F[ fiA 173.00 S -
HOT TAP W1TH FITTINGS EA 4250.00 S -
REMOVE AND REPLACE PAVlNG SF 2.00 S -
BOOSTER PUMP STATION EA 123000.00 S -
PRESSURE REDUCER STATION EA 0.00 S -
REMOVE PWGS AND JOIN EA 100.00 S -
RFMOVE AND REPLACE AC PAVING SF 2.50 S -
�p,�,� EA 0.00 S -
r� EA 0.00 S -
��y EA 0.00 S
SUBTOTAL S -
WATER 5YS7'EM...ON-TRACT
I�
ITEM ouAN1TTY �1 PRICE COST CohiMENrs
6"PVC CL200 Wi'fH FITTINGS LF 12.00 S -
8"PVC CL200 W1TH FT['fINGS 625 LF 16.00 S 10,000
]0"PVC CL200 WTTH FITTINGS LF 20.00 S -
12"PVC CL200 W1TH FI'ITINGS LF 24.00 S -
6"DIP WTI'H FfITINGS LF 18.00 S -
8"DIP WTTH Ffl'TINGS LF 32.00 S -
12"DIP W1TH FTl'fINC3S LF 45.00 S -
18"DiP WI'I'H FITTINGS LF 60.00 S -
24"DiP W1TH FITTINGS LF 75.00 S -
4"GA7'E VALVE EA 500.00 S -
6"GATE VALVE EA 630.00 S -
8"GATE VALVE 2 EA 900.00 S 1,800
10"GATE VALVE EA 1150.00 S -
12"GATE VALVE EA 1600•00 S -
18"BVITERFLY VALVE EA 2500.00 S -
2"BIAWOFF ASSEMHLY EA 430.00 S -
4"BLOWOFF ASSEMBLY EA 1400.00 S -
6"BIAWOFF ASSEMBLY EA 800.00 S -
AIR REI.IEF VnLVE EA 1400.00 S -
FIRE HYDRAIV'T ASSEMBLY 1 EA 2300.00 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 1�I.1Fi 2 EA 175.00 S 350
RAISE GATE VALVE COVERS TO aRADE 2ND LIFT 2 EA 175.00 S 350
I�IOT TAP WTl'H F1TTINGS EA 4250.00 S -
REMOVE AND REPLACE PAVIIVG SF 2.00 S -
B005TER PUMP 5TAITON EA 125000.00 S -
PRESSURE REDUCER STATION EA 0.00 S -
RFINOVE PLUGS AND IOIN EA 100.00 S -
REMOVE AND REPLACE AC PAVING 200 SF 2.50 S 1,000
�y EA 0.0o S -
�� EA 0.00 S -
��y EA 0.00 S
SUBTOTAI. S 13,900
TRACT NO.31676 .
CORNisHE OF BICHORN PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
_ �� t
�EET IMPROVEMENTS OFF-TRA 'r
6 C" URB AND 2a"GU'I'CER oUANTITY v rr Py�O s COST ���
8"CURB AND 24"GUTTER LF 8.00 S
S"WEDGE CURB -
6"WEDGE CURB � 8.00 S -
6"CURB ONLY � 9.00 S -
8"CURB ONLY � 8.00 S - M��
VARIABLE HEIGHT CURB AND GU'ITER � 7.00 S .
VARIABLE HEIGHT CURB ONLY �' 8.00 S -
CONCRETE CROSS GUT'TER � 8.00 S -
CONCRETE DRIVE AppROACH SF 4.50 S -
CONCREIL SIDSWALK SF 2.23 S -
ALLEY GU'I'fER(3'WIAE) SF 1.75 S _
2"AC OVER 4.5"AB SF 7.� S _
1"AC FtNISH LIFf SF 1.25 S -
3"AC OVER S"AB SF 025 S -
1"AC FINISH LIFT SF 1•40 S -
AC BERM(BY OTHERS) SF 0.32 S _
HANDICAP RAMPS � b•00 S -
RAISE MANHOLES TO(3RADB FINAL LIFT � 250.00 S _
ADNST WATER VALVE COVERS TO GRADE � 3�•� S -
RAISE STORM DRAIN MANHOL6S TO C}RADE � 1�.� S - 3�I,iFi'
RAISE S7'ORM DRAIN MANHOLHS 7'O GRADE � 3�'� s ' 1�LIF['
SAWCL3T AND REMOVE AC PAVEMENT � 300.00 S - 2ND LIFf
SAWCUT AND REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER SF 2.00 S .
REMOVE SIDEWALK � 9•� S -
iTEM SF 2.00 S -
POIN1'AND PATCH � 12000.00 S _
TTEM DZ1 100.00 S _
ITEM EA 0.00 S _
TfEM � 0.00 S .
TI'EM � 0.00 S -
ITEM � 0.00 S -
iTEM � 0.00 S ,
EA 0.00 �
9UBTOTAL s
STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON TRACT "
I�
��xn za^cvrr�x ouaNrrry � p,�o s �osr �
a^cucts nxn sa^avrrER � s.00 s �
S"WEDGE CURB -
6"WEDGE CURB � $•� S
6"CURH ONLY 1,150 LF 10.00 S 11,500
8"CURH ONLY 165 LF 8.00 S 1,320
VARIABLE HEiGH'T CURB AND GU7TER � 7.00 S _
VARIABLE HEIGHT CURB ONLY � 8.00 S -
CONCRfiTE CROSS GVITER � $•� S -
CONCREI'E DRNE APPROACH 5F 4.50 S -
CONCRETE SIDEWALK SF 213 S -
ALLEY GU'ITER(3'WIDE) SF 1.75 S _
2"AC OVER 4.5"AB SF 7.� S _
1"AC FIMSH LIFT 13,684 SF 1.50 S 20,526
3"AC OVER S"AB 13,684 SF 0.35 S 4,789
L"AC FIIVISH L1FT SF 1.� t .
AC BERM(BY OTHE[tS) SF 0.32 S _
HAND[CAP RAMpS � 6.00 S -
RAISE MANHOLES TO GRADE FINAL LIF'!' � 250•� S -
ADNST WATER VALVE COVERS Tp pRADg s � 3�•� S 1,500
RAISE STORM DRAW MANHOLES'PO GRADS 10 EA l00.00 f ��ppp 3w L�.
RAISE STORM DRAIN MANHOLES TO GRADE � 300.00 S - 1�LIFT
SAWCUT AND REMOVE AC PAVEMENi' � 300.00 S - 2"°LIFI'
SAWCVf AND REMOVE CURB qND GLTITER Z�� SF 2•00 S 4,000
RFMOVE SIDEWALK � 9•00 S -
ENHANCED PAVEMENT SF 2.00 S _
POIN7'AND PATCH � 50000.00 S _
TI'EM � � 1000.00 S 1,000
TTEM � 0.00 S -
TI'F.Ivt �► O.OU s .
II'HvI EA 0.00 S .
TIEN( � 0.00 S -
1TEM � 0.00 S -
SUHTOTAI, � �'� �
COtt1vISHE oF H[GHORN TRACT NO.31676
PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
. 33�
STREET LIGNTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNAL$ j�
QUANTI'�5C j�.T F�� CO3T COMMENT9
$�NAME SIGNS 1 EA 285.00 S ZSS
STOP SIGNS l EA 125.00 S 125
TRAFFIC COIVT'ROL SIGNS 10 EA 200.00 S 2,000
REF(,EC'I'OR PANBI.S EA 25.00 S
STRIPING 1 LS 5000.00 S 5�000
STOP BAR STRIPING 1 EA 225.00 S . 225
BARRICADE GUARD RAILS EA 750.00 S -
STREEI'LIGH'I'S EA 1500.00 S -
S'!'REET LIGHTS EA 1500,00 S .
ENERGY CHARGES EA 379.00 S -
RElACATE STREET LIGHT EA 1300.00 S _
T'RAFFIC SIGNAL EA 125000.00 S .
EA 0.00 S
Ep 0.00 ��v�
SUBTOTAL S 7,635
W •LS AND FENCES
� �q� COMNIENfS
p�E7'ER BLACK WALL � � 60.00 S -
B�K�,� 110 LF 55.00 S 6,050
16"x24"PIL.ASTERS EA 300.00 5 _
LAW 16"x24"PII.ASTERS FA 150.00 S -
TUBULAR STEEL FENCING LF 15.00 S -
LpW MASONRY WALLS LF 25.00 S -
VIEW WALLS 12"MASONRY/48"NBULAR STEEL LF 25.00 S
VIEW SOUND WALIS 36"MASONRY/24"STEEL LF 33.00 S -
CONCREIE MOWSTRIP LF 6.00 S �
CONCRETE TURF BLACIC LF 8.00 S _
FIRE ACCESS(3ATES EA 3500.00 S
VAR.HEIGH'T REfAINING WALLS(5.0'MAX.) SF 20.00 S
g,A 6.00 S -
ITEM FA 8.00 S -
1TEM Ep 1000.00 S��
iT� S 6,050
SUBTOTAL
LANDSCAPING j�
OUANTIDC jm1T ��Fi COST COD�IINILNTS
ENfRY STATEMENT EA 100000.00 S :
PARKWAY LETTERED LOTS SE 6.00 S
COMMON AREA LANDSCAPING 1 LS 100000•00 S 100,000
RF,qR ypRD LANDSCAPIN(3 SF 0.00 S _
SIAPEPLANTINC3 SF 2.50 S -
SLAPE IItRIGATION SF 1.50 S -
�E1�I�'I,I�N BASIN AREA P�ING SF 1.25 S _
RETENTION BAS1N ARF.A IRRIOATION SF 0.75 S
LAKE ENHANCEMENT AC 200000.00 S :
4'CONCRETE SIDEWALK SF 4'00 s .
CObIIvi[JNT1'Y POOL EA 100000.00 S .
COMMUNTTY 5PA EA 15000.00 S -
LAKE SHORELINE LF 25.00 S -
���� SF 0.35 S .
�� � 0.00 S .
11'EM EA 0.00 S -
En o.00 s
� ew o.ao s -
�M En o.00 s -
� �, o.00 s -
�TEM En a.00 s •
�M En o.00 s -
�M SF 4.50 S -
1TEM SF 4.50 S -
1TEM SF 0.00 S -
�M SF 0.00 �-
�� SUBTOTAL S 100.000
TRACE NO.31676
cowvtSSE OF siCxoert PRELIMIN'°`RY ESTTMATE 7�,��,.
UTILITY TRENCHING
�
OUANTITY UNPf
PBL�Fr S�� COMME_nr_rc
DRY UTILITIES ESTIMATE 1 DU 1000.00 S i,000 E$�A�
JOIIVT TRENCH DU 0.00 S -
BACKBONE SYSTEMS LF 0.00 S -
BACKBONE SYSTEMS LF 0.00 S -
PRIMARY TRANSFORMERS/SPLICE PTl'S EA 0.00 S .
PRIMATtY TRANSFORMERS/SPLICE PICS gp O.pp s -
iT� EA 0.00 ���
SUBTOTAL S 1,000
UTILITY COMPANY CONTRACT�
it1�1T
� OUANTITY jJf� PRICE �T CONIII�M'S
� 1 EA 500.00 S S00 ESTIlVIATE
7'ELEPHONE 1 EA 203.00 S 203
G� 1 EA 888.00 S 888
CAHLE TV 1 EA 0.00 S -
1TEM 0.00 S -
1T� 0.00 S -
1TEM 0.00 ���
SUBTOTAL S 1,591
CIVIL ENGINEERING FEES
j�
�M ovnrrrrrY i� �g� cos'T co�N'i'�
PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING(TOPO,BDY,ETC.) 1 IS 50000.00 S 50,000
FINAL ENGINEERING 1 EA 5000.00 S 5�000
CONSTRUCTION SURVEYING 1 EA 5000.00 S i,000
STAKING ADDENDUM 1 EA 500.00 S S00
PLOT AND PRECISE GRADING PLANS 1 EA 1500.00 S 1,500
ARCHITEC'CIJRAL REVIEW PLOT PLANS 1 EA 300.00 . S 300
OFFICE ADDENDLJM 1 EA 1000.00 S t�0oo
SUBTOTAL s Sg,3pp
�OQ.S AND GEOLOGY
1�
i� ounrrri� . r�t T p�uCE S� con�a�rrrs
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION 2 EA 50.00 S SO
SEISMIC STUDY 2 EA 23.00 S 25
FIIJAL SOIIS REPORT 2 EA 50.00 S SO
UTILITY BACKFILL REPORT'S 2 EA 25.00 S 25
R VALUE TFSTS 2 EA 25.00 S 25
ROUGH GRADING INSPECTION 6,000 CY 0.15 S 900
1TEM EA 25.00 �
SUBTOTAL S 1,075
OTHER CONSULTANTS
j '�d$
UUANTiTY
I� �Fe �T COMMEN'I'S
DRY UTII.iI'1'CONSULTANT 1 LS 10000.00 S 10,000
ACOUS77CALCONSULTANT � �pppp,pp s _
WECLANDS CONSULTANT DU qpp,pp s _
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 1 LS 50000.00 S 50,000
PLANNING CONSULTANT 1 LS 20000.00 S 20,000
BLUEPRINT'S AND REPRODLJCT'ION 1 LS 10000.00 S 10,000
TRAFFIC ENGWEER 1 EA 15000.00 �
SUBTOTAL S lOS,000
TRACI'N�.31676
COItNISHE OF B(GHORN pRELIMINARY ESTIMATE
���
INDIRFCT ALLOCATI(�NS ��
OUANTiTY 1N PRICE C09T COMIMENTS
TTEM � 0.00 S -
GRADWG � 0.00 S -
STORM DRAIN . yg 0.00 S -
s�x Ls o.00 s -
WATER � O.OD S -
STRBEi'S I g 0.00 S -
VfII.tI'IES iS 0.00 �
TRAFFIC SIGNAL PAR'fICIPATION SU��� S -
�;n►aui rucFMENTS �
►e,Nr_rrY �, FBI� S�T �o�rrrs
T�, 4-�— - — �, o.00 s -
IID 2 g,,� -203.00 S (203)
1'ELEPHONE 2 gp -888.00 S (888)
GAS y. 0.00 S -
% 0.00 S - •
gp 0.00 �,��
SUBTOTAL s �1'091�
BOND �jg
I ou,�rrr�'Y � � �T �"��
IvIpMNi1MENT BOND 1 LS 4000.00 S 4,000
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE I.SYo LS 143593.00 S 2,154
►yAIIV'I'ENANCEBOND 1.5% LS 14359.00 i 2t5 CVWD
I E'I'TER OF CREDIT S% IS 53900.00 S 2,695
G��G B�� 1.5% IS 62050.00 S 931
LANDSCAPE BOND l.SYe LS 106050.00 f�
SUBTOTAL
'PRpCT NO.31676
CORNISHE OF BIGHORN PRELIMINARY TsSTIMaTC'
��"���p
AGENCY FEES
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENI'FEE OUANfITY iJl�fl f PR CI�E COST COMMENTc
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REVIEW FEE � 4000.00 S - --
ZONE CHANGE FEE � 2500.00 S _
ENVIRONMEIVTAI.ASSESSMENT FEE � 2710.00 S -
FIRE DISTRICT FEE � 26Z•00 S 2�1
SPECIFIC PLAN REVIEW FEE EA 400.00 S -
TENTATNE TRAC7 MAP FEE � S t 65.00 S .
PIAT PLAN REVIEW FEE 1 EA 3500.00 S 3,500
COIJIVTY CLERK FEE 1 � 835.00 S 835
FlSH AND GAME FEE � 78.00 S _
COMPAI'IBILITY REVIEW FEE 1 EA 1300.00 S 1,300
ENTfTLEMENT FEE SUBTOTAL 1 � 835.00
�
FINAL MAP CHECKIIVQ FEE l EA 2240.00 S 2,240
STREE7'PLAN CHECKING FEE 6 SH 750.00 S 4,500
PUBLIC WORKS INSPECI70N FEE 5.00°K °L 53270.00 S 2,664
STORM DRAIN pLqTl CHECK FEE 6 SH �SO.QO S 4,500
S7'ORM DRAIIV INSPEGTION FEE 5.00% EA 89200.00 S 4,460
HYDROLOGY FLAN CHECK FEE 0 EA 0.00 S 0
S6'WER PLAN CHECK FEE 3 P.A SU.00 T 150 MCI"W/STREET PLAN
SEWER WSPEGTION FEE 3 EA 150.00 S 450
WATER PLAN CHECK FEE 3 EA 50.00 S 150
WATER INSPECTION FEE 3 EA 150.00 S 450
GRADING PLAN CHECK FEE 0 SH 750.00 S 0
GRADING PERMIT FEE 1 EA SOOO.Op S 5,000 �CI"W/S�PLAN
LANDSCAPE PLAN CHECK FEE 4 SH 750.00 S 3,000
LANDSCAPE INSPECTION FEE 3°Ye % 206050.00 S 6,182
INCROACHMENT FEE(MISCELLANEOUS) i EA 2500.00 S 2,500
SWPPP/NOI PEE I EA 500.00 S S00
RECORDIIVG FEE 1 EA 50.00 S Sp
FiRE REVIEW FEE 1 EA 500.00 S 500
PRECISE GRADING PLAN CHECK FEE 1 SH 750.00 S 730
PRECISE GRADING PERMTT FEE 1 LS 10000.00 S 10,000
RECORD OF SURVEy FEE EA 0.00 S 0
LOT LINE ADNSTMENT FEE EA 0.00 S 0
MEI'ER'b" 1 BA 2500.00 S 2,500
METER 1"
MET'ER 1'h" � 3�.� S 0
BOND VERIFICATION FEE 1 � 323.00 S 525
EA 150.00 S 0
� 0.00 S 0
EA 0.00
RECORDATION FEE SUBTOTAL �01
CWSD SCHOOL FEE 0 5F 2.07 S
CVWD SANTI'ATION CHARGE EA 1925.00 S
CV WD WATER SYSTEM BACK UP CHARGE Ep Z400 00 S
1"METER SURCHARGE � EA 1600 00 S '
1'f,"METER SURCHARGE 0 EA 3350.00 S
ART 1N PUBLIC PLACES FEE 0 EA -500.00 S .25%OVER S200K OF VALUA7'ION
���U���E � � �•� s 225%OF VALUATION
SMI FEE 0 EA 0.00 S - .Ol%OF VAI.UATION
IMPACT FEE DU 190T.00 S
�� DU 0.00 S
�� DU 0.00 S
� DU 0.00 S
�M DU 0.00 S
�� DU 0.00 S
TI'EM DU 0.00 �
BUILDING PERMIT FEE SUBTOTAL s _
SUBTOTAI, S 57,812
TRACT NO.31676
CORNISHE OF eIGHORN PRELIMINARY ESTiMATE
���
0
BIGHORN �
November 11,2008 �
. ;.
Patrick A.Perry,Esq• � .
' Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory&N�t.�is LLP
51 S South Figuer�a Street,9th Floor ,
Los Angeles,CA 90071-3398
Dear Patrick: '
I have been at BI(�HORN for approa�imatelY 18 years,beginning at the very early stages
of gradingactivities for the Mountains at BIGHORN. I am both V•P.'af Development for
BIGHORN Development aud Directcsr of Se�les for•BIGHORN Properties• Dw'ia8 mY��'e,
BIGH�RN has developed botli the Mountains a�d�Yo�at BIC3�HORN and has participated �
not only in the development of the communxty,but a1so,in slmost 1000 sales transactio�ns•B t�
your request,I have reviewed the tentative tra�ct map for the Comiahe of Bighorn pro,j
on our experience in developing and m►azketin8 hiSh end residential pmperty'it would reasonable
to expect the proPosed residential lots at the Cornishe propertY to sell in the ran8e of$3,500,000
each. 'This estimate assumes that each of the building pads is aPProxima�elY 20,000 square feet
in area,and the homesites have generous,wiobstxuctad views.
.I have also examined tho development potential for the portion of the Coraishe proPertY
that is located outside of the buffer area. Bt�sed on your calculation that the area of the property
outside of the buffer is approximately 9,900 square feet aa�b�on its location within the
streambed of Dead Indian Creek at an elevation of between 776 and 78b fcet,the value of that
portion of the pmperty,if developed as a ha�mesite,would likely be much Iess than$2 million.
No comparable homesite at the Canyons exists that�be��a measure of value of
this prospective lot. The smallest homesite at the Canyosis is Y 1,413 square feet in area,and,
altogether,only three lots at the Canyons ara in the 11,000 square-foot range. All others are
lazger. The three 11,000 square-foot lots a�e"villa" lots,each accommodating a villa residence
of approximately 3,500 square feet. The most exp�nsive villa residence was sold in May,2006,
for$3.25 million for the house and lot. Th�residence hes 3,376 square feet of floor area and
features four bedrooms,4.5 baths,a thr'ee-car garage sud golf cart garage,drive court and
outdoor entry courtyard, outdoor living roo:m,with Pool,watet'feature�gPe'BBQ/baz(with Pizza
oven)and fire pit in the rear yard. The house sold fully fiunished,and the lot,which is 14,391
square feet in size, was completely landscaped.
BIGHORN PROPERTIES
535ME5Qu1TEH��lS, PALAM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, 9226o U S A ' �
. s 760 ��3-5300 • �Boo 55�'SSTa • FnX 760 7T9-�963
.. ,.. _
_ �
�
�
V
Patrick A. Perry,Esq.
November 11, 2008
Pagetwo '
View at the Cornishe location is critical to obtain value. Were a homesite to be in the
stream bed of Dead Tndiaa Creek,view would be minimal(I'm not even sure that the golf course
would be visible),and value vuouldbe negatively and substaatially impacted. Even the villa
residences have 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 hava any of the amenities thst added value and allowed the villa residence to
sell for$3.2 milliom. However,assuming that one were to proc,eed with construction of a
comparable villa residence,construetion and furnishings costs would be quite high and likely not
provide any return on investmen� Constructioa costs w�ould be a minimum of$450/s.f.or
$1,519,200; furnishings would be a minimum of$200,000 for a total investment of$1,719,000.
This would not take into account any development costs of developing the homesite and bringing
infiastructure to the site. As I understand,your anticipated costs of lot and infiastructure
� development would be approximately$'750,000 and,therefore,total eosts of lot and finished,
furnished residence would be$2,469,000. Tn the locatiori you�described,with the smaller sized
lot,I don't think it's possible to realize more than$2,500,000($740/s.f.)and that value would be �
primarily 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 further. �
Very truly yours,
C�.
Carl Cardinal�i
_Z_ �
3�t 1
Allen Matldns Leck Gamble Mallory&Natsis LLP
Allen Matkins Attomeys at Law
515 South Figueroa,9°i Floor�Los Angeles,CA 90071-3309
Telephone:213.622.5555�Facsimile:213.620.8816
www.allenmatkins.com
Patrick A.Perry
E-maiL•PPecry'@a(lea�matldns.com
Direct Dial:213.955.5504 File Number:F3263-002/LA812807.01
Via Electronic and
First Class Mail
November 24,2008
Ms. Lauri Aylaian
Director of Community Development
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
Re: Tentative Tract Map No.31676
Dear Ms. Aylaian:
Please include the attached documents in the administrative record of proceedings for the
above-referenced tentative tract map application. The first document is a copy of Resolution Nos.
91-89 and 91-90,pursuant to which the Palm Desert City Council certified the Final Environmental
Impact Report, approved the tentative tract map, and adopted a statement of overriding
considerations for the Altamira(now the Canyons at Bighom)project. The statement of overriding
considerations provides that with respect to the establishment of the 400 yard buffer to protect the
captive breeding operations of the Bighorn Institute, "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."
The second document is a copy of the Settlement Agreement by and between the City of
Palm Desert,the Bighom Institute, Bighorn Ventures, and Robert Del Gagnon,Mario Pascucci, and
Guy and Vanessie Laliberte, dated December 10, 1991, in which the City and the Bighorn Institute
agreed that notwithstanding the establishment of the 400 yard buffer, the owners of the Del Gagnon
(now the Cornishe of Bighorn)property and their successors in interest "shall not be prejudiced in
the future development of the Del Gagnon Property." More specifically, "If the Altamira Project is
developed without the acquisition and incorporation of the Del Gagnon Property in its entirety, [the
owners of the Del Gagnon property] or their Successors-In-Interest may apply to the City for a
development approval on such property,in which event none of the parties shall be bound by any of
the findings, statements or mitigation measures contained in Resolutions 91-89 or 91-90 with
respect to such application."
Los Angeles�Orange County�San Diego�Century City�San Francisco�Del Maz Heights�Walnut Creek
� �
• ' a
.� SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ����
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (this "Agreement") -is made and
entered into as of the lOth day of December, 1991 by and between
Robert Del Gagnon, Mario Pascucci and Guy and Vanesie LaLiberte
("Del Gagnon") , the City of Palm Desert (thE "City") , the Bighorn
Institute ("BHI") and Bighorn Ventures, a partnership ("Bighorn
Ventures") and is made with reference to the fo�lowing facts:
RECITALS
It is the City's desire that if the Altamira Project goes
forward, the Developer of Altamira acquire the Del Gagnon Property
so as to provide an undevelopable buffer zone as an open space
between the lambing pens of BHI and Altamira.
The City, by adopting Resolutions 91-89 and 91-90, does
not intend that the action taken by said Resolutions be construed
as a final detertnination by the City as to the right to develop the
Del Gagnon Property,
No cause of action for inverse condemnation can presently
be stated by petitioners and their successors in interest arising
from the adoption of resolutions 91-89 and 91-90 because, inter
alia, the City has preserved the ability to approve development of
� the Del Gagnon Property in the future.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto do agree as follows:
1. The recitals of this Agreement constitute a material
part of this Agreement and are incorporated herein by this
reference as though fully set forth hereinafter.
2. The follvwing definitions shall apply in this
Agreement:
2.1 "Successors-In-Interest", as used herein,
refers to any person or persons acquiring ari interest in the Del
Gagnon Property other than the Developer of Altamira, as
hereinafter defined. Successors-In-Interest includes all natural
persons and entities of any form.
2 . 2 The "Developer of Altamira" refers to Bighorn
Ventures, a partnership, and any subsequer.t owner of the real
property described and known as Tentative Tract 25296. "Altamira"
as used herein refers to the proposed country club, residential and
golf development vn the real property described and known as
Tentative Tract 25296.
LDC\103191\6164\O1SEiTL.A —1—
.l f
- 2 .3 The "Del Gagnon Property" as used herein refers
- to the property described in E:chibit "A" to the petition.
2.. 4 The "Action" refers to the leqal action
instituted by Robert Del Gaqnon and others against the-City of Palm
Desert, BHI and Bighorn Ventures, Riverside County Superiar Court
No. Indio 65037.
3. Petitioners shall forthwith dismiss the Action
without prejudice. Each party hereto shall bear his or its own
costs, fees and expenses incurred with respect to the Action.
4. The City agrees that by dismissing the Action,
Petitioners and their Successors-In-Interest shall not be
prejudiced in any way, either now or in the future, for having
failed to prosecute the Action, and shall not be prejudiced in the
future development of the Del Gagnon Property. This paragraph
shall be construed as broadly as possible and the provisions of
paragraphs 4 . 1 through 4.5, inclusive, are intended as covenants
but in addition are intended to be illustrative and not to limit
the generality of this paragraph. The City and Petitioners further
agree as follows:
4 . 1 The right of petitioners or their Successors-
In-Interest to develop the Del Gagnon Property are not and shall
not be affected in any way by the mitigation measures or findings
contained in Resolution 91-89 certifying the draft EIR for Altamira
as complete except to the extent identical or similar mitigation
measures or findings shall be contained in a future resolution of
the City adopted in connection .with a future application by
Petitioners or their Successors-In-Interest for the development of
the Del Gagnon Property.
4 . 2 The right of petitioners or their Successors-
In-Interest to develop the Del Gagnon Property are not and shall
not be affected in any way by the conditions, mitigation measures
or findings contained in Resolution 91-90 approving development of
Tentative Tract 25296 except to the extent identical or similar
mitigation measures or findings shall be contained in a future
resalution of the City adopted in connection with a future
application by Petitioners or their Successors-In-Interest for the
development of the Del Gagnon Property.
4 . 3 If the Altamira Project is developed without
the acquisition and incorporation of the Del Gagnon Property in its
entirety, petitioners or their Successors-In-Interest may apply to ,
the City for a development approval on such property, in which
event none of the parties shall be bound by any of the findings,
statements or mitigation measures contained in Resolutions 91-89 or
91-90 with respect to such application.
4 .4 Petitioners and their Successors-In-Interest
are not waiving any right to object and/or take legal action to
LDC\103191�6164\015ETTL.A '2'
. ��:.�
. ,' ; �
� '
, . , . . ' .
' challenge any change or modification to the findings, mitigation
measures or conditions Contained in Resolutions 91-89 or 91-90.
4 .5 If the Altamira Project . is developed -without
the acc�uisition of the Del Gagnon Property in its entirety, the
City's findings � that preserve the Del Gagnon Property as an
undevelopable buffer zone are not to be construed as a final
discretionary land use decision with respect to development of the
Del Gagnon Property.
5. BHI agrees that by dismissinq the Action, Petitioners
and their Successors-In-Interest shall rtot be prejudiced in any
way, either now .or in the future, for having failed to prosecute
the Action, and shall not be prejudiced in the future development
of the Del Gagnon Property. This paragraph shall be construed as
broadly as passible and the provisions of paragraphs 5. 1 through
5.5, inclusive, are intended as covenants but in addition are
intended to be illustrative and not to limit the generality of this
paragraph. BHI and Petitioners further agree as follows:
5.1 The right of petitioners or their Successors-
In-Interest to develop the Del Gagnon Property are not and shall
not be affected in any way by the mitigation measures or findings
contained in Resolution 91-89 certifying the draft EIR for Altamira
as complete except to the extent identical or similar mitigation
measures or findings shall be contained in a future resolution of
the City adopted in connection with a future application by
Petitioners or their Successors-In-Interest for the development of
the Del• Gagnon Property.
