VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Steven Estrada
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Dear Steven Estrada:
Subject: Portola Springs – AB 52 Consultation
The City of Palm Desert is in receipt of a project application for “The Portola Springs Residential Development Project” which proposes the construction of 156 single family residences, onsite circulation, utility infrastructure, stormwater improvements, and open space areas on an approximately 18-acre project site located south of Southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue at Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 620-400-030 and 620-400-031.
The City is providing you this letter pursuant to your request for notification of projects within this traditional geographic area. The process requires that tribal organizations must request consultation within 30 days of receiving notice of a project. If you feel there are concerns that need to be further addressed, you will need to provide a letter in writing, specifically requesting a consultation with the City, within the 30-day time frame. Conversely, we request that you provide confirmation if you feel that this proposal does not warrant consultation. In either case, in the interest of time, we ask that you respond in writing to this correspondence at your earliest convenience.
The City of Palm Desert is committed to a positive AB 52 consultation process and a working relationship with Tribal governments. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me at [email protected] or (760) 436-4750.
Sincerely,
Madeline Luke
Madeline Luke
Consulting Planner
1557
1558
1559
1560
1561
1562
1563
Dear Madeline Luke,
The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (ACBCI) appreciates your efforts to include the Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO) in the Portola Springs Residential Development project. The project area is not located within the boundaries of the ACBCI Reservation.
However, it is within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area. For this reason, the ACBCI THPO requests the following:
[VIA EMAIL TO:[email protected]]
City of Palm Desert
Madeline Luke
73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
October 03, 2025
Re: Portola Springs ISMND
Again, the Agua Caliente appreciates your interest in our cultural heritage. If you have questions or require additional information, please call me at (760) 423-3485. You may also email me at [email protected].
Cordially,
Xitlaly Madrigal
Cultural Resources Analyst
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
AGUA CALIENTE BAND
OF CAHUILLA INDIANS
03-026-2025-005
*The presence of an approved Agua Caliente Native American Cultural Resource Monitor(s) during any ground disturbing activities (including archaeological testing and surveys). Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the Monitor may request that destructive construction halt and the Monitor shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist (Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines) to investigate and, if necessary, prepare a mitigation plan for submission to the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Agua Caliente Tribal Historic Preservation Office. *If any Tribal cultural material is found, it will be reburied on site if avoidance is not feasible. The reburial area will be selected in collaboration with Agua Caliente and will be protected from future disturbance.
1564
1565
April 8, 2026
Via Email
Evan Trubee, Mayor
Joe Pradetto, Mayor Pro Tem
Karina Quintanilla, Councilmember
Gina Nestande, Councilmember
Jan Harnik, Councilmember
Palm Desert City Council
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: SAFER Comment
Portola Springs Project (PP25-0006, EA25-0006, TTM 25-0005) City Council Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
To Mayor Trubee, Mayor Pro Tem Pradetto, and Honorable City Councilmembers:
This comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) in support of their appeal regarding the Portola Springs Project (“Project”) to be heard as Agenda Item 11.c at the City Council’s April 9, 2026 meeting.
First and foremost, SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council continue the hearing until the City makes publicly available all documentation in support of the City’s evaluation of the Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The City has prepared an Addendum to the 2022 Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development (“2022 MND”). Although the Addendum was made publicly available when the Planning Commission considered the Project, the appendices to the Addendum have not been made available. The appendices contain the technical reports on numerous impacts of the Project, including biological resources, air quality, greenhouse gases, energy, noise, and vibration. The Council and the public should be allowed to review those technical appendices prior to approval of the Project. By withholding those appendices, the City runs afoul of CEQA’s purpose to serve informed decision making and public participation.
If the Council is not inclined to continue the hearing despite the missing appendices to the Addendum, SAFER respectfully requests that the Council refrain from approving the Project at this time and, instead, direct Planning staff to prepare an environmental impact report (“EIR”) 1566
SAFER Appeal
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 8, 2026
instead of relying on CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 or the Addendum.
Section 15183 can only apply where a project’s impacts are mitigated by “uniformly applied development policies or standards.” (14 CCR § 15183(c).) Here, as evidenced by the 2022 MND and Addendum, the Project requires mitigation measures for biological resources and geology and soils, which are not uniformly applied to projects in Palm Desert. Additionally, SAFER retained expert ecologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., who found that the Project will result in significant impacts to biological resources requiring mitigation beyond uniform development standards.. Dr. Smallwood’s comment and CV are attached as Exhibit A.
Furthermore, Section 15183 requires that the City properly analyze potentially significant cumulative impacts of the Project. (14 CCR § 15183(j).) The City has made no effort to analyze the cumulative impacts of this Project in combination with the impacts of the Catavina Residential Project, which was recently approved by the City, proposed by the same developer, and directly abuts the Project site.. As such, the Project does not qualify for the streamlining provisions of Section 15183.
The Addendum—and the 2022 MND on which it is based—similarly failed to address the cumulative impacts of the Project and the adjacent Catavina Residential Project. By failing to consider those cumulative impacts, the Addendum fails to provide the required substantial evidence that the Project’s impacts will not be significant. Furthermore, Dr. Smallwood, who found that the Addendum and 2022 MND failed to adequately disclose and mitigate the Project’s significant impacts to biological resources.
Lastly, SAFER is concerned that the City has improperly “piecemealed” this Project and the Catavina Project in violation of CEQA. CEQA prohibits an agency from dividing a single large project into a series of smaller projects, which results in “piecemeal” environmental review that fails to consider the impacts of the whole undertaking. This Project and the Catavina Project are proposed by the same developer on adjacent parcels. Both projects entail the same type of development: one- to two-story single-family residences. Rather than evaluating the impacts of each project separately, the City should evaluate the impacts of both projects in a single CEQA document in order to adequately disclose and mitigate the impacts of these adjacent developments
For those reasons, SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council continue the hearing until the Addendum’s technical appendices have been made available. If the City Council moves forward with the hearing, SAFER requests that the Council grant SAFER’s appeal and find that: (1) Section 15183 does not apply to this Project and (2) the Addendum is inadequate under CEQA for its failure to address the cumulative impacts of this Project and the Cavatina Project as well as the Project’s significant impacts to biological resources.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND
The Portola Springs Project is proposed on a 17.6 acres and is located at the southwest 1567
SAFER Appeal
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 8, 2026
corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue in Palm Desert (APNs 620-400-030-5 and 620- 400-031-6). The Project proposes the development of 156 single-family single- and twostory residences, stormwater retention infrastructure, utility connections, landscaping and open space, and internal roadways.
The Project requires approval of a Precise Plan, which establishes the overall site framework, including lot layout, minimum lot sizes, setbacks, pad elevations, and overall site organization. The Project also requires a Tentative Tract Map, which subdivides the site into 156 residential lots with lots sizes 2,140-4,601 square feet, common area lots and establishes the lot layout.
For CEQA review of the Project, the City initially prepared an Addendum to the 2022 MND for the Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development. The original project analyzed in 2022 MND proposed 13, three-story multifamily apartment buildings containing up to 402 units. The MND found that, with mitigation measures for biological resources and geology and soils, the impacts of the original project would be less than significant. The Addendum concluded that the Project did not meet any of the factors in CEQA Guidelines 15162 requiring the preparation of a new EIR or MND.
Prior to the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant requested that the City also find that the Project is exempt from further CEQA review under CEQA Guidelines 15183, which, subject to certain conditions, provides streamlined review for projects that are consistent with the density analyzed in a General Plan EIR, in this case the City’s 2016 General Plan Update EIR (“2016 GPU EIR”).
On February 17, 2026, the Planning Commission approved the Precise Plan and Tentative Tract Map, adopted the Addendum, and found that the Project was exempt from CEQA under Section 15183. SAFER timely appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council.
LEGAL BACKGROUND
CEQA Guidelines Section 15183
Section 15183 is a CEQA streamlining provision for projects “which are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning, community plan, or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified.” (14 CCR § 15183(a).) Section 15183 does not require additional environmental review for such projects “except as might be necessary to examine whether there are project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site.” (Id.) The purpose of Section 15183 is to streamline CEQA review and relieves the City of the obligation to prepare an EIR if a qualifying project’s impacts “[are] not peculiar to the parcel or to the project, [have] been addressed as a significant effect in the prior EIR, or can be substantially mitigated by the imposition of uniformly applied development policies or 1568
SAFER Appeal
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 8, 2026
standards.” (14 CCR § 15183 (c).) Section 15183 further explains, An effect of a project on the environment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the city or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects, unless substantial new information shows that the policies or standards will not substantially mitigate the environmental effect. . . . Such development policies or standards need not apply throughout the entire city or county, but can apply only within the zoning district in which the project is located, or within the area subject to the community plan on which the lead agency is relying. Moreover, such policies or standards need not be part of the general plan or any community plan, but can be found within another pertinent planning document such as a zoning ordinance. (14 CCR § 15183(f).)
Importantly, “peculiar” impacts are “project-specific effects,” not strange or unusual impacts. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 917 [“projects consistent with a general plan for which a program EIR was certified shall not require additional review [under Section 15183] except as necessary to evaluate project-specific effects” [emph. added]].)
Standard for an Addendum
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, “[a[n addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred.” (14 CCR § 15164(b) [emph. added].) Pursuant to Guidelines section 15162(a), an addendum is not appropriate when:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could 1569
SAFER Appeal
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 8, 2026
not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would, in fact, be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or
(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
Importantly, where, as here, the previous CEQA document is an MND rather than an EIR, the fair argument standard of review applies. The California Supreme Court has explained that an addendum to an MND is not appropriate “if the proposed modification may produce a significant environmental effect that had not previously been studied.” (Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cnty. Comm. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 958 (San Mateo Gardens).)
DISCUSSION
I. The Hearing Should Be Continued Until the Addendum’s Technical Appendices Have Been Made Available to the Public and Decision Makers.
One of the primary purposes of CEQA is to inform decision makers and the public about a project’s environmental effects. (14 CCR § 15002(a)(1).) To that end, it is imperative that the public be able to review and assess the information that the City is relying upon for this Project.
The Project’s Addendum was included in the agenda materials for the Planning Commission as Exhibit A to the Planning Commission’s Draft Resolution No. 2913. The Addendum’s table of contents lists the following appendices, none of which were included in the agenda materials or made public prior to the Planning Commission hearing:
• Updated Geotechnical Report, March 2025
• Biological Resources Technical Report, August 2025
• Cultural Resources Constraints Analysis, August 2025
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, January 2025
• Preliminary Hydrology Report, August 2025
1570
SAFER Appeal
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 8, 2026
• Site Access and Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis, November 2025 • Air Quality, Greenhouse Emissions, and Energy Assessment, November 2025 • Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum, November 2025 • Assembly Bill 52 Consultation, 2025
These appendices, which primarily consist of technical reports, are referenced in their respective sections in the Addendum and serve as the basis for the Addendum’s analysis and conclusions. As such, the appendices should have been included in the Planning Commission materials.
SAFER, through its counsel, requested the appendices from Planning staff after the Planning Commission hearing. Staff refused to make the appendices available. On March 31, 2026, SAFER’s counsel submitted a Public Records Act request to the City requesting the appendices. The City has acknowledged receipt of the request but has not yet made the documents available.
In order to ensure that the public and the City Council as the final decision maker has the necessary information to evaluate this Project and its impacts, SAFER respectfully requests that the Council continue the hearing until the appendices are made available and the public has had adequate time to review and comment on them.
II. Section 15183 Does Not Apply Because the Project’s Impacts Are Not Mitigated by Uniform Development Policies or Standards.
Section 15183 cannot apply because the Project requires mitigation measures that are not “uniformly applied development policies or standards.” (See 14 CCR § 15183(c).) Under Section 15183, “uniformly applied development policies or standards” are those policies or standards that “have been previously adopted by the city or county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects.” (14 CCR § 15183(f).)
The 2022 MND found that three (3) mitigation measures were necessary to mitigate impacts to biological resources and geology and soils to less-than-significant levels. (2022 MND, pp. 27, 45.) The Addendum states that “the applicable mitigation measures incorporated into the 2022 IS/MND would continue to be implemented under the Modified Project “ (Addendum, p.
83.) Although the Addendum incorporates two of the 2022 MND’s mitigation measures verbatim, the Addendum makes a significant chance to mitigation measure BR-2 for biological resources. In the 2022 MND, measure BR-2 dealt only with impacts to burrowing owl:
BR-2: The project proponent shall ensure that burrowing owl clearance survey is performed not more than 14 days prior to project site disturbance (clearing, grubbing, grading, construction). If any owls are identified, the most current protocol established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Burrowing 1571
SAFER Appeal
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 8, 2026
Owl Mitigation) must be followed. It is also recommended that a survey take place 24 hours prior to ground disturbance as burrowing owls may colonize or recolonize the site within the time between the original survey and project activities. (2022 MND, p. 27.) In addition to the requirements for burrowing owl, the Addendum expands BR-2 to also include mitigation for nesting birds and Crotch’s bumble bee:
MM BR-2: . . .
If construction activities are to take place during the avian nesting season or breeding season (February 15 through August 31 for most bird species; and January 1 through August 31 for raptors), a pre-construction survey for nesting bird species, including raptors, shall be conducted within 3 days prior to vegetation removal. The survey will identify any active nesting by special-status birds on the project site or within 200 feet of the project boundary. If active nests of special-status birds are present in the impact area or within 200 feet of the edge of construction area, a qualified biologist shall prescribe avoidance measures to be approved by the City Palm Desert including, but not limited to, establishing a construction buffer until the nesting activity is concluded. The type of species, nesting stage, surrounding topography, existing conditions, and type of construction activity will determine the appropriate avoidance measures.
. . .
A pre-construction survey for Crotch’s bumble bee shall occur within the construction area where suitable habitat has been identified during the primary flight period for workers and males (March 1 through June 30) prior to the start of construction activities. The survey shall ensure that no nests for Crotch’s bumble bee are located within the construction area. Crotch’s bumble bee is a habitat generalist, ground-nesting bee. Surveys and other relevant recommendations shall be in accordance with the most recent protocol available at the time of the surveys. . . .
There is simply no evidence that the City uniformly requires the Addendum’s mitigation measures for all projects or that the GPU EIR requires the MND’s mitigation measures.
The GPU EIR’s mitigation measures are contained in the EIR’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), available on the City’s website1and attached hereto as Exhibit B. Furthermore, there is no explicit finding in the GPU EIR that the EIR’s mitigation measures “will substantially mitigate that environmental effect when applied to future projects” as required by Section 15183. (See 14 CCR § 15183(f).) Rather, the EIR acknowledges that it is programmatic-level document and that “[t]he analyses in this EIR do not examine the effects of site-specific development projects that may occur within the overall umbrella of this program in 1 https://lfews.palmdesertegov.com/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=739&dbid=1&repo=WEBSITEDOCUMENTS 1572
SAFER Appeal
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 8, 2026
the future. . . . As a result, many of the impacts and mitigation measures in this EIR can be described only in general or qualitative terms.” (GPU DEIR, p. 1-5.) Even a cursory review of the MMRP reveals that the GPU EIR does not mandate the Project-specific mitigation measures identified by the 2022 MND and Addendum. For example, the GPU EIR does not contain any mitigation measures for geology and soils. Therefore, there is no possibility that the Project’s mitigation measure for geology and soils is derived from the GPU EIR.
For biological resources, neither of the two mitigation measures for the Project are mandated by the 2016 GPU EIR. The GPU EIR contains a single mitigation measure for biological resources (MM 4.5-1), which deferred the formulation of specific measures until specific projects are proposed:
For projects in which special-status species are found, likely to occur, or where the presence of the species can be reasonably inferred, the City shall require feasible mitigation of impacts to ensure that the project does not contribute to the decline of affected special-status species populations in the region to the extent that their decline would impact the viability of the regional population. Before the approval of grading plans or any ground-breaking activity for development associated with the General Plan update, the project applicant(s) shall submit a mitigation plan concurrently to the CDFW and the USFWS for review and comment. The plan shall include mitigation measures for the population(s) to be directly affected. The actual level of mitigation may vary depending on the sensitivity of the species, its prevalence in the area, and the current state of knowledge about overall population trends and threats to its survival.
(GPU EIR MMRP, p. 84.) Nothing in the GPU EIR’s mitigation measure requires the specific mitigation measures that the 2022 MND and Addendum found necessary to reduce this Project’s impacts to less-than-significant levels. Furthermore, the Addendum added to measure BR-2 in response to impacts identified in the Addendum. Clearly, the Project’s biological mitigation measures are not uniform measures applied broadly throughout the City but rather Projectspecific measures developed for this Project.
In sum, there is no merit to the claim that the MND’s mitigation measures are “derived” from the GPU EIR. The GPU EIR simply does not contain the mitigation measures that were formulated specifically for this Project in the 2022 MND and Addendum. As a result, the City is not applying “uniformly applied development policies or standards” from the GPU EIR to mitigate the Project’s impacts. Furthermore, there is no indication that the mitigation measures are derived from other uniform policies or standards that have been established by the City. For those reasons, the Project does not qualify for an exemption from CEQA under Section 15183. 1573
SAFER Appeal
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 8, 2026
III. The Addendum and the Section 15183 Exemption Fail to Address the Cumulative Impacts of the Project and the Catavina Residential Project.
The City has failed to account for the cumulative impacts of the Project and the Catavina Residential Project in violation of CEQA. Section 15183 plainly states that “[t]his section does not affect any requirement to analyze potentially significant offsite or cumulative impacts if those impacts were not adequately discussed in the prior EIR.” (14 CCR § 15183(j).) Similarly, the Addendum must consider whether the Project will result in cumulatively considerable impacts. (See Addendum, p. 81.)
Here, the documentation for this Project makes no mention of the sizeable Catavina Residential Project by the City Council on February 12, 2026, which directly abuts the Project site to the west. The Addendum describes the Project’s surrounding land uses as:
Surrounding land uses include residential development on all sides, golf courses to the east, west, and northwest, and vacant land zoned as Planned Residential, P.R.22 and PR.18, respectively, to the west and northeast of the Project site (Addendum, p. 2 [emph. added].) The 2022 MND similarly described surrounding uses as “West – Southern California Edison easement; Vacant land.” (2022 MND, p. 3 [emph. added].) Furthermore, to the extent that the 2016 GPU EIR analyzed cumulative impacts by its nature as a general plan analysis, the 2016 GPU EIR specifically noted that subsequent CEQA analysis of specific projects would be necessary to determine specific impacts. (See, e.g., 2016 GPU DEIR, pp. 1-5 [“The analyses in this EIR do not examine the effects of site- specific development projects that may occur within the overall umbrella of this program in the future. The nature of general plans is such that many proposed policies are intended to be general, with details to be worked out during implementation.”], 4.3-18 [“Emissions associated with individual projects, depending on project type and size, could exceed project- specific thresholds established by the SCAQMD. However, such projects would be required to undergo independent project- level CEQA review and to include mitigation measures to address potentially significant project- level impacts.]”.)
Because the City has not analyzed the cumulative impacts of the Project in combination with the Catavina Project, the City lacks substantial evidence to conclude that the Project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15183 or to adopt the Addendum. SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council refrain from taking any action on this Project until the cumulative impacts of the Project and the Catavina Project have been adequately analyzed and disclosed to the public.
//
//
1574
SAFER Appeal
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 8, 2026
IV. The Project Cannot Be Exempt Under Section 15183 Due to Peculiar Impacts to Biological Resources.
Section 15183 cannot apply if a project will result in peculiar impacts that cannot be mitigated by uniform development standards. (14 CCR § 15183(c).) Importantly, “peculiar” impacts are “project-specific effects,” not strange or unusual impacts. (Hilltop Group, Inc., supra, 99 Cal.App.5th at 917.)
Expert wildlife biologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D., found several deficiencies in the analysis of the Project’s impacts to wildlife. Dr. Smallwood’s comment and CV are attached as Exhibit A. As discussed below, Dr. Smallwood concluded: (1) the 2022 MND and Addendum failed to accurately assess baseline conditions for wildlife at the Project site; (2) the 2022 MND and Addendum failed to assess or mitigate the Project’s potentially significant impacts to wildlife from habitat loss, movement impacts, traffic-wildlife collisions, bird-window collisions, house cat predation, and cumulative impacts; and (3) the mitigation measures are inadequate.
A. The City has not adequately assessed the baseline conditions for biological resources on the Project site.
Dr. Smallwood’s associate, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with an M.S. degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the Project site to survey wildlife during daytime and nighttime on March 26 and 27, 206. (Ex. A, p. 2.) Ms. Smallwood also surveyed the adjacent Catavina Project site November 5 and 6, 2025 (Id.) During those visits, Ms. Smallwood “walked the site’s perimeter where accessible, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. At night, [she] strapped a Pettersson M500 acoustic bat detector to a 10-foot pole, and cabled the detector to her computer, which ran Sonobat Live.” (Id.) During her surveys of the Catavina site, Ms. Smallwood detected thirty-three (33) different vertebrate species, ten (10) of which Dr. Smallwood has determined are “special status” species. These special status species include: (1) Costa’s hummingbird (USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern); (2) American kestrel (Bird of Prey); (3) Peregrine falcon (Bird of Prey); and (4) Verdin (USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern). Ms. Smallwood also detected either a spotted bat (California Species of Special Concern) or hoary bat (Western Bat Working GroupModerate). (Ex. A, pp. 10-11.) During her surveys of the Portola Springs site, Ms. Smallwood observed an additional fifteen (15) species of wildlife, including many of the same special-status species observed on the Catavina site as well as additional special-status species, including: Redtailed hawk (Bird of Prey), and Canyon bat (Western Bat Working Group). (Id.) The Addendum states that “Dudek conducted a general field reconnaissance survey, including vegetation mapping and a general habitat assessment within the Modified Project in February of 2025 to document current site conditions and conducted a focused rare plant survey in April of 2025 as part of the August 2025 Biological Resources Technical Report prepared for the Modified Project (Appendix B).” (Addendum, p. 24.) However, as discussed previously, the 1575
SAFER Appeal
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 8, 2026
Addendum’s appendices have not been made publicly available. The Addendum provides a brief summary of the Biological Report’s conclusions:
The updated surveys confirmed that there are no naturally occurring springs or permanent aquatic habitats within or near the Modified Project site. No rare, threatened, or endangered plant species were observed, nor were any CVMSHCP covered species observed during the April 2025 focused rare plant survey. One special-status wildlife, loggerhead shrike, was observed during the 2025 field efforts, and two special-status wildlife species, burrowing owl and Crotch’s bumble bee, were determined to have a low potential to occur based on known species distribution, species-specific habitat preferences, and habitat conditions on the Modified Project.
(Id.) Due to the omission of the appendices, the Addendum “fails to provide sufficient technical data about Dudek’s reconnaissance survey to evaluate its findings and its determinations of occurrence likelihoods of special-status species.” (Ex. A, p. 16.) Without the Addendum’s updated Biological Report, Dr. Smallwood reviewed the biological report from the 2022 MND and found that Ms. Smallwood had observed eighteen (18) additional species than the 2022 report. (Ex. A, p. 17.)2Indeed, Dr. Smallwood calculated that more thorough site visits would reveal an even greater diversity of wildlife. (Id., pp. 17-18.) Given more time to survey the site, Dr. Smallwood’s predicts that upwards of 111 species of wildlife, including 24 special-status wildlife species, would be observed on site. (Id., p. 18.) Based on his review of the 2022 MND, Addendum, and the site visits, Dr. Smallwood concluded, “the project site is indicative of a relatively species-rich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort.” (Id.)
In addition to inadequate wildlife surveys, Dr. Smallwood also found that the 2022 MND’s review of available wildlife databases to identify which species are known to have occurred at or near the Project site was inadequate. (Ex. A, pp. 22-23.) Although the Addendum’s updated biological report is not publicly available, it is likely that the updated report made similar errors when using databases to establish the Project’s likely impacts to wildlife.
Environmental review under CEQA must start from a “baseline” assumption. The CEQA “baseline” is the set of environmental conditions against which to compare a project’s anticipated impacts. (Communities for a Better Envt. v. So. Coast Air Qual. Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310, 321; see 14 CCR § 15125(a).) Due to the underestimation of the biological 2 The fact that Ms. Smallwood observed 18 additional species compared to the 2022 MND establishes that there is new information and changed circumstances regarding the Project’s significant impacts to biological resources, which precludes use of an addendum and instead requires preparation of a new EIR or MND. (See 14 CCR § 15162(a).) 1576
SAFER Appeal
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 8, 2026
baseline at the Project site, the 2022 MND and Addendum fail to provide substantial evidence about the severity of the Project’s impacts on biological resources. As a result, the analysis must be revised to properly disclose the biological baseline and the impacts of this Project.
B. The Project will have peculiar impacts due to habitat loss, movement impacts, traffic-wildlife collisions, bird-window collisions, house cat predation, and cumulative impacts.
Dr. Smallwood found that the Project will have significant peculiar impacts to biological resources, including habitat loss, wildlife movement, traffic-wildlife collisions, bird-window collisions, and cat predation. (Ex. A, pp. 30-41.) These impacts require the City to develop specific mitigation measures to ensure impacts are less than significant. For that reason, the Project does not qualify for an exemption from CEQA under Section 15183.
1. Habitat loss and fragmentation
As Dr. Smallwood explains, “The site is proven to serve as habitat to at least 57 species of vertebrate wildlife.” (Ex. A, p. 30.) Dr. Smallwood calculates that the Project site contains approximately 7 nest sites for birds. (Id.)
As a result of habitat loss and fragmentation from the Project, Dr. Smallwood predicts that the loss of 7 nest sites corresponds to 28 fewer fledglings per year and an overall loss of 32 birds per year, most of which are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act . (Ex. A, p. 31.) Dr. Smallwood concludes that “[t]he loss of 32 birds per year qualifies as an unmitigated significant impact. (Id.)
2. Wildlife Movement
As, Dr. Smallwood explains,
That the site is truly important to wildlife movement in the region is obvious based on the unusually large number of species of vertebrate wildlife that have been detected on the project site. Also, many of the species detected by [Ms. Smallwood] were represented by animals on the move. Many of the birds were in flight. (Ex. A, p. 32.) As a result, “[t]he site is probably important for its stopover opportunities for birds traveling through the area and otherwise have few remaining options to seek forage and cover.” (Id.)
The 2022 MND improperly focused “on the red-herring argument that the project site must act as a wildlife movement corridor before changes to it could result in significant interference with wildlife movement in the region.” (Id., p. 31.) Rather, CEQA “applies to all types of movement and not just the movement channeled by corridors.” (Id.) Under that 1577
SAFER Appeal
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 8, 2026
standard, the Project will have a significant impact on wildlife movement because, “[a]s habitat fragmentation proceeds, which it has to an advanced degree in the project area, the remaining patches of open space increase in their importance as stopover opportunities for wildlife on longdistance dispersal or migration.” (Id.)
3. Bird-Window Collisions.
The impacts from window collisions are important because such collisions “are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality.” (Ex.
A, p. 32.) Dr. Smallwood calculated that the Project would result in 353 bird deaths per year due to collisions with the Project’s windows. (Id., p. 35.) Dr. Smallwood concludes that “[g]iven the predicted level of bird-window collision mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, including the unmitigated take of both terrestrial and aerial habitat of birds and other sensitive species..” (Id.)
4. House Cat Predation
The Project will have significant impacts to wildlife from the introduction of domestic cats to the area. As Dr. Smallwood explains:
In 2012 there were 0.44 house cats per human in the USA, and 122 vertebrate animals were killed per cat, free-ranging members of which killed disproportionately larger numbers of vertebrate wildlife. The IS/MND predicts 320 new residents in 156 single-family homes. The above rates of cat ownership applied to this number of new residents would predict 141 new cats, which based on the findings of Loss et al. (2013) would kill 17,202 vertebrate wildlife per year. (Ex. A, p. 35 [emph. added].)
Furthermore, cats introduce Toxoplasma gondii, which is “a parasite that can infect virtually all warm-blooded animals.” (Ex. A, p. 35.) Toxoplasma gondii can cause toxoplasmosis, which in severe cases can damage the brain, eyes, or other organs. (Center For Disease Control, About Toxoplasmosis, https://www.cdc.gov/toxoplasmosis/about/index.html.) Additionally, “[i]nfants infected [by Toxoplasma gondii] while still in the womb often have no symptoms at birth but can develop symptoms later in life.” (Id.) Dr. Smallwood concludes that “[i]mpacts to wildlife from the introduction of house cats into the environment would be highly significant.” (Ex. B, p. 36.)
5. Traffic-Wildlife Collisions
The Project will result in significant impacts to wildlife due to collisions with Project1578 SAFER Appeal
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 8, 2026
generated traffic. As Dr. Smallwood explains,
Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003). Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally. (Ex. A, p. 36.) Dr. Smallwood estimates that traffic from the Project will kill at least 55-135 vertebrates annually, which is potentially significant and unmitigated. (Id., p. 32.)
6. Cumulative Impacts
The 2022 MND and Addendum inadequately analyze the Project’s cumulative impacts to biological resources. In addition to the City’s failure to consider the cumulative impacts of this Project in combination with the Catavina Project (see supra Section III), Dr. Smallwood identified further deficiencies in the Project’s cumulative impact analysis. (Ex. A, pp. 40-41.) The Addendum claims that compliance “with the Palm Desert General Plan and all applicable federal, state, and local policies” will render cumulative impacts less than significant. (Addendum, p. 81.) However, “[w]hen relying on a plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable.” (14 CCR § 15064(h)(3).) The Addendum provides no explanation of how compliance with the general plan and other polices would actually reduce impacts. Dr.
