Minutes — Desert Hot Springs City Council, May 2, 2023 (part 4 of 9)

Patricia Villagomez, Principal Planner
City of Desert Hot Springs
March 13, 2023

Page 2 ends

COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CDFW appreciates the inclusion of mitigation measures BR-1 and BR-2 and offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City of Desert Hot Springs in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. As a member of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, it is the City of Desert Hot Springs’ responsibility to ensure that all appropriate development fees are collected prior to the beginning of any work on the Project site.

COMMENT #1: Impacts to Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Issue: Project construction may result in injury or mortality to burrowing owl, a California species of special concern (SSC).

Specific impact: Take of burrowing owl and loss of burrowing owl habitat may occur as a result of Project-related activities. Staging of construction equipment, vehicles, and foot traffic may result in the collapse of occupied burrows and result in direct mortality and/or injury to burrowing owl.

Why impact would occur: The Project site is within predicted habitat for burrowing owl and multiple occurrences of burrowing owl have been recorded within one mile of the Project site according to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2023). CDFW appreciates that field surveys were conducted for the Project in the spring and summer of 2022, and while burrowing owl or sign was not detected during the field surveys, burrowing owls may occupy the available burrows on-site at any given time, as recognized by the MND in BR-1.

Evidence impact would be significant: Burrowing owl is a CDFW SSC. CEQA provides protection not only for California Endangered Species Act-listed species, but for any species including but not limited to SSC which can be shown to meet the criteria for State listing. Burrowing owl is an SSC that meets the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). 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. 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”.

Mitigation Measure # BR-1: CDFW recommends the following changes to mitigation measure BR-1 (edits are in strikethrough and bold) to avoid impacts to burrowing owl:

Burrowing Owl Pre-Construction Surveys
The project proponent shall ensure that a burrowing owl clearance survey according to CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) is performed not more than 14 days prior to project site disturbance (clearing, grubbing, grading, and construction), and then again within 24-hours prior to site disturbance, as burrowing owls may colonize or recolonize the site within the time between the original survey and project activities. If any owls are identified, Project activities shall not commence, and the most current protocol established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation) shall must be followed by a qualified biologist. The qualified biologist shall also coordinate with CDFW to conduct an impact assessment to develop avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to be approved by CDFW prior to commencing Project activities.

COMMENT #2: Impacts to Nesting Birds
Issue: Although the entire Project site has been grubbed and graded and is devoid of vegetation, the Project site is connected to open land. The Project could result in impacts to nesting birds adjacent to the Project site and to burrowing owl and ground nesting birds on-site.

Specific impact: Material stagging, stockpiling, and movement/operation of vehicles and equipment may result in take of nesting birds on-site and/or off-site.

The Project site is adjacent to open land that likely provides nesting and foraging habitat DocuSign Envelope ID: C7C6F5B5-4A86-4CC3-8F13-569A1F05AECF

Page 375 of 1106 ends

Patricia Villagomez, Principal Planner
City of Desert Hot Springs
March 13, 2023

Page 3 ends

for birds. Project noise, vibration, lighting, and dust, may indirectly impact nesting birds on adjacent habitat. In addition, the Project, although devoid of vegetation, provides suitable habitat for ground nesting birds and burrowing owl.

Evidence impact would be significant: The biggest threat to birds includes habitat loss and the conversion of natural vegetation into commercial, residential, and industrial land uses. Wild bird populations in the continental U.S. and Canada have declined by almost 30% since 1970 (Rosenberg et al. 2019). Population loss is not restricted to rare and threatened species but includes many widespread and common species that may be disproportionately influential components of food webs and ecosystem function.

Migratory nongame native bird species are protected by international treaty under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, § 10.13). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take of all birds and their active nests including raptors and other migratory nongame birds (as listed under the MBTA).

Mitigation Measure # BR-3: CDFW recommends that the City of Desert Hot Springs adopts the following mitigation measure to avoid impacts to nesting birds:

Nesting Bird Pre-Construction Surveys
Within the work area and the Project’s zone of influence (generally 100-300 feet), a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than three (3) days prior to the initiation of Project activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grubbing, and/or rough grading to prevent impacts to birds and their nests. The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. Surveys shall include any potential habitat (including trees, shrubs, the ground, or nearby structures) that may be impacted by activities resulting in nest destruction or abandonment. If nesting bird activity is present, a no disturbance buffer zone shall be established by the qualified biologist around each nest to prevent nest destruction and disruption of breeding or rearing behavior. The buffer shall be a minimum of 500 feet for raptors and 300 feet for songbirds, unless a smaller buffer is specifically determined by a qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species. The buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests, as confirmed by a qualified biologist. A qualified biologist shall inspect the active nest to determine whether construction activities are disturbing the nesting birds or nestlings. If the qualified biologist determines that construction activities pose a disturbance to nesting, construction work shall be stopped in the area of the nest and the 'no disturbance buffer' shall be expanded. If there is no nesting activity, then no further action is need for this measure.

COMMENT #3: Impacts Associated with Project Lighting
Issue: Artificial lighting on the Project site may impact species that are most active between dusk and dawn.

Specific impact: Nocturnal and crepuscular animals use natural lighting cues for hunting, mating, and sleeping. Excess lighting on the Project site may spill onto undeveloped land to the north and south and/or interfere with the natural day/night cycles of species in the vicinity.

Why impact would occur: The Project will have lighting on the building and on posts throughout the site.

Evidence impact would be significant: CDFW recognizes the adverse effects that artificial lighting has on birds and other nocturnal species such as bats. The effects are numerous and include impacts to singing and foraging behavior, reproductive behavior, navigation, and altered migration patterns.

Mitigation Measure # BR-4: CDFW recommends that the City of Desert Hot Springs adopts the following mitigation measure to avoid impacts on wildlife associated with Project-related lighting:

Page 376 of 1106 ends

Patricia Villagomez, Principal Planner
City of Desert Hot Springs
March 13, 2023

Page 4 ends

lighting for Project is fully shielded, cast downward, reduced in intensity to the greatest extent, and does not result in lighting trespass including glare onto other properties or upward into the night sky (see the International Dark-Sky Association standards at http://darksky.org/), (3) Use LED lighting with a correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvins or less, and (4) Properly dispose of hazardous waste, and recycle lighting that contains toxic compounds with a qualified recycler.

COMMENT #4: Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) Issue: Development projects may have lasting impacts on local wildlife and plant species by introducing new sources of food and attracting scavenger species to the Project area.

Specific impact: Project development may bring biological hazards common to urbanwildland interface areas. Waste associated with developments can encourage opportunistic species such as coyotes and ravens (both observed in the area) to become more prevalent, posing a substantial predation hazard to local wildlife.

Why impact would occur: If waste is not managed properly, the presence of easily accessible food may increase the risk of opportunistic species.

Evidence impact would be significant: Increasing the populations of opportunistic predators such as coyotes and ravens poses a significant hazard to local, protected species such as Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata; SSC), flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mccallii; SSC), and burrowing owl.

Mitigation Measure # BR-5: CDFW recommends that the City of Desert Hot Springs adopts the following mitigation measure to avoid attracting opportunistic species to the Project area:

Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP)
A qualified biologist shall conduct an education program for all persons employed or otherwise working on the Project site prior to performing any work on-site (Workers Environmental Awareness Program; WEAP). The WEAP shall consist of a presentation that includes a discussion of the biology of the habitats and species that may be present at the site. The WEAP shall also include information on the distribution and habitat needs of any special-status species that may be present, legal protections for those species, penalties for violations, and mitigation measures. The WEAP shall include, but not be limited to: (1) best practices for managing waste and reducing activities that can lead to increased occurrences of opportunistic species and the impacts these species can have on wildlife in the area and (2) protected species that have the potential to occur on the Project site. Interpretation shall be provided for any non-English speaking workers, and the same instruction shall be provided for any individual prior to their performing any work onsite.

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 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.) DocuSign Envelope ID: C7C6F5B5-4A86-4CC3-8F13-569A1F05AECF

Page 377 of 1106 ends

Patricia Villagomez, Principal Planner
City of Desert Hot Springs
March 13, 2023

Page 5 ends

CONCLUSION
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City of Desert Hot Springs in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources.

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Kevin Francis, Environmental Scientist at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Alisa Ellsworth
Environmental Program Manager
ec: Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse [email protected]

California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Jeff Brandt, Senior Environmental Scientist (Supervisor) [email protected]
Jacob Skaggs, Environmental Scientist
[email protected]

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: MMRP for CDFW-Proposed Mitigation Measures

REFERENCES
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. State of California, Natural Resources Agency. Available for download at: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=83843&inline California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2022. Submitting Data to the CNDDB.

Available from: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data.

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Government [ds45]. 2023. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Biogeographic Information and Observation System.

Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J.

C. Stanton, A. Panjabi, L. Helft, M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American Avifauna. Science.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C7C6F5B5-4A86-4CC3-8F13-569A1F05AECF

Page 378 of 1106 ends

Patricia Villagomez, Principal Planner
City of Desert Hot Springs
March 13, 2023

Page 6 ends

Attachment 1: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)

PURPOSE OF THE MMRP
The purpose of the MMRP is to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation. Mitigation measures must be implemented within the time periods indicated in the table below.

TABLE OF MITIGATION MEASURES
The following items are identified for each mitigation measure: Mitigation Measure, Implementation Schedule, and Responsible Party. The Mitigation Measure column summarizes the mitigation requirements. The Implementation Schedule column shows the date or phase when each mitigation measure will be implemented. The Responsible Party column identifies the person or agency that is primarily responsible for implementing the mitigation measure.

Biological (BIO) Mitigation Measure (MM) Implementation Schedule
Responsible
Party
MM BR-1: Burrowing Owl Surveys
The project proponent shall ensure that a
burrowing owl clearance survey according to
CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl
Mitigation (CDFG 2012) is performed not
more than 14 days prior to project site
disturbance (clearing, grubbing, grading, and
construction), and then again within 24-hours
prior to site disturbance, as burrowing owls
may colonize or recolonize the site within the
time between the original survey and project
activities. If any owls are identified, Project
activities shall not commence, and the most
current protocol established by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (2012 Staff
Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation) shall be
followed by a qualified biologist. The qualified
biologist shall also coordinate with CDFW to
conduct an impact assessment to develop
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation
measures to be approved by CDFW prior to
commencing Project activities.

Prior to
commencing
ground- or
vegetation
disturbing
activities
Project
Proponent
MM BR-3: Nesting Bird Surveys
Within the work area and the Project’s zone
of influence (generally 100-300 feet), a
nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a
qualified biologist no more than three (3)
days prior to the initiation of Project activities,
including, but not limited to clearing,
grubbing, and/or rough grading to prevent
impacts to birds and their nests. The survey
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist.

Surveys shall include any potential habitat
(including trees, shrubs, the ground, or
nearby structures) that may be impacted by
activities resulting in nest destruction or
abandonment. If nesting bird activity is
present, a no disturbance buffer zone shall
be established by the qualified biologist
around each nest to prevent nest destruction
and disruption of breeding or rearing
behavior. The buffer shall be a minimum of
500 feet for raptors and 300 feet for
Prior to
commencing
ground- or
vegetation
disturbing
activities
Project
Proponent
DocuSign Envelope ID: C7C6F5B5-4A86-4CC3-8F13-569A1F05AECF

Page 379 of 1106 ends

Patricia Villagomez, Principal Planner
City of Desert Hot Springs
March 13, 2023

Page 7 ends

songbirds, unless a smaller buffer is
specifically determined by a qualified
biologist familiar with the nesting phenology
of the nesting species. The buffer areas shall
be avoided until the nests are no longer
occupied and the juvenile birds can survive
independently from the nests, as confirmed
by a qualified biologist. A qualified biologist
shall inspect the active nest to determine
whether construction activities are disturbing
the nesting birds or nestlings. If the qualified
biologist determines that construction
activities pose a disturbance to nesting,
construction work shall be stopped in the
area of the nest and the 'no disturbance
buffer' shall be expanded. If there is no
nesting activity, then no further action is need
for this measure.

MM BR-4: Artificial Lighting
During Project construction activities, the
Project shall: (1) Eliminate all nonessential
lighting throughout the Project area and
avoid or limit the use of artificial light during
the hours of dawn and dusk when many
wildlife species are most active, (2) Ensure
that all lighting for Project is fully shielded,
cast downward, reduced in intensity to the
greatest extent, and does not result in
lighting trespass including glare onto other
properties or upward into the night sky (see
the International Dark-Sky Association
standards at http://darksky.org/), (3) Use
LED lighting with a correlated color
temperature of 3,000 Kelvins or less, and (4)
Properly dispose of hazardous waste, and
recycle lighting that contains toxic
compounds with a qualified recycler.

Prior to
commencing
ground- or
vegetation
disturbing
activities
Project
Proponent
MM BR-5: WEAP
A qualified biologist shall conduct an
education program for all persons employed
or otherwise working on the Project site prior
to performing any work on-site (Workers
Environmental Awareness Program; WEAP).

The WEAP shall consist of a presentation
that includes a discussion of the biology of
the habitats and species that may be present
at the site. The WEAP shall also include
information on the distribution and habitat
needs of any special-status species that may
be present, legal protections for those
species, penalties for violations, and
mitigation measures. The WEAP shall
include, but not be limited to: (1) best
practices for managing waste and reducing
activities that can lead to increased
occurrences of opportunistic species and the
impacts these species can have on wildlife in
the area and (2) protected species that have
the potential to occur on the Project site.

