Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/5/2005 - STAFF REPORTS (30) o�pALMSA� v� N x-ty of Palm Springs Department of Planning and Zoning * ryC0'P�ORpTEO♦9'O�N' OQ¢E�Tahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 C,q<<FORN� [FRIVERSIp pU'N9,3RI3'8245 • Fax:(760) 322-8360 • Web:wwwci.Palm-springs.cams OCT 12 2004 �A�� GARY L.ORSO C ouNTY C;6FRK hl41p.009100MIN113� t�rrflin2�tl�rT By � ` C.Kohler iFllso pot o0R8�@99� D%TLP'MORANDUM 12 From: Director of Planning Services OCT 0 64 R@M§van; ��� 2QQ To: Distribution z*" ,, Date: Gnunty'oYRivsrslsia,Stale o100 forma September 30, 2004 Case No: 5.0996-PD-294 and Tentative Tract Map 31766, The Crescendo Project Subject: Notice of Availability of an Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration that evaluates an application by Wessman Development for the Crescendo project, which includes an application to subdivide 42.2 acres into 79 single family residential lots and a Preliminary Planned Development District, for the development of 79 single family residences, and related streets, water, sewer, storm drains and.flood control infrastructure, and a 4,900' long, minimum 5' wide paved pedestrian trail, located on Assessors Parcel Number (APN) 504- 040-046, and generally south of Tramway Road, west of Vista Grande Avenue and north of Racquet Club Drive, R-1-A zone, Section 3. The City of Palm Springs has prepared an Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) which evaluates Tentative Tract Map 31766, a proposal to subdivide 42.2 .. acres into 79 lots, and Preliminary Planned Development District No. 294 for development as single-family residential housing. The proposed te development including an application ty WessmanpDevelopmroject le Development forresidentap ial 31766,-site a rove subdivision, for the construction of 79 residential units and associated on and off-site improvements on 42.2 acres, Zone R-1-A, Section 3. The City has authorized the release of the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for public review and comment for the project summarized above. Mitigation measures addressing Aesthetics, Air Quality, Land Use and Planning, Noise and Utility/ Service Systems are included. A copy of the Initial Study and proposed MND can be reviewed or obtained from the City of Palm Springs at the address below. The period of review and comment will be from September 30, 2004 to October 30, 2004. Written comments on the Initial Study and proposed MND should be submitted to Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, Department of Planning Services, City of Palm Springs, at the above address no later than October 30, 2004. Please contact Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner at (76 � g�45¢,, if you have any questions regarding the City's review process for considering the ifi"altAdf Ad MND. Written comments may be faxed to (760) 322-8360. DEC 10 20Q;f Planning at Zoning Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 e Crescendo project correspondence 5.0996-PD-294, TTM 31766 Planning Commission meeting 12/08/04 Date Correspondence Undated Dana L. Stewart and James McKinley November 17, 2004 Rodney Drew and Earls James Jr. November 17, 2004 Andrew Z. Linsky November 9, 2004 Chatten-Brown request for Environmental Impact Report, including Peer review of Air Quality Impact Analysis, Air Quality, Noise and Traffic Impact Analysis reports, Richard L. Meehan correspondence, Analysis of Biological Report (Kurt Leuschner) November 9, 2004 John H. Goodrich, Committee for the preservation of Little Tuscany and Chino Canyon Neighborhoods November 9, 2004 Susan Unger November 8, 2004 Steven J. Niethamer November 8, 2004 Michael J. Troughton November 3, 2004 Planning Commission Study Session agenda November 3, 2004 Dennis Marchese and Cheryl Stereff Marchese November 3, 2004 Dr. Jane Cowles Smith October 28, 2004 John H. Goodrich, Committee for the preservation of Little Tuscany and Chino Canyon Neighborhoods October 26, 2004 Alex Meyerhoff to Amy Minter at Chatten-Brown Associates October 25, 2004 Southern California Association of Governments October 25, 2004 Paul De Palatis —Coronet Biological Report References October 25, 2004 James W. Coronet October 19, 2004 Kathryn Lottes to Jan Chatten-Brown October 15, 2004 Amy Minter at Chatten-Brown Associates Crescendo project correspondence 5.0996-PD-294, TTM 31766 Planning Commission meeting 12/08/04 Page 2 October 13, 2004 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District October 15, 2004 Jan Chatten-Brown October 6, 2004 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians October 6, 2004 Mission Springs Water District September 28, 2004 John H. Goodrich, Committee for the preservation of Little Tuscany and Chino Canyon Neighborhoods September 23, 2004 Jan Chatten-Brown September 17, 2004 Jan Chatten-Brown August 12, 2004 John H. Goodrich, Committee for the preservation of Little Tuscany and Chino Canyon Neighborhoods July 26, 2004 Design Review Committee Agenda July 26, 2004 Frank Gaydos July 6, 2004 James W. Cornett July 1, 2004 Cmdr. Ron Starrs, Palm Springs Police Department May 19, 2004 Tim O'Bayley, Chino Canyon Neighborhoods Organization May 18, 2004 Peter Moruzzi, Palm Springs Modern Committee May 16, 2004 Sheryl Hamlin May 11, 2004 Simon A. Housman May 3, 2004 Peter S. Orlando April 22, 2004 Cheryl Stereff and Dennis Marchese April 2, 2004 Office of Neighborhood Involvement and Public Participation, Notice of Open House on Crescendo Project Public Comments on the Crescendo Development Dear Ms. Lottes and Mr. Meyerhoff, As we discussed earlier, we were only just able to have a copy of the Initial Study for the Crescendo project. Our businesses have been involved in R&D for biotechnology and eco-development since 1989, We have made extensive notes on the first three- fourths of the document. Fortunately, there are others in the community whom we believe have been able to offer the same or similar comments as we may have. There are so many items for which we would like more information. We think it may be provided in a further Report (or even a Study, for such a sensitive area). Our primary concern has always been the deep flood channels throughout the parcel, and indeed the entire alluvial fan, etched over hundreds of years. Alluvial means the boulders and soils are deposited by massive movements of water. Such an event wiped out the original Caliente's shaman, Chino, and his village. The concern is, if one can out- engineer Nature. The catch basins may not do it. We did not see figures for estimated water usage, by day, week or year; nor dollar amounts for the City to provide services. Are there hot springs, waterfalls, vernal pools for wildlife, to be considered?We've seen flocks of White Heron visiting the alluvial fans and canyons. Thirdly, we are beginning to obtain statements from architects famous for hillside development. The Crescendo designs are not based upon detailed studies of wind and water courses, nor migratory terrain or habitat for wildlife. The development endeavors to recreate the land to suit their design, rather than the other way around. The homogenized look and terraced land will stick out like sore thumbs for this and the Boulders project. The mature, eclectic neighborhoods, which now pretty much blend into the hillsides, would be obliterated by mass grading, boulder piles, rock crushing and construction - noise and air quality concerns, traffic, and torn up streets for sewer and the like. (And still no solar provisions on new buildings after the energy crisis??? Hope part of the school bond will be utilized wisely to install it.) The peace would be shattered as would be the views. Especially the views of our chief revenue source, tourism, right there, at our world-famous Tram and City entrance. Thus, we think that there should be a Fiscal Impact Report also, pertinent to this development's impacts versus preservation, business re-development in town, and ecotourism potential. This alluvial area is totally inappropriate for a PDD. We will follow up with a letter partially, read, and then presented, to the City Council pertaining to the planning process procedures. We truly appreciate having the opportunity to submit this letter and our comments. We hope that concerns will be heard and answered. Thank you again for your consideration. Very sincerely yours, Dana L. Stewart and James McKinley 2280 N. Girasol Avenue Palm Springs, CA 92262 955 Via Livorno Patin Springs,CA M62 Email:PSRADQAOL=rn RodneyDrew Menw To: Kathryn Lottes,Director Of Planning Services—City of Palm Springs From: Rodney Drew and Ban Bums Jr. ¢C: Committee for the Preservation of I.iltle Tuscany&Chino Canyon Dane; November 17,2ooa Re: Crescendo Dear Kathryn, We are residents of the Chino Canyon area of Palm Springs, We have been following the"Crescendo" and"Boulders"projects since their inception, It has come to our notice that the"Crescendo"project is set for public hearing with the Planning Commission hest Wednesday,the 20 November. We feel that this data for public hearing is not appropriate due to the fact that most people have already scheduled their Thanksgiving activities and will not be available to attend this hearing. We are submitting this memo as a request that the"Crescendo" hearing be rescheduled so that the residents of the Chino Canyon neighborhood ale entitled fair and due process in regard to the decision making process that will affect our neighborhood forever. Respectfully, 4 � t 1 r I� November 17, 2004 To: Kathryn Lottes Alex Meyerhoff Planning Department City of Palm Springs Fax: 322-8360 Re: Planning Commission meeting on 11/24/04 Dear Ms.Lottes and Mr. Meyerhoff: As a resident of the Little Tuscany neighborhood,I am writing to strongly request that the Crescendo development scheduled for hearing at the November 24 meeting of the Planning Commission be postponed. As you know,this is a highly contentious issue, and scheduling this hearing at a meeting on the day prior to the Thanksgiving holiday does a true disservice to the hundreds of concerned individuals who may wish to appear but cannot due to long-standing travel plans. Please re-schedule this hearing to a date more conducive to citizen participation. Thank you for your consideration. Andrew Z. Linsky 1019 W. Cielo Dr. Palm Springs, CA 92262 T-760.323.6959 F-760.323.0880 C-760.333.2228 CHATTEN-BROWN & ASSOCIATES 3250 OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD FACSIMILE: (370)314-8040 TELEPHONE (310)3 SUITE 300 E-MAIL: AMINTEER@ ' FACSIMILE: CBAEARTHLAW.COM SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90405 www.obacartlilaw.com November 9, 2004 By FEDERAL EXPRESS Mr. Alex Meyerhoff NOV d t 20Db Principal Planner City of Palm Springs 1'l�nnin a Of 19 Department of Planning Services P.O. Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 Re: Request for Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report on Wessman Development Company's Crescendo project, Case No. 5-0996-PD-294, TTM 31766 Dear Mr. Meyerhoff. On behalf of our client, the Friends of the Palm Springs Mountains, we object to the use of a of a mitigated negative declaration ("MND") for the Wessman Development Company's proposed Crescendo project, Case No. 5-0996-PD-294, TTM 31766 ("Crescendo project" or the "project"). The proposed Crescendo project includes the development of 79 single-family residential lots on 42.2 acres in the northern section of Palm Springs. The project site is located on undeveloped open desert land within the Chino Cone. An Environmental Impact Report("EIR") must be prepared and certified, rather than the proposed MND, because the MND's analysis of impacts is legally inadequate. It fails to clearly describe the project and its many impacts. Even without regard to the inadequacies of the MND, it is clear that there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project may, and in fact will, have significant adverse environmental impacts in the areas of biological, aesthetic, air quality, noise, geotechnical, water quality, fire hazard, cumulative and growth inducing impacts. Indeed, a mandatory finding of significance is required for the project due to the destruction of habitat for a rare species Alex Meyerhoff November 9, 2004 Page 2 of 18 that would occur as a result of the project. The City's General Plan recognizes that the Chino Canyon area, referred to as the Chino Cone by the City, is an extraordinary and sensitive resource that should be preserved Unfortunately, rather than exercise the care in review of a development warranted in such a sensitive area, the City appears determined to continue to make inappropriate use of MNI)s on projects that may have significant impacts. We urge the City to avoid unnecessary litigation and order the preparation of an adequate EIR on this project. Attached to this letter are the expert reports that further detail the substantial evidence of significant adverse impacts. These reports cover the following areas where the MND gave impacts.particularly short shrift: Analysis of Biological Report by Kurt Leuschner; Air Quality,Noise, and Traffic Impact Analysis Report by Michael Hendrix; Peer Review of Air Quality Impact Analysis by Michael Hendrix; and Geotechnical Analysis by Richard Meehan. These experts' respective curriculum vitae or resumes are also attached. In this letter, we have highlighted some of the concerns contained in their analyses. I. Approval of the MND and Project As Proposed Would Violate CEQA. A. The City is Required to Prepare an EIR Because There is Substantial Evidence to Support a Fair Argument that the Project May Have Significant Adverse Impacts on the Environment. The MND and the project need to be disapproved as proposed. An EIR must be prepared that accurately describes the project and assesses the project's significant biological, aesthetic, air quality,noise, geotechnical,water quality, fire hazard, cumulative and growth inducing impacts. For a project to go forward, feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that have been reviewed and commented on by the public must mitigate those impacts. 1. This Project Does Not Meet the Legal Standards for an AM. CEQA requires an EIR whenever a project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. (Public Resources Code section 21151.) "If there is substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary does not dispense with the need for an EIR when it can still be `fairly argued' that the project may have a significant impact." (Friends of`B"Street v. City of Hayward(1980) 106 Alex Meyerhoff November 9, 2004 Page 3 of 18 Cal.App.3d 988, 1001.) Thus, an MND is appropriate only when, due to the nature of the project or the mitigation measures that have been accepted by the project proponent before the CEQA review process begins, there is not a fair argument that there may be adverse impacts. According to Public Resources Code section 21064.5: "Mitigated negative declaration" means a negative declaration prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment,but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment." "[T]he significance of an activity may vary with the setting." (CEQA Guidelines section 15064 (b).) For example, the threshold for finding air quality impacts to be cumulatively significant will generally be lower in polluted airsheds than in cleaner ones. (Kings County Fawn Bureau v. City of Hanford(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 718-721.) Similarly, the analysis of the significance of a project's traffic impacts necessarily depends on its existing environmental setting. (City of Orange v. Valenti (1974) 37 Cal.App.3d 240, 249.) A residential development such as the Crescendo project that might have insignificant impacts in an urban setting could have significant impacts in the aesthetically and biologically sensitive Chino Cone area. Preparation of an MND, rather than a full environmental impact report, cannot be allowed in this case because of the many significant impacts the project will have, even after mitigation. 2. The MND Does Not Give a Clear Picture of the Project. Despite its length, the MND fails to give the public a clear picture of the project. For example, there are no photographic simulations to.show how the grading will affect views from lower elevations, or even within the project. Information was reportedly provided to members of the public that attended the November 3, 2004 meeting of the Planning Commission Study Group that grading at the project site will result in four Alex Meyerhoff November 9, 2004 Page 4 of 18 "platforms," which are apparently terraces. This information is not contained in the MND. "An accurate project description is necessary for an intelligent evaluation of the Potential environmental effects of a proposed activity." (McQueen v. Board of Directors of the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District(1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 1136, 1143 [requiring an accurate project description for a notice of exemption].) Thus, by omitting mention of the four terraces, the HIND fails to meet the informational purposes of CEQA. "A curtailed or distorted project description may stultify the objectives of the reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal's benefit against its environmental costs . . . ." (County of]nyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Ca1.App.3d 185, 192-193.) Here, the MND's failure to describe the four terrace's height, size, and location relative to each other undercuts the public's ability to understand what is likely to be one of the most distinctive visual impacts of the proposed project - - a radical change in the terrain. The change from the natural, aesthetically pleasing fonn of an ancient alluvial fan to the artificial, angular outlines of synthetic "platforms" must be explained fully in an EIR before any decisions about the project's impacts may be based upon it. Photo simulations of the project, and its impact on the visual access to the mountains and the canyon, should be included in the EIR. 3. Biological Impacts are Inadequately Assessed a. The Biological Assessment Prepared for the MND is Inadequate The bird and other wildlife surveys for the NIND were performed at the time of year, December, when the fewest number of species is likely to be found. According to an expert, multiple surveys should be conducted at other times of the year (especially in the spring or summer) to obtain a more accurate assessment of the potential species that can be found on the project site. (Leuschner Analysis of Biological Report.) Even if this were a doubtful case, and it is not, an EIR should be prepared so that the City does not make decisions "without the relevant data or a detailed study of it." (No Oil, Inc. V. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 84.) This is because "one of the purposes of the [EIR]. . . is to insure that the relevant environmental data are before the agency and considered by it prior to the decision to commit . . . resources to the project." (]bid.) In addition to completion of additional and more timely biological surveys,the project's Biological Assessment's list of potential birds that are likely to be found on this project site should be expanded to include the many migrant species, such as warblers, and more winter residents, especially flocks of sparrows. Sparrow species, such as Alex NIeyerhoff November 9, 2004 Page 6 of 18 One consequence of proliferating invasive plants is an increased fuel load (compare the photo above taken 34 years after the previous view, showing an invasion by non-native annual mustards) on desert landscapes with the potential to carry fire among fire-sensitive trees, shrubs, and cacti. Just as fire suppression in ecosystems that evolved with fire can disrupt ecosystem structure and function, the occurrence of fire in ecosystems that evolved in its absence can lead to loss of species and restructuring of plant and animal interactions, even favoring fire-adapted exotic species over natives (Hobbs & Huenneke, 1992). The damage to a desert ecosystem by fire will vary with its intensity and frequency; to what degree the ecosystem is restructured in the long-term will depend on the demographic profiles of the plants that were killed and the ones that survived. Where large cacti, for instance, may survive a fire, smaller taxa or younger individuals may suffer high mortality (McLaughlin & Bowers, 1982); some cacti may survive a burn but be rendered vulnerable to attacks by herbivores or infection; thin- barked or juvenile trees may be killed, but herbaceous plants may be favored (Humphrey, 1974). Invasion of open spaces by non-native plants has the potential to crowd out native annual species before they have the opportunity to establish root systems and come into bloom (D'Antonio &Vitousek, 1992). Invasions (or, as with several grasses, introductions) that encroach upon or expand at the expense of desertscrub habitat or riparian islands in desert seas can displace native species and increase the risks of burning in these areas (see Burquez & Martinez-Yrizar, 1997; Felger, et al., 1997). Losses of native herbs and trees can have negative consequences for pollinators (Nabhan & Holdsworth, 1998) and other herbivores. The dual effects of competition and attrition have the potential to transform a desert landscape to one populated by non-native plants and supporting a diminished fauna. Disturbances to desertscrub landscapes, including grazing and sub/urban development, coupled with cyclic changes in temperature and aridity may add to, or even exacerbate, ecosystem-level changes that began with plant invasions. Return to pre-invasion conditions will, insofar as these can be approximated given the long history of land use and landscape change, and given the slow growth of desert perennials and development of desert soil, require a protracted recovery period if possible at all (Patten & Halvorson, 1995). Depending on the nature, extent, and severity of an invasion by non- native species and what changes to native populations have occurred, management of the problem requires decisions about eliminating kinds of Alex Meyerhoff November 9, 2004 Page 6 of 18 One consequence of proliferating invasive plants is an increased fuel load (compare the photo above taken 34 years after the previous view, showing an invasion by non-native annual mustards) on desert landscapes with the potential to carry fire among fire-sensitive trees, shrubs, and cacti. Just as fire suppression in ecosystems that evolved with fire can disrupt ecosystem structure and function, the occurrence of fire in ecosystems that evolved in its absence can lead to loss of species and restructuring of plant and animal interactions, even favoring fire-adapted exotic species over natives (Hobbs & Huenneke, 1992). The damage to a desert ecosystem by fire will vary with its intensity and frequency; to what degree the ecosystem is restructured in the long-term will depend on the demographic profiles of the plants that were killed and the ones that survived. Where large cacti, for instance, may survive a fire, smaller taxa or younger individuals may suffer high mortality (McLaughlin & Bowers, 1982); some cacti may survive a burn but be rendered vulnerable to attacks by herbivores or infection; thin- barked or juvenile trees may be killed, but herbaceous plants may be favored (Humphrey, 1974). Invasion of open spaces by non-native plants has the potential to crowd out native annual species before they have the opportunity, to establish root systems and come into bloom (D'Antonio &Vitousek, 1992). Invasions (or, as with several grasses, introductions) that encroach upon or expand at the expense of desertscrub habitat or riparian islands in desert seas can displace native species and increase the risks of burning in these areas (see Burquez & Martinez-Yrfzar, 1997; Felger, et al., 1997). Losses of native herbs and trees can have negative consequences for pollinators (Nabhan & Holdsworth, 1998) and other herbivores. The dual effects of competition and attrition have the potential to transform a desert landscape to one populated by non-native plants and supporting a diminished fauna. Disturbances to desertscrub landscapes, including grazing and sub/urban development, coupled with cyclic changes in temperature and aridity may add to, or even exacerbate, ecosystem-level changes that began with plant invasions. Return to pre-invasion conditions will, insofar as these can be approximated given the long history of land use and landscape change, and given the slow growth of desert perennials and development of desert soil, require a protracted recovery period if possible at all (Patten & Halvorson, 1995). Depending on the nature, extent, and severity of an invasion by non- native species and what changes to native populations have occurred, management of the problem requires decisions about eliminating kinds of Alex Meyerhoff November 9,2004 Page 7 of 18 disturbances (e.g., fire, grazing) now inherent to the ecosystem, eliminating the invasive species themselves, or, increasingly, accepting the altered ecosystem and managing it to maintain biodiversity and ecosystem function "regardless of its altered composition" (Patten & Halvorson, 1995; see also Hobbs & Huenneke, 1992). An EIR should analyze the ecological hazards detailed in the article. At the very least, to mitigate the loss of undisturbed desert land that currently provides habitat to sensitive species, native landscaping materials should be required on the entire project site of any Chino Canyon development. The MND states the project will only be required to exclude exotic vegetation on the portion of the project that is within 100 feet of the natural area to the west, which is a requirement of the Palm Springs General Plan. However, once introduced, exotic plants may be transported by animal or wind dispersion of seeds-distances greater than 100 feet. To adequately mitigate this potential impact, exotic vegetation should be excluded from the entire project site. 4. The MND's Analysis of Aesthetic Impacts is Inadequate a. Blocking Views of Scenic Vistas is a Significant Impact Even After Mitigation The MND identifies the project as having a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista prior to the implementation of mitigation measures. (MND, p. 28.) Specifically, the MND finds that implementation of any project on this site (including the proposed project) will alter views from the nearest existing lots facing the property that currently have an unimpaired uphill view of the mountains across the site." The view from the top of Racquet Club Road across the valley to Joshua Tree, Highway I I I and the Tramway Gas Station will be lost and there will be significant visual impacts, especially with the use of two story 26'tall buildings, looking across the valley from Desert Hot Springs and up the mountain from all surrounding valley roads. "[A]ny substantial, negative effect of a project on view and other features of beauty could constitute a "significant" environmental impact under CEQA." (Q nail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Ca1.AppAtn 1597, 1604.) According to the California Court of Appeal, lay opinions that articulate the basis Of the opinion can constitute substantial evidence of a negative aesthetic impact. (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assoc., Inc. v. Montecito Water District (2004 ) 116 Cal.AppAth 396, 402.) Expert testimony on the matter is not required because the overall aesthetic impact of a project is a subjective matter for which personal observations are sufficient evidence of the impact. (Id.; Oro Fine Gold Mining Corp. v. County of El Dorado (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 882.) Alex Meyerhoff November 9, 2004 Page 8 of 18 The MND claims that because the proposed project would result in a "slightly reduced level of mountain view restriction" than other possible project designs the "visual impacts on adjacent homes are considered mitigated by project design features to a level of less than significant." (MND p. 43.) The MND comes to this conclusion after finding that the project will block mountain views that are currently unobstructed on adjacent' property. (Id. p. 37.) The rationalization that other project designs would block the views more than the proposed design does not mitigate the impact of the blocking of mountain views to a less than significant level. b. There Will be Significant Impacts to On-Site Scenic Resources The MND incorrectly finds that the impact of damage to on-site scenic resources is less than a significant impact. The project area consists of open desert land in its natural state, Sonoran creosote bush scrub vegetation. Additionally, a unique feature of the project area is a number of large boulders scattered across the site by the movement of flash flood waters across the alluvial fan. The project will entirely remove the existing desert landscape and crush the boulders, as well as dramatically change the topography of the land. (MND p. 43.) The removal of these unique and natural features is a significant impact not analyzed by the MND. While the MND claims the project "blends with the surrounding desert landscape" and therefore will not result in damage on-site scenic resources, removing unique and natural scenic features and replacing them with housing development, even one with some native landscaping, will result in a significant impact that has not been analyzed or mitigated. 5. Air Quality Impacts are Significant a. Inadequate Air Quality Analysis The MND's air quality analysis does not account for all project-related emissions. The air quality analysis prepared by the developer estimated fugitive dust emissions for the rock crushing activities, but did not include fugitive dust from earthmoving and grading that is anticipated to take place at the same time as rock crushing. Further, construction emissions only looked at rock crushing and grading activities, and did not include the emissions from the water trucks that would be used simultaneously. (November 2004 Analysis Report prepared by Michael Hendrix ("Hendrix Analysis Report"), p. 1.) Further, the air quality analysis prepared by the developer's consultant that provides the basis for the air quality conclusions in the MND only looked at long-term emissions during the summer when emissions from fireplaces and heating would not be included. Alex Meyerhoff November 9, 2004 Page 9 of is b. Project Related Emissions Will Result in an Increase in the Frequency or Severity of Existing Air Quality Violations The "CEQA Air Quality Handbook" published by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), has two criteria that must be addressed in determining whether the Crescendo project is consistent with the air quality plans for the project area. The discussion found in the Initial Study fulfills only one of these criteria, that the project is consistent with projected land uses for the site. The second criteria is to determine if a project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new air quality violations. (CEQA Air Quality Handbook, pp. 12-2 through 12-3; Hendrix Analysis Report, p. 1.) The project area is a non-attainment area for both PM-10 and ozone. When all project related sources of emissions are included in an analysis of air quality, emissions of Nitrous Oxides ("NOx", an ozone precursor) and PM-10 are above the thresholds of significance during construction, and emissions of ROC (also an ozone precursor) are above the thresholds of significance during the long-term habitation of the residential subdivision. The Hendrix Analysis Report, page 1, found that emissions from grading and rock crushing activities are above the thresholds for NOx and PM-10. The Hendrix Analysis Report, page 1, also found that during these phases of construction NOx emissions are above the significance thresholds by over 200 percent and ROC emissions (also an ozone precursor pollutant) are above the thresholds by over 300 percent. The Hendrix Analysis Report, page 2, looked at both summer and wintertime emissions of criteria air pollutants during occupancy of the proposed project and found that ROC emissions also are well above the CEQA thresholds set by the SCAQMD indicating a significant impact. Project related emissions will therefore result in an increase in the frequency and/or severity of existing air quality violations. This unmitigated significant impact alone would require the preparation of an EIR. C. The Project Will Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Concentrations of Pollutants. The MND impact analysis found that "the small number of residential units proposed by the project will not create high pollutant concentrations and there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project." (MND p. 53.) This is inaccurate because the "CEQA Air Quality Handbook" defines residential units as sensitive receptors. As discussed above, emissions of NOx, ROC and PM-10 are above the SCAQMD thresholds. Sensitive receptors at the existing residential units adjacent to the property, and those planned by the project, would be exposed by the project to levels of Alex Meyerhoff November 9, 2004 Page 10 of 18 Pollutants above significance thresholds. This is a significant impact that is not analyzed or mitigated by the MND. o`. Noise Impacts are Not Adequately Analyzed or Mitigated a. The Noise Impact Analysis Prepared for the MND is Inadequate The evaluation of noise impacts described in the MND for the proposed project did not evaluate noise generated from traffic on adjacent roadways that will impact the existing residential developments. In particular, roadway noise from traffic on Tramway Road and Racquet Club Road need to be evaluated for build-out conditions of the project area. Build-out conditions represent the project area once all land uses are built. The reason build-out conditions are routinely used in noise analysis is to adequately attenuate projected noise levels with the use of walls and building materials used to construct the proposed residential subdivision. The evaluation in the Initial Study did not predict noise levels on the project site from the roadways listed above, or compare the predicted noise levels with City standards. Traffic conditions on Tramway Road and Racquet Club Road at build-out conditions are likely to exceed the City of Palm Springs 65 dBA noise standard for residential subdivisions and sound walls are not proposed as mitigation. Therefore, noise levels at the residential lots adjacent to the roadways will likely exceed City standards. This is a potentially significant impact and an EIR is required. b. The Noise Impacts of the Rock Crushing Plant are Not Adequately Analyzed or Mitigated. The MND identifies noise from the rock crushing plant to be a significant impact requiring mitigation. However, after the mitigation measure required by the MND has been imposed, this impact will remain significant. The equipment used for rock crushing will be elevated approximately 18-20 feet above the ground surface. (Hendrix Analysis Report, pp. 5-6 and attachment 1,photos of rock crushing equipment.) The impact that such an elevation will have on the noise levels generated by the operation is not analyzed by the MND, or its accompanying Noise Study. The ND claims that the rock crushing noi M se will be attenuated by the ground surface, but noise sources at the proposed elevated locations will not be attenuated. (Id.) When the noise impacts associated with the elevation of the equipment are assessed, the noise levels at the nearest residential property would be 76-86 decibels. (Id.) The mitigation measure required for the noise fiom rock crushing is 15-20 foot tall berms. The MND states this measure will mitigate the noise by 20 decibels. After mitigation, when the elevation of the equipment causing the noise is accurately assessed, this would mean the noise levels at the residential properties would still be approximately 56-66 decibels. This level is above the threshold of significance. Alex Meyerhoff November 9, 2004 Page 11 of 18 (Id.) Additionally, the noise evaluation did not take into consideration other heavy equipment and trucks that would be used on the project site during grading and rock crushing activities. When these noise impacts are considered in conjunction with the rock crushing activities, the noise impacts remain significant after mitigation. (Id.) C. "Groundborne" Vibrations Are a Significant Noise Impact The MND analysis of the groundborne vibrations caused by the rock crushing plant asserts that placing the rock crushing operations 800 feet away from the closest existing residences is sufficient to reduce this impact. However, groundborne vibrations from rock crushing operations would be noticeable up to '/n mile from the vibration source. (Hendrix Analysis Report, p. 4.) This potentially significant impact needs to be evaluated. 