Item 23.
Gabriel Perez, Development Services Director
City of Coachella
March 11, 2024
CDFW’s comments and recommendations on the MND are explained in greater detail below and summarized here. CDFW is concerned that the MND does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, impacts to biological resources. CDFW also concludes that the MND lacks sufficient information to facilitate a meaningful review by CDFW, including a complete and accurate assessment of biological resources on the Project site and an incomplete Project description. CDFW requests that additional information and analyses be added to a revised MND, along with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant.
Project Description
Compliance with CEQA is predicated on a complete and accurate description of the proposed Project. Without a complete and accurate Project description, the MND likely provides an incomplete assessment of Project-related impacts to biological resources.
CDFW has identified gaps in information related to the Project description.
The MND lacks an adequate discussion of plans for artificial nighttime lighting. CDFW requests that the MND is revised to include design plans for artificial nighttime lighting and lighting specifications. Artificial nighttime lighting can negatively impact biological resources in a variety of ways as discussed in the Artificial Nighttime Lighting section below. To conduct a meaningful review and provide biological expertise on how to protect biological resources, CDFW requires a complete and accurate Project description.
Existing Environmental Setting
Compliance with CEQA is predicated on a complete and accurate description of the environmental setting that may be affected by the proposed Project. CDFW is concerned that the assessment of the existing environmental setting has not been adequately analyzed in the MND. CDFW is concerned that without a complete and accurate description of the existing environmental setting, the MND may provide an incomplete analysis of Project-related environmental impacts.
The MND lacks a complete assessment of biological resources within the Project site and surrounding area specifically as it relates to burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). A complete and accurate assessment of the environmental setting and Project-related impacts to burrowing owl is needed to both identify appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures and demonstrate that these measures reduce Project impacts to less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
CEQA requires that an MND include mitigation measures to avoid or reduce significant
Item 23.
Gabriel Perez, Development Services Director
City of Coachella
March 11, 2024
impacts. CDFW is concerned that the mitigation measures proposed in the MND are not adequate to avoid or reduce impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance. To support the City in ensuring that Project impacts to biological resources are reduced to less than significant, CDFW recommends adding mitigation measures for burrowing owl, artificial nighttime lighting, Coachella Valley Multilpe Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) compliance, as well as revising the mitigation measure for nesting birds.
1) Nesting Birds
It is the Project proponent’s responsibility to comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 afford protective measures as follows: section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.).
site has the potential to provide suitable nesting habitat for year-round and seasonal avian residents, as well as migrating songbirds that could occur in the area that are adapted to urban environments.” The MND includes Mitigation Measures BIO-1 for nesting birds, which indicates that “in order to reduce impacts to nesting birds located at the proposed Project site, a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted by the proposed Project Applicant at the site prior to ground disturbance.” CDFW considers the Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to be insufficient in scope and timing to reduce impacts to nesting birds to less than significant. CDFW is concerned about impacts to nesting birds including loss of nesting/foraging habitat and potential take from ground-disturbing activities and construction. Conducting work outside the peak nesting season is an important avoidance and minimization measure. CDFW also recommends the completion of nesting bird surveys regardless of the time of year to ensure that impacts to nesting birds are avoided. The timing of the nesting season varies greatly depending on several factors, such as bird species, weather conditions in any given year, and long-term climate changes (e.g., drought, warming, etc.). In response to warming, birds have been reported to breed earlier, thereby reducing temperatures that nests are exposed to during breeding and tracking shifts in availability
Item 23.
Gabriel Perez, Development Services Director
City of Coachella
March 11, 2024
of resources (Socolar et al., 20172). CDFW staff have observed that climate change conditions may result in nesting bird season occurring earlier and later in the year than historical nesting season dates. CDFW recommends that disturbance of occupied nests of migratory birds and raptors within the Project site and surrounding area be avoided any time birds are nesting on-site. CDFW therefore recommends the completion of nesting bird surveys regardless of the time of year to ensure compliance with all applicable laws pertaining to nesting and migratory birds.