5.2 The riqht of petitioners or their Successors-
In-Interest to develop the Del Gagnon Property are not and shall
not be affected in any way by the conditions, mitigation measures
or findings contained in Resolution 91-90 approving development of
Tentative Tract 25296 except to the extent identical or similar
mitigation measures or findings shall be contained in a future
resolution of the City adopted in connection with a future
application by Petitioners or their Successors-In-Interes�t for the
development of the Del GagnQn Property.
5. 3 If the Altamira Project is developed without
the acquisition and incorporation of the Del Gagnon Property in its
entirety and if petitioners or their Successors-In-Interest apply
to the City for a development approval on such property, none of
the parties shall be bound by any of the findings, statements or
mitigation measures contained in Resolutions 91-89 or 91-90 with
respect to such application.
5.4 Petitioners and �heir Successors-In-Interest
are not waiving any right to object and/or take legal action to
challenge any change or modification to the findings, mitigation
measures or conditions contained in Resolutions 91-89 or 91-90.
LDCV 03191�6164\015ETTl.,A �3_
�
�� �
_ . • , ;. f-, ;
5.5 If the Altamira Project is developed without
the acquisition of the Del Gagnon Property in its entirety, BHI
will not conterid that the City�s findings that prese�ve_the Del
Gagnon Property as an undevelopable buffer zone are tQ be construed
as a final discretionary land use decision with respect to
development of the Del Gagnon Property.
6. Notwithstanding the provisivns of paragraphs 4 and 5
above, Petitioners, the City, Altamira or BHI may use any evidence
in the administrative record in the Action in support of any
� position they take regarding any future application by Petitioners
or their Successors-In-Interest for development of the Del Gagnon
Property.
7. The parties hereto acknowledge that this Agreement is
a settlement of disguted claims and is not an admission of
Iiability by any of the parties hereto.
8. This Agreement and all terms and provisions hereof
shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties
and their respective heirs, legal representatives, successors and
assigns.
9. This Agreement may be executed in multiple
counterparts and when a counterpart shall have been executed by all
parties named herein, they shall constitute a single agreement of
the parties.
10. This Agreement in all respect:� has been voluntarily
and knowingly executed by the parties hereto� on advice and with
approval of their respective legal counsel.
11. This Agreement is intended solely for the benefit of
the parties to it and their successors and assigns as described in
the Agreement.
12. Should any portion, word, clause, phrase, sentence
or paragraph of this Agreement be declared void or unenforceable,
such portion shall be considered independent and severable from the
remainder, the validity of which shall remain unaffected.
13 . This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement
between the parties who have executed it, and supersedes any and
all other agreements, understandings, negotiations or discussions,
either oral or in writing, express or implied, between the parties
hereto.
14. Failure to insist on compliance with any term,
covenant, or condition contained in this Agreement shall not be
deemed a waiver of that term, covenant or condition, nor shall any
waiver or relinquishment vf any riqht or power contained in this
Agreement at any time or times be deemed a waiver or relinquishment
of any right or power at any other time or times.
LDC�103191\6164\O15ETTL.A -4-
� �
w. �.
.�, � . �•�.,'
� 15. Should any of the parties to this Agreement seek to
enForce any of the provisions of this Agreement or damages for its
breach or a declaration of rights under it, the prevailing party
shall be entitled to an award of his or its reasonai�le attorneys'
fees and costs.
15. Petitioners represent and warrant that they are the
owners of the Del Gagnon Pr�perty and that no person not a party
hereto owns any right, title or interest to any part thereof.
� 17. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the
State of California for all purposes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this
Agreement.
CITY OF PALM DESERT BIGHORN INSTITUTE
By: By:
$AI Lim�itec��ar�tnership
By: Alta West, Inc. ,
neral Partner
� By: .
ame . , a rman
ROBERT DEL GAGNON
MARIO PASCUCCI
GUY LALIBERTE
VANESIE LALIBERTE ,
LDC�103191\6164\015ETiL.A _.,r_
rj
\� �
' • ` �.. . �
, 15. Should any of the parties to this Agreement seek to
enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement or damages for its
breach or a d�claration of rights under it, the prevai]a.ng party
shall be entitled to an award of his or its reasonable attorneys �
fees and costs.
16. Petitioners represent and warrant that they are the
owners of the De1 �Gagnon Property and that no person not a party
hereto owns any right, title or interest to any part thereof.
17. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the
State of California for all purposes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this
Agreement.
CITY OF PALM DESERT BIGHORN INSTITUTE
By. By:�c��—,� _
_-- R .
BIGHORN VENTURES �'s / re�C��� T
By:
ROBERT DEL GAGNON
A'`�ARIO PASCUCCI
� GUY LALIBERTE
VANESIE LALIBERTE
LDC\103191\6164\01SETTL.A _5_
��
. -� ; • � � . t �
� 15. Should any of the parties to this Agreement seek to
� enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement or damages for its
breach or a declaration of rights under it, the prev�iling party
shall be entitle3 to an award of his or its reasona-ble attorneys�
fees and costs.
16. Petitioners represent and warrant that they are the
owners of the Del Gagnon Property and that no person not a party
hereto owns any right, title or interest to any part thereof.
17. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the
State of California for all purposes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the under.signed have executed this
Agreement.
CITY OF PALM DESERT BIGHORN INSTITUTE
i � '
BY� � B
Y�
BIGHORN VENTURES "
$y: �
ROBERT DEL GAGNON
MARIO PASCUCCI
GUY LALIBERTE
VANESIE LALIBERTE
LDC\103191\616G\01SETTL.A _�r_
.--
�S
. - �.' �' �
15. Should any of the parties to this Agreement seek to
enforce any of the provisions of _this Agreement or damaqes for its
breach or a declaration of rights under it, the prevailing party
shall be entitZed to an award af his or its reasonable attflrneys'
fees and costs.
16. Petitioners represent and warrant that they are the
owners of the Del Gaqnon Property and that no person not a party
hereto owns any right, title or interest to any part thereof.
� 17. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the
State of California for all purposes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this
Agreement.
CITY OF PALM DESERT BIGHORN INSTITUTE
By: By.
BIGHORN VENTURES
�
gy; � �
R ERT DEI� GA N
. ✓
r
���� �a..--.._�.--
�PASC.FTCCI '
/ i �
� �; � ' �� /�;
�%,� •�
� �
� �G� �LI$ERTE
;
s
VANESIE LALIBERTE
LDC\103191�6164�O1SE7TL.A � _5_
��
' • _ , RESOLUTION NO. 91-90
, ' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
� � CITY OF PALM �ESERT APPROVING A TENTATIVE
. TRACT MAP FOR A 450 UNIT COUNTRY CLi78
SOUTHEAST OF INDIAN HILLS WAY AND HIGHWAY
74.
'` CASE NO. : TT 25296
.�
� WHEREAS, the Planning. Commission of the City of Palm Desert,
California, did on the 21st day of May, 1991, hoid a duly noticed public
hearing and Eontinued public hearings on July 11, August 1, and August
5, 1991, to consider the request by Bighorn Ventures for project
described above; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Palm Desart, California did on
the ilth day of July, 1991, hold a duly noticed public hearing and
continued public hearing on August 1, 1991, to consider the request by
Sighorn Ventures for tY�e same pro�ect; and
WHEREAS, said application has compiied with the requirements of the
"City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California
Environmerital Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in fact an
environmental impact report has been prepared in accordance with the
requirements of CEQA; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
testimony a.nd arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to
be heard, said city counc.il did find the follnwing findings:
1• The proposed map is consistent with appiioable generai and
specific plans by proposing over 1,000 fewer units than
allowed by the general plan.
2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is
consistent with applicable general and specific plans by the
requirement that it obtain an encroachment permit from
Caltrans for access to Highway 74 and meeting hillside
development policies.
3• The site is physically suitable for the type of development
by meeting hillside development standards, providing
protective flood control installations and avoidance of
: significant rock out-croppings.
4. The site is physically suitable for the density of development
by proposing 1,000 fewer units than allowed by both the
general pian and zoning ordinance and meeting hillside
development standards.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are nat likely to cause substantial environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably in�ure fish or wildlife
of their habitat by reasons stipulated within e.i.r.
� �
RESOLUTION N�. 91-90
6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is •
not likely to cause serious public health problems with •
implementation of mitigation measures contained in e.i.r.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements
will not conflict with ease�ents, acquired by the public at
large, for access through or• use of property within the
proposed subdivision by making roadways within project
availabie for properties with current access easements and
relocating utility easements.
8. The map wiil allow unrestricted solar aacess to ali lots by
providing open space throughout pro�ect.
WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the city council
has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing
needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs against the
pub_ � service needs of the residents of the City of Palm Desert and its
env�� :ns, with available fiscal and environmental resources.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Palm Desert, California, as follows:
l. That the city councii does hereby approve Tentative Tract No.
25296.
2. That the above recitations are true, correct and constitute
the findings of the City Council in these cases.
PASSED, APPROVED asid ADOPTED at the meeting of the Palm Desert City
Council held on this 5th day of August, 1991, by the £ollowing vote to
wit:
AYES: KELLY, WILSON, SNYDER
NOES: BENSON, CRITES
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
��
� WALTER H. SNYDER, Mayor
A'QTES : �
I
%
.i� SHEILA GIIrL � , City 8rk
City of Pa Desert, lifornia
2
�;:
' :2�SOLUTION NO. 91-90
CONDITIONS OF APP1tOVAL
CASE NOS. TT 25296
Department of Communitv Development• .
1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with
exhibits on file with the department .of environmental services, as
modified by the following conditions.
2. Development shali be sub�ect to fees in keeping with city policy,
such as school and art-in-public-places.
3. Recordation of said map shali occur within 24 months from the date
of finai approvai uniess an extension of time is granted by the
planning commissf.on; otherwise said approvai shall become null and
void and of no effect whatsoever.
4. The development of the property described herein shall be subject
to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in
addition to ali municipal ord�nances and state and federal statutes
now in force or which hereafter may be in force.
5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any
use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain
permits and/or ciearance from the following agencies:
Public Works Department
Palm Desert Architectural Commission
City Fire Marshal
Coachella Valley Water Distriat
United States Fish & Wildlife Service
Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies sha11
be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time
of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith.
6. Subdivision shall be provided with six foot high block wall
ad�acent to public streets, and shall provide for anticipated
adjacent grades (except for required openings) .
7. Private street proposed ad,jacent to The Summit shall not exceed in
elevation 3 feet from top of curb to concrete swale located within
the perimeter of Z'he Summit, or 5 feet below the top of the wall.
3
� ,.�
RESOLUTION NO. 91-90
8. Proposed pad elevations adjacent to home on A.P.N. 631-160-004
shall not exceed natural terrain.
9. Final grading plan for hillside a=ea shall be subject to review by
planning commission prior to grading activity in this area. Golf
course shall integrate natural terrain and landscaping into course
design. ,
10. Final grading plan for hillside area to include re-naturalization
measures and grading restrictions as specified in hillside
ordinance.
11. Homes and roadway within 500 feet of southern property line shall
include installation of mature trees to mitigate light generation
and vistas from bighorn pens.
12. Set backs for the detached units shall be as identified on TT
25296.
Department of Puhlic Works:
1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code and Paim Desert Ordinance Number 5�7, shali be paid
prior to recordation of final map.
2. Drainage facilities shali be provided to the specifications of the
Directar of Public Works. In addition, proposed drainage
facilities/improvements shall be sub�ect to review and approval by
the Coachella Valley Water District.
3. Storm drain 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 and the Coachella Valley
Water District. Said study will include, but not limited to, the
investigation of both upstream and downstream conditions with
respect to existing and proposed conditions.
4. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert
Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid to recordation of
final map.
5. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44
of the Paim Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance
with applicable City standards. All improvements within State
Highway 74 right-of-way shall be in accordance with Caltrans
standards.
4
�����
:�ESOLUTION NO. 91-90
- 6. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by
the respective service districts with "as-built" plans submitted
to the Department of Public Works prior to pro�ect final.
7• Improvement plans for all improvements, public and private, shall
be received and approved by the Public Works Department. The
installation of such improvements shall be inspected by the Public
Works Department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior
to issuance of grading permits.
8. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in
accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement
plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of
Public Works for check3ng approval before construction of any
improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement pians for all
improvements within existing and proposed public rights-of-way to
be approved by the Pubiic Works Department and a surety posted to
guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior
to recordation of final map. Such offsite improvements shall
include, but not be limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and
concrete sidewaik in an appropriate size and configuration and
provisions for deceleration/a�celeration lanes at project entry
points. "As-built" plans shall be submitted to, and a
the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance�of the
improvements by the City of Palm Desert.
9. Landscaping maintenance on State Highway 74 and Portola Avenue
(Carriage Trail) shail be provided by the homeawners association.
10. Waiver of access to State Highway 74 and Portola Avenue (Carriage
Trail), except at approved locations, shall be granted on the Final
Map.
11. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipai Code S�ction 26.44,
complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the
Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to
issuance of any permits.
12. As required by Sections 26.32 and 26.40 of the Paim Desert
Municipal Code, and in accordance with the Circulation Network of
the City's General Plan, dedication of ha•lf-street right-of-way at
55 feet on State Highway 74 shall be provided on the final map.
13. As required under Section 12.16 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code, any existing overhead utilities shall be placed
underground per each respective utility districts recommendation.
If such undergrounding is determined to be unfeasible by the city
S
r � �
RESOLUTION N0. 92-90 ,, .
and the respective utility districts, applicant shall agree to
participate in any future utility undergrounding district.
14. Traffic safety striping on State Highway 74 shall be provided to
the specifications of the Director of Public Works and Caltrans.
A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the
Director of Public Works and Caltrans pridr to the placement of any
pavement markings.
15. Full improvement of interior streets based on residential street
standards in accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert
Municipal Code shall be provided.
16. Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to
the Director of Public Works for checking and approval and be
recorded before issuance of any permits associated with this
project.
17. Any and all offsit_e improvements shail be preceded by the approval
of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the
Department of Public Works and Caltrans, as applicable.
18. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a
registered soils engineer, shali be submitted to, and approved by,
the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of any permits
associated with this pro�ect.
19. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map, are sub�ect to
review and modification in accordance with Chapter 27 af the Palm
Desert Municipal Code.
20. Ali required offsite improvements for this pro�ect shall be
installed in con�unction with the first phase of development. In
addition, provisions �for secondary emergency access shall be a part
of, and coincide with, the first phase of the development.
21. Site access, with respect so size, location and number, shall be
sub�ect to review and approval by the Department of Public Works
and Caltrans.
22. Applicant shall comply with those recommendations specified in the
Caitrans Development Raview dated September 29, 1989.
23. Applicant shall provide a phasing plan which specifies the project
construction activity with respect to on-site/off-site
infrastructure improvements as well as possible final map filing.
6
_,� .e
� L�^
• K�,ULU1•�ur r�. yl-yv
24• Provision for the continuation of any existing access ri hts w
may be affected by this pro�ect shall be included as a g hich
final map process. - part of the
City Fire Marshal:
l. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the
remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per Uniform
Fire Code� Sec. 10.301C.
2- Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing
a potential fire flow of 3000 gpm for the cammercial and assembly
areas, 2500 gpm for the multifamily areas, 1500
family areas and the actual fire fiow availablegpfr m� any none
hydrant connected to any given water main shail be 1500
hours duration at 20 psi residual operatin 9Pm for 2
g pressure.
3. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 2-hour duration at 20
operating pressure must be available before an psi residual
material is placed on the �ob site. Y combustibie
4• RESIDENTIAL AREAS - The required fire flow shall be available from
a Super hydrant (s) (6" x 4" �x 2-1/2" x 2-1/2" ),
than 25 ' nor more than 165' from an located not less
measured along approved vehicular tra el ays�f Hydrantsdinstalled
below 3000' elevation shall be of the "wet barrel" type.
5• CON�IERCIAL/ASSEMBLy AREAS - A combination of on-site and off-site
Super fire hydrants, (6" X 4" X 2-1/2" X 2-1/2" ), will be required,
located not less than 25' , or more than 165'
the buildin s , from any portion of
9( ) as measured along approved vehicular travelways.
The required fire flow shall be available f�om any adjacent
hydrant(s) in the system.
6. The required fire flow may be ad�usted at a later point in the
permit process to reflect changes in design, construction type,
area separations, or built-in fire protection measures.
7• Prior to the application for a building permit, the developer shall
furnish the original and two copies of water system plan to the
County Fire Department for review. No building permit shall be
issued until the water system plan has been approved by the County
Fire Chief. Upon approval, the original will be returned. One
copy will be sent to the responsible inspecting suthority.
8• Plans shall conform to fire hydrant types, location and spacing,
and the system shall meet the fire flow requirements. Pian sha11
be signed by a Registered Civil Engineer andy may be signed by the
7
_ � `�
�f
RESOLUTION NO. 91-90
� .
local water company with the following certification: "I certify
that the design of the water system is in accordance with the
requirements prescribed by the Rivers3de County Fire Department" .
9. Certain designated areas wi11 be required to be maintained as fire
Ianes.
10. All buildings shail be accessible by an all-weather roadway
extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of
the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of
unobstructed width and Z3'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel
parking is alicwed, the roadway shall be 36 ' wide with parking on
both sides, 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in
excess of 150' sha7.1 be provided with a minimum 45' radius
turn-around (55' in industrial developments) .
11. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of
gates, barriers, guard houses or similar means, provision shail be
made to facilitate access by emergency vehicles in a manner
approved by the Fire Department. Aii controlled access devices
that are power operated shali have a radio-controlled over-ride
system capable of opening the gate when activated by a special
transmitter located in emergency vehicies. Devices shall be
equipped with backup power devices to operate in the event of power
failure. A1.1 controlled access devices that are not power operated
shall also be approved by the Fire Department. Minimum opening
width shall be 12' ; with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6" .
12. Provide secondary access to pro�ect. Dead-end streets in excess
of 600 feet must be provided with alternative access
(Alternative-Developer must agree to sprinkler all dwellings on all
those streets that exceed 600 feet) . Street grades may not exceed
15$.
Inventory of Mitigation Measures•
1. Prior to the issuance of grading p�ermits, the applicant shall
obtain approval by the City Engineer of a grading operations plan
including water procedures to minimize dust, and equipment
procedures to minimize vehicle emissions from gradinq equipment.
The plan shall provide that grading operations by suspended during
second (or worse) state smog alerts by the AQMD.
2. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shail
submit a final geotechnical report to the City Engineer. The
report will be based on 100-scale maps and will primarily involve
assessment of potential soil related constraints and hazards, such
as landslides, settlement, liquefaction or related sefsmic impacts
8
'RESOLUTION NO. 91-90
where determined to be appropriate by the City of Palm Des
report shall also include evaluation of ert. The
and recommended construction Potential expansive soils
minimize the effect of these s,oils on theand/or design criteria to
well as an analysis of soil properties to p eterm neeanlopment, as
of soluble sulfate in the soil. Y existence
appropriate mitigation measures of thehis report shall recommend
completed in a mazuier specified in the ity of Palm i esert Grading
Excavation Ordinance.
3- Prior to the issuance of a gradin
development, a radin g p���t for each phase of
9 g plan shall be submitted for the review and
approvai of the City Engineer. Said plan shall incorporate the
following measures: •
a• SGAQMD Ruie 403 shaii be adhered to which requires watering
or application of soil binders to limit dust generation.
b• Grading shall not occur when wind speed exceeds 20 miles per
hour.
�• A street sweeping program shail be undertaken to reduce
fugitive dust from traffic.
d• All construction vehicles shall be washed off before leaving
the site.
e• Parking areas for construction personnel shall be placed in
such a manner that traffic flows are not interfered with.
f• Construction activi�ies which affect roadways shall be
undertaken in during off peak hour only and in such a manner
that at least one lane remain open in each direction.
4. To reduce pollutant emissions from construction equipment, said
equipment shall be property tuned and maintained. Compliance shall
be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
5• Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shall submit
a plan for the review and approval of the City Engineer and the
Coachella Valley Water District indicating that all excess runoff
generated by the project shail be retained on-site.
6• Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the applicant shaii submit
an erosion control plan tor the review and approval of the City
Engineer and the Coachelia Valiey Water District. Said plan shail
indicate temporary erosion control measures that shall be
9
r��A�
_ --------___
RESOLUTION N0. 91-90 I ,
i �
� , •
�
implemented until the proposed drainage ontrol improvement
measures are completed.
7. Prior to issuance of any grading permits, th foliowing drainage
studies shall be submitted to and approved by t e City Engineer and
the Coachella Valley Water District: �
a. A drainage study of the subdivision, ir�cluding diversions,
off-site areas that drain onto and/or thro�ugh the subdivision,
and �ustification of any diversion; and j
b. A drainage study evidencing that propos d drainage patterns
will not overload existingsstorm drains; and
c. Detailed drainage studies indicating ow the tract map
grading, in con�unction with the drainage conveyance systems,
including applicable soils, channels, treet flows, catch
basins, storm drains and flood water retarding, will allow
building pads to be safe from inundation from rainfall runoff
which may be expected for all storms up to and including the
theoretical 100-year flood.
I
d. A plan for stormwater protective works. ,
I
8. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, ithe applicant shali
design the following improvements and provide necessary dedications
in a manner meeting the approval of the C�itry Engineer and the
Coacheila Valiey Water District: � .
a. All provisions for surface drainage; and ;
b. All necessa I
ry storm drain facilities extending to a
satisfactory point of disposal for the ! proper control and
disposal of storm runoff; and ;
c. Where determined necessary by the G�ity Engineer, the
associated easements shall be dedicated �to the City of Palm
Desert, the County of Riverside, or the Co�achella Valley Water
District. Prior .to recordation of any ;, final tract map or
prior to issuance of certificates of �use and occupancy,
whichever comes first, said improvemen�ts shall be constructed
in a manner meeting the approval of the Cxty Engineer and the
Coachella Valley Water District. i
9. Prior to recordation of a final map, the appli�ant shall construct
or post security guaranteeing the constructibn of the following
pubiic and/or private improvements in conformlance with applicable
City standards: �
i
10 �
�
;
� �.
, l�
� RESOLUTION Np, gl_9�
� �
* All streei� improvements
* Storm drai facilities
* Subdrain facilities
* Landsca i
P irrigation control system (streets, parks, and
public are s)
10. Prior to issuan e of a grading permit, the applicant shall instali
facilities to p�ohibit� access to the Dead Indian Creek Stormwater
Channel right-o£-way in a manner meeting the approval of the Chief
Engineer, Coach lla Valley Water District.
11. Prior to the is uance of any buildin
arrange for the irelocation of any CoachellatValleyaWateraDistrict
facilities aff cted by the pro�ect, in a manner meetin
approval of the Chief Engineer, CoacheZla Valley Water Districthe
12• Prior to the issuance of any gradin
modificatian 4, cleari,ng or other landform
pe mit, the developer shall submit written evidence
to the Directoriof Community Development that a
state and county permits have been obtained for� the tbiological
resources on-si�e to be removed by development. Said
specify the timi(ng, nature and r�view authority for the mit gation
measures, if ar�y, which are required in connection with these
removals. No removals shall be authorized until all necessary
resource agencyipermits have been obtained.
13. Prior to the i suance of a grading permit, the developer shall
deposit with th� City of Palm Desert an amount equal to the c
of a second fenc� surrounding the 30-acre ost
cost of said fen� ce shall be established byncon uit tion ith BHZ
or, if BHI hasino input, by a statement of cost by a fencin
contractor. Th fence shall be of the same size and material as
that currently �enclosing the pen. The cash deposit sha1Z be
released to HHI ,upon BHI s submittal of evidence to the director
of Community De elopment that the funds will be used to construct
the fence withi 90 days of receipt of funds. Said funds shall be
refundable if f nce is not constructed within one year.
14. Prior to the is uance of any grading permit, the developer shall
submit evidencelto the Director of Community Development that no
standing water or construction purposes (e.g. , dust control) is
maintained over 72 hours on-site. The Director, through posted
warnings and gr ding inspection, shail ensure that no workers or
equipment are pe�mitted outside construction areas.
�
�
;
I
I
� 11
i
;
�
. �
i
i
i
�1�
i
RESOLUTION N0. 91-90 ' -
i ,
� ' , -
,
i
15. Prior to the issuance of any gradin
submit to the Director of Community De elo� leng developer sha21
approval of a development control plan eviden�cing the followingnd
a. Roads and driveways shall be designed in g manner so that they
reduce headlight shine on the bighorn pe�s.
b• Structure designs shaZl incorporate on-glare materials,
. �inciuding windows and any other exterio fixtures. Use of
exterior lighting shouid be kept to an a solute minimum with
absolutely no lights pointed upward the shee
restrictions should be inciuded in the d velopment CC&RTsese
c. Use of exterior street ii h �
Those that are required should be di ec�e in a anner solthat
they do not shine upwards or t o w a r d s t he 'pen, nor should they
be a high glare type �f light.
d. No outdoor dogs shaii be ailowed in the�lsouthern
the devslopment that boarders the buffer zone. Furthermoref
a leash law shail be estab).ished and str ctly enforced in the
CC&R's.
e. Additional; CC&R's shall be developed Ihat implement noise
restrictions in the development and especially in the southern
portion. These would include restrictions on fireworks, gas
powered blowers, racing of motorcycles o� other loud vehicles
through the development, and excessively ;loud celebrations or
music.
i
f• Use of the golf course shall be restrict�d to daylight hours
only, except for routine maintenance. i
�
g• Pond banks shall be created with a 45 degree or greater slope
with an absolute minimum depth of 1 foot�
h• Pond banks shali be concrete to eliminjate insect breeding
habitat. �
i. Mosquito fish (Gambusia affinis) shall b Ireleased 3nto ponds
to provide a biological control of i n s e c� larvae.
,� • Watering systems for the golf course andp� ther areas shall be
a subsurface drip irrigation system to eli�minate surface water
which may provide breeding habitat for ICulicoide gnats and
other insect veators wherever feasible. I
;
k. Xeric adapted plants that are native to the Coachella Valley
shail be utilized in the general landscaping �designs. Piant
12 �
�
i
��
. - ,
'r�E�SOLUTION NO. 91-90
, -�
. ;
lists shal��l emphasize native vegetation such as smok
occotiilo,� yuoca, succulents e trees,
like. , gravely ground covers and the
16. Prior to the i suance of any gradin
modification of land on the Altamira ite,la biologist retained by
the Director of Community Development for the City of P3t for the
shall prepare a d submit to the City and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Y alm Desert
Service a dese tcrtoise 100$ coverage survey in accordance with
the protocol e tablished for such surve
Wildlife Servic Ad�ustments to the pro�ecty if anU�S. Fish and
accordance with�the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 1'• shall be in
The applicant shall Service determination.
pay for such a study.
17• Prior to the i suance of any gradin
submit to the irector of Cornmunity Deve op ent a v eport byla
qualified biologist on the status of t h e b u r r o w i n g ow l nest. No
c o n s t r u c t i o n a c�t iv i t3es shall take place in the vicinity of the
next between April 1 and July 31.
18• Prior to the re�oval of any smoke tree th
evidence to the Director of Communitye Developmenthathatubmit
necessary permi (s) have been obtained from the County Agricultural
Commissioner.
19. Prior to the i suance of a grading permit, the a
provide written� evidence to the Ci t y E n g i n e e r t ha tlaCcertified
a r c h a e o l og is t a proved by the city has been retained
present at the 're-grading conference, sha11 establish pr esdures
for archaeologi�al resource surveillance, and shail establi
cooperation witl� the project developer, procedures for temporarily
halting or redir cting work to permit the sampling, identification,
and evaluation �of artifacts as a ro r•
unexpected ar�haeological featuresp 1 are� If additional or
archaeologist s all report such findings to the discovered, the
and to the irector of Community �Developmentect deIvf lo�he
archaeologicai resources are found to be significant, the
archaeological bserver shall determine a
cooperation wit � the pro,ject developer, for�exploration�and/or
salvage. Excav ted finds �shall be offered to the City of Palm
Desert on a firs refusal basis. Applicant may retain said finds
if written ass rance is provided that the
preserved in Ri erside Count Y will be properly
significance, or a museum in yRive side C unty n dicatesfasdesire
to study and/or display them at this time, in which case items
shaZl be donated to the city or designee, These actions, as weil
as f3nal mitiga ion and disposition of the resources, shall be
subject to the a proval of the Director of Community Development.
I
� 13
i
i
i
�
�
� ---��:,
: �
RESOLUTION NO. 91-90 '
� � �
. ., .
20. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, �the applicant shail
submit a grading plan for the review and approval of the City
Engineer. Said plan sha21 demonstrate that thie following measures
have been incorporated: �
i
a. The private street proposed ad,�acent to �he Summit shaii not
exceed in elevation three (3) •feet from; the top of curb to
concrete swale located within the perimet�er of The Summit, or
five (5) feet below the top of the wall. �
i
b. Pad elevations in the area ad�acent to The Summit shall not
exceed 2.5 feet in elevation from top of I�Curb on the directly
adjacent private street.
�
21. Prior to the issuance of building permits for any units on the
northern site edge, the applicant/developer shall submit
architectural plans for the review and approva�l of the Director of
Community Development. Said plans shaii demonstrate the folTowing:
I
a. Building heights in the area adjacent to � he Summit shali not
exceed 18 feet.
b. Horizontal architectural elements shall be emphasized for
structures adjacent to or directly expospd to views from The
Summit. Primarily vertical features suc�i as large, unbroken
wali faces shail be avoided. �
i
c. Shallow roof pitches shall be encour�ged for structures
ad�acent to or dire.ctly exposed to vie s from The Summit.
Structures with flat roofs at or cic�se to the maximum
permissible building height shall be avo�ided.
d. The orientation of all exterior light sources shall be
directed away from residences within Th�e Summit. Exterior
lighting near the norther edges of the psoperty shall be Iow
level and low wattage. Floodlighting o� structures, trees,
or plantings for purely display purpose� in this area shaii
be avoided. i
e. Landscaping between the pro osed �
watl along the boundary with The Summite:shalleemndotha block
p y plant
palette the mature height of which does i�ot exceed the wall.
