HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/7/2015 - STAFF REPORTS - 2.K. ?ALM Sp4
iy
c
V N
,IF,OIt CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 7, 2015 CONSENT AGENDA
SUBJECT: CASE 5.1154 SP —THE DESERT PALISADES SPECIFIC PLAN: ADOPTING AN
ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (EIR) RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT OF A 117-ACRE SITE IN
PLANNING AREA 4 OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA —
SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE (ESA-SP) (CHINO CONE). THE PROJECT IS LOCATED
AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF WEST RACQUET CLUB ROAD, SECTION 4,
TOWNSHIP 4, RANGE 4 (IL).
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Flinn Fagg, AICP, Director of Planning Services
SUMMARY
On January 5, 2011, the City Council certified a final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for, and
approved the Desert Palisades Specific Plan, (Case No. 5.1154), a comprehensive plan for
development on approximately 117 acres with 110 home sites, private roads, public trails, open
space, common area landscaping, and an approximately 1.7-acre dual tank domestic water
reservoir site for the Desert Water Agency (DWA). The site is located in Planning Area 4 of the
ESA-SP zone (Chino Cone).
In the initial site grading work for roads and infrastructure, the applicant has encountered
considerably more large boulders and rocks than originally anticipated. Based on this issue, the
applicant has requested City approval to extend the allowable construction period by thirty (30)
days (from December 315t to January 315t) to allow for additional work to be completed prior to
the cessation of all grading activity required by the EIR due to the commencement of the
bighorn sheep lambing season. An addendum to the original EIR, evaluating the environmental
impacts of this proposed change, is the subject of this report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DESERT PALISADES SPECIFIC PLAN
(DPSP), CASE 5.1154 SP, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES."
Item No. 2. K.
City Council Staff Report January 7, 2015
Case 5.1154 SP The Desert Palisades Specific Plan — EIR Addendum Page 2 of 4
BACKGROUND:
The Desert Palisades Specific Plan was approved by City Council on January 5, 2011 , and
allowed for the development of 110 home sites, private roads, public trails, open space,
common area landscaping, and a DWA reservoir site. The Final EIR for the project was also
certified at that time. The City Council found that the plan was in conformance to the General
Plan, as well as in conformance to the requirements of California Governmental Code Section
65450 relative to the adoption of specific plans. The Planning Commission had recommended
approval of the plan on October 27, 2010, after conducting four public hearings on the matter.
�r
TO BE REMOVED FROM PAd
AND INCLUDED IN PAZ
i
NAP ,I
k
TO REMAIN IN PAa G' J�'�, •`
I # 7
' it+r of
PROJECT SITE .- -
Vicinity map showing the general location of the subject site
ANALYSIS
The applicant has requested to extend the seasonal construction period by 30 days to allow for
additional site work to be completed prior to the cessation of all activities required by the EIR
due to the commencement of the Bighorn Sheep lambing period. The EIR identified the period
from January 1st to June 30th as the lambing season, and required that no grading activities
could take place during that time. The applicant has requested to extend the construction
window to January 31s`
James W. Cornett, the project biologist for the original EIR, was consulted regarding the
extension of the construction period, and has noted the following:
• His initial study should have been corrected to indicate that the lambing period typically
commences in early winter;
• Birthing does not typically begin until February, so earth disturbance activities should
cease on February 1 st and not January 1 st; and 0
City Council Staff Report January 7, 2015
Case 5.1154 SP The Desert Palisades Specific Plan— EIR Addendum Page 3 of 4
• A biological monitor should be present on site during the month of January 2015 to
observe the presence of any bighorn sheep in the vicinity.
Based on these recommendations, an addendum to the Final EIR has been prepared to
incorporate the revised recommendations of Mr. Cornett, and includes the revision to the
construction period allowing site disturbance to continue until January 315t
FINDINGS:
Findings for the proposed amendment are as follows:
• The proposed amendment does not impact the conformity of the Desert Palisades
Specific Plan to the General Plan or California Governmental Code;
• The proposed amendment does not impact the conformity of the project to the Zoning
Code or associated approval processes;
• The proposed amendment does not alter or intensify the development anticipated for the
site; and
• The proposed amendment is consistent with the mitigation measures proposed under the
Final EIR approved by City Council in January 2011.
NOTICE
In accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, ...an addendum need not be
circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR. Therefore, no
public review is required, and public notice was provided by the posting of the agenda in
accordance with state law.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a
Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared and
circulated for this project. The Draft EIR was released for review on January 21, 2010. Copies
of the Draft EIR and Final EIR were previously distributed to the City Council. Notices of the
reports were sent to all applicable agencies and published in accordance with CEQA.
Comments were received by the City and responses to comments were provided in the final
EIR. The Final EIR identified the following potentially significant impacts and mitigation
measures relative to protected species:
• Biological Impacts to Peninsular Bighorn Sheep
o No grading activities will take place during the sheep lambing period from January
1 to June 30.
The final EIR concluded that the impacts would not be significant because the project
modifications and mitigation measures incorporated into the project would reduce impacts to
less than significant levels. A copy of the final EIR is on file with the City Clerk.
03
City Council Staff Report January 7, 2015
Case 5.1154 SP The Desert Palisades Specific Plan— EIR Addendum Page 4 of 4
The change to the permitted construction dates, with the presence of a biological monitor on site
as outlined by the project biologist, will not significantly impact the adopted mitigation measures.
The proposed amendment to the project has been adequately evaluated in this addendum to
the Desert Palisades Specific Plan EIR and it has been concluded that with the mitigation as
proposed, the proposed amendment will not cause a significant impact on the environment nor
require recirculation of the entire EIR.
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes that the addendum to the EIR to the Desert Palisades Specific Plan adequately
evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed changes to the project. The project
remains harmonious in its setting, complementary to the General Plan and Zoning Code for the
Chino Cone Special Policy Area and the ESA-SP zone, and remains consistent with the City
Council's vision for this environmentally sensitive area of Palm Springs.
wa"
Flinn Fagg, AICP, Marcus Fuller
Director of Planning Services Assistant City Manager
David H. Ready, City Manage
Attachments:
• Vicinity Map
• Minute excerpts from the City Council meeting of January 5, 2011
• Addendum to the Final EIR
04
°v v� w ai
N Department of Planning Services
Vicinity Map
r
`h
p
��) � tl1AC)LINE�
' Pgllfjl�W�-RU,
O T 'J
�i
Legend �
Site f
400'Buffer .�
; Surrounding Parcels
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE: 5.1154 SP (Specific Plan) DESCRIPTION: A request by Pinnacle View, LLC for
approval of an addendum to the Final EIR for a
APPLICANT: Pinnacle View, LLC subdivision of approximately 117 acres for 110
homesites, open space, private roads, public trails and
a DWA dual tank reservoir, Zone ESA-SP (Planning
Area 4) (IL)
05
i
City Council Minutes
January 5,2011
Page 2
City Clerk Thompson requested the City Council add an Item to the Agenda under Ne
Business titled AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH
EXECUTIVE PLACEMENT FIRM FOR THE RECRUITMENT OF POLICE CHI AND
APPOINT AN AD-HOC CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE TO PARTICIPA IN THE
SELECTION PROCESS, and find that the information pertaining to ' matter was
received by the City after the posting of the January 5, 2011 a da, there is an
immediate need to hear and take action on the Item; then add th em to the Agenda,
as New Business Item 5.A., pursuant to Cal.Gov. Code §5495 . (b)(2).
Councilmember Foat stated she had a comment on It 1.B., and requested Item 2.G.
be removed from the Consent Calendar for separat iscussion.
Councilmember Mills noted his business r ed abstention on Item 2.C. Warrant No.
1045941.
Mayor Pro Tern Weigel requeste am 2.G. be removed from the Consent Calendar for
separate discussion.
ACTION: Accept the nda as amended, make the finding that the Item came to the
attention of the Ci er the posting of the agenda, there is an immediate need to hear
and take action the Item, and add Item 5.A. to the Agenda titled: AUTHORIZATION
TO ENTER O AN AGREEMENT WITH AN EXECUTIVE PLACEMENT FIRM FOR
THERE UITMENT OF POLICE CHIEF AND APPOINT AN AD-HOC CITY COUNCIL
SUB MMITTEE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SELECTION PROCESS. Motion
C ncilmember Foat, seconded by Councilmember Mills and unanimously
carried on a roll call vote.
1. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1.A. DESERT PALISADES SPECIFIC PLAN APPROVING A SPECIFIC
.PLAN, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, CHANGE OF ZONE, AND
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (35540) FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 110
HOMESITES, DWA DUAL TANK WATER RESERVOIR, AND RELATED
FACILITIES ON A ROUGHLY.117-ACRE SITE IN PLANNING AREA 4
OF THE ESA-SP ZONE (CHINO CONE) LOCATED AT THE WESTERN
TERMINUS OF WEST RACQUET CLUB ROAD (CASE NO 5.1154 SP):
Craig Ewing, Director of Planning Services, provided background
information as outlined in the staff report dated January 5, 2011.
Mayor Pougnet opened the public hearing, and the following speakers
addressed the City Council
MARVIN ROOS, Representing Applicant, provided background
information on the proposed development, the development of the Chino
Cone development standards, features of the property and the
development, ,the challenges of the site, requested the City Council
06
i
City Council Minutes
January 5, 2011
Page 3
address and/or relieve the conditions as outlined in correspondence dated
January 5, 2011 by MSA Consulting.
VIC GAINER, commented on the development of the standards for the
development of the Chino Cone, stated the project meets and exceeds all
of the City standards for development in the Chino Cone, and requested
the City Council approve the project.
JACQUES CAUSSIN, commented on the .timing of construction and
compared Palm Springs to Tucson, Arizona.
JOHN STILES, stating the Zoning Ordinance is about zoning not
economics, stated this is a good project for the City of Palm Springs, and
requested the City Council approve the development,
LANCE O'DONNELL, stated he assisted with the architectural guidelines
for the project, stated the project sits lightly on the land, the permitted
open space within the area, and requested the City Council approve the
development.
LYN CALERDINE, Palm Springs, PSEDC, commented on the
development and implementation of the Chino Cone development
standards, stated the project is consistent with the Chino Cone Ordinance,
commented on the development features and economics of the project,
and requested the City Council approve the development.
BOB MARRA, commented on the public outreach by the Applicant, stated
the developers have been very responsive, stated the project is proposed
at only 1/2 the density that is allowed, the preservation of open space,
commented on the economics and timing of the project.
FLORENCE KLAASEN, commented on the development of the Chino
Cone, requested the City Council require a performance bond if approved,
and requested the City Council oppose the development.
MARINA VAN HORN, PSEDC, stated the Palm Springs Economic
Development Corporation recommends approval of the proposed Desert
Palisades project, as submitted in correspondence dated January 5, 2011.
ED FREEMAN, commented on Measure B and the development of the
Chino Cone Ordinance, stated the project is in conformance, and
requested the City Council approve the project.
ROBERT STONE, commented on the lack of public benefit for the project,
stated the citizens have gone on record for the development of the Chino
Cone, and commented on stewardship of the land.
07
City Council Minutes
January 5, 2011
Page 4
TIM O'BAYLEY, stated this project is requesting a variance from the Chino
Cone Ordinance, will be over developed, commented on the current
demand for housing, and requested the City Council not make the
exceptions to the Ordinance.
ANDY LINSKY, Palm Springs, commented on previous projects for the
Chino Cone, the current economic conditions, stated the development will
scar the site, and requested the City Council deny the project.
GLADYS KRENEK, stated the Chino Canyon is still pristine today, and
requested the City Council deny the proposed development.
JONO HILDNER, stated the project does not meet the requirements of the
Chino Cone Ordinance, commented on the current real estate market and
the unfinished projects in the City, stated no reason has been provided to
make an exception to the Zoning Ordinance, and requested the City
Council deny the project.
FRANK TYSEN, stated the applicants are requesting a major departure
from the Zoning Ordinance, commented on the current economics of the
real estate market and retail, stated their is no public benefit provided with
the project, and requested the City Council deny the project.
NICKIE MCLAUGHLIN, commented on the abandoned projects in the
area, the disruption of construction to the existing area, requested the City
require restoration bonds. if approved, and requested the. City Council
deny the project.
BEATRICE WYLER, commented on the natural habitat in the area, and
stated the animals would be displaced by the development, and requested
the City Council deny the project.
TOM O'CONNELL, commented on the encroachment of development into
the Coachella Valley, and requested the City Council ' limit the
development to one unit per acre.
EMILY HEMPHILL, Applicant Rebuttal, stated the project is not an
exception to the Chino Cone Ordinance, stated the project is within the
Chino Cone Ordinance, commented on the arguments provided with
respect. to economics, and stated the developer has brought forward a
development within the parameters of the Chino Cone Ordinance.