7. The MND Does Not Adequately Assess the Significant Impact of Flooding As set forth in the attached report of Richard Meehan, a registered civil engineer specializing in geoteclmical engineering and soils, the significance of and impacts from flooding at the project site have been seriously underestimated by the MND and its accompanying reports. The Crescendo project is located on an alluvial fan at the mouth of Chino Canyon, which drains an estimated 5 square miles of desert mountain terrain. The retention basins contemplated for the project as mitigation for the hazards of flooding are designed to accommodate only the rainfall collected within the site, and not the rainfall that may be channeled onto the site through Chino Canyon. The project design includes 5 retention basins with a combined storage capacity of 4.7 acre/feet. (MND, p. 78.) The basins designs are intended to "capture onsite flows" but the designs do not address the additional flows that would occur from flash flooding in the Chino Canyon. (Id.) The design or effectiveness of diversion channels identified by the geotechnical consultants for the MND as a comfort factor is unknown. Thunderstorms with rainfall greater than 2 inches per hour are not unusual in this area. These storms can and do produce flash floods and debris flows with rapid and erratic movement of boulders out of the canyon and across the alluvial fan. This presents an extreme hazard for the project site that is not considered in the MND, in particular for a dense residential development. There are specific historic records of severe flooding at Chino Canyon and this impact must be considered and mitigated before the project can be approved. (Meehan Document Review for the Subdivision Application of Wessman Development Company, p. 2-3.) Further, the control of the retention basins is left to the homeowners association. Alex Meyerhoff November 9, 2004 Page 12 of 18 There is no requirement in the MND that the homeowners association retain an expert to inspect and supervise the upkeep of the basins. Thus, there is no assurance that whatever mitigation is provided by the retention basins will be adequate. 8. Traffic Impacts Were Not Adequately Analyzed a. Traffic Impacts at Additional Intersections Must Be Considered The project's traffic study analyzed only one intersection—Racquet Club Road at Palm Canyon Drive (State Highway 111). However, traffic generated by the proposed project is likely to negatively impact other intersections including the alignment of the project access streets to Vista Grande Avenue at Racquet Club Road, Tuscan Road/Girasol Avenue at Racquet Club Road, and Tramway Road at Palm Canyon Drive. Neglecting these intersections excludes examination of potential impacts the project may impose on the transportation network of the project area. Additionally, regional transportation plans or the regional traffic model were not discussed in the traffic study, making the MND's assessment of the project's contribution to regional traffic impacts inadequate. (Hendrix Analysis Report, p. 7) b. Vacation of a Portion of Vista Grande Avenue is Improper Because No Finding of Necessity is Discussed in the MND The project also proposes to vacate the westerly 23 feet of the public right of way for Vista Grande Avenue. (MND p. 15.) " `Vacation' means the . . . partial abandonment . of the public right to use a street . . . or public service easement." (Sts. & Hy.Code § 8309.) The MND claims this would leave 37 feet of right of way on this road, which is enough to contain the existing paved road improvements presently serving the area. However, the MND does not analyze whether road improvements utilizing the 23 feet may be necessary to serve the Crescendo project and other future proposed developments. In any case, an easement cannot be vacated to benefit a private corporation. (City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. City Council of Rolling Hills Estates (1976) 59 Ca1.App. 3d 869, 885.) .There is no showing of a public benefit from the vacation of a large portion of Vista Grande Avenue. 9. Significant Water Quality Impacts The MND states the impact from surface runoff containing urban pollutants will be mitigated to a less than significant level because the retention basins will prevent an increase in storm water runoff. As discussed in the previous section,however, the retention basins are only designed for onsite runoff and do not include capacity for Alex Meyerhoff November 9, 2004 Page 13 of 18 flooding from the Chino Canyon. Therefore, during flash floods surface runoff containing urban pollutants would be carried off-site and would be a significant water quality impact that has not been analyzed or mitigated. 10. Emergency Exits Proposed by the MND are Not Adequate Mitigation Measures The project proposes primary access for both of the two unconnected halves of the development on Racquet Club Drive. The project proposes secondary access to the site as gated emergency access on Tram Way and Vista Grande Avenue. The gated emergency accesses are not adequate for evacuation purposes. Typically, emergency access points are locked gates that can only be opened by someone with the keys (often the Fire Department). In an emergency such as an earthquake, if Racquet Club Drive is blocked by debris or a traffic accident, residents would be trapped in the subdivision until the Fire Department is able to unlock the gates. Only one access road, even if there are other emergency access points, is usually not considered sufficient access to a subdivision. For example, the Riverside County Transportation Department generally requires a minimum of two collector streets accessing a subdivision allowing for immediate emergency access if the main access road is blocked. 11. Significant Impacts from Fire Hazards Still Exist After Mitigation The project site is considered by the Palm Springs Fire Department to be an area of high fire risk. With this high risk it is of special concern that approximately half of the development lies outside of the Fire Department's 5-minute response area. The MND purports to mitigate this impact only by following the minimum Palm Springs Municipal Code requirements for placement of hydrants and sprinklers. A potentially significant impact from fire hazards not discussed in the MND is where a required secondary emergency exit should be placed if the owner of Tram Way will not grant access to that road. The MND does not demonstrate that access to Tram Way for emergency purposes has already been granted, only that an emergency exit for the western half of the project will be built on the side of project site facing Tram Way. Additionally, a later section of the MND states that the developer has not yet contacted the owner of Tram Way to obtain a grant of access to Tram Way for purposes of construction and delivery truck traffic, and therefore it can be assumed that the Tram Way owner has not granted access to the road for other purposes yet either. An affirmative grant of access to Tram Way for purposes of the emergency secondary access to the project site must be received prior in order to conclude that the Fire Hazards related to the project is mitigated by provision for emergency access. Alex Meyerhoff November 9, 2004 Page 14 of 18 12. Cumulative Impacts Are Not Adequately Assessed by the MND When the possible effects of a project are "individually limited but cumulatively considerable" a finding that the project may have a significant effect on the environment must be made. (Pub. Res. Code § 21083.) When an unmitigated cumulatively considerable impact is found, an EIR must be prepared. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15065.) The Crescendo project will have numerous cumulative impacts that have not been mitigated to a less than significant level: a. ShadowRock ShadowRock is a huge 350 acre project consisting of a golf course, hotel, residential and condominium units that will be located within approximately I 'h miles west of the Crescendo project. A development agreement for this project was approved in 1993. Even though project construction has not yet begun, and Friends of Palm Springs Mountains disputes the continuing viability of the Development Agreement, the City has taken the position that the Development Agreement was extended to June 2006. While the ShadowRock project is mentioned in the MND environmental setting section, no mention is made of it in the cumulative impacts section. Based upon the City's current position with regard to ShadowRock, the impacts of the ShadowRock project in conjunction with the impacts of the Crescendo project must be analyzed and mitigated. b. Air Quality The discussion in the MND rationalizes that "Since the 79 dwelling units proposed by the Crescendo project are consistent with the City General Plan land use and density, they represent an increment of the growth that is planned by CVAG and the cumulative regional impact of project growth is considered to be less-than-significant." (MND p. 53.) However, CEQA requires that if a cumulative impact finding relies upon a previously approved plan or mitigation program, that plan or mitigation program must provide specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative impact(CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 (h)(3).) The analysis in the MND did not describe the specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen air quality impacts. The project area is designated as a non-attainment area for ozone and PM-10. The project-specific evaluation of emissions conducted in November 2004 supports a conclusion that the air quality impacts for the proposed project are significant on an individual project basis. In addressing cumulative effects for air quality, the PM-10 State Implementation Plan and Air Quality Management Plan published by the SCAQM are the most appropriate documents to use because the they set forth a comprehensive program that will lead the SEDAB, including the project area, into compliance with all federal and Alex Meyerhoff November 9, 2004 Page 15 of 18 state air quality standards and utilizes control measures and related emission reduction estimates based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with local governments. Since the proposed project is not consistent with the PM-10 SIP and AQMP (see discussion of consistency requirements above) and the project is significant on an individual basis, it is appropriate to conclude that the project's incremental contribution to criteria pollutant emissions is also cumulatively considerable. C. Cumulative Noise Impacts The Traffic Study prepared for the project estimates approximately 5,000 average daily trips on Racquet Club Road in the year 2020. Twenty percent of this traffic will be generated by the Crescendo project. The cumulative impacts of the Crescendo traffic noise, when taken in conjunction with other traffic noise generated by other current and anticipated projects, is a potentially significant noise impact that must be analyzed by the MND. d. Cumulative Impacts on Water Supply The water supply for the project will be provided by the Desert Water Agency. As discussed by the MND, the Desert Water Agency obtains its water from groundwater wells, supplemented by the California Aqueduct, The Whitewater River groundwater sub-basin, which would be used to provide water to the project, is currently in an overdraft condition. (MND p. 107.) The MND states `By supplying water to the proposed project, [the Desert Water Agency] would be contributing cumulatively to this overdraft." (Id.) This is a significant, unmitigated, cumulative impact of the project requiring preparation of an EIR. 13. The Project Will Have Growth Inducing Impacts Requiring Preparation of an EIR The Crescendo project includes a 2,350 foot extension of the current sewer lines from Girasol Avenue to the project site, a 1,200 foot extension of water lines from the Chino Reservoir to the project site, and unspecified extensions of other utilities. (MND, p. 22.) These extensions could be used to serve the vacant property to the north and west. An EIR is required when a project that viewed by itself seems limited, but that could function as a catalyst for foreseeable future development. (City of Antioch v. City of Pittsburg(1986) 187 Ca1.App.3d 1325.) In City of Antioch, the city had prepared a negative declaration for a proposed road and sewer construction project. The Court of Appeal found an EIR was required to consider the growth inducing impacts of the proposed project. (Id. at 1337-1338.) An EIR is required for the Crescendo project because the growth inducing impacts the project may have due to its extension of public utilities. Alex Meyerhoff November 9, 2004 Page 16 of 18 B. Mitigation Measures are Improperly Deferred The California Court of Appeal has held it is a violation of CEQA to approve a project based on a negative declaration without first resolving how adverse impacts will be mitigated. (Sunstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296.) Thus, the court in Sunstrom found that the development and implementation of mitigation measures after project approval was a violation of CEQA. (Id. at 306-308.) The mitigation measures for numerous potentially significant effects of this project are mitigated only by statements that future plans will provide mitigation, without specifying the mitigation measures or requiring the plans be submitted prior to project approval. These plans and mitigation measures need to be completed and submitted as part of the CEQA review process, and prior to the approval of any environmental review document. 1. Mitigation of Aesthetic Impacts is Deferred The project will have a significant aesthetic impact. The MND states the project will be designed to minimize the degradation to the visual character of the area, but this design will not be prepared until after project approval. (MND, p. 44.) The design must be prepared and the impact of the design must be considered in an EIR to analyze the impacts the project will have on the visual character of the area and adequately mitigate this impact before the project is considered. 2. Mitigation of Construction Traffic is Uncertain Prior to Project Approval Mitigation Measure 11-5 for mitigation of construction traffic impacts states "The developer shall contact the owner of Tram Way to obtain a temporary right-of-access for construction and delivery truck traffic to use Tram Way. If the owner of Tram Way is unwilling to grant such a,truck access route, a construction access plan shall be developed and implemented..." This is improper deferred mitigation. The developer must contact the owner of Tram Way to obtain right-of-way access prior to project consideration, and if the Tram Way is not available, secure the rights to or develop another construction access. Then the impact of such trucks and other construction equipment on such access must be considered. II. The General Plan Requires Preparation of an EIR for Planned Developments on the Chino Cone The entire Crescendo project will be located on the Chino Cone. (MND p. 9.) As Alex Meyerhoff November 9, 2004 Page 17 of 18 the General Plan states: "Nowhere in this county is there a site with the abrupt transition from desert to mountain so spectacularly defined. Chino Cone offers an unparalleled dimension in recreational and resort living potential" (General Plan, 3.2.3, 1-21.) The General Plan provides that all development that takes place in this Chino Cone area be required to respect and conform to the special characteristics of the site. (Id.) Due to the unique nature of the Chino Cone, the General Plan requires preparation of an EIR, quite aside from the requirements of CEQA. The EIR required by the General Plan is to focus on impacts from infrastructure development, biological concerns, visual and cultural resources, drainage and wildfire hazards for all area plans located on the Chino Cone. (Id.) The area plan may take the form of either a Specific Plan or a Planned Development District. (Id. at I.20.) Preparation of a full EIR for Planned Development District 294 is therefore required by the General Plan, as well as CEQA. III. The Project is Inconsistent with General Plan Government Code Section 66473.5 provides that no tentative subdivision map, including a vesting tentative map, shall be approved unless it is consistent with the general plan. The project is inconsistent with the General Plan provisions for protecting views and for maintaining open space. A. The Project Violates the General Plan Policy for Preserving Scenic Vistas Palm Springs General Plan Policy 3.1.8 is to ensure that development does not overwhelm natural features, especially washes and views of the mountains. By blocking the views discussed supra in section I.A.4.a, mountain views are clearly overwhelmed. Policy 3.3.3 also encourages the preservation of scenic viewsheds from adjoining properties. The project's impact on views of natural features and scenic vistas is inconsistent with the policies of the General Plan. B. The Project Violates the General Plan's Requirement for Open Space The General Plan requires at least 70% open space on low density residential developments. (General Plan Policy 3.4.5.) The MND's calculations on this seem erroneous. At one point the MND states there will only be 22.6% coverage, making the project consistent with the open space requirement (MND p. 84), but elsewhere the project is described as having an allowable 35% lot coverage, which would allow for only 65% open space (MND p. 14). These inconsistencies must be addressed and an assurance adequate open space will be provided must be made prior to project approval. Alex Meyerhoff November 9, 2004 Page 18 of 18 CONCLUSION CEQA requires an EIR whenever a project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. (Pub. Res. Code § 21151.) An MND is appropriate only when, due to the mitigation measures, there is not a fair argument that there may be adverse impacts. Because the MND provides an inadequate analysis of impacts, and because of the substantial evidence to support a fair argument that many impacts may be significant, a full EIR must be prepared. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, "Amy Minteer cc: Mayor and Council Attachments: Leuschner Analysis of Biological Report Curriculum Vitae of Kurt Leuscbner Hendrix Air Quality, Noise and Traffic Impact Analysis Reports, with attached photographs Hendrix Peer Review of Air Quality Impact Analysis T.T. 31095 ("Crescendo')Palm Springs, California Resume of Michael Hendrix Meehan Document Review for the Subdivision Application of Wessman Development Company Resume of Richard Meehan Article on Invasive Species in Sonoran Desert Ecosystems FAQ escendo-PSM\Con\Finals\Cresendo Cerement Letter FINAL.doe i i i PEER REVIEW OF AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS T.T. 31095 ("CRESCENDO") PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA Prepared By: 'a Michael Hendrix 0 t� 'l7 Michael Hendrix Environmental Consulting Services 18227 Ranchero Road Hesperia, CA 92345 Tel: (760) 244-1568 n E. November 2004 RECEIVED IVOV 3 0 20Dd Alarming &Caning Air Quality Impact Analysis i,,,-ort SECTION 1 —INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY.............................................................1-1 Purpose And Methods Of Analysis 1-1 Executive Summary 1-1 Site Location and Study Area 1-I Development Description Findings 1-1 1-1 SECTION2 —SETTING............................................................................. Project Description Physical Setting 2-1 Regulatory Setting 2-I 2-2 SECTION 3 —EMISSIONS ESTIMATES................................. Thresholds Of Significance Impacts 3-1 Short Term Impacts 3-2 Long-term Impacts 3-2 3-4 SECTION 4—FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.................................................................4-1 Evaluation of Significance Conclusions 4-1 4-2 SECTION 5—REFERENCES..................................... References Cited 5-1 APPENDICES URBEMIS 2002 Output Files ......................:.............................................................Appendix A 2-i November 2004 Air Quality Impact Analysis 1._port LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 ESTIMATED SIIORT-TERM EMISSIONS (Site Grading)...............................3-3 TABLE 2 ESTIMATED SHORT-TERM EMISSIONS (Construction Period)..................3-4 TABLE 3 ESTIMATED MOBILE EMISSIONSI..................................................................3-5 TABLE 4 ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM FIREPLACES.............................................3-5 TABLE 5 ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION..........3-5 TABLE 6 ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM CONSUMER PRODUCTS.................. TABLE 7COMPOSITE LONG-TERM EMISSIONS ...........................................................3-6 2-ii November 2004 Air Quality Impact Analysis.i,,port SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Purpose And Methods Of Analysis The following peer review of the "Air Quality Analysis, T.T. 31095 ("Crescendo'), Palm Springs, California (June 14, 2004)" prepared by Giroux and Associates was conducted to evaluate whether the analysis adequately addressed potential air quality impacts. This assessment was conducted within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et sea,). The methodology follows the "CEQA Air Quality Handbook" prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for quantification of emissions and evaluation of potential impacts to air resources. As recommended by SCAQMD staff, URBEMIS 2002 for Windows version 7.5 and EMFAC2002 version 2.2, computer programs developed and approved by the California Air Resources Control Board, were used to verify the quantification of project-related emissions presented in the analysis prepared by Giroux and Associates. Executive Summary Site Location and Study Area The proposed project site is located in the City of Palm Springs, southeast of State Highway 111 (Palm Canyon Drive) and is bounded by Racquet Club Road to the south, Tramway Road on the north, and Vista Grande Avenue to the east. Development Description The Project represents a proposal for 79 residential units within an approximately 42.2-acre site. The project will have access to Racquet Club Road. Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation is L2 (Low Density Residential, two dwelling units per acre) and zoning is R-1-A (Single-family Residential with 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size). The Project includes a proposed zoning change to PD (Planned Development District)No. 294. Findings The air quality analysis underestimated constriction and operational emissions. Construction emissions was underestimated by not including all of the heavy construction equipment listed as being used during grading and rock crashing, and did not evaluate other phases of construction including the construction of founidations and residential units, paint applications, and asphalt paving activities. The air quality analysis conducted by Giroux and Associates did not compare 2-1 November 2004 Air Quality lmpact Analysis i,port construction emissions with all of the thresholds of significance for construction impacts published by SCAQMD. As a result of the combined underestimated emissions and selective elimination of portions of the thresholds of significance, the air quality analysis and Initial Study for the proposed project incorrectly concluded that air quality impacts would be less than significant. Similarly, long-term operational emissions were underestimated by only evaluating summer time emissions, thus eliminating the use of fireplaces and heating emits. An independent evaluation of the proposed project concluded that estimated criteria air pollutant emissions are above the SCAQMD significance thresholds during construction and occupancy of the proposed project. Accordingly, a conclusion that the proposed project would result iu significant air quality impacts is supported. 2-2 November 2004 Air Quality Impact Analysis.—port SECTION 2 - SETTING Project Description The Project represents a proposal for 79 residential units within an approximately 42.2-acre site. The project will have access to Racquet Club Road. Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation is L2 (Low Density Residential, two dwelling units per acre) and zoning is R-1-A (Single-family Residential with 20,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size). The Project includes a proposed zoning change to PD (Planned Development District) No. 294. For analysis purposed it is assumed that construction of the project would begin in January of 2005 and occupancy would occur by 2007. The project site is covered with a significant volume of cobbles and boulder that will require removal or crushing during site grading. A report published by C.W. Poss, Inc estimated that approximately 140,900 cubic yards of excavation and an additional 140,000 cubic yards of over- excavation will be necessary to grade the site. Of the excavated material, approximately 50% would be boulders and cobbles requiring crushing. An onsite rock crusher is proposed as part of the project to accomplish this task. The C.W. Poss, Inc report estimates 17,500 truckloads would be hauled from various portions of the site to the rock crusher, and 17,500 truckloads of crushed rock would be used on embankments and moved to appropriate onsite locations for that purpose. Rock crushing and finish grading is estimated to require approximately 7 months. The entire constriction of the proposed project is estimated to require approximately one year. The following provides a description of the regional and local conditions affecting air quality in the project area, an inventory of potential emissions, and comparison of potential emissions to established thresholds. Physical Setting The project site is in Southeastern Desert Air Basin (SEDAB). The SEDAB is an arid desert region with a climate characterized by low annual rainfall, low humidity, hot days, and very cool nights. Wind direction and speed (which in turn affect atmospheric stability) are the most important climatological elements affecting ambient air quality in the project area. The prevailing wind direction is from the northwest. The annual mean wind speed is 7.6 miles per hour. The project area is generally windy because the rapid daytime heating of the air closest to the surface leads to convection activity and the exchange of surface air for upper air, which accelerates surface winds during the warm part of the day. Ozone is transported into the project area from Los Angeles and Orange County by dominant daytime onshore winds during periods of low inversions and low wind speeds. Peak ozone levels in the project area occur in the late afternoon and evening (between 4 pm and 8 pm), as pollutants are blown through the San Gorgonio Pass. Ozone concentrations are highest in the 2-1 November 2004 Air Quality Impact Analysis t.,,port SEDAB in Beaumont and decrease steadily as the air mass moves eastward to Pahn Springs and Indio. The project site is within SCAQMD Source Receptor Area (SRA) 30 in Palm Springs. The most recent published data for SRA 30 shows that the baseline air quality conditions in the project axes include occasional events of unhealthful air. The greatest recognized air quality problems in the project area are PM-10 and ozone. Regulatory Setting The federal and state ambient air quality standards (AAQS) establish the context for the local air quality management plans. The state and federal AAQS are presented in Table 1. The California Air Resources Board maintains records as to the attainment status of basins throughout the state, under both state and federal criteria. For 2003, the portion of the SEDAB which includes the proposed project, was designated as a non-attainment area for ozone and PM- 10 under state and federal standards. The Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the SEDAB establishes a program of rules and regulations directed at attainment of the state and national air quality standards. SCAQMD rules and regulations that apply to this project include SCAQMD Rule 403, which governs emissions of fugitive dust. Compliance with this rule is achieved through implementation of standard best management practices in construction and operation activities, such as applying water or chemical stabilizers to distwbed soils, covering haul vehicles, restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph, and establishing a permanent ground cover on finished sites. Rule 403 also requires projects that disturbs 100 acres or more of soil or moves 10,000 yds3/day of materials/day to submit to SCAQMD a Fugitive Dust Control Plan. Spice construction of the proposed tracts will disturb approximately 174.2 acres, the project will be required to submit a formal Fugitive Dust Control Plan to SCAQMD. SCAQMD Rule 1113 governs the sale of architectural coatings and limits the VOC content in paints and paint solvents. Although this rate does not directly apply to the project, it does dictate the VOC content of paints available for use dining the construction of the buildings. 2-2 November 2004 i Air Quality Impact Analysis.,port SECTION 3 - EMISSIONS ESTIMATES Thresholds Of Significance Air quality impacts may be considered significant if: • The project is not in compliance with the SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan. • The project-generated emissions may violate Federal or State ambient air quality standards. • The project's contribution to cumulative impacts may be significant. • The project will expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Project-generated odors will affect a substantial number of people. The air quality analysis of the proposed project conducted by Giroux and Associates in June of 2004 only listed the daily thresholds of significance published by SCAQMD for construction activities. However, SCAQMD published thresholds of significance for construction activities include both daily and quarterly thresholds. While the final determination of whether or not a project is significant is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to § 15064(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the SCAQMD recommends that the following quantitative air pollution thresholds be used by the lead agencies in determining whether the proposed project could result in a significant impact. If the lead agency finds that the proposed project has the potential to exceed these air pollution thresholds, the project should be considered significant. These thresholds have been defined by SCAQMD for the air basin based on scientific data the SCAQMD has obtained and factual data within the federal and state Clean Air Acts. Each of these threshold factors is discussed below. Thresholds for Emissions Related to Construction Activities Projects in the Southeastern Desert Air Basin with constriction-related emissions that exceed any of these thresholds should be considered significant: • 100 pounds per day or 2.5 tons per quarter-year of NOx; • 75 pounds per day or 2.5 tons per quarter-year of ROC; • 550 pounds per day or 24.75 tons per quarter-year of CO; and • 150 pounds per day or 6.75 tons per quarter-year of SOx or PM10. 