CC06 — Rancho Mirage City Council, July 20, 2023 (part 6 of 6)

Response A-5: This comment sets forth the commenter’s view of the applicable legal requirements for evaluating a project’s environmental effects and determining the significance of such effects, however, it does not identify a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the MND in identifying and analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the project. For this reason, no further response is provided. Specific concerns from the commenter are discussed in Comment and Responses A-6 to A-13.

Comment A-6: i. There is a fair argument that the Project may have traffic impacts.

The ND erroneously concludes the Project will not have a significant environmental impact to traffic and congestion, but renders such conclusion without providing substantial evidence to support its finding. The City should conduct a project-specific analysis in the EIR and mitigate the traffic and congestion impacts in order to comply with CEQA’s mandates. As stated earlier, while the courts review an EIR using an “abuse of discretion” standard, “the reviewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on every study or analysis presented by a project proponent in support of its position. A ‘clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference.’” (Berkeley Jets, supra, 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1355, [quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n v.

Regents of University of Cal. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 391 409, fn. 12].)

The ND states that the “hotel will take primary access from the existing Desert Island main gate on Frank Sinatra Drive. Currently, the main gate remains closed to the public, however, to eliminate potential vehicle stacking on Frank Sinatra Drive, the project proposes to keep the gates open during operating hours. Additionally, the resident gate and turnaround on Island Drive will be retained in its existing condition without change. Secondary access to Frank Sinatra Drive will 6-1561

City of Rancho Mirage Page 35
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 be accommodated by widening the existing gated entry at the northwest corner of the golf course from 12- feet to 24 feet to provide secondary emergency vehicle access.” ND, page 9. This shows that the City is aware that there may be significant traffic and congestion impacts and is mitigating the impacts by opening the main gate to eliminate vehicle stacking and widening the secondary access to Frank Sinatra Drive in order to allow for easier traffic circulation. The City should be required to provide a comprehensive analysis on mitigating traffic and congestion in order to determine whether such measures are sufficient to address the inevitable traffic and congestion impacts. It must also address and study the impacts of that very mitigation measure of “opening the main gate to eliminate vehicle stacking and widening the secondary access to Frank Sinatra Drive.”

In addition, it is likely that such mitigation measures posed by the City here are insufficient. For example, it is very likely that the resident gate and turnaround on Island Drive may require expansion or some other change, as the City claims “it will be retained in its existing condition without change.” Id. There are no guarantees that would be the case. As such, the City should require respective conditions of approval or restrictive covenants in all land use documents, include leases, to ensure that the resident gate and turnaround on Island Drive will indeed be retained in its existing condition; the City should also impose a condition of approval that – in the event a change is proposed later – then a new discretionary approval would be required.

As a result, the ND erroneously concludes the Project will not have significant traffic impacts, but renders such conclusion without providing substantial evidence to support the finding. The ND’s no impact findings are also fatally lacking, as a matter of law, for failure to account for the traffic impacts of the mitigation measures and for relying on unsupported speculations that no further expansion will take place, including as a result of the dramatic increase in the intensity and density of land uses the Project proposes.

Response A-6: According to Tiburon Open Space Committee v. County of Marin (May 12, 2022, A159860) __ Cal.Rptr.3d ___ (2022 WL 198892) (Tiburon Open Space Committee) a lead agency is entitled to rely on the expert conclusions of its environmental consultants when evaluating the efficacy of mitigation measures, and it is up to the lead agency, not the courts, to determine if such expert conclusions are credible.

As discussed within the project specific Traffic Analysis and the Negative Declaration (17.2 Pg 116), With the implementation of SB 743, intersection Level of Service (LOS) is not calculated to determine transportation impacts, however it provides information regarding intersection capacity and General Plan consistency for the City. The transportation assessment of LOS was conducted for consistency with the City of Rancho Mirage General Plan and to evaluate the proposed project’s effect on the surrounding transportation network. (17.2 Pg 116). LOS relates directly to congestion regarding intersection function. As noted in the Land Use and Planning section (Section 11) of the MND, the project was determined to be consistent with the General Plan.

As required by the City of Rancho Mirage, the proposed project entrance (Intersection #1 in the TA) was analyzed for peak hour impacts. The TA performed the analysis based on standards of both the City of Rancho Mirage and the Institute of Traffic Engineers and the intersection was 6-1562

City of Rancho Mirage Page 36
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 projected to operate at acceptable LOS at buildout as proposed (without modifications to the existing entrance conditions) (17.2 Pg. 120).

A queuing analysis was performed along the project driveway, intersection of Island Drive and Frank Sinatra Drive for EAPC (2024) traffic conditions to determine the turn pocket lengths and lane geometries necessary to accommodate near term 95th percentile queues and recommend storage lengths for the turning movements. The queuing analysis was conducted for the weekday AM and PM peak hours using the SimTraffic modeling software. Results are provided in the TA in Appendix E. Adequate queue length is an industry standard for determining turning lane storage and intersection spacing requirements. Review of SimTraffic simulation results indicate that the turn lane queue is anticipated to clear in a timely manner and that the provided pocket length is adequate to accommodate the 95th percentile queue (17.2 Pg 121).

As mentioned in the MND and the TA, the existing clubhouse will remain and continue to provide services to golfers, Desert Island residents, and the general public with occasional events for up to 300 persons. It is anticipated that events with more than 300 persons in the existing clubhouse building would require a Temporary Use Permit, accompanied by a parking and traffic management plan if necessary. (17.2 Pg 114). These events would be expected to take place mostly on weekends outside of the Peak Hours of weekday traffic.

If further expansion of the project is proposed in the future, beyond the improvements covered in this MND, the expansion would be considered a separate Project and would be processed through the City for review and approval. That process would include a Project specific CEQA analysis.

Comment A-7: ii. There is a fair argument that the Project may have aesthetics impacts.

The ND concedes that “[t]he subjective value of views is generally affected by the presence and intensity of neighboring man-made improvements, such as structures, overhead utilities, and landscaping, often in relation to the aesthetic quality offered by a natural background that may include open space, mountain ranges, or a natural landmark feature. The proximity and massing of structures, landscaping and other visual barriers interact with the visibility of surrounding environments to restrict or enhance the value of local scenic views. The evaluation of scenic vistas takes into consideration the physical compatibility of proposed projects in relation to land uses, transportation corridors, or other vantage points, where the enjoyment of unique vistas may exist, such as residential areas or scenic roads.” Id. at 14.

The City claims that the Project will not result in any significant environmental impact to aesthetics because the Desert Island Specific Plan contemplated the Project.

However, a closer read of the Desert Island Specific Plan will show that this is not factually accurate. The Desert Island Specific Plan contemplated the construction of two additional residential towers along with tennis and clubhouse expansions. Id. The Project here far exceeds that scope. The Project includes the development of a 34-key boutique hotel with 11 private residences, outdoor gatherings areas, a pool, a yoga facility, a new golf training park, a maintenance building with parking. Id. Moreover, the proposed hotel will include four (4) one- story buildings. Because such developments, and their consequential environmental impacts, were 6-1563

City of Rancho Mirage Page 37
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 not contemplated or studied in the Desert Island Specific Plan, the City must conduct a comprehensive environmental assessment to account for these new and additional developments and draft an EIR to mitigate such impacts. Because the proposed Project was, in fact, not contemplated by the Desert Island Specific Plan, the City’s argument that there is no impact to aesthetics fails as wholly unsupported.

Also, the ND states that “Existing sources of light and glare surrounding the project are primarily attributed to the existing residential buildings southeast of the project and the clubhouse east of the project. The lighting utilized for the residential buildings typically consists of low-intensity, wall-mounted or postmounted, downward-oriented fixtures illuminating sidewalks, doorways, outdoor areas, signs, landscaping, and parking lots.” Id. at 31.