No further speakers coming forward, the public hearing was closed.
Mayor Pougnet requested staff address the regulations of the Chino Cone
Ordinance, and the allowance for the developer to submit a Specific Plan.
08
City Council Minutes
January 5, 2011
Page 5
Mayor Pro Tern Weigel requested staff address the conditions and
bonding for the restoration of the site if the development does not
proceed, requested staff address the findings the City Council needs to
make to approve the project, commented on the timing and process for
the development, and stated that the project preserves the natural beauty
of the desert, and his support of the project.
Councilmember Foat requested staff address the infrastructure and the
timing of the installation of roads, requested staff address the 12 acres in
Planning Area 4 to be moved to Planning Area 3, commented on the
acquisition of the property, requested staff address the status of the Chino
Canyon levy, the timing of infrastructure development, the water tank
installation, commented on the current status of housing and currently
scarred and abandoned projects in the City, stated the City does not have
to accept the Specific Plan as submitted, requested architectural review of
every unit, commented on the performance bond, and requested the City
Council add a condition that no infrastructure be constructed until 20% of
the lots have been sold.
Councilmember Mills commented on the uniqueness of the site and the
project, commented on the project timing and the installation of
infrastructure, stated his support for the "project, commented on the three
conditions that the Applicant requested relief and supported the use of
gates and requested Condition No. 38 be removed, Condition No. 39 be
amended for staff review, but not the review of the Planning Commission,
and requested the developer address the relationship, if any, with the
Shadowrock Project.
Councilmember Hutcheson requested staff address the safety in flood
control, the timing of the installation of Storm Drain Line No. 2, building
height, requested the applicant address the timing of the project, .
requested the applicant address the boulders on the site, stated it is
appropriate and responsible to approve the proposed specific plan as
consistent with the ' Chino Cone Ordinance, stated his support for
Condition No. 39, and commented on the graduating development.
Councilmember Foat requested clarification on the transfer of property to
Planning Area No. 3, and the installation of water tanks, commented on
the restrictions on.construction, if approved requested Condition No. 39 be
included.
Councilmember Mills requested the Applicant address the restrictions on
the construction window.
Mayor Pougnet requested staff address performance and/or completion
bonds, commented on the recent history of projects proposed for the
Chino Cone, and the inclusion of respectful development within the
09
i
City Council Minutes
January 5, 2011
Page 6
existing, neighborhood, stated his support for the project, and requested
staff address Condition No. 37, stated his support for the gates and
Planning Commission review of each individual home.
ACTION: Incorporate Condition No. 37 into the final Conditions of
Approval, amending the Condition to provide if two or more lots are
merged or combined, the total lot coverage may not exceed 12,000
square feet. Motion Councilmember Mills, seconded by Mayor Pro
Tem Weigel and carried 4-1 on a roll call vote.
AYES: Councilmember Hutcheson, Councilmember Mills, Mayor
Pro Tem Weigel, and Mayor Pougnet.
NOES: Councilmember Foat.
ACTION: Delete Condition No. 38 in the final Conditions of Approval,
regarding having the vehicular gates open during daytime hours. Motion
Mayor Pro Tem Weigel, seconded by Councilmember Mills and
carried 4-1 on a roll call vote.
AYES: Councilmember Foat, Councilmember Mills, Mayor Pro Tem
Weigel, and Mayor Pougnet.
NOES: Councilmember Hutcheson.
ACTION: Condition No. 39 to be included in the final Conditions of
Approval requiring review by the Architectural Advisory Committee and
Planning Commission of every home. Motion Councilmember Foat,
seconded by Councilmember Hutcheson and carried 3-2 on a roll cap
vote.
AYES: Councilmember Foat, Councilmember Hutcheson, and
Mayor Pougnet.
NOES: Councilmember Mills and Mayor Pro Tem Weigel.
MOTION: Add a Condition of Approval that prohibits the installation of
infrastructure until 20% of the lots have been sold with verifiable sales
within the project. Motion Councilmember Foat, failed for lack of a
second.
MOTION: Add a Condition of Approval that prohibits the installation of
infrastructure until 10% of the lots have been sold with verifiable sales
within the project. Motion Councilmember Foat, seconded by Mayor
Pougnet and failed 2-3 on a roll call vote.
AYES: Councilmember Foat and Mayor Pougnet.
NOES: Councilmember Hutcheson, Councilmember Mills, and
Mayor Pro Tem Weigel.
10
i
City Council Minutes
January 5, 2011
Page 7
ACTION: 1)Adopt Resolution No. 22845,"A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,
CERTIFYING THE ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AND APPROVING A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT RELATED TO
CASE 5.1154 SP; MODIFYING THE BOUNDARIES OF PLANNING
AREA 3 AND PLANNING AREA 4 OF THE SPECIAL POLICY LAND USE
AREA OF THE 2007 PALM SPRINGS GENERAL PLAN, ADOPTED BY
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO: 22077;" 2) Waive reading of the full
text of the Ordinance, and introduce by title only; 3) Introduce for first
reading Ordinance No. 1784, "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE
THE DESIGNATION OF AN APPROXIMATE 12 ACRE PORTION OF
PLANNING AREA 4 TO PLANNING AREA 3 IN THE
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (ESA-SP)
ZONE AND ADOPTING THE DESERT PALISADES SPECIFIC PLAN
WHICH MODIFIES THE DENSITY AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
FOR PLANNING AREA 4 OF THE ESA-SP ZONE LOCATED IN THE
VICINITY OF TRAM WAY AND WEST OF THE WESTERN TERMINUS
OF RACQUET CLUB ROAD, SECTION 4 (IL);" and 4) Adopt Resolution
No. 22846, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE ASSOCIATED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND APPROVING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP 35540 RELATED TO CASE 5.1154 SP; A SUBDIVISION OF
APPROXIMATELY 117 ACRES FOR 110 HOMESITES, PRIVATE
ROADS, PUBLIC TRAILS, OPEN SPACE, AND AN APPROXIMATE 1.7
ACRE PARCEL FOR A DESERT WATER AGENCY DUAL TANK
RESERVOIR IN PLANNING AREA 4 OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE AREA SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE (ESA-SP) LOCATED AT THE
WESTERN TERMINUS OF RACQUET CLUB ROAD; SECTION 4(IL),"
modifying the Conditions of Approval as follows: amending Condition No.
37 and deleting Condition No. 38." Motion Councllmember Mills,
seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Weigel and carried 4-1 on a roll call
vote.
AYES: Councilmember Hutcheson, Councilmember Mills, Mayor
Pro Tern Weigel, and Mayor Pougnet.
NOES: Councilmember Foat.
the Gi ouncll recessed a18:50 p.m.
The City Coin ened at 8:57 p.m.
Councilmember Hutcheson stated he is a er_ f�the Board of the Applicant
of Item 1.B., would not participate in the discussion or t�i�of d left Council
Chamber.
iL
ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Desert Palisades Project
Case No. 5.1154
(Certified by the City of Palm Springs Council on January 5, 2011)
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to analyze and consider
the environmental consequences of their decisions to approve development projects over which
they exercise discretion. CEQA achieves this objective by requiring agencies to prepare
Environmental Impact Reports (EIR's) for projects with the potential to cause significant impacts on
the physical environment. EIR's are public documents that assess environmental effects related to
the planning, construction, and operation of a project, and indicate ways to reduce or avoid
possible environmental damage. An EIR also discloses growth-inducing impacts, effects found not
to be significant, significant cumulative impacts, and significant impacts that cannot be avoided, if
any. The purpose of an EIR is to inform. EIR's are not policy documents that recommend project
approval or denial.
As lead agency, the City of Palm Springs prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
Desert Palisades Project, in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
(Public Resources Code, section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code
of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq., as amended). The City Council certified the final EIR (Final
EIR) for the Desert Palisades Project at a public hearing on January 5, 2011, approved the Desert
Palisades Final EIR for that project, and adopted the findings and statement of overriding
considerations at a public hearing on January 5, 2011. The analysis in the Final EIR was at a
"project" level of detail, which anticipated the potential impacts of future discretionary approvals to
implement the project. Applications for subsequent Site Plan and Architectural Review would not
require preparation of subsequent environmental documentation, unless otherwise required by
Public Resources Code Section 21166.
Public Resources Code Section 21166 limits the ability of an agency to require an additional EIR,
once one has been certified for a project. Section 21166 provides as follows:
21166. Subsequent or Supplemental Impact Report; Conditions.
When an environmental impact report has been prepared for a project pursuant to this division, no
subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or
by any responsible agency, unless one or more of the following events occurs:
(a) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the
environmental impact report.
(b) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is
being undertaken which will require major revisions in the environmental impact report.
(c) New information, which was not known and could not have been known at the time the
environmental impact report was certified as complete, becomes available.
12
ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Desert Palisades Project
Pape 2 of 8
The CEQA Guidelines further refine the circumstances under which a supplemental or
subsequent EIR may be required. Guidelines Section 15162 provides as follows:
15162. Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations.
"(a) When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no
subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency
determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record,
one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major
revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement
of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the
project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or
negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could
not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the
previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was
adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in
the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more
severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible
would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more
significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to
adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different
from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce
one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project
proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative."
13
ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Desert Palisades Project
Page 3 of 8
The project applicant has now submitted a request to modify a biological resources mitigation
measure included in the FEIR. Specifically, the project applicant requested extension of the
construction window to January 31, with the presence of a biological monitor onsite at all times
during the month of January who will direct construction activities to cease if Bighorn sheep are
detected on or in the vicinity of the project site. As described in detail below, this modification is
supported by the expert opinion of biologist James W. Cornett.
After reviewing the facts and analyzing the circumstances, the Palm Springs City staff has
determined that a new EIR is not required, because none of the circumstances described in Public
Resources Code Section 21166 as implemented by CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 are present.
Staff has prepared this addendum to discuss these issues and to document the basis for this
determination.
2.1 Extension of the construction window to January 31 with the presence of a biological
monitor.
2.2 Description of the Issue
The Desert Palisades Project as analyzed in the Final EIR included mitigation for the peninsular
bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnobates).
According to the Biological Assessment prepared for the FEIR, the endangered peninsular bighorn
sheep has been recorded in the general vicinity of the project site (records from the Bighorn
Institute, Palm Desert, California). The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service provided records indicating
sheep present on and very near the site in 1997.
No bighorn sheep were observed or detected during the field surveys described in the Biological
Assessment. The inability to observe or detect bighorn during the current survey likely reflects the
dramatic decline in bighorn numbers over the past three decades. In the 1970s Peninsular bighorn
numbers hovered around 250 animals in the San Jacinto Mountains. By 2008 the number had
dwindled to 28 as a result of the introduction of exotic diseases, possible inbreeding, and habitat
loss and fragmentation.
From the historical records and the existence of sheep in the area today, it can be assumed that
sheep occasionally traverse the site in search of food. However, no drinking water is available
within the project boundaries, and the city-facing orientation of the site and its proximity to Tram
Way probably preclude the existence of lambing areas within or immediately adjacent to the site
boundaries. The assessment conducted by James W. Cornett Biological Consultants determined
that based on available data, Peninsular Bighorn Sheep do not use the southern portion of the
Desert Palisades site, as established in the Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan.
In September of 2008, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants completed a re-examination of the
aforementioned biological studies to assess the presence of Peninsular bighorn sheep in the
project site and in relation to the existing Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan (THCP) and the adopted
Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). The review specifically
assessed the potential presence of these mammals based on survey results and this species'
known preferred habitat conditions. These characteristics were compared to the established Tribp4
ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Desert Palisades Project
Page 4 of 8
HCP and CVMSHCP. The observations revisited surveys that totaled 37 days within two different
years and three different seasons. The studies did not reveal a single sighting of a bighorn
mammal. For a second time, James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants concluded that the site
contains the potential, but very unlikely presence of peninsular bighorn sheep.
These findings are supported by the fact that bighorn sheep predominantly prefer steep, hillside
habitat over alluvial fan habitat. Compared to alluvial fan conditions, hillside terrain provides the
secure footing necessary for their escape and survival from predators. Sheep are well adapted for
movement and flight along these rocky conditions rather than on the unconsolidated terrain of an
alluvial fan. Although the Bighorn Institute has made a number of detections and observations in
the region of the project, these generally occurred in the hillsides and ridges, not in the alluvial fan
areas that characterize the majority of the project site.
Along with being within the Mountains and Canyons Conservation Area (MCCA), the Tribal Habitat
Conservation Plan for the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation also shows that the project site is
adjacent to land designated as a lambing area for bighorn sheep. This area is located in the
mountainous slopes to the south which are not proposed for any development. The Mountains and
Canyons Conservation Area works to preserve the essential habitats of a variety of species,
including the Peninsular bighorn sheep and a number of avian riparian and amphibian species. As
previously discussed, the proposed project will support all conservation efforts pursuant to the
Tribal HCP.