Interpretation shall be provided for any nonPrior to
commencing
ground- or
vegetation
disturbing
activities
Project
Proponent
DocuSign Envelope ID: C7C6F5B5-4A86-4CC3-8F13-569A1F05AECF

Page 380 of 1106 ends

Patricia Villagomez, Principal Planner
City of Desert Hot Springs
March 13, 2023

Page 8 ends

English speaking workers, and the same
instruction shall be provided for any
individual prior to their performing any work
on-site.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C7C6F5B5-4A86-4CC3-8F13-569A1F05AECF

Page 381 of 1106 ends

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, March 28, 2023
6:00 PM
Chairman Voss: All right, we are going to go ahead and call the meeting to order. The Tuesday, March 28th, 6 PM Desert Hot Springs Special Meeting of the Planning Commission. We will call this to order. Mr. City Clerk roll call please.

Clerk: Commissioner Aleman.

Commissioner Aleman: Present.

Clerk: Commissioner Stoever.

Commissioner Stoever: Present.

Clerk: Commissioner Wagstaff.

Commissioner Wagstaff: Here.

Clerk: Vice Chair Nindel.

Vice Chair Nindel: Present.

Clerk: Chair Voss.

Chairman Voss: Present. All right, the Pledge. Commissioner Aleman, will you lead us in the Pledge.

Page 382 of 1106 ends

Pledge of Allegiance.

Chairman Voss: All right, next we have public comments. The are public comments on general issues, not the item on the agenda. Mr. City Clerk, do we have anybody for public comments? Clerk: We have none.

Chairman Voss: All right, then we will go ahead and we will move to item number 1, which is Development Permit No. 22-4: An Application to Develop a 60,000 Square Foot Warehouse Facility for the PODS Company. We will start with Staff Report.

Staff: Yes, thank you. The project site consists of a 4.85 acre parcel located on the northeast corner of Calle de Los Romos and 19th Avenue within the light industrial zone. On July 14, 2022 the applicant, Almar Management filed an application to develop a single story, 60,000 square foot PODS Moving and Storage Facility. Staff has reviewed all associated plans submitted for zoning consistency, development standards, parking analysis, architecture and landscaping. Pursuant to section 17.64.010 of the DHS muni code, applicants requesting the construction of a new commercial and industrial building specifically require the review and approval of the Planning Commission.

Shown here are some existing site photos taken today. The proposed site plan for the climate controlled warehouse facility and supporting infrastructure improvements, the warehouse will house a company which moves goods and portal storage units. The entire warehouse will be used for storage of the portable pods. The proposed building will be designed to create interest by using various materials. The structure is proposed to be a tilt up construction in neutral colors of white and grey tones with glazed windows, steel man doors and steel garage doors. The building height is proposed at 34 feet, single story with a building law coverage of 35%.

Landscaping has been designed to balance aesthetic, water usage and security objectives. The project has proposed landscape that will include draught tolerant following trees along the frontage and low-level plantings typically found in the region to visually enhance, protect and blend the facility into its surroundings. The project site will have three entry points. Two on Calle de Los Romos and one on 19th Avenue. Calle de Los Romos is currently paved with curb and gutter on the west side, but not fully improved adjacent to the proposed project. 19th Avenue is not paved adjacent to the proposed project. The circulation and parking for the proposed facility will be consistent with the City parking standards. A parking analysis as shown here, which is required to provide 80 stalls and 93 have been provided.

Page 383 of 1106 ends

In 2012 the City applied to become a permittee of the Coachella Valley Multispecies Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP). An extensive revision to the CVMSHCP EIR was made to study wildlife habitat within the City. The revised EIR was adopted and the City was admitted to the Coachella Valley MSHCP in 2016. The Conservation Plan preserves habitat conservation areas, HCAs, while allowing the development to proceed on land outside the HCA. Developers pay an impact fee to the City, which remits the funds to the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission for land acquisition and preservation. CVCC has used those funds to purchase 2,443 acres of conservation land within designated habitat conservation areas within Desert Hot Springs.

As shown here in the conservation map, the project site is not within the conservation area. In accordance with CEQA, an initial study has determined that the development of the proposed project would not have an impact on the environment with implementation of mitigation measures. A draft Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed and in conformance with section 15070, subsection A of CEQA. With that Staff is recommending approval of the following:

1. To adopt the mitigated negative declaration and

2. Approve Development Permit number 22-4 to develop a 60,000 square foot warehouse facility subjective to the Conditions of Approval and Findings for APN666-360-017.

Staff would like to note that as of the posting of the agenda, Staff has received two comment letters, which have been distributed to the Commissioners and hard copies are also available.

That concludes my report. I am available if you have any questions and the Applicant and his team is also here. Thank you.

Chairman Voss: Okay, thank you. All right, so the next thing we will entertain some questions of Staff from the Planning Commission. If there is any, or we can continue on and just open the public hearing and then we can go with more discussion on item number 10, whichever.

However, the Commission pleases. We can kinda mix it up or do it all at the end, after we hear some comments.

Commissioner Stoever: I have a question for Staff.

Chairman Voss: Okay.

Page 384 of 1106 ends

Commissioner Stoever: Um, oh excuse me. Um, I am wondering with the tilt up construction and with the possibility of liquefaction in the area is that the best type of construction for this warehouse? I mean as opposed to, I was looking, at one point is said masonry and I was like that can’t be right, but then you said tilt up just now and so I was just confused as to that with the earthquake and the safety of the building in an earthquake.

Staff: I am not sure on that. I can defer to either the architect or the Applicant’s team.

Commissioner Stoever: Okay, sorry.

Staff: It’s okay.

Chairman Voss: And I would just point out that if you look at the liquefaction map, almost the entire City is in that area.

Commissioner Stoever: Yeah, I know.

Chairman Voss: Okay.

Commissioner Stoever: But unreinforced masonry and it said something about masonry in the long proposal so I may have misread it. Okay.

Chairman Voss: All right, we will go ahead then and we will open the public hearing. Any testimony for those in favor? Okay, seeing none. Any testimony for those opposed or in a neutral position?
Jennifer Mizrahi: Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission, if I may. We do have the Applicant here present. It would be normal process to first have the Applicant and the team to go ahead and provide testimony. Then the opposition, then the Applicant will have a chance for rebuttal.

Chairman Voss: Yep, you are 100% correct. I skipped over item number 4, thank you for the correction, Madam City Attorney. Let’s go ahead and get testimony from the Applicant.

Page 385 of 1106 ends

Applicant: I am the Developer for the parcel. I have here with me, Chris Bazella in the, from MSA Architects, Mike Rowe with MSA Architect and Jeffery Villa who is the, I am sorry MSA Engineering, and Jeffery Villa is the architect for the project. We are pleased to present the project to the City. We have engaged MSA to conduct the surveys and studies needed for the Mitigate Negative Declaration. We have engaged Jeffery Villa to complete the architecture for the building. There building is a rather simple plan to be tilt up construction building to be used by the company called PODS, which is a storage, moving and storage company. I am happy to, if you, can we put the site plan up on the, on the, on the screen and I can show you, or I can just talk briefly through the site plan and if you have any questions for me, I am happy to answer them.

So as you can see the building is on the corner there. It’s on the southeast corner of 19th and Calle de Los Romos. We have ingress and egress both on, both on 19th Avenue and on Calle de Los Romos to get to the back of the property. It’s a, you know square building. We have encorporated desert landscaping in the, throughout the property to use as little water as possible, but to also be aesthetically pleasing. The building itself has a white and grey painting scheme also to sort of blend in or not be, not be too loud or too obvious. The parking requirements for the City have been exceeded in the plan and you know the building itself is just, is really a plain open warehouse to be used by PODS. We have taken into consideration the water runoff and all the utilities that are going to be needed for the building and so all of that has been taken into consideration by MSA in their conclusion for Mitigated Negative Declaration and then the building itself has been designed, as was said before as a tilt up concrete structure and the building was designed by Jeff Villa, who is here with us. I think that’s really the, the complete analysis of the, of the project. It’s a, it’s a pretty simple building on a square lot there. Unless, if you have any questions, I am happy to answer them or do you want to do that at a different time? Jennifer Mizrahi: Mr. Chair, it’s absolutely fine if the Commission has questions of the Applicant.

Chairman Voss: Go ahead and do that. We have another, there’s an opportunity for the Applicant to rebuttal once, if anybody speaks on some other issues. So might as well engage now while you are here.

Mike Rowe: Chairman Voss, if I can, I think I can answer Commissioner, is it Stoever’s question on liquefaction. My name is Mike Rowe, principal engineer at MSA, project manager of this project. Been down here in the Valley for over three decades. I have been working on these projects all over Costa Valley, numerous ones up in Desert Hot Springs, as well as down, down

Page 386 of 1106 ends

Valley and throughout the Valley. Your question on liquefaction is a valid one. We do have water underneath the ground, but the water is so low that the liquefaction, the effects of liquefaction are very, very much negligible. They still are taken into account. The calculations from a structural engineer to the geotechnical engineer and then ourselves as the civils, we make sure that all of that is taken into account to accommodate even the earthquake, the location of the proximity to the fault line with the seismic criteria in those calculations to make sure that even with liquefaction, if it could occur, the actual design criteria is going to be more seismic than liquefaction. Liquefication is really more of a, in effect, if you will, down Valley, closer to the Salton Sea where you get the ground water up above 20 feet. I hope that answers your question.

Chairman Voss: Any other questions?
Commissioner Stoever: Yes.

Chairman Voss: Go ahead.

Commissioner Stoever: Okay. I have a question about the tilt up building. I know this going to be a climate controlled building to, isn’t it, for the storage? Mike Rowe: Yes.

Commissioner Stoever: Is that correct? And so, I am just wondering about the R factor of the building, the insulation. We do have up to 120-degree summers here and so I am concerned about it being a closed envelop and having a good R factor so that we are not expending a lot of extra energy in trying to cool the building.

Mike Rowe: Correct. I mean that’s a, something that has been taken into consideration in the building. I don’t know exactly what the R factor is expected to be, but it’s in excess of what’s required by the State. Plus, the tenant is interested in the same thing in, in making it as energy efficient building as they can. So whatever, whatever, we are in excess of what’s required by the State for, for the, for the R factor.

Commissioner Stoever: Thank you.

Page 387 of 1106 ends

Mike Rowe: Sure.

Chairman Voss: Okay. Any others? All right. Seeing none.

Commissioner Stoever: Oh, I have one more.

Chairman Voss: All right, go ahead.

Commissioner Stoever: Okay here we go. Sorry.

Chairman Voss: That’s all right.

Commissioner Stoever: It’s my nature. Um, I, I noticed in the proposal that your parking exceeded the 62 spaces and went up by almost a third to 92 spaces and I am wondering if there is any purpose for that? Do those extra spaces serve a purpose? Mike Rowe: Well, the, there will be customers there that come to the site who are going to be needed to operate the business.

Commissioner Stoever: Um hmm.

Mike Rowe: And so I think we are, we are up, we are, isn’t it, I think it’s, it’s 80 that are required and we have 93. So we have an extra uh, 15%.

Commissioner Stoever: Oh, I thought I read it was 62, but I could have misread that.

Mike Rowe: Yeah, no it, it goes from 80 to 93 and the purpose is just to make sure that there’s enough customer parking.

Commissioner Stoever: Okay, okay. Thank you.

Page 388 of 1106 ends

Mike Rowe: Sure.

Chairman Voss: Okay. Seeing no other comments, then we will go ahead and we will move onto any public testimony of those who are in favor or we can go. I think we kinda already went through that so public testimony of any of those opposed or neutral.

Adam Frankel: Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Adam Frankel. I am an attorney with the Environmental Law Firm Lozeau Drury. I am here on behalf of Supporters Alliance For Environmental Responsibility of SAFER. SAFER is concerned that the Mitigated Negative Declaration or MND prepared for the project is legally inadequate. Where there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that an MND has failed to adequately mitigate significant environmental impacts CEQA requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report or EIR. SAFER has retained multiple independent experts who reviewed the MDD and found that it failed to adequately mitigate the project’s environmental impacts. Therefore, an EIR is required to comply with State law. First SAFER’s independent biologist, Dr. Shawn Smallwood visited the project site and reviewed the biological resources survey prepared for the MND. Dr.

Smallwood detected four special status species living on or near the project site and concluded that the project would likely result in significant adverse impacts to existing, excuse me, biological resources. He also found that the MND mischaracterized the existing environmental setting and severely undermined the site’s value for special status species. Finally, he found that the MND failed to assess the projects cumulative impact on wildlife, which is a significant omission given that numerous large scale industrial projects are planned in the immediate vicinity of the project site.

Next SAFER’s inadvertently air quality experts with the environmental consulting firm, SWEEP found numerous flaws with the MNDs assessment of the projects air quality impacts. When reassessing the project using standard air models and default values based on information disclosed in the MND SWEEP found that the projects emissions of volatile organic compounds would exceed the daily significance threshold set by the Southcoast Air Quality Management District. This is a significant impact, which requires further mitigation and the preparation of an EIR. SWEEP also found that MND failed to include a health risk assessment to evaluate the human health risks that will result from the release of diesel particulate matter, which is a known human carcinogen during project construction and future operations. CEQA requires an analysis to evaluate the serious health impacts. We respectfully urge you go deny approval of the MND and instead direct Staff to undertake the necessary efforts to prepare an EIR. Thank you for considering these comments.