Smallwood notes that the Addendum’s reasoning “is readily refutable” because, despite mitigation measures and federal, state, and local policies, mitigated projects have still had a significant impact on biological resources. (Ex. A., p. 40.) The Addendum’s bare assertion, without more, that the general plan and other policies will mitigate cumulative impacts is inadequate.
Because the cumulative impact analysis relies on unsound reliance on regulatory compliance, it cannot be relied up to conclude that the Project’s cumulative impacts will be less than significant.
D. The Project’s impacts to biological resources require mitigation measures that are not uniformly applied development standards.
As discussed previously, supra Section II, the Project requires two mitigation measures for biological resources that are not uniformly applied development standards as required by 1579
SAFER Appeal
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 8, 2026
Section 15183. In addition, Dr. Smallwood reviewed the Project’s two mitigation measures for biological resources and found that they are inadequate to reduce the Project’s impacts to lessthan-significant levels. (Ex. A, pp. 41-46.) Specifically, he found that the mitigation measures “would not avoid the permanent loss of habitat, nor the collision mortality with automobiles and windows, nor the predation mortality of free-ranging house cats.” (Id., p. 44.) Dr. Smallwood concludes that additional mitigation measures must be applied to this Project to ensure that impacts to biological resources are minimized to the extent possible, including: (1) adherence to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as those prepared by American Bird Conservancy New York, and San Francisco; (2) compensatory monetary mitigation for wildlife rehabilitation for animals “injured during construction, by house cats, and by collisions with windows and with automobiles traveling to and from the project site,” especially for species not covered by the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; and (3) native landscaping. (Ex. A, pp. 47-48.) Because these additional mitigation measures, which are not uniformly applied development standards, are necessary to mitigate the Project’s peculiar impacts to wildlife, the Project cannot qualify for a CEQA exemption under Section 15183.
V. The City Has Improperly Piecemealed the Portola Springs Project and Catavina Project in Violation of CEQA.
CEQA prohibits an agency from dividing a single large project into a series of smaller projects, which results in “piecemeal” environmental review that fails to consider the impacts of the whole undertaking. (See East Sacramento Partnership for a Livable City v City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 293; Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach, 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1222; Planning & Conserv. League v. Castaic Lake Water Agency (2009) 180 Cal.App.4th 210, 235.) CEQA “cannot be avoided by chopping up proposed projects into bite‑sized pieces which, individually considered, might be found to have no significant effect on the environment or to be only ministerial.” (Tuolumne County Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Sonora (2007) 155 Cal.App.4th 1214, 1223.) The Portola Springs Project and the Catavina Residential Project are not separate projects. Both projects are proposed by the same developer, Blue Fern West LLC. Both projects involve the development of one- to two-story single-family residences. The project sites directly abut one another. These are not two separate projects, but rather a single large residential project spanning nearly 100 acres. Notably, as discussed previously, the City did not consider the cumulative impacts of the two projects in their respective CEQA analyses. To remedy this error, the City should prepare a single CEQA analysis encompassing both projects to ensure that City has not improperly minimized the impacts of the overall development by chopping it into two separate pieces.
CONCLUSION
As an initial matter, SAFER respectfully requests that the City Council continue the 1580
SAFER Appeal
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 8, 2026
hearing because the Addendum’s technical appendices have not been made publicly available. If the Council proceeds with the hearing, SAFER respectfully requests that the Council grant SAFER’s appeal because: (1) the Project does not qualify for an exemption from CEQA under Section 15183 and (2) the Addendum is inadequate under CEQA for its failure to address the cumulative impacts of this Project and the Cavatina Project as well as new information regarding the Project’s significant impacts to biological resources.
Sincerely,
Brian B. Flynn
Lozeau Drury LLP
1581
EXHIBIT A
1582
1 Shawn Smallwood, PhD
3108 Finch Street
Davis, CA 95616
Attn: Carlos Flores, Principal Planner
City of Palm Desert Development Services Department, Planning Division 73510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, California 92260 4 April 2026
RE: Portola Springs Residential Development Project
Dear Mr. Flores,
I write to comment on potential impacts to biological resources that would result from development of the proposed Portola Springs Residential Development Project. The project, which is modified from a 2022 residential development project proposal, would add 318,000 square feet in 156 single-family homes on 18.3 acres at the southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Dr and Portola Ave in Palm Desert, California. My comments that follow address my concerns that the Addendum Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) supported by Cornett (2022), mischaracterizes the existing environmental setting, and that its impacts analysis is flawed and its mitigation measures are inadequate.
My qualifications for preparing expert comments are the following. I hold a Ph.D. degree in Ecology from University of California at Davis, where I also worked as a postgraduate researcher in the Department of Agronomy and Range Sciences. My research has been on animal density and distribution, habitat selection, wildlife interactions with the anthrosphere, and conservation of rare and endangered species. I authored many papers on these and other topics. I served as Chair of the Conservation Affairs Committee for The Wildlife Society – Western Section. I am a member of The Wildlife Society, and I’ve lectured part-time at California State University, Sacramento. I was Associate Editor of wildlife biology’s premier scientific journal, The Journal of Wildlife Management, as well as of Biological Conservation, and I was on the Editorial Board of Environmental Management. I have performed wildlife surveys in California for thirtyseven years. My CV is attached.
THE WILDLIFE COMMUNITY AS A BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE
Most environmental reviews pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) focus on special-status species because CEQA’s Checklist Evaluation of Environmental Impacts Question IV(a) asks specifically whether the project would adversely affect special-status species. However, this narrowly focused question is part of a larger policy goal of CEQA, which is “to prevent the elimination of fish or wildlife species due to man’s activities, insure that fish and wildlife populations do not drop below self-perpetuating levels, and preserve for future generations representations of all plant and animal communities and examples of the major periods of California history.” Pub. Res. Code § 21001(c). This policy is not restricted to special-status species; it also 1583
2 applies to wildlife populations and plant and animal communities, as it must, because special-status species are inter-dependent members of ecological communities. The CEQA Guidelines Section 21155.1 defines wildlife habitat as “the ecological communities upon which wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and invertebrates depend for their conservation and protection.” This definition is consistent with the scientific definition of habitat, which is that portion of the environment that is used by members of a species for survival and reproduction (Hall et al. 1997). An essential portion of the environment used by any special-status species is composed of the collection of other species of plants and wildlife, because these species provide for special-status species their forage, refugia and nest substrates, and some serve as ecological mutualists. The CEQA Checklist Evaluation assigns priority to special-status species to balance information and cost, but it does not exclude the need to evaluate environmental impacts to other species, which, after all, are members of the very communities within which special-status species inter-depend for survival and reproduction.
The species I consider to be special-status species are those listed in California’s Special Animals List inclusive of threatened and endangered species under the California and federal Endangered Species Acts, candidates for listing under CESA and FESA, California’s Fully Protected Species, California species of special concern, and California’s Taxa to Watch List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx? DocumentID=109406), continental and region-specific US Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf), and naturally rare species such as raptors protected by California’s Birds of Prey laws, Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3505 and 3513 (see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/ Birds/Raptors).
What follows is a summary of two site visits to detect as many of the species of wildlife as possible within the short times available. The surveys were also intended to detect as many of the special-status species as possible, but with the understanding that most special-status species are less readily detectable due to rarity and crypticity.
Nonetheless, the species detected can indicate the ecological integrity of the site and thus the likelihood of occurrence of special-status species not yet detected.
SITE VISITS
On my behalf, Noriko Smallwood, a wildlife biologist with a Master of Science Degree from California State University Los Angeles, visited the site of the proposed project for
0.87 hours of diurnal survey starting at 18:12 and for 2.08 hours of nocturnal survey starting at 19:04 on 26 March 2026, and for 2.75 hours of diurnal survey starting at 06:30 on 27 March 2026. Noriko also visited an immediately adjacent site for 1.68 hours of diurnal survey from 15:13 to 16:53 hours and for 2.03 hours of nocturnal survey from 17:04 to 19:06 hours on 5 November 2025, and for 2.5 hours of diurnal survey from 06:02 to 08:32 hours on 6 November 2025 where most of the animals used both sites. During both surveys, Noriko walked the site’s perimeter where accessible, stopping to scan for wildlife with use of binoculars. At night, Noriko affixed a Pettersson M500 acoustic bat detector to a 15-foot pole, and cabled the detector to her computer, which ran SonoBat Live. SonoBat Live identifies bats to species based on the bats’ 1584
3 sonograms that are detected by the M500. Noriko recorded all species of vertebrate wildlife she detected, including those whose members flew over the site or were seen just off the site. Species detected during either survey can be attributed to the project site because there is no barrier between the two sites Noriko surveyed. Animals of uncertain species identity were either recorded to the Genus or higher taxonomic level.
On 5 November 2025, conditions were partly cloudy with 5 MPH north wind and temperatures of 83-73° F during the diurnal survey, and clear with 5 MPH north wind and temperatures of 73-68° F during the nocturnal survey. On 6 November 2025, conditions were sunny with 5 MPH west wind and temperatures of 60-72° F. On 26 March 2026, conditions were sunny with 2 MPH north wind and temperatures of 95- 80° F. On 27 March 2026, conditions were sunny with 4 MPH west wind and temperatures of 69-86° F. The site is primarily disturbed desert scrub with creosote bush and annual grasses (Photos 1 and 2).
Noriko’s November 2025 surveys are summarized in my 2 December 2025 comment letter to the City. On 26-27 March 2026, Noriko saw Costa’s hummingbird and redtailed hawk (Photos 3-5), American kestrel and peregrine falcon (Photos 6 and 7), mallard and Canada goose (Photos 8 and 9), double-crested cormorant and northern mockingbird (Photos 10 and 11), mourning dove (Photos 7 and 12), verdin and yellowrumped warbler (Photos 13 and 14), western side-blotched lizard (Photo 15), canyon bat, Mexican free-tailed bat, and Yuma myotis (Photos 16-18), among other species listed in Table 1. In total (5-6 November 2025 and 26-27 March 2026 surveys), Noriko detected 48 species of vertebrate wildlife at or adjacent to the project site, including 13 species with special status (Table 1).
Photos 1 and 2. Views of the southern end of the project site, 27 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
1585
4 Photos 3 and 4. Costa’s hummingbirds just off of the project site, 26 and 27 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
Photo 5. Red-tailed hawk sitting on its nest just off of the project site, 27 March 2026.
Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
1586
5 Photos 6 and 7. American kestrel with a lizard (top), and Peregrine falcon with a mourning dove (bottom) on the project site, 27 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
1587
6 Photos 8 and 9. Mallard (left), and Canada goose (right) on the project site, 27 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
Photos 10 and 11. Double-crested cormorant (left), and northern mockingbird (right) on the project site, 26 and 27 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 1588
7 Photo 12. Mourning dove on the project site, 26 March 2026. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
Photos 13 and 14. Verdin (left), and yellow-rumped warbler (right) just off of the project site, 26 and 27 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood. 1589
8 Photo 15. Western side blotched lizard on the project site, 26 March 2026. Photo by Noriko Smallwood.
1590
9 Photos 16, 17, and 18. Sonogram of canyon bat (top), Mexican free-tailed bat (middle), and Yuma myotis (bottom) on the project site detected using SonoBat Live and a Pettersson M500, 26 March 2026. Photos by Noriko Smallwood.
Noriko Smallwood certifies that the foregoing and following survey results are true and accurately reported.
1591
10 Table 1. Species of wildlife Noriko observed at an immediately adjacent site during 1.68 hours of diurnal survey and
2.03 hours of nocturnal survey on 5 November 2025, and during 2.5 hours of diurnal survey on 6 November 2025, and at the project site during .87 hours of diurnal survey and 2.08 hours of nocturnal survey on 26 March 2026, and during
2.75 hours of diurnal survey on 27 March 2026.
Common name Species name Status1 5-6
Nov
2026
26-27
Mar
2026
Note
Western side-blotched
lizard Uta stansburiana elegans
X
Canada goose Branta canadensis X X Flew over
Mallard Anas platyrhynchos X X Flew over
Rock pigeon Columba livia Non-native X X
Eurasian collared-dove Streptopelia decaocto Non-native X X Mourning dove Zenaida macroura X X
Greater roadrunner Geococcyx californianus X Tracks
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC X X
Killdeer Charadrius vociferus X
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL X Flew over
Double-crested cormorant Nannopterum auritum WL X X Flew over Great egret Ardea alba X Flew over
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP X Flew over
Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP X X Flew low over site Red-tailed hawk
Buteo jamaicensis BOP X Nesting on cell tower just off site, collected nest material
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP X Flew low over site in evening Ladder-backed woodpecker Dryobates scalaris X
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP X X Caught lizard Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP X X Caught prey on 6 Nov 2025 and mourning dove on 27 Mar 2026
Western kingbird Tyrannus verticalis X
Black phoebe Sayornis nigricans X
Say’s phoebe Sayornis saya X X Foraged
American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos X
1592
11 Common raven Corvus corax X X
Verdin Auriparus flaviceps BCC X X Foraged
Northern rough-winged
swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis
X
Flew over
Cliff swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota X Foraged
Ruby-crowned kinglet Regulus calendula X Just off site
Northern mockingbird Mimus polyglottos X
European starling Sturnus vulgaris Non-native X
House sparrow Passer domesticus Non-native X X Just off site American pipit Anthus rubescens X
House finch Haemorphous mexicanus X X Foraged
Lesser goldfinch Spinus psaltria X
White-crowned sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys X X
Hooded oriole Icterus cucullatus X
Brewer’s blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus X Flocks flew over Great-tailed grackle Quiscalus mexicanus X X
Orange-crowned warbler Oreothlypis celata X Just off site Yellow-rumped warbler Setophaga coronata X X
Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM X
California myotis Myotis californicus WBWG:L X
Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:M X
Spotted bat or hoary bat
Euderma maculatum or
Lasiurus cinereus
SSC, WBWG:H
or M
X
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG:L X
Desert cottontail Sylvilagus audubonii X X Scat
Kangaroo rat Dipodomys sp. X X Burrows
Botta’s pocket gopher Thomomys bottae X Burrows
1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406) as SSCi = California Species of Special Concern with i = priorities 1, 2 and 3; WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-of-conservation-concern-2021.pdf); and BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors). 1593
12 ANALYSIS OF RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY DATA
Noriko detected 48 species of vertebrate willdife, which was a large number for the brevity of her survey efforts. All the species in Table 1 would lose habitat as the result of the project and its replacement of natural ground covers with impervious surfaces.
Smallwood and Smallwood (2023) confirmed this habitat loss by measuring the impacts of similar developments on species richness and the abundances of wildlife. Smallwood and Smallwood (2023) directly compared the species and the numbers of animals observed prior to development to the those observed after development, while they did the same at control sites. The measured losses of these species resulting from development is indicative of habitat loss, because habitat is defined as that portion of the environment that is used for survival and reproduction by members of a species (Hall et al. 1997), and this use is inferred by observations of the presence of a species (Smallwood 2002).
However, the species of wildlife Noriko detected at the project site were not the only species that were present during her surveys, as there are always species that are not detected. To demonstrate this, I fit nonlinear regression models to Noriko’s accumulations of first detections of vertebrate wildlife species with time into her daytime surveys to predict the numbers of species that she would have detected with longer surveys or perhaps with additional biologists available to assist her. The type of model I used is a logistic growth model, which reaches an asymptote that corresponds with the theoretical maximum number of vertebrate wildlife species that could have been detected during the survey. The model fit to Noriko’s survey data from the morning of 27 March 2026 predicts 62 species of vertebrate wildlife were available to be detected, or many more species than she detected that morning (Figure 1). Noriko’s rates of species detections were within the bounds of the 95% confidence interval estimated from other morning surveys we have completed in the Coachella Valley.
Unknown are the identities of the species Noriko missed, but the species that Noriko did and did not detect on composed only a fraction of the species that would occur at the project site over the period of a year or longer. This is because many species are seasonal in their occurrence, some require more survey effort because they are highly cryptic, and the members of other species would visit the site only periodically while patrolling large home ranges. A single survey cannot possibly detect all of the species of the local wildlife community.
At least a year’s worth of surveys would be needed to more accurately report the number of vertebrate species that occur at the project site, but I only have resuts from Noriko’s two site visits. However, by use of an analytical bridge, a modeling effort applied to a large, robust data set from a research site can predict the number of vertebrate wildlife species that likely make use of the site over the longer term. This analytical bridge draws inference from the pattern of species detections more than it does from the research site, and I note that the pattern, i.e., rate, of species detections is consistent from site to site.
1594
13 Figure 1. Actual
and predicted
relationships
between the
numbers of
vertebrate wildlife
species detected
and the elapsed
survey time based
on Noriko’s visualscan surveys on the
evening of
mornings of 26
March 2026 (blue)
and the morning of
27 March 2026
(red), as compared
to the 95%
confidence interval
(orange lines)
estimated from
morning surveys in
the region, 2019–
2025.
As part of my research, I completed a much larger survey effort across 167 km2 of annual grasslands of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, where from 2015 through 2019 I performed 721 1-hour visual-scan surveys, or 721 hours of surveys, at 46 stations. I used binoculars and otherwise the methods were the same as the methods I and other consulting biologists use for surveys at proposed project sites. At each of the 46 survey stations, I tallied new species detected with each sequential survey at that station, and then related the cumulative species detected to the hours (number of surveys, as each survey lasted 1 hour) used to accumulate my counts of species detected. I used combined quadratic and simplex methods of estimation in Statistica to estimate least-squares, best-fit nonlinear models of the number of cumulative species detected regressed on hours of survey (number of surveys) at the station: 𝑅̂ = 1 1⁄𝑎+𝑏×(𝐻𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑠)
𝑐
, where 𝑅̂
represented cumulative species richness detected. The coefficients of determination, r 2,
of the models ranged 0.88 to 1.00, with a mean of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96, 0.98); or in other words, the models were excellent fits to the data.
I projected the predictions of each model to thousands of hours to find predicted asymptotes of wildlife species richness. The mean model-predicted asymptote of species richness was 57 after 11,857 hours of visual-scan surveys among the 46 stations of my research site. I also averaged model predictions of species richness at each incremental increase of number of surveys, i.e., number of hours (Figure 2). On average I would have 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Minutes into survey
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Cumulative number of wildlife species detected
YAM 0.98
YPM 0.97
r
2 95% CI 2019-2025 in region 1595
14 detected 21.9 species over my first 7.8 hours of diurnal surveys at my research site in the Altamont Pass (7.8 hours to match the 7.8 hours Noriko surveyed during daylight hours at the project site in both 2023 and 2026), which composed 38% of the predicted total number of species I would detect with a much larger survey effort at the research site. Given the example illustrated in Figure 2, the 42 vertebrate wildlife species Noriko detected after her 7.8 hours of daylight survey at the project site likely represented 38% of the species to be detected after many more visual-scan surveys over another year or longer. With many more repeat surveys through the year, Noriko would likely detect 42 0.38 ⁄ = 111 species of vertebrate wildlife in daylight surveys at the site. Assuming Noriko’s ratio of special-status to non-special-status species was to hold through the detections of all 111 predicted species, then continued daylight surveys would eventually detect 24 special-status species of vertebrate wildlife.
Figure 2. Mean (95% CI)
predicted wildlife species
richness, 𝑅̂, as a nonlinear
function of hour-long
survey increments across
46 visual-scan survey
stations across the
Altamont Pass Wind
Resource Area, Alameda
and Contra Costa
Counties, 2015‒2019. Note
that the location of the
study is largely irrelevant
to the utility of the graph
to the interpretation of
survey outcomes at the
project site. It is the
pattern in the data that is
relevant, because the
pattern is typical of the
pattern seen elsewhere.
Because my prediction of 111 species of vertebrate wildlife, including 24 special-status species, is derived from daytime visual-scan surveys, and would detect few nocturnal mammals such as bats, the true number of species composing the wildlife community of the site must be larger. This was confirmed by Noriko’s brief nocturnal surveys, which detected another 6 species of vertebrate wildlife, including another 4 special-status species. Noriko’s reconnaissance surveys should serve only as a starting point toward characterization of the site’s wildlife community, but they certainly cannot alone inform of the inventory of species that use the site. More surveys are needed than her two site visits to produce an inventory of the project site’s wildlife community. Nevertheless, the large number of species I predict at the project site is indicative of a relatively speciesrich wildlife community that warrants a serious survey effort. 0 20 40 60 80 100
0 10
20 30
40 50
Cumulative number of surveys (hours)
(95% CI)
1596
15 MISCHARACTERIZATION OF THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING CEQA’s primary objectives should guide the design and conduct of CEQA review. Four of CEQA’s primary objectives are to (1) accurately characterize the existing environmental setting, (2) disclose potential project impacts to the public and decisionmakers, (3) foster public participation with decision-making over proposed projects, and (4) identify issues and feasible alternative mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts. The first objective is essential to the other three, because an accurate understanding of the existing environmental setting is needed to predict impacts, provide the public with the means to meaningfully participate with issues of importance, and effectively strategize mitigation and project alternatives (Figure 3). For biological resources, essential information includes the species composition of the plant and wildlife communities, key ecological interactions, identification of ecological keystone species, determining the presence of special-status species or their habitats, and identifying risk factors that could result in significant direct, indirect and cumulative impacts should the project go forward.
Figure 3. General flow of information from its gathering through characterizing the existing environment to predicting impacts and their significance.
The public and decision-makers need to know which species are susceptible to harm potentially caused by the project and its associated activities, and which are known to be vulnerable to harm once exposed to the environmental changes brought by the project.
For these reasons, field studies are needed to identify as many of the species that occur on the project site as reasonably feasible, and to otherwise examine the environmental conditions for their likelihood to support species that are not detected, otherwise known as “habitat assessment.” A review of species occurrence records – also known as “desktop review” – is needed to identify the other species that potentially occur on the site – a process that is also referred to as “habitat assessment.” Because habitat Assess species occurrence likelihoods
1. Desktop review
a. Species geographic range overlap or database occurrence records b. Crosswalk habitat associations with mapped ground cover
2. Reconnaissance survey/Habitat assessment
3. Detection surveys for special-status species
Outcomes
5. Predict impacts
6. Formulate mitigation strategy
7. Determine significance of impacts
Characterize wildlife community
4. Lists of species detected and of those expected but
not yet detected, and any known trends
Note: Impact predictions and
significance determinations have
been of unknown accuracy in the
absence of experimental
measurement
1597
16 assessments that are based on either or both field study and desktop review are prone to uncertainty, emphasis needs to be directed to adequate field study to reduce the pool of species subjected to habitat assessment, thereby weighing the review more towards certainty. Appropriately weighted reviews are less susceptible to speculation over species occurrence likelihoods. For this reason, protocol-level detection surveys have been formulated for numerous special-status species of plants and wildlife, and otherwise best scientific practices are needed to provide a reasonable likelihood of detection of species that truly occur on the project site. The negative findings of a properly conducted detection survey are the only findings that can support a determination of species absence.
Even among reviews founded on the best of field studies, there is always uncertainty over some of the determinations of species occurrences. The uncertainties of habitat assessments need to be managed to achieve CEQA’s primary objectives. This means that the methodological details of both the field studies and desktop review need to be carefully and thoroughly reported, and it means that results need to be reported in context of their uncertainties. For example, the reporting of having detected 10 species in a reconnaissance survey is nearly meaningless without also reporting the numbers of species found in surveys of similar methods and effort levels, and the reporting of the failure to detect a given species is nearly entirely meaningless without also reporting the likelihood that species would be detected given the survey methods and effort level. The same is true of desktop review; that is, there should be some means of validating habitat assessments based on the thousands of habitat assessments that have already been conducted in support of CEQA reviews. If industry standards in environmental review are to be credible, then they must include the use of the comparative method.
In the case of this project, Cornett (2022:18) claims, “An intensive plant and animal survey was conducted within the proposed project boundaries.” However, no protocollevel detection surveys were implemented. Nor is there any nexus described between CEQA’s primary objectives and what it was that Cornett (2022) did (discussed below).
Environmental Setting informed by Field Surveys
On p. 24, the IS/MND reports, “Dudek conducted a general field reconnaissance survey, including vegetation mapping and a general habitat assessment within the Modified Project in February of 2025 to document current site conditions and conducted a focused rare plant survey in April of 2025 …” However, no biological resources technical report of Dudek’s survey is provided with the IS/MND, and the IS/MND reports no more detail about the survey than what appears in this quoted summary. At §15147, the CEQA Guidelines requires, “The information contained in an EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps, plot plans, diagrams, and similar relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by reviewing agencies and members of the public.” The IS/MND fails to provide sufficient technical data about Dudek’s reconnaissance survey to evaluate its findings and its determinations of occurrence likelihoods of special-status species (see comments that follow).
1598
17 Cornett (2022) conducted a reconnaissance survey on 10 dates in February and March 2022 to determine the vascular plant and vertebrate animal species that occur on the site, ascertain the presence of plant or animal special-status species other than those covered by CVMSHCP, ascertain the existence of other significant biotic elements, corridors, or communities, and consider the site’s biological resources as they relate to the CVMSHCP and its Conservation Areas. Cornett (2022) deployed two biologists, but there is no report of survey start times or survey durations or weather conditions at the times of the surveys. Cornett (2022) reportedly detected 27 species of vertebrate wildlife, but it fails to contextualize this finding by relating it to the findings of surveys completed at other sites.
In comparison to Cornett’s 27 species detected in 4 person-hours, Noriko detected 35 species of vertebrate wildlife at or immediately adjacent to the project site in <12 hours.
Cornett detected 10 species that Noriko did not, and Noriko detected 18 species that Cornett did not. With Noriko’s survey, the total number of vertebrate wildlife species detected on the project site increases to 45, or more than twice the number Cornett’s biologists detected. Counting the surveys by Noriko and MBI (2025) on the adjacent property, the total number of vertebrate species increases to 57 (Figure 4). The increases in the number of species detected with each survey indicates many more species occur on the project site but have yet to be detected, as the accumulation of species detections remains in the early growth phase.
Figure 4. The
number of species
detected on and
adjacent to the
project site has
increased linearly
with each successive
reconnaissance
survey effort from
2022 to 2026.
Surveys in red were
conducted specific to
the Portola Springs
project site, whereas
those in blue were
specific to the
adjacent Catavina
project site, but
inclusive of the
Portola Springs site.
0 1 2 3 4 5
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 55
60 65
Survey
Cumulative number of vertebrate wildlife species detected Cornett
2022
MBI
2025
Noriko
2025
Noriko
2026
Personhours
??
12 11.9
6.2 1599
18 Cornett’s (2022) vertebrate wildlife species tally was more than twice the average from among consultants who survey for wildlife at project sites in desert environments, whereas Noriko detected 2.67 times our average for a new high for us in the desert (Figure 5). Cornett’s tally of special-status species of vertebrate wildlife was 2.4 times the average among consultant surveys in desert environments, whereas Noriko detected
3.5 times our average for a new high for us in California’s deserts (Figure 6). This type of comparative analysis is missing from Cornett (2022), but it is needed to understand the meaning of the survey results. My comparative analysis reveals that the project site supports an unusually high wildlife species richness, but also that its true species richness is yet unknown.
Three comparative contexts are needed to fully disclose the meanings of survey findings in the IS/MND. The first is to contextualize the survey findings relative to the survey effort, because otherwise it is misleading to insinuate that the species detected were definitive of the wildlife community. As Figures 1 and 2 demonstrate, additional surveys contribute to greater accuracy in the characterization of the wildlife community, eventually obtaining the species inventory. (An inventory may not be necessary, but it helps to disclose the approximate number of species yet to be detected.) That Noriko could survey briefly and still double the number of vertebrate wildlife species from Cornett’s 27 species means that there are many more species yet to be detected. As I commented above, by analytically bridging Noriko’s survey data to a more extensive research survey effort, I predict 111 species of vertebrate wildlife, inclusive of 24 specialstatus species, and these are the tallies expected of only diurnal surveys. Adding nocturnal surveys would increase these numbers substantially, as many mammals, reptiles and amphibians and some birds are active mostly at night in desert environments.
The second comparative context is to compare the survey findings on the project site to survey findings from other sites of proposed projects or at sites that can serve as reference sites. Figures 5 and 6 exemplify this comparative context, as do the confidence intervals in Figures 1 and 2.
The third comparative context is to assess the probabilities of detection considering the survey effort of each special-status species, whether detected or not. Cornett (2022) reports having failed to detect most special-status species that could conceivably occur on the project site, but what do these failures to detect species really mean? Each species presents survey personnel with a unique range of detection probabilities, but the IS/MND fails to discuss this, and instead gives the false impression that field surveys are equal in their ikelihoods to detect any and all species of vertebrate wildlife. For any given species, the likelihood it would be detected varies with survey effort and distance from known activity areas, among other factors. Many animals maintain home ranges that are larger than most project sites, and they periodically shift their foraging activities to various parts of their home range, hence occurring on a particular site only periodically. To detect these species, survey personnel must be at the site on the same date and time as the one or more members of the species. Therefore, the probability of detection during any given survey is less than 100%.