Intermittent formal clusters of palm tre�s are permissible in
. this area. �
22. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, (the applicant shall
submit a grading plan for the review and approvai of the City
Engineer. Said pian shall demonstrate the fo�lowing:
14 ;
;
i
' `��� �
RESOLUTION NO. 91-9p
I
I
a• Grading o� ground disturbance on areas currently ex o
bedrock al�ong the far southern edge of the P sed as
avoided, imost significantly on the hillsidey atallthe
southeast rn edge of the site.
b• Grading t chniques used for the area south of Dead Indian
Creek/Car izo Creek wash shall emphasize slope contouring and
variable lopes. Hard edges and angles are to be avoided;
tops and t es of slopes shall be blended with remaining area
of the rug ed and uneven surroundfng natural surface.
23. The proposed ro�ect shail com 1
Utilities Commission regulationsp y Buil.dersl will pbec requi edlto
comply with a �opted state ener
Sections 1451-1�542 of Tit1e 20 of the alifornia Administrative
Code and Sectio s P-2p-1451 through P-2p-1542 of T'itle 24 of the
Code. This mi igation measure shall be monitored throu h
City's building code enforcement process. 9 the
24• Prior to the i suance of grading permits, the applicant shall
submit revised lans indicating the bike traii on the east side of
Highway 74 for t e review and approval of the Director of Community
Development. T e applicant shall bond for or otherwise guarantee
construction of the bike trail prior to the issuance of building
permits in a ma er meting the a
pproval of the City Engineer.
25• Prior to recor ation of a final subdivision map, the applicant
shall com�ly wit the Local Park Code either through the dedication
of l�nd and imprbvements or the gayment of in-lieu fees as a
by the Directorlof Community Development. PProved
2�• Prior to the is uance of a building permit for an
pro,ject located in the SP, "Scenic Preservation" y area of the
District (Chapt r 25.44, Codified Ordinances of thevCityyof�palm
DgSert), pro�ec plans shall be submi t t e d for t he review and
a p p r o va l o f the design review board or Pia.nninq Commission. The
purpose of such review is to acknowledge, iocat ion af the project
in a scen ic co idor and to review and make recommendations on
preservation of scenic vistas, setbacks, landscaping, building
heights, signs d mitigation of excessive noise.
27• Prior to the is uance of certificates of use and occupancy, the
following improv ments shall be installed in a manner meeting the
approvai of the ity Traffic Engineer:
I
,
i
� 15
I
I
I
�
i
i
i
'� ;
, t
RESOLUTION N0. 91-90 I
� ,
I
I
a• A left turn pocket, 260 feet long with ai90 foot transition, A
shaii be striped for traffic on southbou�d SR 74 entering the
pro�ect.
I
b. Landscape piantings and signs shall be limited to 36 inches
in height within 25 feet of pro�ect driv�ways to ensure good
visibility.
c• Install a "STOP" sign on site egress roa way to SR 74.
d. Install a second pro�ect access for eme gency vehicles only
at the end of Portola Avenue. I
28. Prior to the issuance of certificates of usle and occupancy the
applicant shall en�er into an agreement ( with the city to
participate in a program to provide off-s�te improvements to
regional roadways and intersections that shalljbe constructed prior
to Year 20.00. Final design and phasing shall be based on detailed
annual monitoring and analysis of actual traffic demands at the
critical impacted intersections identified in �the EIR. Funding of
improvements shall be derived from the Uniform Transportation
Mitigation Fee and Measure A where applicable with the balance from
RDA. I
29. The operators of the golf club house shall reserve and designate
at least 15$ of the employee parking spaces �or carpool vehicles
by marking such spaces "CARPOOL ONLY". Car ooi spaces shail be
used only by carpool vehicles in which at iea two of the persons
will be empioyees. Such spaces shall be locat d within twenty feet
of the club house employee entrance(s) orl o�her preferential
locations as approved by the city traffic engineer.
30. The operators of the golf club house shall Iprovide one bicycle
parking facility (e.g. , bicycie racks) for ea five employees per
shift within twenty feet of the employee e trance(s) or other
preferentiai location as approved by the city traffic engineer.
31. Prior to the issuance of a radin , �
9 g permit Ithe applicant shall
submit plans for the provision of a bus tu�rnout and passenger
waiting shelter north of the pro�ect entrance for the review and
approvai of the director of community developn�ent and the director
of planning of the Sunline Transit Agency. i
32. Prior. to the issuance of a grading permit, Ithe applicant shall
submit evidence to the director of community� development that an
encroachment permit has been obtained from th , State Department of
Transportation prior to commencing any work within the ultimate
right-of-way of State Route. 74. �
16 '
;
I
i
�
i , �� t
, �.
, ` !
RE�OLUTION NO. 91-90
i
I
I
�3• prior to the i suance of
shali produce vidence acce table to the c�it he prO�ect proponent
a• All construction vehic7.es or equipment,e fi ed F rham�
operated �thin 1,000 feet of a dwellin obile,
property oundary shall be e ui g unit or the southern
"hospital" grade mufflers. q pped �"�ith residential"
or
b- All operat ons shall comply with the Noise Element and Noi
�rdinance Ibf the City of Palm Desert.
se
C• Stockpilin� and/or vehicle staging areas shall be located a$
far as pra ticable from dwellings and the Bighorn Institute.
34. Prior to the i suance of a
submit a gradin 9rading pexmit, t�e applicant shall
city erig�neAr. Phasing plan for the review an� a
that no g Said lan shall indicate hasin ofpr=adin�f �he
P p
gradin �or related activities will occur within 1,000 feet
of the Bighorn Institute g g such
through May), i Pxoperty during lambing season (February
35. Grading activi ies shall be in accordance with curr
ordinances. ent city
36. Prior to the ssuance of
structures, the�applicant shail u m it na lightin
9 Permit for habitabie
review and approval of the director of g Plan for the
the city engine r. Said CO�unity development and
purpose of all 1 Plan shall indicate the location and
ght sources on the site. Lighting on the
site shall be hat minimall
health and safet y necessary for securit pro�ect
driving range and tennis courts naand Zi l�ghtin y and public
g, lighting for the
only where it �an be demonstrated to the satisfaction of
director of comm�nity development that altgd signs shall be aliowed
downward and are confined to the 1 light rays are directed
premises.
37• Prior to the
ssuance of any buildin
structures, arch'tectural 9 permit for habitable
and approval of the city engineeraandb the di ec or of tcommu�1ew
devela�tment. Sa d review is to ensure that all structures utilize
aon- lare nity
3 , non-�eflective building materials incl.udin
materiais, paving, paint, aa:d exterior materials, g roofing
�"
38• Prior to the iss�ance of any buildin
be reviewed wit the Riverside Coun pe�its, pr°�eCt plans shall
review shall foc s on security measu ess or iff Department. Said
to ensure public sa�et within the other design features
y pro�ect area.
I
� 17
i
�
i
� ,
I
,-� �
:�
1
RESOLUTION N0. 91-90 '
! ,
� .
I
39. Prior to the issuance of certificates of us� and occupancy the
applicant shali participate on a pro rata bas� s in the funding of
positions and/or equipment necessary for t�e Riverside County
Sheriff Department� to continue to operate at �Cts current level of
service in this portion of the city. Determination of necessary
measures shall be made by the county sheriff n consultation with
the city manager and director of community de elopment.
40. Prior to the issuance of building permits or any residential
structures, the applicant shall pay appropria�e school mitigation
fees as required by the Desert Sands Unified School District.
41. Prior to the issuance of any building pe it for combustible
construction, the developer shall submit evid nce to the director
of community development that a water s rage and . delivery
facilities plan has been approved by the CVWD and any other
agencies with �urisdiction, together with all� appropriate permits
and environmental documentation therefor. �
i
42• Prior to the recordation of a final map, the applicant shall
construct or post security guaranteeing the construction of the
following public and/oz� private improvements � in con�ormance with
applicable city standards: i
. AZ1 street improvements �
. Storm drain facilities i
. Subdrain facilities
. Landscape irrigation control facilities (trees, parks and
public areas) I
43. Prior to the issuance of building permits, fthe applfcant shall
submit and have approved by the director ef co unity development,
a water conservation statement which demonstr tes compliance with
the foll.owing:
• A landscape plant palette compatibl with identified
conditions utilizing drought resistan� vegetation where
appropriate. .
;
. Reclaimed water has been used for landsc e irrigation to the
extent feasible.
. Water conserving features such as low volume water closets and
lavatory faucets with limited flow valv,�es are incorporated
into the pro�ect. �
i
44. Prior to the issuance of building permits, �the applicant shall
submit and have approved by the city engine ,r and the Coachelia
I
18
��
'RFSOLUTION N0. 91-9p;
�
Valiey Water IDistrict a water conservation statement which
demonstrates coipliance with the following:
. A landsca�e plant palette compatible with identified
conditions utilizing drought resistent vegetation where
appropriat .
. Reclaimed ater has been used for landscape irrigation to the
extent fealible.
. Water-cons rving features such as low volume water ciosets and
lavatory f ucets with limited flow valves are incorporated
into the p o,ject.
45. Sewer improveme t plans �hall be submitted for the review and
approvai of th city engineer and the Coachsila Valiey Water
District prior �o the issuance of building permits.
�
46. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall
submit a phasing plan to GTE California for review and a
pproval.
47• Prior to the is uance of any building permits, the appiicant sha11
submit a phasi� g plan to Palmer Cable Vision for review and
approval.
48. The proposed pr ject shall conform to applicabie Public Utilities
Commission regu�ations. Builders will be required to comply with
adopted State e� ergy conservation standards per Sections 1451-1542
of Title 20 of he California Administrative Code and Sections P
20-1451 through P 20-1542 of Title 24 of the Code. This mitigation
measure shail e monitored through the city's building code
enforcement pro ess.
49. Prior to the is�uance of
any grading permit, the applicant shali
enter into an agreement with the Coachella Valley Mosquito
Abatement Distr ct for the application of attractant bait for eye
gnats to the olf course and other areas of the project as
determined nece sary/appropriate by the district. Evidence of
execution of s id agreement shall be submitted to the city
engineer.
50. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the applicant shall
submit a mosqui�o management plan for the review and approval of
the District Man� ger, Coachella Valley Mosquito Abatement Dfstrict.
Said plan shall include:
a. A maintena ce program that involves vegetation management.
This impor�ant issue can be addressed in such a way as to
,
� 19
� .
i
�
. i
�
�
I
,'
�;
. ------------___-
RESOLUTION NO. 91-9p '
i �
prevent weeds and aqua�ic vegetation, which provide ideai
breeding areas for mosquitoes.
b• Insure accessibility for mosquito control personnel and
equipment to the site for inspection and treatment.
�
c• Specific development plans shall incorporate vector prevention
guidelines, standards, and checklists, 'as provided by the
State of Ca2ifornia Department of Health� Services.
Evidence that said plan has been approved by the district shall be
submitted to the city engineer.
51. Ail other E.I.R. rnitigation measures as setforth in Resoiution No.
91-89 attached as �xhibit B shall be aonditions of approval of this
tentative tract map (TT 25296) .
City Council Conditions-
1. The applicant shali be permitted 58 hillside pa;rcels providing that
the appiicant demonstrates that they conform to the goals and
purposes of the city's hillside development� regulations. Said
determination shall be made by the council. !
2. The applicant shall provide view openings al,ong the wall facing
Highway 74 as approved by the city's architectural commission.
3. Applicant shail provide a parking plan providirig sufficient parking
for employees and construction workers on the site said pian shall
be approved -by the City o£ Palm Desert.
4. Applicant shall provide recycling program for' review and approval
by the City of Palm Desert Community Development Department and
Environmentai Conservation Manage.
5. Applicant shall provide a parking and ride � sharing plan to be
reviewed and approved by the City of Palm Desert.
6. Mitigation measures within the Environmental Impact Resolution
shall supercede conditions from the tract map resolution in
resolving conflicts between the two resolutions.
7. Applicant and the city shaii approach th'e Caiifornia State
Department of Transportation and seek to coordinate the main
en�rance of the Altamira project witYi surro�nding developments.
The goal is to minimize the number o£ signals and access points
along Highway 74.
20
��
_.__.
-------___.___._
' ,Rl�SOLUTI ON NO. 9 Z-9�0
8• Should the Bighorn Institute relocate, the applicant
an application for any development within shall submit
application shall be �he buffer area; said
Municipal Code. The unde elop d hillside lots identi Palm Desert
conditions herein shali be part of this application, fied in other
9• A buffer in the shape of an arc of 400
as measured from the 30-acre �n Yards expanding to 600
north/northeasterly direction as recommended b orn Institute in da
Fish and Game and shqwn on Exhibit A shall betprov�aea b n� of
applicant. y the
10. No building or grading permits shali be issued on the ro
shown as "Reservation Area" on the tentative tract ma p per�y
reserves, however, the ability to review and p• The city
application for development approval of Potentially grant any
Area" other than a licant s pr�Perty within the "Buffer
pP ' property. Such review shali be in
accord with theiCalifornia Environmental
applicable municipal, state, or feder aualawy `a'C� and any other
consider density transfers, transfers of develop ent rights or
y will
similar relief ;to ease any financial burden on any non-applicant
property owner affected by the Buffer Area.
negotiate iri gc�od faith to purchase the Del Gagnon p�I�Cant shall
11. As a ' property.
condition of approval of Resolution No.
Tentative Map 25296 and, to the extent 91'90 approving
condition of approval of Ordinance No. 6Z7 ae�itted by law, as a
89-16 and, to ttie extent PProving Change of Zone
of Resolution No. 91-89p cont n�ng lfindings andt c�rta.f in
Environmental Impact Report with respect to this pro�eat, ALTAMIRA
VENTURES hereb I' 9' the
y� agrees to defend, at its sole cost and expense,
indemnify and hold harmless the CITY OF PALM DESERT, its agents,
officers and employees from any claim, action or
against the CITY� OF PALM DESERT, its agents, officers�and�employees
as a result of the locai agency's approval of Resolution No.
90, Ordinance No. 617 and Resolution No. 91-8g including but not
limited to: 1 ) actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void,
or annui such a!pprovals; or 2) ac�ions or proceedings that seek
damages as a result of the finding, requirement or condition that
a reservation area be established, inc].uding any action for inverse
cond�mnation. �
The CITY OF PALMiDESERT shail promp�ly notify ALTAMIRA VENTURES of
any such claim, action or proceeding. Further, ALTAMIRA VENTURES
shall conduct t�ie defense and control the defense. The CITY OF
PALM DESERT shall cooperate fully in the defense of any such
action.
PJ\db\tm
21
s� �,
STATE OF GALIfORN1A-THE RESOVR�ES AGENGY r ' .
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME P�F W��soN, c�,„�,,,,r
330 Golden Shore, Suite 50 ' �
Lonq Beach, California 90807 ' ''�`'�
(213) .590-5113 � '�%- �
EXHI�IT A ; �`�
July 31, 1991 �
Mr. Phil Joy `
City of Palm Desert �
73 - 510 Fred Warinq Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear Mr. Joy:
We have been asked by the parties invoiv�ed to clarify several
statements in my letter of June 27 to Mr. Phil Joy of the City of
Palm Desert Planninq Commission reqarding th� Altamira Country
Club, DEIR (SCH 91012061) . In that letter I stated °the arguments
presented to support a 600 yard buffer zone (pp 43-45) appear
reasonable". This statement is correct and w�e would support a
decision to adopt that described buffer. I also stated that '�a
buffer'� zone of less than 400 yards would be 'inadequate and
inappropriate fcr the continued activities of Institute. . .�� I
did not define the shape of the buffer. Lastily, I stated '�We,
therefore, recommend a buffer zona as descrrbed in the section on
"Recommer�dations ta Reduce Biological Impacts�,'�, (pp 46-53) of not
less than 400 yards commencing trom the boundary of the lambing
pen fence. The buffer should be free of all 'developments.
�
To clarify, my remarks means there should be a minimum 400
yard bt�ffer in the shape of an arc from the edqe of the lambing
pen. .
�
We would like to inform you that the cldser mountain sheep
are in proximity to people the more likely t2iere will be impacts.
Conversely, the larger that buffer, the less ;likely there will be
impaats.
Thank you for the opportunity to clarif� my July 27 letter.
Sincerely,
���1��� .
Fred Worthley �
Regional Manager
Reqion 5
cc: Paul Jensen '
Howard Sarasohn
��,
330 Gold�n 6hora, 8uite 50
Lo�g B�aah, caliPornia 9oB02
(213) 5gp•5113
' June 27, i991
, �
Mr. Phii Joy
City or p�x� Desert
73 � s�0� Frsd war' inq Drive
Palm Dee��rt, CA � 9Za60
D�ar Mr. Joy� �
Th• Aitami.ra Qountry Ciub DEIR (9CFi 9101�p61) �riQ ita
�tt�nda�t �oCumsr�ta h.ays beaa r�vi�wed p�ausnt tc CEQA �rom tha
perepaativ� c�f pot�ntfai �rojoct ettecta on wl1Q�:f� =R�ourcea ot
ooneer� to ths Dapartmant ot �'ieh dnd 3am• in l.ts dual ro'],e ot
Trudt�• A4vnCY arid R��ponsibl• �►qency.
a pla�rn�d cammunity oenei�ting or 45o dweiling�unitsimurrounding�s
sn 18-hola qolt ooura� on e� 3SZ acre sit• in the sauthern portion
or the City ot p�lt� p��art. zt i� imatediately aei jaa��� to $inqir
tamily housis�q eri th� north ard thQ mora opsn las�ds o= tihe Hiqhorn
6hoep In�tituta �o th. south. ,
• Th• dooument �nakee rqferehce to the public controveray and
�OOuee regardit�g ;��tential e��eete on bighorr� sheep, but it
loeuaes �o�tt or !,'�so�t sspeCts having pot�ntiai itnpaats to bi,ghozn
ii� th� adjacent c�ptiva onvironment at the Biqhorn Ynstitute. It
di.6aussaa mit�iq�t;iva niternative8 in two cateqories - tha��
a�aaoietod With diis�ase controi thrauqh the limitiae�,on of midqe
roproduction e�rtd thoas associated with otrem� to the captivs
populetion o� pa�;inautar biqharn sheep.
The Departma�t haa rio ohj�ctiona to th� a�Ction ot thv ESR
deali�g with poto�n�inl impacte of tha �roject to ep�rationa ot the
Bighoz» Ynafiituts (pp 35-45 0� Technionl A
p�eparod by pdci�io southwo`t eiaiogi��7. se=vioose�Yne°jumeTh� use
dt a bulfar sone �.s appropr�nt� to �educe ir�paats vt humen
�ctivfties on biqhorh. Thw revi4w ot etress by stemp (i�e3�
inelttdud e� AppdnBix D, and many eyDenasd fndividuai aommente,
wou].d suggect that �ot havinq a butter son• ia likely to be
clAtri�nontnl to b�.qhorn, prticularl.y lambg, a� �he Bighorn
2netituts. A bu�lar �on• of 2asec th�n 400 ydrd� woald b�
inadequate and ina�ppropriata tor thR continue� dctivitl.e■ ot the
. InetitUt• �e aurr�rtiy dosiqne�. The argtunento pr�sented ta
aupporti e 6Gt0 y�rQ �one (PP 43-43) aPpoar re�zsona�bls.
theref�r�, r�com�snd ti butl�r aone a� d:�arib� We,
��RoOe�nntendati0ns ta �todu�s siolog�cal =m not�+�a in the.section on
1�8� thdr� 400 yarQs oommsncing �rom ths bou�dary�of thsslambing�t
pen ronOe• Th� bufftr LOh@ should ba free oP ell devalapmante.
,��.�
.
Mr. Phil Joy '
JunO 27, 1991
Paq• Tvto
Ws rsque�t ths oppartunity to thoroughly reviow tiha ��AneZy�:s
o! eioloqioal =�aues �ldaoaiabed with thG Pr:oposQ� Aitamir�
D�velopment�� e�q�ed by Dr. Caruthera on Jur��e 20, 1991 and
pres4nted to Fr�d Worthloy on June 26, 1941.
Wa are i� agcset��pt w3th tha co�aclusiana of the EZR ae tcund
on paqes 27-35 0! this A8pen31x a�s to itnpae�t�i ori lrem-ranqing
peninsvl�r bighorn ahe�ep. euch impav�• aro exp.eted to ba
i�dividually insignitican�, but thera will 'be oignificant
oumuletive adversa impacta from thie and aimilar projecte.
�The proj�et sy�vr►sor ia e�ubject to the ',uee= t�• providad by
Fi�h anQ Gams Code BeCt3on 711.4 (A8 3158) ,; and the te� 1s payable
to ths County Clark at the time of, or prior �o, Pilinq tha Notice
ot Detorpinetion by ths l�ad aqency. Purouant to pubiic R�aourcaa
Code 9�ction 21o80(c) , th• user iae is $i, 2�0 !or �t Negative
Deolaration and $8�3o tor an Environr,..ntia7. �mpaat Repor�. Sn
additlon, aa indicated in the environmonta� dooumant, it will bo
nee�aea�y to notity th� D�partmant ot' Fish ; e�nd Gatns purauant to
Fie�h and Game Codo B�etion 1603 Zollowing approvai ot the �roject,
but prior to comrnencvment at ccnatruction� �
Thank yo�t fvr th• appvrtunity to 8�eaent thoa� camments . We
have no cvmmenta r�garding the rvat oP th� dvcumen�, nnd would
support the City aonditioning th� pro�sat in tha manner izdicat�ad
abave. S! there ars ary lurther question�, plsase contac�
Mr. 8ruce Elinson by ti�lephor.e at (x13) 59or5��7 .
.
. sincerely, , �-- � ,.
� � i ��t,r�...:.....f��»�f�,�.1".,�
FrsA Worthlsy � '�
A�gion�;l Hn:lag�r
Raqion �
!
i
; �
.:�
_ ------____
, RESOLUTZON N0. 91-89 EXHIBIT g
RESOLUTION pF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE
CIT►Y � OF PALM DESERT CERTIFYING FINAL
ENVIR�NMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
DE1dELOPMENT OF THE ALTAMIRA COt.1NTZy CL�R
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was
for the Altamira :Country Club project �a address the environment
effects, mitigatic�n measures and prePared
proposed Altamira ;Country Club; anaro�ec� alternatives associated with
WHEREAS, theiDEIR for the Altam�ra Count
pursuant to the =equirements of California EnvironmentalWas prepared
(hereinafter "CEQR" Public F.esources �qde Section 21000 e tuseity Act
State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regu.lations Sect3on 15000tet
seq hereinafter "Guidelines" ); and
WHEREAS, written comments on the Notice of Preparation
received and incorporated into the DEIR for the Altamira Country Clube
and
WHEREAg, written comments on the DEIF� for the Altamira Count CI
were received from 'the public during and after the public review p re iodb
and
�
WiiEREAS, such� comments were responded to through a response to
com�nents dociunent and submitted to the City Council; and
WiiEREAS, the; City Council has reviewed all environmental
documentation comprising the DEIR for the Altamira Country Club and has
found that the DEIR considers ali environmsntal effects of the
Sro,�ect and is cqmpiete . and adequat� and fuily complies w th�ala
requirements• of CEQA and the Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, Section 21081 of CEQA and Section 15090 of the Guidelines
require that the Ci�y Councii make one or more of the following findings
prior to approval ;of a project for which an EIR has been completed
identifying one or 'more significant effects of the pro,ject, along with
statements of facts supporting each finding:
FINDING 1 - Ch;anges or alterations have been required in, or
incorporated into, the pro�ect which mitigate or avoid the
significant en�ironmental effects thereof as identified in the
E•IR.
FINDING 2 - Such changes or alterations are within the
responsibility� and �urisdiction of anather
not the agency making the finding. Such h nges have ybeen
adopted by ,�uch other agency or can and should be adopted by
such other agency. �
r� �
RESOLUTION NO. 91-89 �
FINDING 3 - Specific economic, social or other considerations
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project
alternatives identified in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the mitigation measures inciuded in this Resoiution are
designed to reduce or eliminate the environmental impacts described
herein. Mitigation measures are structured according to the criteria
in Section 153'70 of the �� CEQA GuideZines. This section provides
generally that. mitigation includes: a) avoidance of an impact; b)
minimization of an 'impact; c) rectifying an impact ;by restoration; d)
reducing ar eliminating an impact over time by preservation and
maintenance operations; and e) compensating for the �impact by repiacing
or providing substitute resources or environments.
Additionally, mitigation measures have been drafted to meet the
requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 as monitoring
program. In most cases herein, the drafting approach defines the
following for each mitigation measures
1. A time for performance - In each case, a time for performance
of the mitigation, or review of evidence 'that mitigation has
taken place, is provided. The performance' points selected are
designed to ensure that impact related components of pro�ect
implementation do not proceed without es�tablishing that the
mitigation is assured. �
;
2. A responsible arty supervising performance - In each case,
a public official is named in the mitigation measure as
respbnsible for. ensuring that the mitigation is carried out.
To guarantee that the mitigation measure will not be
� inadvertently overlooked in connection with the issuance of
a later permit, the supervising public official is the
official who grants the permit called for in the performance.
3. Definition of miti ation. In each case � (except where a
mitig�tion, such as a geotechnical repo=t, is a well-known
procedure or term of art), the mitigationineasure contains the
criteria for mitigation, either in the form of adherence to
certain adopted regulations, or identification of the steps
to be taken in mitigation.
To further facilitate the monitoring of these measures during project
implementation, each measure has been drafted in a �manner suitable for
use as a condition of approval. It is a�iticipated t2�at the mitigation
measures herein may be used without additional' monitoring report
requirements, as each measure is designed to be self-executing. The
City of Palm Desert is implementing a monitoring p�ogram in accordance
with state mandate Section 2108.6 of the Pubiic Resources Code.
2
r_��,
F.ESOLUTION N0. 91-$9
WHEREAS, Section 15093(a) of the Guidelines requfre t�e
Council to balance the benefits of a proposed C�ty
unavoidable environmental risks in determ i n i n g w h e t her to against its
project; and pprove the
WHEREAS, Section 15093(a) reqvires that, where the decision o
City Council allows the occurrence of 'significant effects which are
identified in the EIR but are not mitigated, the City Council must state
in writing the reasons to support its action based on the EIR or other
information in the record; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1• The City Council hereby certifies EIR for the Altamira Country
Club pro�ect as adequate and complete in that it addresses aii
environmental effects of the proposed Aitamira Count
and fully complies with the requirements of the California
� Environmental Quality Act and the Guidelines. Said EIR is
camposed of the foliawing elements:
a• Draft EIR for the Altamira Country Ciub
b• Appendices to Draft EIR
C• C�mments received on DEIR and responses to those comments
d• Resolution of Certification and Findings
e- All attachments, incorporations and references delineated
in items a. through d. above
Ail of the above information has been, and wili be, on file with the
City of Palm Desert, Community DeveZopment Department, 73-510 Fred
Waring Drive, Pa1m Desert, California, 92260.
2. This City Council adopts the Findings with respect to each
environmental effect identified in the EIR and the explanation
of its rationaie with respect to each such finding set forth
in the document entitled "Environmental Effects and Mitigation
Measures" attached hereto and marked as Exhibit A and made a
part hereof.
3. This City Council adopts the Findings with respect to
alternati�es set forth in the document entitled "Alternatives
to the Proposed Pro�ect", attached hereto and marked as
Exhibit B and made a part hereof.
3
�� �J
RESOLUTION NO. 91-89 �
4. This City Council adopts the Findtngs with respect to ' �
overriding Eonsideratio.ns set forth in t�e document entitled
"Statement of Overriding Considerations" attached hereto and
marked as Exhibit C and made a part hereof.
•,�.
PASSED, APPROVED aad ADOPTED at an adjournedimeeting of the Palm .
Desert City Councii, held on this 5th �day of A� ust, 1991, by the
following vote, to wit:
AYES: KELLY, WILSON, SNYDER
NOES: HENSON, CRITES ;
�
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
�
WALTER H. SNYDE , M or
ATTEST: `
_ . j
r
� � J /,f � .
� i
- SHEILA R. IGAN, C Clerk
City of Pal Desert, lifornia
PJ\db\tm ,
4
��
Exhibit A
' CEQA
�ND__IN�
INTRODUCTION
The City of Palm Dese=t has considcred the proposed projed, as submitted by qitaWest, and has ch�n to
adaPt the plaa,subject to tt�e imposition of a 400 to 60p yard but�er measured in a north�northeasterIy direction.
The proposed project consists of 450 dwelliag units,a golf couru�c���,�ub,aad ancillary facilities on a 352
acre site. T'his projoct includes a coadition(mitigatioa measure)which reserves an area of 400 to 600 yards for
buffer purposes, 'I'his buffer results in the loss of approximately li dwe]Iing ucvts and t�,o golf boles to be
relocated.
ENVIRO�IVIEN'I'qi, EFFECTS qND MITIGATION MEASUItES
These fmdings summarize the data and conctusions contained in the Drah EIR,the R�sponse to Comments,and
the administrative record.. The Draft EIR, Response to Comments, and the administrative rocord are
iacorporated into these findings as if ut forth in ftili.
Consistent with the reqnire'ments of CEQA a�nd the Guideliaes, the qltamira Country C1ub EIR, hereinafter
"EIR",discusses eavironmocical effects in proportioa to their sev�rity and probability of occurreace. To that end,
th�ETR recognizes that cerEain areas of impact from the project are ualikely to occur,or if potentially°ccurrin8
can be mitigated to a level;'of iasigaificance b�impos;tiqn of oonditions to the subdivisioa map and gra '
permits. It is aot reasonably andcipated that additional impacts will be discovered as a result of these fut�ure
studies(i.e.,100%;coverage survey for Desert Tortoise)because of the substaatiai ev;deac�ia th�a��uative
record (iacludiag tlie EIR} presendy. T6erefore, these studies aze imposed as miugatioa measures co further
assure proteMion and recognize responsible agenry involvomtnt occurring ia the norma! course of affairs�
the load agency acts.
