Rancho Mirage
City Council Meeting
January 15, 2026
Public Comments – Agenda Item No. 5B
Development Agreement Amendment No.
DA21-0002 for the Ritz Carlton Residences
From:Michael Harrington
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Cc:Ben Torres
Subject:Public Comment re Second Reading Development Agnnt Ritz/Sky Mesa Date:Sunday, December 21, 2025 9:04:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Re: Second Reading – Development Agreement Amendment (DA21-0002) CContinued from the December 18, 2025 City Council Meeting To: Kristie Ramos, City Clerk ([email protected]) Cc: Ben Torres, Planning Manager ([email protected]) City of Rancho Mirage
69-825 Highway 111
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I submit this written public comment for the second reading of the Development Agreement Amendment. My comments are directed specifically to the Development Agreement itself—not to rehash prior zoning approvals—but to address how recent project modifications should be responsibly mitigated and reflected in the agreement to protect the City’s long-term interests.
Equivalent Mountain Reserve Set-Aside as Constructive Mitigation The developer’s request to convert approximately 3.88 acres of Mountain Reserve land to resort and event uses increases project intensity in the foothills. A Development Agreement is the appropriate vehicle to offset that increase of potential liability on the city. I respectfully request that the agreement require the developer to permanently dedicate an equivalent 3.88
acres—either as one parcel or multiple smaller parcels—within the development or nearby holdings as Mountain Reserve or conservation open space.
This approach benefits the City in several important ways.
Preserved open space helps absorb stormwater, reduce erosion, and slow runoff during major rain events. Rancho Mirage experienced significant flooding during Tropical Storm Hilary, and Highway 111 remains particularly vulnerable to erosion-driven flooding that can impact nearby businesses and infrastructure. Natural terrain provides flood protection that engineered solutions alone cannot.
These risks are not hypothetical. The City of La Quinta and a developer were sued following flood damage attributed to poor planning, resulting in a costly settlement, as reported by the Desert Sun (May 16, 2017).
Requiring open-space mitigation through this Development Agreement helps protect Rancho Mirage taxpayers from similar liability exposure.
An equivalent Mountain Reserve dedication would also mitigate impacts to wildlife. The Sky Mesa resort and event project lies within mapped habitat for the federally protected Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. While fencing may limit bighorn sheep access to the project area, it does not protect reptiles, birds, or small mammals that rely on intact foothill habitat. Preserving additional open space remains one of the most effective ways to reduce cumulative impacts to sensitive species.
Why This Belongs in the Development Agreement
The Development Agreement exists to protect the public interest as development evolves over time. As resort and event uses expand in intensity, it is reasonable and appropriate for the agreement to include added measures that reduces city liability, flood risk, and future public
costs. An equivalent Mountain Reserve set-aside is a balanced, measurable, and permanent solution.
I respectfully urge the City Council to condition approval of the Development Agreement Amendment on the dedication of equivalent Mountain Reserve acreage. This approach protects wildlife, reduces erosion and flooding risk, and preserves the natural character that defines Rancho Mirage.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Harrington
Rancho Mirage Resident
Frank Sinatra / Da Vall Neighborhood
From:
To:
Subject:
Dat e:
Atta chments:
Michael Harrington
Kristie Ramos. CMC
For Jan 15 council mtg
Thu rsday, January 8, 2026 3 :16:46 PM
Amended Public Comment.pelf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless yo u recognize the sender and know the content is safe .
Warning: Unusual link
This message conta ins a n u n usual link , w hich may lead to a ma licio us site. Confirm the message is safe before c licking any links.
Amended Public Commen t for Jan 15 Ritz Carl ton agenda item Mike HaITington
Test inserted in case pdf doesn't open
Amended Public Comment
Agenda Item: Second Reading -Development Agreement Amendment Ritz-Carlton Rancho Mirage Project
Janmuy 15, 2026
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I submit this amended comment for th e second reading of th e D evelopment Agreemen t Amendment. My remarks are direct ed specifically to the Develop ment Agre emen t and th e City's long-te1m legal and financial exposme-not to r e-litigate zoning decisions ah-eady taken.