3-1 November 2004 Air Quality Impact Analysis A�port Thresholds for Emissions Related to Operation of the Project Specific criteria for determining whether the potential air quality impacts of a project are significant are set forth in the SCAQMD Handbook. The criteria for these emissions thresholds include, compliance with the State and National air quality standards and conformity with the existing Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Southeastern Desert Air Basin. The daily operational emissions "significance"thresholds are: • 75 pounds per day of NOx and ROC; • 550 pounds per day of CO; and • 150 pounds per day of SOx or PMto. Project emissions may also be considered significant if a CO hotspot analysis determines that project-generated emissions cause a localized violation of the state CO 1-hour standard of 20 parts per million (ppm), state CO 8-hour standard of 9 ppm, federal CO 1-hour standard of 35 ppm, or federal CO 8-hour standard of 9.5 ppm Thresholds for Odor Impacts Project creates or is subjected to an odor nuisance pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 402. Impacts Air quality impacts can be described in a short-term and long-term perspective. For a residential project, the short-term impacts will occur during project construction. Long-term air quality impacts will occur once the project is occupied. Short Term Impacts Short-tern impacts include fugitive dust and other particulate matter; as well as exhaust emissions generated by earthmoving activities and operation of construction equipment during site preparation (clearing and grading). Short-term impacts will also include emissions generated during construction of the homes as a result of operation of equipment, operation of personal vehicles by construction workers, electrical consumption, paint applications, and roadway paving. The Giroux and Associates air quality analysis only analyzed the grading phase in estimating construction_ impacts. Assumptions used in the Giroux and Associates air quality analysis for short-term emissions estimates include: • 4,000 tons per day of rock and cobble transferred and crushed in the rock crusher. • Grading equipment fleet: 2 off-road haul trucks, 1 rubber-tired dozer, 2 rubber-tired loaders and 1 water truck. 3-2 November 2004 i Air Quality Impact Analysis t,eport However, the exhaust emissions estimates in the Giroux and Associates air quality analysis did not include a water truck and only compared the emissions estimates with the daily thresholds of significance. Also, the Giroux and Associates air quality analysis only estimated fugitive dust emissions resulting from rock crushing, failing to include grading and earthmoving activities. The Giroux and Associates air quality analysis failed to analyze other constriction emissions including construction of the foundations and residential units,paint applications, and asphalt paving activities. These constriction activities can produce large quantities of emissions as well. In an effort to more accurately assess project impacts during constriction, short-term emissions were evaluated with the URBEMIS 2002 for Windows computer program. The model evaluated emissions resulting fi-om (1) site grading and (2) the construction period when the remainder of the project construction takes place. The total construction period is anticipated to require approximately one year. The results of these evaluations are summarized in Table 1, Estimated Short-term Emissions (Site Grading) and Table 2, Estimated Short-term Emissions (Construction Period). The daily and quarterly emissions estimates are compared to the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. TABLE 1 ESTIMATED SHORT-TERM EMISSIONS (Site Grading) Pollution Source NOx CO ROC sox PM-10 (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/da y) (lUs/day) (lbs/day) Fugitive Dust: Grading NG' N(Y[ NG' NG' 248.96 Fugitive Dust:Rock Crushing Wit NG' NG' NG' 68.00 Mobile Equipment Exhaust 110.52 123.48 15.64 NG' 4.93 Commuting Traffic Exhaust 0.29 3.14 0.16 NGt 0.01 Emissions Totals(lbs/day) 110.81 126.62 15.80 NGt 321.84 Emissions TotalsZ(tons/quarter) 3.60 4.11 0.51 NGt 10.46 SCAQMD Thresholds 1001bs/day 550 lbs/day 751bs/day 1501bs/day 150 lbs/day 2.5 tons/qtr 24.75 tons/qtr 2.5 tons/qtr 6.75 tons/qtr 6.75 tons/qtr Notes: 'Criteria pollutants that have estimated negligible values are designated NG(negligible emissions). Quarterly emission totals for all criteria pollutants reflect construction period at 65 days per quarter. Bold Type indicates emissions above threshold. See Appendix A for model output report. 3-3 November 2054 Air Quality Impact Analysis Aeport TABLE 2 ESTIMATED SHORT-TERM EMISSIONS (Construction Period) Pollution Source NOx CO ROC sox PM-10 Off Road Equipment 220.04 213.50 28.77 NGI 9.98 On Road Equipment 4.50 0.85 0.23 0.06 0.10 Commuting Traffic 0.45 9.78 0.81 NGI 0.13 Paint Application NGI NGt 293.51 NG' NG' Asphalt Offgassing NGI NW 0.95 NGI NGI Emissions Totals(lbs/day) 224.99 224.13 324.27 0.06 10.21 Emissions TotalsZ(tons/quarter) 7.31 7.28 10.54 >0.01 0.33 SCAQMD Thresholds 100 Ibs/day 550 Ills 751Us/day 1501bs/day 1501bs/day 2.5 tons/qtr 24.75 tons/qtr 2.5 tons/qtr 6.75 tons/qtr 6.75 tons/ Notes; 'NG designates criteria pollutants that have estimated negligible values. 2 Quarterly emission totals for all criteria pollutants reflect construction period at 65 days per quarter. Bold type indicates emission estimates that are above the SCAQMD significance thresholds. See Appendix A for model output report. When emissions projections are compared with the SCAQMD thresholds for significance, it is shown that emissions exceed the applicable thresholds for NOx,ROC, and PM-10. The primary sources of these emissions include fugitive dust emissions from grading activities for PM-10, mobile equipment exhaust for NOx emissions, and paint,application for ROC emissions- Long-term Impacts Long-term impacts for the proposed residential subdivision consist of mobile emissions and stationary emissions. Mobile emissions estimates are derived from motor vehicle traffic, and stationary emissions estimates are derived from the consumption of natural gas and consumer products all year, the use of landscape equipment during the stunmer months, and fireplaces during the winter months. The Giroux and Associates air quality analysis only analyzed summertime emissions. However, fireplaces produce the highest stationary emissions during the winter. To fully assess the proposed project wintertime activities were evaluated in this analysis. Table 3, Estimated Mobile Emissions, presents estimated emissions of each of the criteria pollutants as a result of motor vehicle trips. 3-4 November 2004 Air Quality Impact Analysis sport TABLE 3 ESTIMATED MOBILE EMISSIONS' NOx CO ROC Sox PM-10 Pollution Source (Lbs/Day) (Lbs/Day) (Lb Day) (Lbs Day) (Lbs/Day) Single Family Housing Conunutes I 13.47 97.76 1 6.16 0.08 8.47 See Appendix A for model output report. The URBEMIS 2002 computer program estimates emissions generated by the use of fireplaces and fireplace inserts during the winter months. Table 4, Estimated Emissions from fireplace, presents anticipated emissions of criteria pollutants fi-om the use of firewood as a result of this project. TABLE 4 ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM FIREPLACES NOx CO ROC Sox PM-10 (Lbs/Day (Lbs/Day) (Lbs/DaY) (Lbs/Day) (Lbs/Day) 4.24 263.24 109.16 0.69 40.39 Note: See Appendix D,Electrical Usage Emissions for calculations. 11 Natural gas consumed by water heaters and heating systems in the proposed residential development will produce emissions of criteria air pollutants. The anticipated emissions estimated by the URBEMIS 2002 computer program are listed in Table 5, Estimated Emissions from Natural Gas Consumption. TABLE 5 ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION NOx CO ROC Sox PM-10 (Lbs/Day (Lbs/Day) (Lbs/Day) (Lbs/Day) (Lbs/Day) 0.99 0.42 0.08 1NG' NG' Note: ' NG designates criteria pollutants that have estimated negligible values. See Appendix A for model output report. Consumer product emissions are generated by a wide range of product categories, including air fresheners, automotive products, household cleaners, and personal care products. Emissions associated with these products primarily depend on the increased population associated with residential development. URBEMIS 2002 was used to estimate consumer product emissions for an increased population at 2.861 persons per residential unit. Table 6, Estimated Emissions from Consumer Products, lists these estimated emissions. 3-5 November 2004 Air Quality lmpact,4nalysis.,port TABLE 6 ESTIMATED EMISSIONS FROM CONSUMER PRODUCTS NOx CO ROC SOx PM-10 (Lbs/Day) (Lbs/Day) (Lbs/Day) (Lbs/Day) (Lbs/Day) NG NG 3.86 NG NG Note NG designates criteria pollutants that have estimated negligible values. See Appendix A for model output report. An estimate of the daily total long-term project emissions can be calculated by combining both mobile and stationary emissions. Table 7, Composite Long-term Emissions, presents the estimated daily total emissions at project build-out. TABLE 7 COMPOSITE LONG-TERM EMISSIONS Pollution Source xCO ROC sox PM-10 (Lbs/Day (Lbs/Day) (Lbs/Day) (Lbs/Day) (Lbs/Day) Mobile Emissions 13.47 97.76 8.18 0.08 8,47 Fireplaces 4.24 263.24 10916 0. 99 40.39 Natural Gas Consumption 0.99 0.42 0.08 NG' NU Consumer Products NG NG 3.86 NG NG Emissions Totals 18.70 361.42 12L28 0. 77 48,86 SCAQMD Thresholds 100 550-1 75 150 150 Note:NG designates criteria pollutants that have estimated negligible values. Bold type indicates emission estimates that are above the SCAQMD significance thresholds. When emissions projections are compared with the SCAQMD thresholds for significance, it is shown that emissions of ROC are above the applicable threshold. The primary source of ROC emissions is fireplaces. CO Hotspots The Giroux and Associates air quality analysis claims that"the project is too small, and background levels [of Carbon Monoxide (CO)] too "clean"to create any micro-scale air quality issues." However, the "CEQA Air Quality Handbook"published by SCAQMD requires that all projects that are sensitive receptors or will affect the Level of Service (LOS) on area roadways to do a CO Hotspot(micro-scale) analysis. Residential subdivisions are sensitive receptors that affect the LOS of the surrounding roadways. Therefore, at minimum, the screening procedures outlined in the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook to determine the potential to create a CO hot spot need to be done to assess this potential impact. 3-6 Novefnber 2004 Air-Qatality Impact Analysis,_port A CO hot spot is a localized concentration of CO that is above the State or Federal 1-hour or 8- hour ambient air standards. Localized high levels of CO are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow-moving vehicles. The proposed project is both a sensitive receptor and has the potential to negatively impact the LOS on adjacent roadways and therefore, requires a CO hotspot analysis. 3-7 November 2004 Air Quality Impact Analysis Arport SECTION 4 — FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Evaluation of Significance Under the California Environmental Quality Act, air quality impacts may be considered significant if: • A project conflicts with, or obstructs implementation of, the Air Quality Management Plan. The Air Quality Management of particulate matter for the SEDAB includes the Coachella Valley PM-10 State Implementation Plan (SIP). Ozone attainment for the Coachella Valley (that portion of the SEDA13 that the proposed project is within) is addressed in the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan(AQMP) published by the SCAQMD. The PM-10 SIP for the Coachella Valley and the AQMP sets forth a comprehensive program that will lead the SEDAB into compliance with all federal and state air quality standards. The PM-10 SIP and AQMP control measures and related emission reduction estimates are based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with local governments. Accordingly, conformance with the AQMP for development projects.is determined by demonstrating 1) compliance with local land use plans and/or population projections, and 2) show that all project generated emissions are below the SCAQMD Significance Thresholds. For the proposed project,the proposed residential tract is not consistent with the underlying zoning, and is therefore, not consistent with the land use information that was the basis for the current PM-10 SIP and AQMP. It is also noted that the project-specific evaluation summarized in this report demonstrates that short-term and long-term emissions from the proposed project exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds. For these reasons, it is appropriate to conclude that the proposed project is not in compliance with the AQMP. • Project-generated emissions violate federal or state ambient air quality standards. The project area is designated a non-attainment area for ozone and PM-10. The preceding analysis determined that projected emissions of ROC (an ozone precursor) and PM-10 are above the SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, the project generated emissions may violate of federal or state ambient air quality standards. • A project contributes a cumulatively considerable net increase of a criteria pollutant in a non-attainment area. The project area is designated as a non-attainment area for ozone and PM-10. The project- specific evaluation of emissions presented in the preceding analysis supports a conclusion that the air quality impacts for the proposed project are significant on an individual project basis. CEQA Section 21100 (e) addresses evaluation of cumulative effects allowing the use of approved land use documents in a cumulative impact analysis. In addressing 4-1 November 2004 Air Quality Impact Analysis heport cumulative effects for air quality, the AQMP is the most appropriate document to use because the AQMP sets forth a comprehensive program that will lead the SEDAD, including the project area, into compliance with all federal and state air quality standards and utilizes control measures and related emission reduction estimates based upon emissions projections for a future development scenario derived from land use, population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with local governments. Since the proposed project is not in conformance with the AQMP and the project is significant on an individual basis, it is appropriate to conclude that the project's incremental contribution to criteria pollutant emissions is also cumulatively considerable. • Project-generated emissions expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The project-specific evaluation determined that emissions are above the SCAQMD thresholds for NOx, ROC and PM-10. Additionally, a project specific CO hot spot analysis needs to be completed do fully address this potential impact. Since the project-specific evaluation demonstrates that emissions are above the SCAQMD thresholds of significance, this impact is potentially significant. Additional analysis needs to be done to more accurately, determine the significance of this impact. • Project creates objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The project is not anticipated to violate SCAQMD Rule 402 and will not constitute a significant odor impact in the project area based upon SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Conclusions Potential impacts to air quality from this project are considered significant. 4-2 November 2004 Air Quality Impact Analysis n 1,ort SECTION 5 - REFERENCES References Cited The following documents were referred to as general information sources during preparation of this document. They are available for public review at the locations abbreviated after each listing and spelled out at the end of this section. Some of these documents are also available at public libraries and at other public agency offices. Caltrans 1997 California Department of Transportation. Transportation Project- Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol. Revised, December 1997. (Available at Caltrans) CARB 1998 California Air Resources Control Board. URDEMIS2002 for Windows with Enhanced Construction Module, Version 4.5. March 2004 (Available at SCAQMD) SCAQMD 2003 South Coast Air Quality Management District. "2003 Coachella Valley PM-10 State Implementation Plan" and "2003 Air Quality Management Plan." (Available at SCAQMD) SCAQMD 1993 South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. November 1993. (Available at SCAQMD) Location: Address: Caltrans California Department of Transportation, State Government Center, 464 West 4th Street, San Bernardino, CA 92401 SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 5-1 July 2004 APPENDIX A URBEMIS 2002 OUTPUT FILES nirstuay.aoc Page: i URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.5.0 File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 2002 For Windows\Proj ects2 k2\TTM3105.urb Project Name: TTM3105: Crescendo Residential Development Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Winter) - Construction Start Month and Year: January, 2005 Construction Duration: 12 Total Land Use Area to be Developed: 42.2 acres Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 10.55 acres Single Family Units: 79 Multi-Family Units: 0 Retail/Office/Institutional/Industrial Square Footage: 0 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (lbs/day) PM10 PM10 PM1O 2005*** Source ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST *** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust 0.00 Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.DO 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust _ - - 248.49 248.96 Off-Road Diesel 15.64 110.52 123.48 - .93 4.93 0.0000 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 3.14 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Maximum lbs/day 15.80 110.81 126. 62 0.00 253.90 4.93 248. 97 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 18.06 146.04 127.58 - 6.71 6.71 0.00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.38 0.21 4.57 0.00 0.06 0.00 0. 06 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 293.51 - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.38 0.21 4.57 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.95 - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 10.71 74.00 85.92 .10 3. 0.00 0 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.23 4.50 0.85 0.06 .10 0.1010 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.05 0.03 0.64 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Maximum ib3/day 324,28 224.98 224.14 0.06 10.23 10.10 0.13 Max lbs/day all phases 324.28 224.98 224.14 0.06 259.07 10.10 248. 97 Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions: Phase Turned OFF Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Jan 105 Phase 2 Duration: 7 months On-Road Truck Travel (VMT) : 0 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 2 Off Highway Trucks 417 0.490 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 8.0 2 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 _ 8.0 AirStudy.doc Page: 2 0 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start DIDnth/Year for Phase 3: Aug '05 Phase 3 Duration: 5 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase 'Duilding: Aug '05 SubPhase Building Duration: 5 months Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 3 Concrete/Industrial saws 84 0.730 8.0 6 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 3 Rough Terrain Forklifts 94 0.475 8.0 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: Nov 105 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 1.1 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Dec 105 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.5 months Acres to be Paved: 4 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Graders 174 0.575 _ 8.0 1 Off Highway Trucks 417 0,490 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Pavers 132 0.590 8.0 1 Paving Equipment ill 0.530 8.0 1 Rollers 114 0.430 8.0 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 1.1 months ' Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Dec 'OS SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.5 months Acres to be Paved: 4 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Graders 174 0.575 8.0 1 Off Highway Trucks 417 0.490 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Pavers 132 0.590 8.0 1 Paving Equipment ill 0.530 8.0 1 Rollers 114 0.430 8.0 1 i AirStudy.doc Page: 3 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Winter Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Natural Gas 0.08 0.99 0.42 - 0.00 Wood Stoves 20. 67 3.24 165. 63 0.54 27.02 Fireplaces 88.49 1.00 97. 61 0.15 13.37 Landscaping - No winter emissions Consumer Prdcts 3.86 - _ TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 113.10 5.24 263.65 0.69 40.39 AirStudy.doc Page: 4 UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Single family housing 8.18 13.47 97.76 0.08 8.47 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 8.18 13.47 97.76 0.08 8.47 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2006 Temperature (F) : 50 Season: Winter EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate size Total Trips Single family housing 10.56 trips / dwelling units 79.00 834.24 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 55.60 2.20 97.30 0.50 Light Truck < 31750 lbs 15,10 4.00 93.40 2.60 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.90 1.90 96.90 1.20 - Mad Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.00 1.40 95.70 2.90 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 61.80 18.20 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 0.30 0.00 66.70 33.30 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 10,00 20.00 70.00 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 11.10 88.90 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motorcycle 1.70 82.40 17.60 0.00 School Bus 0.10 0.00 0.00 100.00 Motor Home 1,20 0.00 91.70 6.30 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- work Shop Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 6.0 10.3 5.5 5.5 ,Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40..0 40.0 40.0 % of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 i i i AirStudy.doc Page: 5 Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Construction The user has overridden the Default Phase Lengths Site Grading Fugitive Dust Option changed from Level 1 to Level 2 Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 3x daily has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 2x daily has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Reduce speed on unpaved roads to < 15 mph has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Off-Road Diesel Exhaust: Low-sulfure Diesel & Reduce Idle time has been changed from off to on. Changes made to the default values for Area The landscape year changed from 2004 to 2006. Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2004 to 2006. AirStudy,doc Page: 6 URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 7.5.0 I� File Name: C:\Program Files\URBEMIS 2002 For Windows\Proj ects2k2\TTM3105.urb Project Name: TTM3105: Crescendo Residential Development Project Location: South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFRC2002 version 2.2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) Construction Start Month and Year: January, 2005 Construction Duration: 12 Total Land Use Area to he Developed: 42.2 acres - Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day: 10.55 acres I'I Single Family Units: 79 Multi-Family Units: 0 Retail/Office/Institutional/Industrial Square Footage: 0 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATE➢ (lbs/day) PM10 PM1O PM10 Source ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST ' *** 2005*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0.00 - 0.00 - Off-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 On-Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Maximum lbs/day 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Phase 2 - Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 248.96 - 248.96 Off-Road Diesel 15.64 110.52 123.48 - 4.93 4.93 0.00 _ On-Road, Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 '0.00 0.00 0.00 Worker Trips 0.16 0.29 3.14 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Maximum lbs/day 15.80 110.81 126.62 0.00 253.90 4.93 248. 97 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 18.06 146.04 127.58 - 6.71 6.71 0.00 - Bldg Const Worker Trips 0.38 0.21 4.57 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 293.51 - - - - - _ Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0.38 0.21 4.57 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.06 Asphalt Off-Gas 0.95 - - - - - _ Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 10.71 74.00 85.92 - 3.27 3.27 0.00 _ Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0.23 4.50 0.85 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0.05 0.03 0.64 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 Maximum lbs/day 324.28 224.98 224.14 0.06 10.23 10.10 0.13 Max lbs/day all phases 324.26 224.98 224.14 0.06 259.07 10.10 248.97 Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions: Phase Turned OFF Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2: Jan 105 Phase 2 Duration: 7 months On-Road Truck Travel (VMT) : 0 - Off-Road Equipment ' No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 2 Off Highway Trucks 417 0.490 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.620 8.0 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 352 0.590 8.0 2 Rubber Tired Loaders 165 0.465 8.0 AirStudy.doe Page: 7 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3: Aug '05 Phase 3 Duration: 5 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building: Aug '05 SubPhase Building Duration: 5 months Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 3 Concrete/industrial saws 84 0.730 6 Other Equipment 8.0 190 0. 620 8.0 3 Rough Terrain Forklifts 94 0.475 8.0 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings: Nov 105 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration: 1.1 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Dec 105 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.5 months Acres to be Paved: 4 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Graders 174 0.575 1 Off Highway Trucks 8.0 417 0. 0 8.0 1 Other Equipment 190 0.62620 1 Pavers 8.0 132 0.590 8.0 1 Paving Equipment 111 0.530 1 Rollers 114 8.0 0.430 8.0 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Asphalt: Dec 105 SubPhase Asphalt Duration: 0.5 months Acres to be Paved: 4 Off-Road Equipment No. Type Horsepower Load Factor 1 Graders Hours/Day 174 0.575 9.0 1 Off Highway Trucks 417 0.490 1 Other Equipment 8.0 1 Pavers 190 0. 620 8.0 132 0.590 8.0 1 Paving Equipment ill 0.530 1 Rollers 114 8.0 0.430 8.0 AirStudy.doc Page: 8 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds per Day, Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Natural Gas 0.08 0. 99 0.42 - 0.00 Wood Stoves - No summer emissions Fireplaces - No summer emissions Landscaping 0.09 0.01 0.79 0.03 0. 00 Consumer Prdcts 3.a6 - - - _ TOTALS(lbs/day,unmitigated) 4.03 1.00 1-22 0.03 0.00 i I Ik { r i I Air5tudy.doc - j i Page: 9 UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Single family housing 8.59 9.25 103.30 0.09 0.47 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 8 .59 9.25 103.30 0.09 8.47 Does not include correction for passby trips. Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips. OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year: 2006 Temperature (F) : 90 Season: Summer EMFAC Version: EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses: Unit Type Trip Rate Size Total Trips Single family housing 10.56 trips / dwelling units 79.00 834.24 Vehicle Assumptions: Fleet Mix: Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Vehicle Type Percent Type y 97 30 0.50 55.60 4.00 2.60 Light Auto 9 00 93.40 'Light Truck < 3,750 INS 15.10 1.90 96.90 1.20 Light Truck 3,751- 5,750 15.90 1 40 95.70 2.90 Mod Truck 5,751- 8,500 7.00 0 00 81.80 18.20 Lite-Heavy 8,501-10,000 1.10 0.00 66.70 33.30 Lite-Heavy 10,001-14,000 6.30 10.00 20.00 70.00 Med-Heavy 14,001-33,000 1.00 0.00 11.10 88.90 Heavy-Heavy 33,001-60,000 0.90 0.00 0.00 100.00 Line Haul > 60,000 lbs 0.00 0 00 0.00 100.00 Urban Bus 0.10 17.60 0.00 1.70 82.40 Motorcycle 10 0.00 0.00 100.00 0. School Bus 0.00 91.70 8.30 Motor Home 1.20 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home- Work Shop Other Commute Non-Work Customer 6.0 10.3 5.5 Urban Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4'9 6 0 10.3 5.5 5.5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11.5 4.9 Trip Speeds (mph) 35.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 40.0 of Trips - Residential 20.0 37.0 43.0 AirStudy.doc Page: 10 Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Construction The user has overridden the Default Phase Lengths Site Grading Fugitive Dust Option changed from Level 1 to Level 2 Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance: Water exposed surfaces - 3x daily has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Water all haul roads 2x daily has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Unpaved Roads: Reduce speed on unpaved roads to < 15 mph has been changed from off to on. Phase 2 mitigation measure Off-Road Diesel Exhaust: Low-sulfure Diesel & Reduce Idle time has been changed from off to on. Changes made to the default values for Area The landscape year changed from 2004 to 2006. Changes made to the default values for Operations The operational emission year changed from 2004 to 2006, AirStudy.doc MICHAEL K. HENDRIX AIR QUALITY, TRAFFIC,AND NOISE EDUCATION Mr.Hendrix has over 6 years of experience providing services associated with environmental assessments, traffic, air quality and noise analysis. He has B.S.,Environmental Science— extensive research analyzing specific technical studies as they relate to CEQA University of Califontia, analysis. Mr. Hendrix has a comprehensive lmowledge of CEQA and the Riverside CEQA Guidelines. He has successfully coordinated all aspects of a CEQA Certification—Land Use and project from inception through to the adoption of Findings. Environmental planning— University of California, PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Riverside Certification—Air Quality Air Quality Analysis Report for the Higlilands Specific Plan. The Management—University of proposed project is a specific plan of approximately 780 acres located California,Riverside approximately / mile north of the City of Murrieta. Proposed land uses Certification—Air Dispersion include 1,440 single-family dwelling units, a 12-acre elementary school, and Modeling and Risk a 175-acre 18-hole golf course. The air study includes both an inventory of Assessment—Lakes short-term and long-term emissions using the URBEMIS model, and a CO Environmental Hotspot analysis using the EMFAC and Caline 4 models. PROFESSIoNALAFFILiATIONs Traffic Impact Study Report for the Newcastle Distribution Facility (six warehouses totaling 2,065,000 sq. ft of gross floor area). The Association of Environmental proposed project is for a 105-acre, 2.1-million-square-foot Professionals(ARP) business/industrial park within the Jumpa Community Plan area of Water Environmental Federation Riverside County. Several legal challenges are ongoing for similar projects California Water Environment in the area and center among other topics on air quality issues. Association • Air Quality Analysis Report for the Murrieta Commerce Center PROFESSIONAL HISTORY Project (Shopping mall encompassing a total of 738,640 sq. ft. of gross floor area.). The proposed 740,000-square-foot shopping center and office Michael Brandman Associates— complex is located in the City of Murrieta. The air study includes an ProjectManager inventory of short-term and long-term emissions using the URBEMIS 2002-Present model. A CO Hotspot analysis using the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook screening procedure was also completed. Association of Environmental Professionals—Board of Environmental Impact Report for Prologis Distribution Facility Directors,Vice President of (1,239,000 sq.ft. warehouse) in the City of Rialto (SCH No. Programs 2001071100). The project is a proposal to construct a 1.3-million-square- 2003-Present foot distribution warehouse in the City of Rialto. Issue areas of focus Albert A.Webb Associates— include hydrology, air quality, noise and traffic. My participation in this nvmental Specialist project included preparing an air quality study and writing the air quality Eiron nv02 and traffic sections in the EIR. RECEIVED 3 eg i AIR QUALITY, NOISE AND TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORTS ! i a _ i t- '1..i Prepared By: r; }.� n Michael Hendrix Environmental Consulting Services 18227 Ranchero Road Hesperia, CA 92345 Tel: (760) 244-1568 Project Manager: Michael Hendrix '1 Nq it "ZI .'