As such, the proposed Project will contribute greatly to the light impacts to the surrounding neighborhood. This is because the “Project development includes a 34-key hotel with supporting amenities, 11 residential units, a golf training facility, a maintenance building, overflow parking area, and associated infrastructure.” Id. Although the ND declares that the Project will utilize low-intensity and non-reflective lights, there is no guarantee for such optimism and no analysis that evaluates what the overall cumulative impacts will be from using such lights; neither is there any enforceable mitigation measure by which to gauge that such lights will be used so as not to impact the adjacent residential community or migratory birds.

In addition, the ND concedes that the current topography remains relatively flat: “The approximately 17.2-acre project site has been previously developed, and currently operates as a part of the Desert Island golf course and overflow parking area. The site exhibits a predominantly flat topography with parking stalls, landscaped golf features, developed drive aisles, clubhouse, and maintenance building.” Id. at 15.

The proposed developments here will significantly change the flat topography and obstruct views of scenic vistas.

For these reasons, a comprehensive environmental assessment must be conducted and the City should draft an EIR to study and mitigate the Project’s reasonably foreseeable and in fact inevitable environmental impacts to aesthetics.

Response A-7: In this comment, the commenter confuses the Desert Island Specific Plan with the Specific Plan Amendment. The commenter thinks that the MND states that the Desert Island Specific Plan contemplates the project. The commenter is incorrect in thinking this, as the MND analyzes the impact of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment project. The existing Desert Island Specific Plan was adopted in 1991 and acts as the document governing the design guidelines and development standards for the Desert Island area. The project proposes a Specific Plan Amendment, which will develop approximately 17.2-acre area within Desert Island, involving a 34-key boutique hotel, 11 private residences, and passive outdoor gathering areas, tennis, pool and yoga amenities. A new golf training park and maintenance building with parking will replace the existing driving range and old maintenance building displaced by the proposed project. The proposed hotel will include four (4) one-story buildings. This project is analyzed throughout the 6-1564

City of Rancho Mirage Page 38
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 MND. The aesthetics discussion analyzes the impacts of the proposed Specific Plan Amendment to be submitted concurrently with the environmental document.

Threshold discussion c. provides a comparative analysis of the proposed project and the existing Desert Island Specific Plan (approved in 1991), since the 1991 Specific Plan is the governing document for the Desert Island area, and governs the scenic quality of the Specific Plan area. The MND provides a consistency analysis in Table I-1. Impacts were determined to be less than significant.

The commenter is also concerned with new light generated by the proposed project. With regard to light impacts, a photometric analysis has been conducted to measure the light foot-candles both within the project premises and along its perimeters. This comprehensive analysis includes a detailed calculation summary, evaluating each specific area of the project, which demonstrates that the average illuminance measured in foot-candles remains either below or within the maximum illuminance limits. In instances where certain areas were measured at the maximum illuminance, such measurements were confined to areas where the foot-candle illuminance had a maximum value of "0.00". Furthermore, the photometric analysis encompasses detailed information pertaining to light fixtures and accessories that fully comply with the most recent Title 24 Standards. Based on the conclusive findings derived from the photometric analysis, it has been determined that no further analysis is necessary.

Finally, the commenter claims that the proposed development will significantly change the flat topography and obstruct views of the scenic vistas. However, the commenter does not provide evidence of how this will occur. The MND, however, provides a line-sight analysis starting on page 15, and in Exhibits I-1 through I-10 illustrating the project’s impact on scenic vistas. The discussion analyzes the project’s impact on scenic vistas. No further comment is required.

Comment A-8: iii. There is a fair argument that the Project may have hazards and hazardous materials impacts.

The ND lacks an adequate analysis of whether the Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, including both during the construction and operation of the Project. The IS/MND also lacks the necessary analysis to adequately determine whether the Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accidence conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

The Project’s construction will involve the management and use of oils, fuels and other potentially flammable substances. ND, page 74. The ND does not state the quantities or nature of these products, but rather states that it “would be limited to what is necessary to carry out construction of the project.” Id. The Project anticipates the transportation of hazardous materials to the Project site as well as the storage of the same in designated controlled areas at the Project site. Id.

The ND does not state where such hazardous materials will be stored or what protocols will be followed in the transportation or storage of such materials, but rather states that “the risk involved with handling these materials is considerably reduced” if the materials are “handled properly by 6-1565

City of Rancho Mirage Page 39
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 trained individuals and consistent with the manufacturer’s instructions.” Id. at 74. As such, the ND concedes that there may be a risk in handling and transportation of such materials, but fails to provide any discussion about what those risks are, who those risks can affect, any potential environmental impacts that may result from such risks, and enforceable and binding ways to mitigate damages resulting therefrom.

Further, the ND states that “perimeter controls (fencing with wind screen), linear sediment barriers (gravel bags, fiber rolls, or silt fencing), and access restrictions (gates) would help prevent temporary impacts.” Id. at 74. However, it is not clear where such controls will be placed, in what quantities, what impacts such controls will be reducing, and whether such controls are effective at reducing the environmental impacts anticipated during the Project’s construction. The ND states that “[w]ith such standard measures in place, less than significant impacts are anticipated during construction.” Id.

Apart from being unsupported, the ND’s reliance on standard or regulatory measures is legally improper in an ND context. CEQA expressly prohibits the City’s blanket inference that compliance with regulations will necessarily and automatically reduce impacts to the level of insignificance, especially for purposes of fair argument in NDs, as here. “Compliance with the threshold does not relieve a lead agency of the obligation to consider substantial evidence indicating that the project’s environmental effects may still be significant.” CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b)(2) (emph. added). In fact, the City’s above-noted reasoning and reliance on thresholds or regulatory compliance has been rejected since 2002:

“In the wake of our decision in Communities for a Better Environment, however, such thresholds cannot be used to determine automatically whether a given effect will or will not be significant. . . . notwithstanding compliance with a pertinent threshold of significance, the agency must still consider any fair argument that a certain environmental effect may be significant.” Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 1099, 1108–1109 (“Amador”), referencing Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 110- 114, which invalidated the proposed Guidelines 15064(h) for fair argument. (Emph. added).

In addition, for impacts during the Project’s operations, the ND states that the hazardous materials that would be used “involve the handling and application of cleaning agents, building maintenance products, paints and solvents, and similar items [that will] be stored on-site.” Id. The ND circumvents any discussion about the quantity, nature, use, handling, and storage of such materials, and merely states “[t]hese potentially hazardous materials would not be present in significant quantities to pose a significant hazard to public health and safety or the environment.” Id.

In rendering its less than significant finding, the ND relies on regulatory compliance without conducting any fact specific analysis. It states, “By following the appropriate federal, state, and regional regulatory standards, less than significant impacts are expected pertaining to significant hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into 6-1566

City of Rancho Mirage Page 40
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 the environment. Less than significant impacts are expected.” Id. As noted earlier, such reliance on regulatory compliance is legally improper for purposes of the ND.

The ND has provided little to no information to adequately conclude that there will be a “less than significant impact” with respect to hazards and hazardous materials and deferring such critical analysis to after the Project is approved violates CEQA. See San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 645 (mitigation measures requiring future surveys and management plans for listed wildlife species improperly deferred analysis and rendered an EIR inadequate); see also Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal. App. 4th 260 (found an impermissible deferral of mitigation to address a protected species, the Quino checkerspot butterfly).