A petition to set as ide 3 .88 acr es fo r m ountain re serve circulated and is active on change.org link here
ht,tps://c .org/Hpgs fbCNDM
While the suggestion th at the developer set aside and dedicate other acreage for m ountain reserve remains a reasonable proposal to compensate for loss of 3.88 acreage of m ountain reserve, ne w developments r equire eve n mor e .
New Information from State and Federal Wildlife Agencies
On September 19, 2025, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service issued a joint compliance letter to the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission and its member cities, including Rancho Mirage, regarding implementation failures under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP).
This letter is directly relevant to the Development Agreement before you today.
The Wildlife Agencies state:
“Take of western burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs is not authorized under the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits.”
— CDFW / USFWS Compliance Letter, September 19, 2025
They further state:
“Permittees have not ensured that projects implemented under the CVMSHCP are implementing measures necessary to avoid impacts to western burrowing owl individuals, nests, and eggs.”
And critically:
“Payment of mitigation fees does not authorize take of covered species.” Why This Matters to the Development Agreement
The City’s Recirculated IS/MND relies heavily on:
• Deferred, pre-grading wildlife surveys
• General avoidance language
• Payment of mitigation fees to the Conservation Commission However, the Wildlife Agencies expressly warn that these measures, standing alone, are not sufficient to ensure legal compliance.
A Development Agreement vests development rights and limits the City’s future ability to impose new conditions. Approving the Agreement without incorporating enforceable, agency-consistent wildlife protections would shift compliance risk—and potential liability—from the developer to the City and its taxpayers.
Deferred Mitigation Is a Known Risk
The Wildlife Agencies specifically criticize deferral-based approaches:
“Surveys conducted without agency-approved protocols, or conducted too late in the project timeline, may fail to prevent unauthorized take.”
Yet the current Development Agreement does not require:
• Adoption of Wildlife-Agency-approved survey protocols • Enforceable avoidance buffers
• Agency oversight prior to grading
• Or habitat-based mitigation beyond fee payment
Request for Development Agreement Conditions
Before final adoption of the Development Agreement, I respectfully request that the City:
1. Incorporate enforceable wildlife protection measuresconsistent with the September 19, 2025 CDFW / USFWS letter, not merely fee payment or deferred surveys; and
2. Require equivalent mitigation for Mountain Reserve conversion, including permanent dedication of equivalent open-space acreage, which also reduces erosion and flood risk; and
3. Avoid vesting development rights that could prevent the City from responding to evolving wildlife compliance requirements already identified by state and federal agencies.
Closing
This is not speculative risk. State and federal agencies have now formally documented compliance concerns. The Development Agreement is the City’s last and best opportunity to address those concerns before they become legal exposure.
I respectfully urge the City Council to amend the Development Agreement accordingly before final approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Harrington
Rancho Mirage Resident
Frank Sinatra / Davall Neighborhood
Amended Public Comment
Agenda Item: Second Reading – Development Agreement Amendment Ritz-Carlton Rancho Mirage Project
January 15, 2026
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I submit this amended comment for the second reading of the Development Agreement Amendment.
My remarks are directed specifically to the Development Agreement and the City’s long-term legal and financial exposure—not to re-litigate zoning decisions already taken.
A petition to set aside 3.88 acres for mountain reserve circulated and is active on change.org link here https://c.org/HpgsfbCNDM
While the suggestion that the developer set aside and dedicate other acreage for mountain reserve remains a reasonable proposal to compensate for loss of 3.88 acreage of mountain reserve, new developments require even more.
New Information from State and Federal Wildlife Agencies On September 19, 2025, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service issued a joint compliance letter to the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission and its member cities, including Rancho Mirage, regarding implementation failures under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP).
This letter is directly relevant to the Development Agreement before you today.
The Wildlife Agencies state:
“Take of western burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs is not authorized under the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits.”
— CDFW / USFWS Compliance Letter, September 19, 2025
They further state:
“Permittees have not ensured that projects implemented under the CVMSHCP are implementing measures necessary to avoid impacts to western burrowing owl individuals, nests, and eggs.”