` : November 2004 R E C E I V E D NOV 10 2004 Planning & Zoning AIR QUALITY Conflict with or Obstruct Applicable Air Quality Plan The hritial Study indicates "Less Than Significant Impact." The City asserts in it discussion of this impact that"the primary yardstick for determining whether or not a development is consistent with the air quality plan relates to its consistency with adopted population,housing, employment and land-use forecasts un use by the AQMD." However, the "CEQA Air Quality Handbook"published by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), has two criteria that must be addressed in determining whether or not a development project is consistent with the air quality plans for the project area. The Initial Study discussion Kilfills only one of these criteria. The second criteria is to determine if a project will result in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations (CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Pgs 12-2 through 12-3). The project area is in non-attainment for PM-10 and ozone. The Air Quality Analysis prepared by Giroux and Associates did not evaluate all project related sources of emissions and an evaluation of air quality that did include all project related sources of emissions concluded that emissions of NOx (an ozone precursor) and PM-10 are above the thresholds of significance during construction, and ROC (also an ozone precursor) are above the thresholds of significance during the long-term habitation of the residential subdivision. Project related emissions will result in the frequency and/or severity of existing air quality violations. Therefore, this is a potentially significant impact and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required under CEQA. Violate any Air Quality Standard or Contribute to an Existing Violation The Initial Study indicates "Less Than Significant Impact." The City basis this finding on an Air Quality Analysis prepared by Giroux and Associates dated June 14, 2004. However, the air quality analysis did not account for all project related emissions. Construction emissions only looked at rock crushing and grading activities. The Air Quality Analysis prepared by Giroux and Associates indicates that 2 off-highway haul trucks, 1 rubber-tired dozer, 2 ribber-tired loaders, and a water trick would be used during grading and rock crushing activities. However,the emissions calculations for grading and rock crushing activities did not include the water trick. The analysis conducted by Giroux and Associates estimated fugitive dust emissions for the rock crushing activities but did not include fugitive dust from earthmoving and grading that is anticipated to take place at the same time as rock crushing. A project specific air quality analysis conducted in November 2004 and included these emissions was conducted using the URBEMIS 2002 for Windows model and found that short-term construction emissions during grading and rock crushing activities are above the thresholds for NOx (an ozone precursor pollutant) and PM-10. The November 2004 air study formd that because grading and rock crushing activities are the peak emissions generation activity for PM-10. Peak emissions activities for the other criteria pollutants is during construction of the homes and asphalt paving. During these phases of construction NOx emissions above the significance thresholds by over 200 percent and ROC emissions (also all ozone precursor pollutant) are above the thresholds by over 300 percent. 1 The Giroux and Associates Air Quality Analysis only looked at long-term emissions during the summer when emissions from fireplaces and heating would not be included. Since air conditioning in residential subdivisions is powered by electricity, no onsite emissions are attributed to home cooling during the summer. The November 2204 air study looked at both surmner and wintertime emissions of criteria air pollutants during occupancy of the proposed project and found that ROC emissions are well above the CEQA thresholds set by the SCAQMD indicating a significant impact. These emissions will contribute to a violation of the State and Federal Air Quality Standards and is a potentially significance impact requiring an FIR under CEQA. Result in Cumulatively Considerable Net Increase of Any Criteria Air Pollutant The discussion in the Initial Study rationalizes that"Since the 79 dwelling units proposed by the Crescendo project are consistent with the City General Plan land use and density, the prepresent an increment of the growth that is planned by CVAG and the cumulative regional impact of project growth is considered to be less-than-significant." However, CEQA requires that if a cumulative impact finding relies upon a previously approved plan or mitigation program,that plan or mitigation program must provide specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative impact(CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 (h)(3). The analysis in the Initial Study did not describe the specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen air quality impacts. The project area is designated as a non-attainment area for ozone and PM-10. The project-specific evaluation of emissions conducted in November 2004 supports a conclusion that the air quality impacts for the proposed project are significant on an individual project basis. In addressing cumulative effects for air quality,the PM-10 State Implementation Plan and Air Quality Management Plan published by the SCAQM are the most appropriate documents to use because the they set forth a comprehensive program that will lead the SEDAB, including the project area, into compliance with all federal and state air quality standards and utilizes control measures and related emission reduction estimates based upon emissions projections for a fixture development scenario derived from land use,population, and employment characteristics defined in consultation with local governments. Since the proposed project is not consistent with the PM-10 SIP and AQMP (see discussion of consistency requirements above) and the project is significant on an individual basis, it is appropriate to conclude that the project's incremental contribution to criteria pollutant emissions is also cumulatively considerable. Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Concentrations of Pollutants The Initial Study rationalized that"the small number of residential units proposed by the project will not create high pollutant concentrations and there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project. The"CEQA Air Quality Handbook"published by SCAQMD defines residential units as sensitive receptors.. The November 2004 project- specific evaluation determined that emissions of NOx,ROC and PM-10 are above the SCAQMD thresholds. Existing residential units (sensitive receptors) are immediately I i 2 { i adjacent to the project site. Since the 2004 project-specific evaluation demonstrates that emissions are above the SCAQMD thresholds of significance, this impact is potentially significant. Additional analysis in an EIR needs to be done to more accurately determine the significance of this impact. NOISE General Comments The discussion of impacts and findings in the Initial Study for the proposed project are based upon a report completed by Giroux and Associates titled "Noise Impact Analysis, Crescendo Project, Palm Springs, California,"published June 29, 2004. This report focused on temporary construction noise and permanent noise generation produce by the proposed project. As part of the "Noise Impact Analysis"measurements in the project area were made on June 8, 2004. The location of these noise measurements include the end of Racquet Club Drive south of the project site, Vista Grande at the north project boundary, Chino Canyon Road at Panorama Road approximately 0.45 mile south of the project site, and Sanborn Way at Milo Drive approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site. No noise measurements were taken on the project site adjacent to Tramway Road or Racquet Club Drive although noise measurements were taken almost %2 away from the project site on roadways unrelated to the project. It is important to take noise measurements at the project site adjacent to these two roadways because the primary noise generators in the project area are vehicles and the roadways with the highest levels of traffic near the project site are Tramway Road and Racquet Club Drive. Exposure of Persons to, or Generation of Noise Levels in Excess of City Standards Noise impacts fall into two broad categories with respect to projects; noise impacts created by the surrounding environment that will impact the project, and project generated noise that will impact the surrounding environment. The first category of noise impacts is noise created offsite that may cause unacceptable levels of noise within the homes or outdoor areas within the proposed residential subdivision. The second category is the noise created by the uses or traffic associated with the project. The evaluation of noise impacts described in the Initial Study for the proposed project did not evaluate noise generated from traffic on adjacent roadways that will impact the residential subdivision. In particular,roadway noise from traffic on Tramway Road.and Racquet Club Road need to be evaluated for buildout conditions of the project area. Buildout conditions represent the project area once all land uses are built. The reason buildout conditions are routinely used in noise analysis is to adequately attenuate projected noise levels with the use of walls and building materials used to construct the proposed residential subdivision. 3 The evaluation in the Initial Study did not predict noise levels on the project site from the roadways listed above, or compare the predicted noise levels with City standards. Traffic conditions on Tramway Road and Racquet Club Road at buildout conditions are likely to exceed the City of Palm Springs 65 dBA noise standard for residential subdivisions and sound walls are not proposed as mitigation. Therefore, noise levels at the residential lots adjacent to the roadways will likely exceed City standards. This is a potentially significant impact and an EIR is required. Exposure of Persons to, or Generation of Excessive Groundborne Noise or Vibration Noise and groundbome vibration from rock crushing activities are the primary impacts associated with construction of the proposed project. The Initial Study discussion acknowledged some groundborne vibration is possible due to rock crushing activities, but did not evaluate this potential impact. Rather, the analysis as described in the Initial Study merely rationalized that placing the rock crushing operations 800 feet away from the closest existing residences is sufficient to reduce this impact to less than significant. However, groundeborne vibrations from rock crushing operations is noticeable up to ''/a mile from the vibration source. This potentially significant impact needs to be evaluated using reasonable engineering and scientific methods of analysis. Substantial Permanent Increase in Ambient Noise Levels City concluded"Less Than Significant Impact"for this topic in the Initial Study by stating that the "noise level from 1,000 cars per day at 35mph is less than 55d13 CNEL at 50 feet from centerline. This does not address the question whether or not a"substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels" will occur. To answer that question, the noise study conducted by Giroux and Associates would need to have measured onsite noise levels adjacent to each of the roadways bordering the site,model future noise levels with and without the project at these locations, and determine the differentials. Two questions need to be answered to fully address this potential impact: 1)Is there a permanent increase in ambient noise levels generated by the proposed project that will impact the surrounding environment, and 2) Is there a permanent increase in ambient noise levels generated by the surrounding environment that will impact the proposed residential subdivision. The discussion in the Initial Study did not address either question and the noise study conducted by Giroux and Associates did not supply the information required to evaluate this potential impact. Using data in the project specific traffic study, it is estimated that approximately 5,000 average daily trips(ADT) will travel past the project site on Racquet Club Road in year 2020 (buildout year for the project area). Twenty percent of that traffic will be generated by the proposed project. The noise generated by this future traffic volume is a potentially significant impact that was not sufficiently evaluated in the Initial Study. Tramway Road on the northwest boundary of the project site is a private roadway used primarily by tourists traveling to the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway. Peak traffic volumes 4 on this roadway occur during the weekend. The onsite existing noise levels were not measured adjacent to this roadway. The traffic study did not do traffic counts on this roadway or estimate firiure traffic volumes. As such, the Lead Agency did not gather the information needed to evaluate potential noise impacts inflicted on the future residents of the proposed project by the traffic on this roadway. This is a potentially significant impact that the Initial Study failed to evaluate. Substantial Temporary Increase in Ambient Noise Levels Grading and onsite rock crushing will require the use of one or two rock crushing plants to process boulders to a suitable size for use in on-site fills. These activities will by a "chronic noise source for eight to nine months,"for many hours per day. The noise study presented data showing noise levels of four different crushers and concluded an average noise level of 90 dB at 50 feet from the noise source. The Initial Study indicates a performance standard of 53 dB or less as the threshold of significance for this activity. This performance standard is assumed to be measured at the nearest sensitive receptor (existing residential property). The closest residential property is approximately 800 feet from the proposed location of the rock crushing activities. Noise levels from crushing equipment is a function of the feed rate and hardness of the material being crushed. While the electric motors are not the main source of noise associated with crushing equipment, the horsepower(hp) of the motors is an indication of power required to crash materials, and the power required to crush materials is also based on the feed rate and hardness of the material being crushed. Roger Jensen of Aggregate Machinery Inc., the manufacture of Thunderbird 2 portable crushing plants, indicated crushing equipment used for asphalt concrete range from 200hp -250hp motors with noise levels ranging from approximately 80-900 at 50 feet. Granite boulders would require larger crushers with motors of approximately 400hp and nose levels ranging from 100-110dB at 50 feet. Giroux and Associates did not model noise levels fi-om the crashing plant. Rather, the noise analysis assumed an attenuation rate based upon an intermediate between hard and soft underlying surface. For irregular(soft) ground surfaces, the attenuation rate is greater than for smooth(hard) ground surfaces. However, the sources of noise from the crushing plants will be loaders (or conveyors) dumping the material into the loading hopper of the equipment approximately 18-20 feet above the ground surface and the impact hammers or cone grinder approximately 8-12 feet above the ground surface. Noise sources at these elevated locations will not be attenuated by the ground surface. Photos of portable crushing equipment capable of grinding up granite boulders are attached to this comment letter. These photos show the elevations of crushing activities within the portable plant. The attenuation rate of 6dB per doubling of distance for hard underlying surface should be used for these elevated noise sources. Assuming a 6dB per doubling of distance 5 attenuation rate and that noise generated from rock crushing would be 100-110dB at 50 feet as indicated by Aggregate Machinery hie., the noise levels at the nearest residential property would be 76-86dB for the majority of the day. The noise study recommends berms of 15-20 feet high to attenuate the noise levels by approximately 20dB. However, 20dB would only attenuate the noise levels at the nearest residential properties to approximately 56-66dB. This noise level is still above the threshold of significance. Given the fact that the noise generation is elevated approximately 18 feet above the ground, berms would need to be 35-40 feet high to effectively attenuate the noise. The Initial Study indicates that berms between 12-17 feet high would be used as mitigation. There are several problems with this mitigation. First the berms are not high enough to mitigate the elevated noise sources. Second, even if the bonus are of sufficient height, they may not be able to mitigate noise levels to the 53 dB or below threshold of significance. Third, the noise evaluation did not take into consideration other heavy equipment and trucks that would be onsite during grading and rock crushing activities. A report published by C.W. Poss,Inc estimated that 17,500 truckloads would be hauled j from various portions of the site to the rock crusher, and 17,500 truckloads of crushed, rock would be used on embankments and moved to appropriate onsite locations for that purpose. That amount of heavy-duty diesel trucks combined with rubber tired dozers, rubber tired loaders,water trucks, and rock crushing activities would combine to exceed all acceptable thresholds of significance for noise. This "temporary"noise generation would continue for 8-9 months. Therefore, even with mitigation, grading and rock crushing activities will be a temporary but significant noise impact. In order to go forward with the proposed project, an EIR must be initiated and project benefits and detrimental impacts evaluated to determine if the proposed project warrants a Statement of Overriding Considerations. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION General Comments The discussions of project impacts to Transportation/Circulation are based upon"The Traffic Study for The Crescendo Project,"revised in January 2004 and prepared by George Dunn Engineering. The traffic study analyzed one intersection—Racquet Club Road at Palm Canyon Drive (State Highway 111). However, traffic generated by the proposed project is likely to negatively effect other intersections including the alignment of the project access streets to Vista Drive at Racquet Club Drive, Tuscan Road/Girasol Avenue at Racquet Club Road, and Tramway Road at Palm Canyon Drive. Neglecting I 6 i these intersections, excludes examination of potential impacts the project may impose on the transportation network of the project area. Regional transportation plans or the regional traffic model were not discussed in the traffic study and the Initial Study did not discuss or assess the project's contribirtion to regional traffic impacts. At minimum, a discussion in the Initial Study is needed to describe the requirements needed to address regional impacts and how the proposed project fulfills those requirements. The Initial Study asserts that the proposed project "provides two points of vehicular access to each lot consistent with PSFD [Palm Springs Fire Department] guidelines." However, access to the proposed project is available from only one street—Racquet Club Road. Closure of Racquet Chub Road would effectively eliminate all access to the proposed project. Alternate access to the project is required to have affective emergency access to the project during an emergency. Emergency situations that may require the evacuation of the proposed project include fire, flood, and earthquake. All of these situations presents the possibility of closing Racquet Club Road and eliminating the ability to access the project site. This impact is potentially significant requiring mitigation or an EIR to further analyze project impacts. 7 ATTACHMENT 1 Pioneer portable crushing plant, jaw and rolls Pioneer portable crushing plant with 16" x 36" roller bearing jaw crusher, 40" diameter x 21"roller bearing double roll crusher, 4 ft x 12 ft double deck screen, two conveyors, M/N 954, 46VE143,E5632. On two axle trailer. � r , rctiF p � l�y�.,Y Mti3. M4 5 yt�rl: .e 1 I I I 1 i 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 v k I h ���dk http://dese:tniuseum.org/programs/invasive Desert.html Page 1 of 3 Ir Yasr t Species m Sonoran Desert Ecosy-ems Wide Open Spaces - - .SY4rII av?� _ I Fellow 4tifkfs 'dese f'm-.-v v L;oa i lC L 4JGd116 n•d""ot ` 6 sa raKdo-b:sn - - �CYUIR �s ask" - .ai•,3.t>t 5 + s._i!,3Fri' ,'i >1•,,i -;f 7 i t i of -Nj _. 1i t i I i � CoffsiGojg€ogtaPh- I area mekt nh n i lRtilts hrSbpnra ese�and��he saver la ttm' Fiu that , 3a rs �i Fa : ')4t 17 F� G bt Yg SYO If ,al�aracte za tllers�ritYY@Y,r�rhy aas�i„fires gecuIf here n ily r5 in i t lhst�sT¢r efy��teUaus@Qt}-Ab e 17 aRG 9fuFdelgspacel open @5nfi11j.11d' ratr -�' 7QOT1 &1L[tedti4' t i iirt9� yyi V ii i SU�I'aI'�Yerl�^,�4}•r 910�1@Gt1i2C1� �n�,�elpi�}ii%I�'IIR�alkgFaS3e3 TfF9b , :; r li_:t4 �`_ r s snrr' ' d li s�'; 8` f '�BtlIC$ha$Y�iSi1�} QtlVs4s'71�1t1ll1�t�}e•_1Yrf�AtlT4�AB'G1Y3�, � i ��,i� i 5 w�ye�'i'1HFluuiphtey� 197�'3SY� i .; t r t � j r f . eµtat�dn;charactr5igtte deSrYscnih, i rninuh�tcesaf the Sanbr to T2eseit+meludes r r , I {'n"+y rR ror, ryzd edk t a4� rY,},FSti it wi $ }51'@Sy.FtiaF} 0411���YllflkCaCC.k tY1FF�I1';' sr•. tr` si my :O �k Oz"G11� 'i�5ull 4+tSC r' t3,', &191Y 6Eti�1k Y`541CG'([i@11� '¢l' 1.,",q on " rtS ' A ua€a`"� it�ri��amc�hkt),e 1'�113�th � r a 1 ,kilr ; ,spaSel � � tedfsto Pa edd s r14 &iotlid', "; �'R t ,�rRaRGe� P�i $ 4 � °dSCPktktef}olkzk,�sAtern `*tiw T:I �;- �,,,•,P ,i°�43y�+� @+i FFwkl��Pt@sV�'#���`tl�� >����`�a�.,ri?bsk�l@�F7,1?QY�s�4����t�>�tre�f�F,YI?�T�47it1�'S�`�tllvl 1� ti ii ��'�, y� d. i i ei M, i '�''t ^' 6i di irfril�Isiu�, [�tat J rlY c 5 r !. W 6M5 s ra��'",�'"FI�x..diX�`9 27 �1Fs' .�' K �.,..�, z t� ..� rk-.�, i ✓u . r F;*t,�'sF; t y t s u. �.[. .. ,��P.. �sRXed�m&�#,rFde��n�@�Yinf�umazFdeEv�l�y�lnf�'�:dvsittEb'4kltta 1:�aY. 1/8/04 3:15:20 PM hf--)://descitmuscum.org/programs/`invasive cum.org/programs/invasive Desert.html Page 2 of r j V fl' 1Sn Si $I]2 J I6 t � - IT, X J S I S r 6 p!� r F IIJ it R P M1 1A k}c! l J l 'e �' :Fya v kJ :. f y"J �`4 1'I ° ' oPiI I�� r'I s a _ k " -I Qul egjpsequenee 4 pTdheravag znvasxv 'plarrxs as arr aperdase ft ei loadardEax©t � r rK k„ 7i l l 1 k Ph'dtg ab;pv41CaXKG 3 }la s alter Ck g prev?cSus'YJG sllro ng an-zttvaszR t On natzue nixal 11911P Akds� desert,landsc gaS welch the aien't� i to caxxy fire SbRg ale r set4ve; eRs1 gbh bsl aid ca tl Sust as ire sp7xprqSsion in'6008y'strms Rue>levdlve& '' e osstehrstln�e'�vQtved m its absence can Iead to loss gPspeclesd Xestrtturzng�Q tta�Ima1Jn't,'�raettdns evenIfngarli gjBut, "WFRedexoYic'speeiesllouernatiuemot sa �'> x r, �. i a { Ilj(Tdol�bs�ETIlenn�kc, 19,92)� 117a clam�ge'10 a siGsgrf ecosy�sl�}nlhl�firR,vrfl'v w`t lit � -i i r ? S u�ausltg an ek9nency, to ghat degrq�lt71 epas�sten lrs strLroEur�d m tM long taxvil, *�� w� �"` � � " ��I�'�sd",Rend,on the"��mp�rapht�Ip�RfE7�s�Itbe p�ants'ThaC'were``k��le'd andrllae fines tl}afi � r I r Pi msta",neeo Inaj'.�&llN'IyLifa{fire;Si;uuylel,'tax a p n e ' 4 Y P gF- ( y ° "?�+� '``'" 'ly n �l .m`dividil'a7sftna. 6IIBY IFi11'mb�'tQ� cI,a F k fui r"r sl 4a4 41� Ys•r �Y R4'EdWers, � g'�J1 S6fil�1�i.C1E�L*kl mrFjyil �� I 1,EIldL-Fere�Yl)�rLfTa171�If,Or,a 0��7 1}�ex IYbrE511bE 11T�e 1bY1 [I)111 S r --r s _�I'fbY��rk'ed�oSf.luue(n��leltseesmayr!bekilIgc�,huLk,l�erb'�eGput Ians bekfaybre i i J L 11 1 dyf :', l.r�}YZ.p S4�,ak li 11 SI I, �i a r f k a x� t i l Ir4va�iau dPJop4nkspee�b ndrk naEtY�e Plants hsltbe,pAXent1a11td pFowd auk native�l � r�dalrecreS beFgie they havelabe RPP�rkumty'to esp'abhsb�odT�systems and,eajne' i�o L ii T�Fryla 1�_, '$' ""aF'z J bidden�� Htanlq �1tfx11,yg2IC1 �9��� 11j�'aJ51dI15��O1L$�5 WLY�]ILSe`4d�'a gra3S85z �' Ir"' ;i"f ,�, il�ll� ll ..,' ar1f7"i0[Ut;_uQilS� 3t QI1C�Ofle11.UpOn 4r�7C'�.all�tat t$e eXjxE'ASL'i6`�i(IbSES tSp'311} .ISlc't�'31ta.ClO' �, li- asJ3 ,g� � 9 '' 21F"a�FLatlk15�I3S1�.�m 11,f2S�Gt SeaSi�t�'IL(I1��1Ia�,f,.'Slc'Lh1Y�Sj�Eele51}34d, CfeaS'B th��riS7CSQ s �' ,'h�tj ,�, t,. G�r�y„yJ � � z IL{.SSi;`',OIlr�tlYeLer}JS�ailhre�,$C$R}]a0llegatlVO COII3et�llenCeS� f}�i[id2L1YI3t©r5n -�-�; �S'"��y4 he dual effects df dornpetit�esn I. - u�, - # 'and atfY,�'tidh hate.khekpfiCenttaliko tr�PakstLta desert 5 - "ryt xrv�rrl'!I k�1 4aekq }ri I. ri}.I f+J r� u�ll "�J rkil ILII + p � i Fo-� � i f1� � i`� J � �orhna�iv�,d pPazkjs"end ss}iP�bxtmg al,�ttitiwrished pauri�yi��S�ur�iange �a des�itsenlh k�y i I k k� r r 1anca�esycltid�np gczmg and subinban cYeuel4pent� cauplellwttN cyc71�chaes; �RAU'b p I�hIG rh I d J J I I+cY l I I r � rz I ;mac a I LI �n�tcrnper�t�edndu�l'S�1iIYadr�,t�orazfeYene'�aCer�ra��le�c�s�'steln'1��''eI�'dtiange�r�ta� ` i - ''I' ` beg�n"+Ndhr 1aq�x[Yyasx'p S L�etti7rn`tct i�'Yhwasldi{c 'ridtttbtis' 'l�ill�lt4ist��'�?��rfi�%eS�rea��y��"" ✓ ' I Y �d i '' i'}�I fa� - I I"� d I r i�r 11 k4 r P y F�'. ,fir G I -I pL I 'sf 7s:' re`f"'� PCB ;,, � fir., 3 4 �b�;aggro�urnate�gt�yent�etq#�ghist��bF��nc�usR ndllandseapr�eha�ga and,'t�kveh'Itti�,.}`�,rri � I� r�,,, �} �� I',I ,� s1o�veL�i"o� lo�'eYeserG�pc'Yennealsrand,de,��I,4RrithntoF,de��Nseirll�et�i�ii'aapibt�acled ,�; �'t� r: e a�� � ,<�� ., I�, k,Cre�c#ve�per�Pd�I�o�slYYls�la�l�li'(Pfltt��iu&ETaivlcfxsbn���gpp5 I? �endfn�it��he:'t}at7iral'��rF���=3� �il£ .„r n ! C t0T1 all Sd BTtt rT6 ��.h 1rlUaSFO ":K61 sF n 7 t9 v.I �, $r hY id ik + P �tl. J> c f p . .. x a „ I Y ti r banPn natrYe species fat dwhi ha h esCo,nRKiue Lr?I� b E a � rvrk �t" Cox!t'ylrlatIC1}}}���```tiilCijfL 'S 4gLI1111, 4811�CE11�FP'"rL uej?gT3fl$g Clx �4V t1YheYl}Oi�'he�0Cf1 u i +I� e `iw MIEI5 e4f-) TS 1'Cy'ekPi,14.'ln"+ln6�k{ m66i7 a'k�'s731:1��Ri PgS�l��tC oieim6�f=.t7zhre��Mac�L�I 3�"Yta�8iIaS-�f�1Jl�arurk'eoz lltsll�uCtk`yrEIl��`ric#f~'�SL"�a.3�ai 1 SaY.�s��k1���C�yyR"i__'uFr"�r3"�tl04i;'e�,;n�I'L1 tl'�e�,G`t55�'�mµ`�, Ibd�s sit l�Sr"5�-ru�L�1�, }a l4i v;l P l t g rt>�C�a�tt, rir$raE3'fit'v sF1t1;799�i^s et §'T`'d�' s'.T-rV �Rg,-I �k rl IS i � 4'kk� l A kl� y �i Ik S I }✓ k Itlllr I° 4i r I ^If f ul"how i�'kry-'I 4�r�x Fii _ ,�, ,'kh h4 - }a r k L .4 Lrf li P Ik IFi I IS�r 1 -. �` If _ 1 it IT ;F�il i' ail �1 tiL4 Ij '`'.LJi It 6'CP f14 r r " I-4' : Ir Ilkl kl it ooi tds LL 11/8/04 3:15:20 PM hitp://desertmuseum.org/programs/invasive Deser't.html Page 3 of 3 ,ew,of sandy lvlojawe:Desert,with native sp_„ _ Nildflowers m 1964 _ r((D h964,M'itrk Dimuaitt/hSbIYf`archivo) it �j • uie m C�ac a e '�awith invasive niustasds in 1998 (C1h9,98,Mar�k- ' )3iininitt/ASblylarchive} - - ,' --: Nonnative C rasa Invasions arid Pie in the Sonoran Desert t p niks Lurlenfre'search m tC-e effects and geography of mvasivespecresliri the Arizona Upland ofe$,IT I apra Ar zona NaCrve P1ant�'Soeiety'NQtes onxotic SpL�es• Includmg'link to Ipcal organizations such as the Tv-$dn Mou,ntain Weedwate egp-and s the Punka invasive SpecJes(-o 2}'eilit it 5 {I t �$ Fckna7 E 1t ahINT Turr11I!(1999) ,F}ielulanageinent In,Ecosyste ' � TN - Referenecs 1ManegementfotSey[drn�G l tnerp7es and PrHcl eps�f/lustratel ya kegional Bfosp7 elelZeserv8 Caof exaxrue, d red by 7 +D P'e�ne,fp 329 � T Law1si161ashers, . T✓a'sringtgy D C I ' L it . Bur�ucz,� 1� and A M;artlnaar,(zar (J 997) Conscrvalon,an L n Escape-i' Asa s { , `Pl ansform'dit n1n So ora Me burn"r3o the Soifk esc, 4) 371 398 4=' I: jY1k VitpttSek (199 ) EJ4logieal vas�ejk UyIT e otrc gxa3ses; rr.x y h grass fry c�c�e,a td glopal eh,ange AnnaafReuxe r;;n Bcn(opyaad 5y's#erza xcs 2 ;,;' 33 87 r = KJt kr�k t i aI ar S B lea M t v+ 3»t VJilsgn;agdl(r P hTabhp (1997) The�13rtona N6tVJbXi ar d 1is PIaAk l tie fiTouxr of pttfie So Pwest '�3 i All iIT 1zi c z - - IT ? elj4 QJ:Datacerb'rvexsttS, aud Yr lion . I"E � 31A1laanb �s far Cau� ivhpd CoSer atlor� zolny¢ 3) 324 3�17it191l l I,s yx J; s s Gt#a yY'v� r i _ J kx _i `3 fn ,: _ _ rI - - - - C� a "ka %�` /; ' vfxpaprhJdreEy,rA RC hor'th, ric ba edye AategA rrikcPress ' wXor ' tp' -; N)i �- ` R l a fy z l s -�.I r -' v -tJw 3 " # -,I? j7A1'&86)rA11eR P1an�Sn4 anion mttAer terrr;ouaitarri West A ease Htsrgr IYL Ecology ot&icl�bric /TrSvasidtbs oPha�rh Awe s�aGlaz d act dated r � )C< $ f A k G L k 1 V k I T 1 r * S T#fi6brlEY,abtl J A brake pp 19k'21'% Spirnget�erlaB,:Ne�I Qxk r n y� ,,},(�e i'i I Iri N�itlfii, 1V1FZ3n6"�z��fP'ia"II 4 - I i fi d�!rE So-v�eYSJ (19�17 LSffBcts of Wh(difreron a Sonoran I�esere ', � `I't��i mvsl II i DE!�n111T5111rnLy� -paw (1712�6�g f1�1 v aIT III TV�z.�ir I, p Is 1 IT r k � T. P, rk I � J : �ZTalzhan,C �`Pi attdA R'rI4dldsw4rChll(198�`SCaEe'�f�helJ �ezt�IIam� 'ilh� aeoes t '�� k t k tIT �'7�eatsran�ffie.A��r�d�cyaE'PtoYetCkMajmtFe ..... �he�7{tildll�and���F�l, j..;s. ri kEo,]et�TesoR v �' it sJ f i I. s'.f Iriz i &•. s Fa �nDxd W,L,rZ3a bremi 194Sj 2 2�I,IYnEaets,of 9tressoss ctn l3at Desert 4 a�r+ l'ri ernI1LLaTl�ylriai ' taL14^eVlly �' - r a TZ p 4nr�YentalS2rskE� IectACE c ate sl n 11t C f p E QS Cll I I�I��Eei1Ll���t(LI'µ'd�[nLhXtl'Q��,Gpk1YC5 AL ORa,�'pWr�rr'17tIlk rl z pd+� 1kF kl rY I� niF 4 7 i r�i TG Y, is e sT l e' tal�Q,ueli�l.y, t 'k JFi ,r r ,I� liil tit 1 z T fir ml - ifs i:,, I P I III, hli k a s r �I Iiz t'� i�ih Is3 1 nz - i r - °iri al lei IazF'e y� i_ at al4� S �i r WITiT�lv�r k' Ir ll ' �li � z 1;� hi�ll ji -a I :- T, dry . «t Irt'�,Bi {.k ' ui ,' , i'. s t ,M1q I , Return to Top Return to Features Menu Return to ASDM Home 11/8/04 3:15:20 PM r Richard L.Meehan Consulting Engineer Blume Center MC 4020 Stanford, California 94305 November 9,2004 Jan Chatten-Brown Chatten-Brown Associates Santa Monica CA 90405 Via email to: jcb@cbaearthlaw.com Dear Ms. Chatten-Brown: At your request I have reviewed documents and notes pertaining to the issue of whether a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be acceptable in connection with the filing of an application by Wessman Development Company to subdivide Tentative Tract Number 31766 in the City of Palm Springs. I have also done some brief library and web search for pertinent background information. My qualifications to perform this review are as follows:Registered California Civil Engineer in practice with a specialty in geotechnical engineering since 1968; civil engineering degrees from MIT and University of London;thirty five years professional practice in California,Consulting Professor teaching regular annual course on the subject of geotechnical hazards at Stanford University since 1978. My resume is appended. I understand that the City of Palm Springs is considering whether a Mitigated Negative Declaration is acceptable for the Crescendo development,which is a subdivision proposed to occupy about'42.2 acres of land located approximately one mile north-northwest of downtown Palm Springs. The proposed project is located on an alluvial fan at the mouth of Chino Canyon.Chino Canyon drains an estimated area of five square miles of desert mountain terrain and discharges the rainfall through Chino Wash,located approximately 2500 feet upslope from the proposed 1 project(see figure 1, attached). According to hydrological notes for the proposed project (Reference 1), a 100 year storm could be expected to deposit 2 inches of rainfall per hour onto the mountainous terrain. As indicated in these notes,however,the retention basins for the proposed project are designed to accommodate only the rainfall collected within the site,and do not account for rainfall that may be channeled onto the site through Chino Canyon. A diversion channel is found on the north side of the fan.This may one of"two small diversions"mentioned in the USGS gaging station report.The capacity and protective value, if any, of this diversion is not indicated in.any of the documents.The applicant's geotechnical consultants,while pointing to this feature as a"comfort factor",told this reviewer that they have I I RECFIVe NOV 10 2004 J i no idea of its design or effectiveness.They said that they considered the evaluation of these hazards to be the province of the project civil engineer.However,no consideration of flash flooding or debris flows from Chino Canyon is mentioned in any of the documents submitted to Inc. Thunderstorms with rainfall greater than 2 inches per hour over local areas are not unusual in this part of California. Such storms can and do produce flash floods and debris flows with rapid and erratic movement of boulders out of the canyon and across the alluvial fan. This may result in extreme hazard at the mouths of canyons like Chino Wash. References 2 and 3 indicate that the site is underlain by large boulders with a desert dune sand infill. It should-be further noted that boulders of up to 8 feet in diameter were observed at various locations throughout the site(see figure 2, attached). The presence of large boulders and cobbles throughout the proposed site indicate that debris flow events have occurred at this location in the past, and are apt to occur in the future. While it is true that there is a leveed diversion channel indicated on the topographic map(figure 1)it cannot be assumed that this feature assures a reasonable standard of safety for dense residential development.In fact the County of Riverside General Plan safety documents caution against this as follows: "Flood&Inundation Hazards:Riverside County has experienced severe flooding many times throughout its history, resulting in the loss of lives and millions ofdollars in property damage. Floods are caused by rivers and creeks overrunning their banks, and most property damage has occurred where development has been allowed without regard for flood hazard..... The tremendous capital investments made in dikes, channels, levees, and dams over the last half century have not eliminated all flood hazards, and in some instances, the protective facilities may be unable to accommodate the 100 year flood." hitp•//www rcip orglapnendix h toc hum Hence the reported presence of existing levees or flood control facilities associated with the Corps of Engineers or other government agencies is not any assurance that the site is suitable for residential housing,which requires a much greater assurance against potential fatalities than a 100-year event.Nor is a reported intent to build a sixty-inch drainage pipe in or through the project provide any assurance of protection against flash flooding and debris flows. Flash floods can and do cause fatalities in the general area. Such a canyon flood killed 26 people in the San Bernardino mountains as recently as last Christmas Day. "Confusion reigns among public agencies as to whether flood warnings were issued and who was responsible for issuing them before the Christmas Day mudslides that killed 16 people Thursday. Reportedly at the request ofthe California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Tom Spittler, a senior engineering geologist with the California Geological Survey, said his agency studied 28 vulnerable spots and found seven high-risk sites in the county in November."hup://lang.sbsun.com/projects/fireflood/articles/123103.asp A full general discussion of the general debris flow hazard in desert regions is presented in a FEMA document http:/Avivw fema.govlpdflfhm/ft af165.pdf Furthermore, there are historical records of severe flooding at Chino Canyon,specifically. Floods in the 1860s were evidently sufficient to generate a creation myth among the natives who lived at the mouth of the canyon; Chief Patencio of Palm Springs talked of a flash flood which ripped through Chino Canyon in the mid 1860s: "There was good land there and my people raised fine crops from garden seed. But now it is all' washed away. The great gorge that must be crossed to reach the hot spring was all good land at the time that I speak of. Smooth and level. Some ofthe creek was good land, too...All the harvest they hadraised was gone, and all the good land, it was gone, too. Where the grass was green for the animals, and the soil was good to raise things to eat for the people, there were only piles ofgreat rocks and washed-out gorges." http:lldaphne.palomar.edulddozier/personal_pages/publications/thru_a 1 s_darkly.him Again in the late 19di century settlers had similar experiences at the Canyon: "Villagers planted figs, olives and apricots, and in 1897 McCallum expanded his little company to capture water from the slopes of Chino Canyon,present site of the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway.Disaster struck when a flood washed out the canal and a 10 year drought dried up the orchards."http:/Avww.dwa.org/about/ In conclusion,the documents that have been submitted for my review do not adequately identify or characterize hazards of flash flooding and debris flow at the project area. The capacity and efficacy of existing drainage infrastructure is not certain. The submitted drainage basin designs for the proposed project do not account for runoff or debris originating off site from the Chino drainage area above the project area. Therefore the documents provided do not justify acceptance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project. Respectfully submitted, Richard Meehan Registered Civil Engineer CA 18512 i i I I References: 1)Hydrology Analysis for Tentative Tract 31766, (Hunsaker and Associates??) Submitted to Planning Division 2/4/04 2)"Crescendo" Initial Study (Exhibit 12f),DePalatis Associates, extracts from report 3)Geotechnical Engineering Report, Proposed 81-lot subdivision,Palm Springs,Earth Systems Southwest February 4, 2004. $ F� i 3it� t wl r fi r M'��, t d - ` `` ✓ � p �N�'�aj�t ��j'xuP p' -t 5 Figure I map of project area 7 . Figure 2 Large boulders in m area �sr Oft, ° \ . yk 12» .