Y CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE
CITY COUNCIL,
LIBRARY AND OBSERVATORY BOARD,
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD,
AND THE CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTING
THE REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, JULY 20, 2023
1:00 P.M.
LATE SUBMISSIONS AND/OR REVISIONS
• CC02 - Draft Minutes for July 6, 2023
• CC06- Attachment 23 for Item #6
DRAFT 07/ 06/ 2023 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Page 1 of 6
CITY COUNCIL,
LIBRARY AND OBSERVATORY BOARD,
HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD,
AND THE CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTING
THE REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY
REGULAR MEETING
THURSDAY, JULY 6, 2023
1: 00 P. M.
DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting Location:
City of Rancho Mirage
City Hall - Council Chamber
69- 825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
CALL TO ORDER – 1: 00 P. M
a) Flag Salute – Led by Council Member Malloto.
b) Roll Call: Mallotto, Marker, Weill, Downs, Kite. – All Present.
PRESENTATIONS
Recognition of BillMaxwell for his Service on the City of Rancho Mirage Planning Commission.
Mayor Pro Tem Downs presented BillMaxwell with a plaque in recognition of his eight years of service on the Planning Commission and expressed gratitude for Mr. Maxwell' s insight and leadership.
Mr. Maxwell thanked the City Council and staff for the acknowledgement and spoke of his experience on the Planning Commission.
Council Member Weill thanked Mr. Maxwell for his service on the Planning Commission, noting he served with dignity and brought a degree of calmness to the position.
Mayor Kite thanked Mr. Maxwell, noting that the City of Rancho Mirage had benefited from Mr. Maxwell’s service on the Planning Commission.
2-1
DRAFT 07/ 06/ 2023 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Page 2 of 6
NON- AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENTS
Luz Gonzalez, Vice President and Relationship Manager for Bank of Southern California and Rancho Mirage Chamber of Commerce representative, provided updates on the bank and the Chamber.
Darla Burkett, Coachella Valley Rescue Mission Executive Director, thanked council members for attending their gala and provided an overview of the organization.
Alena Callimanis, member of the public, spoke in opposition to the size of the Cotino lagoon, and raised questions regarding potential safety issues. She provided a handout for the City Council.
Brad Anderson, Rancho Mirage resident, spoke regarding mosquito abatement, commented that license plate readers could be used for surveillance, and mentioned inaccuracies in a Cove committee report.
Wally Melendez, member of the public, spoke regarding a need for higher education and the use of fuel-efficient vehicles.
Peter Delgado, member of the public, spoke regarding his sidewalk project bid being disqualified and requested additional explanation.
COUNCIL/ BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS/ REPORTS
Mayor Pro Tem Downs provided an update on Visit Greater Palm Springs ( VGPS), including an overview of their annual budget. He also reported that he supported VGPS’ s resolution opposing Senate Bill584 ( SB 584), regarding short term rentals. He mentioned people may question his support of a resolution that would help short term rentals when they are prohibited in Rancho Mirage. Mayor Pro Tem Downs explained that SB 584 was bad economics for the desert because some local cities allow short term rentals; the bill would have a seriously dampening effect on tourism and revenue generation for those cities. He noted that an impact on tourism in the desert would impact Rancho Mirage. He added that the bill was also bad public policy because it proposed raising revenues to support affordable housing by tacking on a 15% additional transient occupancy tax ( TOT) to short term rentals. He noted that the State had many other ways to raise revenues to support their programs and it should not be done through TOT.
Council Member Weill thanked the Agua Caliente Tribe for the spectacular fireworks display on July 4th and spoke of the significance and history of the Independence Day holiday. He also commented on how the nonpartisan structure of the City Council benefits the City.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS - None.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Isaiah Hagerman, City Manager, presented the below- listed Consent Calendar items:
1. Approve June 15, 2023 Regular Meeting Minutes.
2-2
DRAFT 07/ 06/ 2023 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Page 3 of 6
2. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-( Next- in-Order), Summarily Vacating Approximately 2. 454 Acres of Excess Right- of-Way/ Easement Area, Located Within a Portion of the Northeast Quadrant of Section 31 ( Cotino), Township 4 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian.
3. Approve Final Acceptance of Improvements for Tract Map No. 34435 - Iridium.
4. Approve Contracts.
5. Approve Demands.
Public Comments
Brad Anderson, Rancho Mirage resident, commented that he was opposed to approval of Agenda Item No. 2 because he did not see any financial instrument to it. Regarding Agenda Item No. 4, he commented that cybersecurity was important and asked if the public would be notified if the City experienced a ransomware attack.
MOVED/ SECONDED BY WEILL/ DOWNS TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR AS PRESENTED. MOTION CARRIED 5/ 0.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. Consider Adopting Resolution No. 2023-( Next- in-Order), Designating the Residential Home Located at 40267 Club View Drive, Rancho Mirage, California ( Assessor Parcel Number 684- 034- 008) a Historic Resource.
Ben Torres, Planning Manager, presented the staff report.
Mayor Kite commented that the subject house was a very significant piece of Rancho Mirage history, as it was built in 1951 by architect William Cody, and recommended approval.
Public Comments – None.
MOVED/ SECONDED BY DOWNS/ WEILL TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2023- 30, DESIGNATING THE RESIDENTIAL HOME LOCATED AT 40267 CLUB VIEW DRIVE, RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA ( ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER 684- 034- 008) A HISTORIC RESOURCE. MOTION CARRIED 5/ 0
7. Environmental Assessment Case No. EA22- 0020 and Preliminary Development Plan Case No. PDP22- 0005 – Cotino Residential Design Guidelines. Applicant: DMB Development LLC on Behalf of ECRM Residential. Consideration to Establish Master Residential Design Guidelines for Detached Single- Family Residences and Modify the Development Review Process from Discretionary to Ministerial if in Compliance with the Proposed Project. The Design Guidelines Will Serve as a Companion Document to the Section 31 Specific Plan by Providing Additional Guidance for Detached Single- Family Residential Development within the Section 31 Specific Plan Area, which is Comprised of Approximately 618 Acres. The Section 31 Specific Plan Area is Bounded by Gerald Ford Drive to the North, Monterey Avenue to the East, Frank Sinatra Drive to the South, and Bob Hope Drive to the West.