Under the Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan, the Mountains and Canyons Conservation Area
(MCCA), which covers portions of the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa mountain ranges, affects the
proposed project site. The MCCA aims to avoid or minimize disturbance to the local mountainous
areas through a range of conservation levels. The MCCA requires 100 percent conservation (no
disturbance) of habitat areas determined to be occupied by Peninsular bighorn sheep. Of the
project site's 117 gross acres, 9.4 are within the MCCA. In accordance with the Tribal HCP, this
hillside portion of the site will not be disturbed.
The Following Mitigation Measure was included in the FEIR to address impacts to PBS.
MM 3.4-1: The developer shall ensure that the following mitigation measures be required to reduce
potential impacts to bighorn sheep:
• Deeding all hillside acreage within the project boundaries to the City of Palm Springs as part
of their hillside conservation area.
• Ensuring that grading operations shall not take place from January 1 to June 30, the
Peninsular Bighorn Sheep lambing period. Grading operations shall be confined to between July 1
and December 31, when disturbance to sheep is less likely.
• Providing a research grant to the Bighorn Institute for further research on the causes
underlying the long-term decline in bighorn sheep numbers. The amount to be paid to the Bighorn
Institute shall be determined by the institute in consultation with the applicant. The applicant shall
furnish the City with a receipt of payment prepared by the institute.
• No rock crushing or blasting operations shall occur on-site during any phase of project
development. Rock crushing operations shall be limited to off-site locations for materials resulting
from the development of the Desert Water Agency reservoir site, common area improvements, and
the on-site infrastructure. Proposals for rock splitting on individual lots will be evaluated at the time
15
ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Desert Palisades Project
Page 5 of 8
such development applications are received for review and approval by the City.
Because the project's grading and rock moving activities have been delayed by a variety of
occurrences including adverse weather conditions and the discovery of unmapped archaeological
resources, the applicant is proposing to extend grading activities into the month of January with
incorporation of biological monitoring for Peninsular Bighorn sheep.
Consultation with the project biologist, James W. Cornett, resulted in the following information
which was presented in a letter addressed to City of Palm Springs Project Planner Ken Lyon, dated
December 16, 2014 (Attachment 1). The letter makes the recommendation that with Biological
Monitoring, grading and rock moving activities can proceed until January 31 without any significant
impacts to Bighorn sheep.
Mr. Cornett's letter states:
In my report, I recommended that grading and related site disturbances be conducted
in fall and winter so as to avoid the lambing period of desert bighorn sheep known to
reside on the lower desert slopes of the San Jacinto Mountains. In my report I should
have written early winter instead of "winter" and my error was identified by the Sierra
Club and Center for Biological Diversity in their comments on the Final Environmental
Impact Report. As I have correctly stated in many other reports, earth disturbance
activities should cease from February 1 through June 30 since bighorn Iambs begin
appearing in February of each year. In December and January fertile bighorn ewes
(females) are carrying Iambs but have not yet given birth.
In light of the Endangered status of the bighorn sheep population in the San Jacinto
Mountains and recent information on the reproductive status of the species, I
recommend that a biological monitor be present on site anytime in January of 2015
when site disturbance is occurringand pregnant ewes are nearing their birthing
P 9 9 9
period. The purpose of the monitor is to assure that earth moving activities halt if
bighorn sheep are present on or in the vicinity of the project site. Work would begin
after observed bighorn moved away from the project site. This recommendation will
insure that current grading will have no significant adverse impacts upon bighorn
sheep.
All earthmoving and related activities should not be allowed after January 31, 2015.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding these
recommendations.
2.3Application of CEQA Guideline Section 15162
Is there substantial evidence in the record revealing that there have been substantial changes
proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous E1R due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of
previously identified significant effects as a result of consideration of extending grading and
rock moving to January 31 st?
16
ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Desert Palisades Project
Page 6 of 8
No, there is no evidence suggesting that any changes to the project have been proposed. As noted
above, the FEIR analyzed the impacts of the Project authorizing grading and rock moving activities
within a window of time that would mitigate impacts to Peninsular Bighorn Sheep.
The project biologist has stated that the presence of a biological monitor onsite during January
grading and rock moving activities who has the authority to halt these activities, would ensure that
impacts will remain less than significant with mitigation as determined in the FEIR.
Is there substantial evidence in the record revealing that there have been substantial changes
with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major
revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or
a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects as a result of the
consideration of an extension of grading and rock relocation?
No, there is no evidence suggesting that there have been substantial changes with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions to the
previous EIR. This analysis reveals that no new significant environmental effects would result from
the extension of grading and rock moving activities into the month of January with the presence of
a biological monitor with the authority to halt these activities and there will be no increase in the
severity of any previously identified significant effects. Nonetheless, it is important to note that
there has been no change at this time from the circumstances analyzed in the EIR.
Is there substantial evidence in the record revealing that there is new information of substantial
importance related to the consideration of extension of the grading and rock moving activities into
January with the presence of a biological monitor, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EiR was certified that
shows: (1) the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR, (2)
significant effects previously shown will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous
EIR, (3) mitigation measure or altematives previously found to be infeasible would in fact be
feasible, or (4) there are considerably different mitigation measure or alternatives from those
analyzed in the previous EiR that would substantially reduce one or more significant effects?
No, there is no evidence suggesting that there is new information of substantial importance relating
to new significant effects or the severity of previously identified significant effects, or new
alternatives or mitigation measures or the efficacy of previously considered alternatives or
mitigation measures. At the time of the certification of the previous EIR, grading and rock relocation
activities were limited to December 31 to mitigate potential impacts to Peninsular Bighorn Sheep to
less than significant. This mitigation measure was based on the recommendation of biologist
James W. Cornett. As described above, Mr. Cornett has now concluded that earth disturbing
activities may continue until January 31 st as long as: (1) a biological monitor is present at all times;
and (2) all earth moving activities cease when the biological monitor determines that Bighorn
sheep are present on or in the vicinity of the project site. Based on Mr. Cornett's expert opinion,
no new significant environmental effects would result by modifying Mitigation Measure 3.4-1. There
will be no increase in the severity of any previously identified significant effects. As a consequence
it can be concluded that no new considerably different mitigation measures would be required. No
new alternatives need be analyzed. Nonetheless, it is important to note that there has been no
change at this time from the circumstances analyzed in the EIR. 17
ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Desert Palisades Project
Pape 7 of 8
2.4 Modification of Mitigation Measure 3.4-1
Based on the expert opinion of biologist James W. Cornett, Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 is hereby
modified as follows:
MM 3.4-1: The developer shall ensure that the following mitigation measures be required to reduce
potential impacts to bighorn sheep:
• Deeding all hillside acreage within the project boundaries to the City of Palm Springs as part
of their hillside conservation area.
• CnS UriRg that gFadinn eneFati9ns shell not take plane from hnl ary 1 to 6 une 30 the
end flesemher 31 when disfnrhanse to sheen is less likely.
Ensuring that grading operations (earth moving) shall not take place from February 1 to June
30, the Peninsular Bighom Sheep lambing period. Grading operations shall be confined to between
July 1 and January 31, when disturbance to sheep is less likely. A qualified biologist shall be
designated as a biological monitor and shall be present onsite during any grading operations that
take place in the month of January. All grading activities shall cease and desist when the biological
monitor determines that Bighorn sheep are present on or in the vicinity of the project site.
• Providing a research grant to the Bighorn Institute for further research on the causes
underlying the long-term decline in bighorn sheep numbers. The amount to be paid to the Bighorn
Institute shall be determined by the institute in consultation with the applicant. The applicant shall
furnish the City with a receipt of payment prepared by the institute.
• No rock crushing or blasting operations shall occur on-site during any phase of project
development. Rock crushing operations shall be limited to off-site locations for materials resulting
from the development of the Desert Water Agency reservoir site, common area improvements, and
the on-site infrastructure. Proposals for rock splitting on individual lots will be evaluated at the time
such development applications are received for review and approval by the City.
This modified Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 is hereby incorporated by this reference into the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program previously adopted by the City for this Project.
18
ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Desert Palisades Project
Page 8 of 8
3.0 BASIS FOR DECISION TO PREPARE AN ADDENDUM
CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 explains when an addendum to an EIR is required:
15164. Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration.
"(a) The lead agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to
a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but
none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation
of a subsequent EIR have occurred.
(b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if
only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the
conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a
subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.
(c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be
included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
(d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final
EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the
project.
(e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR
pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR,
the lead agency's required findings on the project, or elsewhere in the
record. The explanation must be supported by substantial evidence."
Although there have been no changes to the project, an addendum is appropriate
because there have been technical changes to the FEIR. However, none of the
conditions described in Section 15162 have occurred. These changes do not
constitute substantial changes to the project or the circumstances due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the
severity of previously identified significant effects. Similarly, these changes do not
constitute new information that result in new significant effects or substantially more
severe significant effects. Likewise, there are no known mitigation measures that would
in fact be feasible or that would substantially reduce significant effects, that the project
proponent has declined to adopt. Furthermore, there have been no other changes,
evidence or new information which would require revisions to the previous EIR.
Because none of the criteria in Section 15162 has occurred, an addendum is
appropriate.
Attachment 1: Letter from James W Comett to Ken Lyon (December 2014)
19
ATTACHMENT
20
)AMES W. CORNETT
ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS
(760) 320-8135 FAX (760) 320-6182
December 16, 2014
Mr. Ken Lyon
Department of Planning Services
City of Palm Springs
Ken.Lyon@PaImSpringsca.gov
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
Dear Mr. Lyon:
As you may recall, I completed the biological study on the project known as Desert Palisades
located along Tram Way in Palm Springs.
In my report, I recommended that grading and related site disturbances be conducted in fall and
winter so as to avoid the lambing period of desert bighorn sheep known to reside on the lower
desert slopes of the San Jacinto Mountains. In my report I should have written early winter
instead of"winter" and my error was identified by the Sierra Club and Center for Biological Di-
versity in their comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report.As I have correctly stated
in many other reports, earth disturbance activities should cease from February 1 through June 30
since bighorn lambs begin appearing in February of each year. In December and January fertile
bighorn ewes (females) are carrying lambs but have not yet given birth.
In light of the Endangered status of the bighorn sheep population in the San Jacinto Mountains
and recent information on the reproductive status of the species, I recommend that a biological
monitor be present on site anytime in January of 2015 when site disturbance is occurring and
pregnant ewes are nearing their birthing period. The purpose of the monitor is to assure that earth
moving activities halt if bighorn sheep are present on or in the vicinity of the project site. Work
would begin after observed bighorn moved away from the project site. This recommendation will
insure that current grading will have no significant adverse impacts upon bighorn sheep.
All earthmoving and related activities should not be allowed after January 31, 2015. Please do
not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions regarding these recommendations.
ASinly,C.mett
jwc/tb
P.O. BOX 846 PALM SPR(N6S CA 92263 EMAIL )WCORNETT@AOL.COM 21
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DESERT
PALISADES SPECIFIC PLAN (DPSP), CASE 5.1154 SP, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES.
WHEREAS, on April 30, 2007, Ed Freeman on behalf of Pinnacle View, LLC ("the
applicant') submitted an application for review pursuant to PSZC Sections 92.21.1.00
through 07 ("Environmentally Sensitive Area — Specific Plan'), and a Tentative Tract
Map (TTM 35540), that proposes to create a subdivision of 110 residential lots, private
roadways, public trails, open space, and an approximately 1.7 acre parcel for a future
Desert Water Agency dual tank domestic water reservoir, on an approximately 117-acre
site. The project site is located at the western terminus of Racquet Club Road; and
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2007, notice in accordance with State Governmental Code
Section 65352.3, ("SB 18') was provided to Native American Tribal representatives, and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2007, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and
Initial Study on the project indicating that a draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
would be prepared on the proposed Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map; the NOP
comment period ran from December 7, 2007 to January 7, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2010, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued to public
agencies and interested parties noting a revised EIR would be prepared and a 45-day
period was provided for responses to the NOP that ended on March 4, 2010, and
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2010, the DEIR was prepared and circulated for a 45-day
public review period which ended on March 8, 2010, and
WHEREAS, all public comments received on the DEIR were reviewed and written
responses were provided in a Final EIR (FEIR), and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Springs to consider a recommendation to the City Council of Case 5.1154 SP was given
in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, June 28, September 1, and October 27, 2010, a public hearing
on Case 5.1154, (The Desert Palisades Specific Plan, including Tentative Tract Map
35540), and associated FOR was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with
applicable law, and
22
Resolution No,
Page 2
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2010, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 6161
recommending that the City Council certify the FEIR as complete and approve Case
5.1154 SP Desert Palisades Specific Plan, including Tentative Tract Map 35540,
subject to Conditions of Approval; and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to
consider Case 5.1154 SP, TTM 35540, was given in accordance with applicable law;
and
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2011, a public hearing on the application for the project was
held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing the City Council considered the Specific Plan and the
Tentative Tract Map No. 35540, including the staff report, the Desert Palisades Specific
Plan, the associated FEIR, and all written and public testimony related to Case 5.1154
SP and TTM 35540; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 15612 of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City Council has considered certain requested changes to
the proposed project with regard to the extension of time by which to conduct grading
operations, from January 1 to January 31, in relation to potential impacts to Peninsular
Bighorn Sheep, and has determined that the proposed change, with inclusion of new
mitigation, does not represent a new significant environmental effect or a substantial
increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects, and that an
Addendum to the FEIR pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines may be
approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That an addendum to the previously certified Final Environmental Impact
Report for the subject project is an adequate environmental assessment of
the potential adverse impacts of the proposed request to an extension of
time by which to conduct grading operations, from January 1 to January
31, in relation to potential impacts to Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines.