1600
1601
1602
21 determination of zero likelihood of occurrence is typically indicative of insufficient survey effort. A common goal of detection survey protocols is to support absence determinations with a survey effort that should have resulted in a detection if the species had been present at the time of the surveys, but it does not prove that the species is always absent from the site. This third comparative context and its implications should not be neglected in CEQA review, but it is entirely neglected in the case of the IS/MND prepared for this project.
Cornett (2022:11) reports “The survey pattern used is approved by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service for determining the presence or absence of the burrowing owl and desert tortoise and represents an intensive survey effort that resulted in no officially listed or federally protected species being overlooked within the project boundaries…” However, Cornett (2022) provides no citation of the USFWS guidelines that were purportedly used. Whereas the CDFW (2012) survey guidelines are available for burrowing owl, I am not aware that USFWS has prepared burrowing ow survey guidelines. Cornett (2022) did not follow the CDFW (2012) survey guidelines, as for example, it did not follow the recommended survey schedule for either non-breeding season or breeding season surveys. As for desert tortoise, USFWS (2017) recommends coordination with the USFWS prior to conducting the survey, conduct of focused surveys over multispecies surveys, and Provision of a complete survey report to the USFWS. Cornett conducted a multi-species survey, contrary to the guidelines, and it provides no written evidence that it consulted with USFWS or provided a report of its survey to USFWS. Based on what is reported in Cornett (2022), it is my opinion that no protocol-level detection surveys were conducted for wildlife or rare plants on the project site. Cornett (2022) makes no mention of the rare plant survey guidelines (CDFW 2018), and Cornett did not implement the guidelines. And as far as I cand determine from the IS/MND Dudek did not implement the survey guidelines for special-status species of bumble bee (CDFW 2023).
Cornett (2022) reports that despite intensive efforts, none of the surveys it conducted yielded detections of Coachella giant sand treader cricket, Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket and Coachella Valley grasshopper, flat-tailed horned lizard, desert tortoise, burrowing owl, loggerhead shrike, and desert kit fox. The IS/MND repeats these pseudoscientific findings – pseudoscientific because although factual, the findings lack context. Cornett provides no estimate of the likelihood of detection of any of these species based on its survey effort.
Cornett (2022) speculates that “human activity in the area is the likely explanation for … absence” of desert kit fox. Cornett’s absence determination is inappropriate because it is not supported by completion of surveys consistent with the USFWS (2019) survey guidelines. The speculated reason for the species’ alleged absence is also inaccurate, considering that its related subspecies – the San Joaquin kit fox – is well known for its ability to persist in the urban environment of Bakersfield, California. Kit foxes can cope with urban environments. Moreover, it is inappropriate to speculate on kit fox habitat because CEQA prohibits the use of speculation to predict that potential project impacts would be less than significant (see CEQA Guidelines section 15145. SPECULATION). 1603
22 Cornett (2022) also speculates reasons why loggerhead shrike is unlikely to occur, and it does for so for several other species as well.
In summary, Cornett detected more than the usual number of wildlife species than consultants detect in reconnaissance surveys conducted in support of CEQA review.
Noriko’s surveys bring the species tally to 57 species of vertebrate wildlife known to the site, and her survey results indicate that many more species occur there but have yet to be documented. It is delinquent of Cornett (2022) to have reported its findings without any comparative context to aid in interpretation, but more importantly this omission of an essential method of review results in an inaccurate characterization of the wildlife community as part of the existing environmental setting. The wildlife community is much richer than depicted by Cornett (2022). How Dudek characterizes the wildlife community is unverifiable because the IS/MND does not include a biological technical report from Dudek.
Environmental Setting informed by Desktop Review
The IS/MND does not assess the occurrence likelihoods of more than a few specialstatus species, and it is not made clear how these species were selected for analysis or why so many others were omitted. Neither does Cornett (2022) explain why it assesses the occurrence likelihoods of only a few special-status species, nor does Cornett (2022) describe any methodological process for assessing habitat.
In my assessment based on a database review and site visits, 145 special-status species of wildlife are known to occur near enough to the site to warrant analysis of occurrence potential (Table 2). Not all these species should be expected to occur at the project site, but each of them should be given a closer look to determine occurrence likelihoods and whether additional surveys are needed, or implementation of detection surveys, or whether it would be reasonable to assume presence. Of these 145 special-status species, 17 (12%) were recorded on or just off the project site, and another 37 (26%) species have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site (Very close), another 14 (10%) between 1.5 and 4 miles (Nearby), and another 71 (49%) between 4 to 30 miles (In region). Almost half (47%) of the species in Table 2 have been reportedly seen within 4 miles of the project site. The site therefore supports at least 17 special-status species of wildlife, and it carries the potential for supporting many more special-status species of wildlife based on close proximities of recorded occurrences. Evidence certainly suggests that habitat assessments are needed for these species.
The IS/MND assesses the occurrence likelihoods of only 8 (5.5%) of the special-status species listed in Table 2, which means that 137 (94.5%) of the special-status species in Table 2 were screened out of the analysis in the first step of the desktop review. The IS/MND’s occurrence likelihood determinations are mostly absent, not expected, unsuitable or low. comport poorly with the data.
Of the 137 special-status species that the IS/MND fails to analyze for occurrence likelihoods, 15 have been documented on the project site, 36 have been documented within 1.5 miles of the site, and 11 have been documented between 1.5 and 4 miles from 1604
23 the site. Based on their close proximities to the project site, there is no defensible reason for the IS/MND to have omitted these species from habitat assessment.
Mischaracterization of the Wildlife Community
The IS/MND reports on two field survey efforts having been made, one by each of two consulting firms, but a report only one of these survey efforts is publicly available with the IS/MND. The IS/MND reports no method of desktop review to assess the occurrence likelihoods of special-status species. The field survey results are interpreted without any context to survey results from elsewhere. Cornett (2022) resorts to speculation in its few analyses of occurrence likelihoods. Speculated habitat assessments are highly uncertain, which is inappropriate for precious or rare resources such as special-status species (National Research Council 1986). The true wildlife community remains to be described with sufficient accuracy. Without a more accurate characterization of the wildlife community, the basis is inadequate for predicting impacts and formulating appropriate mitigation strategies.
BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
The impacts analysis in CEQA review involves prediction. Impact predictions are necessary in environmental review because measuring a project’s impacts directly could not happen until after the impacts occur, and the timing of this type of measurement would come too late for formulating a mitigation strategy or deciding on a project alternative. As noted earlier, the accuracy of the predictions of impacts and their significance ultimately relies on the degree of accuracy in the characterization of the existing environmental setting (Figure 3). Prediction accuracy also relies on experience, of which development projects subjected to CEQA review have been made amply available (Figure 8). CEQA prohibits the use of speculation to predict that potential project impacts would be less than significant (see CEQA Guidelines section 15145.
SPECULATION), so it is experience that must be used. The type of experience proven most effective, and therefore most amenable to achieving CEQA’s primary objectives, is scientific inference, as generally depicted in Figure 8. Scientific inference can be drawn from scientific studies or from the many other projects that have undergone CEQA review. The comparative method enables the use of scientific inference to predict impacts and to predict the efficacies of mitigation strategies, the latter of which should be also amply available in the record.
1605
24 Table 2. Occurrence likelihoods of special-status species of wildlife at or near the proposed project site, according to eBird/iNaturalist records (https://eBird.org, https://www.inaturalist.org) and on-site survey findings, where ‘Very close’ indicates within 1.5 miles of the site, “nearby” indicates within 1.5 and 4 miles, and “in region” indicates within 4 and 30 miles, and ‘in range’ means the species’ geographic range overlaps the site. Entries in bold font identify species detected by Noriko Smallwood during her site visits. HCP refers to species covered by the Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
Common name Species name Status1
HCP
cover
Cornett 2022,
Dudek 2025 Records, Surveys
Casey’s June beetle Dinacoma caseyi FE Not detected In region Monarch Danaus plexippus FC Very close
Crotch’s bumble bee Bombus crotchii CCE Low Nearby
Coachella giant sand
treader cricket
Macrobaenetes valgum Yes Nearby
Couch’s spadefoot Scaphiopus couchii SSC In range
Southwestern pond turtle Actinemys pallida FC, SSC In region Mojave desert tortoise Gopherus agassizii FT, CE Yes Absent In region Coast horned lizard Phrynosoma blainvillii SSC In region Flat-tailed horned lizard Phrynosoma mcallii SSC Yes Unsuitable In region Coachella Valley fringe-toed
lizard
Uma inornata FT, CE Yes Not expected Nearby
California glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis SSC In region Red-diamond rattlesnake Crotalus ruber SSC Very close
Desert pupfish Cyprinodon macularius FE, CE In region
Brant Branta bernicla SSC2 In region
Cackling goose (Aleutian) Branta hutchinsii
leucopareia
WL Very close
Redhead Aythya americana SSC2 Very close
Western grebe Aechmophorus occidentalis BCC Very close
Clark’s grebe Aechmophorus clarkii BCC Very close
Western yellow-billed
cuckoo
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
FT, CE In region
Black swift Cypseloides niger SSC3, BCC In region
Vaux’s swift Chaetura vauxi SSC2 Very close
Costa’s hummingbird Calypte costae BCC Very close/On site 1606
25 Common name Species name Status1
HCP
cover
Cornett 2022,
Dudek 2025 Records, Surveys
Calliope hummingbird Selasphorus calliope BCC Nearby
Rufous hummingbird Selasphorus rufus BCC Very close
Allen’s hummingbird Selasphorus sasin BCC In region
Yuma Ridway’s rail Rallus obsoletus
yumanensis
FE, CT, CFP Yes In region
American avocet Recurvirostra americana BCC Very close
Mountain plover Charadrius montanus SSC2, BCC In region Snowy plover Charadrius nivosus BCC In region
Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus nivosus FT, SSC In region Long-billed curlew Numenius americanus WL Very close
Marbled godwit Limosa fedoa BCC In region
Black turnstone Arenaria melanocephala BCC In region
Red knot Calidris canutus BCC In region
Pectoral sandpiper Calidris melanotos BCC In region
Short-billed dowitcher Limnodromus griseus BCC In region Lesser yellowlegs Tringa flavipes BCC In region
Willet Tringa semipalmata BCC In region
Laughing gull Leucophaeus atricilla WL In region
Franklin’s gull Leucophaeus pipixcan BCC In region
Heermann’s gull Larus heermanni BCC In region
Western gull Larus occidentalis BCC In region
Yellow-footed gull Larus livens BCC In region
California gull Larus californicus BCC, WL Very close/On site California least tern Sternula antillarum browni FE, CE, CFP In region Gull-billed tern Gelochelidon nilotica BCC, SSC3 In region Black tern Chlidonias niger SSC2, BCC In region
Elegant tern Thalasseus elegans BCC, WL In region
Black skimmer Rynchops niger BCC, SSC3 In region
Common loon Gavia immer SSC Very close
Double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus WL Very close/On site American white pelican Pelacanus erythrorhynchos SSC1 Very close 1607
26 Common name Species name Status1
HCP
cover
Cornett 2022,
Dudek 2025 Records, Surveys
Least bittern Ixobrychus exilis SSC2 In region
Reddish egret Egretta rufescens BCC In region
White-faced ibis Plegadis chihi WL Very close
Turkey vulture Cathartes aura BOP Very close/On site
Osprey Pandion haliaetus WL, BOP Very close
White-tailed kite Elanus luecurus CFP, BOP In region
Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos BGEPA, CFP, BOP,
WL
Nearby
Northern harrier Circus cyaneus BCC, SSC3, BOP Very close Sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus WL, BOP Very close Cooper’s hawk Accipiter cooperii WL, BOP Very close/On site Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus CE, BGEPA, BOP Very close Red-shouldered hawk Buteo lineatus BOP Very close
Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsoni CT, BOP Very close
Red-tailed hawk Buteo jamaicensis BOP Very close/On site Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis WL, BOP In region
Zone-tailed hawk Buteo albonotatus BOP Nearby
Harris’ hawk Parabuteo unicinctus WL, BOP In region
American barn owl Tyto furcata BOP Very close
Western screech-owl Megascops kennicotti BOP Very close Great horned owl Bubo virginianus BOP Very close
Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia BCC, CCE, SSC2,
BOP
Yes Possible, Low Nearby
Long-eared owl Asio otus BCC, SSC3, BOP In region
Short-eared owl Asia flammeus BCC, SSC3, BOP Nearby/On site Northern saw-whet owl Aegolius acadicus BOP In region
Lewis’s woodpecker Melanerpes lewis BCC In region
Nuttall’s woodpecker Picoides nuttallii BCC Nearby
American kestrel Falco sparverius BOP Very close/On site Merlin Falco columbarius WL, BOP Very close
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus BOP Very close/On site 1608
27 Common name Species name Status1
HCP
cover
Cornett 2022,
Dudek 2025 Records, Surveys
Prairie falcon Falco mexicanus WL, BOP Very close
Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus cooperi BCC, SSC2 Very close Willow flycatcher Empidonax trailii CE Very close
Southwestern willow
flycatcher
Empidonax traillii extimus FE, CE Yes In range
Brown-crested flycatcher Myiarchus tyrannulus WL In region Vermilion flycatcher Pyrocephalus rubinus SSC2 Very close Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE, CE Yes In region Gray vireo Vireo vicinior SSC2 Yes In region
Loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus SSC2 Possible, On site Very close/On site Oak titmouse Baeolophus inornatus BCC Nearby
Verdin Auriparus flaviceps BCC Very close/On site
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia WL Very close Bank swallow Riparia riparia CT Nearby
Purple martin Progne subis SSC2 Nearby
Wrentit Chamaea fasciata BCC In region
Black-tailed gnatcatcher Polioptila melanura WL Very close Bendire’s thrasher Toxostoma bendirei SSC3, BCC In region California thrasher Toxostoma redivivum BCC In region
LeConte’s thrasher Toxostoma lecontei SSC1, BCC Yes Absent Very close Crissal thrasher Toxostoma crissale SSC3 Yes In region
Cassin’s finch Haemorhous cassinii BCC Very close
Lawrence’s goldfinch Spinus lawrencei BCC Very close
Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC2 In region Black-chinned sparrow Spizella atrogularis BCC In region Gray-headed junco Junco hyemalis caniceps WL Nearby
Bell’s sparrow Amphispiza b. belli WL In region
Oregon vesper sparrow Pooecetes gramineus affinis SSC2 In range Southern California rufouscrowned sparrowAimophila ruficeps canescens
WL In region
Yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens SSC3 Yes Very close 1609
28 Common name Species name Status1
HCP
cover
Cornett 2022,
Dudek 2025 Records, Surveys
Yellow-headed blackbird X. xanthocephalus SSC3 Very close Bullock’s oriole Icterus bullockii BCC Very close
Tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor CT, BCC, SSC1 In region Lucy’s warbler Leiothlypis luciae SSC3 In region
Virginia’s warbler Leiothlypis virginiae WL, BCC In region Northern yellow warbler Setophaga aestiva SSC2 Yes Very close Summer tanager Piranga rubra SSC1 Yes Very close
California leaf nosed bat Macrotus californicus SSC, WBWG:H In region Yuma myotis Myotis yumanensis WBWG:LM In region/On site Long-eared myotis Myotis evotis WBWG:M In region
Fringed myotis Myotis thysanodes WBWG:H In region
Long-legged myotis Myotis volans WBWG:H In region
California myotis Myotis californicus WBWG:L In region/On site Small-footed myotis Myotis ciliolabrum WBWG:M In region Canyon bat Parastrellus hesperus WBWG:M Nearby/On site
Big brown bat Episticus fuscus WBWG:L In region
Silver-haired bat Lasionycteris noctivagans WBWG:M In region Hoary bat Lasiurus cinereus WBWG:M In region/On site2
Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii SSC, WBWG:H In region Western yellow bat Lasiurus xanthinus SSC, WBWG:H Yes In region Spotted bat Euderma maculatum SSC, WBWG:H In range/On site2 Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii SSC, WBWG:H In region Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus SSC, WBWG:H Nearby
Mexican free-tailed bat Tadarida brasiliensis WBWG:L In region/On site Pocketed free-tailed bat Nyctinomops femorosaccus SSC, WBWG:M In region Big free-tailed bat Nyctinomops macrotis SSC, WBWG:MH In range Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis SSC, WBWG:H In range Palm Springs round-tailed
ground squirrel
Xerospermophilus
tereticaudus chlorus
SSC Yes On site Nearby/On site
Palm Springs pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris
bangsi
SSC Yes In region
1610
29 Common name Species name Status1
HCP
cover
Cornett 2022,
Dudek 2025 Records, Surveys
Pallid San Diego pocket
mouse
Chaetodipus fallax pallidus SSC In region
Los Angeles pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
SSC In region
San Diego Bryant’s woodrat Neotoma bryanti intermedia SSC In region Southern grasshopper
mouse
Onychomys torridus
ramona
SSC In region
American badger Taxidea taxus SSC In region
Peninsular bighorn sheep
DPS
Ovis canadensis pop. 2 FE, CT, CFP Yes Nearby
1 Listed on CDFW’s Special Animals List (https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406) as FT or FE = federal threatened or endangered; FC = federal candidate for listing; CT or CE = California threatened or endangered; CCT or CCE = Candidate California threatened or endangered; CFP = California Fully Protected (California Fish and Game Code 3511); SSCi = California Species of Special Concern with i = priorities 1, 2 and 3; WL = CDFW’s Taxa to Watch List; BGEPA = Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act; WBWG = Western Bat Working Group with priority rankings, of low (L), moderate (M), and high (H); BCC = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Bird of Conservation Concern (https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/birds-ofconservation-concern-2021.pdf); and BOP = protected by Birds of Prey (California Fish and Game Code 3503.5, see https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Raptors).
2 Identified as one of two species, so this species is possibly on site. 1611
1612
31 American bird species, which averaged 1.39 broods per year, then I estimate 10 nest attempts per year on the project site. Assuming Young’s (1948) study site typifies bird productivity of 2.9 fledged birds per nest attempt, then I predict 28 fledglings/year at the project site.
The loss of 7 nest sites and 10 nest attempts per year would qualify as significant impacts that have not been analyzed in the IS/MND. But the impacts would not end with the immediate loss of nest sites. The reproductive capacity of the site would be lost.
The project would prevent the production of 28 fledglings per year. Assuming an average bird generation time of 4 years, the lost capacity of both breeders and annual fledgling production can be estimated from an equation in Smallwood (2022):
{(nests/year × chicks/nest × number of years) + (2 adults/nest × nests/year) × (number of years ÷ years/generation)} ÷ (number of years) = 32 birds per year lost to California.
The loss of 32 birds per year would be a loss of significant habitat value that is currently provided by the project site. Most if not all these birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and by California’s Migratory Bird Protection Act, both of which are intended to most strongly protect breeding migratory birds. The loss of 32 birds per year qualifies as an unmitigated significant impact.
INTERFERENCE WITH WILDLIFE MOVEMENT
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. Unfortunately, this concern has not motivated any serious analysis of whether or how the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region. To identify corridors routinely used by wildlife for travel, Cornett (2022:11 and 17) sifted and smoothed sand to better register animal tracks. Based on this method, Cornett (2022:17) reports, “no discernable and routinely used corridors could be found.” However, the reported methodology was not derived from any cited scientific source. Having focused on animal tracks since the very beginning of my research career, I would be familiar with a method such as what Cornett describes for discerning movement corridors, but I have encountered no such method. Cornett would have had to sift and smooth just about all the sand that occurs on the project site to discern movement corridors based on tracks, but Cornett reports nothing about the extent of its sifting and smoothing. Cornett (2022) fails to describe a credible method for discerning movement corridors, and moreover such corridors would have little bearing on the movement patterns of birds and bats.
The IS/MND relies on the red-herring argument that the project site must act as a wildlife movement corridor before changes to it could result in significant interference with wildlife movement in the region. The premise of the argument is not true. The CEQA standard expressed in Question (d) of CEQA’s App. G Checklist applies to all types of movement and not just the movement channeled by corridors. As habitat fragmentation proceeds, which it has to an advanced degree in the project area, the remaining patches of open space increase in their importance as stopover opportunities for wildlife on long-distance dispersal or migration.
1613
32 That the site is truly important to wildlife movement in the region is obvious based on the unusually large number of species of vertebrate wildlife that have been detected on the project site. Also, many of the species detected by Noriko were represented by animals on the move. Many of the birds were in flight. The site is probably important for its stopover opportunities for birds traveling through the area and otherwise have few remaining options to seek forage and cover.
The IS/MND claims that the modified project “would continue to not affect the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. Further, there would be no changed circumstances and no new information as confirmed during the updated 2025 survey efforts.” But again, Dudek’s survey is not described in the IS/MND, nor its results reported other than the detection of loggerhead shrike. So far that I can determine, Dudek’s survey confirms nothing about the question of whether the project would interfere with wildlife movement in the region.
BIRD-WINDOW COLLISION MORTALITY
The project would introduce glass windows into an essential portion of avian habitat – that portion of the gaseous atmosphere that is referred to as the aerosphere (Davy et al. 2017, Diehl et al. 2017). The aerosphere is where birds and bats and other volant animals with wings migrate, disperse, forage, perform courtship and where some of them mate. Birds are some of the many types of animals that evolved wings as a morphological adaptation to thrive by moving through the medium of the aerosphere.
The aerosphere is habitat, to which an entire discipline of ecology has emerged to study this essential aspect of habitat – the discipline of aeroecology (Kunz et al. 2008).
Many special-status species of birds have been recorded at or near the aerosphere of the project site. My database review and Noriko’s site visit indicate there are 101 specialstatus species of birds with potential to use the site’s aerosphere (Table 1). All the birds represented in Table 1 can quickly fly from wherever they have been documented to the project site, so they would all be within brief flights to the proposed project’s windows.
Noriko confirmed 48 vertebrate wildlife species on the project site, some of them flying across the site.
Window collisions are often characterized as either the second or third largest source or human-caused bird mortality. The numbers behind these characterizations are often attributed to Klem’s (1990) and Dunn’s (1993) estimates of about 100 million to 1 billion bird fatalities in the USA, or more recently by Loss et al.’s (2014) estimate of 365-988 million bird fatalities in the USA or Calvert et al.’s (2013) and Machtans et al.’s (2013) estimates of 22.4 million and 25 million bird fatalities in Canada, respectively. The proposed project would impose windows in the airspace normally used by birds.
Glass-façades of buildings intercept and kill many birds, but they are differentially hazardous to birds based on spatial extent, contiguity, orientation, and other factors. At Washington State University, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a three-story glass walkway (no fatality adjustments attempted). Prior to marking the windows to warn birds of the collision 1614
33 hazard, the collision rate was 84.7 per year. At that rate, and by not attempting to adjust the fatality estimate for the proportion of fatalities not found, 4,574 birds were likely killed over the 54 years since the start of their study, and that’s at a relatively small building façade. Accounting for the proportion of fatalities not found in searches, the number of birds killed by this walkway over the last 54 years would have been about 14,270. And this is just for one 3-story, glass-sided walkway between two college campus buildings.
Klem’s (1990) estimate was based on speculation that 1 to 10 birds are killed per building per year, and this speculated range was extended to the number of buildings estimated by the US Census Bureau in 1986. Klem’s speculation was supported by fatality monitoring at only two houses, one in Illinois and the other in New York. Also, the basis of his fatality rate extension has changed greatly since 1986. Whereas his estimate served the need to alert the public of the possible magnitude of the birdwindow collision issue, it was highly uncertain at the time and undoubtedly outdated more than three decades hence. Indeed, by 2010 Klem (2010) characterized the upper end of his estimated range – 1 billion bird fatalities – as conservative. Furthermore, the estimate lumped species together as if all birds are the same and the loss of all birds to windows has the same level of impact.
By the time Loss et al. (2014) performed their effort to estimate annual USA birdwindow fatalities, many more fatality monitoring studies had been reported or were underway. Loss et al. (2014) incorporated many more fatality rates based on scientific monitoring, and they were more careful about which fatality rates to include. However, they included estimates based on fatality monitoring by homeowners, which in one study were found to detect only 38% of the available window fatalities (Bracey et al. 2016). Loss et al. (2014) excluded all fatality records lacking a dead bird in hand, such as injured birds or feather or blood spots on windows. Loss et al.’s (2014) fatality metric was the number of fatalities per building (where in this context a building can include a house, low-rise, or high-rise structure), but they assumed that this metric was based on window collisions. Because most of the bird-window collision studies were limited to migration seasons, Loss et al. (2014) developed an admittedly assumption-laden correction factor for making annual estimates. Also, only two of the studies included adjustments for carcass persistence and searcher detection error, and it was unclear how and to what degree fatality rates were adjusted for these factors. Although Loss et al. (2014) attempted to account for some biases as well as for large sources of uncertainty mostly resulting from an opportunistic rather than systematic sampling data source, their estimated annual fatality rate across the USA was highly uncertain and vulnerable to multiple biases, most of which would have resulted in fatality estimates biased low.
In my review of bird-window collision monitoring, I found that the search radius around homes and buildings was very narrow, usually 2 meters. Based on my experience with bird collisions in other contexts, I would expect that a large portion of bird-window collision victims would end up farther than 2 m from the windows, especially when the windows are higher up on tall buildings. In my experience, searcher detection rates tend to be low for small birds deposited on ground with vegetation cover or woodchips or other types of organic matter. Also, vertebrate scavengers entrain on anthropogenic 1615
34 sources of mortality and quickly remove many of the carcasses, thereby preventing the fatality searcher from detecting these fatalities. Adjusting fatality rates for these factors – search radius bias, searcher detection error, and carcass persistence rates – would greatly increase nationwide estimates of bird-window collision fatalities.
Buildings can intercept many nocturnal migrants as well as birds flying in daylight. As mentioned above, Johnson and Hudson (1976) found 266 bird fatalities of 41 species within 73 months of monitoring of a four-story glass walkway at Washington State University (no adjustments attempted for undetected fatalities). Somerlot (2003) found 21 bird fatalities among 13 buildings on a university campus within only 61 days.
Monitoring twice per week, Hager at al. (2008) found 215 bird fatalities of 48 species, or 55 birds/building/year, and at another site they found 142 bird fatalities of 37 species for 24 birds/building/year. Gelb and Delacretaz (2009) recorded 5,400 bird fatalities under buildings in New York City, based on a decade of monitoring only during migration periods, and some of the high-rises were associated with hundreds of fatalities each. Klem et al. (2009) monitored 73 building façades in New York City during 114 days of two migratory periods, tallying 549 collision victims, nearly 5 birds per day. Borden et al. (2010) surveyed a 1.8 km route 3 times per week during 12-month period and found 271 bird fatalities of 50 species. Parkins et al. (2015) found 35 bird fatalities of 16 species within only 45 days of monitoring under 4 building façades. From 24 days of survey over a 48-day span, Porter and Huang (2015) found 47 fatalities under 8 buildings on a university campus. Sabo et al. (2016) found 27 bird fatalities over 61 days of searches under 31 windows. In San Francisco, Kahle et al. (2016) found 355 collision victims within 1,762 days under a 5-story building. Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) searched the perimeters of 6 buildings on a university campus, finding 86 fatalities after 63 days of surveys. One of these buildings produced 61 of the 86 fatalities, and another building with collision-deterrent glass caused only 2 of the fatalities, thereby indicating a wide range in impacts likely influenced by various factors. There is ample evidence available to support my prediction that the proposed project would result in many collision fatalities of birds.
Project Impact Prediction
By the time of these comments, I had reviewed and processed results of bird collision monitoring at 213 buildings and façades for which bird collisions per m2 of glass per year could be calculated and averaged (Johnson and Hudson 1976, O’Connell 2001, Somerlot 2003, Hager et al. 2008, Borden et al. 2010, Hager et al. 2013, Porter and Huang 2015, Parkins et al. 2015, Kahle et al. 2016, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. 2016, Sabo et al. 2016, Barton et al. 2017, Gomez-Moreno et al. 2018, Schneider et al. 2018, Loss et al. 2019, Brown et al. 2020, City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon 2020, Riding et al. 2020). These study results averaged 0.073 bird deaths per m2 of glass per year (95% CI: 0.042-0.102). This average and its 95% confidence interval provide a robust basis for predicting fatality rates at a proposed new project.
With the estimated average bird collision mortality above, all I need are estimates of window extents in the project. The IS/MND does not predict the extents of windows in 1616
35 the project, nor does it provide any renderings of the homes in the project. However, it predicts 318,000 square feet in 156 single-family homes, which I can compare to the average m2 of glass windows relative to the sf of floor space that I have maintained in a database of other single-family residential development projects for which I have been able to measure window extents in renderings of the homes. Assuming 0.015193 m2 of glass window extent per sf, then I predict 4,831 m2 of windows among the single-family homes. This extent of windows multiplied against the above-reported average bird collision deaths per m2 of glass per year predicts 353 (95% CI: 210–497) bird collision fatalities per year.
The vast majority of these predicted deaths would be of birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and under the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, thus causing significant unmitigated impacts that were not addressed in IS/MND. Given the predicted level of bird-window collision mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, including the unmitigated take of both terrestrial and aerial habitat of birds and other sensitive species. Not only would the project take habitat of rare and sensitive species of birds, but it would transform the project’s airspace into a lethal collision trap to birds.
At least a fair argument can be made for the need to prepare an EIR to appropriately analyze the project for its potential impacts to birds caused by collisions with windows.