CDFW recommends the City revise Mitigation Measure BIO-1 with the following additions in bold and removals in strikethrough:
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nesting Birds
Regardless of the time of year, nesting bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified avian biologist no more than 3 days prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. Pre-construction surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior.
The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a result of survey and monitoring efforts. If active nests are found during the pre-construction nesting bird surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate nest buffer to be marked on the ground. Nest buffers are species specific and shall be at least 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors. A smaller or larger buffer may be determined by the qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species and based on nest and buffer monitoring results. Construction activities may not occur inside the established buffers, which shall remain on site until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. Active nests and adequacy of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged or the Project has been completed. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance. In order to reduce impacts to nesting birds located at the proposed Project site, a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey shall be conducted by the proposed Project Applicant at the site prior to ground disturbance.
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, section 15097(f), CDFW has prepared a draft mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for revised MM BIO-1 as well as CDFW-recommended MM BIO-[A], MM BIO-[B], and MM BIO-[C].
2 Socolar JB, Epanchin PN, Beissinger SR and Tingley MW (2017). Phenological shifts conserve thermal niches.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(49): 12976-12981.
Item 23.
Gabriel Perez, Development Services Director
City of Coachella
March 11, 2024
2) Burrowing Owl
Burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern. Take of individual burrowing owls and their nests is defined by Fish and Game Code section 86, and prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.). Take is defined in Fish and Game Code section 86 as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture or kill.”
Table D-1 in the MND indicates that burrowing owl have a low potential to occur onsite, and “the project site provides line of-sight observations favored by burrowing owls and limited suitable burrows (>4 inches) were observed during the field investigation.
However, the site is surrounded by tall trees and utility poles that provide perching opportunities for large raptors that prey on burrowing owls and there are no corridors connecting the site to known occupied areas.” CDFW notes that utility poles only exist along the eastern edge of the Project site, and the only tall trees on the Project site are limited to several in the northwest corner. It does not appear that perching habitat for burrowing owl predators would be a significant factor in limiting the occupancy of burrowing owls across the large 19-acre site. CDFW also notes that in California, preferred habitat for burrowing owl is generally typified by short, sparse vegetation with few shrubs,3 and that burrowing owls may occur in ruderal grassy fields, vacant lots, and pastures if the vegetation structure is suitable and there are useable burrows and foraging habitat proximity.4In addition, burrowing owls frequently move into disturbed areas prior to and during construction activities since they are adapted to highly modified habitats
5,6 Page 5 of the Biological Resources Assessment indicates that California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi) were detected during the field investigation. In California, California ground squirrel burrows are frequently used by burrowing owls7. The Project site contains suitable habitat for burrowing owl, and burrowing owl have the potential to move onto the Project site before the start of Project construction.
3 Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia), in A. Poole and F. Gill, editors, The Birds of North America, The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C., USA.
4 Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg, R. G. Anthony. 2003. Space use and pesticide exposure risk of male burrowing owls in an agricultural landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 67: 155-164. 5 Chipman, E. D., N. E. McIntyre, R. E. Strauss, M. C. Wallace, J. D. Ray, and C. W. Boal. 2008. Effects of human land use on western burrowing owl foraging and activity budgets. Journal of Raptor Research 42(2): 87-98. 6 Coulombe, H. N. 1971. Behavior and population ecology of the Burrowing Owl, Speotyto cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. Condor 73:162–176.
7 Ronan, N. A. 2002. Habitat selection, reproductive success, and site fidelity of burrowing owls in a grassland ecosystem. Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
Item 23.
Gabriel Perez, Development Services Director
City of Coachella
March 11, 2024
CDFW is also concerned about the limited information provided in the MND and its supporting documents regarding surveys for burrowing owl. Regarding survey methods, the Biological Resources Assessment indicates that the field assessment “inventoried and evaluated the extent and conditions of the plant communities found within the boundaries of the project site and a 200-foot buffer on March 10, 2022. Plant communities identified on aerial photographs during the literature review were verified by walking meandering transects through the plant communities and along boundaries between plant communities.” The Project’s Biological Resources Assessment does not indicate if a habitat assessment for burrowing owl was conducted or how surveys for burrowing owl were implemented during the field survey on March 10, 2022. The MND and supporting documentation also lack the findings of a burrowing owl survey, such as a map showing the locations of suitable burrows for burrowing owl.