The City Couacil cherefore finds,ba.ud upon all data currendy available,tbat while no significaat.adverse impacis
are expected to be discovered as a resuft oF any of these subsequent studies, the requirements for sach studies
as a condition to the Altamua Country C1vb Project (hereiaafter"Projeu"), aad tbe reservation of the power
to incorporate any mitigation measures at the grading permit required to mitigate aay previously unkaown
impacts to insignificant leveL�,is itself adequate mitigatioa for any impaccs disclosed by such subsequeat surveys
aad studies, 6owever unlikely,
The EIR ideatifies a aumb�r of potentially si�cant acfveru enviro��a� effects of the Projeci. .The EIR
also ident�es mitigation me�sures which would reduce or eliminate poteatial adverse effects. These effects and
the mitigatioa measures are:summarized betow as is this Couacil's determination whether�r not to incorporate
such mitigation ensures and'its rationale for such determinatioa
As is more fulIy set fonh ia the F'mdia�s herein, pursuant to Public Resourcxs Code§31089
Gamc Code§711.4, this praject sball pay the required fee for im ro) �d Fish and
pacts oa fis6 aad wildlife resources.
Addidoaally, micigation megsures were revised or added to the Projeci atter the distnbutioe of the Draft EIR
as a result of the normal plaantng praess, a�d the commeats of the public.
. 1
��
Cortain mitigation measures appeariag in the EIR arc not iacorporated iato this Projecx.These are d;scussed ' -
ia the appropriate sedion of this resolution, together with tl�e reasons for their rejactioa.
AI1 micigadoa measures havo b�en vvr;tten as monitoriag programs pursuant to Public Resources Code§21Q81.6.
The drahiag of these measuros have been desigaed to easure compliaace duriag project implementation, as
cxplained fiuther in the EIR.
These findings merely summariu data ia the EIR ad.minisirative record for purposes of iden ' the
impacts and mitigation measures for the Project. The EIR is inco ra�ed �'� ��t
substantial �vidence therefor as if set forth fully in the 6a�in�, � b3'reference into thesc findings as
EARTH RESOURCES
SiQnitfcant ERects
Grading aaticipated to occur as a part of tl�e coastructioa proccss wi11 cattse litnle impact�as the subject property
is rclatively flat and on-site soi7s exhibit the necessary character;stia for developmeat of the Project. The
property is not in agricultnral prpduczion and demoasttates relativoly poor so�l pocential for cop growth,
�
Seismic parameters for the site are similar to those of other sites ia che City of Palm Desert and potential for
liquefactioa is not considered significan� 'I'be Project site is located in Seis,a�ic Response Zone N� which
desigaates residential development as being appropriate for tlie area in terms of land use sensitivity.
Therefore, no significant impacts to earth resources are andcipated following'i as a result of imP]emcntatioa of
the Project. Nonetheless,mitigation measures as iadicated below,are appropriate to,insure that all coasEruction
and grading is carried out ia a maaner that iasures that impacts will remaia iasigaificant.
�IitlQation M cn.�..
1. P�ior to the issuc,ice of grodin8 P�nriitr, th� applica�et shal! obtai,r epproval by the Citj+Eegineer o a
8�n8 oPe�a+s Pian irecluding watering proceduns to mininiize dur4 and equipment procedrues to
mini�nize vehicle ernissiars frone groding e4urPnetn� TIu plan shall p�rovide that 8�adin8 oPe�clions b�
suspended during secaids (or worse) stagr srnog aluts by the AQMD. ,
� Prior!o the issucnce oj a gnrdin8 pe�rni{ the applicaret shall submit a fr�'nal,�eotecluiice!�rpvn to the City
Engineer. Th�nepat wi11 be based on IOascale maps and will prirnari�iy inyvlv�oues.�errt of potential
soil r�elated carsacinfs and hazard�,such e�t londslides,settlanen� �iqu�f.�anlaud seisrnic impacts
where duerrnined to bt app�piiata l�y the C'uj,of Palrrt Desert ?7ie�+e�on shall�lSo����,��on
oj po�enrial a�ansive soils and nconemended consbuceion pmceduns�/or design c�iteria ro minimiu
the eJj�ect of these sotls on the pr�vposed developnien� as w�ell ar an anol�sis of soil Pn�Pe�ies to dete�niine
any aistence ojsolubk sulfate rn tlre soi� Thi,r repon shall rrcovrur:end app�pri�r�k�,��s
I�W�Brading pen»it mrd shaU be completed in a more,ie�apecifred in;the �ry of PaGn Desen Grading
and F�xravatia� Ordinareee.
MitEQati n M cu.,.t sa.t�a �
Nono.
. 2
�+�
� Mit�MeasntYs Not'Ie n..,,...�. a
Nona �
F�ects Not Mi ion+.,1 r., s ���j of Itlaionirt..4
- —— c
There will be ao impacts to earth rasources no�mitigated to a level of insign;fcanc�,
AIR QUALITY � . �
Sim�iticant Frr..... �
Sigaificant effects to air '
qaality fall iato two areas; temporar3'imP$cts from Project construction activides and
long term impads from the addition of moEor veludes generated b�,th����d�mbustion of naturat gas for
space 6eatisig and generating of electricity.
W'th r�sPect to construction activities, a three-month gr�diag c�,�e�d g�,�.��total project buildout result
ia an estimated 317 tons per yeaz(0.87 tons per day) of par[iculate emissions, The Southeast Desert Air Basin
currendy releases 26 tons per day of pazticulates, aad therefore the construciion effect on particulates of this
Project is iasi�cant and highly localized.
The heavy-duty construction cmissions bave(xen based oo eight hours of operation per day,and will conNbute
40 pouads per day of carbon.moaoxide, 110 uads
hydrocarboas, 13 uads y �P° P�r �Y of nitrogea-oxides, 8 pouads per day of
po per da of sulfur-o�de and apprwamately 10 pounds per day of particulates. These
emissions generated by construction equipmeat are very minor individuaIly aad�umula��iy��r���to the
SoutheasE Desert qir gasia,
�ne Term imna re '
Th�Prima*y source of emissions geeerated by tl�e Project will be from motor vehicies. T'be ir�c report for
the Project forecasts 29,9pQ vehick miles uavelled per day due to the Projeci. Vehicular emissions per day wi]1
be 532 pouads of car(�oa_manoxide, 84 pouads of aicrogen-oxides, 16 pounds of sulfur-oxide 19
particulates aad 47 pounds of bydrocarb�� Offsite emissions for combustion of natural �' p°uII� of
are norninal and are report�d in the EIR at pages 40 and 41. 8�aad olectrical usage
The Project was compared to the Southeasi Desert qir gasin �mi���, ,qs Table 8 oE the EIR shows, the
emissioas projected for the'Project are a very small frauion of regional emissioas. Even with th�u added
emissions, the project will nat cauu aay state or federal air quaL'ty staad�d ta � �ded. The qir Qualit�,
Management Plaa for the Southeast Desert Air Basin is bas�d on the genera!plaa for various jurisd;ctions,and
since the Project proposes 65�+�fewer dwellings than a11�v,,�d the
of thc Project wilI not adve�sely affeM the attaiament of re anal ai�r�qua]i� s��� �a��md ia ttbe
AQMP aad the pIaas for the Soutluast Desert qir Basia,
Further, the cumulative air qualit�,�pa�of the project have been coasidered by the South Coast Air Qual;ry
Maaagement District(SCqQMD)in its F'�nal EIR for[he 1991 Air Quality Maa�g�meat Plan. Spe�calty,th�t
EIR scates at page 3.1-8:
SCAG's GMP EIR identified potential adv�rs��paq��may resWt from the GMP forerast.
In additioq SCAG�lso ideatified a sec of regional poliaes which�ay mitigate adverse aspects
of growth that were ideatified in the EIR and provide a swctwe for bcal governments
implementation of these policies. 'I'be GMP forecasts of populatioa�housing aad employmeat,
. 3
. ;� ...7
�.f �
w}uch are incorporated inco the AQMP, sern as the basis for the'Regional Mob�ity Plan ,
(RMp). the Aiz' Quality Management Plaa (AQMP) and the Regional Housing Needs
Assessmeat (RHIvq).
In additioq the Fiaal EIIt for the i991 AQMP states at page 1-3: �
The AQMP Psogram EIR foeuses subsequent environmantal reviea on relevant contral
measure impkmeatadoa issues. This conc�pt of cavering gen�s�l matEers ia the Program EIR
with subsequent narrower EIRs for specific projuts aad with incarpOration b�,zefereace of
genera! discussion is knowa as 'tier�ing" (CEQA Sectioa 15385). Based an the tea� ia the
program EIR or its appendices, many issues can be eliminated(aad)will provide the basis for
stafPs use in future environmcntal assessments,for identifying relevant issues and determining
sfg.aificaace and wilt allow the project-specafic EIRs to be focused solely on tbe new effects or
detailed eavironmeatat issues aor pr�viously considered (CEQA Guidelines LS16g (�),
Pursuant to Section 15150 of the CEQA Guideliaes(Califoraia Cflde of Regtiladons§15000 et seq.), the Final
EIR for the 1991 Air Quality Management Plaa is hereby incorporated by refe=eace iato these 5adin�s aad the
EIR for cumutative impacts as desenlxd in the above passagos,
MltiQation Mea nres �
.� Prior to t/se issuvnce oja grndinBPermit for each phase of developmen��u gradinBP/ers�s/�be subinitted
for the review ond appnoval of 1he City�nginep Said plan shcll incorporctt the followrng mecsurrs:
a SCAQMD Rule 403 shal!be adherrd to which nquin,s watering or appli���of soi!binders ta
limit dust g�teraaon. �
b. Groding sha!!not oaur when wind speed«ceeds 20 miles per hour.
c. A saeet sweeping p�shall be undertoken to nduce fugitiv,e dust fiwn rsaffu,
d All consbuction vehicles shail be washed o�`'befon leaving tlu�si1e.
e• PanFing areas for consuuction pusonnel shall be placed in sucie c mann�r thvt�
not interfered with. �fl°H's°�
f Construetion ac&vities which a�`'eu�oadways sha11 be wedertakcn during off peak hor�rs anly a�d
in such a rsanner that at kast one lane amains open in cach �d'r�ecrion.
4 To rcduce tcnt emi,ssivns '
P� finrn conso►ucdon equip►ne� said equipr�uet shell be p�nperiy tuned and
�naintai�ted Compliance shall be dernonst�ted to t!u sarisfaction of ri�e C'rty Engineer.
Mitiaation Messures Add a I
Noae.
Miti�stion Mea.�..�. Nnt inenrnnAf�.i
None.
�
�
4
t�
EfTects Not MltiQated to a Level ot InsiQnlrtes �
No sigaificant impacts}�ave beea identified to short or Iong-term sir qusiity wbich have oot been mitigated to
a level of insi�cance, 'The Pr�ject emissions are equal to or kss thaa what was contemplated for this area
in the AQMP and the plans for the Soatheast Desert Air Basin.
DRAINAGE/HYDROLOGY •
Significant ERec a ''
The Project as currently d�signed will result in small ov�rall inctease ia �h� q�tr�,o f�� ��ed ruaoff
exicing the Project site (L39cfs or about a 2% increase), TIie Iarges� p�rcentage of additional ruaoff will be
geaerated in the northern vKaters6ed aroas of the Project. Aithough che increase in quaaticy of nmoff from these
areas is reladvely minor (93cfs) the percentage increase is about 100%.
Area runoff control as a �esult of Projed design will be signi6caatly iaiproved over what currendy e�sts.
Uncontrolled runoff from the alluvia! cone area iaco the Indisa Hills and Summit areas will be completely
eliminated. 'The proposed Project will detaia and delay runoff to these areas,then discharge it into two control
points. The implemeatation of the planaed drainage improveme�ts wiI! also siguiFcantly reduce the sediment
transport potential of the eupected quantities of debris'from this water shed downsiream of the Project.
A�ood watar wne s}�own in Fxhibet 11 of the EIR is a,a azea of undetermined possible tIood hazard. The tlood
hazard of this.area is to be;adjusted wich the P:oject development, iacludiag the golf course.
Ntrates the ground water $upply has been a problem in the Coacheila Valley siace the 1930s. Tha primary
source of these aitrates is ruaoff from sepdc tanlcs. A.minor.componeat of this problem is runoff from golf
courses. In the opinion of the Coacholia Valley Water Distrid, the agea,ry responsi'b(e for ground water
managemeni ia the area, tlu pcst�ntial impacts of the project on tl�e quality of ground watez is considered
insignifican[.
The Ciry of Pa1m Dtsert does not possess completo jurisdiction over stormwater control activities for this Project.
A respoasible agenry, the CoacheUa Valley Water District, is responsfble for determiaing appropriate flood
control measures, It is beGeved based oa t}ca latter of comment by the Coachclla VaUey Water District on the
EIR,that the mitigadoa measures imposed will be acceptable to t6e Coachella Va11ey Water D;strict. However,
subject to the Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) such mitigation measures are tbe respoesibility and
jurisdicpoa of another public agenry and should be adopted by said other ageary. These mcasures are identified
with (+).
Miti¢atton M Ac�� I '
S. Prior 10 i,ssuoRce of the g�ding pemei� the appiicant shall submit a plan for the nview cnd app,nval of
the Cuy Engineer and the Coachella Ya!!ey Water Disrrict indicating that a[1 ercess rusio}jgiene�ated 6y the
project shall be ntained on-site.(')
� P�ior to issuanct of the gradin8 Pemei� the applicant sha11 submit an erasio�cvntnv!plan for the rrview
and approva! oj tht Ciry Eeginetr cnd the Coachella Vo11ry Water Disoict Said plan shall fndfcare
tunpomry erosiar contm! measuns rhat sha/l be i»splernaered unrll the pr�vposed dr�ainage con�ol
i�nprovernent meastr�rs orr canpkttd(•J
7. P�ior to iss�cnca af or�Y 8��8 P�+�rhe following droieagr s�drdirs shall bt sr�bneitted m and approved
by the Ciry Engineer ared the Coachella Tirrllry Water Dis�rct
S
��
_ ._ —�--�.�-_.____._..
a. A d�ireage s�udy vf the su6division, incktding diversion� o/j�site anar that drain onto and/or
through the subdivision, and juatifscation of an1'divasion:and
b. A droinagoe study evideneing that proposed
���� drainag�e patteras will not overload auting stom�
c Detailed dsai�agr studies indicariweg how the dnet maP gradin� in conjunctior� with the dreinage
conveyance rystenu� including aPPliceble soiT� c1�a�nals, smu fTows, catch basirr,� stonre drnins
and jlood water ntardin& wi11 allox,building p�ds to be safe from iaundatiort finm r�fy�l��
which may be expected for all storms up to a�d incl�ding tht theoreticcl 100�ytar flood
d A plan for stomzwates protective wonFs.(•) ;
8 Frior to tlu issuance of a�eY 8rcdi�8 P��� tht app�c�st shall � the ollowin
ProHde r+ecessory dedications in a nsanner �� �� f 8 hnP^�vemurts and
Yallry Wa1er Disbitt ��g gPP�����C'r1y�irgineer end tiu Coaehella
i
' Q All provLrions for surface drainage;and
i �
b. All�necessary stonre drein facilities arending to a sarisfactory point of disPvsal for the proper
� con�o!ond dirposa!of storm water runo,�;vnd
� When dete�rnined necessary by the.�ty Engineer, the associated easements shall be deciecaced to
the Ciry of Palm Drser� the Counry.of Riversid� or the Cooch`r!!a i�alley Water Disbrct Prior ro
�rcordation of any frna! rmer rnap or prior t� issuance of e,'enifrcates of use a�d occupanry,
whichever cornes frrs� said impr»venra�u.s/lvlt be constructed�in a manner meetirtg the approval
ojthe .C"ity Engfnetr and the Coachelln.Yallry Woter DisdicL(;•)
9. Prior to r�co�darion of a f�na! ,nap, the applicant shall co�rst�uce vr post security 8uora,ueeing rhe
constsuction of the foUowing public and,/or p,ivote irnprovementr in conformonce with applicable G"rry
standcrds:
• All stnet improvements
� 5�arn drein facilitits
� Subdrain facflitits
� � Landseaping iriig�uion contro!systern (stnets,pank� and pub�ic crras)
10. Prior ro issuance of a g�/ing p�rmi; the applicant shall install facilities to p�bit access to tha Dead
Indian Cnrk Slorrnwarer Chmene!right-o�way in a rreanner meeting tll�approva!of the Chief EnBineer,
Coachella Yollry Werer Disoict(•)
11. Piior to the issum�ce of any.building pe�mi;the applicant shall amtn��or the alncation of any Coachelia
YQ11eY Wa1r.s Disbict facilities a,Jj�ected by the projec� in a mcnntr�eeeting the approval of the Chief
Engv�ter, Coachella Yalky WaterDistrict.(�)
MetiQatIoe 14(mcu� Added
None. �
MiU¢atlon M cne�t Nn► iw..����
I
None.
6
����
Etfects Not Mltiast t� � t.•a7t r 1 :.,.,•— ---
With applicatioa oF the abOve.micigation measures,the potential impacts of the Project will be reduced to a level
of insigaificancx, ;
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Si�iffcant EtT e !
wth respect'to biological�csources studied onsite,thore was
p �3'/aPP P � �'��°���eemeat among the experts as to
im acis and feazbili ro riateness of mi ' ation and the scope of impact. To compIy with che requirements
of CEQA, the major thrust of the differences ia opiaion have beea swmmariud, including tFie opinion of the
consulfing biologist.
Siace the decision-maker is not obL'gated to select the most conservative,environmentally protoctive,or h'beral
viewpoint,the Cit�+Counciij in acting bag stud;ed all of the opiaioas carefully,aad the suPPo�B documontadoa
th�refor, and 6as,arrivtd at a conciusio¢that the opinion of tho experts w6o hoW that a.40p to 600 ya�d buffer,
measured in a north/nqrt6ieasterly directioa is nec�ssary is entitted to�ester weight t�san� th� other opinions,
In fact;the Department of FiSh and Game has indicated that
or morc as measured from!the pen(DFC letter, 7-31-91 . 'I'}r��Ci��t �����d °ot occur at 400 yards
� t}'Cqu°�l bas�s this conclusion on the fact
that these experts indicated that habituation to bumans, to the extent if would occur with a 400 to 600 yard
separatian, was aot necessari;y aa adverse effcct on che sheep. Furthermore, habituation has the atteadant
benefit of reduceng tho sueiss tevel of the sheep which are.held captive ai the gighora Instituce as they become
accustomed to the sights �s!souads of urbaaization. It is noted that urhanizatiou occurs within a mile or less
of the Bighorn Institute pen in tbo current�developmont state of the property. Moreover,the Instituto's shcep
see and are handled by hnuiaas at the Instituce in pursuit of their research aad breeding objecxives. Finally,
many of the experts respondiag(iaciuding chose who recommeaded a larger buffer thaa che experts relied upon
in t,his action)noted that the sbeep are less sttessed when they art above a disturbaace thaa K,hen��y��ade
or below iG 'i'�eir excellent ey�csight enables them to perctive the significancx of t�e threac to them.
Because the development of a prop�rry wit6 homes and use as a golf course is a r�latively benign(and use w,hea
compazed with otber land uses(i.e., the pens are in the view shed of Highway 74 where headlights are present
at night and traffic, incivding trucks, is pres�at duria�g thc day aad aight), the sounds that emanato from the
development wi]I already be familiar to the sheep. The mitigadon measures that are proposed will fuither
protect the sheep from distWbaaces that might occur, however unincentional.
A buffer COA�IEIpp is ad�ed to the project to provid� for a 400 to 600.
north/nort6easterIy dirtctida While tho City bases this on t6a scieatifc evidence 'm the record, the City has
pcplained ia the Statement arf Oyertiding Consideradons that t�is represents,,ia tl�e Cit}�s view,the best balance
betweca mitigation of impac,��ts aad recogaition of the laad use histury aad nCw,.impacts imposed�,the voluntary
location of BHI.
With respea to the Desert�ry Wash Woodiand,there is a si�ifcaat effect from t6e loss of this was6 due to
clie removal of Smoke Trees and the attendant nesting bene6ts to local birds, None of the birds or other species
inhabitiag tLis Dry Wash lWoodlaad are endangered, threatened, or rara Notwithstanding the adjudged
sigaif'cance of the Desert D'ry Wash WoodEsad,i6e woodTand kaowa as Dead Iadian Creek is not unique in tbe
region. Opinions are inctttded in the EIR which indicate cbat this woo�l�d may be regroduced or replicated
in otber areas of tbe Coach�lla Valley,aad tbe applicaac's biologist has teshfied t�at it can be repL'cated on site.
7
� �{
Total authority for determining this issue does not rest with the Ci�,of Palm D��, .�U.S.Army Corps of
Eagineers aad the State of California Departmeat of F'�sh and Game have snbstantia]aad complete permaneat
authority over th�removal of Dead Indiaa Creek Desert Dry WasL Woodland, If these ageaaes are coavinced
that mitigatioa is possible,and no practicable atteraatives e�dst for t6e aash to remaia onsite,these agenpes�y
grant the awhority to City of Palm Deserc to remove t}us resource aad replace it elsewhere, 1'he comments from
the ageades at the time of tbis action do noc �ve iadicatipII of their potentiai reacxion to this removal, even
though they have been coasulted with repeatedly tluoughout the procxss. If these ageades do aot permit the
removal of Dead Indian Creck in conversion to golf conrse or otber yse,th�n there will be ao��,����
ia this aroa whatsc�ver. If they do permit the removal of Dead Iadiaa Cnelc, replacement and replication
elsewhere as is dictated by State aad Federal law wi]I remove the sigaificaat iaipads. To the extent there aro
any remaining significant impacts, a statemen[of overriding considerations is�provided.
The impacts to free raaging peninsular Bigbora shup aze minimai. There'are no free rangiag peniasula�.
Bighora sheep on tbe site, and as re rted ia the °
habitaG p° �+ �e site do�s not possess the charaaeristia of critical
T'hcn is suthority for tl�e proposidon that this area may be marginal free raagiag gighom hat�itat.To the extent
chis is the case,and the sheep utiliang tbis area historically are utiliriag c.his are�as a habitat as opposed to mae
"pass-tluough"or traasi�nt event,there would be a sigai6caat adverse impact. �iowever,in viea,of the fact that
no sign the Bighorn sheep have beea seen on t6is prop�rty, and it has low resource value for the Bigborns,
indicate that this impact is not sigai6cant.
�
No impacts to the Desert Tortoise are fouad as a result of tltis Project. 'The site has beon r�peatedly sunvcyed
for Desert Tortoise aad'u has been determined tbat Desert Tortoise is not pres�bat. In aa abuadaaa of cautioq
the prescn'bed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protocol for the 1QQ% coverage survey for Desert Tortoise is
proposed with respea to tEie property prior to the graciiag permit beiag issue�i,
A Burrowing Ow1 was located oa tha site,aad its activiry suggested a fidelity tp the area for nesting, ,��o�
$ur�'owing Owls are not considered rare or threateaed, they are rare ia the Coachella Valley. Under ch�
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1974,the animals are protected during tl�e breecl�g season when they are nesting.
The impacts to the species are not considered signiFcarit,bnt the protection o�'the nest,if presenc, is provided
for ia mitigatioa in aay eveat.
MitiQation Measn•�•a '
12 Prior to the issuance of any gradire� clearing or othv landform neodifitation pemu� Wt developer shall
subneit wriuen evidenct w the Dinctor of Canneunity Developrnent diat appropriate federa� staie and
counry pem:its have been obwined for the biologica!resowres oa-site to be rer�oved by development Said
pennits shall specify tha limin$ rarpua ond nview authoriry fo�r the miti�adon measuns, if any, which are
� nquurd in connection witli lhese nrnovaJs. No�ernovais shaU be authbrized unril all necessary nsource
a8�e�u.y pemeits have been obtained
13. Prior to the issuance of a 8rodin8 penni�, the developer shall deposit with the Ciry of Palm Desur an
omount equal to the cost of a secaed itnc�surr�unding th�3p.acn pen�s B�pro� �e cost of said
fence shaJ1 be establisleed by cons�ltatioie with BHI or, rf BXI has no vepuy by a,stote�nent of cost by a
fencing co�ctor. The juue shall be of tht sa�ne siu and n�etericl as t!►at which
pu+. ?he cash f yrar'h�rn the date � �'�'enciosu the
deposit shall b�au�ilabk or aee of, deposit mid sholl be nkvsed
m BHI upon BXI',t suGmutcl nf evidence to rhe Dinectw of Canrnunit�Dev�loprxent de�t th�f����
be used m coRst�uct the faice widein 9�0 days of neeiPt of fruds.
14. Prior to the issuance of anY �adinS Parni� th� d�weloptr sleall sutimit evidence w the Dinector of
Communiry De►�elopment that no sranding wara for consaucrion purposu(�g.,dust cariao!)is maintained
8
I v�
ae,sit� The Din�ctor, through posted wamings and gmdin8 insP��k�, sha!!ensu�r that no wontrers or
���P'n�an Pe�nitted outstde cons�ucn'o»arr.vs
15. Prior to the�rm�of�y,��� the developtr shaU subnut evidence to the Dincrar of Commun.
� De�lop�nerit that�he rucessaryPemutls)haNe beai obtvi�eed frnm the Cou,i �'
1�'Agriculiur�l Cbnr,nissivner.
Mlti¢ation Mr�e...,.. sa,� �
1�. No dis�uption of migrvtory bird neslueg habita; rnck�irt but hot
and colony nests� br the unauthorized S lrmited to octive nests� tnes with nuts
' �g°f�Y��ory bir� nests or e�s bY v�Y m�a� shal!be
penniued during the nesting and breedi,:g seaton. Said neseing ond bneding season, and the nest anar,
shal!be identified�prior to the u,cu�nce of mry�n& clearing or 1Qndfon,e ,no� cation
mih°gruion measu�+e shown ar�12 on pagie 244 colling for fe fr p�r,hit The
�rsorrnces a,�ecttd on site slrall be tenderrd os �^°� state and cow:ty Pemsits for biological
; e►�idencs p�ia�to Lssuance of a,sY P��+�
Based on ihe comments received oa the Draft EIR,tIu following mitigadon measure has beea edited from that
contaiaed in t6e Draft EIR. Editieig is shoa+a ia nnderline/strike-out.
17. Prior to the issuance of onY 8�n8��it r
' r t t modi{scation af IQ�d on the-����..+1,� =t
�P�-��f�brolo�ist rerained hv►/��p �r of Commrc„.�y
Desex h 1 n .,�=,i. ��a . - - 1��..;4,,;:f:-;�- ^'- `Palrn
Sitbl�ell l0 11iC •. - - r c.uv n►
Wildlife Savice a Desert Tortoise Iqp%covu�a - ��� U.S. Fish rrnd
auch sun.n,i,,,the 8r�y in eccordance with rhe protxol established for
- ��45 IT:S. F'cch and Wil��%r, c.,3� , ,qd����to the m e J an sha!!be in
accordanc� wirh the �U•�h�„d Wild1� c.....� P 1 � f y,
-��ch a rr�.fi, --------�f.�..�,�determtnation, i t a! r
- ;
l� �o��o the issua�rce of anY grodin8 Pe�� the developer shall submit to the Dirjector of Community
Developnient for nyiew and aPProval a developrnent contml plan��g�following.
� Roeds and driveways shal!be designed in a manner so that they reduce headllght shine on the
bighorn peny; .
b� Sauctiae desi�u sha11 incorpo�te non$lcre rnaterials� including windoWs and any other atenio�
frazunes. lJse ojaterior li�ting should bt kept 10 an absolute►ninimuni wrth absolutely no lights
pointed upwords towards the sheep pen. These nstrictiau should be included in We developme»t
CCRs
� Use of atbior strret 11gi�ts shall be keep to a minirnum. Those thot ane requined should be
disccred in�a rnanna so that rhry do not shi�e upwards ar towmd��p�, �should thry be
a high glcrr yp�of lighe.
d No outdoo�dog shail be ullowed in tht southern portion vf the dewe1op��t that borders the
bu,�u zon� Furthemrore, a leash/aw shali be established and strictly enfared in the CCRs
� Additiona!�CCRs shall be developed thal implernent noise�rstniction,c in the developraent vnd
upaciallY in the soruhem pomoir. Thue wouid include nsrriaions on fu� 8�Pdwend
blowers,nacing of motonycles�odrer loud vehiclu�gh the develop�nen�and arassiv�ly loud
celeb�ntlau or nius'u.
j Use of the g�o1f course shall be�rstricted w daylight hatrs on1�,
9
���
----__________._.
g Pvnd banks shall bt cnated with c 45°or�r�r sJopt with�on obsolute mininium depth of 1
f�
h- Porid barrks shall be concnere ro eli,ninate iitsect bneding haLiitat
�. Mosquitofrsh (Gcmbusea affinis)s1�1f be released i,eto ponds to prnvide a biological conb�!of
insect larvae.
j. Watering rysterns for anas�2t fncludin�rurf shall be a subsurf'ace drip
inigation rysrtm to eliminate sui face water which n�ay provrde b,�eedi�g h���for��o�gn�
and other insect vecrors.
k Xeric adopted plvnts that mr ,�ative to the Caachella Yallry shall be utili,zed in the�ner�
landscaping designs Plant lists shall pnphasize naerve vegrta[ion such as smoke d�ea, occotillo,
yuccg succulenu,�avelh'8^�r�nd covers and the like.
I9 Prior to the issuonce �
��Y 8��8 p��+i; the developer shall subnait w the Dinctor of Cornrnunity
Development a�port Gy a qualified biologist on the starus of t!u bum�wing owl nest
20. A BuJ,�'er i�e the.shapt.,o„f an a�of 400 yord�;��ndin8.���as�nucsr�nd from the 30-acn pen o
the Big Hom Luritrete rn a nonh�/�orilieasterly,�ir�� ��ca�eneend'ed by the Depanment of Fish and
Gamt aad shown on txlubit A sholl bt provided by tfu applicant
21. No building orgradinBPemeits shaU be issued on the prope,ty shown as"Resuvatiar Area"on�he tentative
dnct ncap. The Cuy �rserves, howevtr, the ability to re►+itw and pott�ctially gmnr a�ry aPPlication for
development approval of proPerrY within the "Buffer Area"othv than cpplicanPs prope�ty. Such irview
shall be in accord with the Califonsia Enviro�rmenlal Quclih,s{u and on�.other applicable municipa�stat�
°r fedemi law The City will corrsider densiry transfers, transfers of�Iopment rights or similm r,elief to
ecse any frnancial burdea on eny non-appiicant prope�ty owner a�'ected'by the Buffer,9rra The applicant
shall negntiote in gnod faith to punchase the De!Gagnon prn�ut}, .