WILDLIFE DEPREDATION BY HOUSE CATS
Considering national trends, it is safe to assume that house cats would be introduced to the project area by residents of the proposed residential units. This is significant because house cats serve as one of the largest sources of avian mortality in North America (Dauphiné and Cooper 2009, Blancher 2013, Loss et al. 2013, Loyd et al. 2017).
Loss et al. (2013) estimated 139 million cats in the USA in 2013 (range 114 to 164 million), which killed an estimated 16.95 billion vertebrate wildlife annually (range 7.6 to 26.3 billion). In 2012 there were 0.44 house cats per human in the USA, and 122 vertebrate animals were killed per cat, free-ranging members of which killed disproportionately larger numbers of vertebrate wildlife. The IS/MND predicts 320 new residents in 156 single-family homes. The above rates of cat ownership applied to this number of new residents would predict 141 new cats, which based on the findings of Loss et al. (2013) would kill 17,202 vertebrate wildlife per year.
House cats also contribute to downstream loading of Toxoplasma gondii. According to a UC Davis wildlife health research program, “Toxoplasma gondii is a parasite that can infect virtually all warm-blooded animals, but the only known definitive hosts are cats – domesticated and feral house cats included. Cats catch the parasite through hunting rodents and birds and they offload it into the environment through their feces… and …rain that falls on cement creates more runoff than rain that falls on natural earth, which contributes to increased runoff that can carry fecal pathogens to the sea” (The original link is no longer active, but the quote came from the program described at:
https://whc.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/programs-projects/ca-conservation/sea-otter). 1617
36 Impacts to wildlife from the introduction of house cats into the environment would be highly significant, and yet these impacts are not considered in the IS/MND. An obvious mitigation measure would be to constrain house cat ownership such as requiring cats to remain indoors.
TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON WILDLIFE
The IS/MND neglects to address one of the project’s most obvious, substantial impacts on wildlife, and that is wildlife mortality and injuries caused by project-generated traffic. Project-generated traffic would endanger wildlife that must, for various reasons, cross roads used by the project’s traffic (Photos 19―22), including along roads far from the project footprint but which would nevertheless by traversed by automobiles head to or from the project’s building. Vehicle collisions have accounted for the deaths of many thousands of amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, and arthropod fauna, and the impacts have often been found to be significant at the population level (Forman et al. 2003).
Across North America traffic impacts have taken devastating tolls on wildlife (Forman et al. 2003). In Canada, 3,562 birds were estimated killed per 100 km of road per year (Bishop and Brogan 2013), and the US estimate of avian mortality on roads is 2,200 to 8,405 deaths per 100 km per year, or 89 million to 340 million total per year (Loss et al. 2014). Local impacts can be more intense than nationally.
The nearest study of traffic-caused wildlife mortality was performed along a 2.5-mile stretch of Vasco Road in Contra Costa County, California. Fatality searches in this study found 1,275 carcasses of 49 species of mammals, birds, amphibians and reptiles over 15 months of searches (Mendelsohn et al. 2009). This fatality number needs to be adjusted for the proportion of fatalities that were not found due to scavenger removal and searcher error. This adjustment is typically made by placing carcasses for searchers to find (or not find) during their routine periodic fatality searches. This step was not taken at Vasco Road (Mendelsohn et al. 2009), but it was taken as part of another study next to Vasco Road (Brown et al. 2016). Brown et al.’s (2016) adjustment factors for carcass persistence resembled those of Santos et al. (2011). Also applying searcher detection rates from Brown et al. (2016), the adjusted total number of fatalities was estimated at 9,462 animals killed by traffic on the road. This fatality number projected over 1.25 years and 2.5 miles of road translates to 3,028 wild animals per mile per year. In terms comparable to the national estimates, the estimates from the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study would translate to 188,191 animals killed per 100 km of road per year, or 22 times that of Loss et al.’s (2014) upper bound estimate and 53 times the Canadian estimate.
An analysis is needed of whether increased traffic generated by the project site would similarly result in local impacts on wildlife.
1618
37 Photos 19 and 20. A
desert cottontail runs
across the road in
Murietta, California (top),
and a great-tailed grackle
crosses a road in the
Imperial Valley (bottom).
Photos 21 and 22.
Raccoon killed on Road 31
just east of Highway 505
in Solano County (left;
photo taken on 10
November 2018), and
California kingsnake
killed by a vehicle on a
rural road in El Dorado
County in 2024.
For wildlife vulnerable to front-end collisions and crushing under tires, road mortality can be predicted from the study of Mendelsohn et al. (2009) as a basis, although it would be helpful to have the availability of more studies like that of Mendelsohn et al. 1619
38 (2009) at additional locations. My analysis of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) data resulted in an estimated 3,028 animals killed per mile along a county road in Contra Costa County. The estimated numbers of fatalities were 1.75% birds, 26.4% mammals (many mice and pocket mice, but also ground squirrels, desert cottontails, striped skunks, American badgers, raccoons, and others), 67.4% amphibians (large numbers of California tiger salamanders and California red-legged frogs, but also Sierran treefrogs, western toads, arboreal salamanders, slender salamanders and others), and 4.4% reptiles (many western fence lizards, but also skinks, alligator lizards, and snakes of various species). VMT is useful for predicting wildlife mortality because I was able to quantify miles traveled along the studied reach of Vasco Road during the period of the Mendelsohn et al. (2009), hence enabling a rate of fatalities per VMT that can be projected to other sites, assuming similar collision fatality rates.
Predicting project-generated traffic impacts on wildlife The IS/MND fails to report a prediction of project-generated annual VMT. However, based on five other residential projects on which I testified, the average annual VMT/sf of floor space was 36.3. Multiplying this average against the predicted 318,000 sf of floor space in the project predicts the project would generate 11,543,400 VMT per year.
During the Mendelsohn et al. (2009) study, 19,500 cars traveled Vasco Road in Contra Costa County daily, so the vehicle miles that contributed to my estimate of non-volant fatalities was 19,500 cars and trucks × 2.5 miles × 365 days/year × 1.25 years = 22,242,187.5 vehicle miles per 9,462 wildlife fatalities, or 2,351 vehicle miles per fatality.
This rate divided into the predicted annual VMT would predict 135 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year due to project-generated traffic.
However, some might argue that this prediction relies too much on a study along a road through less-disturbed rangeland that likely supports more non-volant wildlife that is more vulnerable to collision mortality. I would argue that the project-generated traffic would pass through similar rural environments with ample wildlife available to be crushed under automobile tires. Nevertheless, to better represent those reaches of road that are more urban than rural, or that would become more urban with the development of the project, I recently completed my own study of wildlife mortality caused by automobiles along roads that were urban and interfaced between urban and agricultural land uses.
I completed one year of daily pedestrian surveys along 2.7 km (1.713 miles) of local, collector and minor arterial roads in north Davis, California, where I tallied 314 fatalities of 40 species of vertebrate wildlife. Most of the fatalities were small-bodied animals such as Sierran treefrogs, western toads, western fence lizards, 10”- to 16”-long juvenile Pacific gophersnakes, valley gartersnakes and California kingsnakes, as well as bushtits, yellow-rumped warblers, deer mice and California ground squirrels. Most of the animals I found would never have been detected from a moving vehicle, which is why people often underestimate how many wild animals are killed by vehicle traffic.
The animals I found in my study did not include all the animals killed by vehicles on the roads I searched. Many had been removed by scavengers before I could find and count 1620
39 them. (American crows patrol the roads every morning, and so does a large flock of wild turkeys.) Some of the animals are knocked off the road in places where I could never find them, and some were undoubtedly caught and carried away in the grills of vehicles or in tire treads. Most of the Sierran treefrogs disappeared from where I found them within several hours, so daily searches missed many of the fatalities. To adjust for these undetected fatalities, I fit a logit regression model to my fatality finds, all of which transitioned to carcass detection trials after I initially found them. Starting with the first day after each detection, I monitored the carcass trials for 30 days, and I assigned each a body mass estimate based on typical body mass reported in the literature. Predictor variables were days since detection and log10 body mass. The relationship between carcass detection probability and the predictor variables is depicted in Figure 9. My fatality finds adjusted by the model results in an estimate of 2,126 vertebrate wildlife fatalities over 1.713 miles of roads in one year, or 1,241 vertebrate wildlife fatalities/mile/year. This rate is 40.9% of the rate measured at Vasco Road, or an estimated 5,748 vehicle miles per fatality. Applying this urban fatality rate to the VMT that is predicted for the project would predict 55 vertebrate wildlife fatalities per year in the area around the project that is traveled by project-generated traffic.
Figure 9.
Wildlife
carcass
detection
probability
is a
function of
the number
of days
since
discovery
and log10
body mass.
A reasonable range of predicted mortality is therefore 55 to 135 vertebrate wildlife fatalities/year due to project-generated traffic.
1621
40 Based on my analysis, the project-generated traffic would cause significant impacts on wildlife. The IS/MND does not address this potential impact, let alone propose to mitigate it. Mitigation measures to improve wildlife safety along roads are available and are feasible, and they need exploration for their suitability with the proposed project.
Given the predicted level of project-generated traffic-caused mortality, and the lack of any proposed mitigation, it is my opinion that the proposed project would result in potentially significant adverse biological impacts, and that these impacts would be unmitigated.
FLAWED CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS
One of CEQA’s principal concerns regarding potential project impacts is whether a proposed project would contribute significantly to cumulative impacts of past, present and future projects, or to multiple types of impacts that are cumulatively considerable.
Unfortunately, the IS/MND fails to seriously analyze the project’s contributions to cumulative impacts on biological resources. On p. 81, it relies on the notion that consistency with “existing federal, state, and local policies and is consistent with the City of Palm Desert General Plan” would avoid significant project contributions to cumulative impacts. This notion is inconsistent with CEQA’s definition of a cumulative impact, which is “created as a result of the combination of the project evaluated in the EIR together with other projects causing related impacts” (CEQA Guidelines §15065 (a)(3)). Even though a project’s direct or indirect effects might be mitigated to a less than significant impact at the project level, it can still incrementally contribute to the effects of other projects for a significant cumulative impact. Furthermore, the CEQA Guidelines (§15064(h)(3)) states, “When relying on a plan, regulation or program, the lead agency should explain how implementing the particular requirements in the plan, regulation or program ensure that the project’s incremental contribution to the cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable.” The IS/MND fails to explain how existing federal, state, and local policies and the City of Palm Desert General Plan would minimize, avoid or offset the project’s contributions to cumulative impacts. CEQA requires a cumulative impacts analysis.
The IS/MND’s conclusion that existing policies and the City’s General Plan would avoid significant cumulative impacts lacks evidential support, and it is readily refutable.
Noriko Smallwood and I performed an experiment to measure the efficacy of applicable laws and regulations, permitting requirements, and required mitigation measures at avoiding or minimizing project impacts including cumulative impacts. We revisited the project sites we had surveyed as experts to repeat the survey methods at the same time of year, the same start time in the day, and the same methods and survey duration to control these sources of variation to cleanly measure the effects of mitigated development on wildlife. We structured the experiment in a before-after, control-impact experimental design, as some of the sites had been developed since our initial survey and some had remained undeveloped. All the developed sites had included mitigation measures to avoid, minimize or compensate for impacts to wildlife. Nevertheless, we found that mitigated development resulted in a 66% loss of species on site, and 48% loss of species in the project area. Counts of vertebrate animals declined 90%. We found that 1622
41 “Development impacts measured by the mean number of species detected per survey were greatest for amphibians (-100%), followed by mammals (-86%), grassland birds (-75%), raptors (-53%), special-status species (-49%), all birds as a group (-48%), nonnative birds (-44%), and synanthropic birds (-28%). Our results indicated that urban development substantially reduced vertebrate species richness and numerical abundance, even after richness and abundance had likely already been depleted by the cumulative effects of loss, fragmentation, and degradation of habitat in the urbanizing environment,” and despite all the mitigation measures and existing policies, regulations, and habitat plans. Experimental evidence demonstrates the need to analyze a project’s potentially significant contributions to cumulative impacts on wildlife despite existing laws, policies and General Plans. The environmental review for this project needs to include an appropriate cumulative impacts analysis.
FLAWED MITIGATION STRATEGY
The mitigation strategy needs to be based on a sound understanding of the existing wildlife community. It needs to be known which species occur or are likely to occur on the project site as well as the nature of their occurrences. There should be some understanding of which species are resident versus migratory. For special-status species, detection surveys should have been completed to either detect the species or to obtain evidence of absence. Surveys should have been completed to understand how wildlife use the site in their movement patterns. And what was found of wildlife species needs to be carefully interpreted by comparing the findings to the findings from other survey efforts at other sites. Failures to detect species should be interpreted relative to the probabilities of their detections given the survey effort. The mitigation strategy needs to follow the steps under Assess species occurrence likelihoods and Characterize wildlife community, followed by Step 7: Predict impacts (Figure 3). However, the IS/MND’s mitigation strategy does not follow from these steps. This pointed out, my comments follow in regular font the summary of each required mitigation measure in italics.
MM BR-1: Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the City of Palm Desert 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.
This mitigation strategy is fine insofar as it would offset impacts to species that are both covered by the CVMSHCP and likely in harm’s way with respect to the project. The project would potentially affect up to 18 special-status species of wildlife in Table 2 that are covered by the CVMSHCP. However, one of the 18 species has not been documented within 30 miles of the project site, eight have been documented between 4 and 30 miles from the site, and another two are determined in the IS/MND to be absent or not expected to occur. Therefore, most (61%) of the covered species are less likely to be adversely affected by the project. On the other hand, 127 special-status species in Table 2 lack coverage under the CVMSHCP, and of these, 16 have been documented on the site and another 33 have been documented within 1.5 miles, and 10 have been documented 1623
42 between 4 and 30 miles from the site. Nearly half of the special-status species lacking CVMSHCP coverage are more likely to be adversely affected by the project. Considering these patterns of special-status species with and without coverage and near and far away from the project site, there is only a poor nexus between the project’s potential impacts on special-status species and the conservation benefits provided in the CVMSHCP.
Of the five covered species most likely to be affected by the project, one has been documented on the site, and four have been documented within 1.5 miles. In short, only a few covered species likely to lose habitat to the project would likely benefit from payment of the mitigation fee to the CVMSHCP, whereas most of the rest of the specialstatus species in Table 2 have not been planned for in the CVMSHCP reserve system.
I am also concerned that the efficacy of the CVMSHCP’s reserve systems is assumed rather than measured. I reviewed the CVMSHCP and its supporting documents to ascertain its performance standards and measurement of progress towards those standards. I could find few biological performance standards, such as minimum numbers of individuals to be achieved through conservation actions, or minimum productivity of each species, or even a minimum species richness as a community metric. One of the species with an identified performance standard is burrowing owl, which the CVMSHCP is to protect 41 of 74 known burrow sites. But even this standard focuses on burrows rather than on the number or productivity of burrowing owls.1 For other species, the performance standard is to protect specified acreages of modeled habitat, and it only assumes that population performance would mirror the acreages of protected modeled habitat, and it further assumes that modeled habitat accurately represents true habitat.
Biological monitoring reports that accompany CVMSHCP annual reports are interesting, but they do not directly bear on the CVMSHCP’s conservation performance standards. The biological monitoring reports include many tests of hypotheses that are of obvious interest to the investigators, and of interest to me as a scientist, but most of them fail to inform the reader of whether the CVMSHCP is conserving the species it covers.
As noted above, the performance standards of the CVMSHCP are more focused on conserving acreages of habitat. A target acreage to conserve is identified for each covered species. Most of the conserved acreage to date has been committed by state and federal agencies, and much less of it by CVMSHCP permittees. While the agencies have achieved 60% of their acreage goals to the reserve system since inception of the CVMSHCP in 2008, the permittees have achieved only 18% of their acreage goal (Annual Report 2024). Less clear due to poor reporting is the permitted take of acreage since the inception of the CMMSHCP, and whether the conservation acreage goals have 1 On p. 8-90 of section 8.0 entitled MSHCP Reserve System Management & Monitoring Program of the Final Major Amendment to the CVMSHCP – August 2016, a standard appears with the following wording: Within 3 years post-permit issuance, “maintain a minimum of 16 pairs of burrowing owls within the Conservation Areas until data are gathered to identify a minimum number of occupied sites and carrying capacities for those sites.” However, I have yet to find any information about whether this standard was achieved.
1624
43 kept up with the acreages lost to development. The performance standards of the CVMSHCP might be lagging. Until the performance of the CVMSHCP can be demonstrated through both acreage and species conserved, I suggest the more prudent mitigation would be to formulate measures outside the CVMSHCP process. And there are too many special-status species that would not necessarily benefit from the CVMSHCP because they lack coverage, and because the CVMSHCP was not designed with them in mind.
MM BR-2: The project proponent shall ensure that burrowing owl clearance survey is performed not more than 14 days prior to project site disturbance... If any owls are identified, the most current protocol established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Burrowing Owl Mitigation) must be followed. … This part of the measure is outdated and inappropriate. Due to a rapid decline throughout California (Miller 2024), the California Fish and Game Commission voted unanimously in 2024 to designate the burrowing owl a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act. It is therefore imperative to first consult with CDFW about how to implement the CDFW (2012) survey and mitigation guidelines. BR-2 jumps to a preconstruction survey without first consulting with CDFW.
Furthermore, the clearance survey that RBR-2 requires is intended by CDFW (2012) as the last of a series of three types of survey. The three types of surveys described in the CDFW (2012) survey and mitigation guidelines are the following in order of intended sequence: (1) Habitat assessment, (2) Detection surveys, and (3) Preconstruction survey (referred to in BR-2 as a clearance survey). The habitat assessment is intended to evaluate the likelihood that the site supports burrowing owls, and to decide whether detection surveys should be performed. The detection survey, otherwise described as either or both breeding-season or non-breeding-season survey, is intended to detect whether the site truly supports burrowing owls, and if so, where and how many. The preconstruction survey, otherwise known as a take-avoidance or clearance survey, is intended to determine whether burrowing owls immigrated to the site since completion of the detection survey, or whether they returned to the site since passive or active relocations were performed as mitigation. The three types of survey carry distinct but inter-related purposes, and CDFW (2012) intends them to be completed in chronological order as numbered above.
The first two types of survey support impacts analysis, whereas the third type of survey is a mitigation measure. Burrowing owls can be determined absent at the time of the survey based on evidence derived from the habitat assessment or detection survey, but only if the surveys achieved the minimum standards of CDFW (2012). Whereas an absence determination naturally follows from the negative findings of properly performed detection surveys, a clearance survey is not designed or intended to support an absence determination. To determine whether breeding-season detection surveys can be skipped, the following three questions must be answered negatively to determine absence based on the habitat assessment:
A) Are there occurrence records nearby the project site? 1625
44 B) Is the site’s vegetation cover and height typical of where burrowing owls are found? C) Are there fossorial mammals present which typically construct burrows useable by burrowing owls, or are there surrogate cavities that can serve as nest sites? If the answers to these questions are compellingly negative, then detection surveys are not necessary, but they could be implemented to make certain that burrowing owls are absent on the project site. If the answers to these questions are affirmative or not compellingly negative, then it should be assumed that burrowing owl habitat exists on the site until detection surveys prove otherwise.
To question A, the nearest burrowing owl occurrence records are between 1.5 and 4 miles from the project site. Moreover, the IS/MND considers the occurrence of burrowing owl on the project site to be possible. The weight of the evidence justifies an affirmative answer to question A, and so this part of the habitat assessment warrants a detection survey effort.
To question B, the vegetation cover of the site is typical of vegetation often used by burrowing owls. The answer to question B is affirmative, and so this part of the habitat assessment warrants a detection survey effort.
To question C, ground squirrels have been documented on the project site, so the answer to question C should be affirmative, and this part of the habitat assessment warrants a detection survey effort.
The answers to all three questions are affirmative. Therefore, breeding-season detection surveys are needed, and these surveys are not to be confused with preconstruction takeavoidance or clearance surveys. Breeding-season detection surveys are needed to accurately characterize the existing environmental setting and to publicly disclose potential impacts on the burrowing owl.
MM BR-2: If construction activities are to take place during the avian nesting season or breeding season …, a pre-construction survey for nesting bird species, including raptors, shall be conducted within 3 days prior to vegetation removal. The survey will identify any active nesting by special-status birds on the project site or within 200 feet of the project boundary. If active nests of special-status birds are present in the impact area or within 200 feet of the edge of construction area, a qualified biologist shall prescribe avoidance measures to be approved by the City Palm Desert including, but not limited to, establishing a construction buffer until the nesting activity is concluded.
The type of species, nesting stage, surrounding topography, existing conditions, and type of construction activity will determine the appropriate avoidance measures. … If the project goes forward, preconstruction surveys for nesting birds should be implemented. However, it should be understood that BR-2 would not avoid the permanent loss of habitat, nor the collision mortality with automobiles and windows, nor the predation mortality of free-ranging house cats. Even assuming all the nests could be found (not likely), the mitigation measure would apply only to the breeding season of the survey. After the breeding season of the preconstruction survey, there 1626
45 would be no further production of birds from the project site, except for synanthropic species able to nest on homes or in ornamental trees. Moreover, it is a long-standing principle of ecology that animal populations are usually at carrying capacity. (An exception would be the repopulating of an area devastated by a natural disaster.) Ultimately, the same number of birds that are allowed to finish breeding via BR-2 would be the number of birds that would subsequently perish through competition for what remains in the region for forage and breeding territories, and the productive capacity of the region would diminish accordingly. BR-2 is a feel-good measure that fails to avoid the project-caused impact of the region’s diminished productive capacity of birds. The project’s impact on birds would be permanent and of large magnitude. The conservation benefits of this measure would be de minimis or even additive in comparison to the project’s potential impacts on breeding birds.
The IS/MND does not report whether BR-2 has proven effective at any other project site, ever. It provides no evidence that the measure has proven effective at any project where it has been implemented. The known efficacy of this measure needs to be disclosed.
Furthermore, the mitigation language allows a single individual to make a subjective decision, outside the public’s view, to determine the buffer area and buffer timing for any given species. This measure lacks objective criteria, and it is therefore unenforceable.
Lastly, the mitigation language includes the requirement that the preconstruction nest survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, and this requirement carries over to determinations of the buffer areas and buffer timing to avoid take caused by construction activities. Undefined, however, is what qualifies as a “qualified biologist” in these contexts, other than familiarity “with the identification of avian species known to occur in southern California coastal communities.” As mentioned earlier in this letter, Noriko Smallwood and I have been conducting surveys over the past several years to estimate total nest density, which is relevant to a preconstruction, take-avoidance survey because our surveys were likewise directed to all bird species that could be concurrently nesting on a site. Searching for the nests of one species is difficult, but searching for nests of all bird species at once is vastly more difficult. For this reason, there are very few published estimates of total nest density, and there are very few wildlife biologists who have experience with surveys for the nest attempts of all bird species on a given site. A technical way to qualify a wildlife biologist for the tasks outlined in this measure would be to obtain an agency Memorandum of Understanding in which the biologist is named and said to be qualified for conducting the preconstruction survey and for determining the take-avoidance buffer area and timing.
However, a more compelling means of qualifying the biologist would be to require that the biologist has achieved demonstrable experience with nest surveys and avian nesting behavior. Without a stronger definition of what is a qualified biologist in the contexts of these tasks, BR-2 lacks objective criteria, and it is therefore unenforceable.
MM BR-2: A pre-construction survey for Crotch’s bumble bee shall occur within the construction area where suitable habitat has been identified during the primary flight 1627
46 period for workers and males (March 1 through June 30) prior to the start of construction activities. The survey shall ensure that no nests for Crotch’s bumble bee are located within the construction area. Crotch’s bumble bee is a habitat generalist, ground-nesting bee. Surveys and other relevant recommendations shall be in accordance with the most recent protocol available at the time of the surveys.
If nest resources occupied by Crotch’s bumble bee are detected within the construction area, no construction activities shall occur within 100 feet of the occupied nest resources, or as determined by a qualified biologist through evaluation of topographic features or distribution of floral resources. The nest resources shall be avoided for the duration of the Crotch’s bumble bee nesting period (February 1 through October 31).
Outside of the nesting season, it is assumed that no live individuals would be present within the nest, because the daughter queens (gynes) usually leave by September, and all other individuals (original queen, workers, males) die. The gynes are highly mobile and can independently disperse to outside the construction footprint to the proposed open space or other suitable areas beyond that have suitable hibernaculum resources.
Because construction will have occurred in the area outside the occupied nesting resources, no suitable habitat will be present in the impact area, and it is assumed that new queens will disperse to habitat outside the construction area.
MM BR-2 is inappropriate because it defers the appropriate detection survey to a time when it would no longer achieve four of CEQA’s primary objectives to (1) accurately characterize the existing environmental setting as part of the CEQA review, (2) disclose potential project impacts to the public and decision-makers, and (3) foster public participation with decision-making over proposed projects to (4) identify issues and feasible alternative mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts. The appropriate timing of the survey is essential, not just biologically but also in terms of achieving CEQA’s objectives. According to the CDFW (2023:3) survey guidelines for special-status species of bumble bees, “On-site surveys provide the most valuable information for determining potential impacts of proposed projects and activities on the four candidate bumble bee species, and subsequently developing measures to avoid or minimize take of these species.” This guidance obviously recognizes the need to complete the detection surveys before the public circulation of the CEQA review document; otherwise, it would not be possible to determine potential impacts or formulate appropriate mitigation.
Crotch’s bumble bee is a candidate for listing under the California Endangered Species Act. It is therefore important to implement the appropriate detection survey, which should be consistent with CDFW (2023).
Furthermore, I found no evidence in the IS/MND that efforts have been made to obtain an incidental take permit (ITP), nor that CDFW is inclined to issue and ITP for Crotch’s bumble bee in this project.
1628
47 NEEDED MITIGATION MEASURES
Bird-Window Collision Mortality: If the project goes forward, it should at a minimum adhere to available Bird-Safe Guidelines, such as those prepared by American Bird Conservancy and New York and San Francisco. The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) produced an excellent set of guidelines recommending actions to: (1) Minimize use of glass; (2) Placing glass behind some type of screening (grilles, shutters, exterior shades); (3) Using glass with inherent properties to reduce collisions, such as patterns, window films, decals or tape; and (4) Turning off lights during migration seasons (Sheppard and Phillips 2015). The City of San Francisco (San Francisco Planning Department 2011) also has a set of building design guidelines, based on the excellent guidelines produced by the New York City Audubon Society (Orff et al. 2007). The ABC document and both the New York and San Francisco documents provide excellent alerting of potential bird-collision hazards as well as many visual examples. The San Francisco Planning Department’s (2011) building design guidelines are more comprehensive than those of New York City, but they could have gone further. For example, the San Francisco guidelines probably should have also covered scientific monitoring of impacts as well as compensatory mitigation for impacts that could not be avoided, minimized or reduced.
New research results inform of the efficacy of marking windows. Whereas Klem (1990) found no deterrent effect from decals on windows, Johnson and Hudson (1976) reported a fatality reduction of about 69% after placing decals on windows. In an experiment of opportunity, Ocampo-Peñuela et al. (2016) found only 2 of 86 fatalities at one of 6 buildings – the only building with windows treated with a bird deterrent film. At the building with fritted glass, bird collisions were 82% lower than at other buildings with untreated windows. Kahle et al. (2016) added external window shades to some windowed façades to reduce fatalities 82% and 95%. Brown et al. (2020) reported an 84% lower collision probability among fritted glass windows and windows treated with ORNILUX R UV. City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon (2020) reduced bird collision fatalities 94% by affixing marked Solyx window film to existing glass panels of Portland’s Columbia Building. Many external and internal glass markers have been tested experimentally, some showing no effect and some showing strong deterrent effects (Klem 1989, 1990, 2009, 2011; Klem and Saenger 2013; Rössler et al. 2015). For example, Feather Friendly® circular adhesive markers applied in a grid pattern across all windows reduced bird-window collision mortality by 95% in one study (Riggs et al. 2023) and by 95% in another (de Groot et al. 2021).
Another study tested the efficacy of two filmshades to be applied exteriorly to windows prior to installations: BirdShades increased bird-window avoidance by 47% and Haverkamp increased avoidance by 39% (Swaddle et al. 2023).
Road Mortality: Compensatory mitigation is needed for the increased wildlife mortality that would be caused by collisions with automobiles due to project-generated road traffic in the region. I suggest that this mitigation can be directed toward funding research to identify fatality patterns and effective impact reduction measures such as reduced speed limits and wildlife under-crossings or overcrossings of particularly 1629
48 dangerous road segments. Compensatory mitigation can also be provided in the form of donations to wildlife rehabilitation facilities (see below).
Fund Wildlife Rehabilitation Facilities: Compensatory mitigation is needed, and it ought to also include funding contributions to wildlife rehabilitation facilities to cover the costs of injured animals that will be delivered to these facilities for care. Many animals would likely be injured during construction, by house cats, and by collisions with windows and with automobiles traveling to and from the project site.