Given the MND’s lack of discussion on survey methods for burrowing owl and lack of findings from a recent habitat assessment and surveys for burrowing owl following the guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, the number of suitable and occupied burrows within the Project site and surrounding areas is unknown. The Biological Resources Assessment indicates that “limited suitable burrows (>4 inches) were observed” (Table D-1 of the MND). Because suitable habitat for burrowing owls exists within the Project site, CDFW recommends the MND is revised to include the findings of focused surveys for burrowing owl following guidelines outlined in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation7. Focused surveys for burrowing owl provide information needed to determine the potential effects of proposed projects and activities on burrowing owls, and to avoid take in accordance with Fish and Game Code sections 86, 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. If focused surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat in or adjacent to the Project area, CDFW recommends that the MND is revised to include an impact assessment per guidelines in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Impact assessments evaluate the extent to which burrowing owls and their habitat may be impacted, directly or indirectly, on and within a reasonable distance of the proposed Project. Focused surveys and an impact assessment will also inform appropriate avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for the Project and help demonstrate that impacts to burrowing owls are less than significant.
The MND lacks avoidance and minimization measures for burrowing owl and a mitigation measure for burrowing owl. To support the City in reducing impacts to burrowing owl to a level less than significant, CDFW recommends that the City add the following mitigation measure to a revised MND:
Mitigation Measure BIO-[A]: Burrowing Owl Surveys
Suitable burrowing owl habitat has been confirmed on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist according to
Item 23.
Gabriel Perez, Development Services Director
City of Coachella
March 11, 2024
the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls are detected during the focused surveys, the qualified biologist and Project proponent shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and monitoring actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance measures if avoidance is proposed. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat or burrow cannot be avoided, the Burrowing Owl Plan shall also describe minimization and relocation actions that will be implemented. Proposed implementation of burrow exclusion and closure should only be considered as a last resort, after all other options have been evaluated as exclusion is not in itself an avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and has the possibility to result in take. If impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, information shall be provided regarding adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls along with proposed relocation actions. The Project proponent shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval.
Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of Project-related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist following the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the preconstruction surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat, Project activities shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW and USFWS for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. 3) Artificial Nighttime Lighting
The Proposed project will result in new sources of artificial nighttime lighting. Page 13 of the MND indicates that “security lighting will also be installed and dispersed throughout the roadways and any designated walkways, and these would provide new sources of nighttime lighting”. The MND lacks any additional details on the Project’s lighting plans and lighting specifications or additional avoidance and minimization measures associated with artificial nighttime lighting. The Project is located adjacent to openspace areas to the west and south and agricultural areas to the east and northwest— areas that provide suitable nesting, roosting, foraging, and refugia habitat for birds, migratory birds that fly at night, bats, other nocturnal and crepuscular wildlife.
Item 23.
Gabriel Perez, Development Services Director
City of Coachella
March 11, 2024
Agricultural areas to the east and northwest of the Project site comprise date palm (Phoenix dactylifera) orchards. In California, western yellow bats (Lasiurus xanthinus; California Species of Special Concern; CVMSHCP Covered Species) appear to roost exclusively in the skirts of dead fronds of both native and non-native palm trees and appear to be limited in their distribution by availability of palm habitat.8 Western yellow bats likely form small maternity groups in palm trees.9 Some individuals or populations may be migratory, although some individuals appear to be present year-round, even in the northernmost portion of the range including southern California. Table D-1 in the MND indicates that “date palms orchards and water detention basin to the northwest provide suitable foraging habitat and potential roosting opportunities” for western yellow bats. Birds like hooded oriole (Icterus cucullatus) primarily nest in palm trees and build hanging nests on the undersides of palm fronds10. The open-space areas to the south of the Project site include vegetation that provides suitable habitat for nesting birds.