22 As a condiaon of approval oj Resolutron No. 91-90 approving Tentat�ve Tract 25296 and to the errent
perrriiued by law, os a condition of approval of Ondino,ue 617 aPP�B��8r of Zone 84-1Q cnd to
the.axtent�rovided/�y law os a condition of app�va!vf Reso[ution 1Vo. 91-89 containin8 f:ndings and
ce�rifying the�'nvirorunenta!Impact Report with respect to this projec�.�iltamira Yenlunes henby agnees to
defend et its sole cost and apens� indenyify�rtd hold harrnless tht Ciry of Palm Deser� its eg�eRts,
ojj4cers ond employees from any claim, action or prnc�ediRg ftkd a8rtt r'nst tht City of Pabn Dese� its
agenu,o�icers and employees as a rssult af tiee local agenc�,;s appro��1 of Resolution No. 91-90, Ordinance
617 and Ruolution 91-89 including bur not limrted to: 1);Qctions�p�eedings to attocl�set asict� void
or an�eul such approvals; or 2) actions or proceedings that seek dai�eagrs as a result of the findin�
requirement or condition that a resen,adoa area be estoblished r�cludin8 mey action for inverse
conde,n„otion.
I
The�1}+of Palne Desert shall P^nnsP�h'notilY Altarniro Venruns of anyi.stech clai»R oction or pr+viceeding.
Fwrha;�i.ra.Ventures sJ+all conduct t1u defuu�and convv!the _defense. The City of Palm Daert
shall cooPerat�h��'�we defense of any such ac�ivr�,
�Itti�adoo Ms�sures Nnc included '
Mitigation measwe�13 on page 117 is aot considered feaubk,aad is hereby not adopted Because the 30-acre
Big6ora Institute pen is double-fenced ttuough these mitigatioa measuses,aad the cosi of that is advaaced by
the applicant,the safeguard against frae ranging dogs approaching che pea is achieved The&fooc cemeat wal!
20
���
wil! interfere with proper drainage of the property, as iadicated in th� s��u� ��II� presented by t6e
aPPli�� and is uanecessary to aelrieve fhe stated objcctivc of Procectiag the sheep ia the pens from intrusion
1�}+aaimals from the Projccx.
Mitigadon measnre�14�'as been etiminated because the C'ity does not believe that there is su�aent evidence
to suppoct a eomplete pr'oh�'bition of gradiag for suc m�tl�ss of tho year. Further, the City believes that
Mitigadon messure #35, �imitin8 gadia8 withi� 1,000 feet of the
sufficient to reducx potenCial eoasWctioa eoise impacts to a leve!of�' �8 P�a auring the lambing seasoa is
u�iBoificaac:e-
Mitigation measure�16 h�as been altered and that portion of t6e mitigation measure c�g for subsurface dr;p
�rrigation system for the ggai�coursc is teci�nalog�qyy�{�le and is hereby omitted Because golf cou�aze
composod of turf areas, t�e technology doos aot eidst for drip imigation to give appropriate coverage, T'fie
impact sprinkiers for the goif course are the most commoa strategy used, and because huf area is exiremely
porous, no standing water w�7I occur as a resuit of this watering, T7�erefore, this mitigation measure is not
adopted
Midgadon measure #18 on pag� 120 requiring che report oa the status of the burrowing ow!nest on the site
has beon modified ta eliminate the limitation on coastrucx;on activiti�s������,of the nest befween April
1 and July 31. It is beIieved that the midgatioa measure added above related to activides in complianc� vvich
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act will provide the same level of protectioc to the burrowiag owl if ic does have a
nest onsire.
�tTecls Nnr Mtr:�.*,�,a .,.a i,�, � oC I� (��a�
To the extent that there will be any impacts to the capcive Bighora she�p at th� g�� I��te evea after
adoption of the mitigation as proposed hereia, those impacLs are considend sigaiticaat aad �navoidable. The
statement of ovcrridiag considerations indicates why the C�ty Council6nds theu imp�����1�acceptable.
Thcre w71 be no�canE eff'ects to the free ranging$ighorn habitat or Desert T'ortoise.
Impacts to Dead Iadian Crcek are sigai'ficant only in th�1��n� of the removal of the creek in this
area. Repiacement as auth,orized by the appropriate Stata and federal agencies will achicve substantially ai1 of
the eavironmcatal benefits of the e�dsting wash. To the extent that this objective may not be achieved fully, the
statement of ovorridiag conuderations ideatifies why the City Counci(finds these i�Pa�otherwise acceptable.
CUt.TVRAL RESOURCES
�i¢nificant Eff e
The siu has been stuveyed�nd arcbaeologica!site CA-Riv-564 was loca�ed oa the site in accordance with records
on this site. CA-Riy_56q w�11 na be impacted by development of the study area. The site has been properly
documented and studied and its research potential bas beea ex�aetsted, The site has sisso undergone some
���°°�m a11 lilcelihood�as a result of the coastructioa of the eacistiag water tanks'1'6erefore,subject to the
mitigadoa measurc recited below, there wiil be no adversc effect3 upoa cultural resource� ia�e study area.
Mitieation M Q�..�..
� Prror ro the rssuance of a grndinBP�K the app!'icent slial!p�vrde writtu�evidt�rce to the C'ity Engineo
thvt a certified arcie�olog�has beat ntained shall bt pnsart at tlu pr+e�din8�fe�ate�shall utablish
procediurs far onch�reolo�cal�aa swveillarec� and shail establislr. i�t eooperr�apr with tlu project
��,proceduns for ternP��'h�g�ndirrc�ing xbnk m puneir the samplin�idtad'ficativn,and
, 11
I 0`�
evaluatio�of wtifccts as appropsicte. If odditiona!ar w�d�� �
th� anhaeologist shcll nport,such fmdings to tlre , °�0�� fe�ns are discovare�
Devrlopntent If the o�haiol Pr+ol�a dev�loP�er abd ta the Dirrctv,r vf Co„rr��h,
vgical�sou�es mr found w bt slg�u'ficax; tht mrhaeological obsernr shall
dctemune aPP^�P���� in cooper+afion with tAe projeu deNelo,per,for c�io�pan ared/or salva
Fxravated frnds shctl be ofjend w tlu Gry of Palm Desat on a frrst n'fusQ1 ba�:c. Applicant may ntaiir
said fznds ef written assunonce is provid�d that they wFll be P�P�'P�'pved in Riversidc
said frnds cn of specia!sig��il;c�cy or a rnuseune in Rtv�aside C'��3', unkas
display ohem at rhis tim� in wh�ch case itenrs shall be donated�����a desin to study ond�or
well ar final ntidgation and �Y �+u. ?hese ae6on,� os
Co�nrnun' Develo muet ��1ion of the ns�r�shcll be sr�bjic{to tha aPP�vc1 af�he Dineuor of
�h' p
MJtlaat�oa M .ur�s A�ta.a
None.
�i�tioa Measnres Not incornora+.a
None.
Ef7ects N�t Mitieated t s i.evel of inet��
None.
AESTHETICS/VISUAL IMPAGTS
Si�iticant ,.�►�+.
'I'he structures proposed in rhe Altamira Ceuatry Ciub project will be visible from adjaceat bomes to somewhat
widdy varying degrees,sad will in worst cases,completely obstruct souther!},vi�vs of tb�Santa Rosa Mountains.
The homes whose views are obstrucced in this maaner were for the most part consttucted at a time when the
property was zonod for residential use and therefore th;s impact could ba anticipaced
The Highway'74 viewshed wn'Il be changed from t}�� �e� �n�� to iaciude homes and the golf course
behiad a heavily landscaped buffer area, Ex6�bits presented ac the Planning Coasmission beariag of May 21,1991
by the landscape archicecG incorporated in these fmdings by refereace,depict a�laadscape buffor with aative aad
aaturalized trees representative of t6e area.
The site in genera! is oae t6at is visible from many parts of palm Desert and In��ruate 10, as tbe bajada from
the Saata Rosa Mountaina slopes gendy downward into Palm Desert.
OveraIl,althaugh the construdion of the proposed projea will permaaeady alter the txistin natural a
8 PP�'��
o the site, visual iacpacts are considered minimal. The project is in keepmg,;with che visual character of the
directly adjacent or atighboriag development aad subject to the mitigatioa measvres describ�d below. Impacts
aze, therefore, not consider�d signifcant
Mitl�tten M�e.��..
24. Prior to tht i.rsuanct of a�adi�e8 P�b dk�appliea�t shall subrnit ai�rrdin8 PI�far tlee m�iew arrd
aPP^�'� of�a �+n' Engueter. Said plart s1iaU dp�e H� tlee fvlln"�er�B �neasuns havt beur
incorponottd•
. �
l��
a The private sbret proposed adjacent to The Su�nmu shall not axeed ut ekva�ion thne 3
I�m the top of curb eo concneete swale located within tht ( )feet
below the�top of the wcl� Pe�imeter of The Sum�ni; or f=ve(S)feet
b. Pod eleva,tions Fn the a�ra adjacent to The Suramit shall not excecd 2.S jeet in elevation from top
nj curb on the di�rctly adjacent private stnet
2S. Piior to the issuance of buflding pennits fa onY�s on tht northtrn site edg�e or in hilLride anas, the
applicant/developer sho11 submit a,�hiteceurcl plans`v, th� ��, �d app� o f �e Director of
Carsnrunity Developinen� Soid plans for tht nonherty site edge only shal!demonsr�te the following.
Q- Building hRttghtt in tise or�a adjccent to Tht Surriniit sho11 not exce�d IB jeet
b. Horizoretal anchitectunal elemenls shall bt emphariud forstructuns ad'acent to or dine
to views fin►rr T7�ee Sunrmit Primwiry vrrtica!jearuns such as � �'�sed
avaided 1� bnaka:wall faces shall bt
� Shollow roof pitches shall be erecourag�ed jor spuctuns����to ar d��
fTom The Sumniit Sductuns with flat roofs at or close to the marimurn �1'�°sed to views
height shcll 6e avoided Permr:ssi�Je building
d The orientation of all exterior light sou�es sha!!6e dincted away fr�n� rrsidences wit/rin The
Sumrnu Ftt�ri°r li8hoisg nem the norrherrr edgies of tht PropeKy shall'be low 1eve1 and low
wana F`loodli ges
B1e• 8h�8 ojsnuctunes,t�ees,orplantings jorpunely disPla�'Pu�Poses in thrs area shall
be avoidid
e. LareaLscaping between the proposed private drive and the block waX along the boundery wit1� The
Surnrait shall emplvy a plant palene the malun height o,f which does not �ceed the wa11.
Intermittent forrna!clustess of pcl,n tnes arti pennis�yl�����a
MitiQatlon '�tesQ�••�•e s•+a�'�+
The following mitigation measnre has beea edited from thac contain�d in the Drah EIR. Editing is showa in
underline/strike-out.
2� Prfor to the issuc�ect of a�ng p��ly �ye applicant sha11 submit a grading plcn for the review and
approval of the City E»gineer. Soid pla�t shall demonstmte the following,�
Q Grodi�rg or�u�d disturbance on areas currentl�'�os�d as bedrock along the far soecthem edge
of��properry shall b�avoided inost sigaifrcanrly orr rhe hillside at the aoutheasterre edge af the
site.
b. G�ading ttchniques used for th�ana nerN►-�g{r /�of'Dead Indian Creek
emphosize siope contourrng rr,�d�ariabie slopes Hard ed�es and on�es on o be ea�vo��'�d t p i
and toes of slopes shall be bleRded with rerneining an�s o f We��d a n d une„en,rumou�d�n8
natru+Q!surface.
Tlu fo!lowing rnitigarion nieasunes wen added by the C'ity Council in eheir acdon ovi the project
. L3
I 0`l
27. Tht oP,plic�rt shall be perneitttd S8 hetlsidt garrels P�vidyg thQt tht,'oPPlicant demonso-�tes that thry
corefam to tht Snols and pwposes of the C'ely's hillride developr»urt ne�clo��, Said det�nninarion shall
be rnadt by the Cou�tci�
28 ?be applicant shall providc view opasi,r&s along the wall faca�8�&R{�' 74 as approvrd by the Ciry's
A�rhitectunol Co�nnsission.
Miti¢atioe M�cn�Not inca— rate�
None.
�ffects Not Mitieek. to s Lev of lnci���
Noae. �
ENERGY RESOURCES
St�ificant ��'•�tc
While �nergy demaad is noareaewabla, the demands of the project of this tKpo are iadividual�y ��-�t.
Cuinutativdy, it mtut be taken iato consideraaoa that the project has been cootemplated for sometime, aad
energy resources have been planaed for. The consideration of eaergy conservacian aad solar access is dicx��ed
by tbe PubGc Utilities�Commission tLrough State ea�rgy conservation standard�, q mi���a meas�rc u
includcd for this purpose,
�itiQation M nres
29. The propvsed pmjtct shali canply with a[I applicable Public Utilities Ca»rnrssion regulatfons. Builday.
wi1!be nequir,ed to canply with odopted state enagy con.se�vation semedcrds per Sections 14S1-1542 of Tirle
20 of rhe Califomia Adrninisaotivt Code cnd Sections P-20-1451 through p_Zp.IS42 of Tule 24 of the
Code. This rnitigation rrreasure shall be mon&ored througJe the C'ity's buildireg code enforeement process
MitiQation Meacures Added
None.
Mitigation Mea�,..;.. tv�* �....,...�--�-�
None.
tTects Not Mitieated to s •w.� �.r t..��e,.���nc� '
None.
14
��:�
LAND USE/RELEVANT pLANMNG
Slgnlficant Etierra
'Tbe project site has boea waed for resideatial laad nse since 1955,and its deve�opmeat has been coatemplated
in County of Riverside and City of Palm Dcsert planning documeats for yeacs, 'Tho rma
the effects of the ro ect with P � Pa1 issue coacerniag
P J respect to laad nse deals witb th��(�e�of the project on the operations of the
Bighora Iastitvte. This part of the hndiags is Iimited to laad nse issues aloae;it does aot speak to the biological
issues whieh are of imporiance in examiaiag the relationslup between the two laad uses,as this is discussed ia
a previous section. ,
?he EIR,at pages 146 through 150,discusses in detail the history of Bighorn Iastitute's locatioa adjaceat to this
property, It is notcworthy thac the property, both the BHI site and the subjea property, were zonod for
resideatial land uses prior to BHI's establishmeat of its facitity. T6e Cit�s Geaeral Plan Ameadment Pre-
Annexatioa Zoning,aad ana�xation to the Ciry of portions of this propercy were approved prior to the Institute
a�4��B �e lease from Xhe Bureau of Land Maaagement to its current sita Documents referonced in the
Eaviroamental Impad Report indicatt that,�at the timc that the Bighorn Imstitute decided to locate to this site,
there was no contempladon of a buffer by County of Riverside, City of Palm pcsert, or even the Big6orn
Institute. in fact, BHI's fence line for the sheep pen closest to this project is only 300 feet(100 yards) from the
boundary of the Altamira property, This is thought to be the result of BHIs original objective of research and
disease control, wtuch objective has gtown over the years to include breeding and releases, as indicated in
comments on the Draft EIR.
The CiCy concludes tha�,;iti view of the iaformadon stated ia the EIR, it cannot be eoncluded that the
development of the Altamua site to its own bouadary was cor�ider�d i�mpatible witl� the operation and
success of the Bigkiorn Institute as a land use matter. It was reasoaably foreseeable that residential uses would
locate adjacen[ta the Iastitute at its border,and the proximity of that use must be coacluded Eo have beea taken
into consideration in site stlection. However, the City has incorporatcd a 400 to 600 yard buffer.
One of the considered land use effects that could be significaat if tbe project propostd were not to be adopted
would be that a larger buff�r on the Altamira property will have a�ignificant adverse effec[om anat,her ownership
known as the Dol Gagaon property whieh is curreatly zoned P.R:5 and 6as access. Development is completely
precluded on this properry with a buffer over 400 yazds, and the Det Gagnon property would have no nses
whatsoever, possibly constitutiag t(ie basis for an unconstitutional takiag by reguIapan. However, the City has
addad, and the applicant has accepted, a mitigacion mcasure as a coadition of approval which guarantees that
if the Del Gagnon properry suffers damages as a result of the 400 to 600 yard buffer, the City will not suffer
economic loss aa a result.
The irrigation water line �to be located ia aa easemeat in Iroawood Country Club will pose temporary
construction impacts to theiexisting area. It will take 90 days to complete tha pipeline; therefore,this is a short
term and temporary impact. It is determined to be insignificant, 'The right of way for the irrigation pipeIine
exists• The use of non-po[able water for golf course irrigation is con�idered an environmental benefit which
reduces demand on domestic water supply.
The project provides its own recreational facilities for its residents. Nonetheless, the project is required to
comply with the locai pazk code, in this case most likely through the payment of in lieu fees. A mitiga[ion
measure is induded for this purpose.
The Cit}�s Gentral Plas� identifics a birycle trail along SR 74 fronting on the property, In addition, the City's
Zoning Code desigaates the area of the properry adjacent to SR 74 as"Scenic preserveuoo�, for which spe�c
zoning considerations aze provided Mitigadon measures for each of these planaing considerations are provided.
15
{;�`�
�IQn Measures `
30. Prior to the issuance of 8r�dinBPe�mus. the applicant shall submu►evised plmrs L:dicati�g the bike tmil
at the east side of�ghway 74 for the n,°view and approval of dee Director vf Cvmmunity Development
The applicant shall 6ond for or othawise gum�ntee casstruetivri vf rhr,bike brri!prior to tht issuance of
building pennits in a marr�er nreeting the q�prova!of tht C7t�'F.nBrneer.
3I. Prio�to ncordation of a j�iw!s�bdivrsion mep,the aPPlicon�shal!comply witli the Loeal Park Cod�either
throu�h the d�dication of lcnd and inspro►�anents or the P�+t of�-�feu as approved by�he Director
oj Commwiity Developrnen�
32 P�ior to the issuance of a buildinBPemutfa�Y area of the project located irr the SP, "Scaiic Pnservation^
Over�iQy Zoning District (Chapttr 2S.S� Codrfud Or�dirronces of tht C�[y of Palm Desert�P^�l�a Plans
shall be subniined fo�tht neview cnd approvcd vf tlu ciesi8n�'�d or Planni�t
8 Commfssion. The
Pu�pvst oj sueh neview is to acAoiowted,gr lua� of tlu project ue a scenic conida and to nview a�d
m� � on Prrservario�a scenic vis
neitigaGiar of acessiNe eoise. f � se(fi°ck�landscapin� buildin8)ui&i+t�si8r�and
�Iltiaatioe Mea nres Addp.� !
i
The following neitiga&on neeasure wos added by the C'ity Cou����n ��e project
33. Should the Bighwrt lnstuute rrlocatt,the apPlicant shall submit an app/ication�or eny deyelopment within
the buffer urea;said epplicarion shali be pracused as set forth in tlie piilm Deseri Municipvl Code, The
ruideveloped hillside lots idtntrfred in other condi�iau haein sha11 be part of this applFcation.
Mlti�ation Measnres Not Incornorate�d I
None.
ERects Not Miti¢�ted to a Level of Ia����Rcance
It is determined by the City of Palm Desert that no si�ificant impacts to land use will result from
implementation of the proposed project. ,
To the extent that a land use,as opposed to a biological, impact is considend to occur to the Bighorn Institute
operation as a result of the Altamira projea, this impact must be viewed ia rhe context of the chronology of
zoning and Iand use activides, Laad nse contlicts which are created with actual or constructive knowIedge of the
future uses of surrounding land cannot be considered a laad use impact wben tbe adjaceat laads develop.
'Therefore, the City of Palm Desert concludes tbat there are no
the ro'ect as ro �8��°t�a �se interface ianpacts beri+veen
P ] P P�d�d Bighora Iastimte.
Thero are ao sigaificaat uamitigabie impacts to the Del Gagnon property siace the project as proposed will not
aeate any impacts to this property.
16
I 1!�
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
$i�ittcant ERecte �
The projoct will generate a total of 4,284 vehicle trips per d�y, �'���y.��t �r�� �ggo,�}of the daily traf�ic
generated by the project �4,190 trips)will head north on SR74 upoa kaviag the projeci site,and those trips aze
estimated to split gonerally evenly to the north, east and west wh�n rtaching FJ paseo, SRili, and Monterey
Ayenue. A�I incersections affeded by the projecx are estimated to operate at Level of Service E or botter for
the �dstiag traffic glus growth tra�c condition in the midday Peak period tra�ic conditions in 1995. Physical
improvements to reach Level of Service C(Coac]ulla Valley Associadoa of Governments Policy) are required
at two intersections, even,when one does not coasider project.related traffic. 1y�,se impern,ea►eats are reated
at page 159 of the EIR. 'With the addidon of the project tra�c, the following additional improvemencs are
necessary: At State Route 111 and State Route 74 double left tura Iaaes oa northbound State Route 74;at State
Route 74 snd El Paseo right tnrn laaes on northbouad aad southbouad State Route 74 as well as a cight tura
lane on wostbouad El Paseo.
SuaLiae Transit does not currcatly operate in this area but has iadip�ed aa ia��qon to do so. Ia the commonts
oa the EIR, Sunline Truisit requests thac the City provide �bus turnout aad stop aorth of the project entry.
The City has included a midgadoa measure to address this, guaLine Traasit has also requcsted tbat a bus turn-
around by provided in the area of Silver Spur. It is the �s upinioa ia this case t6at it is not the sole
responsibility of tbis appGcaat to provide a bus eurn-arouad that will benefit the eatire City and regioa.
MitiQatioq Meac�r�s
34. Prior to the issuarrce uf certificates of use and cecupcncy,tlrt following irnprovementr shall be installed in
a nzanne�n�eeting the approvc!oj the City Tmff�c Engineer.
Q A�eft tunt pocke�260 feet long with a 9�0 foot u�siaon,sholl be striped for lraffec on southbound
SR 74 entering the proj�ec�
b• , ��'�aPe P�n&s a�t signs shol!6e limtted to 36 inches in height within 25 feer of project
driveways to ensure good visibility. �
c• Install a "STOP"sign on site egress roadway to SR 74.
d Inscall a second project access for emergenry vehicles o►ely at tht end of Ponola Avenue.
.�5. Prior to the issuance of ceniftcates of use and xcupanry�he applicvnt shall ente�into an agnement with
the Ci1y 10 panicip�te in a progrvrn tv prnvide ofJ=site ineprovrmtnts to ngional roadways and inte�sections
that sha!!be constiuutd p�ior to Year 2000. Final design ond phasing shall be based on detailed a�nua!
rnonitoring end analysis oj actua!tra�''ic demands et tlt�crikcQ!tmpac�ed entersectioru identi�ed in the
EIR Funding of'imp�vements shull be derived frora thi Unifonn Tiunspatetion Mitigation Fee and
Mearu�r A where applicabl� with the balance fi�ne RDA.
3b. The operators of t/re golf club house shall nsuve cnd desrgnote at ltast IS°.6 oj tha ernployee perking
spacu for carpool vehicles by rnor,idng.ruch spcce��GlRpOOL ONLY".Ca,pool spaces shall be used aniy
by ca�poo!vthicles in whtch at least nvo of the pasons wr11 b�unployees Such spaces shali be located
within twenry feet af 1he club house unployee entr�ce(s)or other p,rJarcnticl loca�;or�s as epp,nved by the
Gty Traffic Enginetr, ,
17 .
i i '
37. The operators oj the gntf club house s1,a11 provide one biryrk p�8 f��}'(�8y bicy�cle rnckt)fvr tach
l"'� �P��Pa s�1�withen ewtn[Y f�a of� �Ployra enarrnce(s) or other P^efurnkal tocatio,i as
appr+vved by the City Tia�`'ic Engineer.
3� Prior to the issucnce of a�dinBPemei�tlee gPPlicant shaA.rubndt plams for the pr�vrsion of a bus�t
�d P��B�w�g shelttr nonh of the project entr�rce for tJu nviaw ond 4PP�►'�of�Dindor of
co��cy n���r�r��n��Pro„�;,�o�du s�;�,�e;r,��.
39. Prior to the issumrce of a g�ding pem:i�the applicant shQll subrni�tvidence to tlu Dir�ecto�r vf Co�uy
Der+�loprnaet thQt an encroechment psnnit has been obtointd frorn rhe Stote Depardnt�tt of T'��on
prior to eor�emaecing a�y wer�C within the ultintate Rg�trt'of-K'�'ofState Raue 74.
MIti¢atioQ Meaanres Added
4Q Prior to t1u issuance oj ce�ficates of use and occupanry, the following iniprovrm�nts shall eirh�r be
vutalled or bonckd for in a ma�ner nieetveg the cPPmv�a1 of rhe Qh'Ti��E»8��'
� • An eddiko�eal ltft 1urn Icne on nonhbound SR74.
• Consbuu a ri&Iit dtm lcne on w�stbound E!Pasea �'
• Pa�ticrpat� on a pro �ta bosis in the consbuction vf right �um lanes on no�rhbound and
southbound SR74 and if deter»tined jointly by�lee Ci[y y�d C�ai�c�cs, i�e a signvl at the project
entmnc�
• Priar to the issuance of certiftcetu in use mid occuperery� Fhe applicant shall arter into mi
a�rement wrth the City of Palne Desat in a mcnner meeting the approval of the City Ti,afjic
Enginea to panicipate in a pro r�ta basis in the following incpror�mentt:
• • Widen SR113 to t/ure lanu in each dime�ion, '
• Consbuct a right aum icne o,i westbound SRIII.
• Consduu doubla left!um lanes on eastbour�d SRlll.
• Cauauct a�ight lurn lane on SR74.
' Construct double lefi�turn 1c,�es on southbound SR74.".
• Construct double right tum Iones on eastbound EI Paseo.
The jollowing mitig�on rneasunes wen added by the �ty Counci!ue itr oct�on on the pnojecL .
41. Applicant shall p�vide a parkinBP�P�►'+�8���P�B��Ploytes and const�uclion workers
on the sita Said plan shal!be approved by the C'ity of Palm Dese�
42 Appiicant shal!provide a Farki,rg and�ide shoring plan to be�rviewed�d approvtd by the City oj Polm
Desert
43. Applicant and the G1y ahall approcch the Califonria Statt Depait�nent of Ti�ursportaiion a�d scek tv
coor+dinat� the nrain uronnce of the Aitmnira p�oject wrth su�roundbeg developments. ?7u gna! is to
niinimize tlu numba of signo/s arid occess pointt along Nghway 74.
18
���7
�gation 11'1essUre� Not Incore�►rnr...
Nonc.
N Mf i i et T i i
Subjcct to the mitigation measures recited above, it is fauad that.all poteatial impacts of the project �a traff;c
and rirculation have beea reduced to a leve] �f iasignific��_
NOISE
St�n�_Ptcant_ F�� ,
Three effects were considered with respect to aoise;constrtuxioa effects,impacts oa surrouading land uses,aad
highway noise.
Constructioa noise reprexnts a short term impact, Construction activities,particuiarl
poEential for sigaifcant noise impacts, gecause some of the a ' Y�a�A& �have a high
and adjacent to the Bighorn Insdtnte, miagation measures ha�v�bee added t�o restri«cons��on act9viti Cin
appropriate ways.
Witb respecc to noise level increases as a rosult of the project oa surrouading noise Ievets, the City Council
heroby determines that noise levels w�ill noc inaeas�perceptively over exu •
increase is along Highway'74 from Mesa View Drive io Cahuilla Way at Zi�dgq, e noise levels. The Iargest
Resideatial lots oa site are exposed to noise Ievels just below 65 Db CIVE
practices will aclueve outdoor to indoor noise level reductions of at]east 20 dBq, Because of the truck use�on
H�Bhw'aY 74, however, impacts may be significan� on a p�ri�� b�y�. �erefore a mitigation measure for a
sound wall is iacluded
The EIR documents the acute 6earing of the captive Bighora sl�eep at the Bighorn Insdcute. Noise from grading
operacions will exeeed 7a dBA ia the ponned areas. Construcdun aaivities are muc6 louder thaa posc
conscruetioa activities, and tbwefon construction activides inclttdiag grading operations are considered a
signiticant iaipacc. post����on activities (such as will��on the site after developmeat) aze in tbe mid
30 dBA range and are not consid�red s�caat, Lawnmowers and other mechanica!devicos includin
couJd have sigaiticant o�'zcts ab�n� �e mitigation adopted above, g g°��
MitiQasion MeaS�t�c
44 Priot to tht issuonce of�¢din8 perrnits.,the project prop�nent sha11 preduct evidence acceptable to the Ci1y
Engineer tha�
Q Au consd�ic.tion vehicles or equipmen4 fczed or,nobil� operated within J,pp0 feet of a dwelling
unil or the soulhene proper�y bvruid�ry shall be equipped with "�rsidentia!^or '?�ospitu!"grode
rreu,$ler.c
b. ���dons shQll canply wirh the Noise Elem�ret and Noise Ordinonce of 1he City of Palm
i
c. �����/�►'d�clr stagrr+g aneas shall bs located as for as prccticable finm dw�llings and
19
� �
Mtti�stioq Me�.•n� Add .�
Based oe comments received on the Draft EIR, the following mitigation measures have been edited from that
showa ia the EIIt. Editiag u shown ia uaderline/strilce-ouG
45. Prior w dee issuanc�oja gnadinBP�� �Qpplieaat shall subnat a�adiaSPhas�eBP�fw a►�e rrview
and cpproval of the Cuy Engineer. Said plan shall ina�icate plicsing of&^QdinB,�ch t1e�t no
nlated activities wil! oecur xdthia 1,OiU0 feet of the Btg�teorn Insri�uta �n8 or
f�''��9lt$�!"iKB�'} (J3IIu8fY lct M inn� �nl
ProP�xY �n8 ��g season
4� Grading aetivities shal!be li�nited to
�1te followin�hows•
�ober 1-Anril 30
Mondav----F�da�' 7.�1�-5.�30ene
� �OOcnt -_S_•l,M�ht
Mav 1•Se�r�m_ h__.►?n
tKQttdav-Fridcv QOdam - 7:ODene
� ��anr -S.•ODnm
No grading shall be allowed on rr�a-e� edem!
condition on tht f 1tolidays. Such lirnitation shall be placed as a
8�n8P�it in a manner nreeting the aPPrn►'Q1 of du C"ity Eng�neer.