In sum, the City should be required to provide specific information on hazards and hazardous materials before the Project can proceed and before its ND could be issued. The ND fails to describe: (i) the nature, quantity, and types of hazardous materials that will be transported to and used at the Project site; (ii) the types of risks associated with the handling of such materials; or (iii) any potential mitigation measures to prevent or lower risks from such hazardous materials to human health and the environment. Without an adequate analysis of what the Project operations will entail, including what measures the Applicant will propose to protect employees, visitors, and the natural environment from foreseeable spills and accidents in the transport, handling, and use of such hazardous materials, the City lacks substantial evidence to support its hazard findings in the ND and there is a fair argument that the Project, on the known facts, may indeed have hazards impacts, requiring an EIR.

Response A-8: The commenter claims that the MND did not describe (i) the nature, quantity, and types of hazardous materials that will be transported and used at the project site; (ii) the types of risks associated with the handling of such materials; or (iii) any potential mitigation measures to prevent or lower risks from such hazardous materials to human health and the environment. The commenter questions where the hazardous materials will be stored and certain protocols during project construction. Typical hazardous materials used during construction includes fuel oil, gasoline, solvents (i.e., paints, adhesives, cleaning fluids), sealants, etc. As stated on pages 74 and 75 of the MND, the implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) requires a list of potential pollutant sources and the identification of construction areas where additional control measures are necessary to prevent pollutants from being released on-site or into the surroundings. Best management practices (BMPs) are necessary for proper material delivery and storage; material use; and spill prevention and control. These temporary measures outline the required physical improvements and procedures to prevent impacts of pollutants and hazardous materials to workers and the environment during construction. The SWPPP, which is both required prior to project construction for the City of Rancho Mirage, and the State Water Board approval.

The use of perimeter controls and project access are determined in the SWPPP for City approval.

As stated throughout the MND, the project proposes 34 hotel keys, 11 residences, a golf course maintenance area, and associated amenities and improvements. The residential and golf uses will be similar to the uses existing on the Desert Island area. Additionally, hotel and residential uses do not include the use of hazardous materials in large quantities as industrial or certain commercial 6-1567

City of Rancho Mirage Page 41
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 uses do. Resort and residential uses are common throughout the City and the project will be consistent with the uses surrounding the site.

The MND also discusses the potential use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials associated with the project in discussions a/b, starting on page 74. As discussed on page 75, the project proposes the operation of swimming pool. As stated in the MND, the project is required by State and local regulations to implement features during project construction and operation that would mitigate release of hazardous materials that would negatively impact the environment or people. Page 75-76 discusses the existing regulations that apply to the storage of hazardous materials, including the County of Riverside’s requirements for permitting businesses that handle hazardous materials in conformance with Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code.

The County’s regulations require the applicant to obtain a permit to store these hazardous materials on the site and electronically submit a business plan in the Statewide Informational Management System. Although it is not likely that the project will store, handle or use hazardous materials during project operation due to the residential and resort uses, the MND states that the project will comply with federal, state, and regional regulatory standards which ensure impacts related to the release of hazardous materials associated with the project and public pools will be less than significant. Compliance of these procedures will ensure that impacts due to the use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant during project operation.

By adhering to and meeting all relevant local, State, and federal standards, the project will effectively address any potential impacts arising from the handling of hazardous substances during both the construction and operational phases. Therefore, no further discussion on this matter is needed.

Comment A-9: iv. There is a fair argument the Project may have impacts to biological resources.

The ND claims that “given the project sites current use as a golf course, and its proximity to other existing development, the project site would not be expected to be a part of or contain migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites. The project is site not located near any existing drainages that would support wildlife corridors nor is it located in a known wildlife corridor.

Therefore, the proposed project will not interfere with movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species and no impacts are expected.” Id. at 45.

However, Coachella Valley is known to have migratory birds fly through. “When snow birds return to the desert from northern climes, migratory birds are arriving here from all over the Americas. We have a rare inland climate that supports active bird populations throughout the winter months. This is the payoff for living here, because while everywhere else it's dormant and cold, the birds and bees also enjoy the winter sun and warm days.”9

Because the Coachella Valley is known for having migratory birds pass through, a comprehensive environmental analysis should be conducted to determine the Project’s light and noise impacts to these migratory species and an EIR should be drafted to include mitigation measures to reduce such impacts.

6-1568

City of Rancho Mirage Page 42
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 Response A-9: In relation to noise impacts, an extensive Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis was prepared by William Maddux specifically for the proposed project. This comprehensive analysis thoroughly assessed the potential noise levels arising from both construction and operational activities. The Noise and Vibration Impact Analysis has definitively concluded that the anticipated noise level contributions during the project's operational phase meet the significance criteria for noise level increases. It has further been determined that the project's operational noise level increases at all sensitive receiver locations will remain below the threshold of significance.

Additionally, the analysis of construction noise indicates that the nearest receiver locations will fully comply with the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during project construction activities. Furthermore, the project will consistently adhere to all applicable local noise ordinances throughout its construction and operational lifespan.

With regard to light impacts, a photometric analysis has been conducted to measure the light foot- candles both within the project premises and along its perimeters. This comprehensive analysis includes a detailed calculation summary, evaluating each specific area of the project, which demonstrates that the average illuminance measured in foot-candles remains either below or within the maximum illuminance limits. In instances where certain areas were measured at the maximum illuminance, such measurements were confined to areas where the foot-candle illuminance had a maximum value of "0.00". Furthermore, the photometric analysis encompasses detailed information pertaining to light fixtures and accessories that fully comply with the 2022 Title 24 Standards. Based on the conclusive findings derived from the photometric analysis, it has been determined that no further analysis is necessary.

Comment A-10: v. There is a fair argument the Project may have impacts to geology and soils.

The ND provides: “Seismically induced ground shaking is anticipated in the entire Coachella Valley, due to the multiple northwest-southeast trending faults in the region. Although these faults produced the unique topography in the Coachella Valley (high mountain ranges and a low valley floor), the major faults, such as the San Andreas Fault, have the potential to produce strong shaking during a seismic event. The strength of ground shaking is accredited to the distance from the fault; where the intensity of the seismic shaking decreases the further it is from the causative fault. The Rancho Mirage 2017 General Plan Update Safety Element indicates that ground shaking during an earthquake is the most significant seismic hazard that will impact Rancho Mirage.” Id. at page 62.

In fact, the approximately 17.2-acre Project property proposes the development of a 34-key boutique hotel, 11 private duplex-style residences, outdoor gathering areas and amenities, expanded onsite parking, a golf training park, a new maintenance building, and associated improvements. The ND’s admissions of seismic impacts potential along with the mass of the Project creates a fair argument that the Project may exacerbate the impacts on the environment.

Yet, the ND does not provide any analysis on the safety of the Project site against strong seismic ground shaking, and instead relies on regulatory compliance in rendering a less than significant impact. It reads: “To ensure the safety of the project site against strong seismic ground shaking, structures shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the most current edition of the California Building Code (CBC). The project shall comply with the most current seismic design 6-1569

City of Rancho Mirage Page 43
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 coefficients and ground motion parameters and all applicable provisions of the CBC.” Id. Yet, as mentioned earlier, the City’s reliance on regulatory compliance is legally improper. Moreover, there is no evidence that the CBC was enacted to reduce and mitigate the impacts of any project on the environment to the level of insignificance, required for an ND here.

Moreover, not only does the ND erroneously conclude that the Project’s impacts are “less than significant,” it defers any analysis of such impacts for after the Project is approved. The ND has provided little to no information to adequately conclude that there will be a “less than significant impact” on seismically induced ground shaking and deferring such critical analysis to after the Project is approved does not comport with CEQA. See San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v.

