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 1742
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 1743
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.
1744
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.
1745
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
1746
C I T Y O F P A L M
D E S E R T 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760-346-0611
[email protected]
CITY OF PALM DESERT
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
CASE NO. APPEAL PP/EA25-0006, TTM 39307
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BEFORE THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE APPROVAL OF A PRECISE PLAN AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 39307 FOR A 156 SINGLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOT DEVELOPMENT AND APPROVAL OF A CEQA ADDENDUM IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND EXEMPTION UNDER 15183 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES.
PROJECT LOCATION: Southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue, City of Palm Desert, California; Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 620-400-030 and 620-400-031 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The appellant, Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility, has filed an appeal regarding the approval of Precise Plan (PP25-0006), Environmental Assessment (EA25-0006), and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 39307) for the Portola Springs Residential project. The proposed project includes the development of 156 single-family residential (SFR) lots on approximately 18 acres, with on-site circulation, utilities, stormwater facilities, and open space areas.
PP/EA25-0006 was approved by the Planning Commission via PC Resolution No. 2913, and TTM 39307 was approved by the Planning Commission via PC Resolution No. 2914, both on February 17, 2026, at a duly noted public hearing. This item was previously on the Council agenda on April 9, 2026 as a public hearing and was continued.
PUBLIC HEARING: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, will hold a Public Hearing at its meeting on May 28, 2026. The City Council meeting begins at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California. Pursuant to Senate Bill 707, this meeting will be conducted as a hybrid meeting, allowing public access via teleconference or in person. Options for remote participation will be listed on the Posted Agenda for the meeting at https://www.palmdesert.gov/government/meetings.
COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Those wishing to comment on this application may either appear in person at the public hearing or submit written comments, which must be received by 10:00 a.m. on the day of the hearing. Written comments should be sent to the City of Palm Desert at 73510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California 92260, Attention: City Clerk, or emailed to:
[email protected].
Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at or prior to the public hearing. [Government Code Section 65009(b)(2)].
Si necesita ayuda con esta notificación por favor llame a la Ciudad de Palm Desert y comuníquese con Damian Olivares (760) 346-0611.
PUBLISH: THE DESERT SUN ANTHONY MEJIA, MMC, CITY CLERK
May 15, 2026 CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA
1747
1748
C I T Y O F P A L M
D E S E R T 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578
TEL: 760-776-6483
[email protected]
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Date: May 20, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
From: City Attorney’s Office
Subject: Response to SAFER Comment Letters dated April 8 and April 9, 2026 - Portola Springs Project (PP25-0006, EA25-0006, TTM 39307) This memorandum responds to the comment letters submitted by SAFER in connection with the Portola Springs appeal, including SAFER’s April 8, 2026 letter and attached biological comments prepared by Dr. Shawn Smallwood, as well as SAFER’s April 9, 2026 supplemental air-quality letter and attached comments prepared by Baseline Environmental Consulting. Collectively, SAFER argues that: (1) the City may not rely on CEQA Guidelines section 15183; (2) the Addendum and Section 15183 exemption fail to analyze cumulative impacts of the Project and Catavina project, including air quality impacts; (3) the Project will result in peculiar impacts to biological resources; and (4) the City improperly piecemealed the Portola Springs and Catavina projects.
The Portola Springs Project (“Project”) is a 156-lot single-family residential development on approximately 18 acres located at the southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Portola Avenue. The Project modifies a previously approved residential project analyzed in the 2022 IS/MND for up to 402 multifamily units. The City prepared an Addendum to the 2022 IS/MND to evaluate the modified Project and concluded that the Project would not result in new significant environmental effects, a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts, or new information requiring preparation of a subsequent or supplemental environmental document under CEQA Guidelines section 15162.
The City also determined that no additional environmental review is required under CEQA Guidelines section 15183 because the Project is consistent with the land use and development density assumptions analyzed in the City’s certified 2016 General Plan EIR, and the Project would not cause any new or peculiar significant environmental impacts.