The Project’s proposed artificial nighttime lighting has the potential to significantly and adversely affect wildlife in the open-space and agricultural areas adjacent to the Project site. Artificial lighting alters ecological processes including, but not limited to, the temporal niches of species; the repair and recovery of physiological function; the measurement of time through interference with the detection of circadian and lunar and seasonal cycles; the detection of resources and natural enemies; and navigation11.
Many species use photoperiod cues for communication (e.g., bird song12), determining when to begin foraging13, behavioral thermoregulation14, and migration15. Phototaxis, a phenomenon that results in attraction and movement towards light, can disorient, entrap, and temporarily blind wildlife species that experience it8.
CDFW recommends the MND is revised to include an analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of artificial nighttime lighting expected to adversely affect biological resources within open-space and agricultural areas adjacent to the Project site. CDFW also recommends the MND is revised to include lightning design plans and
8 Bolster, B.C., Bolster, B.C., (ed.). 1998. Terrestrial Mammal Species of Special Concern in California. Draft Final Report. May. Sacramento, CA. Prepared by Paul W. Collins. Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and Mammal Conservation Program, Sacramento, CA. 9 Life History Account for Western Yellow Bat, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, February 2008. 10 Garrett, K., and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of southern California. Los Angeles Audubon Soc., Los Angeles. 11 Gatson, K. J., Bennie, J., Davies, T., Hopkins, J. 2013. The ecological impacts of nighttime light pollution: a mechanistic appraisal. Biological Reviews, 88.4: 912-927. 12 Miller, M. W. 2006. Apparent effects of light pollution on singing behavior of American robins. The Condor 108:130– 139.
13 Stone, E. L., G. Jones, and S. Harris. 2009. Street lighting disturbs commuting bats. Current Biology 19:1123– 1127.
14 Beiswenger, R. E. 1977. Diet patterns of aggregative behavior in tadpoles of Bufo americanus, in relation to light and temperature. Ecology 58:98–108.
15 Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological light pollution - Review. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:191–198.
Item 23.
Gabriel Perez, Development Services Director
City of Coachella
March 11, 2024
lighting specifications to allow CDFW to conduct a meaningful review and provide appropriate biological expertise. Also, the MND lacks a mitigation measure for artificial nighttime lighting. To support the City in avoiding or reducing impacts of artificial nighttime lighting on biological resources to less than significant, CDFW recommends that the City add the following mitigation measure to a revised MND:
Mitigation Measure BIO-[B]: Artificial Nighttime Lighting Throughout construction and the lifetime operations of the Project, the City of Coachella and Project proponent shall eliminate all nonessential lighting throughout the Project area and avoid or limit the use of artificial light at night during the hours of dawn and dusk when many wildlife species are most active.
The City of Coachella and Project proponent shall ensure that all lighting for the Project is fully shielded, cast downward and directed away from surrounding open-space and agricultural areas, reduced in intensity to the greatest extent possible, and does not result in lighting trespass including glare into surrounding areas or upward into the night sky (see the International Dark-Sky Association standards at http://darksky.org/). The City of Coachella and Project proponent shall ensure use of LED lighting with a correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvins or less, proper disposal of hazardous waste, and recycling of lighting that contains toxic compounds with a qualified recycler.
4) Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Local Development Mitigation Fee
The Project is located within the CVMSHCP Plan Boundary and outside of a Conservation Area. Page 9 of the Project’s Biological Resources Assessment indicates that “with implementation of these measures, and payment of the CVMSHCP mitigation fee, the proposed project would be fully consistent with the biological goals and objectives of the CVMSHCP.” To document the City’s obligation as a Local Permittee under the CVMSHCP to impose a local development mitigation fee for this Project, CDFW recommends the City add the following mitigation measure to a revised MND:
Mitigation Measure BIO-[C]: CVMSHCP Compliance
Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the City of Coachella shall ensure compliance with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) and its associated Implementing Agreement and shall ensure the collection of payment of the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee and transfer of revenues to the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission.