County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal. App. 4th 645 (mitigation measures requiring future surveys and management plans for listed wildlife species improperly deferred analysis and rendered an EIR inadequate); see also Preserve Wild Santee v. City of Santee (2012) 210 Cal. App. 4th 260 (found an impermissible deferral of mitigation to address a protected species, the Quino checkerspot butterfly).

The City should be required to provide such information and study/mitigate the Project’s geology impacts before issuing an ND and before the Project can proceed.

Response A-10: The IS/MND have been conducted in accordance with the Rancho Mirage General Plan, the Riverside County General Plan, the Riverside County General Plan Geotechnical Report, and the latest California Building Code (CBC) standards to assess the geology and soil conditions of the proposed project. The aforementioned sources were carefully examined to determine that there would be less than significant impacts from geologic and soil conditions on the project site. It is important to note that the information contained in these sources is relevant to the project and accurately reflects the conditions of the project site. Furthermore, the project will remain in compliance with the CBC Standards throughout its construction and operational phases.

Comment A-11: vi. There is a fair argument the Project may have hydrology and water impacts.

CEQA requires the City to quantify and analyze the Project’s impact on water resources. The City should analyze whether the Project will need to rely upon groundwater resources, and if so, the amount of groundwater it will be relying on in order to supply the Project. This Project lies within the Indio Subbasin, which is governed by the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”), a state law requiring that groundwater basins are managed to achieve sustainability.

The Coachella Valley Water District submitted the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (“Alternative Plan”) as an alternative to SGMA’s required Groundwater Sustainability Plan, which was approved by the Department of Water Resources in 2019.

Coachella Valley Water District claims that recharge of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin is “possible due to a supply of imported water from the State Water Project and the Colorado River.”10 However, State Water Project and Colorado River water resources are decreasing given the current state of our climate. On March 28, 2022, the California Governor called on all water agencies to move to Level 2 of their Water Shortage Contingency Plans and take conservation actions to reduce water use. Negative Declaration, page 83. The Director of 6-1570

City of Rancho Mirage Page 44
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 California’s Department of Water Resources (“DWR”) stated, “[w]e are experiencing climate change whiplash in real time” and “[w]hile we had hoped for more rain and snow, DWR has been preparing for a third consecutive year of drought” by reducing State Water Project allocation to 5% of requested supplies for 2022, which is 10% less than the 15% allocation previously set by DWR.11 The Colorado River is also in an extreme state of drought, with water supply at historically low levels. The U.S. Department of Interior stated that “[p]rolonged drought and low runoff conditions accelerated by climate change have led to historically low water levels in Lakes Powell and Mead,”12 and in August 2021, federal officials cut Colorado River water allocations to several southwestern states.13

Without a detailed assessment of the Project’s water demands, it is unclear whether it will be able to meet or significantly impact the Alternative Plan’s goal to reliably meet current and future water demands in a sustainable yet cost-effective manner.

Response A-11: The analysis provided in the Hydrology and Water Quality Section adequately takes into consideration the size, scale, and context of the proposed project within an existing resort complex to support its findings. The section adequately discusses the regional efforts toward groundwater management and sustainability while accounting for the implementation of Water Shorter Contingency Plans that were in effect at the time of assessment. The project would not prevent or otherwise interfere with the implementation of such contingency measures as they become applicable during the life of the project. As a form of new development, the proposed facilities would benefit from the use of the most effective indoor and outdoor water conservation fixtures and practices compared to existing forms of development. Therefore, a detailed assessment would not further explain or establish a substantial reduction on the impacts that are currently found to be less than significant.

Comment A-12: vii. The Project is not consistent with the City’s land use and planning policies, suggesting that the Project may have land use impacts.

The project is located within the Desert Island and Desert Island Specific Plan area. As stated above, the City claims that the Project will not result in any significant environmental impacts because the Desert Island Specific Plan contemplated the Project. However, a closer read of the Desert Island Specific Plan will show that this is not factually accurate. The Desert Island Specific Plan contemplated the construction of two additional residential towers along with tennis and clubhouse expansions. Id. However, the Project here involves more than what was contemplated by the Specific Plan. The Project incudes the development of a 34-key boutique hotel with 11 private residences, outdoor gatherings areas, tennis, pool, and yoga facilities, a new golf training park, expanded onsite parking, and a maintenance building with parking. Id. Moreover, the proposed hotel will include four (4) one-story buildings. The existing driving range and maintenance building will be removed to make room for the new facilities. The new hotel, in conjunction with the existing clubhouse, are intended to be used as a high-end wedding venue with guests booking overnight stays.

Because such developments are not contemplated in the Desert Island Specific Plan, the Project is inconsistent with the City’s land use and planning policies.

6-1571

City of Rancho Mirage Page 45
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 Response A-12: The Specific Plan Amendment, which covers approximately 17.2 acres of the total 160-acre Desert Island Specific Plan area, contemplates the proposed project, as discussed throughout the MND. See pages 88 through 92 for a comparative analysis of the proposed project (i.e., the Specific Plan Amendment) with the Desert Island Specific Plan, which is currently the document governing Desert Island, as well as the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code. Impacts are less than significant and no further analysis is required.

Comment A-13: viii. The ND fails to support its public services impacts with substantial evidence.

As stated above, this demonstrates that the City is aware that there may be a significant impact to public services access such as emergency vehicles/services, and is mitigating the impacts by opening the main gate to eliminate vehicle stacking and widening the secondary access to Frank Sinatra Drive in order to allow for easier traffic circulation. The City should be required to provide a comprehensive analysis on mitigating any impacts to public and emergency services impacts in order to determine whether such measures proposed here are sufficient.

The ND’s findings are also fatally lacking, as a matter of law, for failure to account for the public services impacts, including as a result of the dramatic increase in the intensity and density of land uses the Project proposes.

Response A-13: As stated on page 127 of the MND, a queuing analysis was performed along the project driveway, intersection of Island Drive and Frank Sinatra Drive for EAPC (2024) traffic conditions to determine the turn pocket lengths and lane geometries necessary to accommodate near term 95th percentile queues and recommend storage lengths for the turning movements. The queuing analysis was conducted for the weekday AM and PM peak hours using the SimTraffic modeling software. Adequate queue length is an industry standard for determining turning lane storage and intersection spacing requirements.

The project will be developed in accordance with City of Rancho Mirage design guidelines. The proposed project will provide adequate access to emergency response vehicles, as required by the City of Rancho Mirage and in accordance with the Fire Department review and requirements. Site 6-1572

City of Rancho Mirage Page 46
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 plan review would include in-depth analysis of emergency access to the site to ensure proper access to facilities. The proposed site plan provides one primary proposed vehicular access point and one secondary access point. The design details of the vehicular driveways will be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and the City.

The project is anticipated to provide proper premises identification with legible site name, address numbers, and clear signage indicating the site access points. Operational fire hydrants and extinguishers are also required in accordance with the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code.

Prior to construction, both the Fire Department and Police Department will review the project site plan to ensure safety measures are addressed, including emergency access. The project is not anticipated to result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts are less than significant and additional analysis is not required.

Comment A-14: IV. CONCLUSION.

In view of the above-noted concerns, SWMSRCC respectfully requests that the City conduct a comprehensive environmental review of the Project and draft an EIR to assess and mitigate the Project’s environmental impacts in order to comply with CEQA.

Response A-14: This comment concludes the letter. However, based on the Reponses to Comments A-2 through A-13, it is concluded that the project will not result in adverse impacts on traffic, aesthetics, hazards and hazardous materials, biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology, land use and planning, and public services. The findings in the associated responses conclude that the project will result in less than significant impacts, as determined in the MND.