Landscaping: If the project goes forward, California native plant landscaping (i.e., grassland and locally appropriate scrub plants) should be considered to be used as opposed to landscaping with lawn and exotic shrubs and trees. Native plants offer more structure, cover, food resources, and nesting substrate for wildlife than landscaping with lawn and ornamental trees. Native plant landscaping has been shown to increase the abundance of arthropods which act as important sources of food for wildlife and are crucial for pollination and plant reproduction (Narango et al. 2017, Adams et al. 2020, Smallwood and Wood 2022.). Further, many endangered and threatened insects require native host plants for reproduction and migration, e.g., monarch butterfly. Around the world, landscaping with native plants over exotic plants increases the abundance and diversity of birds, and it is particularly valuable to native birds (Lerman and Warren 2011, Burghardt et al. 2008, Berthon et al. 2021, Smallwood and Wood 2022).
Landscaping with native plants is a way to maintain or to bring back some of the natural habitat and lessen the footprint of urbanization by acting as interconnected patches of habitat for wildlife (Goddard et al. 2009, Tallamy 2020). Lastly, not only does native plant landscaping benefit wildlife, it requires less water and maintenance than traditional landscaping with lawn and hedges.
Thank you for your consideration,
______________________
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D.
LITERATURE CITED
Adams, B. J., E. Li, C. A. Bahlai, E. K. Meineke, T. P. McGlynn, and B. V. Brown. 2020.
Local and landscape-scale variables shape insect diversity in an urban biodiversity hot spot. Ecological Applications 30(4):e02089. 10.1002/eap.2089 Barton, C. M., C. S. Riding, and S. R. Loss. 2017. Magnitude and correlates of bird collisions at glass bus shelters in an urban landscape. Plos One 12. (6): e0178667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178667
Berthon, K., F. Thomas, and S. Bekessy. 2021. The role of ‘nativenes’ in urban greening to support animal biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning 205:103959. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103959
1630
49 Bishop, C. A. and J. M. Brogan. 2013. Estimates of avian mortality attributed to vehicle collisions in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8:2. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00604-080202.
Blancher, P. 2013. Estimated number of birds killed by house cats (Felis catus) in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE00557-080203 Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local habitat components of bird-window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, OH. Ohio Journal of Science 110(3):44-52.
Bracey, A. M., M. A. Etterson, G. J. Niemi, and R. F. Green. 2016. Variation in birdwindow collision mortality and scavenging rates within an urban landscape. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 128:355-367.
Brown, B. B., L. Hunter, and S. Santos. 2020. Bird-window collisions: different fall and winter risk and protective factors. PeerJ 8:e9401 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.9401 Brown, K., K. S. Smallwood, J. Szewczak, and B. Karas. 2016. Final 2012-2015 Report Avian and Bat Monitoring Project Vasco Winds, LLC. Prepared for NextEra Energy Resources, Livermore, California.
Burghardt, K. T., D. W. Tallamy, and W. G. Shriver. 2008. Impact of native plants on bird and butterfly biodiversity in suburban landscapes. Conservation Biology 23:219- 224.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2012. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Sacramento, California.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2018. Protocols for surveying and evaluating impacts to special status native plant populations and sensitive natural communities. https://nrm.dfg.ca.go
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2023. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species.
Calvert, A. M., C. A. Bishop, R. D. Elliot, E. A. Krebs, T. M. Kydd, C. S. Machtans, and G.
J. Robertson. 2013. A synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2): 11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211 City of Palm Desert. 2025. Addendum to the Frank Sinatra and Portola multifamily development Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration: Portola Springs Residential Development Project. Prepared by Dudek for Blue Fern West LLC, Redmond, Washington.
1631
50 City of Portland Bureau of Environmental Services and Portland Audubon. 2020.
Collisions at the Columbia Building: A synthesis of pre- and post-retrofit monitoring.
Environmental Services of City of Portland, Oregon.
Cornett (James W. Cornett). 2022. General Biological Resources Assessment and CVMSHCP Consistency Analysis: Hayes Dietrich 17-Acre Palm Desert site located within Section 4, Township 5 South, Range 6 East (APN 620-400-031-6 and 620- 400-030-5), Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. Report to Cody Dietrich of Hayes Dietrich, LLC, Edina, Minnesota.
Dauphiné, N. and R. J. Cooper. 2009. Impacts of free-ranging domestic cats (Felis catus) on birds in the United States: a review of recent research with conservation and management recommendations. Pages 205-219 in T. D. Rich, C. Arizmendi, D.
W. Demarest, and C. Thompson, eds., Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics.
Davy, C. M., A. T. Ford, and K. C. Fraser. 2017. Aeroconservation for the fragmented skies. Conservation Letters 10(6): 773–780.
Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. Johnson. 2017. Extending the habitat concept to the airspace. USGS Staff -- Published Research. 1129. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/1129
Dunn, E. H. 1993. Bird mortality from striking residential windows in winter. Journal of Field Ornithology 64:302-309.
Forman, T. T., D. Sperling, J. A. Bisonette, A. P. Clevenger, C. D. Cutshall, V. H. Dale, L.
Fahrig, R. France, C. R. Goldman, K. Heanue, J. A. Jones, F. J. Swanson, T.
Turrentine, and T. C. Winter. 2003. Road Ecology. Island Press, Covello, California.
Gelb, Y. and N. Delacretaz. 2009. Windows and vegetation: Primary factors in Manhattan bird collisions. Northeastern Naturalist 16:455-470.
Goddard, M. A., A. J. Dougill, and T. G. Benton. 2009. Scaling up from gardens:
biodiversity conservation in urban environments. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 25:90-98. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.07.016
Gómez-Moreno, V. del C., J. R. Herrera-Herrera, and S. Niño-Maldonado. 2018. Bird collisions in windows of Centro Universitario Victoria, Tamaulipas, México. Huitzil, Revista Mexicana de Ornitología 19(2): 227-236. https://doi.org/10.28947/ hrmo.2018.19.2.347
De Groot, K. L., A. G. Wilson, R. McKibbin, S. A. Hudson, K. M. Dohms, A. R. Norris, A.
C. Huang, I. B. J. Whitehorne, K. T. Fort, C. Roy, J. Bourque, and S. Wilson. 2022.
Bird protection treatments reduce bird-window collision risk at low-rise buildings within a Pacific coastal protected area. PeerJ 10(9):e13142 DOI 10.7717/peerj.13142. 1632
51 Hager, S. B., H. Trudell, K. J. McKay, S. M. Crandall, and L. Mayer. 2008. Bird density and mortality at windows. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 120:550-564.
Hager S. B., B. J. Cosentino, K J. McKay, C. Monson, W. Zuurdeeg, and B. Blevins. 2013.
Window area and development drive spatial variation in bird-window collisions in an urban landscape. PLoS ONE 8(1): e53371. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053371 Hall, L. S., P. R. Krausman, and M. L. Morrison. 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for standard terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-82.
Johnson, R. E., and G. E. Hudson. 1976. Bird mortality at a glassed-in walkway in Washington State. Western Birds 7:99-107.
Kahle, L. Q., M. E. Flannery, and J. P. Dumbacher. 2016. Bird-window collisions at a west-coast urban park museum: analyses of bird biology and window attributes from Golden Gate Park, San Francisco. PLoS ONE 11(1):e144600 DOI
10.1371/journal.pone.0144600.
Klem, D., Jr. 1990. Collisions between birds and windows: mortality and prevention.
Journal of Field Ornithology 61:120-128.
Klem, D., Jr. 1989. Bird-window collisions. Wilson Bulletin 101:606-620.
Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Preventing bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 121:314-321.
Klem, D., Jr. 2010. Avian mortality at windows: the second largest human source of bird mortality on earth. Pages 244-251 in Proc. Fourth Int. Partners in Flight Conference: Tundra to Tropics.
Klem, D., Jr. 2011. Evaluating the effectiveness of Acopian Birdsavers to deter or prevent bird-glass collisions. Unpublished report.
Klem, D., Jr. and P. G. Saenger. 2013. Evaluating the effectiveness of select visual signals to prevent bird-window collisions. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 125:406–411.
Kunz, T. H., S. A. Gauthreaux Jr., N. I. Hristov, J. W. Horn, G. Jones, E. K. V. Kalko, R.
P. Larkin, G. F. McCracken, S. M. Swartz, R. B. Srygley, R. Dudley, J. K. Westbrook, and M. Wikelski. 2008. Aeroecology: probing and modelling the aerosphere.
Integrative and Comparative Biology 48:1-11. doi:10.1093/icb/icn037 Lerman, S. B. and P. S. Warren. 2011. The conservation value of residential yards:
linking birds and people. Ecological Applications 21:1327-1339. 1633
52 Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2013. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of the United States. Nature Communications 2380. DOI:
10.1038/ncomms2380
Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.
Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Estimation of bird-vehicle collision mortality on U.S. roads. Journal of Wildlife Management 78:763-771.
Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014. Bird–building collisions in the United States: Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. The Condor:
Ornithological Applications 116:8-23. DOI: 10.1650/CONDOR-13-090.1 Loss, S. R., S. Lao, J. W. Eckles, A. W. Anderson, R. B. Blair, and R. J. Turner. 2019.
Factors influencing bird-building collisions in the downtown area of a major North American city. PLoS ONE 14(11): e0224164. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0224164
Loyd, K. A. T., S. M. Hernandez, and D. L. McRuer. 2017. The role of domestic cats in the admission of injured wildlife at rehabilitation and rescue centers. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:55-61.
Machtans, C. S., C. H. R. Wedeles, and E. M. Bayne. 2013. A first estimate for Canada of the number of birds killed by colliding with building windows. Avian Conservation and Ecology 8(2):6. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00568-080206 MBI (Michael Baker International). 2025. Biological Resources Assessment for the Catavina Residential Project in Palm Desert, Riverside County, California. Report to Pacific Land Consultants, Carlsbad, California.
Mendelsohn, M., W. Dexter, E. Olson, and S. Weber. 2009. Vasco Road wildlife movement study report. Report to Contra Costa County Public Works Department, Martinez, California.
Miller, J. 2024. Petition Before the California Fish and Game Commission to list California populations of the Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) as Endangered or Threatened Under the California Endangered Species Act. Center for Biological Diversity, Defenders of Wildlife, Burrowing Owl Preservation Society, Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Urban Bird Foundation, Central Valley Bird Club, San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society.
Narango, D. L., D. W. Tallamy, and P. P. Marra. 2017. Native plants improve breeding and foraging habitat for an insectivorous bird. Biological Conservation 213:42-50.
National Research Council. 1986. Ecological knowledge and environmental problemsolving: concepts and case studies. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 1634
53 Ocampo-Peñuela, N., R. S. Winton, C. J. Wu, E. Zambello, T. W. Wittig and N. L. Cagle . 2016. Patterns of bird-window collisions inform mitigation on a university campus.
PeerJ4:e1652;DOI10.7717/peerj.1652
O’Connell, T. J. 2001. Avian window strike mortality at a suburban office park. The Raven 72:141-149.
Orff, K., H. Brown, S. Caputo, E. J. McAdams, M. Fowle, G. Phillips, C. DeWitt, and Y.
Gelb. 2007. Bird-safe buildings guidelines. New York City Audubon, New York.
Parkins, K. L., S. B. Elbin, and E. Barnes. 2015. Light, glass, and bird–building collisions in an urban park. Northeastern Naturalist 22:84-94.
Porter, A., and A. Huang. 2015. Bird collisions with glass: UBC pilot project to assess bird collision rates in Western North America. UBC Social Ecological Economic Development Studies (SEEDS) Student Report. Report to Environment Canada, UBC SEEDS and UBC BRITE.
Riding, C. S., T. J. O’Connell, and S. R. Loss. 2020. Building façade-level correlates of bird–window collisions in a small urban area. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 122:1–14.
Riggs, G. J., C. M. Barton, C. S. Riding, T. J. O’Connell1, and S. R. Loss. 2023.
Field‑testing effectiveness of window markers in reducing bird‑window collisions.
Urban Ecosystems (2023) 26:713–723. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-022-01304- w
Rössler, M., E. Nemeth, and A. Bruckner. 2015. Glass pane markings to prevent birdwindow collisions: less can be more. Biologia 70: 535—541. DOI: 10.1515/biolog2015-0057 Sabo, A. M., N. D. G. Hagemeyer, A. S. Lahey, and E. L. Walters. 2016. Local avian density influences risk of mortality from window strikes. PeerJ 4:e2170; DOI
10.7717/peerj.2170
San Francisco Planning Department. 2011. Standards for bird-safe buildings. San Francisco Planning Department, City and County of San Francisco, California.
Santos, S. M., F. Carvalho, and A. Mira. 2011. How long do the dead survive on the road? Carcass persistence probability and implications for road-kill monitoring surveys.
PLoS ONE 6(9): e25383. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025383 Schneider, R. M., C. M. Barton, K. W. Zirkle, C. F. Greene, and K. B. Newman. 2018.
Year-round monitoring reveals prevalence of fatal bird-window collisions at the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center. PeerJ 6:e4562 https://doi.org/10.7717/ peerj.4562
1635
54 Smallwood, K.S. 2002. Habitat models based on numerical comparisons. Pages 83-95 in Predicting species occurrences: Issues of scale and accuracy, J. M. Scott, P. J.
Heglund, M. Morrison, M. Raphael, J. Haufler, and B. Wall, editors. Island Press, Covello, California.
Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2023. Measured effects of anthropogenic development on vertebrate wildlife diversity. Diversity 15, 1037. https://doi.org/10.3390/d15101037.
Smallwood, N. L. and E. M. Wood. 2022. The ecological role of native plant landscaping in residential yards to urban wildlife. Ecosphere 2022;e4360.
Somerlot, K. E. 2003. Survey of songbird mortality due to window collisions on the Murray State University campus. Journal of Service Learning in Conservation Biology 1:1–19.
Swaddle, J. P., B. Brewster, M. Schuyler, and A. Su. 2023. Window films increase avoidance of collisions by birds but only when applied to external compared with internal surfaces of windows. PeerJ 11:e14676 http://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.14676 Tallamy, D.W. 2020. Nature’s Best Hope: A New Approach to Conservation that Starts in Your Yard. Timber Press.
USFWS (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service). 2019. Preparing for any action that may occur within the range of the Mojave desert tortoise (gopherus agassizii).
Wood, E. M., and S. Esaian. 2020. The importance of street trees to urban avifauna.
Ecological Applications. 0:e02149.
Young, H. 1948. A comparative study of nesting birds in a five-acre park. The Wilson Bulletin 61:36-47.
1636
1 Kenneth Shawn Smallwood
Curriculum Vitae
3108 Finch Street Born May 3, 1963 in
Davis, CA 95616 Sacramento, California.
Phone (530) 756-4598 Married, father of two.
Cell (530) 601-6857
[email protected]
Ecologist
Expertise
• Finding solutions to controversial problems related to wildlife interactions with human industry, infrastructure, and activities;
• Wildlife monitoring and field study using GPS, thermal imaging, behavior surveys; • Using systems analysis and experimental design principles to identify meaningful ecological patterns that inform management decisions.
Education
Ph.D. Ecology, University of California, Davis. September 1990.
M.S. Ecology, University of California, Davis. June 1987.
B.S. Anthropology, University of California, Davis. June 1985.
Corcoran High School, Corcoran, California. June 1981.
Experience
762 professional reports, including:
90 peer reviewed publications
24 in non-reviewed proceedings
646 reports, declarations, posters and book reviews
8 in mass media outlets
92 public presentations of research results
Editing for scientific journals: Guest Editor, Wildlife Society Bulletin, 2012-2013, of invited papers representing international views on the impacts of wind energy on wildlife and how to mitigate the impacts. Associate Editor, Journal of Wildlife Management, March 2004 to 30 June 2007.
Editorial Board Member, Environmental Management, 10/1999 to 8/2004. Associate Editor, Biological Conservation, 9/1994 to 9/1995.
Member, Alameda County Scientific Review Committee (SRC), August 2006 to April 2011. The five-member committee investigated causes of bird and bat collisions in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area, and recommended mitigation and monitoring measures. The SRC reviewed the science underlying the Alameda County Avian Protection Program, and advised 1637
Smallwood CV 2
the County on how to reduce wildlife fatalities.
Consulting Ecologist, 2004-2007, California Energy Commission (CEC). Provided consulting services as needed to the CEC on renewable energy impacts, monitoring and research, and produced several reports. Also collaborated with Lawrence-Livermore National Lab on research to understand and reduce wind turbine impacts on wildlife.
Consulting Ecologist, 1999-2013, U.S. Navy. Performed endangered species surveys, hazardous waste site monitoring, and habitat restoration for the endangered San Joaquin kangaroo rat, California tiger salamander, California red-legged frog, California clapper rail, western burrowing owl, salt marsh harvest mouse, and other species at Naval Air Station Lemoore; Naval Weapons Station, Seal Beach, Detachment Concord; Naval Security Group Activity, Skaggs Island; National Radio Transmitter Facility, Dixon; and, Naval Outlying Landing Field Imperial Beach.
Part-time Lecturer, 1998-2005, California State University, Sacramento. Instructed Mammalogy, Behavioral Ecology, and Ornithology Lab, Contemporary Environmental Issues, Natural Resources Conservation.
Senior Ecologist, 1999-2005, BioResource Consultants. Designed and implemented research and monitoring studies related to avian fatalities at wind turbines, avian electrocutions on electric distribution poles across California, and avian fatalities at transmission lines.
Chairman, Conservation Affairs Committee, The Wildlife Society--Western Section, 1999-2001.
Prepared position statements and led efforts directed toward conservation issues, including travel to Washington, D.C. to lobby Congress for more wildlife conservation funding.
Systems Ecologist, 1995-2000, Institute for Sustainable Development. Headed ISD’s program on integrated resources management. Developed indicators of ecological integrity for large areas, using remotely sensed data, local community involvement and GIS.
Associate, 1997-1998, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, University of California, Davis. Worked with Shu Geng and Mingua Zhang on several studies related to wildlife interactions with agriculture and patterns of fertilizer and pesticide residues in groundwater across a large landscape.
Lead Scientist, 1996-1999, National Endangered Species Network. Informed academic scientists and environmental activists about emerging issues regarding the Endangered Species Act and other environmental laws. Testified at public hearings on endangered species issues.
Ecologist, 1997-1998, Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. Conducted field research to determine the impact of past mercury mining on the status of California red-legged frogs in Santa Clara County, California.
Senior Systems Ecologist, 1994-1995, EIP Associates, Sacramento, California. Provided consulting services in environmental planning, and quantitative assessment of land units for their conservation and restoration opportunities basedon ecological resource requirements of 29 special-status species. Developed ecological indicators for prioritizing areas within Yolo County 1638
Smallwood CV 3
to receive mitigation funds for habitat easements and restoration.
Post-Graduate Researcher, 1990-1994, Department of Agronomy and Range Science, U.C. Davis.
Under Dr. Shu Geng’s mentorship, studied landscape and management effects on temporal and spatial patterns of abundance among pocket gophers and species of Falconiformes and Carnivora in the Sacramento Valley. Managed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture. Assisted with landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.
Work experience in graduate school: Co-taught Conservation Biology with Dr. Christine Schonewald, 1991 & 1993, UC Davis Graduate Group in Ecology; Reader for Dr. Richard Coss’s course on Psychobiology in 1990, UC Davis Department of Psychology; Research Assistant to Dr. Walter E. Howard, 1988-1990, UC Davis Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, testing durable baits for pocket gopher management in forest clearcuts; Research Assistant to Dr. Terrell P. Salmon, 1987-1988, UC Wildlife Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing empirical models of mammal and bird invasions in North America, and a rating system for priority research and control of exotic species based on economic, environmental and human health hazards in California. Student Assistant to Dr. E.
Lee Fitzhugh, 1985-1987, UC Cooperative Extension, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, developing and implementing statewide mountain lion track count for long-term monitoring.
Fulbright Research Fellow, Indonesia, 1988. Tested use of new sampling methods for numerical monitoring of Sumatran tiger and six other species of endemic felids, and evaluated methods used by other researchers.
Projects
Repowering wind energy projects through careful siting of new wind turbines using map-based collision hazard models to minimize impacts to volant wildlife. Funded by wind companies (principally NextEra Renewable Energy, Inc.), California Energy Commission and East Bay Regional Park District, I have collaborated with a GIS analyst and managed a crew of five field biologists performing golden eagle behavior surveys and nocturnal surveys on bats and owls. The goal is to quantify flight patterns for development of predictive models to more carefully site new wind turbines in repowering projects. Focused behavior surveys began May 2012 and continue.
Collision hazard models have been prepared for seven wind projects, three of which were built.
Planning for additional repowering projects is underway.
Test avian safety of new mixer-ejector wind turbine (MEWT). Designed and implemented a beforeafter, control-impact experimental design to test the avian safety of a new, shrouded wind turbine developed by Ogin Inc. (formerly known as FloDesign Wind Turbine Corporation). Supported by a $718,000 grant from the California Energy Commission’s Public Interest Energy Research program and a 20% match share contribution from Ogin, I managed a crew of seven field biologists who performed periodic fatality searches and behavior surveys, carcass detection trials, nocturnal behavior surveys using a thermal camera, and spatial analyses with the collaboration of a GIS analyst. Field work began 1 April 2012 and ended 30 March 2015 without Ogin installing its MEWTs, but we still achieved multiple important scientific advances. 1639
Smallwood CV 4
Reduce avian mortality due to wind turbines at Altamont Pass. Studied wildlife impacts caused by 5,400 wind turbines at the world’s most notorious wind resource area. Studied how impacts are perceived by monitoring and how they are affected by terrain, wind patterns, food resources, range management practices, wind turbine operations, seasonal patterns, population cycles, infrastructure management such as electric distribution, animal behavior and social interactions.
Reduce avian mortality on electric distribution poles. Directed research toward reducing bird electrocutions on electric distribution poles, 2000-2007. Oversaw 5 founds of fatality searches at 10,000 poles from Orange County to Glenn County, California, and produced two large reports.
Cook et al. v. Rockwell International et al., No. 90-K-181 (D. Colorado). Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried and surface-deposited radioactive and hazardous chemical wastes at the Rocky Flats Plant, Colorado. Provided expert reports based on four site visits and an extensive document review of burrowing animals. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities.
Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals. I testified in federal court in November 2005, and my clients were subsequently awarded a $553,000,000 judgment by a jury. After appeals the award was increased to two billion dollars.
Hanford Nuclear Reservation Litigation. Provided expert testimony on the role of burrowing animals in affecting the fate of buried radioactive wastes at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, Washington. Provided three expert reports based on three site visits and extensive document review.
Predicted and verified a certain population density of pocket gophers on buried waste structures, as well as incidence of radionuclide contamination in body tissue. Conducted transect surveys for evidence of burrowing animals and other wildlife on and around waste facilities. Discovered substantial intrusion of waste structures by burrowing animals.
Expert testimony and declarations on proposed residential and commercial developments, gas-fired power plants, wind, solar and geothermal projects, water transfers and water transfer delivery systems, endangered species recovery plans, Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Communities Conservation Programs. Testified before multiple government agencies, Tribunals, Boards of Supervisors and City Councils, and participated with press conferences and depositions. Prepared expert witness reports and court declarations, which are summarized under Reports (below).
Protocol-level surveys for special-status species. Used California Department of Fish and Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife Service protocols to search for California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, arroyo southwestern toad, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, western pond turtle, giant kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle and other special-status species.
Conservation of San Joaquin kangaroo rat. Performed research to identify factors responsible for the decline of this endangered species at Lemoore Naval Air Station, 2000-2013, and implemented habitat enhancements designed to reverse the trend and expand the population.
Impact of West Nile Virus on yellow-billed magpies. Funded by Sacramento-Yolo Mosquito and Vector Control District, 2005-2008, compared survey results pre- and post-West Nile Virus epidemic for multiple bird species in the Sacramento Valley, particularly on yellow-billed magpie and American crow due to susceptibility to WNV.
1640
Smallwood CV 5
Workshops on HCPs. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison with organizing and conducting a 2-day workshop on Habitat Conservation Plans, sponsored by Southern California Edison, and another 1- day workshop sponsored by PG&E. These Workshops were attended by academics, attorneys, and consultants with HCP experience. We guest-edited a Proceedings published in Environmental Management.
Mapping of biological resources along Highways 101, 46 and 41. Used GPS and GIS to delineate vegetation complexes and locations of special-status species along 26 miles of highway in San Luis Obispo County, 14 miles of highway and roadway in Monterey County, and in a large area north of Fresno, including within reclaimed gravel mining pits.
GPS mapping and monitoring at restoration sites and at Caltrans mitigation sites. Monitored the success of elderberry shrubs at one location, the success of willows at another location, and the response of wildlife to the succession of vegetation at both sites. Also used GPS to monitor the response of fossorial animals to yellow star-thistle eradication and natural grassland restoration efforts at Bear Valley in Colusa County and at the decommissioned Mather Air Force Base in Sacramento County.
Mercury effects on Red-legged Frog. Assisted Dr. Michael Morrison and US Fish and Wildlife Service in assessing the possible impacts of historical mercury mining on the federally listed California red-legged frog in Santa Clara County. Also measured habitat variables in streams.
Opposition to proposed No Surprises rule. Wrote a white paper and summary letter explaining scientific grounds for opposing the incidental take permit (ITP) rules providing ITP applicants and holders with general assurances they will be free of compliance with the Endangered Species Act once they adhere to the terms of a “properly functioning HCP.” Submitted 188 signatures of scientists and environmental professionals concerned about No Surprises rule US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, all US Senators.
Natomas Basin Habitat Conservation Plan alternative. Designed narrow channel marsh to increase the likelihood of survival and recovery in the wild of giant garter snake, Swainson’s hawk and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. The design included replication and interspersion of treatments for experimental testing of critical habitat elements. I provided a report to Northern Territories, Inc.
Assessments of agricultural production system and environmental technology transfer to China.
Twice visited China and interviewed scientists, industrialists, agriculturalists, and the Directors of the Chinese Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Agriculture to assess the need and possible pathways for environmental clean-up technologies and trade opportunities between the US and China.
Yolo County Habitat Conservation Plan. Conducted landscape ecology study of Yolo County to spatially prioritize allocation of mitigation efforts to improve ecosystem functionality within the County from the perspective of 29 special-status species of wildlife and plants. Used a hierarchically structured indicators approach to apply principles of landscape and ecosystem ecology, conservation biology, and local values in rating land units. Derived GIS maps to help guide the conservation area design, and then developed implementation strategies. 1641
Smallwood CV 6
Mountain lion track count. Developed and conducted a carnivore monitoring program throughout California since 1985. Species counted include mountain lion, bobcat, black bear, coyote, red and gray fox, raccoon, striped skunk, badger, and black-tailed deer. Vegetation and land use are also monitored. Track survey transect was established on dusty, dirt roads within randomly selected quadrats.
Sumatran tiger and other felids. Upon award of Fulbright Research Fellowship, I designed and initiated track counts for seven species of wild cats in Sumatra, including Sumatran tiger, fishing cat, and golden cat. Spent four months on Sumatra and Java in 1988, and learned Bahasa Indonesia, the official Indonesian language.
Wildlife in agriculture. Beginning as post-graduate research, I studied pocket gophers and other wildlife in 40 alfalfa fields throughout the Sacramento Valley, and I surveyed for wildlife along a 200 mile road transect since 1989 with a hiatus of 1996-2004. The data are analyzed using GIS and methods from landscape ecology, and the results published and presented orally to farming groups in California and elsewhere. I also conducted the first study of wildlife in cover crops used on vineyards and orchards.
Agricultural energy use and Tulare County groundwater study. Developed and analyzed a data base of energy use in California agriculture, and collaborated on a landscape (GIS) study of groundwater contamination across Tulare County, California.
Pocket gopher damage in forest clear-cuts. Developed gopher sampling methods and tested various poison baits and baiting regimes in the largest-ever field study of pocket gopher management in forest plantations, involving 68 research plots in 55 clear-cuts among 6 National Forests in northern California.
Risk assessment of exotic species in North America. Developed empirical models of mammal and bird species invasions in North America, as well as a rating system for assigning priority research and control to exotic species in California, based on economic, environmental, and human health hazards.
Peer Reviewed Publications
Smallwood, K. S. 2022. Utility-scale solar impacts to volant wildlife. Journal of Wildlife Management: e22216. https://doi.org/10.1002/jwmg.22216
Smallwood, K. S., and N. L. Smallwood. 2021. Breeding Density and Collision Mortality of Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus) in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. Diversity 13, 540. https://doi.org/10.3390/d13110540.
Smallwood, K. S. 2020. USA wind energy-caused bat fatalities increase with shorter fatality search intervals. Diversity 12(98); https://doi.org/10.3390/d12030098 Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. Dogs detect larger wind energy impacts on bats and birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:852-864. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21863.
Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Relating bat passage rates to wind turbine fatalities. 1642
Smallwood CV 7
Diversity 12(84); doi:10.3390/d12020084.
Smallwood, K. S., and D. A. Bell. 2020. Effects of wind turbine curtailment on bird and bat fatalities. Journal of Wildlife Management 84:684-696. DOI: 10.1002/jwmg.21844 Kitano, M., M. Ino, K. S. Smallwood, and S. Shiraki. 2020. Seasonal difference in carcass persistence rates at wind farms with snow, Hokkaido, Japan. Ornithological Science 19: 63 –
71. Smallwood, K. S. and M. L. Morrison. 2018. Nest-site selection in a high-density colony of burrowing owls. Journal of Raptor Research 52:454-470.
Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, E. L. Walther, E. Leyvas, S. Standish, J. Mount, B. Karas. 2018.