Mittttation M�stres Not Inco ---•�a
None. I
�Rects Not M[tiQated to s ��1 0[insi¢�ittcance •
Grading and construction activities associated wich the projed developm�at will result in short term increases
in aoisc levels which could be potentially significaat without mitigation, Hbwever, in view of the proposed
mitigation measures, any such imp�cts wi11 be reduced to a level of iasigaificance,
LIGHT A1VD GLARE
Si¢nificant Effec�t
The projoce will previde new sources of light and glare to the area abseac adequate mitigation. The project site
is already partially surrouaded by e�astiag or proposed development,and will not ia itself contnbut4 to a largc
chaage ia the area. The golf course is not to be lighted aad tbis would allow less lighcing intrusion tban would
ordinarily occur,
M1ti�tton Mes.ure•
47. P�ior to the issuance oj an3'huildrie8 pem�u f�,r habkable sduchtn� t!u appbeant shall sr�bnut a�ighdng
plan for the m�iew and approva/of the Dimtor of Communih'De►"tloP{nuit and tht Gry Engineu: Said
plan shaU iredicate rhe location and purpose of ail 4�►'et sou�es ar th�sitG Li�hting an the pr+vject site
sholl be that minimolly necessary fu►securih'�nd�lic health�nd safaY Purpo,ses Oniasnental ligfi�$
2(1
� p '�
lighting for rhe driving rang�e �nd t�nnis court� and Gghted signs shall be a!!o►r�d only where it can be
de�norrstrated to the satisfaclion of the Drrector of Cornrnunity Deve%pntent that all ligiu rays o�e directed
downx�urd and a,�e co�fuied to the premises.
4B. P�ior to the issuvnce of ony building pemtit for hab�table spuctwr��rhittclrtral plans shall be subnutted
�or the,ieview cnd app,nval of t1u Ci1y Engineer and the Di�rctor of Community Development Said nview
is to ensun that all st�uctuns utiliu no��la��eon-rej'lectiue building materials ixcluding nvofing rncterials,
P���P�4 a�d iatuior rrsataials. .
Mttlaation Measv� A�ded
None.
Mitieation M cnr�.e N�r IfII orenrated
None.
ERects Not Miti�ated to a �1 of Inci�eificA cc
None.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Si�nIficant Effec a
No significant effeds to any public sorvices aad utilides will occur as a resvlt of the project,nominal increases
in maaPower and serviee provision will bo nec�.csary however aIl service demaads caa be accommodated by t6e
proposed development, as discussed ia tbe EIR.
Additional elcvated water storage is necessary to sezve the project,as reported by the Coachella VaIley Water
District, and these facilities may be located oa or offsite. Their locatioa is not now kaown,aor caa it be known
uutil such time as the Distr;ict raviews and agprov�s the water storage and delivery facilities plan to be presented
by the applicant after appcoval of a project by the City of Palm Dexrt. The sigaificant effects, if any, will be
discussed in fiuure environmental documeatation to be provided in connection with this plan.
The City of Palm Desert does Qot possess complete jurisdiction over public service and facility provision for this
Project. Several responsit�le agencies have jurisdiction over the projeci. It is believed, bascd oa the letters of
comment by the various service providers oa the EIR, that the mitigation measures imposad will be acceptable
to these purveyors. Howe�+er,subject to the Public Resources Cod�Section 21081(b)such mitigadon measures
aze the rosponsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency aad should be adopted by said other agency.
These measures aze identified with (•).
MitiQation Measures
49. Pria to the issuance of any building perrniu,Prolea Pl�s'sholl be �+e►'iewed with the Riverside Counry
Sheri,/j�Depcnrnent Soid m+iew shall focus on securiey neeasunes or other duigrt feat�es to ensure public
safery within the p�jeu ana(•)
S0. Prior co the issuanGe of cuu�cata of ura ar�d occupanry,du app/icant sha!!pa,acipete ore a pro mta basis
in the fundfng oj positions and/or equipmuet necessary jor the Rivuside Cowery Shai3O`'Depar�eent to
condnu� to op�ratt at its cunrnt leve!of service in this ponciore of the City. Dete�neination of nece.ssary
21
I�;
rneacuns shall be rnad� by the Counry She�i,�`'en coRsultc�on wi11e:�1he �ry Manag�er and Di,ecror of
Conrmureity DevelopnunG( ) i
SI. A fin flow of I.SUO gollons per minute (gpm)fo�a 1 ha�r durution cr 2a pri residual o
rnust be available bef'on mry combusn7�le material is placed ae the job sitt.(•) P�rinBP�sun
52 Provivl�orslww dte�r exists a water system capable vfP�►� a '
for single fm»ity,�500 for nuiltifantih; and�U00 or g ��8°�On Pa minute jlow of 1,SA0
f aarismei�ial ?he actua!fur j1oM'availv6le frorn any
one hydre�t connected to any given water rnain shall be I,SUO�ne for tti�n ho�.�n�20 psi nsidual
°Pera�eBP,essure•(') �
S.� The nequined frioe fk,w shall be availoble fronr a Super hydrant(s) (6"x 4"x 2:lr"x 2.fr"), located not less
thari 2S'nor maie than 200'sin8�le Imnily� 16S'multijanrily, and ISO'comin�e�ial fir�m en
building(s) as measuned c1o,e8 aPProved vehicular drave! YPoraon of rhe
shall be oj the "rwet b�arnl"rype.(•) � H�i�stalled below�,Q00 elevarion
.S4 A combinariore of on-site and o�=sire Superfin hydmnts(6"x 4"x 2.fr"x 2 r!r")will be requerrd lo��ed nor
less than 25'or more tho».200'srngle famil3', 165'mrtlti familY, and ISO'comrneraal finrn a�y portions
of the building(s) as neecsured along approved vehiculur d�ktlwcysi The nquired fr��w shal! be
available front vfi'cdjaeent hydranr(s) is the system.(') :
SS. Cor,iply wity Title 19 of the Califonua Administrati„e �� �1,� E. I occupencies (clubhause).(*)
S6. Install a co.nplere futi sprinkler system per NFPA 13. The !
connecdon shal!be loccted to the froR; nor less than 2S� �st ����� V� �d;�'r ���r
hydrr�ct Thi,r applies to al! bullding with S.00�D s � the buiiding ond within SO ajws approved
buildirr 4u�fiet ar mon�building ana as measru�ed by the
8 foolPRn�u=cluding ove�angs which an sprinklered per NFPA 13 The building uriea of additional
. floors is added iR for a curnularive toeaL Fxempted arr one and twv J`'cneily dwellings(')
Sb. Instal!a fur olarrn(water flow)rrs nquired by rht Uniform Building Co�e,;gp3 for sprinkler rysteni. InstaU
camper alanns on o!1 suPPly and contm!valves for sprinkler rystems�s�
S7. Ce�tain desig��rted orros w�11 be requir�d to bt maintoin�d as ''
P��g�/or signs aPProved 6y the Fire MarshaL(•) ����'�!b�clearly rnarked by
S8 Install a ur olorm cs n �
f . 4u�d bY the Unifomt Buildireg Codt cnd/qr Unifarn Fin Code. M'rnimunc
n4u���.s UL cenrra!starion monitai�g oj sprinkler systun pa 1V�PA 71 and 72 Alann plcn,s v,�e
qtr' d for all UL centra!statior�monitored synems whenr any i,rtuiar devices an r+equind orused(')
S9. Instal!portabk �
fire arireguishers per NFPA� Pamphlet �10, but�rot less �/ran 2,qlOBC i� rcting. Fin
�inguishers neust�ot be over 7S'walldng distQnu. In addition to dee'abov� a 40BC jirr atinguisher is
requind for conun�rcial kitchens(•) I
60. Install a hood/duct autoniatic jar artnguishing s�'stem ff vP�'�8 a �ominerciia!kitchen includin� but
� ns���j�a d�eP f��', gR� chanbroilers or oth�r appliances whic�h produce g,rose laden vepo�s or
i
61. Install a dusr coll�cti,rg systern os pe�the Unifonn Building Cod� Sec{ioh 91Aa and Unifome F'ue Code
Seuion 76�lOz if coRducting me operotivR tlwt producG,airbome pahicks. A c
shop is co�sidend one of aeveml i�rdusviai r+ocessu re �ter or weodwanid�g
P quirvrg drett collection.( )
i
. 22
���
_� __. _
_ _
��
� '`�b��gs thol!be accesstble by�t c11_weather
exterior walls of tJ�e fust sta�. TJre '�w�'axending�to within 1S0'of aU po�rioru of the
venical ckarcnce� Wher+e �shall na be kss rlian 2'4 of unobsaucted width and 13'6"of
side.� 32' wide with ��lel pcnfdng is allowed the rocdwQy shall be 36'widt with parking o►�both
Porkrng on one .sidG Deod-end roads in acess of ISO'shall be provided with a
minrmum 4S'�dius tum-aroand{SS'in indrrsbia!developrnenu). Fountains or
tht middle of rhes�t�-a�unds shol!nat axeed a S'radius or 10'diarneter. �ly���placed in
restrictive.(') ay be niore
63 Whenever access into privote prope,ty is cvnb�!!ed thrnug/t r�,ie of g�� b���d houses or siniilor
raeans,provrsion sha!!be madt!o fQcilitate access 6Y eme�gr�ecy vrhicles in a nemrner
Departrnent All coredvUed acress devices that an aPP�nved by the Far
rystem capabfe a�opening the gote when acrivated��°��ed sha11 have a radio-conboued over ride
Devices shall be �quipped with backu � �aR��a�smiaer locared in ernagrerrcy whicles.
controlled access devices thut are not p��f��� � �e � � �'u of P°wer f��, AU
power operared shall oLso be approved by the Fi� Depamnenx
Minineum openrng width sholl be l6' with a nunimurn �ic�1 uec�ce of 13'6". One "F"fraquency
transmiaer shall b�p�vidad to Fin Marshc!for ecch g�te��ed(�)
64. .4 deod end se»gle occess over S00'iri kngth wil!requirr a secondory access�sprinkl�rs or other nutigative
�neaswes approved by the Fin MarshaL Under no ciraurtstances shall a single deod end access over 1,300
feet be accepred(')
6S. A new�rsidences/dwellings on requir,ed to have illurninated tpsidential uddr�sses nu��g both Ciry ond
Fire Depamnent approual. Shake shingle roofs art not pemiiae8 in the Ciry of Palm Desert
66 Comneer�cial buil�gs shall have illuminated addresses of a siu approved by the �ty.
67. A11 I
f�SP�a's,y�ste►ns,fcred fue supp�,esriarr rystems and olann plans rnust be subraitted se
approva!prior�o consduction. Subconn�acrors should contact tht Fi�r Mcrshc!'s ofj5'ce fo�m��
�+equinements.(•) i
i
68 Prior to the issucrice of building penr�iu for�ny residentia!sbu
schoo!mitigaaon fees e,c required by tlie Desert Sands Unified S hc ao!Disoicr.�•�t shc11 pay approp��e
i
69. Prior to the issuance of any building perrnu lar�or�b�k�� consd�uction. the developer shall svb�nit
evidence to the Director of Comstuniry Development that a water storr�ge and delivery focilities plan hos
been approved by die CI�WD mid any orher agnc�ies wrth jurisdictro,R together with al!appropriate per„iits
and enviranmental�dpcumentation therefor.(')
70. Prior to the �ecordation of a frnal niap, the opplicant shal! cautruct or post stcurity guQren�eeing the
cortslrucrion of the�jollowing public and/or privata imp�,eneents in confomeance with applicable City
standards:
• .!l!street i�nprovenrents
• Storm drarn facilities
• Subdrain f�rcilities
• Z.andscapel vrigatiorr co►ibro!jaciJitia (mes�parks and public arres)
71. Prior 10 the issuorree of buildi�rg pemiit� tht oppliearrt shall submit and frave Qpprr�yed by the Dinctor of
Community Develdpmenx a water coRservetton statt�nent which demau�tes canpliance with the
jollowir�g.�
2i
� �.�
• A laiedreape plant paleue co�npat�le wirh idents'fied conditYo�rs t�tilizing drought�rsisrant vegietction
�+'�aPP�Priate.
• Reclaimed wata has bear used for landscape inigativrt to the�extint feasr7�lG
� Wates conserving fratuns such as low vohvne water closets and lavntay faucets with limued fiow
vclves an incorparoted veto the projett
72 Sewer improvu�e�t plans shall bt sub�nitttd for the net+iitw and approval of the C'sty Frtginea m►d tht
Coarhella I�allry Water Disdrict prior to rhe issumice of building parntt�.(*)
73. Prior to the issuance of arry buildind'Penreit.� tha appliccnt shall.r�bmit a phosing pJan to GTE California
for nview mtd approvaL(•)
7A P�io� to the usuonee of any buildire8 penxi,t� th� applicant sholl sub�»it a phasire8 Plan to Palmer
CabkYuia�for�rvitw mtd approval.(•)
7S. Tht p,ap,�sed p„�ject shall confomi to applicable Public t/tiliriu Commission
be nquined to comply with cdo ted S�ate eri '��°� B���+'�!!
P �'�onsen'atiae standards�Seetiau 14S1-IS42 of Title 20
of the California Adneinistrative Code ond Sections P 2a14S1 througie P; 2p.1S42 of Trtle 24 oj the Code.
Thrs min'galion measure shall be moni[aed through the C'ity's building{code enfo�ernent pnocess.
7� Prior to the issua�ce o an �
f Y B�nSPermlS the applicent shall enter into an agnement with the Coachella
Ya!!ey Mosquito Abatenrent District for the applicatio,i of cetracta�et bcit�Or ey�e gnr�u to the govlf course and
other areas of tJu p�jeu as deterrnined necessary/ePP�P�bY�D�A'� Evidence of eucution of said
agnenient shall be submiued to the �ty Engineer.(')
77. Prior ro tlu issucnct o �
f�Y 8�n8 P��k tiu appliea�t shaU submit a►nvsquito mana8rneenr ptan for
�he�+ie►v and aPproval of the Disdict Mareoger, Coachella Yo!!ey Mosq�ito Abatement Disrrict Said plan
shal!include: ,
a. A mairrtenanc� �
pro�am rhat involvrs vegaration nianagrmenG 77�is. in�poK�t issue can be
addressed in such a way as to prevent weeds cnd aquatic►�g�etoAon, whi�h provide idea!breeding
anecs for mosquitou.
b• Insurre accessibiliry for mosquito cond�o! o�ne!and e i �
aearment.
Pu� qu pnient to the site fo�inspection and
c. Specifrc de►�tlopment plons shail incorporote vector �' idelines standards and
ch�cklistr, cJ p,nvided by,the Sratc of Califamia Dtpart�npu o Nsalth Sc�vices. �
Evidence that said plan has been approved by the Drstrict shall be subnJ�iued w the Gty Fngineer.(+)
,
24
� i�
>
Miti¢ation M�+.�».,.e s.�a_a
Based oa comments received on the Drah EIR,the following mitigadon measure����ea edited from those
cantai.ned in the Draft EiR. Editing is shawa in underline/strilce-out.
7�. Provide written uhification from the • .
hydrant(s) will be uutalled and will prodttce the • . . . desiPn enQinr..�
����w, ormsan led '
Depanrnent p�ior;to nequest for frnal irupectiion, • 8r f� �P�ctiae by tlte Fire
79 Prror to the appletation for c building permi�the developer shail fumish the original and rwo copies of rhe
. water sxstenr p/air to the Counry Frre Departrnent jor nview. No buildin
woter system pla�r hos been approved by tht County F'ue pri U n��itvhall be issu�d un�i1 the
�tumed One cdpy will be sent ta the nes ible ' � � �� °� � °n�� iP�jl be
Po� uupectin8 muhoriry.
n1Qn shal! confo{m to fur hydrernt rype� 1oc�ioR � yp��� � � y1,s� shall meet
quirements. Plons shall bt si d �+e fl'ow
8� bY a�ard Civic,EnBineer .
e�with the'fo[lowing ctm'ficatio,i:"I cenify that rAt desfg�t vf th�weter syste�n is in accorda�ce with
the requiremenrs pnscnbed by the Riverside Cvunry Fin Departmeai�" "System has been designed ro
provide a minim�rn g�allon per minute flow oj IS00, 250� 3Qpp."
?he foilowing mitigation nieasure was added by rhe City Council in �ts acl�ion on the projecG
80. Applicant shall�rt�vide a recyciing prog,a»j jor review ond appro�,��y,�e�h,of PaLn Desert Con:,nuniry
Develop,nent Depia�trnent and Environmenlal Conservation Manvger.
Mftieation Measures Not Incoreorated
None.
� M� � v of In ' ifi
None.
POPIA.ATION, HOUSING AND EMPLOYA-1ENT
SlQnificant Effec c
SCAG defines a balanced;regiona! azea as one when employment to population ratio is between 038 and OSS
employees per resideat. A ratio over OSS is considered job rich"aad uadar 038 is considered"job poor". The
City of Palm Desert is cuireatly slightly job rich with a 198'T ratio of employees to populatioa of 0.66. By the
ye�:r=p10, the ratio is expected to remain tbe same. The proposed project will help to ameliorate this condidon
by prcr,�tding housiag,
Miti�ation Mea..
None necessary,
Mitigattoo Meac•. Added
None.
25
� ��
Mltl2fltnn M�n�w N..� r......� . o �
NOIIG. ;
'
ERect� Not MitL�M+ t�a L••� -** .ra..•—
None. �
�
i
I
I
i
i
�
�
i
i
i
i
26
��J
_ ----�----.._.___
� ; Exhib[t B
E�'�NATION FQR REJECI'ION OF PROJECT AI,TERI�J,,�TIVES
I
Twelve project alternatives were petisented ia che EIR The City Council has review�d and considerod such
alternatives in light of the adverse eaviroameatal effects which may resu(t Gom the project in the reductioa or
eli.minatioa of suc6 effects wluch mighc be accompli��by selection of one of thc alteraativcs.
Each alternative is summariud below and specific economic,social,or other considerations tbat rendered such
alternatives tafeasib�e aro��Set focth. The discussions below are iuteaded to summarize,and not fuI1y restato th�
evideace coatained ia thelDraft EIR, Responsc to Comments, and the administrative record as a whole.
To the extent that the City relies on economic juscification for the rejection of alternatives, tbat justification has
been provided by t�e applicant and is con[aiaed in the Draft EIR(qppendix D) and the Response to Comm�nts
(DeLoitte &Touche study,Pannell Kerr Forster study).
YI
PRQIEGTALTERNdT7i�r: '
I
The NO PROJELT AL?ERNATTVE assumes thaG ia the near term,the project site remains vacant However,
che geaeral plan and zoning districts applicabi�t�the majority af the propezty contemplate uitimate development
of a planned residential� coramuniry for five to seven dwelling units por acre. The NO PROJECT
AL'TERNATIVE does not particularly guarantee that there is no developmeat, but rather that a differeat
devclopment would be pra�posed, Therefore, althou$h implementation of the NO PROJEGT AL'I'ERNp'TTVE
would eliminate ail impacts of the proposed psoject ia the s6ort term, in the long term it has t6t poteatial to
produce impacts equal ta�or greater thaa descibed ia the proposed proj�ct. Therefore, this alternadve is
rejected as kaviag no capaibility to reduce signi6cant environmenta! affects,
Thc NO DEVEi.OPMENt'AL,TERNq'i7YE�,voufd indicate that the site will remaia in its present undeveloped
state for the foreseeable fi�ture. The general plaa and 2ouing w,ould need to be reduced to a designation that
would prohibit developraent. While the NO DEVELOpD,(ENT,4L,TERNATIVE would eliminace all identified
urban-related impacts of tFle project,aad is the environmentally superior alternative in this sease,the City would
be subjected to a chal3en�for depriving the owaer of all economic use of the property, Furchermore,the City
woutd not be able to reduce its job rich housing to employment ratio to a more balanced community as proposed
by SCAG. AdditionatIy,this alteraative does not achieve t6e long-rauge planning guals of the City as articulated
in the Geaeral Plaa. For �hese reasons, this aiternative has bcen rejccted.
The ALL RESIDENTIAL pROJECT (!ot and block co�guratioa) would assume thac the site would be
devetoped as a conventio�nal residential project, oliminacing the golf course aad an�i�l�r�, club facilides.
Approximately 896 residential ]ots wi[h somo coma�o� op�a space areas eould be developad under such a
sceaario• This altarnative;wontd bave tlie sasae impacts ia terms of land fona modificatian, but would have
great�r impaccs ia tt►e ar��s of air quali�y,�d �age aad hydrology. The project would a}so have greater
imPa� ��e area of biolbgical resources, aesthetia and land uses since the dwelling uni�proportion is more
intznse thaa vvhac is curreat�y p��ea and tl�eso wouid be no opportuaity for incorporating environmeataI
restoratioa programs for ead Indiaa Creek within t6e goif cpurse, Tr�c generation is also more than twice
that projeded for the pro d projeci. Becanse of the iacreased impacts,aad the abseaa of any reducxion ia
impacts over that of those, Ercipat�d from the project itsal� this aiternative has beea rejected.
i
The BIGHORN INSTI7'CJT'E BUFFE1t qLZ"ERNqTIVE� ���a p�et of t6ree project alteraatives which
iacorporate buff�rs of var�ing euent bssed oa previons and curreat biolopca! resoura $u�v�y� � �e site.
. � .
27
I Z.I
Bacause there was a sigaificant diversiry of cxp�rt opinioa on the extent of aay open spaco buffer a�
separate urban devolopmeat from the operations of the Bighorn Institute,thes�buffers have been organixta•�atto
a 400 YARD BL1FF'ER, a BFGHORN INSTITC7TE RECp�ENDED $!
BIOLOGIST RECOMMEIYDE�gUFFER. qll bt�ffers are measured from fea����ttoa:o�f ch g ghom
Institute pea.
'Flie 400 YARD BUFFER would create an open space area of appro�dmataly�4 acr�s with no uses within it aad
is environareatally �superior to Che pre►�ect. This a1t��aauve ��d force the relocation or elimination of
approximately 21 residendal lots and all or part of two golf course hoIes. The impa«differeace of the projecx
�''����0 YARD BUFF'ER as compared to the proposed project is miaimal ia toplcal areas outside Biological
Resources, Noise, and Lighc and Glare. This a]ternative'S impac� ate�similar to the proposed project that
it is virtually the same. For this reasoa the alteraative l�as been accepted subj�ct to an increase to 600 yards ia
a northeasterly d,irecxion,
i
The BIGHORN.INSTlTUTg PROPOSED BLTFFER calk for the �
to 1,500 yard buffer)in a aortheasterly direction from the�ighorn Ins�tin�i e p�a, Zye BI�ORN ADVISOR8 Y
COMMTT'TEE BUFFER (Decemb�r 9, 1989) is slightly smaller, being 400 to 600 yards with aa extensioa to
1�� Y��- Either tho BIGHORN INSTITUTE gUFFER or the BIGHO�J ADVISORY COMMITTEg
BUFFER wilt reduce ihe impaccs in tlie area of eartb resources, draiaage and bydrology, biologicai resourc,es
(inclndiag the presorvacioa of Dead Indian Creek and roclry hills;de stopes in the eastern portion of the property)
and tr�c. Constn�ction noise impacts will also be reduced since conswction will aot occur as close to the
Bighora Iastitute faciIity as will under the proposed project. However, overaill cho impacts as a re��t of this
alteraative are either equal or ineremeatally less in ma�itude from ehose o�the proj�ct, The applicant has
preseated cvid�nce that this alteraatiye is economically inFeasibie siace ii pr�uces only a 3°X, interaal rate of
retura before fi,aancing and this amo���not suffiaent to attract potential lehders. 'This is primarily b��
the golf course canaot be bvili uader this altcraative,as che BIGHORN INS�j�TT�J'T�p�ppOSED BUFFER
prohibits golf course uses in the buffer area 1`he City Counci]concurs ia this a�alysis and rejects tl�is alternative
as iafeasible for the ecoaomic reasons recited above. These economic ressons aro tantamount to not proceediag
with the project at all, similar to the NO DEVELOPMENT ALT'ERNpTIVF�S,
The CONSULTING BtOLOGIST RECOMMENDED BIGHORN INSTTTU'�'E B
biolo�cal r�sowces seetioa as well as the project alternative sectioa. 7his buffer woulU d�beR6pp� l�d yarcls,
The impacts would be quite simiiar to those of the BIGHORN INST'ITUTE.and BIGHORN ADVISORY
COMMTITEE BUFFERS, 'Tho$pp�caat has preseated informatioa concer�ing tbe ecoaomic iafeasibility of
elus similar ro the BIGHORN INSTTTUTE BUFFER and the City Cound rejects this alternative for the reasoas
stated in the NO DEVELOPMENT AI„TE1tNqTIyE and the BIGHORN INSTIT[1TE gUFFER
.�LTERNATTVE.
i
SITE DESIGNALTERN,lTIyF',S �
i
Two site d�siga aiternatives ar�pr�sented, q1,.I.ERNq.ITyE SI'i�DESIGN,�GOLF COURSE IN BUFFER
�REA AI.'I'ERNA'ITVE would provide a but�er. T6e size of the buffer as drawa in che BIGHORN
INSTTTLT'TE RECOMMENDED BLJFFFIZ (13S aaes}is assu�e�, but six go�f cu�use holes would be able to
be placed wit�in tha proposed buffer. The sataa number of units would be de Ioped This altornadve bas the
same impacxs to tra�c, bioto��:al resources (Dead Indian Creek) and sim'il�r impacts in t� �r� of earth
resources,air 4uality,draiaage aad hydrology,and aesiheti�s. This alteraative mitiga,tes partially�y cffects oa
the Bighora Tasiicate by s�parating st�.uchua! development from the Iasiitut� pea by a considerable margin.
Since the golf course is not used at night, the aight tim� activity would be sia�ilar to that expected uader the
natural coaditioa. T1�is alteraative also resnits in reduced impacts oa the Dfsert Wash. The applicant has
presented evidence that the altemative is economically iafeasible because at least s�x golf holes would not Lave
residential frontage, whicl�would make the projed less attractive aad lcss cormpetidve wich similar projects in
�
I2Z
►
the area T6e interaal ra�e of return b�fore financing u llo�,��,���not sufficiant to attract
The internal rate of ret�p to attraot potentia!kndcrs in this arc$must b�a Foteadal leaders.
ttae City Couacil rejects this aLternaEive as cconomi: miaimum of ZD-25°rb. Therefore,
project, tantamouaf to the NO DEVELOpMEIV'T AI�„'I'RN�qTTy�d, becaeue leaders will not finance such a
The alternative S1TE DESIGN/fIIGH DENSTTy RESID
repr.eseatativcs of the Bigliorn Institute aad would E�L `�'��ATI� w� requeste� by
deasity mui ' deve2 ment with a B' ora c�nsist of a cAmbiaation of traditional singio-familY ancl higher
��y �p �gls Iastihue bu�er(]35 ac�s). No golf course would be included
ia the buffer. 140 aaes v�onld be devoted to golf course ia the dev�lopmeat area and 77 acres would remain
for residential dovelopme�t.
This alternative would require that many of the uaits be located in mid-rise
might be feasible devr,lopmeat ia aaother locaaoq noae of th�uses curreatl�,in���have building5 tl�is tal�j,
The impacis ia most of tlie topica! areas other tl�aa biologica! resources would be the same or sim;iar. 'I'he
applicant has presented evidence rejecting this�te�ti���������ry developmenf is inconsiuent
with and objeciionable to surrounding residential devetopmeat: It also does not provide aufficieat resideatial golf
course frontage to make 'it competidve with other similar projects. This is a direcc et�ect on its economic
feasibility. This is more of a project for a central urbanized area of the Coachella Valley� rather than an area
at the fringes of the City. ,'For these reasoas the Gity has rejected this alt�tive.
AL1'ERNATIVE Sll�'S
Thcre were fons alteraative sites considered ia the EIR. The alternative site of aorthern Palm Desert is located
east of Monterey qvenue benveea Franlc Sinatra Drive and Gerald Ford Drive.
aPP��. The site u in anjActive$low Sice Area and there aze eater � site is aot owned by the
resources.and air qualiry tha��der t1�e proposed project. Impacts to drain e e and h S��t�pacts to earch
aasthetics aad eaer&y arc eoosidtred comparable to tbe proposed project,�mpa��b����_���az
more scvere as the si.e is lncated withia che habitat azea of the Coachella Va11ey Fringo-toed Lizard, a spedes
designated eadangered by jthe State of Caiifornia and chreatened by tha U.S. Fish aad Wildlife Service. This
aIternativ� has been rejecced for its impact on tbe Fringe-toed Lit.aard habitat aad since the applicant does aot
own the site.
Another alternative site, PROJECT IN COMBINATION WITH qDfqCgN�' W�„�T7NGHOUSE "EqST
(SUNCREEK) PROPERTY assum�s iha� the at�,ua Country Club site is developed in combiaation with
Westinghouse East. The VVESTINGHOUSE F..4ST PROPERT'Y would be combined ia tbe development plan
for Altamira,presumably"li�osening•�h�plas���a��e buffer cou�d(�more feasibly attained. Impacts would
be simitaz Eo the proposed,;project ia most of the topical areas, Th� VVE�'�NGHOUSE EAST PROPERTY
is privatety owncd, howevper, aad the applic�nt is not in aay present aegotiations to purchase it, T'}�e
WES'I'ING��iOUSE EAST ipROPERTY was recendy the subject of a developmeat application of its own, and
therefore actually less units;would be availabie uader s combined sceaario clran if the properties were developed
separately. 'i'he applicant;'caaaot obtain this p�op��, � a �te to add to tbeir project and therefore this
alternative is considered in�easi}�ie by the Gry Council, .