Page 389 of 1106 ends

Chairman Voss: All right, thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this project that’s in the audience?
Commissioner Stoever: I have a question for the gentleman who just spoke. If I may.

Chairman Voss: Um hmm.

Commissioner Stoever: Thanks. In the observation of the species of concern where there any nests observed in the area?
Adam Frankel: Not specifically nests, but there were birds, special status species birds.

Commissioner Stoever: Um hmm.

Adam Frankel: Sighted on the site and there were photographs of those included in the comment we submitted.

Commissioner Stoever: And were there any nests observed within the, I would say 1000-foot radius of the area?
Adam Frankel: Uh, I would have to review the letter. I don’t recall there being a specific comment on the nests.

Commissioner Stoever: Okay, I didn’t see it either. Okay, thank you.

Adam Frankel: Thank you.

Chairman Voss: All right, thank you. Okay the opportunity for the Applicant, any followup comments? Any response to, as we call it the Applicant rebuttal?

Page 390 of 1106 ends

Michelle Witherspoon: Good evening, I am Michelle Witherspoon with MSA Consulting and we assisted the City in preparation of the CEQA document. I will reply regarding the air quality comments. Now I am, can’t remember the first one, I apologize. Oh, the modeling cannot be done in the Salton Sea Air Basin using the default because Salton Sea Air Basin has a lower threshold for VOCs than the Statewide or other air basin models and so if you put in a higher, a higher estimate of VOC emissions then you are saying that the project will not follow regulations and you can’t assume that a developer will not follow regulations and it’s very high. We are below 50 and I think it can range up to 400 in the modeling. It’s a, it’s a huge range and so when you run the default it does give you a false high number. So that’s why we have to add in the, excuse me, specific numbers that the South Coast Air Quality Management District requires for the Salton Sea Air Basin. And as for the Health Risk Assessment, we prepared an LST, which is a study that is required for, if a sensitive receptor is within 500 meters and there are not, and that would be a residential property. The residential properties are actually a half mile away to the north and they are also upwind and so we weren’t technically required to prepare the area LST analysis and we did prepare that regardless and it came as a less than significant impact and the HRA is a. It’s an optional study, or it’s an optional model run that you can do and it’s, once you, if there’s, there’s two levels that once you past the LST and if you have significant impacts, which we didn’t, then you move to the HRA and you would run that model, but we were not required to because the LST was less than significant. And I believe that was the air quality comments. So the letter provided by SAFER I think, just because they use the default measures for the State of California, they are not applicable to the Salton Sea Air Basin so the, the conclusions of their report would not be accurate for this project.

Chairman Voss: Okay.

Male: Chairman Voss if I could just.

Chairman Voss: Yes sir.

Male: Just respond as well. As a professional in this Valley, again for many decades, it’s almost insulting to have a firm come through at the last minute and not only say what we have done in our professional capacity, what we have been doing in our professional capacity in our Valley, which is unique to California, is incorrect, improper and unjust. I think it’s just wrong. It’s a CEQA abuse ability with these agencies to have ulterior motives to come in here and try to stop projects that we are trying to enhance in our Valley, in our communities. And they are doing it for all the wrong reasons. You heard about the air quality. They are pulling stuff out of the air and making up the numbers on general databases. I have a, I actually got a thing here I pulled up on a state that shows one of the species that they said was, could be present on the site, I can actually get a hunting permit for. So we are looking at people that aren’t familiar with our area,

Page 391 of 1106 ends

trying to influence our area and I think it’s unfair. I think that what we need to do is look legitimately at the professionals that did this report. The biologists that we used is one of the experts in the, in the, in the State in regards to Sonoran Desert communities. The, the expert that came down from Davis on a junket on a weekend drove by for 4-1/2 hours and makes all these claims that the guy that spent eight days and has been doing this for 30 years doesn’t know what he is doing is just an insult. I just want to say that I think what you have got is a very solid document. We are very professional in the way that we do things. We have done the phase one on this. You have seen from all the studies. The site was used as a construction laydown yard for the construction of everything.

I personally thought that this was CEQA exempt because of the way it was situated in this, in this Valley with all the work that’s gone around it. So we did our part, we did the further analysis. There is no reason to do additional analysis to come to the same conclusions only for some other group, some other carpet baggers to come into our town, put a gun to our head and say just delay the project, delay the project, delay the project. We have an affordability issue in California. We have an economy issue in California. If we keep doing these things this stops industry, this makes the industry cost more money, all of our products cost more money. We need to stop this and I don’t know, I don’t know how to do it besides going to Sacramento, but somehow you know let’s just do it in our little world and let’s just keep trying to move forward in the best that we can. We are here to answer any of their questions, I just don’t want to respond to their, their, their document.

Chairman Voss: Okay.

Male: Thank you.

Chairman Voss: Any additional comments from out there? All right. Then we will go ahead and close the public hearing. We will now open it up for Planning Commission discussion. Any Commissioners have any comments?
Male: I will make a motion.

Chairman Voss: We can do that, but if you have some comments.

Commissioner Stoever: I have some issues first.

Page 392 of 1106 ends

Chairman Voss: All right.

Commissioner Stoever: Comments, not issues. Should I go? Chairman Voss: Yes.

Commissioner Stoever: Yes sir. Um, I, I appreciate the concerns of SAFER when they come and have concerns about our environment. I, I, as a Californian I also have concerns. Um, but I also appreciate as an independent business person the need for the project, the developer to move forward if possible. Um, and I am hoping there is some way to do so that will in some way address some of the concerns um, put forth by the Attorney General’s document on best practices on warehouses, which seem to me to be exactly the checklist that SAFER was asking for. Um, it seemed almost like a ticket right down the list. Some of those things, I don’t think the Planning Commission is in a position to ask for and some of them I think are already provided for in this document that you have given us today, but I do think there are things that here in 2023 that we need to consider moving forward. Things such as water recharge in the, in the area. I have a huge concern, Desert Hot Springs we are based on this aquifer, it’s the whole basis of our, of our community. Um, and so I have a concern that we are recharging, this is in the alluvial plane quite obviously. It’s a recharge zone and we are covering I think, 87% of the property with hardscape, including the building and the, and the um, paving. So what I would like to see happen with this project is to remove some of the extra parking and some of the extra paving and to repurpose that into a bio-swale type of water recharge um, and also it, if we, if the developer decided to move in this direction um, I see a possibility of taking that whole eastern side of the property where there are 17 parking spaces I believe, and turning that all entirely into a bio-swale of planters in which could be planted many Washingtonian fillararies, I say that wrong every time, mesquite and native palo verdes, which would not only support the native and transiting wildlife, because we are a flyover zone here. It might also mitigate some of the noise and air pollution to the so-called sensitive receptors, which don’t seem to me to be in the area other than our wildlife, but it would also create that barrier, the vegetative barrier that is asked for in the best practices. So I would like to see the project move forward with that kind of an emphasis of maybe removing some of the paved space and repurposes that to water recharge and to also creating a greater vegetative barrier for noise, air pollution and helping to mitigate those other issues that are brought up in best practices.

Chairman Voss: All right.

Page 393 of 1106 ends

Commissioner Stoever: Yeah, I guess, go ahead.

Male: Chairman?
Chairman Voss: Yeah, go ahead.

Male: Thank you. It’s a great question, and I think that um, you also bring up a very good point in our Valley. We have all the water districts down here. We would have to do water supply assessments on projects to meet certain thresholds. This one, unfortunately does not meet those thresholds. To make sure that we have the recharge back into the basin so that we don’t waste it.

At the same time, we also have drought concerns so we want to make sure we are water conscious in the way that we do things. The area that you are discussing on the east side is setup as a bio-swale. When we do our design, as part of our, as part of our job, our task, is we have to make sure we capture all of the storm water that falls onto the site. We capture it into either these bio-swales, these retention basins, which are landscaped and then vegetated or we put them in underground vessels and do the same thing with the little, with not quite so deep of a, of a basin because it just, you know physically can’t work. So it does the same thing.

Commissioner Stoever: Exactly.

Male: But halfway up that, that eastern side and the entire southside is a bio-swale and.

Commissioner Stoever: Yes.

Male: It’s at a for that, for the, for the landscaping. Um, you know we are, we are only ten stalls over parked on this project. Giving up a few stalls, I mean, I, I think may or may not help, but I think what we, what we are doing is exactly what you are asking for. In that we have that ability and we have exact same landscaping that you have to make sure that we can create that atmosphere that you are talking about.

Male: And just to, to further say we are certainly open to looking at that based on the actual tenants needs for the space and if, if they are open to it then we certainly would be open to it too.

So we can look at that, what we, we, we will definitely look at. I don’t want to commit to it 100%, but I am certainly open to it and uh, and I will try to make that happen. I would rather see

Page 394 of 1106 ends

the landscaping there too. So if they can afford to lose the spaces then we will, we will, we will get rid of them.

Commissioner Stoever: Well certainly the paving will cost something and it may actually cost more than the landscaping would.

Male: It will, it will.

Commissioner Stoever: And so it may actually be a savings in cost for the developer.

Male: It could be potentially.

Commissioner Stoever: And may also mitigate all of those environmental issues that are, that are brought to the fore by the Attorney General’s document on best practices.

Male: I, I think it, trust me we don’t want to pave over the world if we don’t have to and if we can, if we can reduce those and eliminate those, we will definitely do that for you.

Commissioner Stoever: Okay, and I still have another question.

Jennifer Mizrahi: So Mr. Chair, members of the Commissions, if I may. We need to reopen the public hearing. I am happy to see that the Applicants have, go ahead and spoken again, but if this continues, we do need to give the opposition another chance as well. So we do need to make sure that we reopen it and all the testimony gets. In.

Commissioner Stoever: Oh, okay.

Chairman Voss: Okay, so we will go ahead and we will reopen the public hearing then. You had another question.

Commissioner Stoever: Yeah okay. If nobody else.

Page 395 of 1106 ends

Chairman Voss: I mean, I, I have some, but I want to let you guys. Anybody, before I say something.

Commissioner Stoever: Also, I noticed in the best practices, because quite honestly, I, my first concern being in the watershed was the best practices and so I went straight to that document.

Without even knowing the SAFER thing was happening and I, I would like to see, to mitigate the heed island effect that there’s cool pavement utilized. I would also like to see covered parking the solar. I am not certain why there’s not solar on that roof to help provide for the, for the electrical needs and, and also the solar car charging stations and truck charging stations. Um, by 2030 we are looking in California at moving to you know EV or non you know emitting vehicles and so I think it behooves us to plan ahead. So I would want to stick to those kind of things.

Chairman Voss: Right, and, and remember those are the type of things that we can suggest, but we can’t require.

Commissioner Stoever: Yeah.

Chairman Voss: And so, um, did any other Commissioners have anything to say? Okay, because I have got a little, some things. The opposition. Does the opposition have anything you would like to come up and say?
Male: Yeah, thank you for, excuse me. Thank you for the dialog. Appreciate it. I think those are all important concerns. We do often point to the Attorney General’s best practices as a guiding framework for recommendations that we make and that our experts evaluate and I would just say that SAFER is an independent, nonprofit organization made up of members who live throughout Southern California, including here in the Valley. Thank you.

Chairman Voss: Okay. So then we will go ahead and we will close the public hearing and then we will go back to Commissioner discussion. If nobody had anything, I am going to go ahead and bring up some of the items I have here. So I have had a chance to read. I have read this letter you know from the group SAFER and you know there were four of five things they came up with. They talked about habitat loss. Wildlife movement and impact, traffic impact, air quality, greenhouse and impact and biological resources. You know I think through the Coachella Valley and the cities and CVAG and the groups from themselves, they came up with that multispecies habitat conservation plan to address those very issues, which this project is not

Page 396 of 1106 ends

in. I think that needs to be repeated multiple times. Because there seems to be people that make the assumption that it is. Um, traffic is always an issue that’s brought up all the time. I don’t envision seven people, seven employees being a heavy traffic and air quality. Um, the fact of the matter is, 60, 70 mile an hour winds gusting the dust the way that it does is going to do a lot worse than six or seven employees at a, at a place. If anything, having this partially paved is going to hinder some of that excess dust the way that it is. Um, you know Department of Fish and Wildlife came up with some suggested items as well. I don’t see that as a recommendation to adopt those so those can be something that Staff can work with, uh with the Applicant if they feel that it’s needed for that extra precaution, but we did get a letter. Uh, from a consultant that had a records request item that was here and you know. I mean the fact of the matter is we are not going to continue this project so somebody can finish up their homework and especially when they are asking it the day before. They need to get their facts straight too. This is not in that multispecies conservation plan so they should probably reeducate themselves before they come publically on these things.