As discussed below, SAFER’s comments do not constitute substantial evidence requiring additional review under CEQA. The Addendum and supporting technical analyses adequately address potential impacts related to air quality, biological resources, and transportation. The record also demonstrates that Catavina is a separate and independent project that was properly evaluated as part of the cumulative impacts 1749
analysis. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the City’s reliance on the Addendum and CEQA Guidelines section 15183.
I. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Addendum and subsequent review
When a lead agency proceeds with an addendum to a prior IS/MND, the threshold inquiry is whether the prior CEQA document remains relevant to the modified project and whether any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines section 15162 are present. In Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937, the California Supreme Court held that these determinations are predominantly factual and therefore reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. (Id. at pp. 949–953.) The Court emphasized that courts should “tread with extraordinary care” before overturning an agency’s determination to proceed under CEQA’s subsequent-review provisions. (Id. at p. 953.)
However, where the prior CEQA document is a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration, a subsequent EIR or MND is required whenever substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the project modifications may result in a new or more severe significant environmental effect not previously studied. (Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens, supra, 1 Cal.5th at pp. 957–959; Friends of the College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 596, 612.) Thus, an addendum is proper unless the project changes introduce previously unstudied potentially significant environmental impacts requiring “major revisions” to the prior IS/MND.
CEQA Guidelines section 15183
Section 15183 provides streamlined review for projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing general plan policies for which an EIR was certified, unless additional review is needed for project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or site and not previously addressed or mitigated.
The substantial evidence standard applies to the City’s CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 determination. (Lucas v. City of Pomona (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 508, 539 [In section 15183 cases, the substantial evidence test, not the fair argument test, applies]; Hilltop Group, Inc. v County of San Diego (2024) 99 CA5th 890, 910 [no substantial evidence in record to support agency’s denial of 14 Cal Code Regs §15183 exemption].) This highly deferential standard of review means that all reasonable doubts must be resolved in favor of the agency’s determination, and the court may not set aside the agency’s decision even if the opposite conclusion is more reasonable.
II. RESPONSES TO SAFER COMMENTS
Applicability of CEQA Guidelines §15183
SAFER claims that CEQA Guidelines section 15183 does not apply because the Project’s mitigation measures are not “uniformly applied development standards.” This 1750
argument misreads section 15183 and ignores the City’s use of the previously certified 2016 General Plan EIR.
Section 15183 applies to projects that are consistent with the development density established by an existing general plan or zoning for which an EIR was certified, and limits additional environmental review to project-specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project or site, were not analyzed as significant effects in the prior EIR, are potentially significant off-site or cumulative impacts not discussed in the prior EIR, or are based on substantial new information. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15183.) Here, the Project is consistent with the City’s General Plan Town Center Neighborhood designation and PR-22 zoning district. The record further confirms that the Project would not result in peculiar impacts or impacts of greater severity than those previously analyzed in the 2016 General Plan EIR. The City’s appropriately determined that the mitigation measures and General Plan policies from the certified General Plan EIR apply to the Project and no additional environmental review is required.
For biological resources, Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 of the General Plan EIR expressly contemplates project-level biological review, site-specific surveys, and appropriate mitigation where special-status species are found, likely to occur, or may reasonably be inferred to occur1. The Addendum confirms that pre-construction surveys, avoidance measures and payment of applicable habitat conservation fees will reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels and are consistent with, and directly implement, the General Plan EIR’s mitigation framework.
Similarly, for archaeological and paleontological resources, General Plan Policy
10.3 requires preservation of important archaeological and paleontological resources and requires development to include appropriate mitigation to protect the quality and integrity of those resources. That policy is consistent with MM GEO-1 and supports the City’s conclusion that applicable impacts are appropriately addressed through the General Plan EIR’s adopted mitigation and policy framework.
These measures do not render CEQA Guidelines section 15183 inapplicable; rather, they demonstrate that the Project is being reviewed and conditioned in the manner contemplated by the General Plan EIR.