2-3
DRAFT 07/ 06/ 2023 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Page 4 of 6 A. Consider Finding Preliminary Development Plan Case No. PDP22- 0005 Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 ( Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations); and B. Consider Adopting Resolution No. 2023-( Next- In-Order), Approving Preliminary Development Plan Case No. PDP22- 0005, Subject to the Conditions of Approval and Based on the Content and Findings in the Staff Report.
Joy Tsai, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Public Comments
Kenneth Dobson, resident and Board President of Palm Desert Greens Country Club, reported issues with blow sand coming from the Cotino project and expressed concern that the proposed action would exempt the project from any further air quality control. He asked that the City mitigate the blow sand issue.
Mike Morsch, resident of Palm Desert Greens Country Club, expressed concern with blow sand coming from the Cotino project. He recommended that council members watch the last Palm Desert council meeting, which included a presentation on sand mitigation. He also thanked the City of Rancho Mirage for installing a “No Right Turn” illuminated sign at Frank Sinatra Drive and Monterrey Avenue, noting the quick response to a safety issue was appreciated. He added that low visibility due to blow sand was also a safety issue.
Brad Anderson, Rancho Mirage resident, commented that he previously discussed the matter of blow sand from Cotino with City staff, but was unaware it was still a problem for people in Palm Desert.
Steve Quintanilla, City Attorney, noted that everything being proposed had already been considered in the environmental report previously approved by Council and that the City was not exempting the project from State environmental law.
Christopher Craig, resident of Palm Desert Greens Country Club, requested clarification on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines cited and asked who the lead agency was.
Steve Quintanilla, City Attorney, responded that the City of Rancho Mirage was the lead agency.
Council Member Weill thanked the developer for the plans. He commented that the designs were terrific and in no way were CEQA standards being lowered.
Mayor Kite asked when the homes would be available for the public to view or purchase.
Mary Alexander, DMB Development representative, reported that consumers could anticipate the products going on sale early next year.
Isaiah Hagerman, City Manager, reported that the issue of blow sand had been challenging this year for all local cities. He noted that the Cotino project was continuously monitored, and staff was doing a superb job of removing sand from roads, even when it returned within hours. He asked the Director of Public Works to elaborate on mitigation efforts.
2-4
DRAFT 07/ 06/ 2023 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Page 5 of 6 Ryan Stendell, Director of Public Works, reported that a group was assembled to deal with the blow sand issue, including the Department of Motor Vehicles, which had offered assistance. He added that staff constantly ensured that all municipal rules were followed and also held recurring meetings with the South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD).
Mayor Pro Tem Downs commented that the subject item was an efficiency request, as Council had already approved the tract map. He noted that the proposal established clear guidelines and was advantageous, so long as the builders abided by them. He added that building quickly would assist with the blow sand problem.
Mary Alexander commended the team they had on the ground, noting a water truck constantly drove around when a sand issue arose. She added they have no problem paying the costs associated with clearing the sand, and they were doing their best to avoid sand in the air or streets.
Mayor Kite thanked everyone for attending and participating in the process.
MOVED/ SECONDED BY WEILL/ DOWNS TO:
A. FIND PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN CASE NO. PDP22- 0005 EXEMPT FROM
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT ( CEQA) PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162 ( SUBSEQUENT EIRS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS); AND
B. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2023- 31, APPROVING PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN CASE NO. PDP22- 0005, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND BASED ON THE CONTENT AND FINDINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT.
MOTION CARRIED 5/ 0.
CLOSED SESSION AGENDA
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956. 9( d)( 1).
Case Name: Vacation Rental Owners and Neighbors of Rancho Mirage et al. v. City of Rancho Mirage et al.
Case No.: CVRI2100368
2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956. 9( d)( 1).
Case Name: Vacation Rental Owners and Neighbors of Rancho Mirage v. City of Rancho Mirage.
Case No.: CVPS2200167
3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956. 9( d)( 1).
Case Name: Wendy Hope Heckman v. City of Rancho Mirage
Case No.: 5:22- cv- 2031 ( Central District of California) 2-5
DRAFT 07/ 06/ 2023 Regular City Council Meeting Minutes Page 6 of 6
4. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956. 9( d)( 1).
Case Name: Unspecified since disclosure would jeopardize pending settlement negotiations.
5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - POTENTIAL INITIATION OF LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956. 9( d)( 4). ( 1 Potential Case).
Steven Quintanilla, City Attorney, reported that the City Council would recess into closed session to confer with legal counsel regarding Vacation Rental Owners and Neighbors of Rancho Mirage et al. v. City of Rancho Mirage et al, Vacation Rental Owners and Neighbors of Rancho Mirage v. City of Rancho Mirage, Wendy Hope Heckman v. City of Rancho Mirage, an unspecified existing litigation item, and one potential initiation of litigation item.
RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION
The City Council, Library and Observatory Board, Housing Authority Board, and the City Council representing the Redevelopment Successor Agency recessed into Closed Session at 2: 22 P. M.
RECONVENE OPEN SESSION
Mayor Kite reconvened the meeting at 3: 40 P. M.
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENTS
Steve Quintanilla, City Attorney, reported there was no reportable action taken during closed session.
ADJOURNMENT
With no further business to consider, the meeting of the City Council, Library and Observatory Board, Housing Authority Board, and the City Council representing the Redevelopment Successor Agency was adjourned at 3: 41 P. M.