The other thing was, is much of this, the information about past information, grading, lot lines, ownership issues. All that redundant stuff that I read in there. Number one it’s all hearsay, it’s not factual and the reality of it is is our Staff, when they review this and the application is put in, they have to do a survey of the property. Determination of who’s the ownership. They have to get ownership information. They find out all that stuff. If there is a lot line discussion. If there is code compliance related issues. They extra all that information prior to and it could be you know, whatever information they have to do. So it’s great you know that somebody wants to do that as a homework assignment, but we are not going to waste Staff’s time on dealing this kind of stuff. We are not going to waste our time as Commissioners you know for that and again, they just kinda need to get their facts straight. This is uh, I have been a huge cheerleader of our town as far as economic development and so you know when cannabis came into this town people were like what are you doing? And we had a lot of projects and a lot of people said you know hey you know why are you building so many? Well, we didn’t build so many, but we entitled so many because we knew that a lot of them weren’t going to get built, but if you entitled property then you knew that that entitled property itself was going to eventually get utilities, Edison and the gas company were going to come and say hey we are going, we are going to do these things. Now when you go fast forward three, four years later cannabis now is the number one revenue generator for the City over property tax and sales tax. And so what’s the natural area? The natural area is this area sound of Dillon, east of Indian and west of Palm. In that area also has this multispecies in a portion of it. In one of the letters, it was mentioned this thing called a clue line. Okay, well some of you, I don’t know if you are all familiar with what a blue line is.

Female: Uh huh.

Page 397 of 1106 ends

Chairman Voss: Okay, uh the reality is is you can build on a blue line. It’s not a big deal. I have negotiated multiple projects that I have worked on with Fish and Wildlife in their Ontario office where I have built places on top of blue line or negotiated the fees down because of giving land back or fees were given towards the trust and those kinds of things. So when I see these kind of buzz words uh, you know habitat loss and, and other things of that nature these are boilerplate canned kind of jargon type things that just don’t really have much substance. You know come in with some suggested ideas. I think that’s important, but this is huge for this, you know this type of thing because the Applicant is going to do some paving of some roads. It’s going to get some utilities in there and guess what? Somebody else is going to. Our waste water plant is going to be coming online. We have got some other projects coming in with, that are logistics oriented and then we are going to start getting roads are going to get blasted out and we are go9ing to start having you know our commercial and our hotelier activity. So there’s a lot of dynamics in that are that’s going to happen. It’s inevitable and when I read a document that basically wants to shut it all down, I am not really pleased with that. So I am just being very honest with that. I mean we have over 200,000 vehicles drive past our City every day and the last thing I want to see is the continuous just vacant land out there. I want to see preserved land. I think we need to have preserved land and the City did the smart thing years ago and they agreed to this and they have this area designated specifically for this and then new projects that come forward, such as this one they pay a mitigation fee. No different than a traffic mitigation or a public safety mitigation and it goes into a basket and that money is used to purchase other land for land trusts and do those kinds of things. And so we have to look at these, at that.

So when I look at this thing I get, I get excited about it simply because I see a property that the owner took the time to say I don’t want the port area of the building to be facing the street and the entry. I want it to face the side so you will be able to see the front of the building. You will see decorative landscape, you will see the façade, you will see a nice-looking entryway there.

Okay, the, the, we are not using chain-link fencing. We are using wrought iron fencing and those of you remember in the cannabis thing when we approved these projects, you might remember, that all those projects had wrought iron. They had some decorative landscape, you know these kinds of things. You remember Patricia, that’s what we had out, on all those ones and you drive through there, drive through there today it’s a very attractive area and Desert Hot Springs never had an industrial zone. Now we do. It’s zoned that way. That’s what it’s for. So when I see this, we are going to get other ones. Um, you know personally I think it’s a great project. I think the owner has taken the time to mitigate certain things and is open to suggestions like you have mentioned as well and then as Mr. Rowe had stated on the east side of the property there’s the swale area that’s going to be back there uh, for part of this. Um, but what I don’t want to see is people trying to use our, our little town as their political junket. As their little escape, as their attack on this thing. Just to stop growth and development. Not going to happen and so you know let’s, we can be conscious of this. We need to be conscious of this and Staff will let us know. Our homework will let us know, but you know when we get these opportunities that are going to hire seven people, it’s going to bring other people that are going to buy things in town and they are going to expand to certain areas. Other people are going to

Page 398 of 1106 ends

connect and connect and connect and we saw that with some of the cannabis projects as they built, they tapped into utility lines. They tapped into roadways and now it’s our number one revenue generator. So um, you know I think that this is a great project and I think there was recommendation for a motion of some sort. If there is any other comments then we can go forward with that.

Male: I will make a recommendation that we, for the approval of the following. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Development Permit number 22-4 to develop a 60,000 square foot warehouse facility subject to the conditions of approval and finding.

Chairman Voss: Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Male: I will second it.

Chairman Voss: And we have a second. Mr. City Clerk we will do a rollcall, or a.

City Clerk: Should be on your screen.

Chairman Voss: Okay, you are saying that it works. Okay. Do you want a second? Not sure if it worked for everybody. Okay.

City Clerk: Yeah, we have been having so me glitches. I can go.

Chairman Voss: Why don’t you go ahead and just do the rollcall one? City Clerk: Commissioner Aleman. Aleman.

Female: Aleman.

Commissioner Aleman: Approve.

Page 399 of 1106 ends

City Clerk: Commissioner Stoever.

Commissioner Stoever: Approve.

City Clerk: Commissioner Wagstaff.

Commissioner Wagstaff: Approve.

City Clerk: Vice Chair Nindel.

Vice Chair Nindel: Approve.

City Clerk: Chairman Voss.

Chairman Voss: Yes. Motion passes unanimously.

Jennifer Mizrahi: Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, just for the record, if I may. Um, this, unless appealed the Planning Commission’s determination is final. I do need to say that for the opposition.

Chairman Voss: Okay. All right then. I don’t think we had anything else on our agenda so we will go ahead and adjourn the meeting. All right, congratulations and welcome back to Desert Hot Springs.

Male: Thank.

Page 400 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 1
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Application for

4.85-Acre Logistics Center
Response to Comments
Lead Agency:

City of Desert Hot Springs
Planning Department
Patricia Villagomez, Associate Planner
11999 Palm Drive
Desert Hot Springs, California 92240
760-329-6411
Prepared by:

MSA Consulting, Inc.
34200 Bob Hope Drive
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270

Page 401 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 2
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Comments and Reponses to the Comments on the Draft IS/MND List of Commenters
The following is a list of individuals, representatives, organizations and agencies that submitted written comments on the Draft IS/MND. The City received a total of 2 comment letters. Table 1, Comment Letters Received on the Draft IS/MND, provides a list of all comment letters received.

Table 1 lists the ID letter assigned to each comment letter, the date it was received, and commenter’s name.

Table 1
Comment Letters Received on the IS/MND
Letter
ID Date Commenter
A March 13, 2023
California Department of
Fish and Wildlife Alisa Ellsworth
B March 24, 2023 SAFER Adam Frankel, on
behalf of SAFER
CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15204(b), outlines parameters for submitting comments on negative declarations. Persons and public agencies should focus the on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should:

1. Identify the specific effect,

2. Explain why they believe the effect would occur, and

3. Explain why they believe the effect would be significant.

CEQA Guidelines, Section 15204(c), further advises that reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.

CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. Lead agencies need to respond to potentially significant issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers if good faith efforts at full disclosure are made in the environmental document.

Page 402 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 3
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Responses to Comment Letters
Written comments on the Draft IS/MND are reproduced on the following pages, along with responses to those comments. Changes to the Draft IS/MND text that result from responding to comments are included on the response and noted with an underline in bold for new text and a strikeout for deleted text. The responses were prepared by MSA Consulting, Inc. on behalf of City staff.

Page 403 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 4
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Letter A – California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Page 404 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 5
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

Page 405 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 6
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

Page 406 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 7
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

Page 407 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 8
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

Page 408 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 9
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 CDFW Comments and Responses
Comment A-1: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Intent to Adopt an MND from the City of Desert Hot Springs for the Project pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

Response A-1: The City thanks the CDFW for participating in the review of the MND. No further response to this comment is required.

Comment A-2: CDFW Role
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub.

Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code.

Response A-2: This introductory comment describing the role of CDFW role as a trustee agency and responsible agency does not identify a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the MND in identifying and analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the project. For this reason, no further response to this comment is provided.

Comment A-3: Project Description Summary
Proponent: Snider Interests, LLC
Objective: The objective of the Project is to construct a warehouse facility for temporarily holding goods in portable storage units. The Project will consist of a 60,000 square-foot warehouse, two retention basins, 92 parking spaces, and street improvements to Calle De Los Romos. Primary Project activities include construction of the warehouse and the supporting infrastructure. This includes grading, paving, and landscaping of the Project.

Page 409 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 10
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Location: The Project site is located on the northeast corner of Calle De Los Romos and Avenue 19 in the City of Desert Hot Springs, California, in San Bernardino County. The Project site is vacant lot located on Assessor’s Parcel Number 666-360-017 at Latitude 33.911189 N and Longitude -116.535817 W. The Project site is bordered to the north and south by undeveloped land and to the east and west by graded and/or developed land.

Timeframe: No timeframe is given for the Project.

Response A-3: This comment provides a summary of the project and does not identify a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the Draft MND in identifying and analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the project. For this reason, no further response to this comment is provided.

Comment A-4: Comments and Recommendations
CDFW appreciates the inclusion of mitigation measure BR-1 and BR-2 and offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City of Desert Hot Springs in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. As a member of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, it is the City of Desert Hot Springs’ responsibility to ensure that all appropriate development fees are collected prior to the beginning of any work on the Project site.

Response A-4: As addressed in the MND as Mitigation Measure BR-2, the City of Desert Hot Springs shall ensure compliance with the CVMSHCP and its associated Implementing Agreement and shall ensure that payment of the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee for the proposed project is sent to the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit. The CDFW’s comments and recommendations are discussed below.

Comment A-5: Comment #1: Impacts to Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Issue: Project construction may result in injury or mortality to burrowing owl, a California species of special concern (SSC).

Page 410 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 11
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Evidence impact would be significant: Burrowing owl is a CDFW SSC. CEQA provides protection not only for California Endangered Species Act-listed species, but for any species including but not limited to SSC which can be shown to meet the criteria for State listing.

Burrowing owl is an SSC that meets the CEQA definition of rare, threatened, or endangered species (CEQA Guidelines, § 15380). 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. 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”.

Mitigation Measure # BR-1: CDFW recommends the following changes to mitigation measure BR-1 (edits are in strikethrough and bold) to avoid impacts to burrowing owl:

Response A-5: As described in the MND, the project site has been grubbed and graded and is devoid of vegetation. The burrowing owl was not seen during the field surveys and no evidence of its presence was found. However, ground squirrel burrows which may be usurped by owls, and friable soil for burrow construction or enlargement is considered suitable habitat for the owl and burrowing owls are known to take up residence on recently graded sites (page 35 of the MND).

Therefore, Mitigation Measure BR-1 required a pre-construction survey to ensure that burrowing owls are not onsite. Therefore, with mitigation, the MND determined that less than significant impacts are anticipated from the implementation of the project. However, Mitigation Measure BR1 has been revised to state the following, per CDFW’s request:
“BR-1: The project proponent shall ensure that a burrowing owl clearance survey according to CDFW’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) is performed not more than 14 days prior to project site disturbance (clearing, grubbing, grading, and construction), and then again within 24-hours prior to site disturbance, as burrowing owls may colonize or recolonize the site within the time between the original survey and project activities. If any owls are identified, Project activities shall not commence, and the most current protocol established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation) shall must be followed by a qualified biologist. The qualified biologist shall also coordinate with CDFW to conduct an impact assessment to develop avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to be approved by CDFW prior to commencing Project activities.”

Page 411 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 12
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Comment A-6: Comment #2: Impacts to Nesting Birds
Issue: Although the entire Project site has been grubbed and graded and is devoid of vegetation, the Project site is connected to open land. The Project could result in impacts to nesting birds adjacent to the Project site and to burrowing owl and ground nesting birds on-site.

Specific impact: Material stagging, stockpiling, and movement/operation of vehicles and equipment may result in take of nesting birds on-site and/or off-site.

Why impact would occur: The MND reports frequent observations of birds in the Project area during field surveys, including common raven (Corvus corax), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), and Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya). The Project site is adjacent to open land that likely provides nesting and foraging habitat for birds. Project noise, vibration, lighting, and dust may indirectly impact nesting birds on adjacent habitat. In addition, the Project, although devoid of vegetation, provides suitable habitat for ground nesting birds and burrowing owl.

Migratory nongame native bird species are protected by international treaty under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, § 10.13).

Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit take of all birds and their active nests including raptors and other migratory nongame birds (as listed under the MBTA).

Mitigation Measure # BR-3: CDFW recommends that the City of Desert Hot Springs adopts the following mitigation measure to avoid impacts to nesting birds:

Page 412 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 13
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 species. The buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests, as confirmed by a qualified biologist. A qualified biologist shall inspect the active nest to determine whether construction activities are disturbing the nesting birds or nestlings. If the qualified biologist determines that construction activities pose a disturbance to nesting, construction work shall be stopped in the area of the nest and the 'no disturbance buffer' shall be expanded. If there is no nesting activity, then no further action is need for this measure.