Cumulative Impacts
SAFER claims the City failed to analyze cumulative impacts because the 2022 IS/MND and Addendum did not expressly identify the adjacent Catavina Residential Project as part of the Project’s surrounding land uses. They further claim that the Project will result in cumulative air quality impacts.
SAFER’s comment conflates two separate CEQA concepts: the environmental baseline and cumulative impacts analysis. The CEQA baseline consists of the existing physical environmental conditions against which the Project’s impacts are measured.
1 The Previously certified EIR along with MMRP are available here: https://www.palmdesert.gov/builddevelop/planning 1751
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15125(a).) Accordingly, approved but not yet constructed projects generally are not included in the baseline because the baseline reflects the environmental setting as it physically exists at the time CEQA review commences. Instead, such projects are appropriately considered as part of the cumulative impacts analysis. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15130.) Thus, Catavina’s approval does not make Catavina part of the existing physical baseline for Portola Springs unless and until Catavina is constructed or otherwise physically alters the environment.
Section 4.21, Mandatory Findings of Significance, of the 2022 IS/MND addresses cumulative impacts under Threshold 4.21(b) and concludes there would be less than significant cumulative impacts with mitigation incorporated, where applicable, and no further mitigation is required (see page 4-106 of the 2022 IS/MND). Mitigation measures were identified for significant impacts involving biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources and paleontological resources. The Addendum similarly concludes that the Project would not result in any new or substantially more severe cumulatively considerable impacts than those previously identified in the 2022 IS/MND. (Addendum, p. 81.)
Further, the 2022 IS/MND concluded that the previously approved 402-unit multifamily project would not exceed applicable SCAQMD thresholds2, and the Addendum confirms that the modified Project reduces development intensity, residential population, and VMT compared to the previously analyzed project and would remain below applicable SCAQMD thresholds for construction and operation. Where a project’s emissions remain below applicable significance thresholds, the agency may properly conclude that the project’s contribution to cumulative air quality impacts is not cumulatively considerable. (Citizens for Responsible Equitable Envt’l Dev. v. City of Chula Vista (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 327, 334.)
The Addendum also addresses Catavina in the transportation and VMT analysis.
Appendix F considered information from the Catavina transportation analysis as part of the background traffic and VMT evaluation and confirms that the Portola Springs and Catavina sites are located within the same traffic analysis zone and satisfy the applicable VMT screening criteria. Thus, the Addendum accounts for Catavina in evaluating whether the modified Project would result in new or substantially more severe cumulative impacts.
Finally, cumulative development conditions in the area were already evaluated in the 2016 General Plan EIR, which analyzed full buildout under the General Plan. To the extent SAFER challenges the adequacy of the cumulative analysis in the 2016 General Plan EIR, any such challenge is untimely.
Biological Impacts
SAFER argues that the Project would result in peculiar biological impacts, including habitat fragmentation, wildlife movement impacts, bird-window collisions,
2 The 2022 IS/MND found that short-term air pollutant emissions associated with construction of the proposed project, as well as long-term operational air pollutant emissions associated with project development, including ROG emissions, would remain below South Coast AQMD significance thresholds. (IS/MND, p. 19.)
1752
domestic cat predation, wildlife-vehicle collisions, and cumulative biological impacts.
SAFER also contends that the Addendum inadequately establishes baseline conditions and that mitigation measures are insufficient. The record does not support those claims.
The Addendum is supported by updated biological technical analysis prepared specifically for this Project, including biological reconnaissance surveys, habitat assessment, vegetation mapping, and focused rare plant surveys conducted in 2025. The Addendum identifies the special-status species with potential to occur and includes appropriate mitigation measures. For example, MM BR-2 requires pre-construction surveys and avoidance measures for burrowing owl and nesting birds if construction occurs during the nesting season, as well as pre-construction surveys and avoidance measures for Crotch’s bumble bee if occupied nest resources are detected. (Addendum, p. 25.) These measures are consistent with the General Plan EIR mitigation framework, including MM 4.5-1, which expressly requires project-level biological evaluation and appropriate surveys prior to grading approval, as well as feasible mitigation where special-status species are found, likely to occur, or may reasonably be inferred to occur.