And critically:
“Payment of mitigation fees does not authorize take of covered species.” Why This Matters to the Development Agreement
The City’s Recirculated IS/MND relies heavily on:
• Deferred, pre-grading wildlife surveys
• General avoidance language
• Payment of mitigation fees to the Conservation Commission However, the Wildlife Agencies expressly warn that these measures, standing alone, are not sufficient to ensure legal compliance.
A Development Agreement vests development rights and limits the City’s future ability to impose new conditions. Approving the Agreement without incorporating enforceable, agency-consistent wildlife protections would shift compliance risk—and potential liability— from the developer to the City and its taxpayers.
Deferred Mitigation Is a Known Risk
The Wildlife Agencies specifically criticize deferral-based approaches:
“Surveys conducted without agency-approved protocols, or conducted too late in the project timeline, may fail to prevent unauthorized take.” Yet the current Development Agreement does not require:
• Adoption of Wildlife-Agency-approved survey protocols • Enforceable avoidance buffers
• Agency oversight prior to grading
• Or habitat-based mitigation beyond fee payment
Request for Development Agreement Conditions
Before final adoption of the Development Agreement, I respectfully request that the City:
1.Incorporate enforceable wildlife protection measures consistent with the September 19, 2025 CDFW / USFWS letter, not merely fee payment or deferred surveys; and
2.Require equivalent mitigation for Mountain Reserve conversion, including permanent dedication of equivalent open-space acreage, which also reduces erosion and flood risk; and
3.Avoid vesting development rights that could prevent the City from responding to evolving wildlife compliance requirements already identified by
state and federal agencies.
Closing
This is not speculative risk. State and federal agencies have now formally documented compliance concerns. The Development Agreement is the City’s last and best opportunity to address those concerns before they become legal exposure.
I respectfully urge the City Council to amend the Development Agreement accordingly before final approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Harrington
Rancho Mirage Resident
Frank Sinatra / Davall Neighborhood
From:Michael Harrington
To:Kristie Ramos, CMC
Subject:For 1/15/2026 mtg (not 2025)
Date:Tuesday, January 13, 2026 1:32:23 PM
Attachments:Wildlife Agencies Compliance and Implementation Issues for Burrowing Owl CVMSHCP 09192025 2.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage. DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
External sender
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions.
Please include this Exhibit A (attached pdf) to my written public comment on 1/15/2026 Ritz Carlton Development Agreement which has been designated as agenda item 5b Mike Harrington
1 In Reply Refer to:
FWS/CDFW-RIV-2025-0119098
September 19, 2025
Sent by Email
Tom Kirk
Executive Director
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission
74-199 El Paseo
Palm Desert, California 92260
[email protected]
Kathleen Brundige
Director of Conservation
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission
74-199 El Paseo
Palm Desert, California 92260
[email protected]
RE: Compliance and Implementation Issues for Western Burrowing Owl as a Covered Species under the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan and Natural Community Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP)
Dear Tom Kirk, Kathleen Brundige, and CVMSHCP Permittees:
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), collectively the Wildlife Agencies, prepared this letter to communicate our concerns about past and ongoing compliance issues with the Coachella Valley Conservation Commission’s (CVCC) and Permittees’ implementation of the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP or Plan), particularly as it pertains to western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), a CVMSHCP Covered Species and candidate species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The CVMSHCP is governed by both CDFW’s Natural Community Conservation Plan Permit issued under the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (CDFW Permit) and the Service’s section 10(a)(1)(B) permit issued under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (Service Permit), collectively the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits. The applicable state and Federal take authorization requirements are set forth in sections 2081(b) and 2835 of the California Fish and Game Code and section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, respectively. The Wildlife Agencies serve in multiples roles in CVMSHCP implementation, including as the permitting agencies for the Service Permit and CDFW Permit, as oversight entities ensuring Plan implementation consistent U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office
777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 208
Palm Springs, Ca li fornia 92262
CALlFORNTA DE PARTMENT OF
FISH AND WlLDLIFE
Inl and Deserts Region
3602 inland Em pire Blvd., Suite C -220
Ontario, Cali fornia 91764
2 with the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits per Implementing Agreement (IA) Sections 14.4 and 15.4, and as members of the Reserve Management Oversight Committee and Reserve Management Unit Committee. Upon issuance of the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits, CVMSHCP Permittees were provided Take Authorization for Covered Activities within the Plan Area boundaries, both inside and outside Conservation Areas, provided those Covered Activities: are identified in the CVMSHCP; are consistent with the requirements of the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits, the CVMSHCP, the IA; and are otherwise lawful.1
Based on coordination with many Permittees, it is apparent that Permittees misunderstand the nature and extent of the Take Authorization related to western burrowing owl under the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits. Importantly, the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits authorize the loss of a finite number of known occurrences, defined as habitat and burrows (CDFW Permit Section 3.5.6).