Date Approved by City Council:
Kristie Ramos, City Clerk
2-6
City of Rancho Mirage Page 1
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Application for
Desert Island Hotel
Response to Comments
Lead Agency:
City of Rancho Mirage
Planning Department
Pilar Lopez, Senior Planner
69825 Highway 111
Rancho Mir
age, California 92270
760-328-2266
Prepared by:
MSA Consulting, Inc.
34200 Bob Hope Drive
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
6-1528
City of Rancho Mirage Page 2
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 Comments and Reponses to the Comments on the Draft IS/MND List of Commenters
The following is a list of indivi duals, representatives, organizations and agencies that submitted written comments on the Draft IS/MND. The City received a total of 2 comment letters. Table 1, Comment Letters Received on the Draft IS/MND, provides a list of all comment letters received.
Table 1 lists the ID letter assigned to each comment letter, the date it was received, and commenter’s name.
Table 1
Comment Letters Received on the IS/MND
Letter
ID Date Commenter
A May 23, 2023 Southwest Mountain States Regional
Council of Carpenters Mitchell M. Tsai
B May 23, 2023 California Department of Fish and
Wildlife Kim Freeburn
CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses
CEQA Guidelines, Section
15204(b), outlines parameters for subm itting comments on negative declarations. Persons and public agencies should focus the on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If perso ns and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should:
1. Identify the specific effect,
2. Explain why they believe the effect would occur, and
3. Explain why they believe the effect would be significant.
CEQA Guidelines, Section 15204(c) , further advises that reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of th e comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.
CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. Lead age ncies need to respond to potentially significant issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers if good faith efforts at full disclosure are made in the environmental document. 6-1529
City of Rancho Mirage Page 3
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 Responses to Comment Letters
Written comments on the Draft IS/MND are reproduced on the foll owing pages, along with responses to those comments. Changes to the Draft IS/MND text t hat result from responding to comments are included on the response and noted with an underli ne in bold for new text and a strikeout for deleted text. The responses were prepared by MSA Consulting, Inc. on behalf of City staff.
6-1530
City of Rancho Mirage Page 4
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 Letter A – SEMSRCC
6-1531
City of Rancho Mirage Page 5
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023
6-1532
City of Rancho Mirage Page 6
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023
6-1533
City of Rancho Mirage Page 7
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023
6-1534
City of Rancho Mirage Page 8
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023
6-1535
City of Rancho Mirage Page 9
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023
6-1536
City of Rancho Mirage Page 10
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023
6-1537
City of Rancho Mirage Page 11
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023
6-1538
City of Rancho Mirage Page 12
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023
6-1539
City of Rancho Mirage Page 13
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023
6-1540
City of Rancho Mirage Page 14
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023
6-1541
City of Rancho Mirage Page 15
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023
6-1542
City of Rancho Mirage Page 16
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023
6-1543
City of Rancho Mirage Page 17
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023
6-1544
City of Rancho Mirage Page 18
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023
6-1545
City of Rancho Mirage Page 19
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023
6-1546
City of Rancho Mirage Page 20
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023
6-1547
City of Rancho Mirage Page 21
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023
6-1548
City of Rancho Mirage Page 22
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023
6-1549
City of Rancho Mirage Page 23
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023
6-1550
City of Rancho Mirage Page 24
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023
6-1551
City of Rancho Mirage Page 25
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 6-1552
City of Rancho Mirage Page 26
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 SWMSRCC Comments and Responses
Comment A-1: On behalf of the Southwest Mountain Stat es Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest Mountain States Carpenters” or “SWMSRCC”), my Office is submitting these comments for the City of Rancho Mirage’s (“City”) Desert Island Hotel Project (“Project”).
As defined in the Project’s Initial Study/Neg ative Declaration (IS/ND), “The project will repurpose approximately 17.2 acres of the existing Desert Island community with a new 34-key boutique hotel, 11 private residences, hotel grounds for guest use with tennis, pool, café, cabana and yoga amenities, along with additional onsite parking. A new golf training park, and golf maintenance building will replace the existing dr iving range and old maintenance building that will be eliminated to make room for the new facilities. The proposed hotel is intended for use as a high-end venue with guests booking multi-day overnight stays. The proposed residences will be privately owned, but fully managed and maintained by the hotel operator. The proposed hotel and residences will be located west of the existing clubhouse.” IS/ND, p. 7.
The Southwest Mountain States Carpenters is a labor union representing 63,000 union carpenters in 10 states, including California, and has a strong interest in well-ordered land use planning and in addressing the environmental impacts of development projects. Individual members of SWMSRCC live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.
The Southwest Mountain States Carpenters expressly reserves the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearing and proceeding related to this Project. Gov. Code, § 65009, subd. (b); Pub. Res. Code, § 21177, subd. (a); see Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1199-1203; see also Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist . (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 1109, 1121. The Southwest Mountain States Carpenters incorporates by reference all comments raising issues regarding environmental and land use documents submitted prior to approval of the Project. See Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Ca l.App.4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).
Moreover, the Southwest Mountain States Carpenters requests that the City provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Proj ect issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.), and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”) (Gov. Code, §§ 65000–65010). California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and California Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.
Response A-1: This introductory comment state s that the commenter represent s the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters and requests notice of further proceedings relating to the project.
As this comment does not raise any specific concerns or questio ns regarding the potential environmental impacts of the project, no further response to this comment is provided.
6-1553
City of Rancho Mirage Page 27
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 Comment A-2: I. THE CITY SHOULD REQUIRE THE USE OF A LOCAL WORKFORCE TO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY’S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENT.
The City should require the Project to be built using a local workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor-Management Apprenticeship Program approved by the State of California, have at least as many hours of on-the-j ob experience in the applicable cr aft which would be required to graduate from such a state-approved apprenticeship training program, or who are registered apprentices in a state-approved apprenticeship training program.