Response A-6: As described in the MND, the project site is disturbed and graded. The project site does not contain sparse cover of shrubs and trees. The absence of natural shelters and surface water preclude the site as being considered a significant resource for other migratory bird species (page 35 in MND). Therefore, the project would not result in the take of any bird under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. However, Mitigation Measure BR-3 (nesting bird pre-construction survey) has been added to avoid impacts to nesting birds, per CDFW’s request:
“BR-3: Within the work area and the Project’s zone of influence (generally 100-300 feet), a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than three (3) days prior to the initiation of Project activities, including, but not limited to clearing, grubbing, and/or rough grading to prevent impacts to birds and their nests.

The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. Surveys shall include any potential habitat (including trees, shrubs, the ground, or nearby structures) that may be impacted by activities resulting in nest destruction or abandonment. If nesting bird activity is present, a no disturbance buffer zone shall be established by the qualified biologist around each nest to prevent nest destruction and disruption of breeding or rearing behavior. The buffer shall be a minimum of 500 feet for raptors and 300 feet for songbirds, unless a smaller buffer is specifically determined by a qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species. The buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests, as confirmed by a qualified biologist. A qualified biologist shall inspect the active nest to determine whether construction activities are disturbing the nesting birds or nestlings. If the qualified biologist determines that construction activities pose a disturbance to nesting, construction work shall be stopped in the area of the nest and the 'no disturbance buffer' shall be expanded. If there is no nesting activity, then no further action is need for this measure.”
Comment A-7: Comment #3: Impacts associated with Project Lighting Issue: Artificial lighting on the Project site may impact species that are most active between dusk and dawn.

Page 413 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 14
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Why impact would occur: The Project will have lighting on the building and on posts throughout the site.

Mitigation Measure # BR-4: CDFW recommends that the City of Desert Hot Springs adopts the following mitigation measure to avoid impacts on wildlife associated with Project-related lighting:

Artificial Night Lighting
During Project construction activities, the Project shall: (1) Eliminate all nonessential lighting throughout the Project area and avoid or limit the use of artificial light during the hours of dawn and dusk when many wildlife species are most active, (2) Ensure that all lighting for Project is fully shielded, cast downward, reduced in intensity to the greatest extent, and does not result in lighting trespass including glare onto other properties or upward into the night sky (see the International Dark-Sky Association standards at http://darksky.org/), (3) Use LED lighting with a correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvins or less, and (4) Properly dispose of hazardous waste, and recycle lighting that contains toxic compounds with a qualified recycler.

Response A-7: As stated on page 23 of the MND, the project is expected to utilize temporary light fixtures as a standard measure of nighttime site safety during the period of construction. These fixtures are typically installed on posts and/or on the sides of temporary construction trailers to illuminate stored equipment and building materials. These sources of light are generally downward-oriented, and some are only activated by motion. The temporary construction perimeter fencing (with wind fabric) is expected to visually screen the temporary light fixtures, therefore preventing temporary light spillage effects. The temporary nature of proposed lighting will allow for adjustments to ensure that illumination is properly distributed without affecting adjoining areas.

Therefore, the MND concluded that construction lighting would result in less than significant impacts.

Comment A-8: Comment #4: Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) Issue: Development projects may have lasting impacts on local wildlife and plant species by introducing new sources of food and attracting scavenger species to the Project area.

Specific impact: Project development may bring biological hazards common to urban-wildland interface areas. Waste associated with developments can encourage opportunistic species such as coyotes and ravens (both observed in the area) to become more prevalent, posing a substantial predation hazard to local wildlife.

Why impact would occur: If waste is not managed properly, the presence of easily accessible food may increase the risk of opportunistic species.

Page 414 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 15
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Evidence impact would be significant: Increasing the populations of opportunistic predators such as coyotes and ravens poses a significant hazard to local, protected species such as Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (Uma inornata; SSC), flat-tailed horned lizard (Phrynosoma mccallii; SSC), and burrowing owl.

Mitigation Measure # BR-5: CDFW recommends that the City of Desert Hot Springs adopts the following mitigation measure to avoid attracting opportunistic species to the Project area:

Interpretation shall be provided for any non-English speaking workers, and the same instruction shall be provided for any individual prior to their performing any work on-site.

Response A-8: The project shall implement mitigation measure BR-4, to address CDFW’s concern for worker
“BR-4: The project shall provide an Operational Brochure, prepared by a qualified biologist on the project site. The brochure will be available to all persons employed or otherwise working on the project site and posted on a common wall with all the other OSHA requirements. The brochure shall depict the biological nature of this area with recommendations of awareness on proper “interaction” with the Flora & Fauna. The brochure shall consist of a discussion of the biology of the habitats and species that may be present at the site. The brochure shall also include information on the distribution and habitat needs of any special-status species that may be present, legal protections for those species, penalties for violations, and mitigation measures.

The brochure shall include, but not be limited to: (1) best practices for managing waste and reducing activities that can lead to increased occurrences of opportunistic species and the impacts these species can have on wildlife in the area and (2) protected species that have the potential to occur on the Project site. Interpretation shall be provided for any non-English speaking workers, and the same instruction shall be provided for any individual prior to their performing any work on-site.” Comment A-9: 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

Page 415 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 16
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 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/Plantsand-Animals.

Response A-9: The City thanks the Department for this information. However, due to the disturbed character of the project site, special status species and natural communities are not located on the project site. See above responses.

Comment A-10: 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.)
Response A-10: The City thanks the Department for this information. The project will comply with filing environmental document filing fees compliant with Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.

Comment A-11: Conclusion
CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the MND to assist the City of Desert Hot Springs in identifying and mitigating Project impacts to biological resources.

Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Jacob Skaggs, Environmental Scientist, at [email protected].

Response A-11: The City thanks the Department for their participation in this process. This comment summarizes and concludes the Department’s letter. No additional response required.

Page 416 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 17
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Letter B – SAFER

Page 417 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 18
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

Page 418 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 19
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

Page 419 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 20
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

Page 420 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 21
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

Page 421 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 22
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

Page 422 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 23
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

Page 423 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 24
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

Page 424 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 25
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

Page 425 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 26
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

Page 426 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 27
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

Page 427 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 28
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023

Page 428 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 29
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 SAFER Comments and Responses
Comment B-1: I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND” or “MND”) prepared for the PODS Warehouse Project (“Project”) (Case No.: PL20-0654), for Applicant Almar Management (hereinafter the “Applicant”), including all actions related or referring to the proposed construction and operation of an approximately 60,000-square-foot warehouse facility on a 4.85-acre vacant site, to be located at the northeast corner of Calle De Los Romos and 19th Avenue, in the City of Desert Hot Springs (APN No.: 666-360-017).

Response B-1: The City thanks the SAFER for participating in the review of the MND. This comment introduces SAFER and the project. No further response to this comment is required.

Comment B-2: SAFER is concerned that the IS/MND prepared for the Project is legally inadequate. SAFER’s review of the Project has been assisted by wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D; and air quality experts Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg. and Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the environmental consulting firm, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”).

The expert comments of Dr. Smallwood and SWAPE are attached as Exhibit A and Exhibit B, respectively.

After reviewing the IS/MND, it is evident that it is inadequate and fails as an informational document. Also, there is a “fair argument” that the Project may have unmitigated adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, CEQA requires that the City of Desert Hot Springs (“City”) prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. SAFER respectfully requests that you do not adopt the IS/MND and instead undertake the necessary efforts to prepare an EIR, as required under CEQA.

Response B-2: This comment introduces SAFER’s concern for the environmental analysis in the MND, and their request that the City prepare an EIR. Further discussion of SAFER’s concerns is discussed in the following Comments and Responses B-4 through B-14.

Comment B-3: Legal Standard
As the California Supreme Court has held, “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 (CBE v. SCAQMD) (citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504–505).) “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code (“PRC”) § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382.) An effect on the environment need not be “momentous” to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.” (No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at 83.) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable

Page 429 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 30
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Res. Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 (CBE v. CRA).)
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” (Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220.) The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” (Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed selfgovernment.” (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” (PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 CCR § 15371), only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant environmental effect. (PRC §§ 21100, 21064.) Since “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process,” by allowing the agency “to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR],” negative declarations are allowed only in cases where “the proposed project will not affect the environment at all.” (Citizens of Lake Murray v. San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440.)
Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and…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.” (PRC §§ 21064.5, 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331.) In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. (PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland’s etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904–05.) Under the “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. (14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602.) The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.)

Page 430 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 31
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:

The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact.
(Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, §6.37 (2d ed. Cal.

CEB 2021).) The Courts have explained that “it is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and the courts owe no deference to the lead agency’s determination. Review is de novo, with a preference for resolving doubts in favor of environmental review.” (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928 (emphasis in original).) For over forty years the courts have consistently held that an accurate and stable project description is a bedrock requirement of CEQA—the sine qua non (that without which there is nothing) of an adequate CEQA document:

Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decisionmakers balance the proposal’s benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the “no project” alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185 at 192–93.) CEQA therefore requires that an environmental review document provide an adequate description of the project to allow for the public and government agencies to participate in the review process through submitting public comments and making informed decisions.

Lastly, CEQA requires that an environmental document include a description of the project’s environmental setting or “baseline.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d)(2).) The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. (CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal.4th at 321.) CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a) states, in pertinent part, that a lead agency’s environmental review under CEQA:
…must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant. (See Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124-25 (“Save Our Peninsula”).) As the court of appeal has explained, “the impacts of the project must be measured against the ‘real conditions on the ground,’” and not against hypothetical permitted levels. (Id. at 121-23.)

Page 431 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 32
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Response B-3: This comment introduces CEQA case law studies focusing on the use of various CEQA documents (i.e., EIR, IS, MND), the fair argument standard, and baseline conditions.

SAFER believes that an EIR should be conducted to analyze the proposed project and lists potential arguments supporting their belief that an EIR should be prepared. SAFER’s specific arguments are listed in Comments B-4 through B-14. Corresponding responses are provided for the associated comments.

Comment B-4: I. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument That the Project Will Result in Significant Impacts to Biological Resources.

Expert wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., reviewed the IS/MND, as well as the biological resources report prepared by James W. Cornett (“Cornett report”), to inform his comments. Dr. Smallwood’s comments and CV are attached as Exhibit A.

Dr. Smallwood and his associate, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist, visited and surveyed the Project site on February 20 and 21, 2023. (Ex. A., p. 1.) During their site visits, Dr. Smallwood detected 15 species of vertebrate wildlife (Table 1), four of which are special-status species.” (Id., p. 1.) Among the species Dr. Smallwood identified on the Project site are California gull, Cooper’s hawk, loggerhead shrike, and California horned lark. (Id., p. 2.) Importantly, Dr. Smallwood notes, “Thirty-eight percent of the species seen at or next to the project site by recent reconnaissance-level surveys have been special-status species, which is the highest percentage of special-status species we have detected at any given site that has been proposed for a project over the past 25 years.” (Id., p. 3.) Based on these observations, and his independent review of the IS/MND, Dr. Smallwood concluded that the Project would likely result in significant adverse impacts to existing biological resources. CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR to fully assess and more extensively mitigate these impacts.

Response B-4: This introduces SAFER’s comment that the project would result in impacts to biological resources. Thus, they employed a wildlife biologist (Dr. Smallwood) to review the MND and conduct an onsite survey.

As described in the MND, the project site is disturbed and graded. The project site does not contain shrubs or trees or any natural shelter. In regard to practices for surveying for the presence or absence of vertebrate wildlife, on page 10 of the biology report for the project site, James Cornett described that any limitations during his survey did not affect the findings because “(1) information on sensitive species has been described in other surveys in the area and (2) there was no available historical information indicating sensitive species, other than those described in this report, were present.”
Survey pattern and intensity on the project site has been approved by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish & Wildlife (CDFW) for determining the presence or absence of the burrowing owl and desert tortoise. Prior to the initiation of field work, reviews of the literature and institutional records were conducted to determine the biological resources that might exist within the project site region and to determine the possible occurrence of special-status species. Records, collections, websites and/or staff of the University of California at Riverside

Page 432 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 33
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Herbarium, the Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and the Calflora and iNaturalist websites were consulted for specific information regarding the occurrence of sensitive species. The California Department of Fish & Game Natural Diversity Database was also consulted.

Field surveys occurred over multiple days during the day and nighttime. Twenty live-animal traps (which capture animals unharmed) for large and small mammals were set just at the edges of the project site for twenty-four-hour periods.

Additionally, mitigation measures will be in compliance with CDFW and will occur before any groundbreaking to ensure that the project would not result in negative effects to any bird species.

Additionally, the City of Desert Hot Springs shall ensure compliance with the CVMSHCP and its associated Implementing Agreement and shall ensure that payment of the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee for the proposed project is sent to the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit. For this reason, no further response to this comment is provided.

As a part of the comment review period, the project received a comment letter from the CDFW.

The CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species. The CDFW reviewed the project MND and biological report, and made recommendations revising the burrowing owl mitigation measure, adding mitigation for nesting birds, and educating construction workers.

These are outlined in Responses B-5, B-6, and B-8 for the CDFW letter.

James Cornett agreed that the comments made by the CDFW are fair, biologically justified, and similar to the recommendations made in his report. The State made their recommendations based upon reviews of the formal biological assessment and documents prepared by MSA Consulting, Inc. As the aforementioned parties are in agreement, no further action is necessary or justified. See response letter provided by James W. Cornett.