Estimating wind turbine fatalities using integrated detection trials. Journal of Wildlife Management 82:1169-1184.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Long search intervals under-estimate bird and bat fatalities caused by wind turbines. Wildlife Society Bulletin 41:224-230.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. The challenges of addressing wildlife impacts when repowering wind energy projects. Pages 175-187 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts:
Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.
May, R., Gill, A. B., Köppel, J. Langston, R. H.W., Reichenbach, M., Scheidat, M., Smallwood, S., Voigt, C. C., Hüppop, O., and Portman, M. 2017. Future research directions to reconcile wind turbine–wildlife interactions. Pages 255-276 in Köppel, J., Editor, Wind Energy and Wildlife Impacts: Proceedings from the CWW2015 Conference. Springer. Cham, Switzerland.
Smallwood, K. S. 2017. Monitoring birds. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q Smallwood, K. S., L. Neher, and D. A. Bell. 2017. Turbine siting for raptors: an example from Repowering of the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area. M. Perrow, Ed., Wildlife and Wind Farms - Conflicts and Solutions, Volume 2. Pelagic Publishing, Exeter, United Kingdom. www.bit.ly/2v3cR9Q
Johnson, D. H., S. R. Loss, K. S. Smallwood, W. P. Erickson. 2016. Avian fatalities at wind energy facilities in North America: A comparison of recent approaches. Human–Wildlife Interactions 10(1):7-18.
Sadar, M. J., D. S.-M. Guzman, A. Mete, J. Foley, N. Stephenson, K. H. Rogers, C. Grosset, K. S.
Smallwood, J. Shipman, A. Wells, S. D. White, D. A. Bell, and M. G. Hawkins. 2015. Mange Caused by a novel Micnemidocoptes mite in a Golden Eagle (Aquila chrysaetos). Journal of Avian Medicine and Surgery 29(3):231-237.
Smallwood, K. S. 2015. Habitat fragmentation and corridors. Pages 84-101 in M. L. Morrison and H. A. Mathewson, Eds., Wildlife habitat conservation: concepts, challenges, and solutions.
John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. 1643
EXHIBIT B
1644
1645
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
1. Introduction
This document is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the City of Palm Desert General Plan Update and University Neighborhood Specific Plan project (proposed proj:lct). An MMRP is required for the proposed project because the EIR has identified significant adverse impacts, and measures have been identified to mitigate those impacts. This MMRP has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Ccxle, which requires public agencies to "adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment."
2. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
As the lead agency, the City of Palm Desert will be responsible for monitoring compliance with all mitigation measures.
Different City departments are responsible for various aspects of the project. The MMRP identifies the department with the responsibility for ensuring the measure is completed; however, it is expected that one or more departments will coordinate efforts to ensure compliance.
The MMRP is presented in tabular form on the following pages. The components of the MMRP are described briefly below. • Mitigation Measure: The mitigation measures are taken from the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), in the same order they appear in the EIR.
• Timing: Identifies at which stage of the project the mitigation must be completed. • Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the department within the City with responsibility for mitigation monitoring. • Verification (Date and Initials): Provides a contact who reviewed the mitigation measure and the date the measure was determined complete.
83 1646
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
Mitigation Measure
4.5 Biological Resources
MM 4.5-1 Pertaining to special-status species (identified in Tables 4.5-1,
4.5-2, and 4.5-3) with the potential to occur in the Planning Area that are not part of the CVMSHCP:
Prior to the approval of grading plans for development
associated with the General Plan update, the project
applicant(s) shall retain a qualified biologist to perform a biological resources evaluation for private and public
development projects in order to determine the
presence/absence of non-covered special-status plant species with the potential to occur in and adjacent to (within 100 feet, where appropriate) the proposed impact area, including
construction access routes. It is required that such surveys be conducted at the proper time of year when rare or endangered species are both evident and identifiable.
For projects in which special-status species are found, likely to occur, or where the presence of the species can be
reasonably inferred, the City shall require feasible mitigation of impacts to ensure that the project does not contribute to the decline of affected special-status species populations in the region to the extent that their decline would impact the viability of the regional population. Before the approval of grading plans or any ground-breaking activity for development
associated with the General Plan update, the project
applicant(s) shall submit a mitigation plan concurrently to the CDFW and the USFWS for review and comment. The plan
shall include mitigation measures for the population(s) to be directly affected. The actual level of mitigation may vary depending on the sensitivity of the species, its prevalence in the area, and the current state of knowledge about overall population trends and threats to its survival. The final mitigation strategy for directly impacted plant species shall be determined by the CDFW and the USFWS through the
mitigation plan approval process.
84 Timing
Prior to the approval of
grading plans
Monitoring Responsibility
-•- · -·--
City of Palm Desert
Planning Department
Verification (Date
and Initials}
1647
RESOLUTION NO. 2016-86
Mitigation Measure
4.6 Cultural Resources
MM 4.6-2a
---·- -
MM 4.6-2b
MM 4.6-2c
For future projects that require excavation activity (e.g., clearing/grubbing, grading, trenching, or boring) into native soil and that have the potential to exhibit native ground surface within or in the immediate vicinity of the excavation footprint, preparation of an archaeological study (Phase I Assessment) shall be required by Project Applicants.
If resources are identified, they shall be evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, the National Register of Historic Places (if applicable), and/or a local listing and to determine whether the resource qualifies as a unique archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA (Phase II Assessment). Methodologies for evaluating a resource can include, but are not limited to, subsurface archaeological test excavations, additional
background research, and coordination with Native Americans and other interested individuals in the community.
If the resources are determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, appropriate mitigation shall be developed and implemented to mitigate impacts to the resource. If resource avoidance measures, such as resource "capping" (covering a resource with a layer of fill soils before building on the resource) or incorporating a resource into a park plan or open space, are deemed not feasible, additional subsurface archaeological excavations (i.e., data recovery) that serve to recover significant archaeological resources before they are damaged or
destroyed by the proposed development shall be implemented (Phase Ill Assessment). Documentation (technical reports and California Department of Parks and Recreation Site Forms) and recovered materials (artifacts and other specimens) shall be curated at a suitable repository and/or museum for future study and research.
r
85 Timing Monitoring Responsibility Verification (Date
and Initials)
- -· ·-
- � -
During the City of Palm Desert
environmental review Planning Department
process
During the City of Palm Desert
environmental review Planning Department
process
-
During the City of Palm Desert
environmental review Planning Department
process
1648
1649
1650
1651
1652
April 9, 2026
Via Email
Evan Trubee, Mayor
Joe Pradetto, Mayor Pro Tem
Karina Quintanilla, Councilmember
Gina Nestande, Councilmember
Jan Harnik, Councilmember
Palm Desert City Council
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: SAFER Supplemental Comment
Portola Springs Project (PP25-0006, EA25-0006, TTM 25-0005) City Council Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
To Mayor Trubee, Mayor Pro Tem Pradetto, and Honorable City Councilmembers:
This supplemental comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) in support of their appeal regarding the Portola Springs Project (“Project”) to be heard as Agenda Item 11.c at the City Council’s April 9, 2026 meeting.
SAFER previously submitted a comment to the City Council on April 8, 2026 (“April 8 Comment”). SAFER’s April 8 Comment included a review of the Project by expert ecologist Dr.
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. SAFER’s April 8 Comment requested that the City Council continue the hearing until the technical appendices to the Project’s CEQA Addendum—including the 2025 Biological Resources Technical Report and 2025 Air Quality, Greenhouse Emissions, and Energy Assessment—are made available for public review.
SAFER’s April 8 Comment also requested, if the hearing moves forward, that the City Council grant SAFER’s appeal and find that: (1) the Project does not qualify for an exemption from CEQA under Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines and (2) the Addendum is inadequate under CEQA for its failure to address the cumulative impacts of this Project and the recentlyapproved Cavatina Residential Project (“Catavina Project”) as well as the Project’s significant impacts to biological resources.
1653
SAFER Supplemental Comment
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 9, 2026
The purpose of this comment is to supplement the April 8 Comment to address the Project’s air quality impacts. SAFER retained air quality expert Patrick Sutton of Baseline Environmental Consulting (“Baseline”) to review the Project’s air quality impacts. Baseline’s comment and Mr. Sutton’s CV are attached as Exhibit A. Baseline found that the combined operational emissions of reactive organic gases from the Project and the recently-approved Catavina Project would exceed the Air District’s CEQA significance threshold.
In addition to the reasons discussed in SAFER’s April 8 Comment, SAFER requests that the City Council grant SAFER’s appeal for the following reasons: (1) the Project does not qualify for an exemption from CEQA under Section 15183 due to the Project’s peculiar cumulative air quality impacts and (2) the Project’s Addendum is improper due to new information regarding the Project’s cumulative air quality impacts.
DISCUSSION
I. The Project Cannot Be Exempt Under Section 15183 Due to the Project’s Peculiar Cumulative Air Quality Impacts.
As discussed in SAFER’s April 8 Comment, no CEQA document has evaluated the cumulative impacts of the Project and the Catavina Project. (April 8 Comment, p. 9.) As a result, the City currently lacks substantial evidence that the cumulative impacts of this Project and the Catavina Project will be less than significant. Without that substantial evidence, the Project cannot qualify for an exemption under Section 15183.
In contrast, SAFER’s air quality experts (Baseline) actually analyzed the cumulative impacts of the Project and the Catavina Project. (Ex. A, p. 2.) Due to the unavailability of the Addendum’s technical air quality report, Baseline prepared their own model of the Project’s operational emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1.1. (Id.) Baseline found that the Project, by itself, would produce 17.1 pounds/day of operational reactive organic gas (“ROG”) emissions in the summer, which, admittedly, does not exceed the 55 pounds/day CEQA significance threshold set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”). (Id.)
Although the Project’s individual ROG emissions do not exceed SCAQMD’s threshold, Baseline found that, when combined with the operational ROG estimates from the Catavina Project’s MND, the cumulative operational ROG emissions total 60.5 pounds/day, exceeding SCAQMD’s significance threshold, as shown below:
1654
SAFER Supplemental Comment
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 9, 2026
(Ex. A, p. 2.)
Section 15183 cannot apply if a project will result in peculiar impacts that cannot be mitigated by uniform development standards. (14 CCR § 15183(c).) Importantly, “peculiar” impacts are “project-specific effects,” not strange or unusual impacts. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v.
County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 917.) Furthermore, Section 15183 states that “[t]his section does not affect any requirement to analyze potentially significant offsite or cumulative impacts if those impacts were not adequately discussed in the prior EIR.” (14 CCR § 15183(j) [emph added].)
Here, the potentially significant cumulative impacts of the Project identified by Baseline disqualify the Project from an exemption under Section 15183 because these impacts were not adequately discussed in the prior 2016 General Plan Update EIR. The 2016 GPU EIR specifically noted that subsequent CEQA analysis of specific projects would be necessary to determine specific impacts:
The analyses in this EIR do not examine the effects of site-specific development projects that may occur within the overall umbrella of this program in the future.
The nature of general plans is such that many proposed policies are intended to be general, with details to be worked out during implementation. (2016 GPU DEIR,pp. 1-5.) The GPU EIR did not, and could not, purport to anticipate the specific impacts of all future development under the “overall umbrella” of the general plan. For cumulative impacts to air quality, the 2016 GPU EIR expressly noted that “[b]ecause the proposed project is comprised of a General Plan Update, cumulative impacts are treated somewhat differently than would be the case for a project- specific development.” (2016 GPU EIR, p. 4.3-22.)
Because the 2016 GPU EIR did not “adequately discuss” the cumulative impacts of 1655
SAFER Supplemental Comment
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 9, 2026
specific projects (14 CCR §§ 15183 (b)(3), (j)), Baseline’s finding of a significant cumulative ROG emissions—which is the only substantial evidence currently in the record for the Project’s cumulative impacts in conjunction with the Catavina Project—disqualifies the Project from a CEQA exemption under Section 15183. Unless the City revises its analysis to include an adequate discussion of the Project’s cumulative impacts in conjunction with the Catavina Project, including an analysis of whether the impact can be mitigated by uniform development standards (see 14 CCR § 15183(c)), the City Council should refrain from finding that the Project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15183.
II. The Addendum Is Improper Because the Project May Result in a Significant Cumulative Air Quality Impact.
The Addendum is based on the 2022 2022 Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development (“2022 MND”). Neither the Addendum nor the 2022 MND mention the sizeable Catavina Project approved by the City Council on February 12, 2026, which directly abuts the Project site to the west. The Addendum describes the Project’s surrounding land uses as:
Surrounding land uses include residential development on all sides, golf courses to the east, west, and northwest, and vacant land zoned as Planned Residential, P.R.22 and PR.18, respectively, to the west and northeast of the Project site. (Addendum, p. 2 [emph. added].) The 2022 MND similarly described surrounding uses as “West – Southern California Edison easement; Vacant land.” (2022 MND, p. 3 [emph. added].) Although it is technically true that the Catavina site is currently vacant (previously a golf course), the Addendum’s omission of the fact that the same developer was in the process of getting approval for the same type of development directly adjacent to the Project site appears to be a glaring omission.
When an addendum relies on a previous MND rather than a previous EIR, the fair argument standard applies. The California Supreme Court has explained that an addendum to an MND is not appropriate “if the proposed modification may produce a significant environmental effect that had not previously been studied.” (Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cnty. Comm. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 958.) Because the 2022 MND did not study the cumulative impacts of development on the Catavina site (see 14 CCR § 15162(a)(3)(A)), Baseline’s finding of significant cumulative operational ROG emissions meets the fair argument threshold that the Project’s cumulative emissions may be significant. (See Ex. A, p. 2; San Mateo Gardens, supra, 1 Cal.5th at 958.) As a result, the City Council should dop adopt the Addendum to the 2022 MND. Unless the Project’s cumulative air quality impacts are properly analyzed and mitigated, the City cannot rely on an addendum and must prepare a Project-specific EIR or MND prior to approval. 1656
SAFER Supplemental Comment
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 9, 2026
s of the overall development by chopping it into two separate pieces.
CONCLUSION
SAFER reiterates its request that the City Council continue the hearing because the Addendum’s technical appendices have not been made publicly available. If the Council proceeds with the hearing, SAFER respectfully requests that the Council grant SAFER’s appeal for the reasons discussed in SAFER’s April 8 Comment as well as the reasons discussed above, including: (1) the Project does not qualify for an exemption from CEQA under Section 15183 due to the Project’s peculiar cumulative air quality impacts and (2) the Project’s Addendum is improper due to new information regarding the Project’s cumulative air quality impacts.
Sincerely,
Brian B. Flynn
Lozeau Drury LLP
1657
EXHIBIT A
1658
388 17th Street, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612 | (510) 420-8686 | www.baseline-env.com Mailing Address: PO Box 18586, Oakland, CA 94619
April 9, 2026
26202-00
Brian Flynn
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Review of Air Quality Impacts for the Catavina Residential Development Project and the Portola Springs Residential Development Project Dear Mr. Flynn:
It is our understanding that Blue Fern West, LLC is proposing to develop 546 single-family homes for the Catavina Residential Development Project (Catavina project) and 156 single-family homes for the Portola Springs Residential Development Project (Portola project) on adjacent lots in the City of Palm Desert, California. The potential air quality impacts associated with the Catavina project were analyzed in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration1 (ISMND) and the air quality impacts for
the Portola project were analyzed in an Addendum to the Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development ISMND2. As requested, Baseline Environmental Consulting (Baseline) has reviewed both CEQA studies to evaluate the potential cumulative air quality impacts that could result from both projects due to the apparent piecemealing of the CEQA analysis.
Under CEQA, piecemealing refers to the dividing of a project into two or more pieces and evaluating each piece in a separate environmental document, rather than evaluating the whole of the project in one environmental document. This is explicitly forbidden under CEQA, because it would allow a Lead Agency to minimize the apparent environmental impacts of a project by evaluating the individual pieces separately. As a result, this can deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment upon the potential environmental impacts associated with the entire project.
It is our understanding that Blue Fern West, LLC is proposing to develop a total of 702 single-family homes on adjacent lots within a similar time frame, but the CEQA analysis was split into the smaller Catavina and Portola projects. Baseline has reviewed the criteria air pollutant emissions analyzed for the Catavina and Portola projects to determine if this piecemealing approach may have overlooked potentially significant air quality impacts.
1 Michael Baker International, 2025. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Catavina Residential Development Project. September.
2 Dudek, 2025. Addendum to the Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. November.
1659
1660
ATTACHMENT A
CalEEMod Report
1661
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 1 / 28
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.3. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.4. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
1662
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 2 / 28
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
1663
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 3 / 28
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
1664
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 4 / 28
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
1665
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 5 / 28
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
8.1. Justifications
8.3. Land Use
8.5. Operations
8.5.2. Area Sources
8.5.2.1. Hearths
1666
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 6 / 28
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Portola Springs Residential Development Project Operational Year 2030
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.30000
Precipitation (days) 0.80000
Location 33.771217224381815, -116.37242123076099
County Riverside-Salton Sea
City Palm Desert
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin Salton Sea
TAZ 5646
EDFZ 11
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.43
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Single Family
Housing
156.000 Dwelling Unit 17.6000 304,200 1,827,206 — 504.000 — 1667
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 7 / 28
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.3. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 22.1923 17.1287 9.69779 105.203 0.29893 5.85833 13.3715 19.2298 5.64904 3.39078 9.03982 1,009.81 22,457.3 23,467.1 14.0825 0.69379 33.3997 24,059.3 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 20.5328 15.5180 10.0742 77.7491 0.28174 5.85435 13.3715 19.2258 5.64605 3.39078 9.03683 1,009.81 20,734.3 21,744.1 14.0990 0.71173 2.98823 22,311.7 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 12.8643 11.9763 7.01144 50.3331 0.15538 0.59479 13.0664 13.6612 0.57496 3.31345 3.88841 152.214 18,342.7 18,494.9 10.0134 0.67955 15.3589 18,963.1 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.34773 2.18568 1.27959 9.18580 0.02836 0.10855 2.38462 2.49317 0.10493 0.60470 0.70964 25.2008 3,036.84 3,062.04 1.65783 0.11251 2.54284 3,139.55
2.4. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.40133 4.90289 5.26157 56.4991 0.14999 0.09492 13.3715 13.4664 0.08934 3.39078 3.48012 — 15,335.5 15,335.5 0.47567 0.63728 31.2210 15,568.5 1668
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 8 / 28
Area 16.6271 12.1438 3.03542 48.1075 0.14000 5.65016 — 5.65016 5.44644 — 5.44644 920.656 2,979.91 3,900.56 4.36053 0.00576 — 4,011.30 Energy 0.16392 0.08196 1.40079 0.59608 0.00894 0.11326 — 0.11326 0.11326 — 0.11326 — 3,901.51 3,901.51 0.28908 0.01931 — 3,914.49 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12.1587 240.389 252.547 1.26165 0.03143 — 293.455 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 76.9969 0.00000 76.9969 7.69556 0.00000 — 269.386 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.17868 2.17868 Total 22.1923 17.1287 9.69779 105.203 0.29893 5.85833 13.3715 19.2298 5.64904 3.39078 9.03982 1,009.81 22,457.3 23,467.1 14.0825 0.69379 33.3997 24,059.3 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.55057 4.05791 5.72071 37.9261 0.13319 0.09498 13.3715 13.4664 0.08940 3.39078 3.48018 — 13,636.2 13,636.2 0.49314 0.65542 0.80955 13,844.6 Area 15.8183 11.3781 2.95274 39.2270 0.13962 5.64612 — 5.64612 5.44340 — 5.44340 920.656 2,956.25 3,876.90 4.35954 0.00557 — 3,987.55 Energy 0.16392 0.08196 1.40079 0.59608 0.00894 0.11326 — 0.11326 0.11326 — 0.11326 — 3,901.51 3,901.51 0.28908 0.01931 — 3,914.49 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12.1587 240.389 252.547 1.26165 0.03143 — 293.455 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 76.9969 0.00000 76.9969 7.69556 0.00000 — 269.386 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.17868 2.17868 Total 20.5328 15.5180 10.0742 77.7491 0.28174 5.85435 13.3715 19.2258 5.64605 3.39078 9.03683 1,009.81 20,734.3 21,744.1 14.0990 0.71173 2.98823 22,311.7 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.66811 4.18750 5.36762 42.6709 0.13669 0.09283 13.0664 13.1592 0.08737 3.31345 3.40082 — 13,986.6 13,986.6 0.46803 0.62833 13.1802 14,198.7 Area 8.03223 7.70686 0.24302 7.06621 0.00975 0.38871 — 0.38871 0.37434 — 0.37434 63.0586 214.152 277.211 0.29909 0.00048 — 284.830 Energy 0.16392 0.08196 1.40079 0.59608 0.00894 0.11326 — 0.11326 0.11326 — 0.11326 — 3,901.51 3,901.51 0.28908 0.01931 — 3,914.49 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12.1587 240.389 252.547 1.26165 0.03143 — 293.455 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 76.9969 0.00000 76.9969 7.69556 0.00000 — 269.386 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.17868 2.17868 Total 12.8643 11.9763 7.01144 50.3331 0.15538 0.59479 13.0664 13.6612 0.57496 3.31345 3.88841 152.214 18,342.7 18,494.9 10.0134 0.67955 15.3589 18,963.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.85193 0.76422 0.97959 7.78743 0.02495 0.01694 2.38462 2.40156 0.01595 0.60470 0.62065 — 2,315.64 2,315.64 0.07749 0.10403 2.18213 2,350.76 Area 1.46588 1.40650 0.04435 1.28958 0.00178 0.07094 — 0.07094 0.06832 — 0.06832 10.4401 35.4553 45.8954 0.04952 0.00008 — 47.1569 Energy 0.02992 0.01496 0.25564 0.10878 0.00163 0.02067 — 0.02067 0.02067 — 0.02067 — 645.939 645.939 0.04786 0.00320 — 648.089 1669
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 9 / 28
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.01302 39.7991 41.8121 0.20888 0.00520 — 48.5848 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 12.7477 0.00000 12.7477 1.27409 0.00000 — 44.5999 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.36071 0.36071 Total 2.34773 2.18568 1.27959 9.18580 0.02836 0.10855 2.38462 2.49317 0.10493 0.60470 0.70964 25.2008 3,036.84 3,062.04 1.65783 0.11251 2.54284 3,139.55
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
5.40133 4.90289 5.26157 56.4991 0.14999 0.09492 13.3715 13.4664 0.08934 3.39078 3.48012 — 15,335.5 15,335.5 0.47567 0.63728 31.2210 15,568.5 Total 5.40133 4.90289 5.26157 56.4991 0.14999 0.09492 13.3715 13.4664 0.08934 3.39078 3.48012 — 15,335.5 15,335.5 0.47567 0.63728 31.2210 15,568.5 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
4.55057 4.05791 5.72071 37.9261 0.13319 0.09498 13.3715 13.4664 0.08940 3.39078 3.48018 — 13,636.2 13,636.2 0.49314 0.65542 0.80955 13,844.6 Total 4.55057 4.05791 5.72071 37.9261 0.13319 0.09498 13.3715 13.4664 0.08940 3.39078 3.48018 — 13,636.2 13,636.2 0.49314 0.65542 0.80955 13,844.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.85193 0.76422 0.97959 7.78743 0.02495 0.01694 2.38462 2.40156 0.01595 0.60470 0.62065 — 2,315.64 2,315.64 0.07749 0.10403 2.18213 2,350.76 Total 0.85193 0.76422 0.97959 7.78743 0.02495 0.01694 2.38462 2.40156 0.01595 0.60470 0.62065 — 2,315.64 2,315.64 0.07749 0.10403 2.18213 2,350.76 1670
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 10 / 28
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,123.45 2,123.45 0.13172 0.01597 — 2,131.50 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,123.45 2,123.45 0.13172 0.01597 — 2,131.50 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,123.45 2,123.45 0.13172 0.01597 — 2,131.50 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,123.45 2,123.45 0.13172 0.01597 — 2,131.50 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 351.561 351.561 0.02181 0.00264 — 352.894 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 351.561 351.561 0.02181 0.00264 — 352.894
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1671
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 11 / 28
Single
Family
Housing
0.16392 0.08196 1.40079 0.59608 0.00894 0.11326 — 0.11326 0.11326 — 0.11326 — 1,778.06 1,778.06 0.15736 0.00335 — 1,782.99 Total 0.16392 0.08196 1.40079 0.59608 0.00894 0.11326 — 0.11326 0.11326 — 0.11326 — 1,778.06 1,778.06 0.15736 0.00335 — 1,782.99 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.16392 0.08196 1.40079 0.59608 0.00894 0.11326 — 0.11326 0.11326 — 0.11326 — 1,778.06 1,778.06 0.15736 0.00335 — 1,782.99 Total 0.16392 0.08196 1.40079 0.59608 0.00894 0.11326 — 0.11326 0.11326 — 0.11326 — 1,778.06 1,778.06 0.15736 0.00335 — 1,782.99 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.02992 0.01496 0.25564 0.10878 0.00163 0.02067 — 0.02067 0.02067 — 0.02067 — 294.379 294.379 0.02605 0.00055 — 295.195 Total 0.02992 0.01496 0.25564 0.10878 0.00163 0.02067 — 0.02067 0.02067 — 0.02067 — 294.379 294.379 0.02605 0.00055 — 295.195
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 8.78673 4.34659 2.95274 39.2270 0.13962 5.64612 — 5.64612 5.44340 — 5.44340 920.656 2,956.25 3,876.90 4.35954 0.00557 — 3,987.55 Consum
er
Product
s
6.50988 6.50988 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.52164 0.52164 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1672
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 12 / 28
Landsca
Equipment
0.80883 0.76573 0.08268 8.88052 0.00038 0.00404 — 0.00404 0.00304 — 0.00304 — 23.6632 23.6632 0.00099 0.00020 — 23.7465 Total 16.6271 12.1438 3.03542 48.1075 0.14000 5.65016 — 5.65016 5.44644 — 5.44644 920.656 2,979.91 3,900.56 4.36053 0.00576 — 4,011.30 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 8.78673 4.34659 2.95274 39.2270 0.13962 5.64612 — 5.64612 5.44340 — 5.44340 920.656 2,956.25 3,876.90 4.35954 0.00557 — 3,987.55 Consum
er
Product
s
6.50988 6.50988 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.52164 0.52164 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 15.8183 11.3781 2.95274 39.2270 0.13962 5.64612 — 5.64612 5.44340 — 5.44340 920.656 2,956.25 3,876.90 4.35954 0.00557 — 3,987.55 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.10983 0.05433 0.03691 0.49034 0.00175 0.07058 — 0.07058 0.06804 — 0.06804 10.4401 33.5233 43.9634 0.04944 0.00006 — 45.2181 Consum
er
Product
s
1.18805 1.18805 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.09520 0.09520 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.07279 0.06892 0.00744 0.79925 0.00003 0.00036 — 0.00036 0.00027 — 0.00027 — 1.93202 1.93202 0.00008 0.00002 — 1.93882 Total 1.46588 1.40650 0.04435 1.28958 0.00178 0.07094 — 0.07094 0.06832 — 0.06832 10.4401 35.4553 45.8954 0.04952 0.00008 — 47.1569
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
1673
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 13 / 28
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.1587 240.389 252.547 1.26165 0.03143 — 293.455 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12.1587 240.389 252.547 1.26165 0.03143 — 293.455 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.1587 240.389 252.547 1.26165 0.03143 — 293.455 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12.1587 240.389 252.547 1.26165 0.03143 — 293.455 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.01302 39.7991 41.8121 0.20888 0.00520 — 48.5848 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.01302 39.7991 41.8121 0.20888 0.00520 — 48.5848
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1674
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 14 / 28
Single — — — — — — — — — — — 76.9969 0.00000 76.9969 7.69556 0.00000 — 269.386 Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 76.9969 0.00000 76.9969 7.69556 0.00000 — 269.386 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 76.9969 0.00000 76.9969 7.69556 0.00000 — 269.386 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 76.9969 0.00000 76.9969 7.69556 0.00000 — 269.386 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.7477 0.00000 12.7477 1.27409 0.00000 — 44.5999 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12.7477 0.00000 12.7477 1.27409 0.00000 — 44.5999
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.17868 2.17868
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.17868 2.17868
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1675
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 15 / 28
Single — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.17868 2.17868
Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.17868 2.17868
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.36071 0.36071
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.36071 0.36071
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1676
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 16 / 28
Equipm
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
1677
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 17 / 28
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 1678
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 18 / 28
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1679
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 19 / 28
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
1,472.64 1,488.24 1,333.80 531,087 18,709.0 18,907.2 16,945.1 6,747,141
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
Land Use Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Mitigated (number) Single Family Housing Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing Gas Fireplaces 140 140
Single Family Housing Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing No Fireplaces 16 16
Single Family Housing Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
Single Family Housing Catalytic Wood Stoves 8 8
Single Family Housing Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 8 8
Single Family Housing Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
1680
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 20 / 28
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
616,005 205,335 0.00000 0.00000 —
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00000
Summer Days day/yr 180.000
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 1,456,922 531.983 0.0330 0.0040 5,548,033
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 6,345,109 41,908,341
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 142.868 0.00000
1681
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 21 / 28
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00225 2.50000 2.50000 10.00000
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.11538 0.60000 0.00000 1.000000
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
1682
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 22 / 28
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 25.5500 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 0.00000 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.03000 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
1683
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 23 / 28
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
1684
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 24 / 28
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 91.0516
AQ-PM 7.38021
AQ-DPM 30.8525
Drinking Water 45.3603
Lead Risk Housing 3.62949
Pesticides 0.00000
Toxic Releases 2.18805
Traffic 57.5625
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00000
Groundwater 0.00000
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 37.6837
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00000
Solid Waste 0.00000
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 13.1730
Cardio-vascular 25.8724
Low Birth Weights —
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
1685
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 25 / 28
Education 34.7760
Housing 67.7186
Linguistic 7.37583
Poverty 56.0678
Unemployment 94.3129
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 63.17207751
Employed 0.603105351
Median HI 35.4035673
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 62.49197998
High school enrollment 25.13794431
Preschool enrollment 19.97946875
Transportation —
Auto Access 38.0341332
Active commuting 2.989862697
Social —
2-parent households 99.56371102
Voting 89.95252149
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 79.00680098
Park access 2.194276915
Retail density 19.54317978
Supermarket access 30.52739638
1686
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 26 / 28
Tree canopy 11.49749775
Housing—
Homeownership 91.21006031
Housing habitability 90.45297061
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 40.29257026 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 81.59887078
Uncrowded housing 96.93314513
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 92.49326318
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 86.4
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 0.1
Cognitively Disabled 54.2
Physically Disabled 2.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 89.3
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
1687
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 27 / 28
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 99.4
Elderly 0.2
English Speaking 88.3
Foreign-born 30.0
Outdoor Workers 98.2
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 49.1
Traffic Density 21.3
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 70.6
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 93.3
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 13.0000 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 36.0000 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No 1688
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 28 / 28
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
8.1. Justifications
Screen Justification
Land Use Lot acreage was obtained from the addendum.