Community benefits such as local hire can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and provide localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a re duction of construction- related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.
March 8, 2021, SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.
Workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Devel opment Board and the University of California, Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
[L]abor should be considered an investmen t rather than a cost— and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California ’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well-trained workers are key to delivering emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets. 1 Furthermore, workforce policies have significant environmental benefits given that they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount and length of job commutes and the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In fact, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program” can result in air pollutant reductions.
2 Locating jobs closer to reside ntial areas can have significant environmental benefits. As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:
People who live and work in the same jurisdic tion would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.3
6-1554
City of Rancho Mirage Page 28
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 Moreover, local hire mandates and skill-training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”). As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan have noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insuff icient to achieve VMT reductions given that the skill requirements of available local jobs must match those held by local residents.4 Some municipalities have even tied local hire and other workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. Cervero and Duncan note that:
In nearly built-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing. The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents, especially for entry- and intermed iate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure re sidents are employment-ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits.
Recently, the State of California verified its commitment towards workforce development through the Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, otherwise known as Assembly Bill No. 2011 (“AB2011”). AB2011 amended the Planning and Zoning Law to allow ministerial, by-right approval for projects being built alongside commercial corridors that meet affordability and labor requirements.
The City should consider utiliz ing local workforce policies and re quirements to benefit the local area economically and to mitigate greenhouse gas, improve air quality, and reduce transportation impacts.
Response A-2 : The commenter’s opinions regar ding City policy are noted. The comment regarding the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship program or have on-the-job experience does not explain or establish how such a requirement would substantially lessen or avoid any significant environmental eff ects of the project as identified in the MND. The City of Rancho Mirage can recommend hiring practi ces but cannot prescribe the hiring of specific contractors for private development projects.
The commenter requests that a specified percent of workers must reside within 10 miles of the project. Unfortunately, this opinion does not identify the curr ent average commute distance for construction workers in the area, nor does it quantify or demonstrate that any reduction in GHG emissions would result from such a restriction. It also appears that the expertise of Mr. Hagemann is in geology and hydrology, and not transportation or GHG emissions. Similarly, the expertise of Mr. Rosenfield appears to be in chemistry and contamination iss ues, rather than transportation issues. Neither individual appear s to have any professional licenses, certifications or other credentials that would qualify them as experts in the field of reducing vehicle miles traveled.
The comment also describes certain approaches taken in two Bay Area cities to promote hiring local workers. Again, there is no substantial evidence provided by the commenter demonstrating that such a requirement in the City of Rancho Mirage would redu ce GHG emissions relating to construction worker vehicle miles traveled. By way of contrast to the comment’s unsubstantiated 6-1555
City of Rancho Mirage Page 29
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 claim, and as described at lengt h in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions discussion, the project quantified GHG emissions in the Ca lEEMod model, including impac ts associated with construction activities. Given that construction emissions only constitute approximately 1.54% of the project’s total projected GHG emissions, it is exceedingly unlikely that requiring a specific percentage of local constructi on workers would cause any apprec iable reduction in the project’s overall GHG emissions (as shown in Table VIII-1 in the MND, the construction emissions amount to 13.2117 MTCO2e/year out of total project emissions of 842.31 00 MTCO2e/year). Therefore, implementation of the Specific Plan is expected to result in 85 5.5217 MTCO2e per year from construction and land use operations, in comparison to the threshold of significance set at 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Project emissions are therefore compliant with the applicable GHG thresholds that have been established in response to AB 32 as part of the Statewide regulations and targets aimed at addressing climate change. Such efforts have allowed the state to achieve its 2020 GHG emissions reductions target of returning to 1990 levels 4 years earlier than mandated by AB 32.
Therefore, as measured by the project GHG emissions in relation to the threshold, less than significant impacts are anticipated.
Comment A-3: II. THE CITY SHOULD IMPOSE TRAINING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECT’S CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES TO PREVENT COMMUNITY SPREAD OF COVID- 19 AND OTHER INFECTIOUS DISEASES.
Construction work has been defined as a Lower to High-risk activity for COVID-19 spread by the Occupations Safety and Health Administration. Several construction sites have been identified as sources of community spread of COVID-19.5
Southwest Mountain States Carpenters reco mmend that the Lead Agency adopt additional requirements to mitigate public health risks from the Project’s construction activities. SWMSRCC requests that the Lead Agency require safe on-site construction work practices as well as training and certification for any construction workers on the Project Site.
In particular, based upon Southwest Mountain St ates Carpenters’ experience with safe construction site work practices, SWMSRCC recommends that the Lead Agency require that while construction activities are being conducted at the Project Site:
Construction Site Design:
The Project Site will be limited to two controlled entry points. Entry points will have temperature screening technicians taking temperature readings when the entry point is open.
The Temperature Screening Site Plan shows de tails regarding access to the Project Site and Project Site logistics for conducting temperature screening. A 48-hour advance notice will be provided to all trades prior to the first day of temperature screening.
The perimeter fence directly adjacent to the entry points will be clearly marked indicating the appropriate 6-foot social distancing pos ition for when you approach the screening area. Please reference the Apex temperature screening site map for additional details. There will be clear signage posted at the project site directing you through temperature screening.
6-1556
City of Rancho Mirage Page 30
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 Provide hand washing stations throughout the construction site.
Testing Procedures:
The temperature screening being used are non-contact devices. Temperature readings will not be recorded.
Personnel will be screened upon entering the testing center and should only take 1-2 seconds per individual.
Hard hats, head coverings, sweat, dirt, sunscreen or any other cosmetics must be removed on the forehead before temperature screening.