> \ figu figure typical alluvial fan showing±_UAL a discharge � } RICHARD L. MEEHAN Richard L.Meehan Consulting Engineer rlmeehan(a�stanford edu Academics Consulting Professor, Stanford University (1974-present) Visiting Scientist,Massachusetts Institute of Technology(Spring 2000) D.I.C. Imperial College of Science and Technology (1966) M.Sc. (Soil Mechanics)University of London,England(1966) B.S. (Civil Engineering)Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1961) Professional Experience 1985-Present Consulting Engineer,in private practice.,Palo Alto California 1969-1985 President,Earth Sciences Associates, Palo Alto. Management of and quality assurance for 30-person firm specializing in geological and engineering aspects of facility siting of about 300 projects varying from water resource and flood control projects nuclear power plants to mass-produced housing.Development of standards, consultation to cities and agencies on regulation, environmental issues, and failure analysis. 1967-1969 Project Engineer, W.A. Wahler and Associates,Palo Alto. Site investigations and design for environmental and water projects,Northern and Southern California, South America. 1963-1965 Project Engineer,Royal Irrigation Dept.,Thailand. 1961-1963 U.S.Army officer,U.S.Army Corps of Engineers. Professional Registration and Membership Civil Engineer: California,Washington,Massachusetts; Geotechnical Engineer: California; American Society of Civil Engineers Selected Publications 1. Meehan, RL;Morgenstern,NR(January 1968): "The Approximate Solution of Seepage Problems by a Simple Electrical Analogue Method," Civil Engineering,London. 2. Meehan,RL;Hamilton,DH(April 23, 1971): "Ground Rupture in the Baldwin Hills," Science. 172,no.3981,333-344. 3. Meehan,RL;Reed,JW; Crellin, GL(1973): 'Probability of a Surface Rupture Offset Beneath a Nuclear Test Reactor." RECEIVED NOV 10 2094 N ...., nQ 4 ' 4. Meehan,RL;Dukes,MT; Shires,PO(September 1975): "A Case History of Expansive Claystone Damage," ASCE.onrnal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. 5. Meehan,RL(November 1975): "Implementation of Califomia's Seismic Planning Law at the Local Government Level," Association of Engineering Geologists,Annual Conference. 6. Meehan, RL(November 2-5, 1975): "The Impact of Geology on Land Development; Effect of Hillside Materials on Development Costs,"Proceedings of the 101h Annual Meeting of the Association of Engineering Geologists. 18, 37. 7. Meehan,RL; Wright,RH;Kelley,DW; Costa,R Jr;Nelson,EA;Blau,DH(February 1976): "Assessment of Trout Stream Habitat Using Photogeology,"Association of Engineering Geologists,Annual Meeting. 8. Meehan,RL(April 1976): 'Dynamic Analysis of the Slide in the Lower San Fernando Dam During the Earthquake of February 9, 1971,"ASCE Journal'ofthe Geotechnical Engineering Division. 9. Meehan,RL(June 1976): 'Dynamic Strength of Hydraulic Fill,"ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division. 10. Meehan,RL;Lops, TM; Strassburger,AG(October 1978): "Seismic Stability of Hydraulic Fill Dams,"International Water Power and Dam Construction. 11. Meehan,RL(1984): The Atom and the Fault,The MIT Press,Boston. 12. Meehan,RL;Jelks,Lauren(May 1987): "The Battered Exclusion: Who Pays Now Much For Landslides?"For the Defense. 13. Meehan,RL; Cotton, WR(November 3, 1987): "Geotechnical Analysis and Mitigation Alternatives of the Big Rock Mesa Landslide,Malibu,Los Angeles County, California," American Geophysical Union, 1987 Fall Meeting, 68,no.44, 1285-1286. 14. Meehan,RL;Hamilton,DA(Spring 1992): "Cause of the 1985 Ross Store Explosion and Other Gas Ventings,Fairfax District,Los Angeles,"Engineering Geology Practice in Southern California. 15. Meehan,RL(Spring 1993): "A Natural History of Underground Fuel Tank Leakage;" Environmental Claims Journal, 5,no. 3,339. 16. Meehan,RL;King, S;Ronold,K;Yang,F(April 1993): "Contemporary Model of Civil Engineering Failures,"Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and Practice. 119,n.2, 138-146. 17.Meehan,RL(November 1993): "Key Technical Factors Relevant in Cleanup Negotiations" presented at the PNWIS Air&Waste Management Association Conference,Victoria,B.C. i 1 I �e a 18.Meehan, RL;Karp,LB (May 1994): "California Housing Damage Related to Expansive Soils," Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities. 8, no. 2, 139-157. 19. Meehan,RL; Shlemon,RJ(1994): "The Sequence Stratigraphy of Fluvial Depositional Systems: The Role of Floodplain Sediment Storage," Sedimentary Geology, 92. 20. Meehan, RL(May 1995): "The Roots of Failure,"Design Book Review, MIT Press. Analysis of Biological Report on Wasserman Development Company's Crescendo Project November 3, 2004 I have received and reviewed the biological information regarding the Wasserman Development Company's Crescendo project. Additionally, I toured the property myself in early October. Based upon this information, it is my opinion that the project has several biological impacts that are not adequately considered in the mitigated negative declaration for the property. 1) The bird and other wildlife surveys were performed at the time of year, December, when the fewest number of species is likely to be found. I recommend conducting multiple surveys at other times of the year (especially in the spring or summer) to get a more accurate assessment of the potential species that can be found on the project site. 2) The Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis states that no observations were made of the loggerhead shrike on or near the project site. The loggerhead shrike is considered a sensitive species. In my survey of the property I found suitable habitat for Loggerhead Shrikes supporting at least 5 or 6 individuals. Any shrikes living on the project site would be displaced by the development, which is a significant impact. 3) The list of potential birds that likely are found on this project site should be expanded to include the many migrant species, such as warblers, and more winter residents, especially flocks of sparrows. Sparrow species, such as White- crowned, Brewer's, Sage, Chipping and Savannah, would be displaced by the project. The impacts on these species should be considered. Attached to this analysis is a copy of my curriculum vitae setting forth my qualifications to comment on this matter. I Kurt Leuschner Associate Professor of Natural Resources & Ornithology College of the Desert-Applied Sciences 43500 Monterey Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92260 RECEIVED NOV 10 2 004 � Mani in IV �",r,ing Kurt Martin Leuschner 73440 Buckboard Trail Palm Desert, California 92260 (760) 836-0099 GRADUATE EDUCATION University of Florida Masters Degree in Wildlife Ecology May 1994 Gainesville, FL Emphasis on East Africa California State University Secondary Teaching Credential January 1995 Dominguez Hills, Carson CA Biological and Physical Sciences UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION University of California B.A. Zoology December 1988 Santa Barbara, CA with honors University of California Study Field Studies in March to Center, Monteverde Institute Tropical Biology June 1988 University of California Study Special Studies in August 1985 to Center, University of Nairobi Wildlife Management June 1986 Nairobi, Kenya University of Alaska Undergraduate Courses August 1983 to Fairbanks, AK and Field Work May 1984 TEACHING EXPERIENCE Instructor- Natural Resources Department November 1996 College of the Desert, Palm Desert, CA to Present Courses taught: Conservation of Natural Resources Lecture and Lab, Spring Birds - Field I.D. Science Teacher January 1995 La Ouinta Middle School, La Ouinta, CA to Present Courses taught: Life, Earth, and Physical Science, Math, advisor to wilderness chub. Mira Costa High School,Manhattan Beach, CA August 1994 to January 1995 Courses taught: Biology, Physiology, Physical Science Cross-Country Coach R E C E I V E D hav 10 20H Planning & Zoning Teaching Assistant Fall 1992 University of Florida, Gainsville, FL Spring 1993 Courses taught: Biological Conservation in Africa Conservation of Biodiversity in the National Parks Substitute Teacher and Teacher's Aide 1988 and 1989 Mira Coster High School, Manhattan Beach, CA Adams Junior High••TVashington Elementary, Redondo Beach, CA Courses taught: Biology, Physiology, Math, Chemistry, Physics, English, Cross-Country, Track OTHER EXPERIENCE Natural History Tour Lender Holbrook travel, Gainesville, FL (Wildlife safaris in Kenyan and Honduras) 1993 to 1994 Pandion Nature Torres, St. Michael's, MD (U.S. bird watching tours) 1980 to 1984 Los Angeles Audubon Society (Bird walks, May and Christmas bird counts) 1979 to 1989 Duties: Planning, organizing and leading day, weekend, or two-week long bird/nature trips Royal Geographic Society Expedition Participant July to Mkomazi Game reserve, Tanzania August 1993 Duties: Bird and mammal censusing, ground and aerial mapping, vegetation studies, designing a natural history guidebook and interpretive center Visiting Scientist June to Kibale Forest research station, Uganda July 1993 Activities: Bird censusing and mist-netting/banding; behavioral studies of resident primates (mostly chimpanzees), including the collection of hairs for DNA analysis National Park Service Interpretation Ranger May to Chir•icahaa National Monument, AZ August 1992 Duties: Organizing and leading nature hikes, visitor center talks, evening programs; trail patrol; search and rescue; biological inventory Biological Field Assistant March to AmericanMusetrm of Natural History May 1992 Sontlnrestern Research Station, Portal, AZ Duties: Providing scientific and logistical support to visiting researchers in the fields and laboratory; Independent bird survey U.S. Peace Corps Volunteer 1989 to 1990 Department of Parks and Wildlife, Tanzania Projects: Collecting, compiling, and analyzing behavioral data of primates for the SmiHisonianAnimal Behavior Research Unit and for the Jane Goodall Institute; bird-banding, migration and breeding atlas research for the Wildlife Conservation Society of Tanzania; field trip leader for University of Dar es Salaam and Mweka College of African Wildlife Management students; animal census, surveying and mapping work in the Saadani Game Reserve; fieldconsultant for a Hugo Van Lawick- Partridge Films, Ltd, documentary on weaver birds Museum Volunteer- Ornithology, Entomology, and Education Depts. The Living Desert Reserve -Palm Desert, CA 1991 to Present Los A ngeles County Museum of Natural History 1991 to 1992 Nairobi National Museum, Kenya 1985 to 1986 University ofAlaskaMuseum, Fairbanks, AK 1983 to 1984 Duties: Preparation of bird skins and insect specimens; acquisition and cataloging of specimens and data; bird-banding projects, field trip organizer and leader Other Local Volunteer Activities Palm Desert Sheriff's search and Rescue 1995 to Present Coachella I irlley Hiking Club Leader 1995 to Present Desert Cities Bird Club President 1995 to Present Mt, San Jacinto state Park Ranger 1995 to Present Bureau of Land Management Naturalist 1995 to Present ADDITIONAL EXPERIENCE ,Sporthotel, Ruhpolding, Germany 1990 to 1991 Manager of a seven-room chalet and horse-riding school Disneyland,Anaheim, California 1987 to 1988 Maintenance Department Hickory Ridge House, Putney, Vermont 1984 to 1985 Operating a Bed and Breakfast Inn Bob's Manhattan Beach Nursery/Florist 1982 to 1983 Driving a delivery truck, retail; landscaping and horticulture 1991 to 1992 CERTIFICATIONS Sierra Club Mountaineering Training Course, SCUBA-Diving, Advanced First-Aid and CPR, Ambulance Driver's License (expired), Goethe Institute Level III Diploma(German Language and Culture), Sigma Xi Scientific Research Society, Search and Rescue Technician II, PERSONAL INTERESTS AND HOBBIES Bird watching, Hiking, Nature Photography, SCUBA-Diving, Mountain Climbing, Banjo, Running, Biking, and Sign Language (ASL), Science Fair TRAVEL Besides my international work and field experience, I have also visited China, Nepal, Mongolia, Russia, Israel, Morocco, Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil, and most European countries. In Brazil, I assisted an entomological expedition in the Rondonia rain forest. LANGUAGES SPOKEN German, Kiswahili, Some Spanish, IBM Word REFERENCES Doug Walker-Professor- College of the Desert, Palm Desert, CA phone (760) 773-2571 Dr. Milton Jones -Principal -La Quinta Middle School, La Quinta CA phone (760) 777-4220 Clarence Burdick - Biology and Physiology Teacher -Mira Costa H.S., Manhattan Beach, CA phone(805) 772-0548 Walt Saenger- Chief Interpreter- Chiricahua National Monument, Willcox, AZ phone(520) 384-2989 Richard Kleen-Pandion Nature Tours - St. Michaels, MD phone (410) 745-5482 Additional references furnished upon request 1 i littp:Hdesertmuscum.org/programs/invasive_Desert.html Page 1 or s Inirasl,- Species in Sonoran DesertEcl_.erns Wide Open Spaces IT I 1; iFollow hilts cp d@�z.�t Nkx�Sx specter slites- ',aa444, a �1 Look tip c]t4otps �d'pthe desert spe¢les]zt U e' Retartt£o.ZtEa£rth@srMnuqIT ,sa�>,a a ik,. S'^yr r~r 1 I r Y t � �; " G "TlcspiCe the exCaRstae geogrRjshtcal ar$a u�olade l rvithm the CRntCs a - . ���a, oPtheiS6'poran Llesrt aid$ rev@r@ IzghkRiRg sforms ghat s` 1 e]tRractertze the snthInU racy Sehson,lkdk,00cur herg,ol rarely, Tits is Igigely UI'llecse of tM"IIIe dgminan@e ofl Nzdely sP3cad`cP�r y.: braRghed tree aktd s'hrutxs that are po4tly sorted to,bnrtimg,erthe ';, ttl 15 [1P�tl1�OC�lTY01�� Te FEW per@Inn3k�YR9�@S , ahaVtegtza TO*. svheoos stem_,''s wttl rite Srn Aran p1�sSQ hs II y tttl Ft ya�Y e ?•-xak �k41 OCOTki14d�F11Y36 R''pW']71aRt6 be <Ydth9{$R6=, t}IG'6hIUS tlY h'@60 ' u 11 I IF ar}Id�ldq dot oTRv�lb tkze cpntu uzf3 f c@verJJeeess y Ita carry j 1i I- I �, i orj thdi Sonoran P]es rt tn¢Jv7de ran 1 friUtY�PY271Y$W(lytjd',j�� ;@(hes,(E ',�palO yCrHB@ mE§ctnt#g 'IYQn'�Vdtl' �,more Kw'`5�, t Cha�]I,�Illr' oth@r Tpd1h„AtherzdrrsErt,dhda s ltt oPo£her suctden£s orlartts Cat, Ehave StlCr t IT s11tl�u1Euts g 3�yirc'ca ocattUd) hoselauts pyre ewtrly the Shpchtlenfs o1 ° IT IT `rirR .lr t, - p3¢$d 1 ec$}te thEre y pn ens ve,'�sa'�flo�r roOtSj stekns adapted t4 Ma1nIT g use o '1 r'r � 5 « tpfXequnC��pfllleniaXFzfaAs�the;spat� lyggEtated stoneaved�;4 'sady grovti to b@t�Ycan znts hCk1E #th@ cottip tRton�gb j&do helQw.grotidd ar?ipk}�'Ch I btS tiPthe r ! t RlariksiIti'K4azµzual'hGthsxtl, CQ@�a1on �gram,profust4riuttlidse"@F�'yp' r`SpC@S°' (a6rgl� @'pot6a>aoe�Calt$ n19f �'atgz1@raIlpIstnallr �tatrE c�nstlYe#t'u I. � i eri tad 4Po is calI'llS 41tanrthellands� p'eu;� e t� ofday' rik ass"aF£ pr q the grove sPagn( c4.�Yi�ghlt &how@s, l2},IX�sescrub` omtrn tEtss ddartg�',, r ` a .,,u@1Tk�lt�ey�i0.tl,lth@pYFi5��Fi�eP 8�'inEt�,h@t'S'©���BSECS>'i?d�,llFUI)<I86��9GYYlYB s�? �:'� i�i "hGtR1?REd. iTTI ir I Y_FT a rt 4aF. 1 a 'w •r ,.I r =,i-lJ '� �,Srov&$twCk7laYlt�'rh�d��Etksl©I�YbtlQlzl�if�t�Es',�Canbe�otil�'�th1'�dl�p�nat�vdf���anG1 !I Ir''rr����� fay9p,k y,,tak Al advls, Cagg gFth Sp c s aVaz abl@ bet4yee{z Rahn lSErenntal them tls ! `- pt4l is s elites ate dapted leo a. snter xa3ny s@ spp'4rttlIWO prgllfSc 11 diutla k4is t� 3 p@ gs#'iullthe 8or titan 7 dsEzt,sdztt wg,'seEd tldr�dym9"bo"N't thd'sun5m @r X?'AntC rot&` " (� , � � r '�,t�oitS�1€r 10��� 8uA�11�ZI`alztr��tt(c�udlkzg t�?�ny arkptaal�ntl�'taxd� I �r�sstcz taetvxhlj ayrd gr�ss�_,s C�g a�edz�erratF�an gYasS,�chr�'mu�spl#�d b�u�e,�� '�", TTII � �� �xvr�usnrbert.�'a q�usznFaCarlu�sty�@}te�t�Yas�^th'�f t�"'_d�de'spr�atl Pod ca�`it�Y�,�� ' �' �� teatunrtltot ' u@estRkMtSla edarttrk ' bergs@�k�sgerrE , � � n ,z "a " ' but ark eag�b�e oF,spzeadztzg nipendent at hvtnart actrvrty tntottndt5tugked Panel, 11/8/04 3:15:20 PM http://desertmuseum.org/programs/invasive Desert.html Page 2 of �r ?ya J s r i 3 x , w`v+ I. i" rat I0- I 4' � At ° e co segnenee,o ptohlmaungpigvaslye�plazds i a almcreased!flzelbad(eo pate T1ie photo abmvektal�ezt '4 yoaks zflk�z the pa evzQ#s view,by a howmg an ktkwazonb zton a&tAu �> , annpa�tqustfitds)o-q�es�rY lan_dsoape�s wlthrthe potezat�a�to Cal�'y fSz'e among bre i o.. ° ,� sgnsatJve,,Ytees'i gUx iUst apd Cam TuSt as lue s#pp ess�on in eco �stezxzS thaj evolved en wzth the aq disrupk ecosyslemstt of#te,a;�d funchox}, the oeepYrence of fire ztt eeosyseems, WHavgly0111 its absce low ea 'to loss of speciesiand raskrngAt t' {of plantland amm�lmtexacttons{�evenfavor ngfie adapxed exakc�species overnattves `� (Y�a1 l s 8e rTUenz�el�P{ 1992) damage to a dasert�eaosyste�n�y fire wfP vary c ithts y `k intensity aad Fxequehgy; tq,,h f degree the�ecosystezn zs'r�skructured the long keVIA nri ; vvill iepend on tUeemograpUic'profiles of tote plantsahatwere 1silcd an tha ones t1�at rlaps t { ,t y�r ,^, s{izived", there large Caun,lon,mstanue h 1y survt ;a a4er su?a11er taxa qr younger, t ma kadNa7sl� aysu ex high�moria7iL3 (MCI aughhn'@ Boers , spmc eaet, m44,64 imp ayl N s}rvLve,a;Uusn but bs xendered uulneraWIe,orakta¢ks,by licxUivozgs a zu£eaton thin barked grluvenile frees rY ay beikilfed,rl7uf herhaeeous,pFants may be fayoxed ,. ' 1nxaSton of open spfie�l y nox�-native pla7afs'has the;potenkial t crowd on native " - t ., t it r = anneal sgeczes l efoxe they Uave lee oppoxumty t e "tabhsh roof systems tad come mto r binm(D'f�rngn o&vitousek`1992) Invasions r s with seueraC grgsms, a�� ry r y Qi-a ,y ' '�{.i'' '- x t'' y�'la+t „aa{ r 1I1LTQdllC�IQn$)Tltat enCt4aC11 U'pDn 4r cRaI14.`at le mpensC O/. Y SextSelnb'hahltat 0IV 1;.Ono }, ° } ��� a ��kt • sty xi ananYsl ntls'mn eascan is aee:natt s eai'e'andtnereasathe GsksoE P r s4rttS $ Pl ve,.. $ 4 8 6 fi4$ au s, L ro. r xt btningrlikhe�eareasl �eeBurueaIuiat4leaYnasaxVl997 gezefal#„14 } a r 1 osses,of native herbs and txees can hat e negative eansequnces far palhn atoiS (Nabhan'RGZ3oldswe xthi 1998)'and othei'$erbzvores The dual aifeets of cdinputitton and a[irttton have tl pol III—aa`11tb trapsfor n a deseStd ,Al 'I ape to©ne pppulatudtby non natige,piants anlspppprtnig a dunkt mished'gauna ]?sstuxhan#e tp'dse, tsum)t x i �� F ? 1and�eapes,znduding,grazing -sub'IUlbanl dev610P ieht,,coup ed with'cychc if Iian�nS' VONrtcm nature and Hndity,may�addtto,�o even exaceYlkatet ecosystem leveh chariges tliat ljega.r wi hAplantrns asrops Rdqu n tq re;i7�vasioh-e tin t#nr s ay 11,'ri solar 'as tttash cnn Y u be�ppiosirtiatCdgP¢en,ttYafdrig'histgr3 oflantituse'aiidlanicapeehan'WwwandgtuRn{t1Ye�`,+ 's ; ;ti �Id grauyfh oFdesert perennials and de$elopment o desert s"gii,tIe�ntre a ptatxatted '', 1' t:dvC erY6d if ©5 iblea all P tteril` !,l iv' rS1] It 11995 'L�@ �e ii21 iip it ,I' u � �1i'P P, S r t � a &, I o � „r ) p n g, kithdtiature I alum r extetltpa d stver t ;nl an thuasi n by nonnative spegfe5 and what Khan es;Ito natLve , w °t pdulations'have occurred,mariaement of the robletn requifes$'ecfston's';alxuit'" r n r II r 3 it hit .4 ;,, r to f� dhmf dating]Xmds z distuibancS(e lg l fi e, 5asmg)!iXow rt hCren ,to fhe erns steep elirnina tiff g the tnvasrve CIS cies thetn$elbe$ o , r sing; r�mcdaiy,ac§'ep�at5ie alk�xdd ceofillscosy5retjt and maxta thg,'it to al i I {61yYdxsity�and�Ct3 ys'kesh h h tXtt z"#eg tdliss " II,NY IY ,I 6 , Iry 1Thl LR III I@ aiteredl'campi$ i114n'" a nketT3alP �s6n 19 See3�lkaPP ' A lFI lttet�tl r' t 'i I'; { ,I'772 i t t r 11/8/04 3:15:20 PM http://descrtintiseum.org/programs/invasive Desert.html Page 5 or J .cw of sandy,Mojave Desert with•na,tive sp_ Adflowersin 1964 <. (0196'4,Mark Dimni tVASbM,archive)' .` 7 r,view an#]re;same area ith°invas ve mustards n-I998,'(©.1998,Mark - _ D1mittl'ASpM-'aral iVe) ril 4r Norma ve Glass Iry„„anions and,FiTc inlhe,;Sotlorah Desert ; Lfnks ;. Current researchin the effects and geography of urvasipe species in the Akizon9 Ubland ` oP+he;Sa$aran 7�eseit . `� Ariz,oliaNativ6PIAnt Subte 'Notes 6hUxotic Speccles r y Inclndiri g hnks to local organizations sualp asthe T4cson Mountain-Weed acke}sand ? the Pnod, nvasivei, peeaes Council $uckner E, R and`7 Y Ttnxitl (1999) Fne Management In;� cosystel S= Rcterenccs Mna�epient#orlSistarn'abrlity" rinaples'and 1 ruetraps�llustr<z jad by B mrpp324 Le aw RiePgruobnLiosp. -qv , aslh WaslriIngton,D xs Butquez A anJ Marktmaa Yraaar (19 t7) ConsorVAtion anP:Landscape�_ Tra brmatton m S9nora M(,xicoI outnw, }tlze S;oz cfiwest } a ]7'P ntgnia,C M and P IyI. Uitousek (19 ) Ti�ologicai lnvasaans by eoftc grasses;, t thogtasp' Tea}cle anffi In alcha ge � hnalRevl cvofEpo�prysndSl60n2akP23 G3,87. ' s t 'I FFF 1 �FelgO R`IS, I ECpyWe Wilson, and G PIF Nabhan (1997)'The�anattonal , Ir1 SgnaxahAest$�p060Netd�oxkabdrfs�lantUxfe- laurnalaftheSduwestl39(3 IF kZobbs, RI.T, and L F Huaeke(1992)D3stnrbance,btvetsxty, and JnV45jdblLy i� �, ImphcatibnSfrn CoserVat�On;laons�r adn73sn1ory,6(3) 324 �37 a PIumphrey,R R (1 7Fna zn�ehaDeserGs and pet t3ra'ssLinfl oFNotth�'Ame Yca ,I-h I 3r Fre at depsstemS, ed7 edby C P Ahlgten,l p a4S1110D Acade.rntc Pxess;Nei York icH, k -IF - - a ` ` Mack R rN,(1')85) 1ten IP1ant Int astonln?to ehe'Interinnuntam West A Case Hrs'tory IttlEcalogy fBrol gealbrwasr©nsoPmo}thtlmeuoaatj AW,4?%{IedrtedbyI A 11 1 �' �vloone and 1 A Di ke 1 1 213 S xm gem, erla' NewYo k p y a4 >pP p „ g g, LAL - a0. ' g K — _ FF Mahanglilm, S P and 71 E &pwars �1987�Efl�cts of'_V ildfiIF telah alSonotan IIesert ..Plane Caipmnmty ��b �l� -i r '� r1 t 41 ,I i. ' IF j' li deEx s e a 4 - K r - 4 - -4 Fo- TlreatsadheAde�utrd'aPProorfli iiIF rnt7teSrnoranD, erlEeI 'Th, 11, fids a `'-�` ps». 2s sc4°s -,�rPrq�egt,Tne3am = s t k - lF Ifa'a l ` Patten,D T and W IF 'IL Halvar$an �19Q5) 12 Impacts of Stressors oh,PIoG'Desert $drot lands Ar monaCom aratz�e Pdlvaro enrakR s�C Bxo eat,ACERP da stems } " n ^r i d fld iJal l I. f! 14r ( ) f J r s� TeefmscaAll llComnntte'lieportsrAraaonglT}cdiaifte t 6Unviz©nuiental Qualltyl, J I4 IL: p l l 4 ., 4 u l - ', ..' IF E�j I IF IF , Ill rl III Iri If - rI Il 'i - ., ..i Return to Top Return to Features Menu Return to ASDM Home 11/8/04 3:15:20 PM COMMITTEE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF LITTLE TUSCANY & CHINO CANYON NEIGHBORHOODS 440 West Chino Canyon Road, Palm Springs, CA 92262-2906 Tel: (760) 416 1072 Fax: (760) 323 0880 e-mail: liffletascany@y2hoo.co Alex P. Meyerhoff By Facsimile Principal Planner Original by Hand Department of Planning and Zoning City Of Palm Springs P.O. Box 2743 November 9, 2004 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Dear Mr. Meyerhoff, Crescendo: TTM 31766 This letter is intended to provide comments regarding the Initial Study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration that purports to evaluate an application by Wessman Development for the Crescendo project (Case Number 5.0996-PD-294 and Tentative Tract Map 31766). We believe the information provided by the City and the developer to-date is insufficient to fully understand and analyze the project and its potential impacts. Our concerns are in two key areas — environmental impacts and planning and zoning issues. With regard to the environmental analysis, the Initial Study is inadequate on its face. We continue to believe there is currently sufficient knowledge and awareness regarding potentially significant impacts that the City should require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project. With regard to other issues, we believe the City has failed to provide adequate description and/or information regarding the project. Specifically, regarding planning and zoning issues, we request access to at least the following in order to more fully understand the proposal and to evaluate its potential impacts: 1. Preliminary grading plan, showing slopes for all lots. 2. Fully dimensioned site plan, showing pad locations on each lot, setbacks from all property lines for each lot and pad elevations. 3. Detailed listing of all waivers and variances being requested. 4. Fully dimensioned elevations of all sides of the houses. RECEIVED NOV 10 200t c . 5. Landscaping plan, including plant sizes and location, and proposed plant palette, with particular emphasis on the types of groundcover proposed to prevent erosion on the manufactured slopes. 6. Detail of any drainage inlet(s)proposed. 7. Graphic showing which lots are proposed to vary from zoning standards either in size or dimension, and percentage and identity of lots proposed to be substandard. 8. Exhibits to scale showing proposed step platforms contrasted with existing grade. 9. Exhibit showing lot sizes without applied perimeter landscaping, slopes, retention basins and slopes. As to the Initial Study, we submit the following specific comments and questions for the record: In recognition of growing concerns regarding growth in the area, the City of Palm Springs recently enacted an interim urgency ordinance which requires proposals for the Chino Cone to undergo the strictest scrutiny including requirements for processing proposed developments with a Specific Plan which includes a mandate for an EIR. Exhibit 3 in the IS depicts a boundary area for the Chino Cone which includes the proposed Crescendo project site. In spite of this recognition by the City and the developer that the site is clearly part of the sensitive Chino Cone the proposed project was left out of the urgency ordinance boundary. This seems a blatant disregard for the motivations and underpinnings which led to the urgency ordinance in the first place. We take great exception to the City's inconsistency. What is good for one application in the Chino Cone ought to be good for all applications in the Chino Cone. How can the boundary for the Chino Cone be one thing in Exhibit 3 in the IS and yet the City apply its urgency ordinance with another boundary all together? Is the City showing favoritism to one developer over another? The IS selectively describes the character of the neighborhood to suit the developer's proposal. The writer of the study says the project site "notches" into the neighborhood. This is an interesting choice of words. We believe a more correct description might be to say the site "looms" over the neighborhood. We believe the proposed project is unsuitable for this location. The proposed Orange County, uniform stepped platforms do not belong on our city's hillsides. The existing neighborhood character is indeed "eclectic". Homes and lots are unique. Tract homes on artificial podiums looming over the existing neighborhood are not appropriate. 2 The proposal seeks substantial and multiple waivers and changes from the City's General Plan, zoning and policies. The first is described on page 13 of the IS. Minimum lots sizes of 15,000 square feet are requested, including front and rear setbacks of 10 feet each. This is a substantial deviation and should be denied, The request is for a reduction of front set backs on cul-de-sacs of 50% and a reduction in standard for local/collector streets of 60%. The proposal seeks to cram in too many houses that are simply too large for the substandard lot sizes proposed. The resulting development, if allowed, would sit houses too close to the street and butting up to one another with 10 foot rear setback allowances. Does this reflect the kind of standard our City seeks for its diminishing hillside developments? We think not. Our hillsides are an important and unique feature of our city. They are also a diminishing commodity and should be a focus for the highest of standards. Development on our remaining hillside assets should be a reflection of our best and our highest achievements, not our minimums which reflect the blight of urbanism. We believe that these incredible and unique hillside areas can be developed with sensitivity and care. This is not a place for reduction of lot sizes and reduced setbacks. Also on page 13 of the IS we take issue with the statement that the project design is consistent with the City's General Plan as well as existing development in the vicinity. The proposed tract Orange County platforms are not consistent with existing neighborhood character and should not be considered in this or any other hillside area. They are not consistent with existing development in the vicinity. There is no documentation in the IS to substantiate such a claim nor are there adequate descriptions and exhibits to allow the public to understand what is being proposed regarding the stepped platforms and their potential impact. The proposal also requests waivers for roof height, seeking to build two story 24 foot roof height homes. Existing zoning limits hillside homes to 18 foot building height. This developer should be held to the 18 foot limitation. The IS for the proposed project also plays fast and loose with its lots sizes, open space computations and other figures. Lot sizes apparently include perimeters, slopes, retention and public walkways in many instances. Are these figures also used in computations for open space, buffers, slopes and so on for other purposes as well? In other words, is there double counting going on? Should the City allow open space, walkways and so on to count for multiple purposes? We oppose this practice of double counting. Table 3 on page 15 includes an interesting disclosure that 6.3 acres of "perimeter landscaping" and 4.3 acres of manufactured slopes are included in the project. These Orange County stepped platforms represent 25% of the 3 total development. The total area of unbuildable, manufactured, steep slopes count into lot sizes and then also counts as open space as well as backyard as well as perimeter landscaping and who know what else. This is how the developer plays with the numbers. The City should not allow such deception. The development should be redesigned to insure that lot sizes do not rely upon slopes, perimeter landscaping or other features in order to meet the required standards. A new water line is proposed as part of this project and depicted in Exhibit 7 to run down the middle of existing Milo Drive. Enhancements to the booster station are also mentioned but not disclosed with any specificity. Were impacts from this proposed water line addition included in computations for construction, air quality, noise and other potential impacts? What are the specific booster station enhancements contemplated by the developer? Where is the description of this additional construction project? Will the new line serve other customers as well? Has Desert Water Agency already agreed to any or all of these proposed enhancements? Approximately 225,000 cubic yards of earthwork are proposed on the site to create the unnatural slopes within and on the outside perimeter of the site. Page 18 of the IS describes rock crushing as an integral part of the site work. The neighborhood is opposed to the introduction of a rock quarry operation into its sensitive environment. The project seeks to turn the neighborhood into a rock quarry in order to avoid importing fill. Of course importing fill would bring an unacceptable number of trucks and accompanying significant impacts. What should be done? The City should allow neither. Send the developer back to figure out how to build an acceptable number of homes without raping the existing hillside and importing significant impacts to the existing neighborhood. Nobody said this should be easy. Yes, the developer should be allowed to develop. But no, the developer should not be allowed to build anything in anyway in order to satisfy his own profit and ease of construction. One thing we do know is that a rock crushing operation lasting nine months, if everything goes well, should not be allowed in Little Tuscany or in the midst of any sensitive hillside or other residential neighborhood. A nine month quarry operation will have significant impacts to the neighborhood.