Take2 or destruction3 of western burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs is not authorized under the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits. Thus, to comply with the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits and to fully implement the CVMSHCP, within the Plan Area (both inside and outside of Conservation Areas), Permittees must ensure that Covered Activities within their jurisdictions do not result in the Take of western burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs (CDFW Permit, p. 37).
Any Take of western burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs is unlawful under CESA and any activity causing such Take is not a Covered Activity under the CVMSHCP. For private and public projects within Local Permittees’ jurisdictions, Local Permittees are obligated to enforce compliance with all applicable requirements of the CVMSHCP, the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits, and the IA (see IA Sections 13.2(g), 17.1, and 17.6). Local Permittees are therefore responsible for ensuring that measures necessary to avoid Take of western burrowing owl individuals, nests, and eggs are implemented for all Covered Activities within their jurisdictions.
As a result of the ongoing compliance and implementation issues summarized below, CDFW and the Service sent letters to CVCC on November 4, 2024, clarifying the extent of Take Authorization related to western burrowing owl provided by the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits for Covered Activities identified in the CVMSHCP.
CVMSHCP Compliance and Implementation Issues for Western Burrowing Owl The Wildlife Agencies have raised with CVCC, the implementing entity for the CVMSHCP, the following issues in implementing and complying with the Plan and Wildlife Agencies’ Permits:
1. Long-Term Conservation Strategy. A Long-Term Conservation Strategy for western burrowing owl has not yet been developed by CVCC. Per requirements in Section 8.5.2 of
1 Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in statute, the Plan, and the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits. 2 “Take” is defined under Fish and Game Code section 86 as to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to do any of those things. “Take” under the Endangered Species Act is defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect any threatened or endangered species , or to attempt to engage in any of those actions. Although western burrowing owl is not a federally listed species under the Endangered Species Act, as a non-listed species covered in a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), it must be treated as if it were already listed, and all conservation measures described in the CVMSHCP for western burrowing owl must be fully implemented. 3 See Fish & G. Code, §§ 3503 & 3503.5.
3 the CVMSHCP, CVCC was required to prepare and implement a Long-Term Conservation Strategy for western burrowing owl within 6 years after issuance of the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits (by 2014). Without a Long-Term Conservation Strategy, Permittees cannot ensure long-term persistence of self-sustaining populations of western burrowing owl in the Plan Area. It is Permittees’ obligation to ensure implementation consistent with the Species Conservation Goals and Objectives in Section 9 of the CVMSHCP (IA Sections 13.2–13.13), including ensuring conservation of western burrowing owl by maintaining long-term persistence of self-sustaining populations or meta populations in the Plan Area (CVMSHCP Section 9.7.3). Per Section 8.5.2 of the CVMSHCP, an Interim Conservation Strategy for western burrowing owl was to be implemented by CVCC subject to the approval of the Wildlife Agencies. CVCC was required to include in the Interim Conservation Strategy systematic surveys of western burrowing owls that could be used to inform the development of the Long-Term Conservation Strategy. In 2025, the Wildlife Agencies were informed that western burrowing owl surveys had commenced in the CVMSHCP Plan Area at the direction of CVCC. However, the Wildlife Agencies were not informed about this effort until after surveys had started and were not given any opportunity to review and approve the survey methods. This is inconsistent with the CVMSHCP, which requires the Wildlife Agencies’ concurrence on protocols to systematically survey for western burrowing owls (CVMSHCP Section 8.5.2). Approval from the Wildlife Agencies would be necessary even for survey methods used in 2009/2010 to ensure the protocols reflect the current best available science (given that a decade and a half have elapsed). A robust survey/study design must be used to ensure the data collected are sufficient to inform the Long-Term Conservation Strategy. The Wildlife Agencies must approve the methodology for future surveys that will be used to inform the Long-Term Conservation Strategy.