SECTION 2: That Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 of the Mitigation Monitoring Plan shall be
modified as follows, which shall be sufficient and adequate to reduce any
potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels:
MM 3.4-1: The developer shall ensure that the following mitigation
measures be required to reduce potential impacts to bighorn sheep:
• Deeding all hillside acreage within the project boundaries to the City
of Palm Springs as part of their hillside conservation area.
23
Resolution No.
Page 3
• ERSUFina that grading Operations shall not take plane fmm Ian vary 4
4e Llne Qn the Peninsular Pinham Cheer lambing n 'ed Grading
enemtiens shall he nonf'ned to between I ly 4 and Qevemher 3
yeyhcn dicta rhanne to sheen 's less likely
Ensuring that grading operations (earth moving) shall not take
place from February 1 to June 30, the Peninsular Bighom Sheep
lambing period. Grading operations shall be confined to between July
1 and January 31, when disturbance to sheep is less likely. A
qualified biologist shall be designated as a biological monitor and
shall be present onsite during any grading operations that take place
in the month of January. All grading activities shall cease and desist
when the biological monitor determines that Bighorn sheep are
present on or in the vicinity of the project site.
• Providing a research grant to the Bighorn Institute for further research
on the causes underlying the long-term decline in bighorn sheep
numbers. The amount to be paid to the Bighorn Institute shall be
determined by the institute in consultation with the applicant. The
applicant shall furnish the City with a receipt of payment prepared by
the institute.
• No rock crushing or blasting operations shall occur on-site during any
phase of project development. Rock crushing operations shall be
limited to off-site locations for materials resulting from the
development of the Desert Water Agency reservoir site, common area
improvements, and the on-site infrastructure. Proposals for rock
splitting on individual lots will be evaluated at the time such
development applications are received for review and approval by the
City.
24
Resolution No.
Page 4
THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY APPROVE AN ADDENDUM TO
THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
DESERT PALISADES SPECIFIC PLAN (DPSP), CASE 5.1154 SP, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES.
ADOPTED this 7th day of January, 2015.
David H. Ready, City Manager
ATTEST:
James Thompson, City Clerk
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that
Resolution No. is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
James Thompson, City Clerk
City of Palm Springs, California
25
JAN. 7. 2015 3:46PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC M OIR P. 2
�V WORDEN WILLIAMS APc
Representing Public Agencies,Private Entities,and lndividuats
January 7, 2015 AREAS OF PRACTICE
Via Facsimile PUBLIC AC ENCY
LAND USE AND
I ENVIRONMENTAL
REAL ESTATE
City Council ESTATE PLANNING
AND ADMINISTRATION
City of Palm Springs
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way BUSIN'E55
Palm Springs, California 92262 CIVIL LITIGATION
Re: Case 5,1154 SP-Addendum for the Desert Palisades Specific Plan ATTORNEYS
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: TRACY R.RICHMOND
D.WAYNE BRECHTEL
I am writing on behalf of the Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity KRISTEN WEIRIDE
("Center') to lodge their strong objections to the proposal that would 1 JA501 R.SCHINGLER
authorize the extension of major grading activities for an additional 30 days in j YIN T Ho
contradiction of the existing mitigation requirements that require no
construction activities during the Peninsular bighorn sheep lambing period MICHELEs FISCHBEw
beginning on January 1 through June 30. The proposed change is arbitrary, D.DWIGHT WORDEN
Retired
capricious and without any factual or scientific support.
W.SCOTT WILLIAMS
Retired
In support of the change, the project consultant appears to have simply
modified his opinion to accommodate his client's desire to extend major
grading activities without any real consideration of the intent and purpose i OFFICE
behind the mitigation measure. Further, the change in opinion is inconsistent l 462 STEVENS AVENUE
with virtually every plan and regulation implemented to prevent the SO lua
LA
extinction of Peninsular bighorn sheep, as outlined b a few examples below, NA BEACH
g p y p CALIFORNIA
9207.S
Recovery Plan for Bighorn Sheep in the Peninsular Ranges, California, Section) 185 51 75 5-6604 1ELEPH04E
I, B. Ecology, 3. Reproduction Rya)755-5198 FAcsw u..
• The finding states that "[i]n the San Jacinto and northern Santai YWOldenwl Ili ams.c°m
Rosa Mountains ewe groups, the lambing season begins ini
January during some years."
JAN. 7. 2015 3: 47PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC NO. 0180 P. 3
W
City Council
City of Palm Springs
January 7, 2015
Page 2
Proposed Major Amendment to the Coachella Valley MSHCP -September 2013, Section
4.4 Required Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures, Page 4-176
• Peninsular Bighorn Sheep Habitat. "Completion of Covered Activities in
Peninsular bighorn sheep Habitat in the Cabazon, Snow Creek, Windy
Point, and Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Areas will
not be conducted outside of the January 1 - June 30 lambing season
unless otherwise authorized through a Minor Amendment to the Plan
with concurrence from the Wildlife Agencies.
Federal Register,Vol. 74, No. 70,Page.17339
• "(1) Proposed covered activities in Peninsular bighorn sheep habitat will
be prohibited during the lambing season (January 1 through June 30)
unless otherwise authorized through a Minor Amendment with
concurrence from the State and Service;"
The proposed Addendum is ill advised and cannot be approved without further
environmental review. At minimum, the proposed change cannot proceed forward by
way of an Addendum. It is a substantial change to a mitigation measure designed to
prevent significant impacts to an endangered species. As noted in the proposed
Addendum, the project site at issue is adjacent to a known lambing area for the
endangered Peninsular bighorn sheep. The change would authorize substantial
grading activities adjacent to this area during the documented lambing season. This is a
substantial change that cannot be approved without environmental review.
Accordingly, a supplemental environmental impact report that includes public review
and comment and consultation with trustee agencies must be prepared.
Further, the proposal to modify the mitigation measure cannot be approved because the
change is not supported by substantial evidence. The change proposed is the
elimination of the mitigation measure during the first month of the lambing season.
"[W]here a public agency has adopted a mitigation measure for a project, it may not
authorize destruction or cancellation of the mitigation—whether or not the approval is
ministerial—without reviewing the continuing need for the mitigation, stating a reason
for its actions, and supporting it with substantial evidence." 1
L Katzeff a. California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection(2010) 1S1 Ca1.AppAth 601,614.
JAN. 7. 2015 3: 47PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC NO. 0180 P. 4
W
City Council
City of Palm Springs
January 7, 2015
Page 3
[A] governing body must state a legitimate reason for deleting an earlier adopted
mitigation measure, and must support that statement of reason with substantial
evidence. If no legitimate reason for the deletion has been stated, or if the
evidence does not support the governing body's finding, the Iand use plan, as
modified by the deletion or deletions, is invalid and cannot be enforced.2
Here, the City does not provide any evidence, much less substantial evidence, for the
proposal to alter an approved mitigation measure, For example, the project consultant
simply changes his mind and opines that the lambing season does not start until
February,without providing any factual or scientific support. As set forth above, this is
inconsistent with all other scientific findings and plans adopted to prevent harm to the
Peninsular bighorn sheep. Also, attached are four reports from the Bighorn Institute
documenting lambing activities in the San Jacinto Mountains in January. (See Exhibit
A, Reproduction, San Jacinto Mountains.) The consultant goes on to propose a
biological monitor be present on the site during the January construction period. The
purpose would be to identify any bighorn sheep in the area. The idea that impacts of
extended grading into the lambing season can be mitigated by the presence of a
biological monitor to see if any bighorn sheep are in the area is not credible. The
purpose of ceasing significant construction activity during the lambing season is to
ensure that bighorn sheep will be able to utilize their historic lambing area. The
ongoing construction activities will ensure that no bighorn sheep are in the area.
Finally, the City does not have authority to approve the mitigation measure change
because it requires a Minor Amendment to the City's MSHCP permit. Compliance with
the MSCP is especially critical for the San Jacinto mountains ewe group that would be
impacted by the extended construction period. The San Jacinto ewe group is the
northernmost, smallest and most vulnerable population of bighorn in the area.
z Napa Citizens for Honest Gov't v.Napa County Bd.of Supervisors(2001)91 Cal.AppAth 342,359.
JAN, 7. 2015 3:47PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC NO. 0180 P. 5
W
City Council
City of Palm Springs
January 7,2015
Page 4
For these reasons, the Sierra Club and Center request that the City Council either deny
the request to modify the mitigation measure outright, or if it wishes to consider
adoption of the revised measure, require formal environmental review be conducted
and further that a Minor Amendment of the City's MSHCP Permit be obtained.
Very truly yours,
WORDEN WILLIAMS APC
0 4 /
D. Wayne Brechtel, Esq.
dwb@wordenwiUiams.com
DWB:lg
Enclosure
JAN. 7. 2015 3: 47PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC N0. 0180 P. 6
EX H IBIT
BIGHORN INSTITUTE
YEAR-END REPORT
EXCERPTS
JAN. 7. 2015 3:47PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC N0. 0180 P. 7
BIGHORN INSTITUTE
2006 YEAR-END REPORT
December 2006
INVESTIGATIONS OF PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP IN THE
SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS AND SAN JACINTO MOUNTAINS OF CALIFORNIA
PLEASE DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE THIS REPORT WITHOUT
AUTHORIZATION FROM BIGHORN INSTITUTE
Bighorn Institute
P. O.Box 262
Palm Desert,CA 92261-0262
Phone(760)346-7334
Fax(760)340-3987
Email BI@Bighoiminstitute.org
www.Bighornlnstitute.org
JAN. 1. 2015 3 : 47PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC NO. 0180 P. 8
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................I
CAPTIVE BREEDING AND WILD POPULATION AUGMENTATION...........................................2
REPORTS ON THE SAN JACINTO AND NORTHERN AND CENTRAL SANTA ROSA MOUNTAIN
STUDY HERDS
POPULATIONSIZE AND STRUCTURE..........................................................................3
DISTRIBU77ONAND HABITAT USE.............................................................................5
REPRODUCTION...................................................................I...................................7
SURVIVALANDMORTALITY..............................................................................I.."... 3
PROPOSED PROJECTS FOR 2007.............................................................................................10
1
JAN. 7. 2015 3:47PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC NO. 0180 P. 9
REPRODUCTION
San Jacinto Mountains
Six of nine adult ewes were known to have produced lambs in the SJMs in 2006. , six.famb's'wete-hDrn7
p^ra eve-re'o6servv 'ui 7 nress,, e,, an 04) As of
December 31, 2006, five of the lambs (3F, 2M)were known to be alive. The other lamb was last observed alive
on October 14P showing no signs of illness or injury,but is presumed dead, An interesting note about these
dams is that they were all previously released from Bighorn Institute.
Northern Santa Rosa Mountains—Bradley/Magnesia/Cathedral Canyon
Only ten of the twenty-eight adult ewes were known to have produced lambs in the
Bradley/Magnesia/Cathedral Canyon ewe group in 2006_ Four of these ewes wore functional radio-collars and
one had a nonfunctional collar. This number is considerably lower than normal because sixteen lambs were
born in the fall of 2005, from October—December. The 2006 lambs were born between late January and late
July and were observed in Magnesia and Bradley Canyons. As of December 31, 2006, only one female lamb
was known to be alive.
.Northern Santa Rosa Mountains—Dead Indian Canyon
Neither of the two radio-collared adult ewes in the Dead Indian Canyon ewe group were known to have
produced lambs in 2006. These ewes did; however, give birth in late December of 2005,but neither of these
lambs survived past May 2006.
Central Santa Rosa Mountains—Deep Canyon/La Quinta area
BI monitored fifteen adult collared ewes in the Deep Canyon and La Quinta areas of the CSRM in 2006.