- There is nothing in the IS to demonstrate otherwise. The IS reassures us in Table 6 on page 52, that the output of PM-10 is only 114.5 lbs/day,- a mere 76% of the SCAQMD threshold of 150 lbs/day. However, the stone crusher is going to be operating for at least 9 months, according to information provided in the IS. During that time it will spew j into the atmosphere 114.5 lbs/day times 225 days which is 25,763lbs. or over 12 tons of PM 10. I 4 After the residents have been smothered with twelve tons of PM-10 and deafened by the noise of crushing rock ten hours a day, six days a week for nine months, the operation will start all over again for the Boulders, a site within a few hundred yards of Crescendo. Planning should be considering the cumulative effects of all this dust and noise. Locating the plant next to Tramway Road seems unwise due to the inevitable exposure of potential noise and dust impacts to tens of thousands of visitors who travel the road over a year. The proposed mitigations of building a berm and operating in day light hours will not sufficiently address the impacts. There is no documentation to support the effectiveness of the proposed mitigation. We do not know of a way to mitigate these impacts to an acceptable level given the facts presented here. No documentation has been presented to support the conclusion of no significance in the IS. The City General Plan contemplates alignment and connection of Racquet Club to Tramway Road. Why doesn't the proposal include this alignment or connection? Are the impacts of this work included as a contemplated part of the project? Why not? The project is located in an area of substantial water flow. We are concerned that the project has designed onsite retention basin of varying depth up to 15 feet to handle storm water from a 100 year storm. We are concerned that the basins' varying depths will not be adequate during times of heavy storm water movement. The design seems willing to accept one or more failures from these basins but the neighborhood is not. The analysis in the IS regarding storm water flow and the project's ability to accommodate it is insufficient. More study and analysis of this important factor should be required. The City has at its discretion the ability to require designs to a higher standard than that proposed here. In addition, ongoing maintenance and responsibility of important storm drainage features including drains and retention ponds should not be left to a Homeowner's Association. This aspect of the proposal requires rethinking and additional study. We have serious concerns regarding the location of retention ponds along Tramway Road. In addition to our belief that the proposed sizes for the ponds are inadequate we also have concerns that the potential for overflow will impact the stability of Tramway Road. This serious potential impact was not dealt with in the IS and could result in.a significant impact and points to a potential need for consideration of a redesign of the project drainage plan that would move the retention and drainage corridors away from the project perimeter. In addition, the HOA CC&R's have not been disclosed and thus we have not been able to review or understand the full scope of responsibility and liability the HOA is proposed to assume. The CC&R's should be disclosed and made 5 available for review and comment as a part of this total proposal and before public hearings are scheduled. Section 3.3, page 27 discloses an important feature of the proposal. "It is anticipated that the project developer would also be the home builder." The key word there is "anticipated". To date whenever the neighborhood has raised questions about the future of the proposed project, city staff points to the history of this developer and the quality of his past work and so on. This disclosure on page 27 points out that while this proposal may be completed by the current developer there is no certainty that it will be. This fact supports the neighborhood contentions that the City must not count on this developer or any historical precedent when considering this proposal. The project will result in significant impacts to scenic vistas. The IS conveniently concludes otherwise but offers no proof to the contrary. There is no documentation to support the conclusion that the addition of landscaped retention basins on the perimeter protects mountain view corridors. There are no exhibits that show views with existing conditions contrasted with views after proposed mitigations of view corridors. The writer of the IS simply states his conclusion but does not provide evidence to support it. The IS is entirely inadequate on this point. In addition there are attempts to illustrate view angles from select locations on the site and in the adjacent neighborhood but these exhibits are not to scale and thus not of much use when trying to evaluate potential mitigation measures. The IS itself acknowledges that the proposed man-made terraces will by themselves take away existing view corridors and mitigations only "minimize view blockage beyond that created by the slope itself. New residences built on top of the new artificial terraces will also obstruct existing view corridors. In response the developer proposes to place "only seven" homes along the western boundary. The obvious mitigation is to build no artificial 20 foot terraces at all and to preserve the view corridors by limiting building heights to the current 18 foot limits. This obvious mitigation would address the potential for significant impact where the mitigation proposed in the IS does not. We believe this potential for significant impact is sufficient to require the City to mandate an EIR for this project and require additional and more substantive study, analysis and review. In addition, there are options to the design proposal that have not been identified, disclosed or studied but which could result in lessening and/or avoiding potential impacts. These options and alternatives should be reviewed and disclosed to the public and the decision makers prior to any final decision on this project. Section 1.c, the degradation of the visual character of the site or surroundings; discusses the potential for impacts potentially significant 6 unless mitigated. Not surprisingly, the IS concludes that removing a wall and gates will do the trick. We disagree. The proposed project will introduce a series of uniform, high density, stair-stepped lots and row upon row of tract mansions. The obvious result will be a significant change to the existing neighborhood character for which the only sufficient mitigation is the elimination of the stepped platforms. Otherwise, the change to visual character will be significant and the proposal should be denied. The IS is insufficient on this point and the conclusions flawed. The air quality analysis for the project is inadequate. The project is located within the South Coast Air Basin, a non-attainment area. Any proposed project in a non-attainment area has the potential for a significant air quality impact because impacts cannot be mitigated below significance. The Crescendo project IS errors when it concludes that the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. The basis for the IS conclusion of no significant impact is the project's "...consistency with adopted population, housing, employment and land-use forecasts in use by the AQMD". This is a handy way to get around the fact that the project, when analyzed on its own, does reach the threshold of potential significance depending on the assumptions used. This is one of the key areas of analysis which we believe argues for an EIR to be completed for this project. An EIR would require a more complete air quality impact analysis including the potential cumulative impacts to air quality from the multiple projects contemplated for the area. An EIR would also disclose options and alternatives to the proposed project. In this case alternatives would include no stepped platforms and no rock crushing, the two taken together would reduce air quality impacts substantially. When taken together we believe the potential development in the area will lead to a significant impact to air quality. The trouble is that an IS will not disclose that information. An EIR should be required for this project in order for the full and cumulative impact to air quality from all contemplated Projects in the area to be disclosed and analyzed together. To conclude that the emissions from this project have been included in regional growth projections for the entire Coachella Valley and thus are individually less-than-significant fuels the argument for an EIR and the need for greater scrutiny and exposure to the potentially significant air quality impacts from this proposal. Proposed mitigation measures for the air quality impacts include watering, paving roads quickly and suspending grading when winds exceed 25 miles per hour. We suggest the City take another look at the site location and consider the unobstructed nature of the site to the North and West. The IS 7 air quality impact analysis under represents the potential for impact due to wind and the mitigations are insufficient in response. The IS plays fast and loose with the air quality impact numbers. The reality of the site argues against the convenient conclusions of the IS. The site is heavily strewn with boulders. The developer says he will balance cut and fill and have no need to truck in or truck out material. There is no evidence in the IS or associated reports to support that will be the case. There is, however a substantial body of anecdotal evidence from other developers experience in the neighborhood to support a conclusion that a substantial amount of rock will need to be disposed offsite. Plus, there is no real exploration or disclosure of what the impacts of a no rock crushing operation would be. The IS states that exhaust emissions from "typical construction equipment during site clearing and crushing" (page 51) are already within acceptable air quality thresholds. Is the typical construction equipment listed the same equipment contemplated for this project? What is the basis for this conclusion? Where is the evidence to support it? In the case of NOx, this typical equipment would result in impacts at 92.2% of threshold air impacts. According to the IS, if material is hauled away NOx emissions would be at 173% above accepted levels and therefore significant. The only way to mitigate that impact would be via extended truck haul which itself would result in a significant impact. Thus, it appears the developer has handily backed himself into the need for a rock crusher. This is faulty logic at its best. The obvious other conclusion is to redesign the project. Of course, this potential to reduce impacts is conveniently not explored in any depth in the IS. An EIR would disclose these sorts of potential options as well as the no project alternative and a full disclosure of all cumulative impacts so that the public and the decision makers would be able to make a fully informed decision.An EIR should be required. The exact amount of surplus rock is hard to assess because many of the largest boulders are embedded in the ground to unknown depths. Local knowledge and experience is that rocks are buried as much as three to five feet below the surface. C.W. Poss, in their estimate for a nearby project, calculated that there would be 532,000 tons of rock to remove. C.W. Poss, in its estimates for Crescendo, stated "plans were not available in sufficient time to prepare this report, we assumed the same quantities for Tract 31095 in our evaluations." The quantities of rock assumed for Crescendo are based on faulty numbers and the IS conclusions based upon these estimates should not be accepted. Substantial additional information regarding amount of rock, options for its use and/or disposal and the resulting conclusions regarding potential impacts and proposed mitigation, must be re-examined. 8 The IS concludes no potential for significant impact to endangered species_ However, the project is located in Bighorn sheep habitat. The fact that neighbors have seen Bighorn in the area in the recent past flies in the face of the IS conclusions. There is no evidence to support a finding of no impact. In addition, a conclusion that no other endangered or threatened species is at risk is faulty based upon the limited study performed for this project. Extensive trapping and surveying were not performed to support this conclusion. Again, an EIR would require a more intensive study and analysis of this potential impact and should be required. General Plan policies guide development in the city. The IS discusses on page 84, GP policy 5.12.1 which encourages new development to be designed to fit the natural landscape with a minimum of onsite grading. This policy and discussion in the IS points out the fundamental flaw of the project — the artificial stepped platforms. The IS acknowledges that other methods of building construction could be used to comply with the policy but would require a major redesign of the project. Indeed. The IS goes on to conclude that "...since the policy does not mandate any particular design solution and since the project does `step' with the natural terrain, it is deemed to comply with this policy'. How convenient. The trouble is that the evidence does not support the conclusion. Simply because the Project "steps" with the natural terrain is meaningless regarding a fit with natural landscape and minimizing onsite grading, the policy intent. It is a hillside location, anything one proposes is going to "step" with the hillside. This project flies squarely in the face of City GP policy 5.12.1. Based upon the information provided, the conclusion of the IS is faulty. The IS errors when it points to new building heights being limited to 26 feet (page 84). The limitation in hillside development is 18 feet. The proposed project therefore is not in compliance as the IS asserts. Noise impacts are of great concern to the neighborhood. The potential for significant impact due to traffic and rock quarry operations have been underreported. The ability of the proposed mitigation to address noise concerns is suspect. There is no evidence in the IS or associated reports that the proposed berms will be effective in reducing noise to acceptable levels. Assuming rock crushers would be allowed, the proposed mitigation assumes access from Tramway Road, which, if denied, would limit trucks to 3 in and 3 out per hour. How long would this extend the trucking operations and what would the impacts be from an extended trucking operation? The noise analysis pefformed for the project was based upon the estimates of the equipment supplier for the quarry operation, hardly an impartial source of information. We believe the assumptions for the noise analysis are flawed 9 due to inaccurate assumptions provided by C.W. Poss and the conclusions not supported by adequate evidence in the record. In addition, the IS refers to noise measurements taken at identical "hard rock" plants in Southern California. C.W. Poss is the supplier of the rock crushing equipment, not an independent source or an unbiased analyst. The City should insist upon objective data and require additional analysis regarding noise impacts. The traffic report used for the IS is based on a report done for a previous project in 2002, which, in turn was based on a report dated 1998. While certain traffic counts were updated for the IS the underlying information in the traffic report is outdated and insufficient evidence upon which to base conclusions for current conditions. The report is silent with regard to potential damage to existing streets from the tens of thousands of additional truck trips and any potential required mitigation to address that damage. It is also unclear regarding the amount and type of other equipment that will be brought it—numbers and types of bulldozers, scrapers, compactors, backhoes, jackhammers, etc. What alternatives were considered? How can the impact of construction equipment and tens of thousands of truck trips be mitigated? In addition, the traffic report does not disclose or analyze potential cumulative impacts which will result from the multiple contemplated development projects in the area. The traffic report is insufficient and the conclusions are not supported by evidence in the IS. Additional study and disclosure is necessary. The installation of large diameter sewer lines is glossed over in the IS. How will these large pipes be installed and what will the impacts be? What if they hit large boulders? Will there be blasting? What are the impacts of blasting? What will the cumulative impact to air quality, noise and dust be if blasting is required? Were those impacts considered in the numbers in the IS? In summary, we have grave concerns regarding this potential project design and its potential for significant ,impacts. We believe an EIR should be required for this project. The proposed project is fundamentally inconsistent with many goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan, particularly with respect to land use and housing element. The density and visual massing of the proposed "mega houses" are totally out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. We have serious concerns about the air quality and other impacts due to the flawed design characteristics of the project including its dogged insistence upon the use of artificial stepped platforms as a design element. The City is well within its discretionary powers to direct the developer to rethink his concept and eliminate the Orange County terracing approach in order to make this project more acceptable to the neighborhood and more in keeping with the vision for Palm Springs and its precious hillsides. 10 We reserve the right to add to, amend and build upon these comments during the public hearing process and beyond. Yours sin erely, John H. rich e alf of the Committee for the Preservation of Little Tuscany & Chino Canyon Neighborhoods 11 November 9, 2004 Mr. Alex Meyerhofr Principal Planner Department of Planning Services City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Dear Mr. Meyerhoff: I understand that the City of Palm Springs is currently considering two new housing developments, The Boulders and Crescendo, in the Little Tuscany/Chino Canyon neighborhoods. These areas represent beautiful and precious resources for our city. It would be tragic for all Palm Springs residents if we were to blight them by allowing the construction of overly dense, too tall housing built in Orange County-style stepped platforms. In my view the current proposals are not in conformance with these neighborhoods' character. As you consider next steps in the review process, I urge you and our City Council to consider the following points: • The number of homes currently proposed is excessive and overly dense. • Building heights should not exceed 18 feet. • The tract terracing proposed will ruin the natural contours of the hillside. • The City should require a full Environmental Impact Report analysis for both The Boulders and Crescendo. • Homeowners whose properties border the proposed developments should be afforded an open space buffer and noise control form any perimeter access road. • Do not allow rock-crushing.on-site. • The developer should place utilities underground and street lighting avoided in order to maintain visual cohesion between existing and new neighborhoods. Thank you very much for your consideration of these points. Respectfully, Susan Unger 311 W. Via Sol R E C E I V Palm Springs, CA 92262 NOV 15 2904 Planning &Zoning 1 1/1181 2 1JI14 2b:31 /bf732b3144 N1E I HAMEK b I EVEN J VAUE U9 PJZ Steven J. Niethamer, D.M.D. Diplomate—American Academy ofFediatric pent&ry 490 5.Farrell Drive Suite C-iov Palm Springs,CA pg36Y7962 RX 760•340•3+44 TelephOne /60-32o-7¢71 Plorember$,2004 Ater,Meyerhoff RLvEN D Deparhuentof Planning Services F I LNOV City of Palm Springs 32001-Tahgaita Way - 9 2D04 Palm Springs,CA 92zm U: Comments on the CttF IUNDO FIMOIFCT --------- Doi,Mr.Meyerhoff: PLANNING DI }�ji3 My family and Aare residents at 2425 N.Vista Drive and must comment on the initial study of the Cresce6do;Aevelopnlent .. being considered by your department I am a 16-year resident of this Vista Drive address.lily family and l are acutely affected by this upwind"project'going forward as planned.This hillside Mast not W lost to a poorly planned,hlghly dent uctive housing project on some of the most unique land left in Palm Spriugs. These are our eoncems with this project Large scale grading and terracing for this high-density development is just wrong for this area!This is Palm Springs,not Orange County or what Palm Desert and La QuiMa arc becoming.Houses need to fit into the hillside. Visitors will see this development first as they drive into Palm Springs-It must be done correctly. • Too many houses arc planned for this hillside area Planned houses arc way too tall! Split-level houses should be cut into the hillside—not built higher on the hillside- This developer is building upward to increase the square foolago in this high density development. • Planned oushing of rock on-sile,is unacceptable.This is a residential area,not a rock quarry-'this area is unique because of the boulders.If you do not want boulders and rocks,develop the sandy flat lands. A high density,two-story development as planned needs a signkfteattt halter zone to set back the development from more traditional Palm Springs hillside neighborhoods. Traditional Palm Springs hillside developments have no sidewalks and little or no lighted streets.This new devetoputent should not have lighted streets so that the serenity of the Palm Springs night is preserved. The last big development located immediately below the planned Crescendo failed to sell out and needed to be aucHOtled off-We need prateebion£kepi this developer to make sure he does not leave this project uncompleted as Ire has left the Palm Springs downtown mall. n,�Plalming 1?eparhrtent needs to propeck the city and its residents from landowners and developers out to snake the high}pst dollar per square Coot by bypassing normal planning department roguladons.Landowners should be allowed to develop their land within guidelines created by[Ire city govertunentr Developers should not be allowed to bypass these'ties controlling development just because they are developing a larger tract ofland—especially in such an important hillsida azca Your department needs to protect the city from developers who fail to understand the special character of this traditional hillside commutdty.Please,do not lot Palm Springs begin to look like Mange County or even palm Desert. Simcerply, Steven J_Niethamer,DMD 8 November2004 PO Box 2001 — .----- ---. Palm Springs, CA 92263 Alex Meyerhoff uEIVED Principal Planner Department of Planning Services NOV - 9 2004 City of Palm Springs } 3200 E. Tahquitz Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 PLANK ING 0/iSION Dear Mr. Meyerhoff; As a concerned citizen of Palm Springs, I am submitting for your information my comments regarding the proposed Wessman developments of Crescendo and the Boulders. Below, I have summarized the specific points put forth by the Committee for the Preservation of Little Tuscany & Chino Canyon Neighborhoods. Following each point, I have placed my personal responses. I fully believe that the City of Palm Springs' planning department will carefully and fully consider my views. 1. The city should require a full Environmental Impact Report Analysis for both Crescendo and Boulders proposals: Requirements for environmental impact studies should not be any more nor any less than has been required within the city limits for similar projects. 2. The number of homes proposed is excessive and the proposal too dense: The character and nature of the surrounding neighborhoods should be respected. 3. Building heights should not exceed 18 feet: This is in keeping with the general character of residential building within the city. 4. The proposal is not in conformance with the neighborhoods' rural character: The city is certainly aware of the rural nature of the surrounding, pre-existing homes. Specific objections to the project are already outlined elsewhere. 5. Tract terracing must be eliminated: Certainly the city's planning department, along with Wessman Development, can propose solutions to adequately mitigate any reasonable objections. 6. There should be no street lighting: This is generally true for existing development in this area of the city. 7. Emergency access may be negotiated with safety officials, but not such that existing roadways will be substantially altered: Past experience, I believe, bears out the fact that safety officials and the city are sensitive to and receptive of residents'concerns regarding such access. 8. This plan must consider responsibility and liability issues once the project is completed: Unless those who oppose the two Wessman projects can point to specific issues, legal remedies regarding such wide-ranging matters are already in place. 9. Existing homeowners whose properties border the proposed development should be afforded an open space buffer and noise control from any perimeter access road: Certainly to the extent possible, longer term noise control issues that would significantly affect existing homeowners should be required. 10. To prevent residents from petitioning for gating as soon as they take over the association the project should be conditioned to prevent future gating: There should be no conditions regarding gating at any time unless such restrictions have been previously and routinely applied at similar projects. Gating is, and should remain, the prerogative of the projects homeowners. 11. The neighborhoods are unalterably opposed to mass grading: See item#5 above. 12. No construction traffic should be permitted on existing neighborhood roadways: While this would be ideal in theory, reality will dictate otherwise. However, the city and Wessman Development must make every effort to minimize construction traffic on existing roadways and carefully follow existing noise abatement regulations. 13. The city should protect the valuable architectural and historic value of its neighborhoods and not allow tract development on hillsides: This Is an opinion with which many citizens might agree. However, careful management of near- hillside development, including the appropriate"tract" housing should never detract from a neighborhoods' architectural or historic value. 14. No rock crushing should be allowed on-site: This is a logistical and noise abatement issue which the city must carefully consider. Any on-site rock crushing should be very carefully monitored. 15. The developer must be responsible for placing old utilities under ground to maintain visual cohesiveness between existing neighborhoods and the new: The exact location of the"old utilities" in question to be undergrounded should be carefully indicated by those opposing the Wessman Development. The larger portion of Chino Canyon and portions of the adjoining area have existing above ground utilities. This "mix"is not uncommon within the city, as the rules for new developments now require the undergrounding of all utilities within their perimeter. However, the requested scope of this undergrounding should be clearly specified, and in the event of any compromised outcome, should encompass only those above ground utilities whose easements fall along the joint property boundaries of the existing neighborhoods and the proposed development. 16. Due to negative impacts of other desert projects started but left unfinished for years between market fluctuations, the neighborhoods insist that the city require a substantial completion bond from the developer: The requirements for completion bonds are stipulated under law. There should not be any onerous requirements of the developer beyond normal and past construction and development practices. 17. The neighborhoods expect close communications between the developer, the city and designated neighborhood representatives in order to mitigate noise, dust, construction traffic and other construction impacts: The city of Palm Springs is fully aware of its obligations to do so, I am sure. Designated neighborhood representatives, or indeed, any affected homeowner, has the right to access appropriate city officials and expect prompt and responsible action on any reasonable request or concern of code enforcement, or obligations by the developer to perform as required by law. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Michael J Trou n Palm Springs, C 92262 PALM SPr,,,AU'S PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION . AGENDA November 3, 2004 Large Conference Room— City Hall 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 2:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER—2:00 P.M. REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA—Available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board (west side of Council Chamber) and the Planning Services Department counter by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 29th, 2004. It is the intention of the City of Palm Springs to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in all respects. If, as an attendee or a participant at this meeting, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, the City will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact Phil Kaplan, (760) 323-8219 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible. Please advise us at that time if you will need accommodations to attend or participate in meetings on a regular basis. The telephone number for the hearing impaired (TDD#) is (760) 864-9527. 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS: (Three minute time limit.) 2. DISCUSSION — Case 5.0996-PD-294, TTM 31766 - Application by Wessman Development for a Preliminary Planned Development District and Tentative Tract Map for the Crescendo project to construct 79 single family residences on 42.2 acres at West Racquet Club Road and Tramway Road, Zone R1A, Section 3. 3. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Update. 4. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS AND REQUESTS a. Study Session items. ADDED STARTERS: If there are added starters, action is required to determine eligibility for consideration. i 11/03/2004 '11:1B-_760-320-3953 MAHCHESE & cu VAU- ei Fax(760)322-8360 lex Meyerhoff rineipal Planner epartment of Planning Services ity of Palm Springs ovember 3,2004 e: Comments on Proposed Crescendo Development ear Mr. Meyerhoff, TO say the least,we are very unhappy about the proposed Crescendo development in e Chino Cone. We understand the rights of a property owner to build and for the City to d in that process,but if you allow Mr. Wessman to place a proposed rock crushing ration on site,to forego an environmental review on this environmentally fragile area i i order to push this project through the pipeline before the Mountain Preservation itiative has a chance to be placed before the voters of palm Springs,and to impose an cessive amount of homes on our neighborhood,you have truly disregarded the very ell being of those of us who live here now. Why can't Mr. Wessman scale back his grand plan and nestle a much smaller number elegant and interesting homes into the existing hillside that complement and complete e neighborhood rather than impose inappropriate terracing and density and take our ighborhood into a direction that will destroy the quality of life in Chino Canyon rever. It appears to be one more case of greed endeavoring to trump commonsense. If is project hadn't come down us like an inflexible sledgehammer,you might have gotten dore support from our neighborhood. We are not against appropriate development for c11rr neighborhood,but we are against the number of homes and the density proposed for Crescendo. 99 As well,to single out our neighborhood to the health damaging dust and noise of tassive grading and rock crushing is a travesty. 7o tear up this magnificent hillside and scenic boulder strewn vistas with tract housing without a full Environmental Impact Deport seems absolutely shortsighted. Why the rush?Are you afraid the people of Palm rings will vote en masse to protect our fragile environment from hillside development? We live next to the proposed development at 755 Girasol Court. We are faced with the vlry real possibility that if you allow this project to go forward as it appears now,we will Idly be forced to sell our home within the next few months. Do not rush this project through the pipeline. Please respect the process necessary to ake sure the course of action the City of Palm Springs takes on Crescendo is fltlly i formed. Please take time to consider ALL voices and opinions in this matter. nnis Marchese and Cheryl Stereff Mar h e 5 Giras Court lm Springs,CA, 92262 0-318-3346 F, Palm Springs People November 3, 2004 NOV — 5 2004 Planning I To Planning: —. . We the people are no longer going to stand for your ongoing dental of performing the__.„ necessary studies needed to address and assess the safety, welfare, and health of your residents ..........putting us at risk. According to,your own Police Department's letter of Julyl, 2004, they can hardly handle the amount of houses now built. They state the impact of all of Planning's new building of thousands of new projects camiot be responded to. (Which I enclose) CRV%C 8 w t_,G The EPA has stated,in 2002, and the DWA letter from its Director, dated 2003,that Palm Springs and the valley is over drafted, and the "quality of our water is at risk"_s twc._ t Y9S'. (Enclosed). ( 0Tt,.. .c� enLut= St .w ava9, Jn.