T'he SHIRLEY pROPER'TY q1,TER1�1q'I7V� � ���ed immediately south of the BHI site. Tl�e site Ges
outside of the city in Rive�side County, w,bo� �mm�iry plan desigaates approximately 15p acres of the
aorthwest portion of the pKoperty as tvvo to five dwelliag uaits aa aa� aad the remaiader of tiie 385 acre
property as permaaent op�a space. This sic� does not provide suffirieat buildable area For the project as
proposed aad requires pursiii�tl�rough aaother jurisdiction oth�r��e Ciry of Palm Desert, 'Iy�dea,�lopment
of this aiternadve would a�.w resntt ia tbo discon�ig�o� p�em of developmeat which wuulc{ aecessit�te
c�aension of infrastruaure�acilities and possibly opea other previously undevelop�d aad undesignated parcels
for development. For t6ese reasons the City Council has rejected this aiternadve.
29
, �� �
��
A LAND EXCHANGE �r'ith the Bureau of Iaad Management (gLl1�was,cons,�dered, '1'he available BLM
Owaerships wete Cxamined in Lhe acarby area. F.ic�i of the paTCelt would requirC a Cacaeral Plaa AmCndmCat
to develop because tbe jucisc�ictions ia w�ieh thcy are located Laye desigasted1 E]um for permanent open spacx.
Grading and ac�ss for these parcx7s is a3so�ore di�cult tlsan under the P�aPo�d P�oJ.ecx. siace their opea
space c.haracterization bas minimiud t�e amount of ia£rastructure that yaa beea estended to them. Oae BLM
parcel located ia the City of Indiaa WeI1s is potentiallY�ve�pabk- Titis p�Pes�Y is 480 acres in size and is
located at tbe mouth of Deep Cany�m. It is outside of tba C'ity.of Pa1m Deser,t, Howover,an agreement e�aats
betweea the Bureau of Laad H[aaagpment aad thz LTnive�ity of Ca�f�ni� ��e �«,of the adjaceat Deep
Caayoe Research Fac�itS')8randa6 access to tba ProP�Y b7'UC P���d aa�studsats for research purPoses-
Therefore,dovelopment of tbia proporty would iaterfero with t1�at agreemen� �Based oa this coastraint,the City
Couna'I has rqected this aIteraa6ve as infeavble.
i
i
� i
. I .
I
. i
.
;
I
i
�
{
. '
;
i
i
i
,
i
30
I Z`�
y
� `
EXbtbit C
i
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Ciry Couadl of the Ciry of Palm Desert fiads tbat the mitigatioa measnres disonssod ia Exlss'bit A will,ahea
implemented,mitigate or substaatially reduce most of the sigaiScant affec�s ideatified in the EIR. Noaetheless,
certain significant environmeatal impacts of the project ar�unavoidable evea after incorporation of all feauble
mitigatioe messures. Fior such effects, the Ciry Cound has balanced the bcne`fits of t6e project against such
unavoidable adverse enivironmental risks in aPPro�B� I°�108�d+the City Council bereby finds that all
feasirtsie mitigaEion measnres identified in the EIR,as well as the new measures added in F.xhibit A, have been
aad will be implemeated with che project in that anY sig�niE`'caa�unavo�dable effacts remaining are acceptabk due
to the following speci5c�economic,so�sal+aad other considerations,iacludinB but not limitad to project bene5ts,
based upon the facts s�t forth above, in the final IIR+ and 'n the public record of the consideradon of this
project. The unavoidable adverse impacts are identifieci in Exlubit A.
i
EqtritcbJe Considar�tio►ss
The EIR and the record for this project documeat that the B'�ghora Institute located its pen faciIities in full
knowiedge,or with the potential of full kaowledge,of the planning activities of tf�e Counry of Riverside and the
City of Palm llesert. This includes a recognition,actual ur constnictivo,that the site was zoned aad planaed for
residential usrs. Thc cvidence awailable in the public records of the Bureau of Land Management even note that
this consideration was takea into acc�unt, particutarly in th�apQraisal report as value for the land was set. It
must be assumed thati the Bighorn Institute knew of this issue aad considered the location of their 30-acre pea
so ciose to thc boundary with Euture developmeat ia Palm DeseR to be accePtable.
To the extent that the Bighorn Insptute may have considered this proximity acceptab(e at one time,but now no
longec considers it acceptable, is a fador of iaternal conxrn to the Bighorn Institute operations. The City of
Palm Desert is not uinsidering a general ptan asnendment or zone chazege on this property from open space to
residential,but rather;an implementation of its own general plaa. If problems have arisea that were not expected
by the Bighota Institvte at the time t6at Bighorn Institute esWblished so close to residential property,the Ciry
Counc�l of the City o�'Palm Dcsert believes that it is incumbeat upoa ihe Bighorn Institute to look to their owa
site or another site to mitigate impacts to their fapliiies as they may aow e�dst or as they may e�dst in the futur�.
Thc establis6meet of an opea space buffer with no uses in it imposes a burdea on the Ciry of Palm Desert of
litigation,inequity, and loss of revenues for a problem that the City of Palm Desert aot o y d�di���ouu�
made completely public through its rccords and praannexation acdvities. There was amp e oppo Sb
the pre-zoning proc�ss for the Bighom Institute to make the City of Palm Desert aware of any c�nfl�c.ts'�'►th
their faeility. HoweKer,Bighora Iastitute located its 30 acre pca only 300 feet from the boundary of the Altamiza
property�wl�ich is a�so the mua�pP��undary. For the$ighom Insutute to assume that Palm Desertmoved
es�ntially change its general planning pro�am to accommodace aa adjacont land use which had willinglY
so close to the city is an ua�easonable expedation. It aLso deprives the City of Palm Desert of the substantial
sevenue from this pro�ed, as w�U as the contribution to the Cit�s jobs/housiag balance•
These overridiag ctinsiderations are oaly statod in an abuadance of caution provided there�any impad to the
Bighorn Institute facility at all. As docnmented in the fiadine,s, the CatY of Palm Desert is persuaded by those
experts who believe that no buffes,or only a small buffer,is necessarY tu mici8ate all effects. Therefore,t6ere
are ao sigaificant effects to biolo�cal resources that need to be overridden in tbis saase• Hov�'e�'er,to th�e�aeat
that unanticiQated impacts will occur, and reco�izing tho Permanence of the Altamira development once it is
31
��S..
� i -_
established,the City Couaa'1 of Palm Desert nereby sets forth t1u above rationale for proceeding with the projecx '.
in view of the slight poten6al for these iimpacts.
The applicant has a)so offered to relocate the lambiag pen at 6is �
of the projaci. Wl�ile this offer is �nse as a meaas of mitigatiag the impacts
bein6 coavdered,no resoludoa has beea ac,hieved
VR/�f/��� I,
���'O
The CiCy Conacii of thc City of palm Desert has for sometime had aa a ted
harmonized with th� City�s policics for ovoerall growth of both ho � �neral plaa wluch has been
B�� P��g scheme to canoeatrate the job produ ' �8�d '1,�� The City has chosen in its
F�g2►v�'sY 111,whik aa nsideatial areas � n�a in the cxater o# the Ciry priaaPallY along
Pr lect is not developed or aot develo p°�O°8 of tbe City away from `
o �� � � ��� � �� H�ghway 11L To the excent tbis
�ation. In adoPtinB t�eese ci P�nt�the C'iiy from achieviag its full
environanental uali ob'e P� �it ia importaat W note that tbe Ciry Cqnneil strov�e for balaax bata+een
9 t�' 1 divcs,Sscal rrspoaabililY. and laad uae Patteras. Altho this
will aot defeat the Cit}�s goals entirely in these areas,it is a sigai,ficant step towards � project iadividually
tbe City had for gcnera!plaaaing, � F'���g tb�goals that
i
!
;
;
�
. i
i
i
I
I
• �
i
J
i
. ' f
i
I
i
' .
32
i 2l0
r�
Bi horn Institute
�
Ue�lirui��c!in th��c�unsc°rvcalrc>re o/'>he �r��rld's� �rrlcl.vhec:/�lhrn�r,fi researcb�and eclrvcnlion
/
N ('�,,
A„�„p,.�,r, February 10, 2009 a -�,�
�
Tax-E.rempt Organizatiwa .7'�
� r--
HONOR,aKv cHAiRMaN Coucilmember Jean Benson rn �"a M
w �-.�:,
OF FUNDRAISING
In Memoriam Cl�Of Palpl�eSel� ��'�"
O �T�,.:)�-,-�
ceraid R.Fo�a 73-510 Fred Waring Drive "'�'`"
m -..�
.3s�h�,-��.s,�n-nt�>>t�,E-unr�����s,�,,��s palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 � ���
o - -�,�
PRESIDENTEMERITUS " C'�-n
Ernest W.Hahn Dear Councilmember Benson: �v '.a'^n
rft
Charles W.Jenner,D.V.M.
We are writing regarding the proposed project, Cornishe of Bighorn. As a non-
r�oaRD oF�iaecTORs profit organization, Bighorn Institute's research and augmentation program has
Kenc A.R�hetts* worked to recover wild Peninsular bighorn sheep. The program has helped
Presidenl
aieXanara J.sneidon* prevent two subgroups of Peninsular bighorn from going extinct here in t e
Fxe�t«�v�vl��PY�St��n� northern Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. The Institute has released 120
oa�e st��kcon* captive-reared bighorn into the wild since 1982.
F:cectttire Vice Presidenl
st°a`t Bdrt°",M.°.* We have met with our staff and the state and federal wildlife agencies and it is
Vice Presiderit Y
�aWren�e c�ne,M.D.* our understanding that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can access section 6
'';�e''Ye.S'de"` funds, in cooperation with the California Department of Fish and Game,tliat can
�°se�n�.Patters°°* be used to help purchase the Cornishe of Bighorn lands. We feel Palm Desert is
utce Presrdenr
�.c�a��w�u�an,s* not alone; this is a multi-city issue. There are also ways of accessing monies in
se����tur,� the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan if the Cornishe property is added as
Qert Ruttman a conservation area.
r,�Fa.,uYeY
R�iand surn�„k,�.v.M.* At the November 20, 2008, City Council meeting all of the Council present made
N��n�ias�.c�ussoUi�S some moving statements in support of the bighorn sheep and the Institute. There
Michael Dee
B�b H�wara were also important statements made from an environmental standpoint m
ei�lahecn B.s��n�n opposition to this project. We implore you to stay strong and continue to prevent
�H_C��t�t�,�e c��,n�u this project. If approved, Cornishe would violate the 400 yard buffer established
a�MiNisTRaTioN by over 25 wild sheep experts and this project would impact the recovery of the
Ja,,,es R.�eFor�� endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep.
Crecuti��e Dn�ector
X"""�``'B;"�°�;.St We have included our last letter of September 16, 2008,regarding Cornishe of
A""ee�.sy`'ra gighorn as well as the history of the Institute's captive herd and an explanation of
Assncia7e Dircclo��
�������s�r its importance.
ADVISORS
Mark C.Jorgenscn Thank you for your consideration,
Anzu-Bon•ego Deserl State Park
Oliver A.Ryder,Ph.D.
%uologicnl Sociely ofSnn DieKo
Center for Repmduclion
ofGi�dangeredSpecies JallYe R. �P,F+OTge
Glenn R.Stewart,Ph.D. EX�C t1V0�1TeCtOP
Cal Poli�Unii�ersity�,Pomona
p�ie E.TOWe.��,pn.�. Research Biologist
ldaho Fish and Game
Raul Valdez,Ph.D. E'11C1.
Neia�Mexico State Univer.sil��
P.O.Box 262 • Palm Desert,California 92261-0262 Tel(760)346-7334 Fax(760)340-3987
Email BI@Bighorntnstitute.org www.Bighornlnstitute.org
�
Bi horn Instztute
�
l)���,/frutc�c!m th��cu�tcc�r�i�ulioit oJ�thc���or/d'�� �rrld shee/�thi-ongh re,senrch cnad edut�alion
/
� C�
y c�
A nonprof[ F�iU�a� 1� 2��9 � �,�
�.G
Tas-Exempt Organiaation � � �,
HONORARY CHAIRMAN � ?.�'="~�'�
OF FUNDRAISING Councilmember Jim Ferguson � ��_;;
In Memoriam City of Palm Desert � N�i+"t
�eraid R.Ford 73-510 Fred Waring Drive =„ m _,�
3H�h P����.s;���t�>>�hf�unrrE���s�u<<.s palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 s �o 0
o -+,
PRESIDENT EMERITUS n'�t
Ernesc w.Hann Dear Councilmember Ferguson: N i"n
m
Charles W.Jenner,D.V.M.
We are writing regarding the proposed project, Cornishe of Bighorn. As a non-
Hoaa�oF�►RECToas profit organization, Bighorn Institute's research and augmentation program has
K�nt A.Roberts* worked to recover wild Peninsular bighorn sheep. The program has helped
f�,-e.�we,��
aieX�nara�.sn�ia�n* prevent two subgroups of Peninsular bighorn from going extinct here in the
E.r���u';°���e Pre"d�n' northern Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. The Institute has released 120
Da��sto�kton* captive-reared bighorn into the wild since 1982.
E.x�eculive Urce Preside�a[
Stuart Barton,M.D.*
v,���,��.,,��E-n� We have met with your staff and the state and federal wildlife agencies and it is
�aWr�n��cone,M.�.* our understanding that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can access section 6
'�"`�Y``;`'e"` funds, in cooperation with the California Department of Fish and Game,that can
�°se�n a.Pat`ers°°* be used to hel urchase the Cornishe of Bi horn lands. We feel Palm Desert is
�,�E�nrE.,r���nr P P g
�.cra��w�u�ams* not alone; this is a multi-city issue. There are also ways of accessing monies in
s«���rUri the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan if the Cornishe property is added as
��n Ruttman a conservation area.
TYea.,�z�r�Y
R�ia„d BUrnank,D.V.M.* At the November 20, 2008, City Council meeting all of the Council present made
Nicholas J.Coussoulis
Michael Dee some moving statements in support of the bighorn sheep and the Institute. There
B�h H�w�,ra were also important statements made from an environmental standpoint in
Ei�zah�cn s.s�m�n opposition to this project. We implore you to stay strong and continue to prevent
�F�e�l�t;,�e c��,n�li this project. If approved, Cornishe would violate the 400 yard buffer established
a�MirvisTaaTioN by over 25 wild sheep experts and this project would impact the recovery of the
�ar„es R.neF�r�e endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep.
G.cec�rtive Direcior
Research 6iologisi
We have included our last letter of September 16, 2008, regarding Cornishe of
Aimee J.Byard ,
A,.S��,�„�o;re���,, Bighorn as well as the history of the Institute s captive herd and an explanation of
Bio1o�'" its importance.
ADVISORS
Mark C Joreensen Thank you for your consideration,
�In_a-Borr-ego Desert State Park ��� �
Oliver A.Ryder,Ph.D.
7.unlogical Sacietv ofSan Dlego '
Center for Xeprndi�clion
of Endangered Species f�R. �eFOrge
Glenn R.Stewart,Ph.D. �-, e t1Ve�l2'eCtOT
Cal Polv UniversittS Pomana
�aie E..�,OWe1�i.�,n.p. Research Biologist
Idnho Fi.��h and Came
Raul Valdez,Ph.D. EriCl.
Ne�r Me.rico State Unii�ersitv
P.O.Box 262 • Palm Desert,California 92261-0262 Tel(760)346-7334 Fax(760)340-3987
Email BI(c�Bighorninstitute.org www.Bighornlnstitute.org
�
Bi horn Instztute
�
l)c��liz�ater!�i�the c���zsei-rutior�uf'th�r�rar/�l's� �+�ild.chec��7H�r�curgh reseur•c{r anc!eclt�cutrnrr
/
A"°"�"""r' February 10, 2009
Tas-E.remp�Organizaiion
HONORARY CHAIRMAN r``�
oF FUNDaaisiN� Mayor Pro Tem Cindy Finerty � -:s�.;
In Memoriam City of Palm Desert T1 �^�
ceraid a.F�,ra 73-510 Fred Waring Drive � ���:;';
3��r,�,-��.,,���.�<<�r�h�c,n,r��stU,�.s palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 0 ��''�c..
t,^����_,�`�
PRESIDENT EMERITUS r,-�
Ernesc w.►�an„ Dear Mayor Pro Tem Finerty: � x'"'r�
-�`�C7
Charles W.Jenner,D.V.M. � �'�
C7
We are writing regarding the proposed project, Cornishe of Bighorn. As a non-� �•�'
HoaR�oF��RECTORs profit organization, Bighorn Institute's research and augmentation program has �
xe„r a.R�herts* Worked to recover wild Peninsular bighorn sheep. The program has helped
President
aieXa„dra�.sne�a�n* prevent two subgroups of Peninsular bighorn from going extinct here in the
E�e�u,"'e'';�e Pres'�e"' northern Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains. The Institute has released 120
°a�e sto�kt�°* captive-reared bighorn into the wild since 1982.
Ea-ecutive Vice President
Stuarl Barton,M.D.*
�;��PY�S«��,�t We have met with your staff and the state and federal wildlife agencies and it is
�aWren�e cone,M.�.* our understanding that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can access section 6
''"``�`e5"�`"` funds, in cooperation with the California Department of Fish and Game, that can
�°s�pn B. Patte`s°°* be used to help purchase the Cornishe of Bighorn lands. We feel Palm Desert is
v��e r�rF.����enr
�.cra��w�u�ar„s* not alone; this is a multi-city issue. There are also ways of accessing monies in
se�Yerurl° the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan if the Cornishe property is added as
eer�Rutt�nan a conservation area.
T����,.s��re,�
R°ia"a BUrha°k,°.v.M.* At the November 20, 2008, City Council meeting all of the Council present made
Nicholas J.Coussoulis
M;�nae�Dee some moving statements in support of the bighorn sheep and the Institute. There
Bob Howard were also important statements made from an environmental standpoint in
Ei�.abecn a.s;,,,�n opposition to this project. We implore you to stay strong and continue to prevent
'Er���1,�l���c��t,n��i this project. If approved, Cornishe would violate the 400 yard buffer established
a�MiNisTKaTioN by over 25 wild sheep experts and this project would impact the recovery of the
�a,,,es R.�eFor�e endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep.
E.recidive Direcror �
Res�earch Binlogi.s7
We have included our last letter of September 16, 2008, regarding Cornishe of
Aitnee J.Byard ,
A.,,��,�„�o,,��,�r Bighorn as well as the history of the Institute s captive herd and an explanation of
s����K�,�, its importance.
ADVISORS
Mark C.Jorgensen Thank you for your eonsideration,
,4nza-Bnrrego Desert State Park �
Oliver A.Ryder,Ph.D. -
7oological Society�o�.San Diego
Cenler for Re��rodiiction
ojEndangered Species fallle R. �eFOrge
Glenn R.Stewar�,Ph.D. EXeC t1Ve�1T'eCtOT'
Cnl Po(v Universilv.Yomonn -
�aie E..1�w��ii,Pn.�. Re` rch Biologist
/daho Fish ancf Gnme
Raul Valdez,Ph.D. E+nCl.
New Merico Sla�e Universih�
P.O.Box 262 • Palm Desert,California 9226]-0262 Tel(760)346-7334 Fax(760)340-3987
Email B[@Bighornlnstitute.org www.Bighornlnstitute.org
THE
WLF' w� �L[AM �
L,INC�BERG
L..,AW FIRM, PG.
September 16, 2008
Via Facsimile
760-341-4574
Mr. Phil Joy,Associate Planner
City of Pa1rn Desert, Community Development
Department
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
Re: Comments vn Final Envzronmental Impact Report on Cornishe of Bighorn Project
Dear Mr. Joy:
This law office has the pleasure of representing Bighorn Institute, a California non-profit
research organizarion located in tha County of Riverside, imnnediately ttdjacent ta the proposed
Comishe of Bigharn Project. This letter communicates the Insritute's cornments on the Fina1
Environmental Impact Report(FEIR) for Cornishe of Bighorn(#200409�012)and the City of
Palm Desert's StaffReport(Staff Report)for the September 16, 200$ Planning Commission
public hearing regarding Cornishe of Bighom(Case Na. TT 31676}. We remain adamantly
opposed to the current plans for the Coznishe of Bighorn project.
One of our main concerns is a shocking inaccuracy in the Executive Summary of the
Staff Report(pg. 1)regarding to the captive herd, wnich inconectly states, "The sheep belang to
the Bi�horn Institute."The endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep is a public trust species and all
of them, including those in the captive herd, are the property of the public and are under the
management juxisdicrion of the state and federal government. Bighorn Institute acts merely as
caretakers ofthe captive herd. The Institute holds a federal 10(a)(1)(A)permit and has entered a
Memorandum of Understanding with and operates completely under the supervision and
direction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and
Game. We note, conversely,that the Cornishe of Bigh�rn developer does nat hold these required
permits, as discussed further below.
100 BAYVIEW CBCLE �
SOVFH TOWER,$UIT£330
NEWPORT BEACH,CA 92660-2984
Te[.�rNqNe: 949-83 3•3088
Fncs�Mi�: 949-83 3-3058
W W W.WLF-LA W.COM
J:hvdox�doa�169WOP1236t7.DOC JCRAIGWMS Ci WLf-LAW,GOM
PLEASG VISIT OUR WEBLOC,�y,�y�,,�,i'Q�,g},����,(j�T CU�(,FOR DAILY 4ECAL NEWS AND OBSERVATIONS
THE
WILLIAMS
WLF LIN�BERG
LAW FIRM, PC,
Mr. Phil Joy,Associate Planner
September 16,2008
Page 2
There is a continued,blatant disregard for the importance the captive herd has in the role
of Peninsulaz bighorn sheep recovery. The FEIR recognizes that there are still significant;
urunitigable impacts to the captive herd at Bi�horn Institute with this project(FEIR pg. II-4 and
II-14). As such,we remain seriausly c�ncerned for the welfare of the federal-and state-
chartered recovery grogram for the endangered Peninsular bighom sheep and the captive herd at
Biglaorn Institute. Bighorn Institute haa released 120 bighorz�into the wild since 1985, and
currently 67%of the San Jacinta Mountains population of bighorn consists o£sheep either
released from the Institute or offspring of captive-reared sheep. In 2002,the San Jacinto ewe
group dropped to just 4 adult ewes and the herd�was in serious danger of dying out. The state
and federal wildlife agencies decided to start releasing captive-reared bighorr�from the Institute
there and now there are 12 adult ewes in the San Jacinto Mountains. An entire subgroup of wild
bighorn could have been lost,had it not been for the captive breeding and wild population
augmentation program at the Institute.
The Staff Report al�udes to the pmspect that that Cornishe of Bighom will likety become
the property of Canyons at Bighorn in the future. The Staff Report states that the home designs
"would be subject to the design criteTia contained within the EIR and those at Bighom Country
Club, even though it is not part of that project yet"(Staff Report pg.4). That said,it looks like
this proposed project is quickly becoming a way for Canyons at Bighom to expand their property
into the 400-yazd buffer in violation of its agreement with the Institute. If the Cornishe property
becomes the property of Canyons at Bighorn,then it must comply with all previous mitigadon
mcasures set forth for Canyons at Bighorn,which has a 400 yard buffer of no development.
The City of Palm Desert and persons involved in Cornishe of Bighorn arbitrarily,
inexplicably and with no foundation decided on a 240-yard buffer based on fhe location of the
conservation/housing facility at Bighom Institute. The 400 yard buffer was derived at from a
panel of 29 bighom sheep experts after several meetings,intense discussions and consideration
of zelevant scientific evidence. Indeed,experts appointed by Canyons at Bighorn participated in
making that decision,which was ultimately adopted by the City. The buffex was not determined
one day in an.off ce amongst City planners and recent potential developers. We categorically
reject the application of a 240-yard buffer to this project.
We also take exception to the position taken in the FEIR that the Institute relocate its
facilities. First,we note that the developer who purchased the property did so after the City had
approved the 400-yard buffer anc�that buffer was of record in mul.tiple City documents. Since
the developer purchased the property with this knowledge and conducted its own due diligence
regazding the bona fides of the property,it cannot now be heazd ta complain as it does. Such
pretensions must be disregarded. Further,as the City knows from the approval process during
J:lwdoxWocs�S69W02�113617.DOC
I
THE
WLF' W�i-LIAMS
LINI�BERG
LAW FIRM, PG,
Mr. Phil Joy, Associate Planner
September I6, 2008
Page 3 �
the Canyons at Bighorn pro,ject, Institute and other scientific experts earlier considered the same
request but were unable to find comparable property to relocate. More important,however,is
the continuing success of the Institute's captive breeding program. It is unwise to fix sornething
that is not broken.
In addition, every recovery program must have on-site facitities to operate. Because the
Institute's nearly 300 acres is not fenced off from public access,it has mandatory protocols in
place to protect the endangered Peninsular bighorn,which include biolagists living on property
to manitor thc sheep,pens and access by occasional trespassers. There are also numerous other
protocols that the Institute ataff follows to reduce human disturbance for the facility. Bighorn
Institute is not open to the public. The staff keeps all facility operations on the south and west
side of the lambing pen, away from the most sensitive northeast side.
The FEIR response to comments states"no ennpirical evidence has been presented which
establishes thresholds at which impacts do not occur to bighorn sheep, and within which they do"
(FEIR,pg. N-43) with regard to a 240-yard buffer versus a 40Q-yard buffer. Bighorn sheep in
the ca�tive herd are endangered; they are not zoo animals. Offspring released from Bighorn
Institute cantinue to help the recovery of this endangered species. That breeding program makes
Bighorn Institute's program unique, �nd it has had the immense success over the years. The City
cannot simply proceed on a hunch and approve this development with unsubstantiated and vague
hopes that a 240-yard buffer is sufficient. The City shauld not turn the captive pens into an
experiment. The captive breeding pro,grann, overseen by both state and federal experts,has been
highly successful. Uninformed decisions such as the 240-yard buffer,made without scientific
data,backup and consultation with these experts, should be rejected. In fact, several sheep
experts from the Penznsular Bighorn Recovery Team have subnnitted letters to the City
encouraging the City to upho�d the previously-approved 400-yard buffer.
The Cornishe of Bigharn property has been designed as bighom sheep critical habitat and
on Au�ust 26, 2005,the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published its proposed rule for revised
critical habitat for bighorn sheep in the Peninsular ranges. The Comishe of Bighorn property is
designated as critical habitat(Pederal Register RIN 1018-AV09). This designation now has a
two-fold impact on bighorn,one from a"take"and"hazassnnent"standpoint and the other from a
habitat use standpoint. If Cornishe of Bi�horn is includecl in the final designation for critical
habitat,then it must first eonduct a mandatory section 7 consultation with the U.S.Fish and
Wildlife Service prior to the issuance af any development permits. Given that the City and the
developer now have formal notice of this critical habitat designatian,it would be inresponsible to
proceed further without first engaging in the rnandatory section 7 consultation with the USFWS.
1:\wdox�docs�369�002123617.DOC
�w�
WILLIAMS
wLF L.iNDBERG
L,AW FIRM, PC.
Mr. Phik Ioy,Associate Planner
September 16, 200$
Page 4
We also note that the State of California Departrnent of Fish and Game has designated
this species as threatened,and consequently,the developer must likewise consult with an obtain
peimits to develop from the California Department of Fish and Game. We see no evidence vf
this cansuhation or permit in the FEIIt. We note,however,that CDFG supports the Institute's
position, �nd requests that the City and Developer respect a 400-meter buffer, among other
rec}uirements.
We encourage the City and Comishe of Bighorn to explore all possible alternative
options for this property so it is not directly or inversely condemned,including other
apportunities for land exchanges or conservation easements. We offer our services to asszst with
these alternative efforts. It is not Bighom Institute's intent to cause the property owners or the
City undue financial hazdship,but it is the Insritute's intent to maintain its continuing, strict
biological ethic for the protection of this species and continue to work toward the recovery of
this endangered species for all of the many citizens of Pa1m Desert,R.iverside County, the greater
Coachella Valley, and the United States.
We appreciate the opportunity to present these comments to the City of Palm Desert. We
sincezely hope the City takes these and our previous comments into serious consideration.
Very truty yours,
WLF �The Williams Lindberg Law Firm,PC
/
J. Craig Williams
JCWI
cc: Members of the Board of Directors of Bighorn Institute
Jir�DeForge, Executive Director,Bighorn Institute
P.S. I would a�sa like ta correct a typographical error in my May 8,2008 letter to the City. I
mistakenly wrote"230 years" instead of"240 yards"on page 2,point#2, I apologize for my
enor and any confusion it may have caused. I appreciate the opportunity to correct the record.
J:lwdoaWocsV69100P12361�.DOC I
I
History of Bighorn Institute and Importance of the Captive
Breeding Wild Population Augmentation Program
Bighorn Institute's Mission
Bighorn Institute is dedicated to the conservation of the world's wild sheep through
research and education. Its primary goal is to conduct research into the ecology of
wild sheep populations with particular emphasis on Peninsular desert bighorn. The
Institute also conducts a Captive Breeding and Wild Population Augmentation
Program to provide genetic and demographic support to declining Peninsular
bighorn populations. Through field and laboratory studies, the Institute generates
scientific knowledge to assist in and promote the judicious management of wild
sheep.
History of Bighorn Institute
Bighorn Institute(BI) is a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization that was founded
in 1982 by a group of biologists and veterinarians to investigate the causes of bighorn
sheep (Ovis canadensis)population declines. Although we have worked on wild sheep
projects in ten western states, Mexico, Mongolia, Turkmenistan, and Tajikistan, our
primary focus continues to be the ecology and recovery of desert bighorn sheep in the
Peninsular Ranges of southern California.
When the Institute formed, 90%of the lambs were dying from pneumonia in the
Peninsular Ranges and no one knew why. In 1982, the Institute began bringing in sick
lambs from the wild to study the disease process. Not much was known about bighorn
diseases then and in the early 1980s it was believed that a sick bighorn was a dead
bighorn. Bighorn Institute did intensive health testing on the sick lambs and found that
one of, or a combination of, four viruses were predisposing the lambs to bacterial
pneumonia. This was a landmark discovery. Overall between 1982 and 1998, Bighorn
Institute captured 39 sick lambs from the Santa Rosa, Jacumba and In-Ko-Pah Mountains
and successfully rehabilitated 33 of them. Seven of these lambs became breed stock for a
captive breeding herd at the Institute while the other 26 were released back into the wild.