5) Landscaping
Item 23.
Gabriel Perez, Development Services Director
City of Coachella
March 11, 2024
landscaping”. No other details are provided in the MND on the Project’s proposed landscaping plans. CDFW recommends incorporation of water-wise concepts in any Project landscape design plans. In particular, CDFW recommends xeriscaping with locally native California species and installing water-efficient and targeted irrigation systems (such as drip irrigation). Native plants support butterflies, birds, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, bees, and other pollinators that evolved with those plants.
More information on native plants suitable for the Project location and nearby nurseries is available at Calscape: https://calscape.org/. Local water agencies/cities and resource conservation cities in your area may be able to provide information on plant nurseries that carry locally native species, and some facilities display drought-tolerant locally native species demonstration gardens. Information on drought-tolerant landscaping and water-efficient irrigation systems is available on California’s Save our Water website:
https://saveourwater.com/. CDFW also recommends that the MND include recommendations regarding landscaping from Section 4.0 of the CVMSHCP “Table 4- 112: Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping” (pp. 4-180 to 4- 182; https://cvmshcp.org/plan-documents/).
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data. The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT FILING FEES
The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying Project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)
CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City in identifying and mitigating Project impacts to biological resources. CDFW concludes that
Item 23.
Gabriel Perez, Development Services Director
City of Coachella
March 11, 2024
the MND does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, impacts to biological resources. CDFW also concludes that the MND lacks sufficient information for a meaningful review of impacts to biological resources, including a complete assessment of biological resources and Project description. The CEQA Guidelines indicate that recirculation is required when insufficient information in the MND precludes a meaningful review (§ 15088.5) or when a new significant effect is identified and additional mitigation measures are necessary (§ 15073.5). CDFW recommends that a revised MND, including a complete assessment of biological resources and Project description, be recirculated for public comment. CDFW also recommends that revised and additional mitigation measures and analysis as described in this letter be added to a revised MND.
CDFW personnel are available for consultation regarding biological resources and strategies to avoid and minimize impacts. Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Jacob Skaggs, Senior Environmental Scientist Specialist, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Kim Freeburn
Environmental Program Manager
Attachment 1: MMRP for CDFW-Proposed Mitigation Measures ec:
Heather Brashear, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisor), CDFW [email protected]
Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, Sacramento [email protected]
Item 23.
Gabriel Perez, Development Services Director
City of Coachella
March 11, 2024
ATTACHMENT 1: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) Mitigation Measures Timing and
Methods
Responsible
Parties
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Nesting Birds
Regardless of the time of year, nesting bird surveys
shall be performed by a qualified avian biologist no
more than 3 days prior to vegetation removal or
ground-disturbing activities. Pre-construction
surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect
evidence of nesting, including nest locations and
nesting behavior. The qualified avian biologist will
make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as
a result of survey and monitoring efforts. If active
nests are found during the pre-construction nesting
bird surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish an
appropriate nest buffer to be marked on the ground.
Nest buffers are species specific and shall be at least 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors. A
smaller or larger buffer may be determined by the
qualified biologist familiar with the nesting
phenology of the nesting species and based on nest
and buffer monitoring results. Construction activities
may not occur inside the established buffers, which
shall remain on site until a qualified biologist
determines the young have fledged or the nest is no
longer active. Active nests and adequacy of the
established buffer distance shall be monitored daily
by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged or the Project
has been completed. The qualified biologist has the
authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance.
Timing: No more
than 3 days prior
to vegetation
removal or
ground-disturbing
activities.
Methods: See
Mitigation
Measure
Implementation:
City of Coachella
and Project
proponent
Monitoring and
Reporting: City of
Coachella
Mitigation Measure BIO-[A]: Burrowing Owl Surveys
Suitable burrowing owl habitat has been confirmed
on the site; therefore, focused burrowing owl surveys
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist according
to the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prior
to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities.