µ,0"T g ouR .wfG2 S"nct CgLt -11Kt, Our air is filled with pm!0 that is known to cause lung problems and cancer. And yet,the city does nothing,but wants to add to put more poor quality air in the valley. We are in a medical crisis. We don't have enough medical talent and hospitals to care for the people who are here. It is predicted that by 2006 we will be in an energy crisis....and yet there is no planning . for solar grids or even panels for houses or buildings. Our roads are clogged constantly and there are no plans to deal with gridlock. All of these projects should be safe-growth.....not growth without information,which violates the Public Trust. What kind of planner or leader doesn't want to know what risks are being taken,before approval of building?The fact is you are not guarding the Public Trust and bowing before the developers and your thoughts only. Things will catch up with all of you.....people are learning their rights and the law.And it is happening faster than you think. Put this project on hold until you have all the information._...as you are personally going to be liable for the lack of protection you offer the people. Dr.Jane Cowles Smith CC palmspringspeople.com i 07/01/2004 12:2B PAX 700 IU i PALE OPRING9 POLICE DE?l rdJ001 aF PAIM sh U �� City of Palm Springs Police Depnrsmenc n .c �• � aw NO toudi Civic Dm.•Pdm 9rfh.ak C>Jilnmla Q262 cq[I F0 pN�P TTU(760)373.6116•TDD(76C)1]60527 Date: July 1, 2004 To: Paul DePaltle ✓ From: Cmdr. Ron Starrs Re: Crescendo Project I raviowed the proposal for 85 new homes to be constructed near the West and of Racquet Club Drive in the City of Palm Springs. This project Is one of many that have come before the Police Department over the past year. Approximately 800 new housing units were constructed last year, and there are plans to construct 2500 new units-in the next five years. Additionally,there are plane for 7000 new units In a 10 -- 16 year period. The impact of these new housing units places a significant dem(3nd upon the resources of the Police Department. We belleve that currently are at a level where we are barely able tom hengt`tha calls for service,and that these addltlonal pra�ects w_-III InSrease the calls for service to a level where we will not el able to respond in a timely manner. Accordingly, this project when taken in consideration with the other units under construction or planned create a significant impact upon the resources of the police Department. L all '�5jlr Lan cdci CEk�r9 7 Posr Office Box 1830 • Palm Springs, California 92263-1830 Page 1 of 1 Gc 26 04 0n S5p Jam Saiih �s+trar�cru aa:ay h, 37a-175f hJs-IL: t. DESERT C P7,➢ k�rfiwnw WATER E3'1. 7:m• kT.7vuiD,4,ntA A>Mfkt G.F' 'rt ,hshwh^ 4{%L•1'GerF:A�'.133S+,E` iGFx3, sA N;BY 16 M 's cgx US DIVISION t+n.rwxzrs3 P-IM 4P�P,Cokmia-xan R$' NmeanfYnirnl la Ad'�f�k4ePita�Sx-.aPa r9(�F.at AY},pxt�6d'4f.PJla�4'Fp 63iT4.�.FhF'.� ' II}.uiett WabrA;�tt7c�ha�tl4itaEdt�aY:N,RYa['eYm�+Gu'Kuram+,�doG�eea lbe Poflenlieg=r ,,�pa_ �CI�tS `� �tLFe�«rcb,af�azupPli[pa€tbc]F45�i-g-xck;aarrPleS�i�a�sreierar v,netr� •si` �^�^L'1t1RY"-�`Ras.m�,fw`YnFi kJLjt'k'7m L\'Ci1f�R.T4d6ti:W�tTj731F}}j ' �v dVk,Ak,i.Tila�aie�4es,.N[#t�ucle�M'P.'lxP.Ii71.�ika15PP 95melaa ��` 7F•,."•�4tM�#iq Faa+nwln sma�xhwe,xi�aa a111,angE3[>.'tt1lt,SeR i'�7�t�V'[3c,�kraLa:r3?ia�cifetl gc�g%g EJS;� ' ��'� 6�lA�i[ns�miPua+h�Rgsaa"�aSfF�xRnr3[rn FaYu�nsecuuiw4aG+r rt,ar7Stt16u76c y3trrtix7 e}'#wy;f�u,tc.t`vKJ3Nttc7t�wi'�tidslwhvve vs img-+�¢t+�i�sagwc�.udwvhrcoaF{y. �y . Aaa.mewefsad.c> ed�niy ikxrti� vKshe,vice>rtmeI+cu�N rc.r€tb rhserx MRARUrc xantlkt�a ya' tartxmk35e ^EU44eg2(m?kaNm.7r,x �R+.itsane.ot vaaaidc,.�+,6�a Rlw.nmxasai4,tls. N-04ty, D19$RTW'AT1�A �r �,Sayl l�paysrr, - AMA1jds httP://www.PspeoPle.com/iwages/partners/informU/mise/PSPDesertWati..r9nnni ;n, M . COMMITTEE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF LITTLE TUSCANY & CHINO CANYON NEIGHBORHOODS 440 West Chino Canyon Road, Pahn Springs, CA 92262-2906 Tel: (760) 416 1072 Fax: (760) 323 0880 e-mail: littletuscany�rc yahoo.com Mr. Jon Shoenberger, 11 Chairman of the Planning Commission October 28, 2004 City of Palm Springs, P.O. Box 2743 Palm. Springs, CA 92263 Re: Crescendo TTM 31766 Dear Mr. Shoenberger, We are writing to formally protest scheduling the Crescendo project for public hearing prior to close of the official comment period. Yesterday Mr. Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner for the above project, informed me that the Planning Commission will examine Crescendo in their Study Session on November 3 and formally review the project on November 10,that is before the period of review and comment officially ends and certainly well before the City has responded to written submissions. The residents most directly affected by Crescendo are spending a lot of time, money and effort in analyzing the Initial Study on Crescendo and plan to submit written submissions within the period of review and comment allotted. We therefore urge the Planning Commission to allow adequate time for staff to receive these submissions and consider them in their staff report so that the Planning Commission may, in turn, have adequate time to review them carefully before a public hearing. Yours sin rely, REC: EIVE. L John H. Goodrich 6CT 2 8 2004 on behalf of the Committee for the Preservation of Plpnniny u. cunmg Little Tuscany& Chino Canyon Neighborhoods — cc. The Mayor& City Council, Members of the Planning Commission,the City Attorney, Mr. Alex Meyerhoff, Ms.Kathryn Lottes OFpALM j,6 - ;� City of Palm Springs V to * Department of Planning and Zoning 9 * ryC060RATEV,A9 * 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs,California 92262 q �P RN Tel: (760)323-8245 • Fax:(760)322-8360 ' Web: www.d.palm-spdngs.ca.us �IFO October 26, 2004 Amy Minter Chatten-Brown &Associates 3250 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 300 `Santa Monica, CA90405 RE: Case No 5.0998; PD-294, TTM 31766 Crescendo Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Ms. Minter, Thank you for your correspondence regarding the aforementioned project. Please note that a letter dated October 18, 2004 and addressed top Jan Chatten-Brown was sent to your company stating that a ten day extension of time was granted. Therefore, the public comment period has been extended to November 10, 2004. With regard to your inquiry about additional missing information from the City files on the Crescendo project, the 1992 James Cornett Biological Study and Impact Analysis: Shadowrock Resort, and the Crescendo Air Quality Study, including the URBEMUS 2002 air quality modeling, are available in the project file and copies of each are enclosed. The 1984 James Cornet Ecological Consultants Biological Study and Impact Analysis referenced in the Initial Study is not available. However, a letter dated October 25, 2004 from James Cornett regarding the 1984 study is available in the file and a copy is also attached. Finally, please note that the reference in the proposed Crescendo Mitigated Negative Declaration, to the 1984 Biological study and Impact Analysis will be revised in the response to comments to reference the document as a matter of personal conversation between Paul DePalatis and James Cornett. Sincerely, Alex Meyerhoff Principal Planner _ I i pnct (lFFira Rnv '77G.2 • Poi.,, Cnrin nc r'�IiF",.«nip Q7')/2..7'7/2 SOUTHERN CALrORNIA bk�'Aj- October 25, 2004 Mr. Alex Meyerhoff Principal Planner ASSOCIATION of Department of Planning Services GOVERNMENTS City of Palm Springs Main Office 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way 818 West Seventh Street Palm Springs, CA 92262 12th Floor Los Angeles,California RE: SCAG Clearinghouse No. 120.040668 The Crescendo Protect 90017r3435 Dear Mr.-Meyerhoff.- t(213)236i8co Thank yea for submitting the Crescendo Project for review and comment. As f(za3)236-d8z5 areawide clearinghouse for regionally significant projects, SCAG reviews the consistency of local plans, projects and programs with regional plans. This www.scag.ca.gov activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization green:President:Coondlmamber Ron Roberts, pursuant to state and federal laws and regulations. Guidance provided by emecule•First Vice President:Supervisor Hank 9 nine,,iormialCounrv•Second ViceP,a,[dcar these reviews is intended to assist local agencies and project sponsors to take ayor Tan,°°°Ciro P°" mte"Go,"m,Have actions that contribute to the attainment of regional goals and policies. Perial Ciamy:Bank Kuiper,mpenal County Sh fields,Bawley as Angeles County:Yvonne BrAhwaile Budm, We have reviewed the Crescendo Project, and have determined that the °SA°gelas JimAldly-Zv nhc(trsBAvh.navy Project is not regionally significant per SCAG Intergovernmental Review aunl San AGabriel A1onheBon Besrh•Harry proposed a Co San ,Los •Paul -Ma,.Cemlos• (IGR) Criteria and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines ony Cardenas,Los Angeles •Margaret Clad;, mnesed.Gene Danleh, Paremaunt .Mike (Section 15206). Therefore, the proposed Project does not warrant comments at smenza,Palmdale-lady Dunlap,Inglewood• ae Gab.BW,tong Beach •EAn elese Los this time. Should there be a change in the scope of the proposed Project, we ngeles •Cudahy - Ismne,, Los Angeles •Frank urine,(udahV• lames Hahn, Los Angeles would appreciate the To -hreandlowpmn pp opportunity to review and comment at that time. Tom LaD°Kest Los Angeles Downey Ludlow,Los ngeles • Keith McCarthy,Downey•Llewellyn Men, Claremont - Cindy Miseikowskh Los A description of the proposed Project was published in SCAG's October 1-15, ngeles • Paul Nowolks, Term Lee • Pam 'Connor, Santa G ica •Alex Padilla, Los 2004 Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse Report for public for review and ngeles•Bernard Parks,Los Angeles•Ian Perry, s Angeles•Restrict Pro°,Pico Rivera• Ed comment. yes,Los Angeles•Grcig 5mllh,to,Angeles• nck Slantard,Amsa-Tom Sykes,Walnut•Paul Ibol,Alhambra•Srdneyiyler,Pasadena•Toma yet Dranga,`°ng B each •Anlonlo Villamigoaa• The project title and SCAG Clearinghouse number should be used in all sAngeles•Oennis Washburn,Calabasas•lack eas, us Las Angeles-Bob y° ailan,Glendale• correspondence with SCAG concerning this Project. Correspondence should be ,oil ane,Las Angeles range County:Chris Nerdy,Orange County • sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator. If you have any questions, o°n`' eyll,oltin • Art ito"' °°""a "ark' lease contact me at(213)236-1867. Thank you. ,hard Chaves, Anaheim Duero Cook, p nlingtan Beach - Cathryn Gaynor, Laguna East•Richard Wrim,Lake Forest•Alt,Duke,Ln Imo • Bev Perry, Brea • Marilyn Poe, Los .miles•Tod Ridgeway,Newport Beach Sincerey, verside County: Ma Yon ASHeg F....side uany•Thomas Barkley.Lake Elsinore•Bonnex1r l , WalkMoreno Valley Ron Loyeridge, / veslde Greg Pella, Cathedral City• Ron rberls,iemerula �/�•� n rd Bernardino county: Pam Race San EY SMITH, AICP rnaBern County Bill Alexander, Ranrho nomonge -Edward German,town DIApple yA T., a Jay-LawrenceDnle,Barsto,.LeaAnnearpi, Senior Re Iona' Planner anevelmce•Su-Debsan mal,Robertson,Nalna. Intergovernmental Review OCT 8YOOb ry OTro so-fthra Su•nebomh Robertson,andin utum County:Judy Mikels,Ventura County- en Bel,sce,Simi Valley,•Carl Moreham, San mnavenlura'Tall Young,Port Hueneme planning 8s Zoning rage County Transportation Authority: axles Smith,on"'County erslde County Transportation Commission: bin Lowe.Hemet ntura Connty Tonsportalion Comml,,ba:Bill rv,5,Simi Valley R• CbDePalatis Associates PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES October 26, 2004 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES Ms. Kathryn Lottes Director of Planning Services 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 - Re: Crescendo MIND-Cornett Biological Report References Dear Ms. Lottes: Sectibn 5 of the Crescendo Mitigated Negative Declaration contains a list of resources which are relevant to the preparation of the MND. Reference number 23 is entitled, "James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants (1984) Biological Study and Impact Analysis: Heinrich 160-Acre Chino Cone Project. City of Palm Springs" This document was referenced in a September 12, 2004 telephone conversation I had with Mr. Cornett, who prepared the 2003 biological assessment for the Crescendo project site. The Heinrich reference (along with reference number 24, Shadowrock Biological Report), were added to reflect Mr. Cornett's history of biological assessments in the vicinity of the project site -and, more specifically, on the Chino Cone itself. Neither document contains any reference to the project site, however, Mr. Cornett' s conclusions from other biological assessments are consistent with those he draws for the Crescendo project. I As we discussed, the Shadowrock 'Biological report is available for public review, however, the Heinrich report is dated and copies can no longer be located. Therefore, a letter from Mr. Cornett is attached regarding his participation in this project. Further, the reference in the MIND will be - revised in the "response to comments" to reference the document as a matter of personal conversation with Mr. Cornett as described in the attached letter. I Sincerely, Paul DePalatis, AICP I II i II 73-255 el paseo drive palm desert,'California 92260 pain@jlcover.com .. 760.834.5574 cel . 760.340-0128 ph . 760,340-0089 faX i i 1AMES W. CORNETT ECOLOGICAL CONSULTANTS (760) 320-8135 FAX (760) 320-6182 Ms. Kathryn Lottes October 25,2004 Director of Planning Services 3200 Taltquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs,California 92262 Dear Ms. Lottes: In the early 1980s I conducted two extensive biological surveys on portions of the Chino Cone- The first was the Shadowrock Project for which I conducted a number of surveys beginning in 1982 and ending in the early 1990s. I have forwarded to the City a copy of the report that I found in my files. The second was one completed for Katrina Heinrich north and west of the existing visitor's center on Tramway Road. I believe it was completed in the mid 1980s. My recollection was that the study covered approximately 160 acres.A copy of that report was given to Ms. Heinrich and the City of Palm Springs, I have no record of it remaining in my files, More recently two additional studies were completed this year for Century Vintage Homes and involved parcels on Chino Cone. Those reports are in their possession and I am not sure of the dispositions of the reports. In each of the above cases we failed to find special status species within one mile of either of the two Wessman Chino Cone properties for which we have completed biological studies.More specifically,however,it was the Shadowrock and Heinrich studies that supported our conclusion that the desert tortoise and other special status species did not occur on the Wessman properties- The reports we complete arc the property of our clients and the agencies that receive the reports. Once they have received our reports it is in their best interest to protect the infomaation they have requested or contracted to receive, Nonethcless we keep hard copies of our reports in our file s for siar years carless a client or agency requests that we keep hard copies for a longer period. Tire six yeaz period reflects the five-year longevity of the report as dictated by lead plamLilag agencies,Reports wore than five years old have been considered invalid by lead planning agency with which we have dealk After six years we keep the reports in computer files for an additional four years. After ten years reports are kept if we continue to be retained by a client or if we believe the information will be helpful to us in working on future projects. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have additional questions. ly, 'Y James W.Comett P,0- BOX 846 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263 EMAIL rWCORNEITQAOL.COM 40 PALM6p�' N City of Palm Springs * * Department of Planning and Zoning *C�00"PRORgTE014���* 3200 E.Ta6quitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 4t1KORN� Tel: (760) 323-5245 • Eax: (760)322-8360 • Web:www.ci.palm-springs.cams October 19, 2004 Jan Chatten-Brown 3250 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 300 Santa Monica, California 90405 Re: Crescendo project Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Ms. Chatten-Brown: The City of Palm Springs is in receipt of your letter dated October 13, 2004, requesting an extension of time for the Mitigated Negative Declaration comment period. The City will grant you the ten-day extension. Accordingly, the comment period will be extended to November 10, 2004. Although there has been some confusion with regard to providing requested documents, the Crescendo project files are available for public review. Should you desire to have all or any portion of these files copied, you can arrange for a bonded copy service c pick up the files from the Planning Services front counter. Please contact Alex Meyerhoff at (760) 323-8760 in advance so that the files can be released to the bonded copy service. Furthermore, we are in the process of assessing whether there are any missing documents for the Mitigated Negative Declaration as alleged in your letter. If any are missing we will contact you as soon as we obtain them. If you have any questions or require further information please contact Sunny K. Soltani, Esq,from the City Attorneys office at (949)223-1170. Sincerely, Kathryn Lottes Director of Planning Services cc: Mayor and City Council Members David Ready, City Manager David J.Aleshire,Aleshire&Wynder Surety Soltani, Aleshire & Wynder Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 CHATTEN-BROWN& ASSOCIATES TELEPHONE:(310)314-8040 3250 OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD E-mail: SUITE 300 FACSIMILE: (310)314-8050 AMR l: SANTA momcA,CALIFORNIA 90405 CEAEARTHLAw.CoM October 15, 2004 By Facsimile Original to follow in U.S. Mail Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Palm Springs 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 David H. Ready City Manager City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Addendum to October 13, 2004 Request for Extension of Time of Comment Period on Crescendo Mitigated Negative Declaration Dear Mayor, Councilmembers and Mr. Ready: On behalf of the Friends of the Palm Springs Mountains, we write this addendum to our letter dated October 13, 2004, which requested a ten day extension of the comment period on the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") on the Crescendo project because critical documents are not available from the City files, and the City has not complied with Public Records-Act and California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requests related to the project. In addition to the reasons we previously cited for the need for an extension of the comment period on the Crescendo project, we have found that there are additional critical documents missing from the City files relating to this project. The air quality study referenced in the MND refers to an appendix (the URBEMUS 2002 air quality modeling), which is also referenced in Table III and IV of the air quality study. However, the appendix is not attached to the air quality study. As of this date, our client contact has been unable to gain access to the file to determine if the modeling is even part of the public record for the Crescendo project, as it is required to be. R E i V E L) OCT � 5 200� Planning a ioninq Mayor and City Council City of Palm Springs October 15, 2004 Page 2 of 2 This is again a clear and serious violation of the Public Records Act and CEQA notice provision. We have retained an air quality expert to review the adequacy of the MND for this project and this expert will be unable to review and comment upon the project without the missing document: Further, on October 15, 2004 our client examined the City's files once again to find the missing reports detailed in our October 13, 2004 letter_ This time additional correspondence documents and the CW. Poss, Inc. letter to Michael Braun of Wessman Development Company summarizing proposed grading and crushing option were made available. However, both the James Cornett Ecological Consultants 1984 Biological Study and Impact Analysis: Shadowrock Resort and the James Cornett 1992 Biological Study and Impact Analysis: Shadowrock Resort were still missing. We therefore urge you once again to extend the comment period on the Crescendo project to November 10, 2004, and promptly notify us of that extension. We also ask you to direct your staff to make certain the file for the Crescendo project is complete, and direct them to promptly comply with all Public Records Act and CEQA notice requests we made in our letter of September 23, 2004. .Finally, please ask City staff to promptly contact us to advise us of the continuance. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Sin y, �"A�'nteer cc: Patricia A. Sanders Katluyn Lottes Friends of Palm Springs Mountains F\Crescendo-PSM\ConWinals\oddcndum to letter re can0nance FINAL doo 9 W,4RREN D.WILLIAMS o�dTr P o 1995 MARKET STREET General Manager-Chief Engineer 5�°�' ��n RIVERSIDE, CA 92501 'q 951.955.1200 r 951.788.9965 FAX ���Ns£RVAT ION°,S4 ' RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT October 13, 2004 Mr. Alex Meyerhoff Principal Planner City of Palm Springs Department ofPlamung Services Post Office Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 Dear Mr. Meyerhoff: Re: Notice of Availability of an Initial Study and.Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for "Crescendo" TTM 31766 This letter is written in response to the Notice of Availability of an Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for "Crescendo" (TTM 31766). The proposed project involves the development of an approximately 42-acre project site consisting of residential lots, retention basins, and interior private streets. The project is located in the city of Palm Springs, Riverside County, California. It is bounded by Racquet Club Road to the south, Vista Grande Avenue to the east, Tram Way and vacant land to the north and vacant land on the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indian Reservation to the west. The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) has the following comments/concerns that should be addressed in the IS/MND: 1. Page 3 of the iS/MND states "a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and storm water pollution prevention plan will.be required from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) for grading and construction in areas greater than five acres." Please be advised that the threshold for the Construction Activity General Permit has been lowered from five acres to one acre. Copies of the Construction Activity General Permit and Fact Sheet may be obtained from the SWRCB website(www.swrcb.ca.govl. 2. Mitigation measure PD 8-1 states that a portion of Master Storm Drain Line 2 will be constructed as part of the project. Please be advised that the design and construction of this portion of the Palm Springs Master Drainage Plan Line 2 should be coordinated with the District. For further information regarding this matter, please contact Kent Allen of the District's Plan Check Section at 951.955.8215. OCT 1 2004 Planning &Zonincr Mr. Alex Meyerhoff -2- October 13, 2004 Re: Notice of Availability of an Initial Study And Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for "Crescendo' TTM 31766 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Availability of an Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Please forward any subsequent environmental documents regarding the project to my attention at this office. Any further questions concerning this letter may be referred to Jason Swenson at 951.955.8082 or me at 951.955,1233. Very truly yours, TERESA TUNG Senior Civil Engineer c: TLMA Attn: Greg Neal Kent Allen JS:mcv PC\90841 y CHATTEN-BROWN& ASSOCIATES TELEPHONE:(310)314-8040 3250 OCEAN PARK 13OULFVARD 300 E-mail: FACSIMILE: (310)314-8050 SUITE 7CB®CBABARTHLAW.COM SANTA MONICA,CALIFORNIA 90405 October 13, 2004 By Facsimile Original to follow in U.S. Mail Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 David H. Ready City Manager City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Request for Extension of Time of Comment Period on Crescendo Mitigated Negative Declaration; Incomplete City Files; Violations.of Public Records Act and Notice Provisions of California Environmental Quality Act Dear Mayor, Councilmembers and Mr. Ready: On behalf of the Friends of the Palm Springs Mountains, we write to request a ten day extension of the comment period on the Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") on the Crescendo project because critical documents are not available from the City files, and the City has not complied with Public Records Act and California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") requests related to the project. The comment period is now set to expire on October 30, 2004. Pursuant to California Public Records Act(Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) and the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines (Public Resources Code sections 21092.2 and 21092 (b)(3); and 14 California Code of Regulations 15087(a)), on September 23, 2004, I sent a letter to the City Clerk and Planning Director requesting.all applications, meeting notices, and environmental documents relating to the Crescendo project, and a number of others. As of this date, we have received none of the requested documents. This is a clear and serious violation of the Public Records Act and CEQA notice provision. R E C E 6 Planning ?A 4oning Mayor and City Council City of Palm Springs October,13, 2004 Page 2 of 2 the Public Records Act and CEQA notice provision. Although our client obtained and provided us with a copy of the MND on the Crescendo project, they only secured copies of documents that are referenced in and relied upon in the MND yesterday. When they examined the City files, they discovered three critical documents were missing: • CW. Poss, Inc. Letter to Michael Braun, Wessman Development Cc summarizing proposed grading and crushing option. • James Cornett Ecological Consultants 1984 Biological Study and Impact Analysis: Shadowrock Resort. • James Cornett 1992 Biological Study and Impact Analysis: Shadowrock Resort. We must have these documents well in advance of the close of the comment period in order to complete our review. Our initial review of the MND leads us to believe that there is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that there may be a significant adverse impact from the Crescendo project in a number of areas, including biological, air, noise, traffic and geologic. We have retained experts to review the MND and address those issues. The failure of the City to provide us with all requested documents when they became available, and the continuing failure to properly maintain City files, is prejudicing our right to review and comment on the MND. We urge you to extend the comment period on the Crescendo project to November 10, 2004, and promptly notify us of that extension. We also ask you to direct your staff to promptly comply with all Public Records Act and CEQA notice requests we made in our letter of September 23, 2004, a copy of which is attached for your convenience. This is a serious matter, and we trust that you will promptly correct the City's failures. Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Jan Chatten-Brown �— cc: Patricia A. Sanders Kathryn Lottes Friends of Palm Springs Mountains F\Crescndo-PSM\CoirVina[AL. Ac Continuance CMMm l Pcnod and PM and CEQA violmlons FMAL doc OJ�CAL �� AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS to TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE 650 E. TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY Q PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262 (760) 883-1313 CAHl1��' FAX (760)325-6952 October 6, 2004 Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner Department of Planning Services City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 Re: Proposed "Crescendo' Development, Mitigated Negative Declaration, Palm Springs, Riverside County, California Mr. Meyerhoff, The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians appreciates your efforts to include the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in your project. The THPO has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration document identified above and notes the mitigation measures for cultural resources on pages 62-65. With implementation of these measures, we are satisfied that these criteria meet established Tribal policies. Again, the Agua Caliente Tribe appreciates your interest in Tribal cultural heritage. If you have questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at 1 (760) 883-1313 or at e.mail jnixonPa.guacaliente.net. (`"�ordial•Iy, p_ _p Joseph U-Mixon, Ph. D., RPA Cultural Resources Coordinator AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS JMN C: Agua Caliente Tribal Council Tom Davis, Chief Planning Officer Agua Caliente Cultural Register O T z z 200 Planning a Zoning P:\THPO\corresporidence\20041external proj\trad use area\ps_crescendo_10 6_04.doc 4 October 6, 2004 MISSION SPRINGS WATER DISTRICT City of Palm Springs Department of Planning and Zoning PROVIDING, PROTECTING, AND PRESERVING 3200 E. Tahquitz Way OUR MOST VALUABLE RESOURCE—WATER Palm Springs, CA 92262 BOARD OF DIRECTORS DOROTHY W. GLASS Subject: Tentative Tract Map 31766, the Crescendo Project PRESIDENT MARY M GIBSON The Mission Springs Water District has received your memorandum VICE PRESIDENT dated September 30, 2004, regarding the CEQA process for the above MACH VILLEJB JACK WEBB referenced project. The District has determined that this project is NANCY S WRIGHT outside of its jurisdictional boundaries and therefore has no comments OFFICERS regarding it. REFUEL(JOG)BOCANEGRA GENERAL MANAGER The District would like to thank you for the courtesy and consideration BARBARA J. CARR you have shown us by this notification and look forward to working with DISTRICT SECRETARY the City on projects within our boundaries in the future. 4Garockman, Director of Operations & Maintenance yeC � VL OCi 2004 t'fanrgtn� �{��rr,rJli AN "WATER,THE JEWEL OF THE DESERT, TREASURE IT." ARllate Mombor Since 1997 66575 SECOND STREET• DESERT HOT SPRINGS • CALIFORNIA 92240-3711 TEL 760-329-6448 • Fax 760-329-2482 E1;1-:n1•�i;C Sep 2 [u 04 07:56F john goodrich 760 416 1072 F. 1 ('O1\I1\1FPTF17 F012 TIIF 1`1217SEI2V ATION OF LITTLE TIT'-WANY el. (''IIINO ('ANYON NEI(.II13OIM100llS 440 West Chino Canyon Road,Palm Sprin N,,-, CA 92262-2906 Tel: (760) 416 1072 Fax: (760) 323 0880 e-mail: littletoscanv@yahoo.com Alex P. Meyethoff Principal Planner Department of Planning and Zoning September 28, 2004 City Of Palm Springs P.O. Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Dear Alex The Boulders TTM 31095 This is a formal request for a copy of the draft EA referred to in Marcus Fuller's memo dated June 7, 2004. This memo, currently in the Wessman files and part of the public record, is clearly incomprehensible without the draft EA to which it refers. The Initial Studies dated January 30, 2003 and the Responses to those Initial Studies (undated) can both be found in the Wessman Files you have made available to me on many occasions. Neither of them show any indication of having been signed off by anyone in the Planning Department, which was the basis of your refusal yesterday morning to provide me with a copy of the latest draft EA. Furthermore, it is clear that these preliminary drafts are retained in the normal course of business and that there is no public interest in withholding the document to out weigh the (evident) public interest in disclosure. Our concern, as residents, is to be as fully informed as possible of a project,which, if approved,will have a dramatic and arguably negative effect on our quality of life. We therefore request that a copy of the document be made available to us at your earliest convenience. Thank you, as ever, for your understanding and co-operation. Yours s' cerely, John H. Goodrich on behalf of t Committee for eservation of Little Tuscany&Chino Canyon Neighborhoods cc. City Attorney byl 2d/1bb4 1/:Yl dl Y1d14tibSb CHF11 ItN-f3KUWN2LRSSUGI YF3�t tl2/F7d CRAITEN-13ROWN& ASSOCIA is T'ZL,EPSONE:(310)314-804D 32500C$ANPAPKBOUL$VAp FACSIMILE: (310)314.8050 SUYM 300 Ere°m1' SANIA MONICA,CALIPORMA 9o4o5 3C.BQa CBAEARTR1 AW.COM www.cba---- a r[blaw.com September 23, 2004 By Facsimile Original to follow in U.S. Mail Patricia A. Sanders City Clerk City of Pahn Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Kathryn Lottes Director of Planning Services City of Palm springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Request for Notification of Applications, Meeting Notices, and Environmental Documents Relating to Projects in Area Described by the City as the Chino Cone Area Dear Ms. Sanders and Ms.Loies: On behalf of Pahn Springs Modern Committee and Friends of Palm Springs Mountains, and pursuant to the California Public Records Act(Crovernment Code Section 6250 et seq.)and the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA I) and the CEQA. Guidelines(Public Resources Eode sections 21092.2 and 21092(b)(3); and 14 California Code of Regulations 15087(a) ,we request notice of all applications,meeting notices, and environmental documents relating to projects in the area described by the City as the Chino Cone area, including, but not limited to the following projects: • The Crescendo ('TTM 31766 5.0996-PD-294); • The Boulders(5,0973-PD-287 TTM 31095); • ShadowRock(5.0609-PD-224); • and any Century domes project proposed for the area. V7y/ltl/zee4 1/:Yl 31tl314N050 CHATTEN-BROWN&ASSOCI PAGE 03/03 Patricia A. Sander;Katie Lottes September 23, 2004 Page 2 of 2 These notices should be sent to the following persons; 1• Jan Chatten-Brown, at the above address 2. Palm Springs Modem Committee (PS Modcom) PO Box 4738 Palm Springs, CA 92263 I Friends of Pahn Springs Mountains PO Box 3172 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Tbank YOU for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. Jan Chatten-Brown Coll Palm. Springs Modem Committee Friends of Pahn Springs Mountains F:1fYdm$pR,lbt IGvmmnslCmWivvL•Ulmlp,�vgipypQ{N„�v UHA11LN—bKUWN&ASSOCI PAGE 02/03 TELBP140NE:(310)314.9040 CIIATTW-13ROwN&AssomAm FACSIMILE: (310)314-8050 3250 OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD a-Mfl:jcl C@ SUITE 300 csasnann nw.cgM SANTA MONICA,CALIFORNIA 90405 September 17,2004 By Facsimile Original to follow in U.S. Mail Patricia A. Sanders City Clerk City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Doug 'Evans Director of Strategic Planning City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm. Springs, CA 92262 Re: Public Records Act Request Tear Ms. Sanders and Mr. Evans: On behalf of Palm Springs Modern Committee and Friends of Palm Springs Mountains, and pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government Code Section 6250 et seq.,we request that copies of the following documents promptly be sent to us: 1. Any document reflecting the granting of an extension or extensions of the Development Agreement(Ordinance number 1460) entered into between the City and SHADOWROCK Ventures on November 17, 1993. 