SAFER’s baseline argument improperly conflates observations of wildlife species with evidence of significant biological habitat or impacts. Observation of birds or bats flying over or near the site does not establish that the site provides essential nesting, roosting, breeding, or movement habitat, nor does it establish that the Project would result in a significant impact under CEQA. The Addendum and supporting Biological Resources Technical Report included updated biological surveys and habitat assessments and concluded that impacts would remain less than significant with mitigation. (Appendix B.) SAFER’s assertions regarding habitat fragmentation and wildlife movement do not establish a peculiar or substantially more severe impact. Habitat conversion associated with residential development of the site was previously analyzed in the 2016 General Plan EIR and the 2022 IS/MND. The Biological Resources Technical Report explains that the site is not mapped as a wildlife corridor or habitat linkage under the CVMSHCP and is surrounded by development extending at least two miles in all directions, such that wildlife movement within the Biological Survey Area is unlikely and wildlife corridors and linkages are not considered a biological constraint to development. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the City’s conclusion that the Project would not substantially interfere with regional wildlife movement or habitat connectivity. (Appendix B, p. 22.) SAFER’s theories regarding bird-window collisions, domestic cat predation, and wildlife-vehicle collisions are likewise speculative and unsupported by Project-specific evidence. CEQA does not require analysis of speculative impacts, and SAFER has not identified any applicable CEQA threshold or adopted City standard requiring separate analysis of bird-window collision mortality or domestic cat predation for a one- and twostory residential subdivision in an urban setting. The generalized literature and mortality estimates cited by SAFER are not tied to the Project site and therefore do not constitute substantial evidence of a significant impact. Similarly, SAFER provides no Project-specific evidence demonstrating that traffic associated with the Project would result in significant wildlife mortality. The Project would take access from existing roadways in an already developed area, and the Addendum confirms that the modified Project is less intense than the previously analyzed 402-unit multifamily project. 1753
Finally, SAFER’s cumulative biological impacts argument fails because cumulative development of the area was already evaluated in the 2016 General Plan EIR and the 2022 IS/MND. The Addendum also addresses cumulative conditions and incorporates updated technical analysis where appropriate. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the City’s determination that the Project does not result in peculiar biological impacts that preclude reliance on CEQA Guidelines section 15183 or require additional CEQA review.
Piecemealing
SAFER also argues that the City should have treated Portola Springs and Catavina as a single project, and that separate review amounts to improper piecemealing. SAFER is incorrect.
CEQA piecemealing refers to the impermissible chopping up of a larger project into smaller pieces to evade environmental review. (East Sacramento Partnership for a Livable City v. City of Sacramento (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 281, 293.) Improper piecemealing may also occur where one project legally compels or practically presumes completion of another action. (Banning Ranch Conservancy v. City of Newport Beach (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 1209, 1223.) By contrast, no improper piecemealing occurs, meaning two projects may properly undergo separate environmental review by a public agency, “when the projects have different proponents, serve different purposes, or can be implemented independently.” (Ibid.)
Portola Springs and Catavina are separate and distinct projects that can be independently implemented. The fact that the projects are adjacent, residential in nature, and proposed by the same applicant does not, by itself, transform them into a single CEQA project. Portola Springs is a 156-lot residential project and is a modified, less intense version of a site previously analyzed for up to 402 multifamily units. Catavina is a separate 546-unit residential project on the adjacent site that was separately approved by the City Council in February 2026. Each project can proceed with or without the other, and neither project legally compels nor practically presumes approval or implementation of the other. (See Banning Ranch, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at p. 1223; McCann v. City of San Diego (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 51, 85.)
SAFER identifies no evidence that either project depends on the other for implementation. CEQA does not require independent projects to be combined into a single environmental document merely because they are adjacent, similar in use, or proposed by the same applicant.
1754
1755