6-1573

City of Rancho Mirage Page 47
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 Letter B – California Department of Fish and Wildlife

6-1574

City of Rancho Mirage Page 48
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023

6-1575

City of Rancho Mirage Page 49
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023

6-1576

City of Rancho Mirage Page 50
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023

6-1577

City of Rancho Mirage Page 51
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023

6-1578

City of Rancho Mirage Page 52
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023

6-1579

City of Rancho Mirage Page 53
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023

6-1580

City of Rancho Mirage Page 54
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023

6-1581

City of Rancho Mirage Page 55
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023

6-1582

City of Rancho Mirage Page 56
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023

6-1583

City of Rancho Mirage Page 57
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 CDFW Comments and Responses

Comment B-1: The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) received a Notice of Intent to Adopt an ND from the City of Rancho Mirage for the Project pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines.

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

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

Comment B-2: CDFW Role

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

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

CDFW is also submitting comments as a Responsible Agency under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21069; CEQA Guidelines, § 15381.) CDFW expects that it may need to exercise regulatory authority as provided by the Fish and Game Code. As proposed, for example, the Project may be subject to CDFW’s lake and streambed alteration regulatory authority. (Fish & G. Code, § 1600 et seq.) Likewise, to the extent implementation of the Project as proposed may result in “take” as defined by State law of any species protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Fish & G. Code, § 2050 et seq.), the project proponent may seek related take authorization as provided by the Fish and Game Code.

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

Comment B-3: Project Description Summary

Proponent: City of Rancho Mirage

Objective: The objective of the Project is to develop a resort hotel within the Desert Island community. A General Plan Zoning Map Amendment (GPZMA22-0002) will change the zoning 6-1584

City of Rancho Mirage Page 58
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 from “Open Space-Private (OS-PV)” to “Resort Hotel (Rs-H)” for the proposed hotel and residences, and a Specific Plan Amendment (SPA22-0002) will introduce hotel use to the Desert Island Specific Plan. The land (17.2 acres) within the Desert Island community will be repurposed to include a new 34-key hotel comprised of four 1-story buildings totaling 33,940 square feet, 11 private residences totaling 56,844 square feet, hotel grounds for guest use with tennis, pool, 852 square foot café, cabana, and 2,572 square feet for yoga amenities, along with additional onsite parking totaling 376 spaces. The proposed hotel and residences will be located west of the existing clubhouse. A new golf training park and 7,818 square foot golf maintenance building will replace the existing driving range and old maintenance building. Secondary access to Frank Sinatra Drive will be accommodated by widening the existing gated entry at the northwest corner of the golf course from 12 feet to 24 feet.

The Project would be constructed in four phases. The first phase would develop a portion of the southerly hotel with outdoor recreation activities, yoga pavilion, maintenance building with parking, and the proposed secondary access to Frank Sinatra Drive. Phase two would develop residences 7 and 8 on the western side of the site. Phase three would develop residences 5, 6, 9, and 10. Phase four would develop the northerly hotel, residences 1, 2, 3, and 4, and the proposed golf training facility. The southern hotel pad would be left or reseeded with live turf until constructed. The Project construction activities are expected to occur in the following stages: site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating.

Location: The Project is located at the southwest corner of Frank Sinatra Drive and Bob Hope Drive, on approximately 17.2 acres within the Desert Island Residential Community and Golf Course in the City of Rancho Mirage, Riverside County, California (33.771990, -116.412801).

The Project encompasses Accessor’s Parcel Numbers 688-040-001, 688-050-005, 688-060-006, and 688-060-008. Land surrounding the parcels includes residential communities with accompanying golf courses. Lands to the northeast and northwest corners of the property across Frank Sinatra Drive are vacant. The Project is located within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) boundary. The Project is within the Indio subbasin of the Coachella Valley Groundwater Basin.

Timeframe: Construction is expected to begin in 2023 with full buildout by 2024.

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

Comment B-4: Comments and Recommendations

CDFW has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish, wildlife, native plants, and habitat necessary for biologically sustainable populations of those species (i.e., biological resources). CDFW offers the comments and recommendations below to assist the City of Rancho Mirage in adequately identifying and/or mitigating the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, direct and indirect impacts on fish and wildlife (biological) resources. The 6-1585

City of Rancho Mirage Page 59
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 ND has not adequately identified and disclosed the Project’s impacts (i.e., direct, indirect, and cumulative) to biological resources and whether those impacts are less than significant.

CDFW’s comments and recommendations on the ND are explained in greater detail below and summarized here. The ND lacks a complete and accurate assessment of biological resources on the Project site. CDFW recommends that additional information and analyses be added to a revised ND, along with avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures that reduce impacts to less than significant.

Existing Environmental Setting

Compliance with CEQA is predicated on a complete and accurate description of the environmental setting that may be affected by the proposed Project. CDFW is concerned that the assessment of the existing environmental setting has not been adequately analyzed in the ND. CDFW is concerned that without a complete and accurate description of the existing environmental setting, the ND may provide an incomplete analysis of Project-related environmental impacts.

CDFW is concerned that no biological field assessment was conducted for the ND. The Project site is currently located with the Desert Island golf course and is adjacent to a 25-acre lake.

Vegetation and water features associated with golf courses frequently attract migratory and nesting birds; graded areas left vacant during pauses in construction can attract ground squirrels and burrowing owls; and construction noise and artificial light at night can impact wildlife on the Project site and in the surrounding area.

Mitigation Measures

CDFW is concerned that no mitigation measures are proposed in the ND to avoid or reduce impacts to biological resources to below a level of significance. To support the City of Rancho Mirage in ensuring that Project impacts to biological resources are reduced to a level that is less than significant, CDFW recommends adding mitigation measures for Coachella Valley MSHCP compliance, burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), nesting birds, construction noise, and artificial nighttime lightning.

Response B-4: See Responses B-5 through B-13 for discussion of mitigation regarding biological resources.

Comment B-5: I. Project Description and Related Impact Shortcoming

Comment #1: Number of Residences

Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) document, Pages #7 & 9

Issue: There is a discrepancy in the IS/ND Project description and phasing timeline regarding the number of private residences to be constructed.

6-1586

City of Rancho Mirage Page 60
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 Specific impact: The IS/ND states (p. 7) that the Project will repurpose 17.2 acres of the existing Desert Island community to include 11 private residences. However, the phasing timeline in the IS/ND (p. 9) lists the construction timeline of residences 1 through 10 (10 total). The IS/ND should clarify the correct number of private residences to be constructed and provide an accurate description of the accompanying Project timeline.

Evidence impact would be significant: CEQA is predicated on a complete and accurate description of the proposed Project. Without a complete and accurate project description, the ND likely provides an incomplete assessment of Project-related impacts to biological resources.

CDFW has identified gaps in information related to the project description.

CDFW Recommendation: The ND should include the appropriate number of private residences to be constructed. Analysis and appropriate mitigation measures to avoid and reduce impacts to biological resources resulting from construction for the Project should be included in a revised ND.

Response B-5: The phasing discussion within the MND will be revised to state the following to include the “owner residence” which could be considered the “11th residence” (additions indicated by underline, removal of text indicated by strikethrough):

“The project will be constructed in four phases. The first phase would develop a portion of the southerly hotel with outdoor recreation amenities, yoga pavilion, golf training facility, maintenance building with parking, and the proposed secondary access to Frank Sinatra Drive (along the west side of Desert Island). Phase two would develop residences 7 and 8, at the western side of the site. Phase three would develop residences 5, 6, 9 and 10¸and the maintenance area to the east. Finally, phase four would develop the northerly hotel, residences 1 through 4, and the owner residence, and the proposed golf training facility. The southern hotel pad will be left undisturbed or reseeded with live turf until constructed.”