Anyone who refuses to submit to a temperatur e screening or does not answer the health screening questions will be refused access to the Project Site. Screening will be performed at both entrances from 5:30 am to 7:30 am.; main gate [ZONE 1] and personnel gate [ZONE 2]
After 7:30 am only the main gate entrance [Z ONE 1] will continue to be used for temperature testing for anybody gaining entry to the project site such as returning personnel, deliveries, and visitors.
If the digital thermometer displays a temperature reading above 100.0 degrees Fahrenheit, a second reading will be taken to verify an accurate reading. If the second reading confirms an elevated temperature, DHS will instruct the individual that he/she will not be allowed to enter th e Project Site. DHS will also instruct the individual to promptly notify his/her supe rvisor and his/her human resources (HR) representative and provide them with a copy of Annex A.
Planning
Require the development of an Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response Plan that will include basic infection prevention measures (requiring the use of personal protection equipment), policies and procedures for prom pt identification and isolation of sick individuals, social distancing (prohibiting gatherings of no more than 10 people including all-hands meetings and all-hands lunches) communication and training and workplace controls that meet standards that may be promulgated by the Center for Disease Control, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Cal/OSHA, California Department of Public Health or applicable local public health agencies.6
The United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Carpenters International Training Fund has developed COVID-19 Training and Certification to ensure that Carpenter union members and apprentices conduct safe work practices. The Agency should require that all construction workers undergo COVID-19 Training and Ce rtification before being a llowed to conduct construction activities at the Project Site.
Southwest Mountain States Carpenters has also developed a rigorous Infection Control Risk Assessment (“ICRA”) training program to ensure it delivers a workforce that understands how to identify and control infection risks by implementing protocols to protect themselves and all others during renovation and construction projects in healthcare environments.7
6-1557
City of Rancho Mirage Page 31
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 ICRA protocols are intended to contain pathogens, control airflow, and protect patients during the construction, maintenance and renovation of he althcare facilities. ICRA protocols prevent cross contamination, minimizing the risk of secondary infections in patients at hospital facilities.
The City should require the Project to be built using a workforce trained in ICRA protocols.
Response A-3: The comment cites two articles regarding COVID-19 risks at co nstruction sites, but both are from the very early stages of the pandemic (April and June 2020) before testing protocols and vaccinations became available, and before natural immunities developed. The comment does not present any evidence demonstrating significant COVID-19 risks at construction sites in Riverside County that are not adequately addressed with current federal, state and Riverside County requirements. For example, construction sites are alread y subject to Cal OSHA’s requirements for a written COVID-19 Prevention Program and an I njury and Illness Prevention Program to protect employees from all worksite hazards, includi ng infectious diseases (see, e.g., California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Subchapter 7, §§ 3203 and 3205; and Cal OSHA Safety and Health Guidance COVID-19 Infection Prevention in Construction, dated October 27, 2020, at www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/coronavirus/COVID-19-Infection-Prevention-in-Construction.pdf). The project shall be required to comply with Cal OSHA standards during construction of the project.
Comment A-4: III. THE PROJECT WOULD BE APP ROVED IN VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT.
A. Background Concerning the California Environmental Quality Act.
The California Environmental Quality Act is a Ca lifornia statute designed to inform decision- makers and the public about the potential significant environmental effects of a project. 14 California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guide lines”), § 15002, subd. (a)(1).8 At its core, its purpose is to “inform the public and its responsible officials of the envi ronmental consequences of their decisions before they are made.” Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564.
CEQA directs public agencies to avoid or re duce environmental damage, when possible, by requiring alternatives or mitigation measures. CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subds. (a)(2)-(3); see also Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committ ee v. Board of Port Comes (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1354 (“Berkeley Jets”); Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal.3d at p. 400. The EIR serves to provide public agencies and the public in general with information about the effect that a proposed project is likely to have on the environment and to “identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” CEQA Guidelines, § 15002, subd. (a)(2). If the project has a significant effect on the environment, the agency may app rove the project only upon finding that it has “eliminated or substantially lessened all signifi cant effects on the environment where feasible” and that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns” specified in Public Resources C ode section 21081. See CE QA Guidelines, § 15092, subds. (b)(2)(A)-(B).
6-1558
City of Rancho Mirage Page 32
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 While the courts review an EIR using an ‘abuse of discretion’ standard, the reviewing court is not to uncritically rely on every stud y or analysis presented by a proj ect proponent in support of its position. Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (quoting Laurel Heights Improvement Assn., 47 Cal.3d at pp. 391, 409 fn. 12) (internal quotations omitted). A clearly inadequate or unsupported study is entitled to no judicial deference. Id. Drawing this line and determining whether the EIR complies with CEQA’s information disclosure requirements presents a question of law subject to independent review by the courts. Sierra Cl ub v. County of Fresno ( 2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 515; Madera Oversight Coalition, Inc. v. County of Madera (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 48, 102, 131. As the court stated in Berkeley Jets , prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs if the failure to include relevant information precludes informed decision-making and in formed public participation, thereby thwarting the statutory goals of the EIR process. 91 Cal.App.4th at p. 1355 (internal quotations omitted).
The preparation and circulation of an EIR is more than a set of technical hurdles for agencies and developers to overcome. Communities for a Better Environment v. Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 80 (quoting Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth, Inc. v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 449-450). The EIR’s function is to ensure that government officials who decide to build or approve a project do so with a full understanding of the environmental consequences and, equally important, that the public is assured those consequences have been considered. Id. For the EIR to serve these goals it must present information so that the foreseeable impacts of pursuing the project can be understood and weighed, and the public must be given an adequate opportunity to comment on that presentation before the decision to go forward is made. Id.
A strong presumption in favor of requiring preparation of an EIR is built into CEQA. This presumption is reflected in what is known as the “fair argument” standard under which an EIR must be prepared whenever substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. Quail Botanical Gardens Found., Inc. v.
City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602; Friends of “B” St. v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.3d 988, 1002.