2. All documents contained within the City filed on the following two developments: a. The Crescendo Project(TTM 31766 5.0996-PD-294) b. The Boulders Project(5.0973-PD-287 TTM 31095) We are addressing this letter to both of you because of uncertainty about who may have custody of the requested documents. If a check is required in advance of mailing, please call Elizabeth Diaz at(310) 314-8040 so that we can expedite receipt of these documents, pp/ 11l ZOV4 lo:di e.tndtgye50 CHATTEN-BROWNEASSOCI PAGE 03/03 Patricia A. Sanders Doug Evans September 17,2004 Page 2 of 2 Thank you for your anticipated cooperation in this matter, Sincerely, Jan Chatten�Brovvn Cc: Palm Springs Modem Committee (PS Modcom) Friends of Palm Springs Mountains FAP51m 5prin;s Maunleins\CorhFimis\PM_rapxst_l.a.doc COMMITTEE FOR THE PRESERVATION OF LITTLE TUSCANY & CHINO CANYON NEIGHBORHOODS 440 West Chino Canyon Road, Palm Springs, CA 92262-2906 Tel: (760) 416 1072 Fax: (760) 323 0880 (/ �`(f tit e-mail: littletuscangyahoo corn (6/ Alex P. Meyerhoff 0/ �IPrincipal Planner �� i Department of Planning and Zoning August 12, 2004 // City Of Palm Springs t P.O. Box 2743 %-, Palm Springs, CA 92263 CERTIFIED MAIL I1'710 Dear Alex, Crescendo This letter is a formal request that the Planning Department inform all those residents on the attached list of any future developments regarding 5.0966-PD-294 TTM 31766. The Committee is concerned that certain characteristics of the Crescendo project—notably mass grading and staired platforms cut into the open desert hillside—may serve as a precedent for similar features currently incorporated in The Boulders (TTM 31095). The Committee has been on record since the Planning Commission Study Group of September 3, 2003 that the Committee is not opposed to growth on principle. We are, however, strongly opposed to certain elements of these two designs by the Wessman Development Company. Some of these concerns are apparently also shared by the Planning Department (see paragraph 2 of your letter dated November 14, 2003 to John Wessman). It is the intention of the Committee to work within the existing framework and procedures established by the City to permit neighborhood input into the initial planning process and it is with this object in view that we request the extension of the current mailing list covering Crescendo. Yours si cerely, John H. Good ' R E C E I V E D on be of the Committee for the Preservation of AUG 7 2��L Little Tuscany & Chino Canyon Neighborhoods pjammq t.i_o'II Q I V CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE AGENDA Large Conference Room -- City Hall,.3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Monday, July 26, 2004 SPECIAL A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER - 5:00 p.m. REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA - Agenda available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board(west side of Council Chambers)and the Planning Division counter by noon Thursday,July 22,2004 PUBLIC COMMENTS -Three(3)minute time limit per person on matters within the jurisdiction of the Design Review Committee and comments are limited to the matters outlined on the agenda for this meeting. It is the intention of the City of Palm Springs to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA)in all respects. If,as an attendee or a participant at this meeting, you will need special assistance beyond what is normally provided, the City will attempt to accommodate you in every reasonable manner. Please contact Phil Kaplan,760-323-8219 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting to inform us of your particular needs and to determine if accommodation is feasible. Please advise us at that time if you will need accommodations to attend or participate in meetings on a regular basis. The telephone number for the hearing impaired(Too#)is 760-864-952T If any individual or group challenges the action in court,issues raised maybe limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at,or prior to, the Planning Commission meeting_ ACTION ITEMS - Time CASE # IDESCRIPTION 5:00- 5.0966-PD- Aa application by Wessman Development for the Crescendo project including a 5:30 294, TM tentative tract map and preliminary planned development district for the subdivision 31766 of 42.2 acres into 85 single family lots for the future construction of single family residences on Assessors Parcel Number (APM) # 504-040-046, located south of Tramway Road, west of Vista Grand Avenue and north of Racquet Club Road, Zone R-1-A, Section 3. (AM) , Plus all items listed on the July 28, 2004 Planning Commission Agenda Idm/DRC Agenda,Monday,Jdy 2%2004 7/26104 PLANNING DEPARTMENT CRESCENDO DESIGN REVIEW MEETING COMMENTS: Frank J. Gaydos Director, Palm Springs Mountain Conservancy Board of Advisors, Chino Canyon Neighborhood Organization Member, Palm Springs General Plan Update Steering Committee 998 W Via Livorno Palm Springs, CA 92262 Phone: 760 416-7748 Email: frank*gavdos(&yahoo.com Design Review committee: I would like to share the Vision Statement from the General Plan Update Steering Committee (see attached). Recently the Desert Sun ran a series of"What's your vision for the City of Palm Springs." I would like to read two excerpts (see attached) that were the theme of dozens of submittals. The caretakers, stewards of this community with the exception of councilwoman Ginny Foats have demonstrated by their actions that they do not support the vision or the will of the people. The Mountain Preservation Initiative is supported by thousands of Palm Springs citizens. Scores of volunteers in their 60's, 70's and 80's have stood in the scorching heat for hours in front of stores and supermarkets to collect signatures for the this initiative. We will not discuss or support any project that is planned for large tract or commercial development on the Palm Springs Mountainsides. Our vision is clear and our resolve is unswerving. Tea , o c - General plan Update Steering Committee Drat Vision and Value Statements — March 25, 2004 (reviser!; Draft Vision Statement "Palm Springs is a world class desert resort community that aspires to provide a high quality of life for its residents and visitors, to balance its coveted natural, cultural, and historic resources with sustainable economic growth and to maintain its beauty, openness, and opportunities to enjoy nature." Draft Value Statements Palm Springs will become a World Class desert Palm Springs aspires to balance its coveted resort community b natural, cultural, and historic resources with y y sustainable economic growth by: ➢ Celebrating diversity within our community ➢ Increasing our options for recreational and cultural ➢ Promoting our airport as an asset activities ➢ Encouraging development that will increase/ ➢ Encouraging mixed-use residential/business/ enhance our reputation as a world class commercial properties in the downtown area destination resort ➢ Establishing and maintaining ordinances that are ➢ Maintaining/improving our infrastructure both resident and business friendly ➢ Promoting a wide spectrum of housing ➢ Taking a leadership role in energy and water opportunities conservation (management) ➢ Encouraging a wide variety of employment ➢ Delivering city services in a timely and efficient opportunities manner ➢ Creating unforgettable shopping opportunities ➢ Providing a variety of transportation alternatives ➢ ➢ Facilitating adaptive re-uses of existing structures ➢ Creating irresistible settings for cultural and civic ➢ Maintaining a business friendly environment events ➢ Maintaining rural streetscapes ➢ Becoming a magnet for creative people ➢ Ensuring a safe community Palm Springs aspires to provide a high quality of Palm Springs aspires to maintain its beauty, life for residents and visitors by: openness,and opportunities to enjoy nature by: ➢ Ensuring that new developments are compatible ➢ Recognizing the value of open space as a land with surrounding neighborhoods use ➢ Being respectful of our historic resources ➢ Protecting public view corridors ➢ Encouraging a diverse economic base ➢ Ensuring access to nature/hillsides ➢ Protecting and preserving historic buildings and (pedestrian/bike)working with state and federal areas agencies ➢ Encouraging dialogue and healthy relations with ➢ Creating extraordinary city parks the Agua Caliente ➢ Having distinct streetscapes ➢ Attracting compatible new shopping/retail ➢ Encouraging the return to desert planting and ➢ Encouraging boutique hotels and businesses landscaping ➢ Empowering our leaders to use tools available to redevelop various areas of the city ➢ Encouraging a hospital/medical district ➢ Encouraging alternative health/spa development ➢ Ensuring a safe community ➢ Providing outstanding education opportunities (K- 12) ➢ Preserving a friendly, hometown atmosphere ➢ Encouraging community involvement James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants oil,il July 6,2004 Mr. Michael Braun Wessman Development Company 300 South Palm Canyon Drive Palm Springs, California 92262 Dear Mr. Braun: As indicated in our original biological report,the only special status plant species that could conceivably occur on your 42-acre, Section 3-Tramway Road site is the California Ditaxis (Ditaxis serrata var. californica). No individuals of this perennial were found dining the field surveys and it was concluded that it did not occur on site. No individuals or evidence of the Coachella Valley milk vetch were found during the field surveys. The milk vetch occurs only in areas of loose, windblown sand—a habitat not found or represented in any way on your project site. It was therefore concluded that the Coachella Valley milk vetch did not occur on, or even in the vicinity of,your project site. Should you have any questions concerning our report, or the conclusions contained therein, please do not hesitate to contact us. n erely, James W. Cornett jwe/tb P.O. Box 846 Palm Springs California 92263 Telephone (760) 320-8135; Fax (760) 320-6182 07/01/2004 12:29 FAX 760 323 1 PALM SPRINGS POLICE DEPI U 001 OF ?Arm Sp P') City of Palm Springs Police Deparunenc a rroraa�� 200 Sonde Civic Dnve• Vrvlm Spdug;Cali6,mia 92262 Cq�l�t�Ra�p TRi:4760)323-8116 •TDD(7603 e64-9527 Date: July 1, 2004 To: Paul DePalfls From: Cmdr- Ron Starrs Re: Crescendo Project I reviewed the proposal for 85 new homes to be constructed near the West end of Racquet Club Drive in the City of Palm Springs. This project is one of many that have come before the Police Department over the past year. Approximately 800 new housing units were constructed last year, and there are plans to construct 2500 new units in the next five years. Additionally, there are plans for 7000 new units in a 10— 15 year period. The impact of these new housing units places a significant demand upon the resources of the Police Department. We believe that currently are at a level where we are barely " able to handle the calls for service, and that these additional projects will increase the calls for service to a level where we will not be able to respond in a timely manner. Accordingly, this project when taken in consideration with the other units under construction or planned create a significant impact upon the resources of the Police Department. Post Office Box 1830 • Palm Springs, California 92263-1830 Chino Canyon Neighborhoods Organization I May 19, 2004 0 �A (J� MAY f 4 MR., Mr. David Ready '& }/��I� MAY . Z 0, 2QC'.,., City Manager / /�0 / p City of Palm Springs (� 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs CA 92262 f Dear David, I am writing to you today in my capacity as Corresponding Secretary for the Chino Canyon Neighborhoods Organization. Our organization represents all residents in the area bounded by Tramway Road to the North,Vista Chino to the South, Palm Canyon to the East, and the hillside above Palm Canyon to the West. Recently, a mishap with the public notification process at City Hall has resulted in a situation which the leadership of our organization considers to be most serious. The agenda for the May 12 Design Review Committee meeting was not entirely complete or accurate on the City's web site, resulting in our not being informed of the consideration for approval of the Crescendo Project witch would adjoin our neighborhood. While it may be true that the agenda was posted in its entirety on a City bulletin board,we have been relying on the web site for access to this information. Although I'm sure the omission was not intentional,the result is that members of the public were not aware that this significant project was to be considered that day, and missed the opportunity to participate. Apparently,the project was granted approval at this meeting. We consider this a serious problem, and request that any approval granted to this project be suspended until such time as a public hearing can be scheduled to allow for the legal and customary participation by the public. We also request that you please direct the City Clerk's office to notify the three co-chairs of our organization of any future meeting of any board, commission, study session or other meeting where the public is entitled to observe and/or participate regarding developments that may be under consideration in our area, including any potential development on the alluvial fan. We especially want to be appraised of any PDD, including developments with the Boulders project. The co-chairs are: Mallika Albert—760/322-7263 -mallika@do.rr.com -- Greg Day—760/323-8949-gregday@bdcsi.net John Campbell—(760)409-6906-john@team-z.com Please do not hesitate to contact any of us if you have questions regarding our concerns. Sincere y. a O'Bayley Corresponding Secretary cc:City Clerk, Mayor Oden r, May 16, 2004 Doug Evans Palms Springs Planning Department 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Dear Mr. Evans: RE: Crescendo Project I attended the informational meeting recently held in the large conference room at City Hall and would like the following comments recorded in the file of the Crescendo project. There are currently no housing tracts in the Chino Canyon neighborhood. The houses are custom built at different times in the history of Palm Springs on different sized lots with different orientations, landscaping and grading. There are no curbs and sidewalks. There is a grid system open to the main thoroughfare. Crescendo is antithetical to all of the above characteristics: mass grading of a virgin landscape, enforced terracing, massive fencing, gating,homogeneous architecture and landscaping and maximum lot coverage. The style "Tuscany" is the biggest clich6 in today's architectural world. This is not Tuscany, but Palm Springs, California. It is desert. Furthermore, Tuscany was not "planned"into existence,but evolved over centuries. There is no need for a planned development in this area. The Chino Canyon is popular because it is unplanned and has a very special architectural look, which is valued by residents who want to experience an original desert community. Crescendo is as maudlin and uninspired as Mountain Gate. Why not challenge developers to respect the surroundings they plan to grade out of existence? Sincerely, Sheryl Hamlin 565 West Santa Rosa Drive Palm Springs, CA. 92262 (760) 318-9344 SIMON A. HOUSMAN HAY 11 2004 ATTORNEY AT LAW - ' '` ,. Suite 207 Admitted to the Bar 69730 Highway 111 California Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 New York (760)328-7995 Fax: (760)324-8823 New Jersey May 11, 2004 Mr. Alex P. Meyerhoff Principal Planner Department of Planning & Zoning City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 Re: Crescendo Development Plan Tentative Tract No 31766 Dear Mr. Meyerhoff: It was a pleasure meeting with you at City Hall on April 22, 2004 regarding the above-referenced project. In addition to discussing the project with you, I also used the opportunity to discuss the project in detail with Mr. Wessman and members of his staff. The purpose of this letter is to set forth my concerns regarding this project. In addition to the specific items addressed below, I take issue with the foundational concept for the tentative tract. As Mr.Wessman explained,he anticipated the fair selling price of the homes in Crescendo Tentative Tract No. 31766 will be between $800,000 and $1,300,000 per unit. He compared this to the Boulders proiect farther south, which will be priced at $1,600,000 to $2,400,000 per limit. This perpetuates the gross injustice of urban renewal applied by the City of Palm Springs in the 1960s, assuming the north end of town is lower quality, lower value, and should be lower-priced. The subject tract is a hillside property offering unique views and a unique development opportunity. This is a chance for the City to develop a neighborhood sensitive to the terrain and the recreational use of Chino Canyon. It could be comparable to the old Las Palmas neighborhood. In 60 years, people should visit this neighborhood and marvel at the foresight of the planners. If this opportunity it squandered and planning is based on the lowest common denominator, we will end up with the lowest most common City. Turning now to specific points: Mr. Alex Meyerhoff May 11, 2004 Page 2 1. The Proposed Lot Size is Substandard and Illemal: As you noted, the lots are sized to be comparable to the lots facing Racquet Club from the south. The lots on Racquet Club are, by the way, the smallest lots in the existing Little Tuscany development which was planned back in the 1950s. There is a middle lot in each block facing onto the east-west Racquet Club Road. This is distinguished from the inner street lots which extend halfway through from each of the north-south roads. For argument, let us assume the average net lot size in the 1950's designed development is 18,000 square feet. On careful review, I find that only two of the 85 proposed lots have a net size above 18,000 square feet. Only 20 of the 85 lots have a gross square footage of 18,000 square feet. These lots are substandard, even measured by the 1950s development. In 2004, it is difficult to believe that planning and development standards of Palm Springs have declined since the 1950s. To the contrary, Palm Springs adopted a Zoning Ordinance in 1988 which has been updated from time to time. The Project Area is Zoned R-1-A. Minimum lot size is 20,000 sq.ft. P. S.Zoning Ord. 92.01.03. That refers to the net area excluding streets and steep hillside. "Any area of the site having a degree of slope of thirty(30)percent or more shall be excluded from the allowable area that may be allowed in computing total density. Such area shall be retained as open space." P.S. Zoning Ord. 93.13.00, et seq. The use of a planned development to circumvent the zoning ordinance is inappropriate in this case. Planned residential development districts may include a multiplicity of housing types,provided the density does not exceed the general plan requirements. "Housing density may be increased in conformance with state and local regulations if the district assists the city in meeting its housing goals asset forth in the housing element of the general plan." P.S.Zoning Ord. 94.03.00131. The General Plan requires a density of L-2,2 units per acre. Likewise,a PD exception and density bonus should not be allowed for this project because the City does not need assistance in meeting its housing goals for $800,000.00 homes. Historically, former Section 9201.01D8 allowed lot area and dimensions to be modified to allow cluster and row housing,provided the overall development equals the general quality of development in the zone. The proposed plan does not include any cluster or row housing. Rather, it is tract housing where the individual lots fail to meet the 20,000 square foot net required size. In fact, almost none of the lots are even 20,000 square foot in gross. This project has no common amenities,no pool,no clubhouse,no parking facility,no sports facility, Mr. Alex Meyerhoff May 11, 2004 Page 3 no walking trails. Adding curbs,gutters and gates is not a significant innovation for the highest and best use of the unique hillside area. 2. Gates are Inappropriate: The use of two gated entrances in this development is inappropriate because it is inconsistent with stu-romiding development,interferes with the recreational use of Chino Canyon,and is not necessary to overcome economic factors. The canyons to the south around Palm Springs are preserved for open space. Chino Canyon has historically been used for tourism and recreational activity by residents and visitors. There are footpaths and a dirt road on the hillside showing the existing recreational use. The gated and walled proposal would block recreational use or the flow of people through this development to the Tramway Road. You and I discussed the appropriateness of a parking area in the catch basins and pedestrian access from the cul-de-sacs on the north through the Tramway Road to preserve the recreational use. Combined with excluding the gates,that would be a minimum to preserve recreational access to Chino Canyon. Gates were used in the nearby Mountain Gate project to overcome 40 years of stagnation flowing from the negative impacts of urban renewal. The subject property offers unique views and an existing neighborhood with a thriving real estate market. The blunt instruments of gates and walls are not needed to break through a historic injustice or economic barrier. In this instance,they should not be permitted. 3. Internal Streets Connecting through the External Community: The existing project has bottlenecks at two entrances on Racquet Club. This raises a significant fire escape concern in an area which,as you said,will burn. It is only a question of when. The inclusion of two emergency access gates, each serving over 40 residences, is not sufficient. If the area is viewed on an aerial photograph,rather than the sharply-curtailed drawing of the tract, it is immediately apparent that West Cabrillo Road is intended as a local street-to continue into the subject parcel. Likewise, internal streets designed with more sensitivity to the terrain and less to a mechanical cubism,would allow the logical extension of West Cabrillo Road through the entire project. Easing the bottlenecks could also be accomplished by connecting more of the internal streets to Racquet Club Road at existing intersections. 4. Structure Designs: At the open house, I was able to view several attractive-looking elevations for single-family Mr. Alex Meyerhoff May 11, 2004 Page 4 residences. Although attractive in the abstract,they raise certain concerns when constructed on the subject property. Most glaring is violating the existing 18-foot height limit by the two-story models rising to 25 ft. P.S. Zoning Ord. 92.01.03 (6). The exception for P.S. Zoning Ord 94.06.01(A)(8) for slope and hillside areas would allow a"Minor Change"for building height to a maximum of 30 feet only if based on the finding that such minor modification will not have a detrimental effect upon adjacent properties. This is not a minor change and will be detrimental to adjacent properties as-the second stories rise into the sight lines over and over throughout the project. The proposed plan contemplates positioning the structures on the lots in disregard of the wind direction. Wind is a major factor in this neighborhood. Across the street from my home is a recently built$1.0 million dollar house where the wind swirls on the patio whenever it puffs. While at my home,which was designed with a sensitivity to the wind, you can sit in candlelight during a 35 mile per hour gale. Sound planning in this unique hillside should include houses designed and placed on the lot to provide outside areas shielded from the wind. 5. Noise and Collateral Damage of Construction: The proposed project involves moving large boulders and a stone crushing plant within a residential area. Based on my experience on the Airport Commission,there should be a noise study completed for the operation of an industrial stone crushing plant within a residential area. People should not awaken to the colossal crash of stone crushing beginning at 7:00 a.m. Industrial activity should be excluded within a residential area. Moving large stones with extremely heavy equipment should be restricted to hours no greater than 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday to Friday. The build-out of individual lots in the adjacent neighborhood has provided actual experience from vibrations of large boulders. The developer should be required to post a bond to repair structural and finish damage of the adjoining neighborhoods resulting from the vibrations. There is also a significant risk of landslide and flood with the disruption of the water course. This area is a wildlife habitat transition area.. Although this is not a sheep area,coyotes and smaller wildlife are common. The impact on their habitat should be investigated. An Environmental Impact Report is necessary because no large-scale residential development has been built on a hillside in Palm Springs in 50 years. 6. Conclusion: The Planning Department should reject this substandard Tentative Tract Map. If you plan to the lowest common denominator,you will get the lowest most common city. This is an opportunity to set the standard for the City housing units to be built north of Vista Chino Blvd. Mr. Alex Meyerhoff May 11, 2004 Page 5 Your courtesy and cooperation are greatly appreciated. Thank you, I N A. OUSMAN SAH:jlc cc: Chino Canyon Neighborhood Association 1 . �. L f �` E .D May 3, 2004 fOAY 1 .1 2004 Alex Meyerhoff, Principle Planner City of Palm Springs Planning Dept, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA. 92262 RE: Hillside Crescendo Development Dear Mr. Meyerhoff, We reject the proposed hillside Crescendo development tract housing project in order to raise more tax revenue for the city of Palm Springs. Any such proposed development will undermine our most important intake of revenue, which is. our tourism industry. Among other things, many tourists from all over the world come to experience the beautiful mountain views, and our open spaces unscarred by cookie- cutter development. The proposed Crescendo development would block our shared natural beauty, and will destroy the natural terrain so necessary to keep the hillside of the mountain scenically intact. The proposed anniliation of wild life and desert plants is truly horrific to imagine. We believe, if we lose our greatest attraction, the uncluttered scenery of the Palm Springs mountains, we will, mostly likely in the future, lose our tourist revenue as well.The City of Palm Springs should focus on encouraging tourism dollars to flow into our city to increase revenue, and not the developer who would deface our most imporant mountain attraction for personal gain. Our Convention Center has been poorly run and hopefully should be bringing in a greater amount of revenue for the City after the remodeling is completed. Please focus on what will bring in the greatest amount of revenue with the least amount of expense to the quality of life in Palm Springs. Even with all the new construction, there are plans floating in the works to decrease essential fire and police personnel in the City of Palm Springs. Sprawling unwanted tract housing on the hillsides+reduced public services=something doesn't add up in this equation. The proposed Crescendo development on Raquet Club Road is a huge mistake trying to happen. We do not want to increase residential and traffic congestion and the future need for electricity and water in our Chino Canyon neighborhood. This is a fragile place. We must protect our canyon ecosystem before it becomes even more polluted by the massive kinds of proposed development that does not belong on our mountain hillsides in the first place. During this type of construction heavy equipment is needed to be brought in, especially to crush boulders in our 'incredibily rocky terrain. There is a strong possibility the process of pounding will undermine nearby concrete homes and slabs, and crack our pools. Who will be held accountable for any such damage?? The noise decibels and dust will be an absolute nightmare. And with trucks coming and going all the time, they will have to take most of us away in straight jackets!! If these homes are constructed, they will perch approximately 35 feet in height from the ground level of existing homes. What will that do to our property values if these mega-structures loom over our residences? All of this does not sit well with long-time residents, the backbone of the community, in Palm Springs. We will support the Mountain Preservation Initiative, and hope when it comes time to do so, you will too! Respectfully, The Orlando Family 780 N. Girasol Court Palm Springs, CA. 92262 cc: Mayor & City Council April 22, 2004 Alex Meyerhoff, Principle Planner City of Palm Springs Planning Dept. 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA. 92262 ID RE: Proposed Crescendo Development APR 200'L vcpol r-1 Dear Mr. Meyerhoff, ?1aonll� My husband and I attended the open house on the proposed Crescendo Development this afternoon. As we live next to the land in question, we feel we have some insight on the environment here. We feel this particular development is truly unsuitable for Chino Canyon. Yes, the drawings of beautiful expensive dwellings can be seductive. But it all comes with great cost to the soul of Palm Springs. Please urge Mr. Wessman to focus his creativity and energy on the empty downtown mall. Chino Canyon is a place of wilderness. Packs of coyotes and their babies yip in the night. Very strong winds whip around the canyon much of the year. Fierce dust devils appear, some so powerful they have knocked down trees. It is a place of deep ravines, massive boulders, burrowing owls, racoons, rattlesnakes, road runners, hummingbirds, and many more inhabitants. I have heard stories from some of the "old- timers" about flooding, and great boulders coming to a halt in the street. The Cahuilla Indians left this canyon after tremendous flooding in the 19th century, never to return to their settlement. Who knows what cyclic havoc we have yet to experience here? It would be an environmental travesty to allow this developer to crush boulders, hack away the alliuval fan, and to deface our city's treasured mountainside with overdevelopment. Disturbing the subtle ecological balance between human and nature must not be tolerated our community. Furthermore, we were told by one of the developer's spokespersons at the open house that we would get used to the noise of this construction project. And like a constant earthquake to expect our house to vibrate from the crushing of the gigantic boulders for months and months. Our neighborhood is not a mining operation. What is the sense in this kind of environmental degradation? We want to protect the fragility of our mountainside as our village "commons." As Gary Snyder said "the commons is the contract a people make with their local natural system." Let it be known, we will fight for the wild desert and will work to get the Mountain Preservation Initiative on the ballot in November. Concerning the long term consequences of our actions in the present day, we have a responsibility to keep the edge places where humankind and wilderness touch, protected. Do we as a community want to step unto the downward spiral of an unsustainable path and lose our most precious resource. ... wild spaces, our panoramic vistas, and desert peacefulness? Do we really need more pollution in our valley? Besides, this place is not easy money for developers. The developer who built our home in 1991 went flat broke after he tangled with the massive rocks in Chino Canyon. What about the boulders bigger than cars under the earth's surface? Are these to be crushed as well? I know Western mind might not understand what a valuable resource these ancient rocks are. Our boulders, are like a virgin redwood forest. The Cahuilla people believe the rocks are their ancestors. They are our ancestors as well. On a personal note, our property's value and our quality of life will be drastically altered as the proposed construction will go on for years. We did not move here four years ago for shopping (there is none). We moved here to be close to the wilderness, the dark starry nights, and the quiet. Yet what truly agonizes us is imagining what could happen to the desert's ecosystem if Mr. Wessman manifests his will here without consideration for the irreversible losses he would inflict on our community's natural gifts to the future. With respect, Chet Si eref ennis Marchese 755 N. Girasol Court Palm Springs, CA. 92262 cc: Mayor & City Council CITY OF PALM SPRINGS OFFICE OF NEIGHBORHOOD INVOLVEMENT AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION OPEN HOUSE THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2004 at 4:00 P.M. CITY HALL, 3200 E. TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY LARGE CONFERENCE ROOM PALM SPRINGS, CA You are invited to attend an Office of Neighborhood Involvement and Public Participation . meeting to review plans and exhibits for the following project: Case 5.0996-PD-294 and Tentative Tract Map 31766—A proposal by Wessman Development for Crescendo, a planned development district and tentative tract map for the subdivision of 42.2 acres into 85 single-family lots at the northwest corner of Vista Grande Avenue and West Racquet Club Road, Zone R1A, Section 3. Project applicants and City staff will be present to answer questions, listen to residents' comments, and review plans and exhibits. If you have any questions regarding the meeting, please contact Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, at (760) 323-8245.