The minor revisions to the phasing plan do not impact the findings determined for biological resources since the acreage did not change.

Comment B-6: Comment #2: Timing of Construction and Site Inactivity

IS/ND document, Page #9

Issue: The ND does not analyze impacts to biological resources associated with the timing of Project construction.

Specific impact: The IS/ND states (p. 9) that the southern hotel pad will be left or reseeded with live turf until constructed. In the interim period between grading and construction of the hotel, environmental conditions may change. Grading and leaving a site inactive may result in the area becoming occupied by wildlife that utilize disturbed areas (e.g., ground squirrels and burrowing owl).

6-1587

City of Rancho Mirage Page 61
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 Evidence impact would be significant: CEQA is predicated on a complete and accurate description of the proposed Project. Without a complete and accurate project description, the ND likely provides an incomplete assessment of Project-related impacts to biological resources.

CDFW has identified gaps in information related to the project description.

CDFW Recommendation: The ND should analyze impacts to biological resources resulting from an extended timeline for Project activities and pauses in construction. The ND should acknowledge that wildlife may move into disturbed or graded sites when construction is paused. The ND should acknowledge that preconstruction surveys for biological resources will need to be repeated prior Project activities and after pauses in construction to assess the presence of biological resources and to avoid or reduce impacts to less than significant. Analysis and appropriate mitigation measures to avoid and reduce impacts to biological resources resulting from the timing of construction for the Project should be included in a revised ND.

Response B-6: The MND acknowledges that the southern hotel pad in Phase 4 will be left undisturbed or reseeded with live turf until constructed. The stabilized hotel pad will be impacted by proposed ongoing construction activities, existing golf course and landscape maintenance activities and existing golf course use that work to discourage habitation. However, the undisturbed or reseeded areas may result in the habitation of wildlife onsite. The lead agency can condition the project to implement pre-construction surveys as appropriate.

Comment B-7: Comment #3: Landscaping

IS/ND document, Page #8

Issue: The ND lacks a description of the type of landscaping that will be installed and maintained over the life of the Project.

Specific impact: The IS/ND states (p. 8) that landscaping, including trees, shrubs, and accent plants to complement the desert environment, is planned throughout the Project site. However, no further details are provided.

CDFW has identified gaps in information related to the project description.

CDFW Recommendation: To ameliorate the water demands of this Project, CDFW recommends incorporation of water-wise concepts in any Project landscape design plans. In particular, CDFW recommends xeriscaping with locally native California species and installing water-efficient and targeted irrigation systems (such as drip irrigation). Native plants support butterflies, birds, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, bees, and other pollinators that evolved with those plants, more information on native plants suitable for the Project location and nearby nurseries is available at CALSCAPE: https://calscape.org/ . Local water agencies/districts and resource conservation districts in your area may be able to provide information on plant nurseries that carry locally native species, and some facilities display drought-tolerant locally native species 6-1588

City of Rancho Mirage Page 62
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 demonstration gardens. Information on drought-tolerant landscaping and water-efficient irrigation systems is available on California’s Save our Water website: https://saveourwater.com/ .

CDFW also recommends that the ND include recommendations regarding landscaping from Section 4.0 of the CVMSHCP “Table 4-112: Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping” (pp. 4-180 to 4-182; https://cvmshcp.org/plan-documents/) .

Response B-7: The Lead Agency can condition that prohibited species (reference Section 4.0 of the CVMSHCP “Table 4-112: Coachella Valley Native Plants Recommended for Landscaping”) shall not be included in the Specific Plan plant palette.

Comment B-8: II. Environmental Setting and Related Impact Shortcomings

Comment #4: Assessment of Biological Resources

IS/ND document, Section #4, Pages #44 & 45

Issue: The ND does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project’s significant, or potentially significant, impacts to biological resources.

Specific impact: The ND lacks a recent general field assessment of biological resources located within the Project footprint and surrounding areas. The Project site is located with the Desert Island golf course and is adjacent to a 25-acre lake. Vegetation and water features associated with golf courses frequently attract migratory and nesting birds; graded areas left vacant during pauses in construction can attract ground squirrels and burrowing owls; and construction noise and artificial light at night can impact wildlife in the surrounding area.

Evidence impact would be significant: Compliance with CEQA is predicated on a complete and accurate description of the environmental setting that may be affected by the proposed Project.

CDFW is concerned that the assessment of the existing environmental setting with respect to biological resources has not been adequately analyzed in the ND. CDFW is concerned that without a complete and accurate description of the existing environmental setting, the ND likely provides an incomplete or inaccurate analysis of Project-related environmental impacts and whether those impacts have been mitigated to a level that is less than significant.

CDFW Recommendation: To establish the existing environmental setting with respect to biological resources, CDFW recommends that a revised ND include the results of a complete, recent inventory of rare, threatened, endangered, and other sensitive species (e.g., nesting and migratory birds, bats, and crepuscular and nocturnal wildlife) located within the Project footprint and within off-site areas with the potential to be affected, including California Species of Special Concern (CSSC) and California Fully Protected Species (Fish and Game Code § 3511). Species to be addressed should include all those which meet the CEQA definition (CEQA Guidelines § 15380). The inventory should address seasonal variations in use of the Project area and should not be limited to resident species. CDFW suggests this information, and any necessary mitigation measures, be addressed in a revised ND. Note that CDFW generally considers biological field assessments for wildlife to be valid for a one-year period, and assessments for rare plants may be considered valid for a period of up to three years. Some aspects of the proposed Project may 6-1589

City of Rancho Mirage Page 63
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 warrant periodic updated surveys for certain sensitive taxa, particularly if the Project is proposed to occur over a protracted time frame, or in phases where construction may be paused.

Response B-8: The project site is fully disturbed and developed. Any temporarily stabilized/inactive areas will be impacted by surrounding construction activities, existing landscape and golf course maintenance activities and active golf course use that discourage habitation. However, the lead agency can condition the project to implement pre-construction surveys as appropriate.

Comment B-9: III. CDFW Proposed Mitigation Measures or Related Impacts

COMMENT #5: Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP)

IS/ND document, Section #4.2f, Page #45

Issue: The Project occurs within the CVMSHCP plan area and is subject to provisions and policies of the CVMSHCP.

Specific impact: The Project does not occur within or share a common boundary with a Conservation Area of the CVMSHCP; however, the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains Conservation Area is 1.7 miles southwest of the Project. To be considered a covered activity, Permittees should demonstrate that proposed actions are consistent with the CVMSHCP and its associated Implementing Agreement. The City of Rancho Mirage is the Lead Agency and a Permittee of the CVMSHCP.

Evidence impact would be significant: Within the Inland Deserts Region, CDFW issued Natural Community Conservation Plan Approval and Take Authorization for the CVMSHCP per Section 2800 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code on September 9, 2008. The CVMSHCP establishes a multiple species conservation program to minimize and mitigate habitat loss and provides for the incidental take of covered species in association with activities covered under the permit. Compliance with approved habitat plans, such as the CVMSHCP, is discussed in CEQA.

Specifically, Section 15125(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the CEQA document discuss any inconsistencies between a proposed Project and applicable general plans and regional plans, including habitat conservation plans and natural community conservation plans. An assessment of the impacts to the CVMSHCP as a result of this Project is necessary to address CEQA requirements. To obtain additional information regarding the CVMSHCP please go to:
http://www.cvmshcp.org/ .

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)

MM BIO-[A]: CVMSHCP Compliance

Prior to construction and issuance of any grading permit, the City of Rancho Mirage shall ensure compliance with the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) and its associated Implementing Agreement and shall ensure the collection of payment of the CVMSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. 6-1590

City of Rancho Mirage Page 64
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023

Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, section 15097(f), CDFW has prepared a draft mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for proposed MM BIO-[A] through [E] (see Attachment 1).