The fair argument test stems from the statutor y mandate that an EIR be prepared for any project that “may have a significant effect on the environment.” PRC, § 21151; see No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.App.3d 68, 75; accord Jensen v. City of Santa Rosa (2018) 23 Cal.App.5th 877, 884. Under this test, if a propos ed project is not exempt and may cause a significant effect on the environment, the le ad agency must prepare an EIR. PRC, §§ 21100 (a), 21151; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064 (a)(1), (f)(1). An EIR may be dispensed with only if the lead agency finds no substantial evidence in the initial study or elsewhere in the record that the project may have a significant effe ct on the environment. Parker S hattuck Neighbors v. Berkeley City Council (2013) 222 Cal.App.4th 768, 785. In such a situation, the agency must adopt a negative declaration. PRC, § 21080, subd. (c)(1); CEQA Guidelines, §§ 15063 (b)(2), 15064(f)(3).
“Significant effect upon the environment” is define d as “a substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the envi ronment.” PRC, § 21068; CEQA Gu idelines, § 15382. A project may have a significant effect on the environment if there is a reasonable probability that it will result in a significant impact. No O il, Inc., 13 Cal.3d at p. 83 fn. 16; see Sundstrom v. County of 6-1559
City of Rancho Mirage Page 33
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 309. If any aspect of the project may result in a significant impact on the environment, an EIR must be prepared even if the overall effect of the project is beneficial. CEQA Guidelines, § 15063(b)(1); see County Sanitation Dist. No. 2 v. County of Kern (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1580.
This standard sets a “low threshold” for preparation of an EIR. Consolidat ed Irrigation Dist. v.
City of Selma (2012) 204 Cal.App.4th 187, 207; Nelson v. County of Kern (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 252; Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928; Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 580; Citizen Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 748, 754; Sundstrom, 202 Cal.App.3d at p. 310. If substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the project may have a significant environmental effect, the lead agency must prepare an EIR even if othe r substantial evidence before it indicates the project will have no significant effect. See Jensen, 23 Cal.App.5th at p. 886; Clews Land & Livestock v. City of San Diego (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 161, 183; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 150; Brentwood Assn. for No Drilling, Inc. v.
City of Los Angeles (1982) 134 Cal.App.3d 491; Friends of “B” St., 106 Cal.App.3d 988; CEQA Guidelines, § 15064(f)(1).
Response A-4: The commenter’s explanation of the purpose of CEQA is noted. This comment does not identify a specific concern or question regarding the adequacy of the MND in identifying and analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the projec t. For this reason, no further response to this comment is provided.
Comment A-5: B. The Project Would be Approved in Violation of CEQA as the Negative Declaration Fails to Support It s Findings With Substantial Evid ence; The Negative Declaration Is Also Inadequate and Lacking as a Matter of Law.
Under PRC § 21080(c)-(d), an Agency may prepare a negative declaration in very limited cases:
(c) If a lead agency determines that a proposed project, not otherwise exempt from this division, would not have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall adopt a negative declaration to that effect. The negative declaration shall be prepared for the proposed project in either of the following circumstances:
(1) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.
(2) An initial study identifies potentially signi ficant effects on the environment, but (A) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (B) there is no s ubstantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.
6-1560
City of Rancho Mirage Page 34
Draft Initial Study / MND Response to Comments May 2023 (d) If there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a signific ant effect on the environm ent, an environmental impact report shall be prepared.
As such, the City here must prepare an EIR if the Project may have impacts and can dispose of an EIR only in case “clearly no significant effects” will occur. The Project does not meet this stringent fair argument standard.
Also, a lead agency must provide substantial evidence to support its findings, which must be based
upon facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, and expert opinion, rather than mere speculation. CEQA Guidelines § 15384, subd. (a); Save Our Big Trees v. City of Santa Cruz (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 694, 710-711 citing Muzzy Ranch Co. v. Solano County Airport Land Use Com. (2007) 41 Cal.4th 372, 386.
Here, despite the mass and scale of the Project extending on 17.2 acres of land, the Project’s ND (Negative Declaration) concludes the Project will have no significant impacts. Such findings, however, fall short of the low bar of the fair argument to support an ND. Specifically, there is a fair argument that the Project, with its ma ss and scale and proposed density and intensity, may have impacts on traffic, aesthetics, hazards and hazardous materials, biological resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water, land use and planning, and public service impacts, and therefore requires an EIR to study and mitigated those, as required by CEQA.
Response A-5: This comment sets forth the commenter’s view of the applicable legal requirements for evaluating a project’s environmental effects and determinin g the significance of such effects, however, it does not identify a specific concern or question re garding 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 commen ter 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 discre tion” standard, “the revi ewing court is not to ‘uncritically rely on ever y study or analysis presented by a pr oject 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 st acking and widening the secondary access to Frank Sinatra Drive in order to allow for easier traffic circulat ion. The City should be required to provide a comprehensive analysis on mitigating traffic and c ongestion in order to determine whether such measures are sufficient to address the inevitable traf fic and congestion impacts. It must also address and study the impacts of that very mitigation measure of “opening the main gate to eliminate veh icle stacking and widening the s econdary 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 woul d 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 Isla nd 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 rely ing 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 environmen tal 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 t he 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 an alysis based on standards of both the City of Rancho Mirage and the Institute of Traffic Eng ineers 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, in tersection of Island Drive and Frank Sinatra Drive for EAPC (2024) traffic conditions to deter mine the turn pocket lengths and lane geometries necessary to accommodate near term 95
th 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. Re sults 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 95
th 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 th at events with more than 300 p ersons 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-m ade improvements, such as st ructures, overhead utilities, and landscaping, often in relation to the aesthetic qu ality 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 physi cal compatibility of proposed pr ojects 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 resu lt in any significant environmental impact to aesthetics because the Desert Island Specific Plan contemplated the Project.