Comment B-5: A. The MND Mischaracterizes the Site’s Baseline Environmental Setting and Provides Insufficient Mitigation.

The Cornett report mischaracterized the Project site’s baseline environmental setting by omitting key survey details and failing to adhere to applicable survey protocols. For instance, Cornett reported that he did not detect Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard on the site. (Id., p. 11.) However, Dr. Smallwood notes, Cornett “failed to achieve the survey and reporting standards” for this species and at least two others, rendering his absence determinations “unsupportable.” (Id.) Therefore, Cornett’s “ostensible findings [regarding the absence of various species] are potentially misleading.” (Id.) In another example, Cornett failed to complete detection surveys of burrowing owls despite concluding that they could occur on the site. In fact, a CEQA study for an immediately adjacent warehouse project, Desert Gateway, found that burrowing owls were detected on a neighboring site. (Id., p. 12.) The failure to complete detection surveys for burrowing owl here is a significant omission.

Page 433 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 34
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 The IS/MND’s oversight is problematic because, “under CEQA, the lead agency bears a burden to investigate potential environmental impacts. ‘If the local agency has failed to study an area of possible environmental impact, a fair argument may be based on the limited facts in the record.

Deficiencies in the record may actually enlarge the scope of fair argument by lending a logical plausibility to a wider range of inferences.’” (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.

App. 3d 296, 311; County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal. App. 4th 1544.).

Since the City has failed to sufficiently account for the presence of special status species on the Project site and surrounding areas, a fair argument can be made that broader deficiencies underlie the IS/MND’s assessment of the Project’s likely impacts to biological resources.

Next, Dr. Smallwood found that the MND’s proposed mitigation of impacts to biological resources was deeply insufficient due to the Cornett report’s flawed desktop review of on-site species occurrences. For instance, Dr. Smallwood’s review of scientific databases found that 128 specialstatus species occur on or near the project site (Id., p. 13.) Meanwhile, the MND addresses only 8 of these species and assigns occurrence potential to only one of them (burrowing owl). (Id.) The Cornett report’s absence determinations are based upon speculation and flawed assumptions regarding the affected species. Furthermore, the proposed payment of a mitigation fee to the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (“CVMSHCP”) would protect “only a small subset of the special-status species at risk of suffering harm from the project.” (Id., p. 20.) Dr. Smallwood thus concludes that the report’s assumptions regarding the site’s environmental baseline conditions are unsupported by scientific evidence. Importantly, he notes, “[t]he environmental baseline needs to be better informed by both on-site surveys and occurrence database review. Absence determinations need to be founded on substantial evidence. Without such evidence, the precautionary principle in risk analysis calls for erring on the side of caution, which in this application means assuming presence of each potentially occurring special-status species.” (Id., p. 20). Therefore, a “fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to more completely and accurately characterize the existing environmental setting of the project site.” (Id., p. 12.)
Response B-5: This comment questions the methodologies completed in the project Biology Report. See Response B-4 and responses to the CDFW’s letter.

Comment B-6: A. The MND Inadequately Addressed the Project’s Impact on Habitat Loss and Wildlife Movement.

Page 434 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 35
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 opportunities for stopover and staging of volant wildlife during migration, and for dispersal and home range patrol while opportunities nearby diminish as anthropogenic uses expand.” (Id., p.

21.) Therefore, he adds, “a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to analyze the project’s potential impacts to wildlife movement in the region.” (Id.) Response B-6: This comment questions the project’s impact to habitat loss and wildlife movement. As stated in the MND, the entire site has been recently grubbed and graded and is devoid of vegetation. Based upon the near-complete absence of plant life, it appears the site has been graded in the past twelve months. The site was first mass graded in 2018.

The comment, “the Project would contribute to the severe decline in the North American bird population (a 29% decline in overall abundance has occurred over the past 48 years),” provides a number that is derived from a 2019 study by Kenneth Rosenburg. In the study, it is stated that pervasiveness of avian loss across biomes and bird families suggests multiple and interacting threats. Migratory species with complex life histories are in contact with many threats throughout their annual cycles. This comment does not identify a specific concern or correlation to the Draft MND or the project site.

All mitigation measures will be in compliance with CDFW and CVMSHCP and will occur before any groundbreaking to ensure that the project would not result in negative effects to any bird species. For this reason, no further response to this comment is provided.

For this reason, no further response to this comment is provided.

See Response B-4 and responses to the CDFW’s letter.

Comment B-7: C. The MND Failed to Analyze the Project’s Impact on Wildlife Due to Traffic.

Smallwood estimates that the project would result in approximately 312 wildlife fatalities per year. (Id., p. 24.) Dr. Smallwood suggests mitigation measures that would reduce the impact due to vehicle collisions. (Id., p. 27.) Because this significant impact and its feasible mitigation measures have not been considered in the MND, the City must address this impact in an EIR.

Response B-7: This comment requests mitigation for the potential of wildlife fatalities from project-generated traffic. The MND is in compliance with the CVMSHCP and its associated Implementing Agreement. The MND is also in compliance with the CDFW; therefore, no further response to this comment is provided. See Response B-4 and responses to the CDFW’s letter.

Comment B-8: D. The MND Failed to Analyze the Project’s Cumulative Impact on Wildlife The MND provides no substantive analysis of cumulative effects on biological resources. (Id., p.

25.) This is despite Dr. Smallwood’s finding that at least four special-status species occur on or near the project site while many more occur within the surrounding area. (Id.) The MND implies,

Page 435 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 36
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 without any plausible explanation, that the site’s classification as a light industrial zone would mitigate the project’s impact to wildlife. Meanwhile, it fails to address the clear cumulative impacts that will result from the rapidly encroaching habitat loss that is occurring in the surrounding area due to the planned development of numerous large-scale industrial projects (e.g., Desert Gateway project south of the project site and Viento Logistics Center east of the project site). An EIR must be prepared to properly consider and mitigate these significant cumulative impacts.

Response B-8: The ultimate build-out of the City of Desert Hot Springs pursuant to its adopted General Plan has the potential to impact biological resources. Continued urban growth and development in the City may be expected to result in displacement and loss of habitat for wildlife species occurring on currently undeveloped or sparsely developed lands. When considered in combination with other cumulative development within the City, there is potential for adverse cumulative effects to biological resources. Environmental protection laws and regulations have been applied with increasing rigor since the early 1970s and include the California Endangered Species Act, Federal Endangered Species Act, and the Clean Water Act. The City is also a permittee of the CVMSHCP.

The proposed project and other future projects within the City would be required to comply with local, State, and federal laws and policies and all applicable permitting requirements of the regulatory and oversight agencies intended to address potential impacts on biological resources.

Regulations and requirements enforced by the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will be enforced by the City. The requirements established by these agencies are designated to protect species, water bodies, and habitats from negative impacts associated with development. Additionally, impacts from future projects in the area would be mitigated through the payment of conservation fees implemented by the CVMSHCP. Implementation of the CVMSHCP will result in the long-term preservation of habitat for covered species, which will assure their long-term survival and substantially reduce cumulative impacts to sensitive biological resources in the Coachella Valley.

According to the Desert Hot Springs General Plan Environmental Impact Report (DHS GP EIR), cumulative impacts are reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 (as established in the DHS GP EIR). BIO-1 requires Biological Resource Assessments to be prepared for all discretionary development projects that contain undeveloped lands. BIO-2 highlights special status plant and wildlife protection where protocol focused surveys for sensitive plant and wildlife species will be carried out by a qualified biologist when suitable habitat for any such species is proposed on a project site and has a potential for impact. James W. Cornett Ecological Consultants provided a Biological Report to analyze project impacts to biological resources. His findings and local expertise in the Coachella Valley, as well as the implementation of the CVMSHCP finds that the project would not result in impacts to biological resources with the implementation mitigation measures BR-1 and BR-2. BIO-3, within the DHS GP EIR ensures nesting bird avoidance by requiring focused surveys for active nests shall be conducted by a qualified biologist if vegetation removal is scheduled during nesting season.

Based on CDFW’s letter, Mitigation Measure BR-3 has been included in the project’s MMRP to ensure impacts to nesting birds are reduced to less than significant levels. BIO-4 in the DHS GP EIR promotes habitat revegetation, restoration, and/or conservation in riparian habitat or other

Page 436 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 37
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 sensitive natural communities. As stated on page 37 of the MND, no naturally occurring springs, permanent aquatic habitats, federally protected wetlands, marshes or riparian resources, or other sensitive natural communities are located onsite. Therefore, mitigation measure BIO-4 is not applicable to the proposed project. With the findings determined in the project-specific Biology Report, and mitigation measures BR-1 through BR-3 in the MND, the project would not result in cumulative impacts. Additionally, with adherence to policies and programs, all new development will assist in minimizing cumulative impacts in regard to biological resources. Cumulative impacts are expected to be less than significant.

Comment B-9: II. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument That the Project Will Have a Significant Impact on Air Quality, Hazardous Materials, and Greenhouse Gases.

Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., and Dr. Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D., of the environmental consulting firm SWAPE reviewed the IS/MND’s analysis of the Project’s impacts on air quality, hazardous materials, and greenhouse gases. SWAPE’s comment letter and CVs are attached as Exhibit B.

Response B-9: This comment introduces SAFER’s concern regarding air quality, hazardous materials, and greenhouse gases analyzed in the MND. Responses to SAFER’s concerns are provided in Responses B-10 to B-14.

Comment B-10: A. Satellite Images Indicate the Potential Presence of Hazardous Materials The IS/MND relied upon a review of online databases to assert that the project would have a lessthan-significant impact with respect to hazards and hazardous materials. However, SWAPE’s review of aerial images from Google Earth (dated August 5, 2021) (see below) demonstrate that material piles were present on the site. Therefore, SWAPE writes, “An EIR is necessary to include a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (“ESA”) to adequately evaluate and disclose potential hazards related to the placement of piled material and from other conditions that may exist on the Project site. (Ex. B., p. 1.)
Accordingly, “The preparation of a Phase I ESA is often undertaken in the preparation of project approval documents to identify and disclose hazardous waste issues that may present impacts to the public, workers, or the environment, and which may require further investigation, including environmental sampling and cleanup. Uses of the site for the placement of material may have resulted in the release of hazardous materials that would pose a risk to workers involved in earthwork necessary for site preparation.” (Id., p. 2.) This is a significant environmental and health risk which the IS/MND has failed to address.

According to SWAPE, “A Phase I ESA, completed by a licensed environmental professional, is necessary for inclusion in an EIR to identify recognized environmental conditions, if any, at the proposed Project site. If past land uses include RECs [recognized environmental conditions], a Phase II [ESA] should be conducted to sample for residual concentrations of contaminants in soil.

Any contamination that is identified above regulatory screening levels, including California Department of Toxic Substances Control Soil Screening Levels, should be further evaluated and cleaned up, if necessary, in coordination with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.” (Id., p. 3.).

Page 437 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 38
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Response B-10: The IS/MND disclosed that the project’s baseline condition as being previously cleared and graded for temporary material stockpiling and management by the prior owner, while covered by California’s NPDES Construction General Permit with implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to comply with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) regulations and Clean Water Act (CWA) programs. The regulated activities were not related to the project proponent or project. The governing NPDES regulations and SWPPP compliance scope are inherently designed to prevent pollution impacts from the covered activities, including the use of best management practices (BMPs) for Material Delivery and Storage; Material Use; and Spill Prevention and Control. Therefore, the prior regulated activities in accordance with a SWPPP reduce the uncertainty the management of construction-related materials. A Phase I ESA is not necessary to reach or support the Initial Study findings.

Comment B-11: B. Inaccurate Air Modeling Undermines the MND’s Conclusions.

SWAPE reviewed the Project’s CalEEMod output files – the underlying data files used to estimate a project’s air emissions – and found that “several model inputs were not consistent with [the] information disclosed in the IS/MND.” (Ex. B., p. 3.) For instance, the air model reduced the default architectural and area coating emission factors without proper justification. The CalEEMod user comments seek to justify these reductions by referring to compliance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”) Rule 1113, which limits the volatile organic compound (“VOC”) contents for 57 categories of architectural coatings. However, the VOC limit values under SCAQMD Rule 1113 range from 50 g/L to 730 g/L. (Id., p. 4.) Therefore, SWAPE “cannot verify that SCAQMD Rule 1113 substantiates reductions to the default coating values without more information regarding what category of coating would be used.” (Id.) Furthermore, the IS/MND fails to implement any formal mitigation measure requiring the use of a specific type of architectural coating. CEQA requires mitigation measures to be legally enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally binding instruments. 14 CCR § 15126.4(a)(2). See, Woodward Park Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. City of Fresno (2007) 150 Cal.

App. 4th 683, 730 (project proponent’s agreement to a mitigation by itself is insufficient; mitigation measure must be an enforceable requirement). Therefore, SWAPE writes, “by including unsubstantiated reductions to the default architectural and area coating emission factors, the model may underestimate the Project’s construction-related and operational ROG/VOC emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.” (Id., pp. 4-5.) Next, SWAPE found that the model’s revised construction schedule – involving various changes from CalEEMod’s default values – is unsubstantiated because the IS/MND fails to discuss the Project’s proposed construction schedule at all. (Id., p. 5.) Furthermore, SWAPE notes, “the model is incorrect in stating that a longer construction schedule would be ‘more conservative.’” In fact, by “extending some of the individual construction phase lengths, the model assumes there are a greater number of days to complete the construction activities required by the prolonged phases. As a result, there will be less construction activities required per day and, consequently, less pollutants emitted per day.” (Id., p. 6.) Therefore, SWAPE writes, “the model underestimates the peak daily emissions associated with some phases of construction and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.” (Id.)