The Institute documented nine lambs born in the spring in the CSRM.We assume more lambs were born
than what we were able to document, but we did not monitor this portion of the range as thoroughly as the
NSRM or SJM.
7
JAN, 7. 2015 3: 47PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC NO, 0180 P. 10
BIGHORN INSTITUTE
2007 YEAR-END REPORT
December 2007
INVESTIGATIONS OF PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP IN THE
SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS AND SAN JACINTO MOUNTAINS OF CALIFORNIA
PLEASE DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE THIS REPORT WITHOUT
AUTHORIZATION FROM BIGHORN INSTITUTE
Bighorn Institute
P.O. Box 262
Palm Desert, CA 92261-0262
Phone(760)346-7334
Fax (760)340-3987
Email BICBighornListitute.org
www.BighornInstitute.org
JAN. 7. 2015 3 : 48PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC N0. 0180 P. it
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................I.......................1
CAPTIVE BREEDING AND WILD POPULATION AUGMENTATION...........................................2
REPORTS ON THE SAN JACINTO AND NORTHERN AND CENTRAL SANTA ROSA MOUNTAIN
STUDY HERDS
POPULATION SIZE AND STRUCTURE..........................................................................4
DISTRIBUTIONAND HABITAT USE..................................................I..........................6
REPRODUCTION...................................................I.......................................I...........8
SURVIVAL AND MORTALITY................................................................................... ...9
PROPOSED PROJECTS FOR 2008.............................................................................................11
JAN. 7. 2015 3: 48PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC N0. 0180 P. 12
REPRODUCTION
Sass Jacinto Mountains
Four of nine adult ewes were known to have produced lambs in the SIM in 2007. 1-fo mlat x s`W
a '. . °� -7?eUiu _ands-_._,obsin atr e•an 'TaaFFV�CanYgii,S'i As of December
31, 2007,two of the lambs (IF, 1M)were known to be alive. The two other lambs were last observed alive in
March and April and showed no signs of illness or injury,but disappeared. All four dams were previously
released from Bighorn Institute.
Northern Santa Rosa Mountains-Bradley/Magnesia/Cathedral Canyon
Twenty-three of thirty adult ewes were known to have produced lambs iu the Bradley/Magnesia/Cathedral
Canyon ewe group in 2007. Eleven of these ewes wore functional radio-collars and one had a nonfunctional
collar. The 2007 lambs were born between early January and raid June and were observed in Magnesia and
Bradley Canyons. As of December 31,2007,only six lambs (417,2M)were known to be alive. As we
mentioned previously,this was another severe drought year and it is possible that the poor conditions in the
range lead to the lack of lamb survival in 2007. The lambs that survived have smaller body size and horn
growth, which may be an indication of poor nutrition.
Northern Santa Rosa Mountains-Dead Xndian Canyon
Neither of the two radio-collared adult ewes in the Dead Indian Canyon ewe group were known to have
produced lambs in 2007. Both ewes showed signs of pregnancy(enlarged udders),but were not observed with
lambs.
Central Santa Rosa Mountains-Deep Canyon/La Quinta area
BI monitored fifteen adult collared ewes in the Deep Canyon and La Quinta areas of the CSRM in 2007.
The Institute documented eleven lambs born in the spring in the CSRM.We assume more lambs were born
than what we were able to document, as we did not monitor this portion of the range as thoroughly as the
NSRM or SIM.
g
JAN. 7. 2015 3 : 48PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC NO. 0180 P. 13
BIGHORN INSTITUTE
2011 YEAR-END REPORT
December 2011
INVESTIGATIONS OF PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP IN THE
SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS AND SAN JACINTO MOUNTAINS OF CALIFORNIA
PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THIS REPORT WITHOUT
AUTHORIZATION FROM BIGHORN INSTITUTE
Bighom Institute
P. O.Box 262
Palm Desert, CA 9226I-0262
Phone(760)346-7334
Fax(760)340-3987
Email BX@Bighornlnstitute.org
www.Bighom[ustitute.org
JAN. 7. 2015 3: 48PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC NO. 01S0 P, 14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................I
CAPTIVE BREEDING AND 'WILT!POPULATION AUGMENTATION...........................................2
REPORTS ON THE SAN JACINTO AND NORTHERN AND CENTRAL-SANTA ROSA MOUNTAIN
STUDY HERDS
POP VLATION SIZE AND STRUCTURE..........................................................................3
DISTRIBUTIONAND HABITAT USE.........................................................I...................5
REPRODUCTION.....................................................................................................1.8
SURVIVAL AND MORTALITY....................................................I'll....I.................... ...9
CAPTURES..................................................................................................I.............10
PROPOSED PROJECTS FOR 2012........................................................................I....................11
JAN. 7. 2015 3: 48PM WMDEN WILLIAMS APC N0. 0180 P. 15
REPRODUCTION
San Jacinto Mountains
Eleven of fourteen adult ewes were known to have produced lambs in the SJM in 2011.
ibelave n lam aiicl emr7ypd aIlinii 1a sx tt12 s:o : oun ahl., s_`�51_sno
e...aeri a•�T : a 3euaTi;an3 C&o fan ons. As of December 31, 2011, eight lambs (4F,4M) are
known to be alive, Of the eleven ewes that had lambs, four of them wore functional radio-collars. The other
seven ewes were unable to be tracked and were observed opportunistically. Three of the six functioning radio-
collared ewes successfully reared a lamb. All eleven lambs were born to ewes that were either released from
the Institute or were offspring of released sheep.
Northern Santa Rosa Mountains
Bradley/Magnesia/Cathedral Canyon
Twenty-seven of thirty-four adult ewes were known to have produced lambs in the Bradley/Magnesia/Cathedral
Canyon ewe group in 2011. All initial sightings of young lambs (<— 1 mouth old) were in Ramon Creek,
Bradley and Magnesia Canyons. The lambs were born between early January and late March. As of December
31, 2011,only three lambs (217, IM) are known to be alive. This year a few of the lambs that died showed signs
of illness including nasal discharge,droopy ears,and stunted horn and body growth. In 2011, a few of the
lambs in the NSRM were consistently smaller in body and horn size than those observed in the SJM the past
couple of years. In fact, of the three surviving lambs this year, a female and the male lamb are small for their
ages and have stunted hom growth. Thirteen of the thirty-four ewes wore functional radio-collars and two had
non-functional collars or were marked with eartags only.
The Ramon Peak and Bradley Peak areas continue to be the most important lambing areas for the northern
Santa Rosa Mountains herd of bighorn sheep. The steep,rugged, escape terrain is vital to the survival of the
lambs and is critical for the overall recovery of this subgroup.
Carrizo/Dead Indian Canyons
The radio-collared ewe inhabiting the Carrizo/Dead Indian Canyons produced a lamb in 2011, which was first
documented in late January in Magnesia Canyon, however,the lamb perished in May. This is the first year
we've documented this ewe giving birth in Magnesia Canyon. She typically gives birth in Dead Lidian/Carrizo
Canyon and then moves to Bradley and Magnesia with her young lambs for a few months, likely for herd
vigilance. This year she birthed in Magnesia Canyon and remained in Bradley and Magnesia Canyons until
mid-April.
Central Santa Rosa Mountains—Deep Canyon/La Quinta area
BY monitored eleven adult collared ewes in the Deep Canyon and La Quinta areas of the CSRM in 2011.
We documented one lamb born in Carrizo Canyon from a ewe that is presumed to inhabit the CSRM. In
August,four ewes presumably from the CSRM and four lambs were seen in Canizo Canyon. We know
many more lambs were born than what we were able to document, as we did not monitor this portion of the
range as thoroughly as the NSRM or SJM due, once again, to a lack of funding.
JAN. 7. 2015 3 : 48PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC NO. 0180 P. 16
4�
BIGHORN INSTITUTE
2013 YEAR-END REPORT
December 2013
INVESTIGATIONS OF PENINSULAR BIGHORN SHEEP IN THE
SANTA ROSA MOUNTAINS AND SAN JACINTO MOUNTAINS OF CALIFORNIA
PLEASE DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THIS REPORT'WITHOUT
AUTHORIZATION FROM BIGHORN INSTITUTE
Bighorn Institute
P. O, Box 262
Palm Desert,CA 92261-0262
Phone{760)346-7334
Fax (760)340-3987
Email BI@BighomInstitute.org
www.BighomWtitute.org
JAN. 7. 2015 3: 48PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC N0, 0180 P, 17
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................1
CAPTIVE BREEDING AND WILD POPULATION AUGMENTATION...........................................2
REPORTS ON THE SAN JACINTO AND NORTHERN AND CENTRAL SANTA ROSA MOUNTAIN
STUDY HERDS
POPULATIONSIZE...................................................................................................3
DISTRIBUTIONAND HABITAT USE.............................................................................4
REPRODUCTION.......................................................................................................7
SURVIVALAND MORTALITY ....................................................................................Is
CAPTURES........................................................................................................I.......10
PROPOSED PROJECTS FOR 2014.............................................................................................11
JAN. 7. 2015 3:49PM WORDEN WILLIAMS APC NO. 0180 P. 18
REPRODUCTION
San Jacinto Mountains
Nine adult ewes were known to have produced lambs in the SJM in 2013. 5' _ iunbs a appeare to-fiave tieen
borntietween iiiid-January an m ,bul one_Iamb appeared_to_ ave been born. n mid—UEF, As of
December 31, 2013, seven lambs are known to be alive. All seven lambs were born to ewes that were either
released from the Institute or were offspring of released sheep. Despite extreme drought conditions, all adult
bighorn and lambs appeared healthy and in good condition throughout the year.
Northern Santa Rosa Mountains
Bradley/Magnesia/Cathedral Canyon
Twenty-six adult ewes were known to have produced lambs in the Bradley/Magnesia/Cathedral Canyon ewe
group in 2013. The lambs were born between mid-February and mid-April, but one lamb was born in early
May. Due to the extreme drought conditions, many of the ewes lost significant weight as they continued to rear
their lambs,but all lambs looked healthy throughout the year. As of December 31, 2013, twelve lambs are
known to be alive.
The Ramon Peak and Bradley Peak areas continue to be the most important lambing areas for the northern
Santa Rosa Mountains herd of bighorn sheep. The steep,rugged, escape terrain is vital to the survival of the
lambs and is critical for the overall recovery of this subgroup.
Carriza/Dead Indian Canyons
The radio-collared ewe inhabiting the Carrizo/Dead Indian Canyons produced a lamb in 2013, which was first
documented in late March in Grapevine Canyon, however, we do not know the fate of the lamb since the ewe's
collar became non-functional in May and she was not seen for the remainder of the year.
Central Santa Rosa Mountains—,Deep Canyon/La Quinta area
BI monitored eight adult collared ewes in the Deep Canyon and La Quinta areas of the CSRM in 2013. We
documented four lambs in Deep Canyon and four lambs in Carrize/Dead Indian Canyons. One ewe that we
presume to inhabit the CSRM was seen in Dead Indian Canyon with her newborn lamb in early March. We
know many more lambs were born than what we were able to document, as we did not monitor this portion
of the range much, once again,to a lack of monitoring funding.
7
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California Department offish and Wildlife
Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office Inland Deserts Region
777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way,Suite 208 3602 Inland Empire Blvd.,Suite C-220
Palm Springs,California 92262 Ontario,California 91764
760-322-2070 9094184-0167
FAX 760-322.4648 FAX 9094181-2945
In Reply Refer To:
FW S/CDF W-08B0821-015 CPA0072
JAN 7 2015 o
David H.Ready C—
s.
City Manager
City of Palm Springs { r
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, �T -
Palm Springs, California 92262 r '
- r
Subject: Proposed Addendum to Desert Palisades Specific Plan Environmental Impact crt
Report changing the dates for the Peninsular Bighorn Sheep designated lambing
season. Case 5.1154 SP
Dear Mr. Ready:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(Service) and the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife(Department), hereafter referred to jointly as the Wildlife Agencies, are submitting
this letter in response to the proposed Addendum to Desert Palisades Specific Plan
Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
On January 5,2011,the City of Palm Springs (City)certified a final EIR for the Desert Palisades
Specific Plan,which included a mitigation measure to avoid grading activities during the
Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis nelsoni) lambing season defined as January 1 to June
30. The City is now proposing to shorten the lambing season to February 1 to June 30 based on
information in a December 16, 2014, letter provided by the project consultant James W. Cornett
based on survey data from 2008. The letter states that"in December and January fertile bighorn
ewes(females) are carrying lambs but have not yet given birth" However,the Department has
collected data from radio-collared bighorn sheep in the Peninsular ranges from 2008 to 2014
indicating 19 percent of lambs (n=190)were born in January. During that time period, some
years had a higher percentage of lambs born in January. For instance, in 2012 and 2014, 53
percent and 42 percent,respectively, of the lambs were born in January. Additionally-,the
Bighorn Institute has provided information in annual reports indicating lambs in the San Jacinto
Mountains have been born in January in 2011 and 2013. The Bighorn Institute also has
documented that a ewe group frequents the area above the Desert Palisades project site in Chino
Canyon.