However, a closer read of the Desert Island Speci fic Plan will show that this is not factually accurate. The Desert Island Specific Plan cont emplated the construc tion of two additional residential towers along with tennis and clubhouse expansions. Id. The Project here far exceeds that scope. The Project includes the developm ent 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. Bec ause 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 reside ntial buildings southeast of the project and the clubhouse east of the project. The lighting utilized for the residentia l 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 de velopment 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 curre nt topography remains relatively flat: “The approximately 17.2-acre project site has been previously developed, and currently op erates 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 environmenta l 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 com menter thinks that the MND stat es that the Desert Island Specific Plan contemplates the project. The commenter is incorr ect 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 gove rning the design guidelines and development standards for the Desert Island area. The project p roposes a Specific Plan Amendment, which will develop approximately 17.2-acre area with in 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 buildi ng with parking will replace the existing driving range and old ma intenance building displaced b y 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 prop osed 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 analys is 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 comp rehensive 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 measu red 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 encompas ses detailed information pertaining to light fixtures and accessories that fully comply with the most recent Title 24 Standards. Based on the conclusi ve findings derived from the ph otometric analysis, it has been determined that no further analysis is necessary.
Finally, the commenter claims that the proposed development wil l 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 l ine-sight analysis starting on page 15, and in Exhibits I-1 through I-10 illustrating the proj ect’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 th e construction and operation of the Pr oject. The IS/MND also lacks the necessary analysis to adequately determine whether the Project would create a significant hazard to the public or the environmen t 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 material s will be stored or w hat 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 manufact urer’s instructions.” Id. at 74. As such, the ND concedes that there may be a risk in handlin g and transportation of such materials, but fails to provide any discussion about w hat those risks are, who those risks can affect, any potential environmental impacts that may result from su ch risks, and enforceable and binding ways to mitigate damages resulting therefrom.
Further, the ND states that “perimeter contro ls (fencing with wind sc reen), linear sediment barriers (gravel bags, fiber rolls, or silt fencin g), 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, le ss 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 consid er substantial eviden ce 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 Communitie s for a Better Environment, however, such thresholds cannot be used to determine automatically whether a given effect will or will not be significant. . . . not withstanding compli ance with a pertinent threshold of significance, the agency must still consider any fair argument that a certain environmental effect may be significant.” Protect the Hi storic 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, natur e, use, handling, and storage of such materials, and merely states “[t]hese potentially haz ardous 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 analys is. 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 invo lving 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 Pres erve 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 prov ide specific information on hazards and hazardous materials before the Project can proceed and befo re 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) th e 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 adequat e 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 subs tantial 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 h ealth and the environment. The commenter questions where the hazardous materials will be store d and certain protocols during project construction. Typical haz ardous materials used during c onstruction 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 fo r proper material delivery and storage; material use; and spill prevention and control. These temporary measures outline the required physical improvements an d procedures to prevent impact s 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, an d 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 key s, 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 t he 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 negati vely impact the environment or people. Page 75-76 discusses the existing regulations that appl y 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 Cal ifornia 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 St atewide 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 feder a l s t a n d a r d s , t h e p r o j e c t w i l l effectively address any potential impacts arising from the handling of hazardous substances during both the construction and operational phases. Therefore, no fur ther 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 wildl ife corridors nor is it located in a known wildlife corridor.
Therefore, the proposed project will not interf ere 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 mi gratory birds fly through. “When snow birds return to the desert from northern climes, migrat ory birds are arriving he re 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 e verywhere 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 drafte d 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 specifi cally for the proposed project. This comprehensive analysis thoroughly assessed the potential noise levels arising from bot h 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 f urther 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 c onstruction noise indicates that the nearest receiver locations will fully comply with the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significanc e threshold during project construction activities. Furthermore, the project will consiste ntly 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 perimete rs. This comprehensive analysis includes a detailed calculation summary, evaluating each specif i c a r e a o f t h e p r o j e c t , w h i c h 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 f ixtures and accessories that f ully comply with the 2022 Title 24 Standards. Based on the conclusi ve findings derived from the ph otometric 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 shak ing 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 signific ant seismic hazard that will impact Rancho Mirage.” Id. at page 62.
In fact, the approximately 17.2-acre Project pr operty 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 co mpliance 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 regulat ory 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 concl ude 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 cr itical analysis to after the Project is approved does not comport with CE QA. 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 m itigation 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 Californi a Building Code (CBC) standards to assess the geology and soil conditions of the proposed proj ect. The aforementioned sources were carefully examined to determine that there would be less than significant impacts fro m 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 pr oject 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 th e 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 Wa ter Management Plan (“Alternative Plan”) as an alte rnative 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 wate r 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 thei r Water Shortage Contingency Plans and take conservation actions to reduce water use. Negative Declarati on, 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 ext reme 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 impac t 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 Sect ion adequately takes into consideration the size, scale, and context of the proposed project within an existing resort complex to support its findings. Th e section adequately discuss es 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 as sessment. The project would not prevent or otherwise interfere w ith 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 ind oor and outdoor water conservation fixtures and practices compared to existing forms of developmen t. Therefore, a detailed assessment would not further expla in 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 Isl and and Desert Island Specific Plan area. As stated above, the City claims that the Project will not result in any significan t 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 add itional 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 d evelopment 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 maintenanc e building with parking. Id. Moreover, the proposed hotel will include four (4) one-sto ry 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 Sp ecific 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 Speci fic Plan area, contemplates t he 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 Spec ific 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.
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 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.
As stated above, this demonstrates that the City is aware that there may be a significant impact to public services access such as emergency vehi cles/services, and is mitigating the impacts by opening the main gate to eliminate vehicle st acking 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.
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. As a result, the ND errone ously concludes the Project will not have significant public services impacts, but renders such conclusion without providing substantial evidence to support the finding.