Response B-9: The project site is fully disturbed and developed which has previously negated the requirement for the payment of HCP fees. The project shall coordinate with the CVCC for payment of the CVMSHCP fees.

Comment B-10: Comment #6: Burrowing Owl Surveys

Section #4.2, Pages #44 & 45

Issue: The ND does not analyze potential impacts to burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and includes no mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts to a level less than significant.

Specific impact: CDFW is concerned about the potential for burrowing owl to occur on the Project site and to move into disturbed or graded sites when construction is paused between phases of Project construction. Impacts to burrowing owl from the Project could include take of burrowing owls, their nests or eggs, or destroying nesting or foraging habitat; impacting burrowing owl populations through changes in vegetation via the destruction, conversion, or degradation of burrowing owl habitat.

Evidence impact would be significant: Burrowing owl is a California Species of Special Concern.

Take of individual burrowing owls and their nests is defined by Fish and Game Code section 86, and prohibited by sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.). Burrowing owl is a Covered Species under the CVMSHCP, which requires that avoidance and minimization measures be implemented for this species.

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)

CDFW recommends that prior to commencing Project activities for all phases of Project construction, surveys for burrowing owl be conducted by a qualified biologist in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012 or most recent version). CDFW recommends the revised ND include specific avoidance and minimization measures to ensure that impacts to burrowing owls are reduced to less than significant.

MM BIO-[B]: Burrowing Owl Surveys

No less than 60 days prior to the start of Project-related activities, a burrowing owl habitat assessment shall be conducted by a qualified biologist according to the specifications of the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (Department of Fish and Game, March 2012 or most recent version).
6-1591

City of Rancho Mirage Page 65
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023

If the habitat assessment demonstrates suitable burrowing owl habitat, then focused burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist according to the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If burrowing owls are detected during the focused surveys, the qualified biologist and Project Applicant shall prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, minimization, and monitoring actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance measures if avoidance is proposed. If impacts to occupied burrowing owl habitat or burrow cannot be avoided, the Burrowing Owl Plan shall also describe relocation actions that will be implemented. Proposed implementation of burrow exclusion and closure should only be considered as a last resort, after all other options have been evaluated as exclusion is not in itself an avoidance, minimization, or mitigation method and has the possibility to result in take. If impacts to occupied burrows cannot be avoided, information shall be provided regarding adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls along with proposed relocation actions. The Permittee shall implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW review and approval.

Preconstruction burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days prior to the start of Project-related activities and within 24 hours prior to ground disturbance, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist following the recommendations and guidelines provided in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the preconstruction surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat, Project activities shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities.

Response B-10: As described in the MND, the project site has been disturbed and operates as a golf course. Due to the consistent activity onsite, including landscape and golf course maintenance activities and golf course use, the project is currently not considered suitable habitat for the burrowing owl. However, the burrowing owl surveys recommended by CDFW is implemented as mitigation measure BIO-1 in the MND to reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

Comment B-11: Comment #7: Nesting Birds

Section #4.2, Pages #44 & 45

Issue: The ND does not analyze potential impacts to nesting birds and includes no mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts to a level less than significant.

Specific impact: CDFW is concerned that impacts to nesting birds have not been analyzed in the ND. The golf course includes vegetation and a water feature that may attract nesting and migratory birds. Nesting birds may also utilize trees in the area surrounding the Project and could 6-1592

City of Rancho Mirage Page 66
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 be impacted by Project construction. Impacts to nesting birds may occur from ground-disturbing activities, vegetation removal, construction noise, and artificial light at night.

Evidence impact would be significant: It is the Project proponent’s responsibility to comply with all applicable laws related to nesting birds and birds of prey. Fish and Game Code sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 afford protective measures as follows: Fish and Game Code section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation made pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3503.5 makes it unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by Fish and Game Code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto. Fish and Game Code section 3513 makes it unlawful to take or possess any migratory nongame bird except as provided by rules and regulations adopted by the Secretary of the Interior under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.).

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)

CDFW recommends the revised ND include specific avoidance and minimization measures to ensure that impacts to nesting birds do not occur. Project-specific avoidance and minimization measures may include, but are not limited to, Project phasing and timing, monitoring of Project- related noise (where applicable), sound walls, and buffers, where appropriate. CDFW recommends that disturbance of occupied nests of migratory birds and raptors within the Project site be avoided any time birds are nesting on-site. Preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be performed within 3 days prior to Project activities to determine the presence and location of nesting birds.

MM BIO-[C]: Avoidance of Nesting Birds

Nesting bird surveys shall be performed by a qualified avian biologist no more than (3) days prior to vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities. Pre-construction surveys shall focus on both direct and indirect evidence of nesting, including nest locations and nesting behavior. The qualified avian biologist will make every effort to avoid potential nest predation as a result of survey and monitoring efforts. If active nests are found during the pre-construction nesting bird surveys, a qualified biologist shall establish an appropriate nest buffer to be marked on the ground. Nest buffers are species specific and shall be at least 300 feet for passerines and 500 feet for raptors. A smaller or larger buffer may be determined by the qualified biologist familiar with the nesting phenology of the nesting species and based on nest and buffer monitoring results.

Established buffers shall remain on-site until a qualified biologist determines the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. Active nests and adequacy of the established buffer distance shall be monitored daily by the qualified biologist until the qualified biologist has determined the young have fledged or the Project has been completed. The qualified biologist has the authority to stop work if nesting pairs exhibit signs of disturbance.

6-1593

City of Rancho Mirage Page 67
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 Response B-11: As described in the MND, the project site has been disturbed and operates as a golf course which includes active landscape and golf course maintenance activities as well as golf course and an artificial lake. The artificial lake is located south of the project and is included in routine landscape maintenance activities. However, the nesting bird surveys recommended by CDFW is implemented as mitigation measure BIO-2 in the MND to reduce potential impacts to less than significant.

Comment B-12: Comment #8: Construction Noise

Section #13.2, Pages #98 & 99

Issue: The ND does not analyze impacts to biological resources from construction noise and includes no mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts to a level less than significant.

Specific impact: The ND (p. 98) states equipment used during the construction phases is expected generate both steady state and episodic noise increases that would be heard both on and off the Project site, but includes no analysis of the impacts of construction noise on biological resources.

The ND indicates noise levels have the potential to reach 46.7 to 60.4 dBA during the hours when construction is permitted. Exposure levels that may adversely affect wildlife species can occur at 55 to 60 dBA. Because of the potential for construction noise to negatively impact wildlife, CDFW recommends the revised ND include an analysis of impacts to biological resources and specific avoidance and minimization measures to ensure that impacts to wildlife are reduced to less than significant.

Evidence impact would be significant: Construction may result in substantial noise through road use, equipment, and other Project-related activities. This may adversely affect wildlife species in several ways as wildlife responses to noise can occur at exposure levels of only 55 to 60 dB (Barber et al. 2009). Anthropogenic noise can disrupt the communication of many wildlife species including frogs, birds, and bats (Sun and Narins 2005, Patricelli and Blickley 2006, Gillam and McCracken 2007, Slabbekoorn and Ripmeester 2008). Noise can also affect predator-prey relationships as many nocturnal animals such as bats and owls primarily use auditory cures (i.e., hearing) to hunt. Additionally, many prey species increase their vigilance behavior when exposed to noise because they need to rely more on visual detection of predators when auditory cues may be masked by noise (Rabin et al. 2006, Quinn et al. 2017). Noise has also been shown to reduce the density of nesting birds (Francis et al. 2009) and cause increased stress that results in decreased immune responses (Kight and Swaddle 2011).