Operations: Hearths Per SCAQMD 445, assumed only gas fireplaces
8.3. Land Use
Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value
Lot Area acre 50.6494 17.6000
8.5. Operations
8.5.2. Area Sources
8.5.2.1. Hearths
Land Use Model Parameter Default Value New Value
Single Family Housing Wood Fireplaces 8 0
Single Family Housing Gas Fireplaces 133 140 1689
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Resume
1690
1691
From: Sandy Geluso
To: CityClerk; City Hall Mail
Cc: Rosie Lua; Kim Molina; Shane Bouchard ([email protected]); Tiffany Michou; Amanda Daams; David Hubbard Subject: Blue Fern Response to SAFER Appeal Comment re Portola Springs Date: Thursday, April 9, 2026 11:47:09 AM
Attachments: Blue Fern Response to SAFER Comment Dated 4-8-26 (4-9-26).pdf Hello,
Attached please find a letter from Mr. Hubbard in connection with the referenced matter.
Thank you,
Sandy Geluso
Legal Assistant to David P. Hubbard
www.gdandb.com
G|D|B Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
LAWYERS
NOTICE: This communication and any attached document(s) are privileged and confidential. In addition, any disclosure of this transmission does not compromise or waive the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. If you have received this communication in error, please delete it and contact me at [email protected].
1692
From: Sandy Geluso
To: CityClerk; City Hall Mail
Cc: Rosie Lua; Kim Molina; Shane Bouchard ([email protected]); Tiffany Michou; Amanda Daams; David Hubbard Subject: Blue Fern Response to SAFER Appeal Comment re Portola Springs Date: Thursday, April 9, 2026 11:47:09 AM
Attachments: Blue Fern Response to SAFER Comment Dated 4-8-26 (4-9-26).pdf Hello,
Attached please find a letter from Mr. Hubbard in connection with the referenced matter.
Thank you,
Sandy Geluso
Legal Assistant to David P. Hubbard
www.gdandb.com
G|D|B Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
LAWYERS
NOTICE: This communication and any attached document(s) are privileged and confidential. In addition, any disclosure of this transmission does not compromise or waive the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. If you have received this communication in error, please delete it and contact me at [email protected].
1693
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
LAWYERS
2762 Gateway Road
Carlsbad, California 92009
760.431.9501
760.431.9512 gdandb.com
T
F
April 9, 2026
By Email ([email protected],
[email protected])
Evan Trubee, Mayor
Joe Pradetto, Mayor Pro Tem
Karina Quintanilla, Councilmember
Gina Nestande, Councilmember
Jan Harnik, Councilmember
Palm Desert City Council
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Blue Fern Response to SAFER Appeal Comments re Portola Springs Residential Project (PP25-0006; EA25-0006, and TTM 25-0005 (TTM 39307) Dear Mayor Trubee, Mayor Pro Tem Pradetto, and Honorable City Councilmembers:
This firm represents Blue Fern Development (“Blue Fern”), applicant on the Portola Springs residential development project (the “Project”), which was approved by the City of Palm Desert’s Planning Commission on February 17, 2026. The Project is now the subject of an administrative appeal to the City Council. The appellant, Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), filed its appeal on February 27, 2026.
On March 23, 2026, this office submitted to the City Council a letter responding to SAFER’s appeal. In that letter, we explained that the Project, which merely proposes to build 156 singlefamily homes on the Portola site instead of the 394 multi-family homes the City had previously approved in January 2023 – could and should be approved with a CEQA Addendum as recommended by City staff. We also pointed out that the Project is 100 percent consistent with site’s General Plan and zoning designations, and complies with the site’s density limits established by City code. As such, it qualifies for exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, absent a showing that the Project would cause a significant and “peculiar” impact not otherwise covered in the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the 2016 General Plan Update (“2016 GPU”).
The record shows that the Project will not create any such significant or peculiar impact. Therefore, the Project is entitled to the exemption.
Although SAFER filed its appeal on February 27, 2006, it did not at that time reveal why it believed the Addendum was inadequate; nor did it explain why it thought the Project was ineligible for exemption under Guidelines section 15183. SAFER also did not provide any evidence to support its position. It was not until yesterday afternoon, April 8, 2026, the day before this hearing, that 1694
Evan Trubee, Mayor, et al.
Palm Desert City Council
April 9, 2026
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
LAWYERS
SAFER finally submitted to the City its reasons for demanding that staff subject the Project to a full-blown EIR.
Fortunately, however, nothing in SAFER’s comment letter or the biological information attached thereto requires the City to postpose this hearing or otherwise delay approval of the Project. As explained below, SAFER simply wants to relitigate two City Council decisions that took place years ago: (1) the City’s approval of the 2016 GPU, which designated the Project site (as well as the Catavina site to the west) as Town Center Neighborhood with a Planned Residential zoning overlay, and (b) the City’s January 2023 approval of the original Hayes-Dietrich residential project and adoption of that project’s Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (the “2022 MND”).
Neither of these two decisions is subject to legal challenge by SAFER or anyone else. The time to attack them has long since passed, and SAFER has not presented any argument or evidence indicating that it has the right to pull the lid off of these prior decisions and subject them to further CEQA review. Further, SAFER has failed to show that any of the conditions which can defeat an Addendum exist in this case; nor has SAFER established that the City’s decision to apply the section 15183 exemption lacks substantial evidence.
Planning and Development History of the Project Site
In 2016, the City adopted the GPU, which designated the Project site as Town Center Neighborhood with Planned Residential (P.R.-22) zoning. Those designations imposed a density limit of 7 to 22 dwelling units (du) per acre. These same designations were applied to the parcel to the west, also known as the “Catavina” site. The impacts of these land use designations, and all others included in the 2016 GPU, were studied in an EIR that the City later certified. No one sued to challenge the 2016 GPU or its EIR. As a result, those documents are now legally untouchable.
In or about 2021, a developer known as Hayes-Dietrich proposed a 402-unit multi-family residential project on the subject site. That project, which was later trimmed to 394 units, was subjected to CEQA review, the result of which was the 2022 MND. After the Planning Commission approved the Hayes-Dietrich project and adopted the 2022 MND, a local resident appealed those decisions to the City Council. On January 26, 2023, the City Council held a hearing at which it denied the appeal and affirmed the Planning Commission’s actions. Neither the appellant nor any other person filed suit challenging the City Council’s decision. Accordingly, the 2022 MND is now beyond legal attack. SAFER has no way to reopen that document. CEQA forbids it. Accordingly, development of the 394-unit multi-family project approved in January 2023 could be initiated immediately and SAFER could not stop it.
The current applicant, Blue Fern, has proposed a less-intense project than the one previously approved by the City. Rather than 394 multi-family units in three-story buildings, Blue Fern is proposing 156 single-family homes, consisting of one-story and two-story houses. Like the 1695
Evan Trubee, Mayor, et al.
Palm Desert City Council
April 9, 2026
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
LAWYERS
original Hayes-Dietrich development, the Blue Fern Project is 100 percent consistent with the site’s Town Center Neighborhood and Planned Residential designations and complies with the site’s density limit (7 to 22 du/ac).
The Addendum
City Staff prepared an Addendum for the Project because, while the Project was different than the previously-approved Hayes Dietrich development – i.e., 238 fewer units and a focus on singlefamily homes – those differences would not trigger any new or more severe significant effects. Per CEQA Guidelines sections 15164 and 15162, a project so positioned may be approved with an Addendum, which is exactly what City staff proposed and what the Planning Commission determined was appropriate.
Contrary to SAFER’s demand that the City release to the public the technical studies appended to the Addendum, CEQA does not require any such thing. CEQA only requires that the City explain why the Addendum was being adopted and ensure that its decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15164(e).) Here, both requirements have been met, which why SAFER cites no legal authority – not a statute, guideline, regulation, or case – giving it the right to demand release of the Addendum’s appendices.
Cumulative Impacts
SAFER complains that the 2022 MND failed to account for the cumulative effects of developing both the project site and the Catavina property to the west. SAFER then contends that the Addendum, by relying on the 2022 MND, makes the same mistake. There are three flaws in SAFER’s argument, each one fatal.
First, the 2016 GPU EIR assumed full build-out of both the project site and the Catavina property, at the maximum densities allowed under the Planned Residential zoning designation (7 to 22 du/ac).
Thus, the cumulative impacts of both projects – indeed of the entire General Plan – were already assessed in 2016 and that analysis is still valid and beyond legal challenge.
Second, the 2022 MND, which “tiered” off the 2016 GPU EIR, also assumed build-out of neighboring properties pursuant to their assigned land use and zoning designations, including the Catavina site. Therefore, the 2022 MND accounted for the very cumulative impacts that SAFER now claims were ignored. Not only is SAFER wrong; SAFER is also tardy. The deadline to challenge the 2022 MND and allege that it fails to adequately assess cumulative impacts expired in February 2023, more than three years ago.
Third, the Project, as well as the Catavina development, propose residential densities at the low end of the range allowed under the Planned Residential zoning designation. Thus, neither project 1696
Evan Trubee, Mayor, et al.
Palm Desert City Council
April 9, 2026
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
LAWYERS
can be deemed to contribute substantially to a “significant” cumulative effect not already addressed in either the 2016 GPU EIR or the 2022 MND. For this reason, SAFER cannot now use the Addendum to pry open and litigate these two earlier documents.
Piecemealing
SAFER also argues that the City should have considered both Catavina and Portola Springs as a single project. Failing to do so, argues SAFER, amounts to illegal piecemealing. SAFER is incorrect. The two projects are separate and distinct. That they occur on parcels located near each other is immaterial, especially since development on the Portola site was already approved when the City green-lighted the Hayes-Dietrich project in 2023. More to the point, the potential impacts of both projects were already assessed in the 2016 GPU EIR and the 2022 MND, so there was no effort to “hide” impacts by dicing a single project into little pieces.
SAFER Cannot Satisfy CEQA Guidelines Section 15162
As explained in our letter dated March 23, 2026, the only way for SAFER to defeat the Addendum is to show that the Project creates significant impacts not addressed in the 2016 GPU and/or the 2022 MND. Further, SAFER must show that the evidence of such impacts was not available or could not have been generated at the time the previous CEQA documents were adopted. (See CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162(a) and 15164.)
SAFER has failed to carry its burden.
The so-called “significant” effects identified by SAFER’s biological consultant do not actually meet the definition of “significant” as set forth in CEQA Guidelines G. But even if they did meet that definition, SAFER has not demonstrated that the biological impacts identified could not have been brought to the City’s attention in 2016 (when the GPU EIR was certified) or in 2022-2023 (when the 2022 MND was adopted). Accordingly, SAFER has failed to satisfy the threshold criteria for attacking the Addendum. (CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15162(a) and 15164.) SAFER Has Not Identified a “Peculiar” Significant Impact Capable of Disqualifying the Project from Section 15183
When the Planning Commission approved the Project on February 17, 2026, it not only adopted the Addendum; it also found that the Project qualified for exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15183. This is because substantial evidence in the record showed that (1) the Project is consistent with the site’s General Plan and zoning designations, and complies with the density limits imposed by same; (2) the General Plan in question was subject to a certified EIR (in this case the 2016 GPU EIR; and (3) the Project would not result in any significant and “peculiar” impact not previously analyzed.
1697
Evan Trubee, Mayor, et al.
Palm Desert City Council
April 9, 2026
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
LAWYERS
SAFER now argues that the Project will, in fact, cause significant and peculiar impacts. The facts, however, support the City’s finding. For example, SAFER contends that the Project will result in habitat loss and fragmentation. Leaving to one side that the site is already disturbed and surrounded by development, any habitat loss or fragmentation impacts would have been assessed in the 2016 GPU and 2022 MND, and SAFER has not shown otherwise. Further, the habitat loss and fragmentation of which SAFER complains is neither significant nor peculiar in light of the development context of the Project.
The same is true for SAFER’s assertion that the Project will obstruct wildlife movement.
Substantial evidence in the record supports the City’s finding that the site does not contain a viable or significant wildlife corridor. This was the same finding set forth in the 2022 MND. If SAFER disagreed with it, SAFER should have challenged that document; but SAFER chose not to do so.
And now it’s too late. Finally, there is nothing peculiar about a housing project blocking wildlife movement, especially when that project is located in an urban environment on land designated for residential uses.
Next, SAFER argues that the Project will result in bird-window collisions, house cat predation, and traffic-wildlife collisions. None of these impacts is significant as CEQA defines the term, and certainly none of them is peculiar. To the contrary. Such impacts are common to virtually every residential subdivision in the country.
Lastly, SAFER asserts that the mitigation measures imposed on the Project “are not uniformly applied development standards” and thus operate to disqualify the Project from the section 15183 exemption. SAFER forgets, however, that under section 15183, the mitigation issue does not even arise unless there is a showing that the Project’s impacts are significant and peculiar. (See CEQA Guidelines, § 15183(f).) As discussed above, SAFER has made no such showing and substantial evidence supports the City’s determination that the Project will not result in significant and peculiar impacts not previously addressed in the 2016 GPU EIR.
In addition, the mitigation measures in question are preventative and intended merely to ensure that key resources, not currently present at the site, are protected in the unlikely event they are discovered during the lead up to development of the Project. Such measures are common to the City’s mitigation program and are applied to virtually every housing project approved in this jurisdiction.
1698
Evan Trubee, Mayor, et al.
Palm Desert City Council
April 9, 2026
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
LAWYERS
Conclusion
The Project is consistent with the 2016 General Plan and the land uses and zoning designations studied in the certified 2016 GPU EIR. The Project will not result in any significant and peculiar impact. Therefore, the Project qualifies for exemption under Guidelines section 15183. Even if it did not qualify for the exemption, however, the Planning Commission still properly approved the Project with the subject Addendum, because the Project does not create significant impacts not already assessed in the 2022 MND, a document that is now beyond legal challenge.
Based on the foregoing, we would request that the City Council reject SAFER’s demands, deny the appeal, and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Addendum and the Project. We would further ask that the City Council affirm the Planning Commission’s finding that the Project qualifies for exemption under Guidelines section 15183.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
David P. Hubbard
cc: Rosie Lua, Director of Development Services,
City of Palm Desert
Kim Molina, Pacific Land Consultants
Shane Bouchard, Blue Fern Development
Tiffany Michou, Best Best & Krieger LLP
Amada Daams, Best Best & Krieger LLP
1699
1700
April 9, 2026
Via Email
Evan Trubee, Mayor
Joe Pradetto, Mayor Pro Tem
Karina Quintanilla, Councilmember
Gina Nestande, Councilmember
Jan Harnik, Councilmember
Palm Desert City Council
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: SAFER Supplemental Comment
Portola Springs Project (PP25-0006, EA25-0006, TTM 25-0005) City Council Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
To Mayor Trubee, Mayor Pro Tem Pradetto, and Honorable City Councilmembers:
This supplemental comment is submitted on behalf of Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”) in support of their appeal regarding the Portola Springs Project (“Project”) to be heard as Agenda Item 11.c at the City Council’s April 9, 2026 meeting.
SAFER previously submitted a comment to the City Council on April 8, 2026 (“April 8 Comment”). SAFER’s April 8 Comment included a review of the Project by expert ecologist Dr.
Shawn Smallwood, Ph.D. SAFER’s April 8 Comment requested that the City Council continue the hearing until the technical appendices to the Project’s CEQA Addendum—including the 2025 Biological Resources Technical Report and 2025 Air Quality, Greenhouse Emissions, and Energy Assessment—are made available for public review.
SAFER’s April 8 Comment also requested, if the hearing moves forward, that the City Council grant SAFER’s appeal and find that: (1) the Project does not qualify for an exemption from CEQA under Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines and (2) the Addendum is inadequate under CEQA for its failure to address the cumulative impacts of this Project and the recentlyapproved Cavatina Residential Project (“Catavina Project”) as well as the Project’s significant impacts to biological resources.
1701
SAFER Supplemental Comment
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 9, 2026
The purpose of this comment is to supplement the April 8 Comment to address the Project’s air quality impacts. SAFER retained air quality expert Patrick Sutton of Baseline Environmental Consulting (“Baseline”) to review the Project’s air quality impacts. Baseline’s comment and Mr. Sutton’s CV are attached as Exhibit A. Baseline found that the combined operational emissions of reactive organic gases from the Project and the recently-approved Catavina Project would exceed the Air District’s CEQA significance threshold.
In addition to the reasons discussed in SAFER’s April 8 Comment, SAFER requests that the City Council grant SAFER’s appeal for the following reasons: (1) the Project does not qualify for an exemption from CEQA under Section 15183 due to the Project’s peculiar cumulative air quality impacts and (2) the Project’s Addendum is improper due to new information regarding the Project’s cumulative air quality impacts.
DISCUSSION
I. The Project Cannot Be Exempt Under Section 15183 Due to the Project’s Peculiar Cumulative Air Quality Impacts.
As discussed in SAFER’s April 8 Comment, no CEQA document has evaluated the cumulative impacts of the Project and the Catavina Project. (April 8 Comment, p. 9.) As a result, the City currently lacks substantial evidence that the cumulative impacts of this Project and the Catavina Project will be less than significant. Without that substantial evidence, the Project cannot qualify for an exemption under Section 15183.
In contrast, SAFER’s air quality experts (Baseline) actually analyzed the cumulative impacts of the Project and the Catavina Project. (Ex. A, p. 2.) Due to the unavailability of the Addendum’s technical air quality report, Baseline prepared their own model of the Project’s operational emissions using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1.1. (Id.) Baseline found that the Project, by itself, would produce 17.1 pounds/day of operational reactive organic gas (“ROG”) emissions in the summer, which, admittedly, does not exceed the 55 pounds/day CEQA significance threshold set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (“SCAQMD”). (Id.)
Although the Project’s individual ROG emissions do not exceed SCAQMD’s threshold, Baseline found that, when combined with the operational ROG estimates from the Catavina Project’s MND, the cumulative operational ROG emissions total 60.5 pounds/day, exceeding SCAQMD’s significance threshold, as shown below:
1702
SAFER Supplemental Comment
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 9, 2026
(Ex. A, p. 2.)
Section 15183 cannot apply if a project will result in peculiar impacts that cannot be mitigated by uniform development standards. (14 CCR § 15183(c).) Importantly, “peculiar” impacts are “project-specific effects,” not strange or unusual impacts. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v.
County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 917.) Furthermore, Section 15183 states that “[t]his section does not affect any requirement to analyze potentially significant offsite or cumulative impacts if those impacts were not adequately discussed in the prior EIR.” (14 CCR § 15183(j) [emph added].)
Here, the potentially significant cumulative impacts of the Project identified by Baseline disqualify the Project from an exemption under Section 15183 because these impacts were not adequately discussed in the prior 2016 General Plan Update EIR. The 2016 GPU EIR specifically noted that subsequent CEQA analysis of specific projects would be necessary to determine specific impacts:
The analyses in this EIR do not examine the effects of site-specific development projects that may occur within the overall umbrella of this program in the future.
The nature of general plans is such that many proposed policies are intended to be general, with details to be worked out during implementation. (2016 GPU DEIR,pp. 1-5.) The GPU EIR did not, and could not, purport to anticipate the specific impacts of all future development under the “overall umbrella” of the general plan. For cumulative impacts to air quality, the 2016 GPU EIR expressly noted that “[b]ecause the proposed project is comprised of a General Plan Update, cumulative impacts are treated somewhat differently than would be the case for a project- specific development.” (2016 GPU EIR, p. 4.3-22.)
Because the 2016 GPU EIR did not “adequately discuss” the cumulative impacts of 1703
SAFER Supplemental Comment
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 9, 2026
specific projects (14 CCR §§ 15183 (b)(3), (j)), Baseline’s finding of a significant cumulative ROG emissions—which is the only substantial evidence currently in the record for the Project’s cumulative impacts in conjunction with the Catavina Project—disqualifies the Project from a CEQA exemption under Section 15183. Unless the City revises its analysis to include an adequate discussion of the Project’s cumulative impacts in conjunction with the Catavina Project, including an analysis of whether the impact can be mitigated by uniform development standards (see 14 CCR § 15183(c)), the City Council should refrain from finding that the Project is exempt from CEQA under Section 15183.
II. The Addendum Is Improper Because the Project May Result in a Significant Cumulative Air Quality Impact.
The Addendum is based on the 2022 2022 Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development (“2022 MND”). Neither the Addendum nor the 2022 MND mention the sizeable Catavina Project approved by the City Council on February 12, 2026, which directly abuts the Project site to the west. The Addendum describes the Project’s surrounding land uses as:
Surrounding land uses include residential development on all sides, golf courses to the east, west, and northwest, and vacant land zoned as Planned Residential, P.R.22 and PR.18, respectively, to the west and northeast of the Project site. (Addendum, p. 2 [emph. added].) The 2022 MND similarly described surrounding uses as “West – Southern California Edison easement; Vacant land.” (2022 MND, p. 3 [emph. added].) Although it is technically true that the Catavina site is currently vacant (previously a golf course), the Addendum’s omission of the fact that the same developer was in the process of getting approval for the same type of development directly adjacent to the Project site appears to be a glaring omission.
When an addendum relies on a previous MND rather than a previous EIR, the fair argument standard applies. The California Supreme Court has explained that an addendum to an MND is not appropriate “if the proposed modification may produce a significant environmental effect that had not previously been studied.” (Friends of Coll. of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo Cnty. Comm. Coll. Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, 958.) Because the 2022 MND did not study the cumulative impacts of development on the Catavina site (see 14 CCR § 15162(a)(3)(A)), Baseline’s finding of significant cumulative operational ROG emissions meets the fair argument threshold that the Project’s cumulative emissions may be significant. (See Ex. A, p. 2; San Mateo Gardens, supra, 1 Cal.5th at 958.) As a result, the City Council should dop adopt the Addendum to the 2022 MND. Unless the Project’s cumulative air quality impacts are properly analyzed and mitigated, the City cannot rely on an addendum and must prepare a Project-specific EIR or MND prior to approval. 1704
SAFER Supplemental Comment
Portola Springs Project
Agenda Item 11.c (Apr. 9, 2026)
April 9, 2026
s of the overall development by chopping it into two separate pieces.
CONCLUSION
SAFER reiterates its request that the City Council continue the hearing because the Addendum’s technical appendices have not been made publicly available. If the Council proceeds with the hearing, SAFER respectfully requests that the Council grant SAFER’s appeal for the reasons discussed in SAFER’s April 8 Comment as well as the reasons discussed above, including: (1) the Project does not qualify for an exemption from CEQA under Section 15183 due to the Project’s peculiar cumulative air quality impacts and (2) the Project’s Addendum is improper due to new information regarding the Project’s cumulative air quality impacts.
Sincerely,
Brian B. Flynn
Lozeau Drury LLP
1705
EXHIBIT A
1706
388 17th Street, Suite 230, Oakland, CA 94612 | (510) 420-8686 | www.baseline-env.com Mailing Address: PO Box 18586, Oakland, CA 94619
April 9, 2026
26202-00
Brian Flynn
Lozeau Drury LLP
1939 Harrison St., Suite 150
Oakland, CA 94612
Subject: Review of Air Quality Impacts for the Catavina Residential Development Project and the Portola Springs Residential Development Project Dear Mr. Flynn:
It is our understanding that Blue Fern West, LLC is proposing to develop 546 single-family homes for the Catavina Residential Development Project (Catavina project) and 156 single-family homes for the Portola Springs Residential Development Project (Portola project) on adjacent lots in the City of Palm Desert, California. The potential air quality impacts associated with the Catavina project were analyzed in an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration1 (ISMND) and the air quality impacts for
the Portola project were analyzed in an Addendum to the Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development ISMND2. As requested, Baseline Environmental Consulting (Baseline) has reviewed both CEQA studies to evaluate the potential cumulative air quality impacts that could result from both projects due to the apparent piecemealing of the CEQA analysis.
Under CEQA, piecemealing refers to the dividing of a project into two or more pieces and evaluating each piece in a separate environmental document, rather than evaluating the whole of the project in one environmental document. This is explicitly forbidden under CEQA, because it would allow a Lead Agency to minimize the apparent environmental impacts of a project by evaluating the individual pieces separately. As a result, this can deprive the public of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment upon the potential environmental impacts associated with the entire project.
It is our understanding that Blue Fern West, LLC is proposing to develop a total of 702 single-family homes on adjacent lots within a similar time frame, but the CEQA analysis was split into the smaller Catavina and Portola projects. Baseline has reviewed the criteria air pollutant emissions analyzed for the Catavina and Portola projects to determine if this piecemealing approach may have overlooked potentially significant air quality impacts.
1 Michael Baker International, 2025. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Catavina Residential Development Project. September.
2 Dudek, 2025. Addendum to the Frank Sinatra and Portola Multifamily Development Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. November.
1707
April 9, 2026
CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANT EMISSIONS
According to the IS/MND for the Catavina project, the maximum daily emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) during project operation would be 43.4 pounds per day in the summer, which is below the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) threshold of 55 pounds per day. The ROG emissions for the Portola project were not reported in the Addendum to the IS/MND, and a copy of the supporting calculations in Appendix G of the Addendum to the IS/MND was not readily available during our review. Therefore, Baseline estimated the ROG emissions associated with operation of the Portola project for the same opening year (2030) as the Catavina project using the program defaults of the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1.1 (Attachment A).
Based on these results, the maximum ROG emissions during operation of the Portola project would be 17.1 pounds per day in the summer, which is below SCAQMD’s threshold. However, as shown in Table 1, the combined ROG emissions from operation of the Catavina and Portola projects would be
60.5 pounds per day during the summer, which exceeds the SCAQMD’s threshold. Therefore, the air quality impact from the combined ROG emissions for the adjacent residential developments proposed by Blue Fern West, LLC would be potentially significant and require mitigation.
Table 1. Maximum Daily Operational Emissions (pounds)
Scenario ROG
Summer Emissions
Catavina Project (2030) 43.4
Portola Project (2030) 17.1
Combined Emissions 60.5
Winter Emissions
Catavina Project (2030) 38.0
Portola Project (2030) 15.5
Combined Emissions 53.5
SCAQMD Threshold 55
Note: Orange shading indicates exceedance of threshold.
Conclusions
Based on our review of the adjacent residential developments proposed by Blue Fern West, LLC (the Catavina and Portola projects), the combine maximum daily emissions of ROG from operation of both developments would result in a potentially significant air quality impact and require mitigation.
We recommend that the City require an updated CEQA analysis to evaluate, mitigate, and disclose the air quality impacts associated with the 702 single-family homes proposed by Blue Fern West.