If burrowing owls are detected during the focused
surveys, the qualified biologist and Project
proponent shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that
shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval
prior to commencing Project activities. The
Timing: Focused
surveys: Prior to
vegetation
removal or
ground-disturbing
activities. Preconstruction
surveys: No less
than 14 days prior
to start of Projectrelated activities
and within 24
Implementation:
City of Coachella
and Project
proponent
Monitoring and
Reporting: City of
Coachella
Item 23.
Gabriel Perez, Development Services Director
City of Coachella
March 11, 2024
Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed
avoidance, minimization, mitigation, and monitoring
actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the
number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres
of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers
and other avoidance measures if avoidance is
proposed. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl
habitat or burrow cannot be avoided, the Burrowing
Owl Plan shall also describe minimization and
relocation actions that will be implemented.
Proposed implementation of burrow exclusion and
closure should only be considered as a last resort,
after all other options have been evaluated as
exclusion is not in itself an avoidance, minimization,
or mitigation method and has the possibility to result
in take. If impacts to occupied burrows cannot be
avoided, information shall be provided regarding
adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls
along with proposed relocation actions. The Project
proponent shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan
following CDFW and USFWS review and approval.
Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be
conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of
Project-related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most
recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be
performed by a qualified biologist following the
recommendations and guidelines provided in
the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the
preconstruction surveys confirm occupied burrowing
owl habitat, Project activities shall be immediately
halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with
CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall
be submitted to CDFW and USFWS for review and
approval prior to commencing Project activities.
hours prior to
ground
disturbance.
Methods: See
Mitigation
Measure
Mitigation Measure BIO-[B]: Artificial Nighttime
Lighting
Throughout construction and the lifetime operations
of the Project, the City of Coachella and Project
proponent shall eliminate all nonessential lighting
throughout the Project area and avoid or limit the use
of artificial light at night during the hours of dawn
and dusk when many wildlife species are most active.
The City of Coachella and Project proponent shall
ensure that all lighting for the Project is fully
shielded, cast downward and directed away from
Timing:
Throughout
construction and
the lifetime
operations of the
Project.
Methods: See
Mitigation
Measure
Implementation:
City of Coachella
and Project
proponent
Monitoring and
Reporting: City of
Coachella
Item 23.
Gabriel Perez, Development Services Director
City of Coachella
March 11, 2024
surrounding open-space and agricultural areas,
reduced in intensity to the greatest extent possible,
and does not result in lighting trespass including
glare into surrounding areas or upward into the night
sky (see the International Dark-Sky Association
standards at http://darksky.org/). The City of
Coachella and Project proponent shall ensure use of
LED lighting with a correlated color temperature of
3,000 Kelvins or less, proper disposal of hazardous
waste, and recycling of lighting that contains toxic
compounds with a qualified recycler.
Mitigation Measure BIO-[C]: CVMSHCP Compliance
Prior to construction and issuance of any grading
permit, the City of Coachella shall ensure compliance
with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) and its associated
Implementing Agreement and shall ensure the
collection of payment of the CVMSHCP Local
Development Mitigation Fee and transfer of revenues
to the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission.
Timing: Prior to
construction and
issuance of any
grading permit.
Methods: See
Mitigation
Measure
Implementation:
City of Coachella
Monitoring and
Reporting: City of
Coachella
Item 23.
From: Liao, William
To: Gabriel Perez
Cc: SCG SE Region Redlands Utility Request; Davalos, Lorena Subject: FW: Encanto TTM 38429 Draft Initial Study
Date: February 28 24 9:00:57 AM
Attachments: 20240227123626.pdf
Hi Gabriel.
I just reviewed the package for the proposed Encanto TTM 38429 Draft Initial Study.
There is a 3” stub near the northeast corner of TTM 38429 on Van Buren and appears to be the nearest source of supply for gas.
Please help us ensure everyone's safety and have the Developer contact 811 / DigAlert prior to any excavation / demolition activities so we can get out to Locate & Mark to verify.