The Staff Report prepared for the proposed EIR Addendum indicates that the alluvial fan areas
are not as important to Peninsular bighorn sheep because they predominately prefer steep,
hillside habitat. However,following lambing,ewes have high energy needs for lactation and the
time period surrounding lambing and nursing is very demanding in terms of the energy and
protein required by bighorn ewes.A wide range of forage resources and vegetation associations
Mr. David H. Ready (FWS/CDFW-08B0821-015CPA0072) 2
is needed to meet annual and drought related variations in forage quality and availability.
Alluvial fans and washes have more reproductive soils that support greater herbaceous growth
than steeper,rockier soils and can provide important forage habitat for ewes especially in times
of drought or limited resource availability.
Mr. Cornett's letter also suggests that an onsite biological monitor will ensure that grading will
have no significant adverse impacts on bighorn sheep. However,there is no evidence provided
to support this claim. Given the noise level and disturbance associated with grading and as labor
approaches,ewes seek secluded sites with shelter,unobstructed views,and steep terrain(Service
2011); it is unlikely a biological monitor would be able to detect bighorn sheep in nearby
lambing areas and evaluate the effect the grading activities would have on ewes and lambs.
Additionally,the project area is located near the San Jacinto Mountains bighorn sheep
subpopulation, which is the only subpopulation that has not significantly increased in size since
the time of listing(Service 2011). Therefore, all recommend avoidance and minimization
measures developed by the Wildlife Agencies should be implemented without revision to ensure
,I
the conservation and recovery of this subpopulation.
The Recovery Plan for Peninsular Bighorn sheep identifies the lambing season(based on
scientific and observational data) as.January 1 to June 30, Any changes to the established
lambing season should have been done in consultation with the Wildlife Agencies. We are
concerned that the City did not consult with either the Service or Department on this issue.
This is particularly important to help ensure that take of endangered species is avoided. The
Wildlife Agencies view the grading activities during the established lambing season as a
substantial change with respect to circumstances under which the project is being undertaken
(CEQA 15162(a.2))and recommend that a supplemental environmental impact report be
prepared before this request is approved. Also, "A brief explanation of the decision not to
prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an
EIR, the lead agency's findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation
must be supported by substantial evidence"(CEQA 15164.e). The Wildlife Agencies do not
agree that the City has provided substantial evidence to support the shortening of the lambing
season as proposed in the Addendum.
Department Concerns
Based on review of aerial photography and graphics provided in the Staff report, a Notification
of Lake or Streambed Alteration will be required for this Project. While the project design
proposed to preserve existing drainage courses there appear to be bridges or fair-weather
crossings that may affect these features. For future reference,the Department recommends that
the Lead Agency include a Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration requirement in the
CEQA document prior to the adoption of the EIR. Please note that for the purposes of
implementing sections 1601 and 1603 of the Fish and Game Code (FGC),California Code of
Regulations Title 14, section 720 requires submission to the Department of general plans
sufficient to indicate the nature of a project for construction by or on behalf of any person,
government agency, state or local,and any public utility,of any project which will divert,
j obstruct or change the natural flow or bed of any river,stream or lake designated by the
Mr. David H.Ready (FWS/CDFW-08B0821-015CPA0072) 3
Department, or will use material from the streambeds designated by the Department,all rivers,
streams, lakes, and streambeds in the State of California, including all rivers, streams and
streambeds which may have intermittent flows of water, are hereby designated for such purpose.
Please be aware that Division 2, Chapter 5,Article 6, Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish
and Game Code does not limit jurisdiction to areas defined by specific flow events, seasonal
changes in water flow,or presence or absence of specific vegetation types or communities.
Although there are several conditions that trigger its authority and how it is acted on,the FGC
states that all streams (and lakes)are subject to Section 1600 et seq. Stream presence is
determined by the evidence of the physical processes associated with development of a stream
landform. Please note that when reviewing a project area and/or reviewing Notifications of Lake
or Streambed Alteration the Department relies on California Code of Regulations Title 14,
section 720; section 1600 et seq. of the Fish and Game Code; and the Department's accepted
definition of a stream.
By long practice, the Department defines a stream as"a body of water that flows perennially or
episodically and that is defined by the area in which water currently flows, or has flowed, over a
given course during the historic hydrologic regime,and where the width of its course can
reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators.The historic hydrologic regime is
defined in practice by the Department as circa 1800 to the present."Thus, a channel is not
defined by a specific flow event,nor by the path of surface water as this path might vary
seasonally. Rather, it is the Department's practice to define the channel based on the topography
or elevations of land that confine the water to a definite course when the waters of a creek rise to
their highest point. To define jurisdictional boundaries otherwise would result in a morass of
jurisdictional boundaries that differed from stream to stream, changed with variations in channel
morphology along the same stream,or that shifted seasonally on any given stream along with
seasonal changes in flow. The Departments website has additional information regarding
dryland streams in"A review of Stream Processes and Forms in Dryland Watersheds" at this
location: httn://www.dfo.ea.Qov/habcon/1600/1600resources.htmi. Additional information can
also be found in"Methods to Describe and Delineate Episodic Stream Processes on Arid
Landscapes for Permitting Utility-Scale Solar Power Plants,With the MESA Field Guide- Final
Project Report"(MESA Guide)available here:
hU://www.energy.ca.gov/2014publications/CEC-500-2014-013/index.htnil. Please review page
9 of the MESA Guide. Please also refer to page E-14,which includes the definition of stream
used by the Department's Lake and Streambed Alteration Program.
j
Mr. David H. Ready (FWS/CDFW-08B0821-015CPA0072) 4
The Wildlife Agencies recommend that any changes to the mitigation measures stipulated in
the project's EIR for Peninsular bighorn sheep be done in consultation with the Wildlife
Agencies to ensure adverse effects to sheep are avoided. We appreciate the opportunity to
comment on the proposed Addendum. We look forward to working with the City of Palm
Springs and the applicant. If you have any questions regarding these comments or would like
to schedule a meeting please contact Felicia Sirchia of the Service at 760-322-2070,
extension 205, or Heather Pert of the Department at 858-395-9692.
Sincerely,
Kennon A. Corey Leslie MacNair
Assistant Field Supervisor Inland Desert Region
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Acting Regional Manager
CA Department of Fish and Wildlife
.....
cc:
Steve Pougnet,Mayor
Rick Hutcheson, Mayor Pro Tem
Ginny Foat, Councilmember
Paul Lewin, Councilmember
Chris Mills, Councilmember
j Flinn Fagg, Director of Planning Services
Ken Lyon, Department of Planning Services
j
i
1
i
i
V
i
I
I
1
I
Mr. David H. Ready(FWS/CDFW-08B0821-015CPA0072) 5
Literature Cited
[Service] U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Recovery plan for bighorn sheep in the Peninsular
Ranges, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland,Oregon.
[Service] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Peninsular bighorn sheep(Outs Canadensis nelsom)
5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad,
California.
FRIENDS ol a(m j�rin
PO Box 3172, Palm Springs, CA 92263 _
y �s
January 7, 2015
Palm Springs City Council
3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way r a
Palm Springs, California 92262 = r
Agenda Item 2.K.THE DESERT PALISADES SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO
A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) RELATED TO
DEVELOPMENT OF A 117-ACRE SITE IN PLANNING AREA 4 OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE AREA- SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE (ESA-SP) (CHINO CONE) AT THE WESTERN
TERMINUS OF WEST RACQUET CLUB ROAD:
Honorable Mayor and City Council,
On behalf of the board of Friends of Palm Springs Mountains we are submitting for the
public record, our concerns,regarding the Desert Palisades project.
Once again,as was experienced with Tuscany Heights,the project directly below Desert
Palisades,the developers have run into the same issue of uncovering large boulders,which
will extend the development time.
As the developer undoubtedly knew of the problems associated with Tuscany Heights it
seems that it in order to protect this sensitive area they should not be given the extra time
requested to continue grading during this particularly sensitive time.
As you are aware, Friends is currently the owner of the adjacent property in Chino Canyon,
which is subject to very strict guidelines regarding preservation of the area for the Bighorn
Sheep.
As the lambing season begun on January 1st of this year, it would appear that temporarily
halting this project would be in the best interests of the Bighorn Sheep whose fragile
existence needs all the help it can receive from the community and our leaders.
Indeed it is the City's duty to comply with the regulations dictated by the Coachella Valley
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
Sincerely,
Nickie McLaughlin
Chair
Friends of Palm Springs Mountains
Jay Thompson
From: rwchamberlain002 <rwchamberlain002@gmai1.com>
Sent: Wednesday,January 07, 2015 3:57 PM
To: Jay Thompson; Steve Pougnet
Subject: Fwd:To Mayor and City Council
,v
o -
Y cn
C': L
a
1_; 1
R.Chamberlain
760-861-3557 r
rwchamberlain002a,2mai1.com r _
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy ST"Ill,an AT&T 4G LTF smanphone t
O
J
jay.thomason@aalmspringsca, ov,
steve.pougnet@palmsnringsca.gov
Re: Desert Palisades, extension of EIR
City Council is not looking at the changes which have taken
place since the EIR was completed, including
1) three major projects which obviously impact the area
2) respiratory problems on the rise
3) complete streets without sidewalks exacerbated by
(see #4)
4) rise in traffic which will be FURTHER increased
If they're looking at one example of one thing which has
changed (the lambing area of the bighorn sheep issue),
they cannot cherry-pick. They must look at it
comprehensively and address all of the changes. The EIR
was accepted BEFORE a lot of other building went on!
;,i/o`7 f ;�'> + S
Also, the EIR mitigation expired on 31 December 2014 but
the work has continued up to and including today
(1/7/2015); that is an obvious abuse.
To extend the properties of the EIR without considering
ALL the changes (rather than the one they are looking at
tonight) are grounds for either an injunction or a class
action suit based on public endangerment.
Respectfully,
Rebecca Chamberlain
z
CONSENT AGENDA ITEM 2K
Judy Deertrack
1333 South Belardo Road,Apt 510 0
Palm Springs, CA 92264 >
c a
January 7, 2015
m- —J
r
To the Palm Springs City Council a
City of Palm Springs = —
F
Re: Item 2.K.THE DESERT PALISADES SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY
CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(EIR)RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT OF A U7-ACRE SITE IN
PLANNING AREA 4 OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA—SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE(ESA-SP)
(CHINO CONE)AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF WEST RACQUET CLUB ROAD
To The Honorable City Council:
The applicant has asked for a waiver of the mitigation-monitoring plan for the Desert Palisades
Specific Plan as it relates to cessation of all grading operations during the lambing season for the
Bighorn Sheep, an endangered species within the area. I contacted the Bighorn Institute and the
California Fish and Wildlife Palm Springs office, and was advised that January is a sensitive time
period for lambing, that grading poses a risk factor, and that there are ewes in the area of grading,
and that the Chino Cone area, in particular, is a problematic area for management of the species.
In light of this, I am asking that the City Council either deny this request and uphold the mitigation
monitoring program in place under the EIR, or continue this item until it has had a chance to
contact and confer with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Fish and Wildlife
Service, and any other appropriate agencies.
My primary concern is that the Bighorn Sheep are an endangered species, and the Specific Plan is
implemented in a general plan and zoning area that is environmentally sensitive, right on the edge
of the National Monument Area, with strict policies and ordinances to protect against this type of
threat to wildlife. Please note from the Palm Springs General Plan:
"Special Policy Area designations have been applied in two areas of the City: the
Chino Cone and Palm Hills. Due to the environmental and visual importance of
these two areas, projects proposed within either Special Policy Area must be of
superior design, demonstrate integration with existing natural features and land
forms, be sensitive to biological resources of the site, and create a more desirable
living environment than could be achieved through conventional subdivision
design and requirements." [emphasis added] General Plan Land Use Element at
page 2-8
See also:
Palm Springs Municipal Code Ordinance 92.21.1.05 Design standards.
"A.Environmental Analysis. . ... ..
r �_ Z K .
2
"A plan for the removal or other treatment of boulders shall be prepared as part of
the specific plan and evaluated in the associated environmental impact report.
B. The analysis provides the basis for project site planning, and the applicant shall
design and locate proposed development to minimize impacts on environmental
conditions." [emphasis added]
The original Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has a mitigation monitoring program that is still in
effect and that was implemented after full consultation and review by U.S. Fish and Wildlife and
California Fish and Wildlife. The Applicant has been informed and has had adequate time to
anticipate the requirements. There has been NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES from
2010 that alters the effect of grading, soil disturbance, and noise during the lambing period, raising
a concern that there is no factual base for the requested change in the mitigation program.