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 Sinatr a Drive for EAPC (2024) traffic conditions to determine the turn pocket lengths and lane geomet ries 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 standar d 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 dri veways 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. O perational 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 a re addressed, including emergen c y a c c e s s . T h e p r o j e c t i s n o t anticipated to result in inadequate emergency access. Impacts a r e l e s s t h a n s i gnificant 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 Pr oject 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 Repo nses 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, biologica l resources, geology and soils, hydrology, land use and planning, and public services. The find ings 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 Wi ldlife (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 aff ect California fish and wildlife. Likewise, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments re garding 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 sustainabl e populations of those species. (Id., § 1802.) Similarly, for purposes of CEQA, CDFW is charge d 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 Ame ndment (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 activ ities, yoga pavilion, ma intenance building with parking, and the proposed secondary access to Frank Sinatra Driv e. 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 w ould 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 co rner of Frank Sinatr a Drive and Bob Hope Drive, on approximately 17.2 acres within the De sert 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 i dentify 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 fo r biologically sustainable popula tions 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 th e 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 an d 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 ar e 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 additi onal 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 c oncerned that the assessment of the existing environmental setting has not b een 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 a ssessment 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 sign ificance. 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 recomme nds 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 pr ivate 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 Proj ect-related impacts to biological resources.
CDFW has identified gaps in information related to the project description.
CDFW Recommendation: The ND should include the appropri ate number of private residences to be constructed. Analysis and appropriate miti gation measures to avoid and reduce impacts to biological resources resulting from construction fo r the Project should be included in a revised ND.
Response B-5: The phasing discussion within the MND will be revised to stat e 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 pavilio n, 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 reside nce, and the proposed golf tra ining 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 biologica l 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 Proj ect-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 si gnificant. Analysis and appropriate mitigation measures to avoid and reduce impacts to biol ogical resources resulti ng from the timing of construction for the Project should be included in a revised ND.
Response B-6 : The MND acknowledges that the s outhern hotel pad in Phase 4 w ill be left undisturbed or reseeded with live turf until constructed. The stabilized hotel pad will be impacted by proposed ongoing construction activities, existing golf cour se 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 tr ees, shrubs, and accent plants to complement the desert environment, is planned throughout the Project site. However, no further details are provided.
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 Proj ect-related impacts to biological resources.
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 su pport butterflies, birds, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, bees, and othe r 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 info rmation 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: C oachella 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 Recomm ended 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 mitigat e 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 gr ound squirrels and burrowing ow ls; 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 enviro nmental setting that may be aff ected by the proposed Project.
CDFW is concerned that the asse ssment 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 r evised 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 t hat CDFW generally cons iders 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 dis turbed and developed. Any tempor arily stabilized/inactive areas will be impacted by surrounding const ruction activities, existing landscape and golf course maintenance activities and active gol f 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 consider ed 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 Ga me Code on September 9, 2008. The CVMSHCP establishes a multiple species conservation pr ogram 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, su ch 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 cons ervation plans. An assessment of the impacts to the CVMSHCP as a result of this Project is necessary to address CEQA requirements. To obtain additional informat ion 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 Coac hella 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 15 097(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 potent ial impacts to bur rowing 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 di sturbed or graded sites when constr uction 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 nest ing or foraging habitat; impacting burrowing owl populations through changes in vegetation via th e 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 mini mization measures be implemented for this species.
Recommended Potentially Feasible Mitigation Measure(s)
CDFW recommends that prior to commencing Project activitie s 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 suita ble 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 submitte d to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, minimization, and monitoring actions. Th e 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 consider ed 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 propos ed 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 Burrowi ng Owl Mitigation (2012 or most recent version). Preconstruction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist following the recommendations and guidelines provid ed in the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. If the preconstruction surveys confirm occupied burrowing owl habitat, Project activities shall be immediately halte d. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Pl an 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, th e project is currently not co nsidered 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 wa ter 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 de stroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds-of-prey) or to take, possess, or destro y 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 spec ific avoidance and minimization measures to ensure that impacts to nesting birds do not o ccur. 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 determin e 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 indi rect 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 nestin g 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 st op 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 r educe 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 fr om 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 in creases 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 Nari ns 2005, Patricelli and Bl ickley 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 generato rs 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 proj ect, 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 m orning), 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 s hould 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 adverse ly 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 func tion; 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 (Gats on et al. 2013). Many species use photoperiod cues for communication (e.g., bird song; Miller 2006), determin ing when to begin for aging (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, th e City of Rancho Mirage shall eliminate all nonessential lighting throughout the Pr oject 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 lightin g 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 lan dscaped 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 com munity. The project will provi de 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, th e proposed lighting must be sit uated 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 fix tures shall be appropriate in scale, intensity, and height to the uses they are serving. All exterio r 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 Ra ncho Mirage visible to residents and visitors. Riverside County Ordinance Number 655 regulates light pollution in the County.
Ordinance No. 655 restricts the pe rmitted use of certain light fixtures emitting into the night sky undesirable light rays which have a detrimental effect on astro nomical 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 comp rehensive 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 measu red 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 encompas ses detailed information pertaining to light fixtures and accessories that fully comply with the most recent Title 24 Standards. Based on the conclusi ve findings derived from the ph otometric analysis, it has been determined that no further analysis is necessary.
These requirements are establishe d to ensure that proposed deve lopment includes a minimum uniformity of light coverage, wh ile 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. Resour ces 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 submitt ed 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 wildlif e, and assessment of environmental document filing fees is necessary. Fees are payable upon filing of the Notice of Determination by the Lead Agency a nd 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 Departmen t for this information. The proj ect will comply with filing environmental documen t 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 asse ssment 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 Scie ntist (Specialist) at (760) 920-8252 or [email protected].
Response B-16 : The City thanks the Department for their participation in thi s process. This comment summarizes and concludes the Department’s letter. No additional response required. 6-1597