Page 438 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 39
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Lastly, SWAPE found that the model improperly reduced the default number of acres that would be graded for the Project. According to the CalEEMod user guide, “the default acres of grading values are based on the model’s construction equipment and the length of the grading and site preparation phases, not on the dimensions of the Project site. (Id., p. 7.) However, the user comments in support of the value changes merely point to the total acreage of the Project site.

According to SWAPE, “These unsubstantiated changes present an issue, as CalEEMod uses the acres of grading values to estimate the dust emissions associated with grading.” (Id.) Therefore, the model underestimates “the Project’s construction-related emissions and should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.” (Id.)
Response B-11: CalEEMod 2020 is air quality modeling software tool for statewide use. The software is specifically designed to allow for certain input factors that ensure consistency with a particular region and/or air district’s regulations. VOC limits to architectural coatings are specifically regulated under SCAQMD Rule 1113 and the relevant content factors are included in its Table of Standards 1. The 50 g/L VOC limit entered into CalEEMod for architectural coatings and 100 g/L for parking lot striping is consistent with the said effective standards. It would be a violation to apply architectural coatings with VOC content above the mentioned limits. As a result, the input factors are not a form of mitigation and are justified by the SCAQMD regulations applicable to the project region.

As allowed by the CalEEMod software design and practices, the site preparation, grading, paving, and painting durations were adjusted to be more conservative. For example, site preparation was factored to occur in one week and site grading in 4 weeks as reasonably expected. Shortening the construction durations beyond the default factors or those that are considered reasonable would wrongfully assume the use of construction resources (labor, material, equipment, etc.) to levels that are not reasonable or justified. Therefore, the adjusted factors based on reasonable assumptions are justified.

Comment B-12: C. Updated Modeling Shows the Project Will Have a Potentially Significant Air Quality Impact.

Provided that the Project documents did not accurately assess the Project’s construction-related air quality impacts, SWAPE conducted its own analysis using CalEEMod and project-specific information disclosed in project documents. According to this updated analysis, SWAPE found that the Project would produce an estimated 80.97 lbs./day of VOC emissions. (Id., p. 8.) This estimate exceeds the SCAQMD significance threshold of 75 lbs./day and represents a potentially significant air quality impact that should be further mitigated. As such, SWAPE writes, “an EIR should be prepared to adequately assess and mitigate the potential air quality impacts that the Project may have on the surrounding environment.” (Id.) In addition to these modeling inaccuracies, the IS/MND concluded that the Project would have a less-than-significant health risk impact without conducting a quantified construction or operational health risk analysis (“HRA”). (Id., p. 9.) This is improper because CEQA requires an analysis to determine whether a Project’s toxic air contaminant (“TAC”) emissions—including diesel particulate matter (“DPM”) emissions—will have potentially adverse impacts on human

Page 439 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 40
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 health. Sierra Club v. Cty. of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal. 5th 502, 518 (an EIR must make “a reasonable effort to substantively connect a project’s air quality impacts to likely health consequences.”) The failure to address potential health-related impacts resulting from the Project’s likely air emissions is problematic because operation of construction equipment during construction, as well as truck trips during future operations, will release DPM emissions into the air, affecting local and regional air quality.

The IS/MND suggests that health risks from exposure to diesel particulate matter would not be significant because the project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for construction‐generated criteria pollutants. (Id., p. 9.) However, as SWAPE explains, LST “only evaluates impacts from criteria air pollutants,” which does not include DPM. “As a result, health impacts during Project operation from exposure to TACs, such as DPM, were not analyzed, thus leaving a gap in the AQ & GHG Memo’s analysis.” (Id.) DPM is a known human carcinogen which poses unique health risks to nearby sensitive receptors..

DPM contains 40 toxic chemicals, including benzene, arsenic and lead. (www.p65warnings.ca.gov/fact-sheets/diesel-engine-exhaust.) DPM is also listed by the State of California as a toxic air contaminant known to cause cancer in humans. (https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/proposition65//p65chemicalslistsinglelisttable2021p.pdf.) According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Exposure to diesel exhaust can lead to serious health conditions like asthma and respiratory illnesses and can worsen existing heart and lung disease, especially in children and the elderly. These conditions can result in increased numbers of emergency room visits, hospital admissions, absences from work and school, and premature deaths.” (https://www.epa.gov/dera/learn-about-impacts-diesel-exhaust-and-diesel-emissionsreductionact-dera).

OEHHA guidance also recommends that an exposure duration of 30 years should be used to estimate the individual cancer risk affecting the maximally exposed individual resident (“MEIR”) near a proposed Project site. (Id.)
Accordingly, because the Project will presumably operate for at least 30 years, the lifetime health risk to nearby sensitive receptors must be estimated by an HRA. (Id.) “These recommendations reflect the most recent state health risk policies, and as such, an EIR should be prepared to include an analysis of health risk impacts posed to nearby sensitive receptors from Project-generated DPM emissions.” (Id.)
Finally, in failing to prepare a quantified construction or operational HRA to determine the impact on nearby sensitive receptors, the Project documents also failed to compare the potentially excess cancer risk beyond the SCAQMD significance threshold of 10 per million. (Id.) As such, the City

Page 440 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 41
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 lacks the necessary evidence to show that the Project will have a less-than-significant air quality impact. Therefore, an EIR must be prepared to include an assessment of the health risk posed to nearby existing receptors.

Response B-12: SWAPE’s own modeling does not disclose the VOC limits applicable under SCAQMD Rule 1113. Using statewide default factors or those above the rule would erroneously result in higher VOC emissions and would imply a violation to the applicable SCAQMD rule. It would be improper to assume VOC factors above the regulated levels.

The IS/MND air quality findings reasonably take into account the project size (less than 5 acres), setting within an approved industrial district designation, and estimated emission levels in comparison to the applicable SCAMQD standards. The California Supreme Court decision on Sierra Club v. County of Fresno involved an EIR for a 942-acre Specific Plan with approximately 2,500 residential units. Therefore, a broad comparison of the Court findings on a project of such scale to the proposed development is misleading.

The LST analysis was prepared in accordance with the SCAQMD Methodology for the criteria air pollutants to support the Initial Study findings despite the lack of sensitive receptor land uses within the distance range. CalEEMod assumes the use of diesel-powered equipment.

The IS/MND analysis and findings took into account the project scale and location within a designated industrial district. The criteria air pollutant emissions results being found to occur below the SCAQMD thresholds adequately support the conclusion regarding health risk without the need to undertake an HRA. The preparation of an HRA is quoted by the DOJ guidance as an example of a recommended best practice and is not required. The IS/MND analysis adequately disclosed the air emission impacts for criteria pollutants based on the SCAQMD standards, which are established primarily to protect the effects on “health and welfare”.

Comment B-13: D. Health Assessment Demonstrates that the Project Involves Significant Health Risk Impacts.

Provided that the IS/MND did not adequately assess the Project’s significant adverse health impacts, SWAPE developed a screening-level risk assessment using AERSCREEN, a modeling tool which is recommended by OEHHA for the development of Level 2 Health Risk Screening Assessments (“Level 2 HRSA”). According to SWAPE, “A Level 2 HRSA utilizes a limited amount of site-specific information to generate maximum reasonable downwind concentrations of air contaminants to which nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed. If an unacceptable air quality hazard is determined to be possible using AERSCREEN, a more refined modeling approach is required prior to approval of the Project.” (Id., p. 11.) Following this recommended approach for modeling potential health risks, SWAPE estimated the cancer risk for the maximally exposed individual receptor (“MEIR”), in this case a residence located approximately 900 meters from the Project site. (Id., pp. 12-13.) SWAPE’s analysis concluded that Project construction and operations would result in excess cancer risks for infants (16.2 per million) and lifetime residents (19.1 per million). (Id., p. 15.) These risk levels exceed the SCAQMD’s health risk significance threshold of 10 per million.

Page 441 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 42
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 SWAPE explains that this analysis is based on a “screening-level HRA, which is known to be conservative and tends to err on the side of health protection.” (Id., p. 16.) Therefore, “an EIR should be prepared to include a refined health risk analysis which adequately and accurately evaluates health risk impacts associates with both Project construction and operation.” (Id.) Response B-13: SWAPE’s screening-level assessment of the theoretical impacts on the nearest residential structure fails to consider that such residential location is located upwind of the site.

The prevailing wind patterns in the area are generally from northwest to southeast or east to west.

The project would not result in emissions that would work against the prevailing wind patterns to affect the residential site located at approximately 0.5 miles and upwind.

Comment B-14: E. There is Substantial Evidence of a Fair Argument that the Project Will Have a Significant Impact on Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

The IS/MND estimates that the Project would generate net annual greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions of 412.5 MTCO2e and asserts that this impact would be less-than-significant. (Id., p.

17.) However, the IS/MND’s quantitative analysis is unsubstantiated because “several of the values inputted into the models are not consistent with information disclosed in the IS/MND.” (Id.) Because of these inaccuracies, the models may underestimate the Project’s emissions and the IS/MND’s quantitative analysis should not be relied upon to determine Project significance.

Instead, an EIR should be prepared to assess the Project’s potential GHG impacts.

Furthermore, the IS/MND relied upon an outdated quantitative threshold to determine project significance. Specifically, the IS/MND compared the Project’s estimated GHG emissions to the SCAQMD significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e. However, SWAPE writes, this threshold is based upon outdated GHG emissions targets which California was required to meet by 2020. The threshold is thus irrelevant to significance determinations made in 2023. To more accurately determine the Project’s GHG significance, potential emissions should be measured according to the SCAQMD 2035 service population efficiency target of 3.0 MT C02e/SP/year, which was calculated by applying a 40-percent reduction to the 2020 targets. (Id., p. 18).

When applying this updated calculation method, which accounts for the number of residents and/or jobs that will be served by a project, SWAPE determined that the Project would have a potentially significant GHG impact. Therefore, an EIR should be prepared to include an updated GHG analysis and should include additional mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to less-than-significant levels. SWAPE proposes a detailed list of feasible GHG mitigation measures to reduce this impact, including a requirement that the Project incorporate a solar power system for on-site energy production. (Id., pp. 19-21.) Response B-14: The screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year is applicable to identify projects of certain scale and size that would be deemed to have less than significant impacts.

SWAPE’s suggested service population efficiency target originates from the same SCAMQD interim guidance that establishes the screening level of 3,000 MTCO2e. The suggested service population efficiency target is considered one of the three options when the initial screening threshold is not applicable.

Page 442 of 1106 ends

City of Desert Hot Springs Page 43
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments March 2023 Comment B-15: Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, there is substantial evidence that the Project will have significant adverse impacts on biological resources, air quality, hazardous materials, and greenhouse gas emissions.

Therefore, the City is required to prepare an EIR for the Project. SAFER respectfully requests that you deny approval of the MND and instead direct staff to undertake the necessary efforts to prepare an EIR.

Response B-15: This comment concludes SAFER’s letter. However, based on the Reponses to Comments B-4 through B-14, it is concluded that the project will not result in adverse impacts on biological resources, air quality, hazardous materials, and greenhouse gas emissions. The findings in the associated responses conclude that the project will result in less than significant impacts and less than significant impacts with mitigation, as determined in the MND.

Page 443 of 1106 ends

Via Email
February 10, 2023
James Nindel, Vice Chairman
Leroy Aleman, Commissioner
Mary-Kate Stoever, Commissioner
Dirk Voss, Commissioner
Chris Wagstaff, Commissioner
Planning Commission
City of Desert Hot Springs
11-999 Palm Dr.

Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240
Patricia Villagomez, Principal
Planner
Planning Division
City of Desert Hot Springs
11-999 Palm Dr.

Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240
[email protected]
Jerryl Soriano, City Clerk
City of Desert Hot Springs
11-999 Palm Dr.

Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Comment on the PODS Logistics Center (Development Permit No. 22-4) Dear Honorable Members of the Planning Commission and Ms. Villagomez:

I am writing on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) regarding the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) prepared for the proposed 60,000 square-foot warehouse facility to be located on the 4.85-acre property on the northeast corner of Calle De Los Romos and 19th Avenue (APN No. 666-360-017) in the City of Desert Hot Springs (“Project.”) The MND and Project are scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission on February 14, 2023. Please include these comments on the administrative record for this matter.

After reviewing the MND, it is evident that it is inadequate and that it fails as an informational document. Specifically, there is substantial evidence of a fair argument that the Project may have significant, unmitigated adverse environmental impacts. Therefore, CEQA requires that the City of Desert Hot Springs (“City”) prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) for the Project, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. SAFER respectfully requests that you deny approval of the MND and instead direct the City’s Planning Division to prepare an EIR for the Project.