What I notice in this staff report is that the agencies were very clear in their conclusions in 2010
that allowing any grading after January 1st through the six-month lambing period is, in fact,
detrimental. With that in mind, the City of Palm Springs has not re-contacted those agencies for
input prior to this Consent Agenda issue, and the record is barren of agency input. This should be
remedied immediately.
I also recommend this item be continued and placed on the public hearing agenda. This is a
controversial topic, the environmental area at issue is sensitive, and certainly the Bighorn Sheep
deserve our protection and thoughtfulness.
I sincerely hope that the City Council remains responsive to the public need to be heard when the
Council deliberates on issues of discretion and importance. We cannot properly address our
concerns in a process bifurcated from the Council's evidence and deliberation, and that is exactly
what happens when we are forced to speak during the public commentary period. Even though the
City feels it has the discretion to place this on a consent agenda, it likewise has the discretion to
have a hearing.
Thank you for consideration of my comments.
Judy Deertrack
Cindy Berardi
From: Dennis Woods <dennis.l.woods@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday,January 07, 2015 11:49 AM
To: CityClerk;Jay Thompson; Jay Thompson; David Ready; Marcus Fuller; Steve Pougnet;
Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; Rick Hutcheson; Paul Lewin
Cc: Andy Hirsch; Bob Doren; Brian Brook; Dennis Woods - Private; Michael Birnberg; Tim
O'Bayley; Tim Peterson;Tim Sailor;Tony Hoetker; michael.flores@wildlife.ca.gov;
heather.pert@wildlife.ca.gov; eddy.konno@wildlife.ca.gov; chris_gregory@fws.gov;
Jfriedland@NRDC.org
Subject: Item 2K on the December 7, 2015 Agenda
Attachments: 2015 0107 Letter to CC Desert Palisades extension-FInaLcloc
Dear Mayor, City Council Members, and City staff;
On behalf of the Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization, we submit the attached letter requesting that the
letter and this email be entered into the public record at the December 7, 2015 City Council Meeting. The
Desert Palisades Development project construction activities have severely impacted the neighborhood as
outlined in the attached letter. The city has a mandatory duty to implement mitigation measures, and should
be willing and prepared to take all appropriate actions to ensure that mitigation is implemented, our
neighborhoods are safe and we can comfortably enjoy our homes especially this time of year.
Instead of sending a group of neighbors to the City council meeting, we are submitting this letter to
raise consciousness of problems you may not be aware of with the intent of securing a resolution. We hope
you take this matter seriously.
If you have any questions, the entire Board of Advisers is copied on this email and the email addresses of the
Co-chairs of Little Tuscany can be found at the bottom of the letter.
If you cannot open the letter or need additional assistance, feel free to contract me at 310.710.7123
Cordially,
Dennis Woods
i
Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization
Palm Springs City Council
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
Subject: January 7, 2015 City Council Agenda Item 2.K. THE DESERT PALISADES
SPECIFIC PLAN ADOPTING AN ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT(EIR) RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT OF A
117-ACRE SITE IN PLANNING AREA 4 OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE AREA—SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE(ESA-SP) (CHINO CONE) AT THE
WESTERN TERMINUS OF WEST RACQUET CLUB ROAD:
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
We, The Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization, respectfully request the City
Council defer action on item 2K on the agenda until several issues are addressed. First
and foremost, the current grading operations are not abiding by the certified EIR and
mechanisms to ensure compliance are absent as are protections for the neighborhood. The
construction impacts to the neighborhood are significant and not being addressed or
mitigated. Neither the neighborhood association nor the adjacent neighbors were notified
of this agenda item and the matter gravely impacts us. Add to this that item 2K is a
consent item on the agenda even though the matter of the item is well beyond routine
business. As you are aware, putting it on the consent calendar does not permit for a
thorough discussion or robust public comment.
ABBREVIATED HISTORY
The City issued an over the counter staff approved grading permit on 10/9/2014 with a
start date of 10/13/2014. This approval did not include any conditions or reference any
aspect of the EIR. It was simply approved by staff with no process to ensure compliance
with the EIR or thought of ways to protect the neighborhood. Construction at the site
actually started well before the issuance of the grading permit and is continuing while this
letter is being drafted on January 7, 2015 in defiance of the EIR. It was not until we
asked questions did the City staff even address issues and mitigations in the EIR. To this
day the issues and impacts have been not fully addressed and we as the residents are
severely impacted by the construction activities and lack of regulatory control by the
City.
ISSUES
As mentioned, first and foremost the City is not proactively and fully monitoring or
regulating all aspects of the construction activities per the EIR. Some activities are being
monitored but on a spotty basis and the results have been ineffective.
Traffic Control Plan
0��07 �zoiS
One egregious example of disregard for the EIR is the lack of a required a traffic control
plan, a plan that should be looking at haul routes that have the least impact, the number of
trucks, the speed of the trucks, the duration of the haul,the amount or tonnage of haul,
etc. We asked the City staff for the document by telephone, by email, and in personal
visits to City Hall. The document was never produced. We copied the City Manager and
the City Engineer on the issues two months ago to give them a heads up on the problems
and on January 7, 2015, we telephoned the Assistant City Manager regarding the traffic
control plan and other issues. We are now putting our concerns into the public record
with the intent to get resolution. We also put in a formal public records request. The
result of the public records request was that the City has no Traffic Control Plan. This in
itself is a serious violation of CEQA as it is an EIR requirement.
Right to Use our Homes
A private nuisance is a civil wrong; it is the unreasonable, unwarranted,
or unlawful use of one's property in a manner that substantially interferes with the enjoy
ment or use of another individuals property, without an actual trespass or physical
invasion of the land. In the case of the Desert Palisades development we have been
severely impacted and the enjoyment of our land has been diminished. The law
recognizes that as land owners or those in rightful possession of the land, have the right
to the unimpaired condition of the property and the reasonable comfort and convenience
in its occupation.
Dust
Although there is a street sweeper, the sweeper kicks up more dust than imaginable.
Large semi-tractor trailer trucks rumble up and down Racquet Club Road uncovered and
the resulting dust cloud and debris all along Racquet Club Road is beyond a nuisance. We
are not able to enjoy our property in a normal manner. More stringent and regulated dust
control needs to be put into place.
Noise
The noise of hundreds of semi-tractor trailer trucks all day long starting sometimes before
lam makes using our property in a normal and customary manner out of the question. It
is a nuisance that can be mitigated by looking at the problem and seeking solutions such
as using another haul route, slowing the trucks down, reducing the number of trucks
daily, using different trucks, etc.
Pollution
Besides dust,the daily stream of trucks and the resulting exhaust increases the particulate
matter and toxins in the air.
Speed
The speed at which the trucks roll exceeds the speed limit and several complaints have
been submitted to the City but to date there has not been a speed check put into place.
Speed on a heavily used walking route is a safety issue. In addition speed causes more
dust and noise.
ADT
The EIR looked at the average daily trips yet there is no monitoring of those trips to
ensure the EIR was accurate. The City has not been overseeing the process and quite
frankly is absent in regulating this in many cases just referring to the developer and
actually saying they are too busy to know the details each project. Since the time the
grading permit was issued the non-stop stream of trucks from 7 am to 5 pm must equate
to more hauling than anticipated in the EIR. If this is the case the EIR is in error and
instead of lengthening the construction period we ask that controls be put into place
before construction activities are resumed and that the residents are involved and
informed.
Pedestrian Safety
Racquet Club is a walking route and the trucks are severely impacting this form of active
outdoor activity
Animal Migration
Several bobcats, coyotes, snakes and other animals are being displaced and moving into
the neighborhoods as their habitat is being disturbed. The area is also a lambing area for
the endangered bighorn sheep.
Blocking of streets
Trucks are blocking streets, driveways, and intersections
Communication
That has been minimal communication from the City or the developer on this project. As
stated earlier, we were forced to put in a formal public records request for simple matters.
We have asked for even more information and that information has not been produced.
Instead of processing formal public record requests, we suggest a joint meeting with City
staff that does not include the developer. City staff has repeatedly not been capable of
answering questions deferring them to the developer and we would like to see the City be
in more control and protect the neighborhood.
Defiance of the Law
The developer continues to defy the law. First by operating before the actual issuance of
the permit, then repeatedly starting operations prior to 7 am, and now he is operating after
January 1, 2015 in complete defiance of the certified EIR.
SOLUTIONS
Above are just a just a few of the issues that are unresolved. We respectfully request at a
minimum the City do the following:
1. Stop all construction until all issues can be evaluated and protections are put into
place for the neighborhood allowing us to enjoy our property in a customary
manner.
2. Indentify a point person who will actually be the go-to person from a regulatory
standpoint to monitor the project. This person should be completely independent
of the developer and work in a non-biased manner. If City staff is to busy or
overwhelmed to effectively do the job, the City has the option to charge the
developer for costs to fees to hire a such a person on a short term basis.
3. Initiate joint meetings with the Neighborhood Organization and City staff to
address a myriad of issues with the intent to put protections into place.
4. Review the EIR and ensure all mitigations are in place and effective. In areas
where the EIR failed to properly identify impacts or the conditions have changed
since the EIR was certified(such as the number of trucks) supplement the EIR
and develop mitigations and a mitigation monitoring program.
5. Host a bigger meeting to discuss the cumulative impacts of all the large scale
projects that have been approved for the neighborhood and outline how the issues
will be addressed in the future.
Cordially,
Dennis Woods, Co-Chair: Dennis.L.Woods@gmail.com
Tim O'Bayley, Co-Chair: tim@obayley.net
Michael Birnberg, Co-Chair: mdbirnberg@gmail.com
CC: michael.flores@wildlife.ca.gov
heather.pert@wildlife.ca.gov
eddy.konno@wildlife.ca.gov
chris_gregory@fws.gov
Jfriedland@NRDC.org
Cindy Berardi
From: Bradley Kain <tinyhopep@yahoo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 7:27 AM
To: CityClerk
Cc: Dennis Woods
Subject: Fw: Desert Palisades Extension
Y
e
w:'4t•'. A a ,� . -
M cY'
..yy4
Mayor and City Council,
I live at 1011 W. Racquet Club Road, Palm Springs, CA 92262 on the corner of W. Racquet Club Road and
Milo Drive near the Racquet Club entrance to Desert Palisades construction project.
The following is what I wrote after I called and spoke to Felipe Primera in Palm Springs Building Department
on 11/6/14:
r �d�fr��( r1�►-lal
lie 1/7/i-5
Felipe said the road construction people have a permit for today only, Thursday 11/6/14 to take trucks of dirt up
Racquet
Club and dump them at the top of the hill. The trucks started at lam this morning turning into Milo
Drive,uncovering their load of dirt then backing up into Racquet Club and backing up the road. 6 trucks at a
time have been backing up beeping all day long.
Mr. Primera mentioned that we should have been notified about today's permit for the work through our
Neighborhood Association. The trucks starting tomorrow Friday 11/7/14, should be able to drive up Racquet
Club Road enter the construction and exit on Tram Way Road.
I wrote again on Friday 11/7/14:
It's Friday. 11/7/14. Trucks full of dirt started this morning at lam pulling into Milo and backing up Racquet
Club. I thought this was supposed to end last night.
For the last 2 and half months trucks have been barreling up and down Racquet Club Road. This is a residential
neighborhood where it use to be safe to walk. To my knowledge the trucks have not been exiting or using Tram
Way Road. If the Mayor and City Council vote to extend Desert Palisades construction for another
month at least have them change their start time to 8am and have all the trucks use Tram Way
Road. Tram Way Road is not a residential street.
All the best,
Brad
Bradley Kain
TinyHopeP2yahoo.com
305-807-1510
----- Forwarded Message From: Bradley Kain <tinyhopep(@..vahoo.com>
To: "cityclerk(a)palmsprings-ca.gov" <citvclerk(apalmsprings-ca.gov>
Cc: Dennis Woods <dennis.l.woods(dgmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 7, 2015 12:57 AM
Subject: Desert Palisades Extension
Mayor and City Council,
Hello my name is Bradley Kain. I live at 1011 W. Racquet Club Road, Palm Springs, CA 92262. I called City
Hall on 11/7/14 to register my complaint about the noise that started every morning at 7:00am and the dirt
created by all the trucks going up and down Racquet Club. I was told that the Desert Palisades construction
would be done by the end of December. I was also told the trucks would only be entering up Racquet Club and
exiting on Tram Way Road. So far the trucks go up and down Racquet Club and do not exit to Tram Way
Road. On some days during the past 2 months there have been 6 double cart trucks lined up at the top and
bottom of Racquet Club. When they are at full speed coming and going it was not safe to walk up or down
Racquet Club.