Also, if the Developer needs new gas service, please have them reach out to our Builder Services group to begin the application process as soon as practicable, at https://www.socalgas.com/foryour-business/builder-services.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Will Liao
Region Planning Supervisor
Redlands HQ / Southeast Region
Mobile: 840-213-5899
-----Original Message-----
From: Liao, William <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2024 12:37 PM
To: Liao, William <[email protected]>
Subject:
Item 23.
Vicinity Map
¯
Site
Avenue 52
Va
n
B
u
r
e
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
Item 23.
Secondary Image Corridor
Major Arterial
Streets classi¿ ed as Arterials or Collectors are designated as Secondary Image Corridors. These streets require special treatment and design features reÀ ecting the City’s identity and heritage. Secondary Image Corridors would follow the same concepts as Primary Image Corridors, the difference being the extent of the treatment and size of public landscape areas.
Secondary Image Corridors include the following streets:
• Monroe Street
• Jackson Street
• Van Buren Street
• Fredrick Street
• Tyler Street
• Polk Street
• Fillmore Street
• Pierce Street
• Avenue 48
• Avenue 54
• Avenue 60
The Secondary Image Corridor for Major Arterials contain street lights in the center median and in the parkways which are a 30” ht. and are spaced further apart due to being less traveled pedestrian areas. Tall palms in the medians and canopy trees in the parkways create the appropriate vehicular scale.
The design emphasis for the secondary image corridors in plan view resembles the primary image corridors. The medians are intended to incorporate large canopy trees consistent with the ‘Shady Oasis” concept. Shrub selection should focus on the ease of maintenance through appropriate plant selection, placement, and spacing. Emphasis should be placed on the use of grasses in large swaths through the medians in shrub Group ‘E’. Secondary image corridors in business districts and near civic facilities should incorporate lighting, seasonal lighting, and banner poles.
DESIGN EMPHASIS
page 13
Typical Street Section- Primary Arterial
Fig. 18
Item 23.
Secondary Image Corridor
Major Arterial
Agave parryi
Echinocactus sp.
Oenothera speciosa
Callistemon ‘Little John’
Lantana camera ‘New Gold’
Artemesia sp.
Baccharis ‘Pigeon Point’
Bougainvillea ‘Purple Queen’
Calliandra californica
Carissa macrocarpa
Muhlenbergia sp.
Senna sp.
Caesalpinia pulcherrima
Leucophyllum ‘Thunder Could’
Acacia ‘Desert Carpet’
Carex sp.
Dalea pulchra
Lantana camera ‘Patriot’
A
B
C
D
E
Barrel Cactus
Mexican Evening Primrose
Bottle Brush
Shrub Lantana
Artemesia
Coyote Bush
Bougainvillea
Fairy Duster
Natal Plum
Deer Grass
Senna
Dwarf Poinciana
Texas Ranger
Desert Carpet
Carex
Indigo Bush
Shrub Lantana
Cassia sp.
Cercidium ‘Desert Museum’
Chitalpa x sp.
Lagerstroemia sp.
Cassia
Palo Verde
Pink Dawn Tree
Crepe Myrtle
Chorisia speciosa
Ficus microcarpa
Tipuana tipu
Floss Silk Tree
Indian Laurel Fig
Tipu Tree
Phoenix dactylifera
Washingtonia ¿ lifera
Washingtonia robusta
Date Palm
California Fan Palm
Mexican Fan Palm
Shrub Groupings to be selected per conceptual shrub
layout plan. Shrubs to be approved by the City.
Accent Trees
Canopy Trees
Palms
Shrubs
MEDIAN PLANTING
Fig. 20
Fig. 19
page 14
Botanical Name Common Name Group Botanical Name Common Name Botanical Name Common Name
Botanical Name Common Name
Typical Median Elevation- Primary Arterial
Typical Street Section- Primary Arterial
Item 23.
Conceptual Hardscape and Shrub Layout
Conceptual Tree Layout
Conceptual Grading
Secondary Image Corridor
Major Arterial
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
page 15
Item 23.
Item 23.