Sincerely,
Patrick Sutton
Principal Environmental Engineer
1708
ATTACHMENT A
CalEEMod Report
1709
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 1 / 28
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report Table of Contents
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
1.2. Land Use Types
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector
2. Emissions Summary
2.3. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
2.4. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
1710
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 2 / 28
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
1711
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 3 / 28
5.9.1. Unmitigated
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
1712
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 4 / 28
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
1713
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 5 / 28
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
8. User Changes to Default Data
8.1. Justifications
8.3. Land Use
8.5. Operations
8.5.2. Area Sources
8.5.2.1. Hearths
1714
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 6 / 28
1. Basic Project Information
1.1. Basic Project Information
Data Field Value
Project Name Portola Springs Residential Development Project Operational Year 2030
Lead Agency —
Land Use Scale Project/site
Analysis Level for Defaults County
Windspeed (m/s) 3.30000
Precipitation (days) 0.80000
Location 33.771217224381815, -116.37242123076099
County Riverside-Salton Sea
City Palm Desert
Air District South Coast AQMD
Air Basin Salton Sea
TAZ 5646
EDFZ 11
Electric Utility Southern California Edison
Gas Utility Southern California Gas
App Version 2022.1.1.43
1.2. Land Use Types
Land Use Subtype Size Unit Lot Acreage Building Area (sq ft) Landscape Area (sq ft)
Special Landscape
Area (sq ft)
Population Description
Single Family
Housing
156.000 Dwelling Unit 17.6000 304,200 1,827,206 — 504.000 — 1715
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 7 / 28
1.3. User-Selected Emission Reduction Measures by Emissions Sector No measures selected
2. Emissions Summary
2.3. Operations Emissions Compared Against Thresholds
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Un/Mit. TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 22.1923 17.1287 9.69779 105.203 0.29893 5.85833 13.3715 19.2298 5.64904 3.39078 9.03982 1,009.81 22,457.3 23,467.1 14.0825 0.69379 33.3997 24,059.3 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 20.5328 15.5180 10.0742 77.7491 0.28174 5.85435 13.3715 19.2258 5.64605 3.39078 9.03683 1,009.81 20,734.3 21,744.1 14.0990 0.71173 2.98823 22,311.7 Average
Daily
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 12.8643 11.9763 7.01144 50.3331 0.15538 0.59479 13.0664 13.6612 0.57496 3.31345 3.88841 152.214 18,342.7 18,494.9 10.0134 0.67955 15.3589 18,963.1 Annual
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Unmit. 2.34773 2.18568 1.27959 9.18580 0.02836 0.10855 2.38462 2.49317 0.10493 0.60470 0.70964 25.2008 3,036.84 3,062.04 1.65783 0.11251 2.54284 3,139.55
2.4. Operations Emissions by Sector, Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Sector TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 5.40133 4.90289 5.26157 56.4991 0.14999 0.09492 13.3715 13.4664 0.08934 3.39078 3.48012 — 15,335.5 15,335.5 0.47567 0.63728 31.2210 15,568.5 1716
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 8 / 28
Area 16.6271 12.1438 3.03542 48.1075 0.14000 5.65016 — 5.65016 5.44644 — 5.44644 920.656 2,979.91 3,900.56 4.36053 0.00576 — 4,011.30 Energy 0.16392 0.08196 1.40079 0.59608 0.00894 0.11326 — 0.11326 0.11326 — 0.11326 — 3,901.51 3,901.51 0.28908 0.01931 — 3,914.49 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12.1587 240.389 252.547 1.26165 0.03143 — 293.455 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 76.9969 0.00000 76.9969 7.69556 0.00000 — 269.386 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.17868 2.17868 Total 22.1923 17.1287 9.69779 105.203 0.29893 5.85833 13.3715 19.2298 5.64904 3.39078 9.03982 1,009.81 22,457.3 23,467.1 14.0825 0.69379 33.3997 24,059.3 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.55057 4.05791 5.72071 37.9261 0.13319 0.09498 13.3715 13.4664 0.08940 3.39078 3.48018 — 13,636.2 13,636.2 0.49314 0.65542 0.80955 13,844.6 Area 15.8183 11.3781 2.95274 39.2270 0.13962 5.64612 — 5.64612 5.44340 — 5.44340 920.656 2,956.25 3,876.90 4.35954 0.00557 — 3,987.55 Energy 0.16392 0.08196 1.40079 0.59608 0.00894 0.11326 — 0.11326 0.11326 — 0.11326 — 3,901.51 3,901.51 0.28908 0.01931 — 3,914.49 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12.1587 240.389 252.547 1.26165 0.03143 — 293.455 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 76.9969 0.00000 76.9969 7.69556 0.00000 — 269.386 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.17868 2.17868 Total 20.5328 15.5180 10.0742 77.7491 0.28174 5.85435 13.3715 19.2258 5.64605 3.39078 9.03683 1,009.81 20,734.3 21,744.1 14.0990 0.71173 2.98823 22,311.7 Average
Daily
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 4.66811 4.18750 5.36762 42.6709 0.13669 0.09283 13.0664 13.1592 0.08737 3.31345 3.40082 — 13,986.6 13,986.6 0.46803 0.62833 13.1802 14,198.7 Area 8.03223 7.70686 0.24302 7.06621 0.00975 0.38871 — 0.38871 0.37434 — 0.37434 63.0586 214.152 277.211 0.29909 0.00048 — 284.830 Energy 0.16392 0.08196 1.40079 0.59608 0.00894 0.11326 — 0.11326 0.11326 — 0.11326 — 3,901.51 3,901.51 0.28908 0.01931 — 3,914.49 Water — — — — — — — — — — — 12.1587 240.389 252.547 1.26165 0.03143 — 293.455 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 76.9969 0.00000 76.9969 7.69556 0.00000 — 269.386 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.17868 2.17868 Total 12.8643 11.9763 7.01144 50.3331 0.15538 0.59479 13.0664 13.6612 0.57496 3.31345 3.88841 152.214 18,342.7 18,494.9 10.0134 0.67955 15.3589 18,963.1 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Mobile 0.85193 0.76422 0.97959 7.78743 0.02495 0.01694 2.38462 2.40156 0.01595 0.60470 0.62065 — 2,315.64 2,315.64 0.07749 0.10403 2.18213 2,350.76 Area 1.46588 1.40650 0.04435 1.28958 0.00178 0.07094 — 0.07094 0.06832 — 0.06832 10.4401 35.4553 45.8954 0.04952 0.00008 — 47.1569 Energy 0.02992 0.01496 0.25564 0.10878 0.00163 0.02067 — 0.02067 0.02067 — 0.02067 — 645.939 645.939 0.04786 0.00320 — 648.089 1717
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 9 / 28
Water — — — — — — — — — — — 2.01302 39.7991 41.8121 0.20888 0.00520 — 48.5848 Waste — — — — — — — — — — — 12.7477 0.00000 12.7477 1.27409 0.00000 — 44.5999 Refrig. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.36071 0.36071 Total 2.34773 2.18568 1.27959 9.18580 0.02836 0.10855 2.38462 2.49317 0.10493 0.60470 0.70964 25.2008 3,036.84 3,062.04 1.65783 0.11251 2.54284 3,139.55
4. Operations Emissions Details
4.1. Mobile Emissions by Land Use
4.1.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
5.40133 4.90289 5.26157 56.4991 0.14999 0.09492 13.3715 13.4664 0.08934 3.39078 3.48012 — 15,335.5 15,335.5 0.47567 0.63728 31.2210 15,568.5 Total 5.40133 4.90289 5.26157 56.4991 0.14999 0.09492 13.3715 13.4664 0.08934 3.39078 3.48012 — 15,335.5 15,335.5 0.47567 0.63728 31.2210 15,568.5 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
4.55057 4.05791 5.72071 37.9261 0.13319 0.09498 13.3715 13.4664 0.08940 3.39078 3.48018 — 13,636.2 13,636.2 0.49314 0.65542 0.80955 13,844.6 Total 4.55057 4.05791 5.72071 37.9261 0.13319 0.09498 13.3715 13.4664 0.08940 3.39078 3.48018 — 13,636.2 13,636.2 0.49314 0.65542 0.80955 13,844.6 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.85193 0.76422 0.97959 7.78743 0.02495 0.01694 2.38462 2.40156 0.01595 0.60470 0.62065 — 2,315.64 2,315.64 0.07749 0.10403 2.18213 2,350.76 Total 0.85193 0.76422 0.97959 7.78743 0.02495 0.01694 2.38462 2.40156 0.01595 0.60470 0.62065 — 2,315.64 2,315.64 0.07749 0.10403 2.18213 2,350.76 1718
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 10 / 28
4.2. Energy
4.2.1. Electricity Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,123.45 2,123.45 0.13172 0.01597 — 2,131.50 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,123.45 2,123.45 0.13172 0.01597 — 2,131.50 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 2,123.45 2,123.45 0.13172 0.01597 — 2,131.50 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 2,123.45 2,123.45 0.13172 0.01597 — 2,131.50 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — 351.561 351.561 0.02181 0.00264 — 352.894 Total — — — — — — — — — — — — 351.561 351.561 0.02181 0.00264 — 352.894
4.2.3. Natural Gas Emissions By Land Use - Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1719
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 11 / 28
Single
Family
Housing
0.16392 0.08196 1.40079 0.59608 0.00894 0.11326 — 0.11326 0.11326 — 0.11326 — 1,778.06 1,778.06 0.15736 0.00335 — 1,782.99 Total 0.16392 0.08196 1.40079 0.59608 0.00894 0.11326 — 0.11326 0.11326 — 0.11326 — 1,778.06 1,778.06 0.15736 0.00335 — 1,782.99 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.16392 0.08196 1.40079 0.59608 0.00894 0.11326 — 0.11326 0.11326 — 0.11326 — 1,778.06 1,778.06 0.15736 0.00335 — 1,782.99 Total 0.16392 0.08196 1.40079 0.59608 0.00894 0.11326 — 0.11326 0.11326 — 0.11326 — 1,778.06 1,778.06 0.15736 0.00335 — 1,782.99 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
0.02992 0.01496 0.25564 0.10878 0.00163 0.02067 — 0.02067 0.02067 — 0.02067 — 294.379 294.379 0.02605 0.00055 — 295.195 Total 0.02992 0.01496 0.25564 0.10878 0.00163 0.02067 — 0.02067 0.02067 — 0.02067 — 294.379 294.379 0.02605 0.00055 — 295.195
4.3. Area Emissions by Source
4.3.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Source TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 8.78673 4.34659 2.95274 39.2270 0.13962 5.64612 — 5.64612 5.44340 — 5.44340 920.656 2,956.25 3,876.90 4.35954 0.00557 — 3,987.55 Consum
er
Product
s
6.50988 6.50988 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.52164 0.52164 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1720
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 12 / 28
Landsca
Equipment
0.80883 0.76573 0.08268 8.88052 0.00038 0.00404 — 0.00404 0.00304 — 0.00304 — 23.6632 23.6632 0.00099 0.00020 — 23.7465 Total 16.6271 12.1438 3.03542 48.1075 0.14000 5.65016 — 5.65016 5.44644 — 5.44644 920.656 2,979.91 3,900.56 4.36053 0.00576 — 4,011.30 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 8.78673 4.34659 2.95274 39.2270 0.13962 5.64612 — 5.64612 5.44340 — 5.44340 920.656 2,956.25 3,876.90 4.35954 0.00557 — 3,987.55 Consum
er
Product
s
6.50988 6.50988 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.52164 0.52164 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total 15.8183 11.3781 2.95274 39.2270 0.13962 5.64612 — 5.64612 5.44340 — 5.44340 920.656 2,956.25 3,876.90 4.35954 0.00557 — 3,987.55 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Hearths 0.10983 0.05433 0.03691 0.49034 0.00175 0.07058 — 0.07058 0.06804 — 0.06804 10.4401 33.5233 43.9634 0.04944 0.00006 — 45.2181 Consum
er
Product
s
1.18805 1.18805 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Architect
ural
Coating
s
0.09520 0.09520 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Landsca
pe
Equipm
ent
0.07279 0.06892 0.00744 0.79925 0.00003 0.00036 — 0.00036 0.00027 — 0.00027 — 1.93202 1.93202 0.00008 0.00002 — 1.93882 Total 1.46588 1.40650 0.04435 1.28958 0.00178 0.07094 — 0.07094 0.06832 — 0.06832 10.4401 35.4553 45.8954 0.04952 0.00008 — 47.1569
4.4. Water Emissions by Land Use
4.4.1. Unmitigated
1721
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 13 / 28
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.1587 240.389 252.547 1.26165 0.03143 — 293.455 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12.1587 240.389 252.547 1.26165 0.03143 — 293.455 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.1587 240.389 252.547 1.26165 0.03143 — 293.455 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12.1587 240.389 252.547 1.26165 0.03143 — 293.455 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 2.01302 39.7991 41.8121 0.20888 0.00520 — 48.5848 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 2.01302 39.7991 41.8121 0.20888 0.00520 — 48.5848
4.5. Waste Emissions by Land Use
4.5.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1722
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 14 / 28
Single — — — — — — — — — — — 76.9969 0.00000 76.9969 7.69556 0.00000 — 269.386 Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — 76.9969 0.00000 76.9969 7.69556 0.00000 — 269.386 Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 76.9969 0.00000 76.9969 7.69556 0.00000 — 269.386 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 76.9969 0.00000 76.9969 7.69556 0.00000 — 269.386 Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — 12.7477 0.00000 12.7477 1.27409 0.00000 — 44.5999 Total — — — — — — — — — — — 12.7477 0.00000 12.7477 1.27409 0.00000 — 44.5999
4.6. Refrigerant Emissions by Land Use
4.6.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.17868 2.17868
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.17868 2.17868
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
1723
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 15 / 28
Single — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.17868 2.17868
Family
Housing
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2.17868 2.17868
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Single
Family
Housing
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.36071 0.36071
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0.36071 0.36071
4.7. Offroad Emissions By Equipment Type
4.7.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.8. Stationary Emissions By Equipment Type
4.8.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) 1724
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 16 / 28
Equipm
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.9. User Defined Emissions By Equipment Type
4.9.1. Unmitigated
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Equipm
ent
Type
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type
1725
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 17 / 28
4.10.1. Soil Carbon Accumulation By Vegetation Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Vegetati
on
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.2. Above and Belowground Carbon Accumulation by Land Use Type - Unmitigated Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Land
Use
TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
4.10.3. Avoided and Sequestered Emissions by Species - Unmitigated 1726
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 18 / 28
Criteria Pollutants (lb/day for daily, ton/yr for annual) and GHGs (lb/day for daily, MT/yr for annual) Species TOG ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10E PM10D PM10T PM2.5E PM2.5D PM2.5T BCO2 NBCO2 CO2T CH4 N2O R CO2e Daily,
Summer
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Daily,
Winter
(Max)
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Remove
d
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Annual — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Avoided — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Sequest
ered
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1727
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 19 / 28
Remove — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Subtotal — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
5. Activity Data
5.9. Operational Mobile Sources
5.9.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Type Trips/Weekday Trips/Saturday Trips/Sunday Trips/Year VMT/Weekday VMT/Saturday VMT/Sunday VMT/Year Single Family
Housing
1,472.64 1,488.24 1,333.80 531,087 18,709.0 18,907.2 16,945.1 6,747,141
5.10. Operational Area Sources
5.10.1. Hearths
Land Use Hearth Type Unmitigated (number) Mitigated (number) Single Family Housing Wood Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing Gas Fireplaces 140 140
Single Family Housing Propane Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing Electric Fireplaces 0 0
Single Family Housing No Fireplaces 16 16
Single Family Housing Conventional Wood Stoves 0 0
Single Family Housing Catalytic Wood Stoves 8 8
Single Family Housing Non-Catalytic Wood Stoves 8 8
Single Family Housing Pellet Wood Stoves 0 0
5.10.2. Architectural Coatings
1728
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 20 / 28
Residential Interior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Residential Exterior Area Coated (sq
ft)
Non-Residential Interior Area Coated
(sq ft)
Non-Residential Exterior Area
Coated (sq ft)
Parking Area Coated (sq ft)
616,005 205,335 0.00000 0.00000 —
5.10.3. Landscape Equipment
Season Unit Value
Snow Days day/yr 0.00000
Summer Days day/yr 180.000
5.11. Operational Energy Consumption
5.11.1. Unmitigated
Electricity (kWh/yr) and CO2 and CH4 and N2O and Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Land Use Electricity (kWh/yr) CO2 CH4 N2O Natural Gas (kBTU/yr) Single Family Housing 1,456,922 531.983 0.0330 0.0040 5,548,033
5.12. Operational Water and Wastewater Consumption
5.12.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Indoor Water (gal/year) Outdoor Water (gal/year) Single Family Housing 6,345,109 41,908,341
5.13. Operational Waste Generation
5.13.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Waste (ton/year) Cogeneration (kWh/year)
Single Family Housing 142.868 0.00000
1729
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 21 / 28
5.14. Operational Refrigeration and Air Conditioning Equipment
5.14.1. Unmitigated
Land Use Equipment Type Refrigerant GWP Quantity (kg) Operations Leak Rate Service Leak Rate Times Serviced Single Family Housing Average room A/C &
Other residential A/C
and heat pumps
R-410A 2,088.00 0.00225 2.50000 2.50000 10.00000
Single Family Housing Household
refrigerators and/or
freezers
R-134a 1,430.00 0.11538 0.60000 0.00000 1.000000
5.15. Operational Off-Road Equipment
5.15.1. Unmitigated
5.16. Stationary Sources
5.16.1. Emergency Generators and Fire Pumps
5.16.2. Process Boilers
5.17. User Defined
5.18. Vegetation
5.18.1. Land Use Change
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Vegetation Land Use Type Vegetation Soil Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.1. Biomass Cover Type
1730
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 22 / 28
5.18.1.1. Unmitigated
Biomass Cover Type Initial Acres Final Acres
5.18.2. Sequestration
5.18.2.1. Unmitigated
Tree Type Number Electricity Saved (kWh/year) Natural Gas Saved (btu/year)
6. Climate Risk Detailed Report
6.1. Climate Risk Summary
Cal-Adapt midcentury 2040–2059 average projections for four hazards are reported below for your project location. These are under Representation Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 which assumes GHG emissions will continue to rise strongly through 2050 and then plateau around 2100.
Climate Hazard Result for Project Location Unit
Temperature and Extreme Heat 25.5500 annual days of extreme heat Extreme Precipitation 0.00000 annual days with precipitation above 20 mm Sea Level Rise — meters of inundation depth
Wildfire 0.03000 annual hectares burned
Temperature and Extreme Heat data are for grid cell in which your project are located. The projection is based on the 98th historical percentile of daily maximum/minimum temperatures from observed historical data (32 climate model ensemble from Cal-Adapt, 2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Extreme Precipitation data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The threshold of 20 mm is equivalent to about ¾ an inch of rain, which would be light to moderate rainfall if received over a full day or heavy rain if received over a period of 2 to 4 hours. Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
Sea Level Rise data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from Radke et al. (2017), as reported in Cal-Adapt (Radke et al., 2017, CEC-500-2017-008), and consider inundation location and depth for the San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and California coast resulting different increments of sea level rise coupled with extreme storm events. Users may select from four scenarios to view the range in potential inundation depth for the grid cell. The four scenarios are: No rise, 0.5 meter, 1.0 meter, 1.41 meters Wildfire data are for the grid cell in which your project are located. The projections are from UC Davis, as reported in Cal-Adapt (2040–2059 average under RCP 8.5), and consider historical data of climate, vegetation, population density, and large (> 400 ha) fire history. Users may select from four model simulations to view the range in potential wildfire probabilities for the grid cell. The four simulations make different assumptions about expected rainfall and temperature are: Warmer/drier (HadGEM2-ES), Cooler/wetter (CNRM-CM5), Average conditions (CanESM2), Range of different rainfall and temperature possibilities (MIROC5). Each grid cell is 6 kilometers (km) by 6 km, or 3.7 miles (mi) by 3.7 mi.
6.2. Initial Climate Risk Scores
1731
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 23 / 28
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 0 0 N/A
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 0 0 0 N/A
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores do not include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.3. Adjusted Climate Risk Scores
Climate Hazard Exposure Score Sensitivity Score Adaptive Capacity Score Vulnerability Score Temperature and Extreme Heat 1 1 1 2
Extreme Precipitation N/A N/A N/A N/A
Sea Level Rise N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wildfire N/A N/A N/A N/A
Flooding N/A N/A N/A N/A
Drought 1 1 1 2
Snowpack Reduction N/A N/A N/A N/A
Air Quality Degradation N/A N/A N/A N/A
The sensitivity score reflects the extent to which a project would be adversely affected by exposure to a climate hazard. Exposure is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest exposure.
The adaptive capacity of a project refers to its ability to manage and reduce vulnerabilities from projected climate hazards. Adaptive capacity is rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with a score of 5 representing the greatest ability to adapt.
1732
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 24 / 28
The overall vulnerability scores are calculated based on the potential impacts and adaptive capacity assessments for each hazard. Scores include implementation of climate risk reduction measures.
6.4. Climate Risk Reduction Measures
7. Health and Equity Details
7.1. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Scores
The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Exposure Indicators —
AQ-Ozone 91.0516
AQ-PM 7.38021
AQ-DPM 30.8525
Drinking Water 45.3603
Lead Risk Housing 3.62949
Pesticides 0.00000
Toxic Releases 2.18805
Traffic 57.5625
Effect Indicators —
CleanUp Sites 0.00000
Groundwater 0.00000
Haz Waste Facilities/Generators 37.6837
Impaired Water Bodies 0.00000
Solid Waste 0.00000
Sensitive Population —
Asthma 13.1730
Cardio-vascular 25.8724
Low Birth Weights —
Socioeconomic Factor Indicators —
1733
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 25 / 28
Education 34.7760
Housing 67.7186
Linguistic 7.37583
Poverty 56.0678
Unemployment 94.3129
7.2. Healthy Places Index Scores
The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
Indicator Result for Project Census Tract
Economic —
Above Poverty 63.17207751
Employed 0.603105351
Median HI 35.4035673
Education —
Bachelor's or higher 62.49197998
High school enrollment 25.13794431
Preschool enrollment 19.97946875
Transportation —
Auto Access 38.0341332
Active commuting 2.989862697
Social —
2-parent households 99.56371102
Voting 89.95252149
Neighborhood —
Alcohol availability 79.00680098
Park access 2.194276915
Retail density 19.54317978
Supermarket access 30.52739638
1734
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 26 / 28
Tree canopy 11.49749775
Housing—
Homeownership 91.21006031
Housing habitability 90.45297061
Low-inc homeowner severe housing cost burden 40.29257026 Low-inc renter severe housing cost burden 81.59887078
Uncrowded housing 96.93314513
Health Outcomes—
Insured adults 92.49326318
Arthritis 0.0
Asthma ER Admissions 86.4
High Blood Pressure 0.0
Cancer (excluding skin) 0.0
Asthma 0.0
Coronary Heart Disease 0.0
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease 0.0
Diagnosed Diabetes 0.0
Life Expectancy at Birth 0.1
Cognitively Disabled 54.2
Physically Disabled 2.4
Heart Attack ER Admissions 89.3
Mental Health Not Good 0.0
Chronic Kidney Disease 0.0
Obesity 0.0
Pedestrian Injuries 19.6
Physical Health Not Good 0.0
Stroke 0.0
Health Risk Behaviors—
1735
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 27 / 28
Binge Drinking 0.0
Current Smoker 0.0
No Leisure Time for Physical Activity 0.0
Climate Change Exposures —
Wildfire Risk 0.0
SLR Inundation Area 0.0
Children 99.4
Elderly 0.2
English Speaking 88.3
Foreign-born 30.0
Outdoor Workers 98.2
Climate Change Adaptive Capacity —
Impervious Surface Cover 49.1
Traffic Density 21.3
Traffic Access 23.0
Other Indices —
Hardship 70.6
Other Decision Support —
2016 Voting 93.3
7.3. Overall Health & Equity Scores
Metric Result for Project Census Tract
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Score for Project Location (a) 13.0000 Healthy Places Index Score for Project Location (b) 36.0000 Project Located in a Designated Disadvantaged Community (Senate Bill 535) No Project Located in a Low-Income Community (Assembly Bill 1550) No Project Located in a Community Air Protection Program Community (Assembly Bill 617) No 1736
Portola Springs Residential Development Project Detailed Report, 4/8/2026 28 / 28
a: The maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects a higher pollution burden compared to other census tracts in the state. b: The maximum Health Places Index score is 100. A high score (i.e., greater than 50) reflects healthier community conditions compared to other census tracts in the state.
7.4. Health & Equity Measures
No Health & Equity Measures selected.
7.5. Evaluation Scorecard
Health & Equity Evaluation Scorecard not completed.
7.6. Health & Equity Custom Measures
No Health & Equity Custom Measures created.
8. User Changes to Default Data
8.1. Justifications
Screen Justification
Land Use Lot acreage was obtained from the addendum.
Operations: Hearths Per SCAQMD 445, assumed only gas fireplaces
8.3. Land Use
Model Parameter Units Default Value New Value
Lot Area acre 50.6494 17.6000
8.5. Operations
8.5.2. Area Sources
8.5.2.1. Hearths
Land Use Model Parameter Default Value New Value
Single Family Housing Wood Fireplaces 8 0
Single Family Housing Gas Fireplaces 133 140 1737
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Resume
1738
Patrick Sutton, P.E.
Principal Environmental Engineer
Areas of Expertise
Air Quality, GHGs, Noise, Hazardous
Materials, Geology, and Hydrology
Education
M.S., Civil and Environmental
Engineering, University of
California – Davis
B.S., Environmental Science,
Dickinson College
Registration
Professional Engineer No. 13609 (RI)
Years of Experience
20 Years
Patrick Sutton is an environmental engineer who specializes in the assessment of hazardous materials released into the environment.
Mr. Sutton prepares technical reports in support of environmental review, such as Phase I/II Environmental Site Investigations, Air Quality Reports, and Health Risk Assessments. He has prepared numerous CEQA/NEPA evaluations for air quality, GHGs, noise, energy, geology, hazardous materials, and water quality related to residential, commercial, and industrial projects, as well as large infrastructure developments. His proficiency in a wide range of modeling software (AERMOD, CalEEMod, RCEM, CT-EMFAC) as well as relational databases, GIS, and graphics design allows him to thoroughly and efficiently assess and mitigate environmental concerns.
For mixed-use development projects, Mr. Sutton has prepared health risk assessments for sensitive receptors exposed to toxic air contaminants based on air dispersion modeling. For large transportation improvement projects, Mr. Sutton has prepared air quality and hazardous materials technical reports in accordance with Caltrans requirements. The air quality assessments include the evaluation of criteria air pollutants, mobile source air toxics, and GHG emissions to support environmental review of the project under CEQA/NEPA and to determine conformity with the State
Implementation Plan. The hazardous materials investigations include sampling and statistically analysis of aerially-deposited lead adjacent to highway corridors. Mr. Sutton is also an active member of ASTM International and is the author of the Standard Practice for Low-Flow Purging and Sampling Used for Groundwater Monitoring.
Project Experience
Alameda CTC I-80/Ashby Avenue Interchange Improvements. Prepared Phase I/II ESAs to evaluate contaminants of potential concern in soil and groundwater. Prepared Air Quality Report to determine the project’s conformity to federal air quality regulations and support CEQA/NEPA environmental review.
Oakland Downtown Specific Plan EIR. Prepared a program- and project-level Air Quality and GHG Emissions analysis. Developed a mitigation measure with performance standards to ensure GHG emissions from future projects comply with the Citywide 2030 GHG reduction target.
Alameda CTC I-680 Express Lanes from SR 84 to Alcosta Boulevard Project. Prepared Initial Site Assessment and Preliminary Site Investigation to evaluate contaminants of potential concern in soil and groundwater. Prepared Air Quality Report to determine the project’s conformity to federal air quality regulations and to support environmental review of the project under CEQA and NEPA.
Altamont Corridor Expressway (ACE/Forward) Project EIR/EIS. Prepared a program- and project-level Hazardous Materials analysis for over 120 miles of railroad corridor from San Jose to Merced. Hazardous materials concerns, such as release sites, petroleum pipelines, agricultural pesticides, and nearby school sites were evaluated in GIS.
BART Silicon Valley Extension Project. Prepared Initial Site Assessment and Hazardous Materials EIS/EIR section for extending 6 miles of proposed BART service through the Cities of San Jose and Santa Clara. 1739
1740
Gatzke Dillon & Ballance LLP
LAWYERS
2762 Gateway Road
Carlsbad, California 92009
760.431.9501
760.431.9512 gdandb.com
T
F
April 9, 2026
By Email ([email protected],
[email protected])
Evan Trubee, Mayor
Joe Pradetto, Mayor Pro Tem
Karina Quintanilla, Councilmember
Gina Nestande, Councilmember
Jan Harnik, Councilmember
Palm Desert City Council
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Blue Fern Response to SAFER Appeal Comments re Portola Springs Residential Project (PP25-0006; EA25-0006, and TTM 25-0005 (TTM 39307) Dear Mayor Trubee, Mayor Pro Tem Pradetto, and Honorable City Councilmembers:
This firm represents Blue Fern Development (“Blue Fern”), applicant on the Portola Springs residential development project (the “Project”), which was approved by the City of Palm Desert’s Planning Commission on February 17, 2026. The Project is now the subject of an administrative appeal to the City Council. The appellant, Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (“SAFER”), filed its appeal on February 27, 2026.
On March 23, 2026, this office submitted to the City Council a letter responding to SAFER’s appeal. In that letter, we explained that the Project, which merely proposes to build 156 singlefamily homes on the Portola site instead of the 394 multi-family homes the City had previously approved in January 2023 – could and should be approved with a CEQA Addendum as recommended by City staff. We also pointed out that the Project is 100 percent consistent with site’s General Plan and zoning designations, and complies with the site’s density limits established by City code. As such, it qualifies for exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, absent a showing that the Project would cause a significant and “peculiar” impact not otherwise covered in the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for the 2016 General Plan Update (“2016 GPU”).
The record shows that the Project will not create any such significant or peculiar impact. Therefore, the Project is entitled to the exemption.
Although SAFER filed its appeal on February 27, 2006, it did not at that time reveal why it believed the Addendum was inadequate; nor did it explain why it thought the Project was ineligible for exemption under Guidelines section 15183. SAFER also did not provide any evidence to support its position. It was not until yesterday afternoon, April 8, 2026, the day before this hearing, that 1741
Evan Trubee, Mayor, et al.
Palm Desert City Council
April 9, 2026