Desert Palisades has a street sweeper clean the street in front of my house but it doesn't clean the driveway or
walkway which I sweep up daily. The dust and dirt created by the construction has been a lot to deal since
construction started in October.
2
I understand now that Desert Palisades would like to extend the construction for another month to the end of
January 2015. If you vote for the extension please change their weekday start time to 8:00am like their
Saturday start time and have them use Tram Way Road for accessing their construction site. Tram Way Road is
not a residential street. I was told last November that Tram Way Road would be used for the Desert Palisade
Construction Project.
All the best,
Brad
Bradley Kain
TinyHopePnn yahoo.com
305-807-1510
3
.y
u a
R k
k uncs k
°4<,r;wIit CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 7, 2015 CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT: CASE 5.1154 SP -THE DESERT PALISADES SPECIFIC PLAN: ADOPTING AN
ADDENDUM TO A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (EIR) RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT OF A 117-ACRE SITE IN
PLANNING AREA 4 OF THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA -
SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE (ESA-SP) ZONE (CHINO CONE). THE PROJECT IS
LOCATED AT THE WESTERN TERMINUS OF WEST RACQUET CLUB ROAD,
SECTION 4, TOWNSHIP 4, RANGE 4 (IL).
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Flinn Fagg, AICP, Director of Planning Services
SUMMARY
On January 5, 2011, the City Council certified a final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for, and
approved the Desert Palisades Specific Plan, (Case No. 5.1154), a comprehensive plan for
development on approximately 117 acres with 110 home sites, private roads, public trails, open
space, common area landscaping, and an approximately 1.7-acre dual tank domestic water
reservoir site for the Desert Water Agency (DWA). The site is located in Planning Area 4 of the
ESA-SP zone (Chino Cone).
The EIR included a mitigation measure regarding biological resources (MM 3.4-1). Among other
things, the mitigation measure provided that grading (earth moving) activities were restricted to
July 15t to December 31st in order to avoid the lambing period for Peninsular Bighorn Sheep.
In the initial site grading work for roads and infrastructure, the applicant has encountered
considerably more large boulders and rocks than originally anticipated. Based on this issue, the
applicant has requested modification of the mitigation measure to extend the acceptable
grading period from December 31st to January 315t, with oversight by a qualified biological
monitor who will instruct all grading activities to cease when Bighorn Sheep are present on or in
the vicinity of the site. This modification is supported by the project biologist for the original EIR.
An addendum to the original EIR evaluating this proposed change is the subject of this report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt Resolution No. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DESERT PALISADES SPECIFIC PLAN
(DPSP), CASE 5.1154 SP, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES."
1056913.1
�-
City Council Staff Report January 7, 2015
Case 5.1154 SP The Desert Palisades Specific Plan— EIR Addendum Page 2 of 8
BACKGROUND:
The Desert Palisades Specific Plan was approved by City Council on January 5, 2011, and
allowed for the development of 110 home sites, private roads, public trails, open space,
common area landscaping, and a DWA reservoir site. The Final EIR for the project was also
certified at that time. The City Council found that the plan was in conformance to the General
Plan, as well as in conformance to the requirements of California Governmental Code Section
65450 relative to the adoption of specific plans. The Planning Commission had recommended
approval of the plan on October 27, 2010, after conducting four public hearings on the matter.
TO BE REMQVEOFROM Pp.4zlz .
ANOINCLUDEDINWPA-3
TD REMAIN IN PAd
PROJECT SITE
1 �t
r
i
Vicinity map showing the general location of the subject site
ANALYSIS
The applicant has requested to extend the seasonal construction period by 30 days to allow for
additional site work to be completed prior to the cessation of all activities required by the EIR
due to the commencement of the Bighorn Sheep lambing period. The EIR identified the period
from January 1st to June 30th as the lambing season, and required that no grading activities
could take place during that time. The applicant has requested to extend the construction
window to January 31st
James W. Cornett, the project biologist for the original EIR, was consulted regarding the
extension of the construction period, and has noted the following:
• His initial study should have been corrected to indicate that the lambing period typically
commences in early winter;
• Birthing does not typically begin until February, so earth disturbance activities should
cease on February 16t and not January 15t; and
• A biological monitor should be present on site during the month of January 2015 to
observe the presence of any Bighorn Sheep, and all grading activities should cease when
1056913.1
City Council Staff Report January 7, 2015
Case 5.1154 SP The Desert Palisades Specific Plan— EIR Addendum Page 3 of 8
the biological monitor determines that Bighorn Sheep are present on or in the vicinity of
the project site.
Based on these recommendations, an addendum to the Final EIR has been prepared to
incorporate the revised recommendations of Mr. Cornett, includintq modification of Mitigation
Measure 3.4-1 to allow site disturbance to continue until January 315 .
FINDINGS:
Findings for the proposed modification are as follows:
• The proposed modification does not impact the conformity of the Desert Palisades
Specific Plan to the General Plan or California Governmental Code;
• The proposed modification does not impact the conformity of the project to the Zoning
Code or associated approval processes;
• The proposed modification does not alter or intensify the development anticipated for the
site;
• The proposed amendment is consistent with the mitigation measures proposed under the
Final EIR approved by City Council in January 2011; and
• The modification does not result in any new significant effects or a substantial increase in
the severity of previously identified significant effects
NOTICE
In accordance with Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, ...an addendum need not be
circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR. Therefore, no
public review is required, and public notice was provided by the posting of the agenda in
accordance with state law.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, a
Notice of Preparation (NOP) of a Draft Environmental Impact Report was prepared and
circulated for this project. The Draft EIR was released for review on January 21, 2010. Copies
of the Draft EIR and Final EIR were previously distributed to the City Council. Notices of the
reports were sent to all applicable agencies and published in accordance with CEQA.
Comments were received by the City and responses to comments were provided in the final
EIR. The Final EIR identified the following potentially significant impacts and mitigation
measures relative to protected species:
• Biological Impacts to Peninsular Bighorn Sheep
o No grading activities will take place during the sheep lambing period from January
1 to June 30.
The final EIR concluded that the impacts would not be significant because the project
modifications and mitigation measures incorporated into the project would reduce impacts to
less than significant levels. A copy of the final EIR is on file with the City Clerk.
1056913.1
City Council Staff Report January 7, 2015
Case 5.1154 SP The Desert Palisades Specific Plan— EIR Addendum Page 4 of 8
The modification of the mitigation measure to change to the permitted construction dates, with
the presence of a biological monitor on site as outlined by the project biologist, will not result in
any new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
impacts. The proposed modification to the mitigation measure has therefore been adequately
evaluated in this addendum to the Desert Palisades Specific Plan. (CEQA Guidelines §§
15162, 15164.)
CONCLUSION:
Staff believes that the addendum to the EIR to the Desert Palisades Specific Plan adequately
evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed changes to the mitigation measure. The
project remains harmonious in its setting, complementary to the General Plan and Zoning Code
for the Chino Cone Special Policy Area and the ESA-SP zone, and remains consistent with the
City Council's vision for this environmentally sensitive area of Palm Springs.
�1
Fli n Fagg, AICP, Marcus Fuller
Director of Planning Services Assistant City Manager
� - l
David H. Ready, City er
Attachments:
• Vicinity Map
• Minute excerpts from the City Council meeting of January 5, 2011
• Addendum to the Final EIR
(The FEIR is on file with the City Clerk)
1056913.1
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE DESERT
PALISADES SPECIFIC PLAN (DPSP), CASE 5.1154 SP, IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES.
WHEREAS, on April 30, 2007, Ed Freeman on behalf of Pinnacle View, LLC ("the
applicant') submitted an application for review pursuant to PSZC Sections 92.21.1.00
through 07 ("Environmentally Sensitive Area — Specific Plan"), and a Tentative Tract
Map (TTM 35540), that proposes to create a subdivision of 110 residential lots, private
roadways, public trails, open space, and an approximately 1.7 acre parcel for a future
Desert Water Agency dual tank domestic water reservoir, on an approximately 117-acre
site. The project site is located at the western terminus of Racquet Club Road; and
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2007, notice in accordance with State Governmental Code
Section 65352.3, ("SB 18') was provided to Native American Tribal representatives, and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2007, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) and
Initial Study on the project indicating that a draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
would be prepared on the proposed Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map; the NOP
comment period ran from December 7, 2007 to January 7, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on January 19, 2010, a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued to public
agencies and interested parties noting a revised EIR would be prepared and a 45-day
period was provided for responses to the NOP that ended on March 4, 2010, and
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2010, the DEIR was prepared and circulated for a 45-day
public review period which ended on March 8, 2010, and
WHEREAS, all public comments received on the DEIR were reviewed and written
responses were provided in a Final EIR (FEIR), and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Springs to consider a recommendation to the City Council of Case 5.1154 SP was given
in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on June 23, June 28, September 1, and October 27, 2010, a public hearing
on Case 5.1154, (The Desert Palisades Specific Plan, including Tentative Tract Map
35540), and associated FEIR was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with
applicable law, and
1056913.1
Resolution No.
Page 2
WHEREAS, on October 27, 2010, the Planning Commission approved Resolution 6161
recommending that the City Council certify the FEIR as complete and approve Case
5.1154 SP Desert Palisades Specific Plan, including Tentative Tract Map 35540,
subject to Conditions of Approval; and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to
consider Case 5.1154 SP, TTM 35540, was given in accordance with applicable law;
and
WHEREAS, on January 5, 2011, a public hearing on the application for the project was
held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and,
WHEREAS, at said public hearing the City Council considered the Specific Plan and the
Tentative Tract Map No. 35540, including the staff report, the Desert Palisades Specific
Plan, the associated FEIR, and all written and public testimony related to Case 5.1154
SP and TTM 35540; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City Council has considered certain requested changes to a
previously adopted mitigation measure with regard to the extension of time by which to
conduct grading operations, from January 1 to January 31, in relation to potential
impacts to Peninsular Bighorn Sheep, and has determined that the proposed change,
with inclusion of new mitigation, does not represent a new significant environmental
effect or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects,
and that an Addendum to the FEIR pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines
may be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: The City Council has independently considered the Addendum along with
the FEIR and has determined that no further environmental review is
required. (CEQA Guidelines § 15162.) An addendum to the FEIR is an
adequate environmental assessment of the request to modify the
previously adopted mitigation measure by extending the time to conduct
grading operations from January 1 to January 31 in relation to potential
impacts to Peninsular Bighorn Sheep. (CEQA Guidelines § 15164.)
SECTION 2: That Mitigation Measure 3.4-1 of the FEIR and Mitigation Monitoring Plan
shall be modified as follows, which shall be sufficient and adequate to
reduce any potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels:
MM 3.4-1: The developer shall ensure that the following mitigation
measures be required to reduce potential impacts to bighorn sheep:
1056913.1
Resolution No.
Page 3
• Deeding all hillside acreage within the project boundaries to the City
of Palm Springs as part of their hillside conservation area.
to june
ER6UF*Rg that gFading operations shall Rot take plare freirn januaFY4.atie% 'shall be . 69Rfi .ed- Fe between Iu ly 4 aR.d Derennher 34
—Ensuring that grading operations (earth moving) shall not take
place from February 1 to June 30, the Peninsular Bighom Sheep
lambing period. Grading operations shall be confined to between July
1 and January 31, when disturbance to sheep is less likely. A
qualified biologist shall be designated as a biological monitor and
shall be present onsite during any grading operations that take place
in the month of January. All grading activities shall cease and desist
when the biological monitor determines that Bighorn sheep are
present on or in the vicinity of the project site.
• Providing a research grant to the Bighorn Institute for further research
on the causes underlying the long-term decline in bighorn sheep
numbers. The amount to be paid to the Bighorn Institute shall be
determined by the institute in consultation with the applicant. The
applicant shall furnish the City with a receipt of payment prepared by
the institute.
• No rock crushing or blasting operations shall occur on-site during any
phase of project development. Rock crushing operations shall be
limited to off-site locations for materials resulting from the
development of the Desert Water Agency reservoir site, common area
improvements, and the on-site infrastructure. Proposals for rock
splitting on individual lots will be evaluated at the time such
development applications are received for review and approval by the
City.
1056913.1
Resolution No. _
Page 4
THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY APPROVE AN ADDENDUM TO
THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
DESERT PALISADES SPECIFIC PLAN (DPSP), CASE 5.1154 SP, IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES.
ADOPTED this 7th day of January, 2015.
David H. Ready, City Manager
ATTEST:
James Thompson, City Clerk
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that
Resolution No. _ is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
James Thompson, City Clerk
City of Palm Springs, California
1056913.1