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)

MM BIO-[C]: Construction Noise

During all Project construction, the City of Rancho Mirage shall restrict use of equipment to hours least likely to disrupt wildlife (e.g., not at night or in early morning) and restrict use of generators except for temporary use in emergencies. Power to sites can be provided by solar PV (photovoltaic) systems, cogeneration systems (natural gas generator), small micro-hydroelectric systems, or small wind turbine systems. The City 6-1594

City of Rancho Mirage Page 68
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 shall ensure use of noise suppression devices such as mufflers or enclosure for generators. Sounds generated from any means must be below the 55-60 dB range within 50-feet from the source.

Response B-12: As stated on page 100 of the MND, to control noise impacts associated with the construction of the proposed project, the City has established limits to the construction hours of operation. The RMMC Section 15.04.030 [A][11] indicates that construction, shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. with no activity on Sundays and holidays. These hours avoid the hours likely to disrupt wildlife (e.g., at night or early morning), per CDFW. The project shall adhere to these construction hours established in the City Municipal Code.

Comment B-13: Comment #9: Artificial Light

Section #1.2, Page #31

Issue: The ND does not analyze impacts to biological resources from artificial light and includes no mitigation measures to avoid or reduce impacts to a level less than significant.

Specific impact: The ND (p. 31) indicates that the development of the Project will introduce new sources of lighting, including lighting fixtures along pedestrian pathways, and lighting for existing landscape features along Frank Sinatra Drive; however, impacts to biological resources are not analyzed and no mitigation measures are proposed. The direct and indirect impacts of artificial nighttime lighting on biological resources including migratory birds that fly at night, bats, and other nocturnal and crepuscular wildlife should be analyzed, and appropriate avoidance and minimization measures should be included in the revised ND.

Evidence impact would be significant: Artificial nighttime lighting often results in light pollution, which has the potential to significantly and adversely affect fish and wildlife. Artificial lighting alters ecological processes including, but not limited to, the temporal niches of species; the repair and recovery of physiological function; the measurement of time through interference with the detection of circadian and lunar and seasonal cycles; and the detection of resources and natural enemies and navigation (Gatson et al. 2013). Many species use photoperiod cues for communication (e.g., bird song; Miller 2006), determining when to begin foraging (Stone et al. 2009), behavior thermoregulation (Beiswenger 1977), and migration (Longcore and Rich 2004).

Phototaxis, a phenomenon which results in attraction and movement towards light, can disorient, entrap, and temporarily blind wildlife species that experience it (Longcore and Rich 2004).

Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)

MM BIO-[D]: Artificial Light

During Project construction and operation, the City of Rancho Mirage shall eliminate all nonessential lighting throughout the Project area and avoid or limit the use of artificial light during the hours of dawn and dusk when many wildlife species are most active. The City shall ensure that lighting for Project activities is shielded, cast downward, and does not spill over onto other properties or upward into the night sky (see 6-1595

City of Rancho Mirage Page 69
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 the International Dark-Sky Association standards at http://darksky.org/) . The City shall ensure use LED lighting with a correlated color temperature of 3,000 Kelvins or less, proper disposal of hazardous waste, and recycling of lighting that contains toxic compounds with a qualified recycler.

Response B-13: The existing project site and surrounding golf course and landscaped areas currently utilize artificial lighting. As stated on page 31 of the MND, the proposed project lighting is expected to implement low intensity nighttime illumination to highlight elements of the project and contribute to an enhanced community. The project will provide various forms of lighting to adequately illuminate the parking areas, entrances, signage, walkways, and other project features for security purposes. The use of exterior light fixtures will be made compatible with the architectural style and materials of the buildings. In compliance with the Chapter 17.18.050 of the Rancho Mirage Municipal Code, the proposed lighting must be situated to prevent emissions of glare or light beyond the property line. Moreover, the proposed lighting is not permitted to blink, flash, or be of unusually high intensity or brightness. All fixtures shall be appropriate in scale, intensity, and height to the uses they are serving. All exterior lighting at the project site will be conditioned to be Dark-Sky compliant, in order to reduce the amount of light emitted at the project site at night. This will keep the night skies in the City of Rancho Mirage visible to residents and visitors. Riverside County Ordinance Number 655 regulates light pollution in the County.

Ordinance No. 655 restricts the permitted use of certain light fixtures emitting into the night sky undesirable light rays which have a detrimental effect on astronomical observation and research.

The project will be required to comply to the County standards. The project shall follow the standards outlined in the Municipal Code.

Additionally, a photometric analysis has been conducted to measure the light foot-candles both within the project premises and along its perimeters. This comprehensive analysis includes a detailed calculation summary, evaluating each specific area of the project, which demonstrates that the average illuminance measured in foot-candles remains either below or within the maximum illuminance limits. In instances where certain areas were measured at the maximum illuminance, such measurements were confined to areas where the foot-candle illuminance had a maximum value of "0.00". Furthermore, the photometric analysis encompasses detailed information pertaining to light fixtures and accessories that fully comply with the most recent Title 24 Standards. Based on the conclusive findings derived from the photometric analysis, it has been determined that no further analysis is necessary.

These requirements are established to ensure that proposed development includes a minimum uniformity of light coverage, while minimizing light trespass. Sources of low-intensity lighting will consist of wall-mounted fixtures for the dwelling unit exteriors and landscaping illumination throughout the interior walkways, consistent with Section 17.26.120 of the RMMC and similar to the existing property lighting. The project’s lighting plan and proposed fixtures will be subject to review and approval by the City of Rancho Mirage.

Comment B-14: Environmental Data

CEQA requires that information developed in environmental impact reports and negative declarations be incorporated into a database which may be used to make subsequent or 6-1596

City of Rancho Mirage Page 70
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 supplemental environmental determinations. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21003, subd. (e).) Accordingly, please report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). The CNNDB field survey form can be filled out and submitted online at the following link:
https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Submitting-Data . The types of information reported to CNDDB can be found at the following link: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Plants- and-Animals.

Response B-14: The City thanks the Department for this information. See above responses.

Comment B-15: Environmental Document Filing Fees

The Project, as proposed, would have an impact on fish and/or wildlife, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency and serve to help defray the cost of environmental review by CDFW. Payment of the environmental document filing fee is required in order for the underlying project approval to be operative, vested, and final. (Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G.

Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.)

Response B-15: The City thanks the Department for this information. The project will comply with filing environmental document filing fees compliant with Cal. Code Regs, tit. 14, § 753.5; Fish & G. Code, § 711.4; Pub. Resources Code, § 21089.

Comment B-16: Conclusion

CDFW appreciates the opportunity to comment on the ND to assist the City of Rancho Mirage in identifying and mitigating Project impacts on biological resources. CDFW concludes that the ND does not adequately identify or mitigate the Project’s significant, or potentially significant impacts on biological resources. The CEQA Guidelines (§ 15073.5) indicate that recirculation is required when a new significant effect is identified and additional mitigation measures are necessary.

CDFW recommends that a revised ND with a recent and complete assessment of impacts to biological resources, and mitigation to avoid and reduce those impacts to less than significant, be recirculated for public comment.

CDFW personnel are available for consultation regarding biological resources and strategies to minimize impacts. Questions regarding this letter or further coordination should be directed to Alyssa Hockaday, Senior Environmental Scientist (Specialist) at (760) 920-8252 or [email protected].

Response B-16: The City thanks the Department for their participation in this process. This comment summarizes and concludes the Department’s letter. No additional response required. 6-1597

Rancho Mirage City CouncilJuly 20, 2023

Rancho Mirage City Council
July 20, 2023