The captive herd was a result of a successful disease research study, but in 1995, the
program changed its focus to augmenting wild populations with captive-reared bighorn.
In March 1998, bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges were federally listed as an
endangered species.
Captive Breeding Facility at Bighorn Institute
Bighorn Institute has maintained a captive herd of Peninsular bighorn since 1984.
The primary goal of this program is to produce healthy animals that are genetically
and behaviorally suitable for augmenting or re-establishing free-ranging bighorn
populations. The captive herd is also used for disease, genetic, nutritional, and
behavioral research, providing the animals' ability to survive in the wild is not
jeopardized. A captive breeding program incorporating genetic and demographic
management provides a safeguard for the Peninsular bighorn gene pool and helps
ensure that optimal augmentation strategies are feasible.
Ewes and their juvenile offspring are maintained in a 30-acre enclosure
encompassing a rugged hilltop with elevations ranging between 870-1150 ft. Adult
rams are maintained in a similar 7-acre enclosure. Rams and ewes are selectively
combined for breeding between August and December. A 10 ft chain-link fence
with an additional 1 %2 ft of barbed wire on top and 2 'h ft of chain-link underground
prevents mammalian predators from entering the enclosures as well as keeping
bighorn from escaping. Alfalfa hay and pellets supplement native vegetation in the
enclosures. Water, salt and mineral blocks are also provided. The health and
behavior of all captive bighorn are recorded twice daily. Captive animals are not
available for public viewing and a standardized feeding and observation routine is
followed so that exposure to humans is limited and controlled.
Bighorn Sheep Lambing Behavior
Bighorn ewes isolate away from all disturbance when they are ready to give birth. They
want solitude for lambing so they also move away from other bighorn sheep. Ewes
require steep escape terrain as another prerequisite for lambing to help insure the safety
of their lambs from potential predators. Ewes give birth almost exclusively on north-
facing slopes. Over 90% of all lambs born at the Institute have been born on the
north/northeast side of the lambing pen(the side facing the Cornishe of Bighorn
property). There have been over 1301ambs born at the Institute since 1984, which
provides statistically defensible scientific data in support of this behavior.
Results of Bighorn Institute's Captive Breeding and Augmentation Program
Since 1985, a total of 120 captive-reared adult bighorn (62F, 58M)have been released
from Bighorn Institute into the wild. The northern Santa Rosa Mountains (NSRM)
subpopulation of Peninsular bighorn sheep dropped down to 21 adults, with just 11 ewes
in 1996. At that time, 76%of the NSRM subgroup consisted of captive-reared bighorn
from the Institute. There have been 97 adult bighorn released into the northern Santa
Rosa Mountains near Rancho Mirage since 1985. The Recovery Plan for Peninsular
bighorn sheep indicates that for recovery to begin taking place there must be at least 25
ewes in each subgroup. The NSRM bighorn population has finally reached that goal
since there are currently 35 ewes there. In 12 years the number of ewes tripled in the
NSRM, due in part to the augmentation efforts of Bighorn Institute.
The San Jacinto Mountains(SJM) subpopulation of bighorn sheep got down to perilously
low numbers in 2002, with only 4 adult ewes. At that time, the Institute was directed by
the U.S. Fish&Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish& Game to begin
focusing augmentation efforts on the SJM subgroup of bighorn. Bighorn Institute has
now released 23 adult bighorn into the San Jacinto Mountains near Palm Springs. There
are currently 14 adult ewes in this group, with 93% of these females either directly
released or offspring of released sheep from the Institute. The SJM ewe population has
more than tripled in a mere six years due to the captive breeding and release program of
Bighorn Institute. While this ewe group is still well below the necessary 25, recovery
appears to be underway with the number of ewes increasing.
history of BI&behavioral info.doc 2
In addition to increasing the number of females in the SJM, in 2006, Bighorn Institute
also successfully released captive-reared bighorn rams into historic, unoccupied sheep
habitat north of Chino Canyon. This type of project had never before been attempted
with captive-reared bighorn sheep. The fact that two of the three rams lived and
integrated with the rest of the SJM herd proves that captive-reared bighorn could be used
to re-establish herds in other vacant sheep areas. This provides an option for increasing
the core group of wild sheep in a herd and allows for the expansion of their range.
It is widely believed and accepted by sheep experts on the Peninsular Bighorn Recovery
Team that the NSRM and SJM subgoups would have gone extinct without the captive
breeding and augmentation efforts of the Institute.
Why Bighorn Institute's Captive Breeding and Augmentation Program Works
Bighorn sheep are able to breed in zoo facilities and captivity without much difficulty.
However, captive-reared bighorn sheep in zoos and other places have not been
successfully released into the wild. Typically the animals are too habituated to humans
and don't act like wild sheep upon their release and thus don't survive. Bighorn
Institute's recovery facility conducts an incredibly unique program that has been
amazingly successful. The following are a number of reasons the Institute's captive
breeding and augmentation program has been successful:
1) Bighorn Institute is not open to the public. Captive animals are not available for
public viewing. The Institute has personnel on site 24 hours a day 7 days a week to help
insure that there are no trespassing issues or other situations that could be harmful or
disruptive to the captive herd.
2) Bighorn Institute follows a standardized feeding and observation routine that
strictly limits and controls exposure to humans. This is a key component in the
success of the captive breeding program. It is imperative that the captive herd does
not become habituated to human disturbance and development, which is why the
400 yard buffer established by a panel of bighorn experts has played such an
important role. The Institute mimics wild sheep ecology to the extent possible to
ensure that when the captive-reared sheep are released, they act like wild sheep and
are accepted by the wild herd.
3) All of the Institute's interactions with the captive herd take place on the southwest side
of the enclosure(same side as Hwy 74), the opposite side that lambing takes place. The
captive herd utilizes the southwest side of the enclosure merely for supplemental feeding.
At night and in the afternoon, the captive herd retreats to the north/northeast side of the
enclosure(same side as Cornishe of Bighorn) where there is less disturbance. Having the
northeast side of their enclosure away from development for lambing is crucial to the
success of the program. This allows the bighorn to act like normal wild sheep in their
pursuit of a quiet, steep, north-facing slope on which to give birth. If lambing at the
Institute is compromised by development on the north/northeast side of the pen, recovery
efforts for the entire Peninsular bighorn population would be negatively impacted.
history of BI&behavioral info.doc 3
4)There is a 400 yard buffer of no development or unauthorized personnel around the
lambing pen. The numbers speak volumes: 1301ambs born at Bighorn Institute, 120
bighorn released from the Institute into the wild, and 2 of 9 subgroups saved from
extinction due to Institute augmentation efforts. With the scientific evidence supporting
the success of the captive breeding and augmentation program, it is impossible to justify
infringing on this minimum distance away from the pen since the 400 yard buffer has
obviously worked.
history of BI&behavioral info.doc 4
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 2:21 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: To the Mayor and City Council re Agenda items for Feb 12th council meeting
From: EmerKat22@aol.com [mailto:EmerKat22@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2009 1:05 PM
To: InformationMail
Subject: To the Mayor and City Council re Agenda items for Feb 12th council meeting
Dear Mayor Spiegel, Mayor Pro Tem Finerty and Councilpeople Benson, Ferguson and Kelly:
As a Palm Desert resident in a gated community I urge you to please approve agenda item X.L. -funds to conduct CERT
classes. I am a member of our country club's emergency preparedness committee, and we feel there is a great need for
the training. All residents, but especially those of us in gated communities, will need to fend for ourselves for several days
after"the big one" hits. The CERT training will allow us to prepare and function more effectively.
I also would request that you DO NOT approve agenda item XVII. B. -the Cornishe project at Big Horn. The big horn
sheep will be adversely impacted if this project is allowed to go forward. The Cornishe owner(s) should explore some kind
of"land swap"with the Big Horn Institute.
Thank you,
Kathleen Emerson
76 Camino Arroyo Place
Palm Desert, CA 92260
760-568-2171
The year's hottest artists on the red carpet at the Grammy Awards. AOL Music takes vou there.
� ,
� ��
� �,
� �� .,
C17 _.,,�__u,:,,
, C f"�?;_`,,
_. tTt�,�,.
m .��
a ��'n�1
�,U�
w 'PY
.. (7-Y�
N ;�c—�
� rn
1
SAN GORGONIQ CHAPTER
� ��
�
Regiona/Groups Servtng Riverside and San Bernardino Caanties: Los Serranos,
� ��
SI E R.RA Tahguirz,San Bernarclino.Llountains.Mojave, Moreno valley,Big Bear � r K
LT7 -��•���":
CLUB — � �rn<-�
N m a�..,',
FOUNOED 1892 N�--�
Yi1
� XI V��
���
February 11, 2009 ry ��'
.�-
. �
City Council
City of Palm Desert
73-S10 Fred Waring Drive � � � � �
Palm Desert, California 42260
BY FAX - ORIGINAL BY NIAIL � �
3�U -Oj�y
Re: Cornishe Of Bighorn �
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: �
I am writing for the Tahquitz Group of the Sierra Club. We hereby incorparate and reaffirm our
prior written and oral comments in full support of maintaining the required 400 yard 6uffer
critical to the functioning of the Bighorn Institate as the Recovery center for endangered
Peninsular bighorn,and also urging your deniai of the Comische project as proposed.
Our prior comments have outlined certain deficiencies in the environmental review and
mitigation as well as the speciousness of any property takings claim, since the property was
recently acquired with fuil knowledge of the buffer restriction. Not only would the City be
conclusory in finding the hillside limited alternative infeasible, but also the City wouid err
because it has not analyzed a reasonable range of alternatives. For. example, in considering
alternatives along the edge of the buffer that would have less impact than the proposed project, -
the City had an obligation to consider the vacant lats at the western portion of the project near
Hwy 74. This srting would be less. visually intrusive on the lambing pens and moreover is
adjacent to a developed roadway with existing activity. Additionally, the EIR's alternatives
analysis failed to consider the alternative of transferring development rights to anvther property
or the potential for a tand exchange.
It is our understanding that, probably through oversight, the 400 yard buffer area was not
included in the conservadon area under the Coachella Valley MSHCP. This is unfortunate, but
relativety easy to recfify. The Bighorn Institute is recognized by the Trustee Agencies as being
the recovery center for Peninsular bighorn, and the Institute's captive breeding and augmentation
work has been and will continue to be essenCial to ensure the long term survival and recovery of
�his species. Therefore,. adding the buffer to the conservation area will clearly increase
conservation, and should be processec! as a simple boundary adjustment, or at rnost a minor
amendrnent to the MSHCP. This step should he taken, but-i�not relieve the City from its
obligation to deny the project. ) �#.w1,nd.
u��+�
To recap, we believe the environmentai review and mitigation for the Cornishe at Bighorn is
cleariy inadequate. The environrnental review should be revised to include cflnsideration of
additionat avoidance measures, mitigation measures and alternatives. The City is obligated to
t �d 1 WdS T �6 60DZ z T qa.�
honor the long-standing comrrritment to the 400 yard buffer to protect the essentiai work of the
Bighorn Institute. To do otherwise would be a violation of the City's ethical and legal
. obligations t� prevent harm to an endangered species in violation of both State and Federal law.
Over many years, and at great expense to the Institute and its numerous supporters but at no cost
to the City or the state, the Bighorn Institute has performed an outstanding service to the
cornrnunity, literally preventing the extirpation of Peninsular bighorn in tlae Santa Rosa
Mountains and probably the San Jacinto Mountains as welt. We sincerely hope the City
recognizes the value of the Institute's work, and the critical need to ensure its viability. We
again urge you to deny the Cornische project as proposed and to direct that additional
environmental review and project modifications be done to ensure any new proposal honors the
400 yard buffer. .
Thank you for the opporiunity_to comment on this important project.
Very truly yours,
�
Joan Taylor, Chair
Conservation Commit ee
Tahquitz Group-Sierra Club
1 S50 Smoke Tree Lane
Palm Springs, CA 02264 � � �
z �d 1 WdST �6 600� ZT 9a�
To: The Pa{m Desert City Council
Jean Benson
Robert Spiegel � �` ':����
Jim Fe�guson `'��j����p E�S E���C A�
Cindy Finerty
Richard Keily ?,.Q09 FEB I 2 PP4 2� I 4
Good Aftern�n,
i was here on November 20, 2008 and 1 am here again on behatf of the bigharn
sheep. Today I represent concerned citizens who want to know why the
Cornishe of Bighorn is placed on the agenda this afternoon, February 12, 2009.
(�n November 20, 2008 the councii voted against Cornishe for the following
reasons:
_ _—
-
Counciimember staten�eirts�r�m the November 2t►�Couneil Meeting
Minu#es:
Councilmember FiRerty stated the bottom fine was that the significant adv�rse
imp�tt ta the tambing pen could not be mitigated; ther�was sametMing
fundamentally wrong with building houses tt�at requir�d tha#much dirt to be
moved.
AAayor Pro T�m Spiegei stated he understaod tt�e value of the Bighorn Ins#itute,
�nd that#he City was proud of its ac�omplishment�. He understood there was
money involved and ther�e was land there, but there had to be a way to resolv� it,
The real problem was bringing in 28,000 cubic yards of dirt, but he w�s not in
volition to vute far the proje�t
Councilman Kelly stated the issue was realiy the 40U-yard buffer the City
agreed to (and)there was no way the 4QQ-yard buffer couid be mitigated, he
eouldn't see ht�w the Counci) cautd possibly apprave houses at that location.
Mayor B�nsan agreed with a11 the commertts made by fell4w
Councilmembers. She said she could npt sup�rt the project in its current
configuration.
Councilman Ke{iy�greed somethirx,�cc7uld be dane in the meantime(with a iand
exch�nge or something), but that the Gouncii w�sn't trying to fcaot anypne that it
w0uld approve building two houses within the 400-yard buffer.
We have a few proposais for the couneit to consider:
1. Why couldn't the Cornishe project use the land outside the 400 yard buffer
area and build one home? Ins#ead of ihe Cornishe project for fwo houses
within the buffer area, hauling in ea�th to fil! in the wash, build a
road/bridge and raise the fand fevel for two house pads.
2. Were all the alternatives looked at in the environmental review such as:
a. land transfers with the city or other groups
b. transferring developmental rights
The important issue is the sheep and their survival� They cannot defend
themselves.
Why can't we as inteltigent and responsible citizens secure their fu#ure so that
our chitdren and their children can live in a balanced healthy environment and not
destroy plant, animal and human life.
We thank you for your continued support for the bighom sheep.
Ruth Taran and concemed citizens,
To: The members of the Paim Desert City Council
Jean Benson t x�,:��;N j�,r�H r-�
Bob Spiegel :;I i � ',:��.F;;�C '; ��r F i:;E
Jim Ferguson �` ��'1-�A' ��5E�7' �'"
Cindy Finerty 2(!p9 FEB I 2 PP� 2= I 4
Dick Keliy
From: Concemed citizens of Palm Desert and the Coachella Valley
Please do not chan e your vote aqainst the Cornishe of Biqhorn! You voted
against the Cornishe Development on November 20, 2008.
The Cornishe Development wouki be too close to "the lambing area" and would
cause great stress and harm to th� sheep. The Bighom were listed as an
endangered species in March, 1998 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
Bighorn Institute provides the conservation, habitat protection, and a recovery
plan for the sheep.
The Bighorn sheep are part of the dese�t's beauty we love.
We have an obtigation to protect and provide a healthy and safe habitat for our
Bighorn sheep.
Thank you for your continued support for our Bighorn sheep!
NAM� ADDRESS
,� , , � � >
� ' � M1 �, ' , ' � �J
1 ` ,�, (,;f-,�/� �,Zn ;xL' �,�a �,�,`7�,,� _ � �1.���' , , ✓�-'�;---- ' '" �
fu'
�
,�i�,__ Vr �i.o.�..._ . � . _�___ _ -_ ____ � l.� `�G 'v
� ,, ,---1 , �� �� ",} l
� � �� �
, .
�-- �:�/�� -�1�.. _ _: � � j �� G�`
_
. � . _._ -
- � _. .. .. _ __ _ __. __._ __. _. 1�_ �_ct,.. __
�lf S � _ � ___ ...___,.
_.__ .__ _._..__.___ .. .. _ . _ :� ���� � _ _ ,
� �'�� f�.-/-�') f} . ,
1 , � �J �h�---- ��y� ����'
_
� � � -� ��-Y---
� ��� � �� � �
s
.__.�__ _ . . . ._ .___ _._ __ _ ._ _ ___. .. _ _____�.�--.�--, � _ c1 �,
To: The members of the Paim Desert City Council
Jean Benson '��° �� ¢"��'�
Bob Spiegel :,,1� r r'�..� F ��'S �FFI'.��
��r. �.�, ��EStca�r, cn
Jim Ferguson
Cindy Finerty ?(l09 FEB I 2 PN 2� ( 4
Dick Kelly
From: Concerned citizens of Palm Desert and the Coachella Valley
Please do not chan e your vote aqainst the Cornishe of Bighorn! You voted
against the Cornishe Development on November 20, 2008.
The Cornishe Devetopment would be too close to "the lambing arean and would
cause great stress and harm to the sheep. The Bighom were listed as an
endangered species in March, 1998 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
Bighorn Institute provides the conservation, habitat protection, and a recovery
plan for the sheep.
The Bighorn sheep are part of the desert's beauty we love.
We have an obligation to protect and provide a healthy and safe habitat for our
Bighorn sheep.
Thank you for your continued support for our Bighorn sheep!
NAME ADDRESS
_.�o�il g Fl�'✓��� �2�'l3 � p'�f��� 9/ �i��S�� �S�S
.---�� _f--_..._.. 1�v� �
_ _. .�n�- �n � ��M�S� �1 ���-�'1 �g� �'
To: The members of the Palm Desert City Council
Jean Benson � � `f=�
6 i.� ��
Bob Spiegel ;;� , { � �v� �� ': �,��F I�
Jim Ferguson �} t �;�`� t� ����=�� �� �`'
Cindy Finerty ?(l09 ��� I 2 P�1 2� I 4
Dick Kelly
From: Concemed citizens of Palm Desert and the Coacheila Vailey
Please do not chan e your vote a_gainst the Cornishe of Biqhorn! You voted
against the Cornishe Development on November 20, 2008.
The Cornishe Development would be too close to "the lambing area" and would
cause great stress and harm to the sheep. The Bighom were listed as an
endangered species in March, 1998 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
Bighorn Institute provides the conservation, habitat protection, and a recovery
plan for the sheep.
The Bighorn sheep are part of the desert's beauty we love.
We have an obligation to protect and provide a healthy and safe habitat for our
Bighorn sheep.
Thank you for your continued support for our Bighorn sheep!
NAME ADDRESS
.._._.- - ... _:.. .__ .. _.. _ _ _ _ _ _ __._ _ - ------
/ � a
� �j ��L
� ' � �.> '; . .__ -� � �: ��� �G��Zi'v��-�.'
� �/r'_r`�/YLcvt.�/ _ �('2 O.
� _ /I -
� /` ,q
-- .__. ..__.._ ��"�-tGrW��./� �.i t�.�.�.t/,,''7L�,'.�',�/' . r�� ��9'✓a*�-�c= C,�'�'bt�j 'I,�
� �/
_ _. _ _._.._..----
To: The members of the Palm Desert City Council
Jean Benson = ��3� � �,�
Bob Spiegel ;� , r ;�i�._ , `- '-�>F i�'!�:
Jim Ferguson � r` ,F',°_P 1 ia(�`�t��,�, C<1
Cindy Finerty
Dick Kelly 2.��9 FE� I 2 P� 2� I 4
From: Concemed citizens of Palm Dese�t and the Coachella Valley
Please do not chan e your vote aqainst the Cornishe of Bighorn! You voted
against the Cornishe Development on November 20, 2008.
The Cornishe Development would be too close to "the lambing area" and would
cause great stress and harm to the sheep. The Bighorn were listed as an
endangered species in March, 1998 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
Bighorn Institute provides the conservation, habitat protection, and a recovery
plan for the sheep.
The Bighorn sheep are part of the dese�t's beauty we tove.
We have an obligation to protect and provide a healthy and safe habitat for our
Bighorn sheep_
Thank you for your continued support for our Bighorn sheep!
' 'rqM ADDRESS
� � (�-C �Gi � � l1 /� Z � � S�
� a
_ �.-�___ _ _... _ _ ._ __ _ __ _ _. _ ___ P�_�� _� � j�__ __��� �
, � � . _
�
`� _ ,> ��
,�, � � �^� Gf�(.�,��� l,�l�� � S. � . � 6Ci
� � �
,�_.�._�`�-_�..__... � _ _ ___ _ _ _
�. _.._ _.... _ _. _ .. _ ._ ._._._. ���� �_ ._ c� t _ ,
_.. . _..
�,� _ �- ��-�--%�
--- ----- _
- �3 7� .S � __ .____ _.
� �'
� , .
� •' ,�-, �j�`r�� ��Z �`�� c�7 Z(°
..� .... __ _. .._ ._ _ t/ _ _-7 , y /��/iG�
__ ... .�,'� � . /' -�/ �'��%����
�=���� � -5'��� �
.
� �
- .. . _ . __. _ ._ : ..__ �
� � � s:��'T'".�""f�v��
�lci- ��y��.���' � _ _' ��i�vr�'
_.�.. . _ __ _ ._ - _
_- i - __ .,. . ._ . . _ _ ___ . .._. __ , �..-�
! ` r �� � . J' _ � „ `'.', ��
_ . ;
,/` 2
. - � , � - ' �, � ---��
�y /_ �/y/�- s, �y- ��_
,
.,/I /f°�'�.. " � p/ .�i'✓. G�e"'—_""L„�l� . �„9.. �,.: .. . .. ...
Y, �-
�,,::{i7� �--- -1� �L"'ril� _' �,,
.. .. .._.____...
To: The members of the Palm Deser� City Council
Jean Benson ,�.,_� �
Bob Spiegel ;i� �, ��e �' `�, Y��-F�-.�
Jim Ferguson �� ,�,�_�a; �}�.`���� ' �`�
Cindy Finerty
Dick Kelly 2Q�9 FFE� 4 2 P�� 2� I �
From: Concerned citizens of Palm Desert and the Coachella Valley
Please do not chanqe your vote aqainst the Cornishe of Bighorn! You voted
against the Cornishe Development on November 20, 2008.
The Cornishe Development would be too close to "the lambing area" and would
cause great stress and harm to the sheep. The Bighom were listed as an
endangered species in March, 1998 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
Bighorn Institute provides the conservation, habitat protection, and a recovery
plan for the sheep.
The Bighorn sheep are part of the desert's beauty we love.
We have an obtigation to protect and provide a healthy and safe habitat for our
Bighorn sheep.
Thank you for your continued s.upport for our Bighorn sheep!
NAME ADDRESS
�Q .�.�`—���—,���,�� �� �.�—�..�����cr���
�,� �,,,,�.�� ��.��.-e. �.
�
�� - �-�� /.�.-���.= 7�-- ��� ���� ��/ �� �'-����-
� ,
�,�..�.. �z-�2oz �e�- �-�' ��j" C�..
' �-��� � � ��, �����y
��� " -'►� � .
� ���� v',�-���' ,�-���..��=. ��
�i��--�',��- ,���' L�� ��
���,z �� ��- �s� �w� - ,�
� . �_��7 �����-, �.�-�i������
�'�Y � ' .�,��
(1 � ��— ���- ���%�-� i
� .
. _____._ , .
� / � =�� �, �'� //� ��-�--�-` -��1n �,%►�, __!._�_nd ►�
.
t _ �'�'l.� � � � 1
To: The members of the Palm Desert City Council
Jean Benson
Boa Spiegel :° � ° `-: '�
� t ; �.� � ;;�, , � '"�
Jim Ferguson � ;`,E � , ;;€_,��; �-, � ,
Cindy Finerty
Dick Kelly 2��� �Ff3 ! 2 PP� 2= ! �
From: Concerned citizens of Palm Desert and the Coachella Valley
Please do not chanqe your vote against the Cornishe of Biqhorn! You voted
against the Cornishe Development on November 20, 2008.
The Cornishe Development would be too close to "the lambing area" and would
cause great stress and harm to the sheep. The Bighom were listed as an
endangered species in March, 1998 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
Bighorn Institute provides the conservation, habitat protection, and a recovery
plan for the sheep.
The Bighorn sheep are part of the desert's beauty we love.
We have an obligation to protect and provide a healthy and safe habitat for our
Bighorn sheep.
Thank you for your continued support for our Bighorn sheep!
fVAME - ,- Aj�DRESS
� ���� ,
;� _ - � (���2�,� i C�"
, �IiG��C�-e- � 1�
;
f �
� _
�
� �'.�ue��_ �Csz-��� ►-vrn �Ze./�� C r'/�- �Z Z � �
� , � ����,,��.�y ���..-- 7����
���
- To: The members of the Palm Desert City Council
Jean Benson ``�� ���
� ,-
_ , �; �.:.:�
BOb Splegel ' ' '� f ���. ; ;�r� `_`r:
JimFerguson �����'� �� ��`�'`."��, `,'�'
Cindy Finerty ?��9 ��.� � � ��� �: p [�
Dick Kelly
From: Concerned citizens of Palm Desert and the Coachella Valley
Please do not chan e vour vote a_gainst the Cornishe of Biqhorn! You voted
against the Cornishe Development on IVovember 20, 2008.
The Cornishe Development would be too close to "the lambing area" and would
cause great stress and harm to the sheep. The Bighom were listed as an
endangered species in March, 1998 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The
Bighorn Institute provides the conservation, habitat protection, and a recovery
plan for the sheep.
The Bighorn sheep are part of the desert's beauty we love.
We have an obligation to protect and provide a healthy and safe habitat for our
Bighorn sheep.
Thank you for your continued support for our Bighorn sheep!
NAME ADDRESS
�j i, /�� � �,������z. � ,
� , � V,o�C�5 � ����11, �iC�1.t'/�� � �--�- (L" n ��� l� .� �c 3 .
�.t�- ��.`{�,�c�r„� � , � � C� ��Z�Z" `�
,� � �=r .�...._� _ �
t��/(� �x• � ` �39� / Gl�fd�11�"� �s t
�J{I c '�G�l�li�'V,�D lV ��i�iy���i'�''`_`__,
� ���___. �'i�Ll"^ �^���C !.t �;��-[..-� f j'Z�O
' �Z��
� � ���� ���1� �"��� C`��� �-(171,;�'1 , ;� .� �'./-� �������C�
� �
t�
� � -�� O ��V ���1'�" l
�
� c���� ��,
: �,
� �� �_�. ��,������ ������ r
�� �"'c'-� ��fi �-�' � ��
�� � �
Michelson, Wilma � .#.,�t�:,,.��„
�I1" '� CLE�";�C 'S OF�ICE
From: toniflys@aol.com r','�L t�i D E 5 E R T, C��
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 12:39 PM
To: CityhallMail 2009 FFB I 2 PP9 2= 42
Subject: Protect Bighorn
ATTN: PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL
We are requesting a "NO" vote against "The Cornishe of Bighorn".
These beautiful Bighorn Sheep need no more stress than they already have and particularly that
close to the birthing area.
Thank you.
Toni Reinhard & Terry Simmons
72-725 Joshua Tree Street
Palm Desert, CA
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See vours in iust 2 easv steps!
1
Gates, Mary ,,w,,_,��,
From: Ilene[ilene@campilene.com] �-'��_ � i�x��"`� '� ����y�
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:09 PM �' ���-�`� ����E��T. C��
To: InformationMail
Subject: Big Hom Sheep ?Oa9 FFB � 2 P�I 2� �a 4
To Palm Desert City Council Members (please distribute to ALL Council members):
Please vote against the Cornishe of Big Horn project. This development project will cause greQt
harm, distress, and probable death among the Coachella Vcalley Big Horn Sheep population. The
Big Horn Sheep have lived in this valley for hundreds of years, roaming free. The sheep are
currently restricted to a 300 acre preserve, with one specific area where the lambs are born.
The sheep will truly suffer if the Cornishe of Big Horn project is built next to the sheep's
lambing area.
The Big Horn Sheep were (isted as an endangered species in 1998. The Big Horn Sheep
Institute protects and oversees the sheep through conservation, habitat protection, and a
population recovery plan. These sheep are an integrnl pctrt of the environment and the Palm
Desert community. As human beings we have an obligation to protect and preserve the species
that are left.
PleQse don't let the Big Horn Sheep disappear. Please vote AGAINST the Cornishe of Big Horn
development.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ilene
Camp Ilene
Your pogs Home Away From Home
Corona, CA 92881
http://wwvu�c�m�E E�n�.c�m
ii�n�:�'�?cam alen�,com _w��.
_�_.__.___._.__.�_._._�..�.._
951-371-8458
i
Klassen, Rachelle
From: Gates, Mary on behalf of Gilligan, Sheila
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 2:44 PM
To: Klassen, Rachelle
Subject: FW: Big Horn Sheep
From: Ilene [mailto:ilene@campilene.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 1:09 PM
To: InformationMail
Subject: Big Horn Sheep
To Palm Desert City Council Members (pleQse distribute to ALL Council members):
Please vote against the Cornishe of Big Horn pro ject. This development pro ject wi(I cause great
harm, distress, and probable death among th� Coachella Valley Big Horn Sheep populc►tion. The
Big Horn Sheep have lived in this valley for hundreds of years, roaming free. The sheep are
currently restricted to a 300 acre preserve, with one specific area where the lambs are born.
The sheep will truly suffer if the Cornishe of Big Horn project is built next to the sheep's
lambing area.
The Big Horn Sheep were listed as an endangered species in 1998. The Big Horn Sheep
Institute protects and oversees the sheep through conservcation, habitat protection, and a
population recovery plan. These sheep ure an integral part of the environment and the Palm
Desert community. As human beings we have an obligation to protect and preserve the species
that are left.
Please don't let the Big Horn Sheep disappear. Please vote AGAINST the Cornishe of Big Horn
development.
Thank you for your consideration.
Ilene
Camp Ilene
Your pogs Home Away From Home
Corona, CA 92881
http://www.campi lene.com
i leneC�cam�i lene.com
951-371-8458