Page 444 of 1106 ends

Page 2 of 6 ends

SAFER Comment on MND for PODS Logistics Center
February 10, 2023
I. LEGAL STANDARD
As the California Supreme Court has held, “[i]f no EIR has been prepared for a nonexempt project, but substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may result in significant adverse impacts, the proper remedy is to order preparation of an EIR.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. South Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 319-320 (CBE v. SCAQMD) (citing No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 75, 88; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491, 504–505).) “Significant environmental effect” is defined very broadly as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment.” (Pub. Res. Code (“PRC”) § 21068; see also 14 CCR § 15382.) An effect on the environment need not be “momentous” to meet the CEQA test for significance; it is enough that the impacts are “not trivial.” (No Oil, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at 83.) “The ‘foremost principle’ in interpreting CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be read so as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” (Communities for a Better Env’t v. Cal. Res.

Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109 (CBE v. CRA).)
The EIR is the very heart of CEQA. (Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1214 (Bakersfield Citizens); Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) The EIR is an “environmental ‘alarm bell’ whose purpose is to alert the public and its responsible officials to environmental changes before they have reached the ecological points of no return.” (Bakersfield Citizens, 124 Cal.App.4th at 1220.) The EIR also functions as a “document of accountability,” intended to “demonstrate to an apprehensive citizenry that the agency has, in fact, analyzed and considered the ecological implications of its action.” (Laurel Heights Improvements Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392.) The EIR process “protects not only the environment but also informed self-government.” (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) An EIR is required if “there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” (PRC § 21080(d); see also Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927.) In very limited circumstances, an agency may avoid preparing an EIR by issuing a negative declaration, a written statement briefly indicating that a project will have no significant impact thus requiring no EIR (14 CCR § 15371), only if there is not even a “fair argument” that the project will have a significant environmental effect. (PRC §§ 21100, 21064.) Since “[t]he adoption of a negative declaration . . . has a terminal effect on the environmental review process,” by allowing the agency “to dispense with the duty [to prepare an EIR],” negative declarations are allowed only in cases where “the proposed project will not affect the environment at all.” (Citizens of Lake Murray v.

San Diego (1989) 129 Cal.App.3d 436, 440.)
Mitigation measures may not be construed as project design elements or features in an environmental document under CEQA. The IS/MND must “separately identify and analyze the significance of the impacts … before proposing mitigation measures […].” (Lotus vs.

Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645, 658.) A “mitigation measure” is a measure designed to minimize a project’s significant environmental impacts, (PRC §

Page 445 of 1106 ends

Page 3 of 6 ends

SAFER Comment on MND for PODS Logistics Center
February 10, 2023
21002.1(a)), while a “project” is defined as including “the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a).) Unlike mitigation measures, project elements are considered prior to making a significance determination. Measures are not technically “mitigation” under CEQA unless they are incorporated to avoid or minimize “significant” impacts. (PRC § 21100(b)(3).) To ensure that the project’s potential environmental impacts are fully analyzed and disclosed, and that the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures is considered in depth, mitigation measures that are not included in the project’s design should not be treated as part of the project description. (Lotus, 223 Cal.App.4th at 654-55, 656 fn.8.) Mischaracterization of a mitigation measure as a project design element or feature is “significant,” and therefore amounts to a material error, “when it precludes or obfuscates required disclosure of the project’s environmental impacts and analysis of potential mitigation measures.” (Mission Bay Alliance v.

Office of Community Investment & Infrastructure (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 160, 185.) Where an initial study shows that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, a mitigated negative declaration may be appropriate. However, a mitigated negative declaration is proper only if the project revisions would avoid or mitigate the potentially significant effects identified in the initial study “to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and…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.” (PRC §§ 21064.5, 21080(c)(2); Mejia v. City of Los Angeles (2005) 130 Cal.App.4th 322, 331.) In that context, “may” means a reasonable possibility of a significant effect on the environment. (PRC §§ 21082.2(a), 21100, 21151(a); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 927; League for Protection of Oakland’s etc. Historic Res. v. City of Oakland (1997) 52 Cal.App.4th 896, 904–05.)
Under the “fair argument” standard, an EIR is required if any substantial evidence in the record indicates that a project may have an adverse environmental effect—even if contrary evidence exists to support the agency’s decision. (14 CCR § 15064(f)(1); Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 931; Stanislaus Audubon Society v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150-51; Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602.) The “fair argument” standard creates a “low threshold” favoring environmental review through an EIR rather than through issuance of negative declarations or notices of exemption from CEQA. (Pocket Protectors, 124 Cal.App.4th at 928.) The “fair argument” standard is virtually the opposite of the typical deferential standard accorded to agencies. As a leading CEQA treatise explains:

This ‘fair argument’ standard is very different from the standard normally followed by public agencies in their decision making. Ordinarily, public agencies weigh the evidence in the record and reach a decision based on a preponderance of the evidence. [Citation]. The fair argument standard, by contrast, prevents the lead agency from weighing competing evidence to determine who has a better argument concerning the likelihood or extent of a potential environmental impact.

Page 446 of 1106 ends

Page 4 of 6 ends

SAFER Comment on MND for PODS Logistics Center
February 10, 2023
(Kostka & Zishcke, Practice Under the California Environmental Quality Act, §6.37 (2d ed. Cal.

Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision-makers balance the proposal’s benefit against its environmental cost, consider mitigation measures, assess the advantage of terminating the proposal (i.e., the “no project” alternative) and weigh other alternatives in the balance. An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR.

(County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 185 at 192–93.) CEQA therefore requires that an environmental review document provide an adequate description of the project to allow for the public and government agencies to participate in the review process through submitting public comments and making informed decisions.

Lastly, CEQA requires that an environmental document include a description of the project’s environmental setting or “baseline.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15063(d)(2).) The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. (CBE v. SCAQMD, 48 Cal.4th at 321.) CEQA Guidelines section 15125(a) states, in pertinent part, that a lead agency’s environmental review under CEQA:
…must include a description of the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time [environmental analysis] is commenced, from both a local and regional perspective. This environmental setting will normally constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a Lead Agency determines whether an impact is significant.
(See Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 124-25 (“Save Our Peninsula”).) As the court of appeal has explained, “the impacts of the project must be measured against the ‘real conditions on the ground,’” and not against hypothetical permitted levels. (Id. at 121-23.)
II. DISCUSSION
a. There Was Insufficient Notice for Consideration of the Project.

Meaningful public participation is a central premise of the CEQA review process.

Therefore, a minimum of 20 days is required for public review of a proposed MND. (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21091, subd. (b).) However, despite having filed a CEQA notice request with

Page 447 of 1106 ends

Page 5 of 6 ends

SAFER Comment on MND for PODS Logistics Center
February 10, 2023
the City for notification of all such proceedings, SAFER was not notified of the proposed project until a Planning Commission agenda was publicly posted for the February 14, 2023 meeting. In the spirit of informing meaningful public participation, SAFER respectfully requests that you continue any hearings for the proposed Project for a minimum of 20 days to better inform the public’s consideration of the proposed MND.
b. There is a Fair Argument that Significant Adverse Impacts Will Result from the Project.

There is a fair argument that the Project will have significant impacts on air quality, greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions, human health, and biological resources. In fact, the air quality and greenhouse gas (“GHG”) impacts of warehouses and other large-scale industrial projects are so severe that the California Attorney General has published guidelines – and an extensive set of proposed mitigation measures – to reduce these significant impacts.1

The significant adverse environmental impacts which often result from these projects has been highlighted by the increasing prevalence of warehouses and distribution centers throughout the state – and the corresponding health impacts caused by the significant increase in heavy-duty truck trips and their emissions of diesel particulate matter (“DPM”), a known human carcinogen.

The MND fails to adequately account for these impacts and incorporates no mitigation to reduce the Project’s impacts to air quality and GHG emissions.

In addition to the Project’s individual impacts, the project will have cumulative impacts when considered together with other existing and reasonably foreseeable projects in the area.

CEQA requires analysis of cumulative impacts. CEQA Guidelines section 15130(a). This requirement flows from CEQA section 21083, which requires a finding that a project may have a significant effect on the environment if “the possible effects of a project are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. . . . ‘Cumulatively considerable’ means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” “Cumulative impacts” are defined as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” CEQA Guidelines section 15355(a). “[I]ndividual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects.” CEQA Guidelines section 15355(a). In this case, the City should analyze the cumulative impacts of the Project together with other warehouses in the area, as well as the proposed nearby anaerobic digester. 1 California Department of Justice, “Warehouse Projects: Best Practices and Mitigation Measures to Comply with the California Environemtnal Quality Act,” available:
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/environment/warehouse-best-practices.pdf.

Page 448 of 1106 ends

Page 6 of 6 ends

SAFER Comment on MND for PODS Logistics Center
February 10, 2023
III. CONCLUSION
There is a fair argument that the Project will have significant unmitigated impacts which must be further analyzed and mitigated by an EIR. Therefore, we respectfully request that you deny approval of the Project at this time and instead direct staff to prepare an EIR.

We reserve the right to supplement these comments at public hearings concerning the Project. Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Peninsula Water Management Dist., 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121 (1997). Thank you for considering these comments.

Sincerely,
Adam Frankel

Page 449 of 1106 ends

State of California – Natural Resources Agency GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CHARLTON H. BONHAM, Director Inland Deserts Region
3602 Inland Empire Blvd c220
Ontario, CA 91764
www.wildlife.ca.gov
March 13, 2023
Patricia Villagomez, Principal Planner
City of Desert Hot Springs
11999 Palm Drive
Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240
[email protected]
Subject: Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)

4.85 Acre Logistics Center (Project)
State Clearing House No. 2023020381
Dear Ms. Villagomez:

The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Intent to Adopt an MND from the City of Desert Hot Springs for the Project pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.1
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding those activities involved in the Project that may affect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments regarding those aspects of the Project that CDFW, by law, may be required to carry out or approve through the exercise of its own regulatory authority under the Fish and Game Code.

CDFW ROLE
CDFW is California’s Trustee Agency for fish and wildlife resources and holds those resources in trust by statute for all the people of the State. (Fish & G. Code, §§ 711.7, subd. (a) & 1802; Pub. Resources Code, § 21070; CEQA Guidelines § 15386, subd. (a).) CDFW, in its trustee capacity, has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (Id., § 1802.). Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charged by law to provide, as available, biological expertise during public agency environmental review efforts, focusing specifically on projects and related activities that have the potential to adversely affect fish and wildlife resources.

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA (Pub.

Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.). CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY
Proponent: Snider Interests, LLC
Objective: The objective of the Project is to construct a warehouse facility for temporarily holding goods in portable storage units. The Project will consist of a 60,000 square-foot warehouse, two retention basins, 92 parking spaces, and street improvements to Calle De Los Romos. Primary Project activities include construction of the warehouse and the supporting infrastructure. This includes grading, paving, and landscaping the Project site.

Location: The Project site is located on the northeast corner of Calle De Los Romos and Avenue 19 in the City of Desert Hot Springs, California, in San Bernardino County. The Project site is vacant lot located on Assessor’s Parcel Number 666-360-017 at Latitude

33.911189 N and Longitude -116.535817 W. The Project site is bordered to the north and south by undeveloped land and to the east and west by graded and/or developed land.

Timeframe: No timeframe is given for the Project.

1 CEQA is codified in the California Public Resources Code in section 21000 et seq. The “CEQA Guidelines” are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, commencing with section 15000.

DocuSign Envelope ID: C7C6F5B5-4A86-4CC3-8F13-569A1F05AECF

Page 450 of 1106 ends

Patricia Villagomez, Principal Planner
City of Desert Hot Springs
March 13, 2023

Page 2 ends

COMMENT #1: Impacts to Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Issue: Project construction may result in injury or mortality to burrowing owl, a California species of special concern (SSC).

Mitigation Measure # BR-1: CDFW recommends the following changes to mitigation measure BR-1 (edits are in strikethrough and bold) to avoid impacts to burrowing owl:

Specific impact: Material stagging, stockpiling, and movement/operation of vehicles and equipment may result in take of nesting birds on-site and/or off-site.

The Project site is adjacent to open land that likely provides nesting and foraging habitat DocuSign Envelope ID: C7C6F5B5-4A86-4CC3-8F13-569A1F05AECF

Page 451 of 1106 ends

Patricia Villagomez, Principal Planner
City of Desert Hot Springs
March 13, 2023

Page 3 ends

Mitigation Measure # BR-3: CDFW recommends that the City of Desert Hot Springs adopts the following mitigation measure to avoid impacts to nesting birds:

COMMENT #3: Impacts Associated with Project Lighting
Issue: Artificial lighting on the Project site may impact species that are most active between dusk and dawn.

Why impact would occur: The Project will have lighting on the building and on posts throughout the site.

Mitigation Measure # BR-4: CDFW recommends that the City of Desert Hot Springs adopts the following mitigation measure to avoid impacts on wildlife associated with Project-related lighting:

Page 452 of 1106 ends

Patricia Villagomez, Principal Planner
City of Desert Hot Springs
March 13, 2023

Page 4 ends

Why impact would occur: If waste is not managed properly, the presence of easily accessible food may increase the risk of opportunistic species.

Mitigation Measure # BR-5: CDFW recommends that the City of Desert Hot Springs adopts the following mitigation measure to avoid attracting opportunistic species to the Project area:

The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants-and-Animals.

Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.) DocuSign Envelope ID: C7C6F5B5-4A86-4CC3-8F13-569A1F05AECF

Page 453 of 1106 ends