2. Unauthorized Take of Western Burrowing Owl. The Wildlife Agencies reiterated the nature and extent of the Take Authorization related to western burrowing owl under the CVMSHCP and the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits in letters sent to CVCC on November 4, 2024. CVCC and Permittees have not tracked or reported the extent of Take of western burrowing owl individuals, nests, or eggs—none of which is authorized under the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits—that has occurred in the Plan area since approval of the CVMSHCP and issuance of the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits. The implications for the CVMSHCP’s long-term conservation goals and objectives for this Covered Species are unknown.
3. Tracking Loss of Identified Occurrences of Western Burrowing Owl. It is the Wildlife Agencies’ understanding that CVCC and Permittees have not tracked the disturbance to and loss of western burrowing owl occurrences (habitat and burrows) within the Plan Area (inside and outside Conservation Areas) since the CVMSHCP was approved in 2008. This is inconsistent with the following requirements of the CVMSHCP and the CDFW Permit: (1) CVCC and Permittees are obligated to track and report loss of habitat for Covered Species and the implementation of conditions on development (e.g., pre-construction surveys, avoidance measures, etc.) outside of Conservation Areas, as described in the CDFW Permit (p. 79), the IA (p. 20 and Section 13.2), and CVMSHCP Section 6.1.1.3. Without CVCC and Permittees tracking loss of habitat, the Wildlife Agencies are precluded from determining whether authorized losses have been met or exceeded. (2) CVCC is required to develop a
4 Long-Term Conservation Strategy, including conservation goals and objectives, that would identify a minimum number of sites occupied by western burrowing owls and carrying capacities for those sites (CVMSHCP Section 8.5.2), as well as other long-term conservation needs for western burrowing owls in the Plan Area (Service’s Findings, p. 46).
4. Implementation of Avoidance and Minimization Measures. Permittees have not ensured that the projects for which they convey Take Authorization are implementing measures necessary to avoid impacts to western burrowing owl individuals, nests, and eggs throughout the Plan Area (inside and outside Conservation Areas), as required in the CDFW Permit (pp. 36 and 37). Nor have Permittees ensured the required avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures described in Sections 4.4, 8.4.7.4, 8.5.2, and 9.7.3 of the CVMSHCP, including relocation protocols approved by the Wildlife Agencies, are being fully implemented.
In addition, western burrowing owl–specific manuals for operations and maintenance (O&M) activities in levees, berms, dikes, and similar features in the Plan Area (inside and outside Conservation Areas) have not been prepared or revised by CVCC and the relevant Permittees, as required by the CDFW Permit (p. 37), Service’s Findings (p. 45), and CVMSHCP Section 4.4. Pursuant to the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits and the CVMSHCP, these manuals are required to outline measures necessary to avoid impacts to western burrowing owl in these features, which contain high concentrations of western burrowing owls.
Permittees are also required to conduct periodic surveys for western burrowing owl within levees, berms, dikes, and similar features within the Plan Area (inside and outside Conservation Areas) (Service’s Findings, p. 45) and to make findings to inform avoidance actions associated with O&M activities and encourage presence of western burrowing owl within these features (CVMSHCP Section 4.4 and Table 4-116 on p. 4-202). Based on the records available to the Wildlife Agencies, surveys for western burrowing owl in these features have not been conducted since 2011, roughly a decade and a half ago.
A Long-Term Conservation Strategy is necessary for CVCC and Permittees to develop and implement the following: long-term conservation goals and objectives (the CVMSHCP specifically did not model habitat for western burrowing owl and, therefore, lacks land conservation goals); clear and appropriate avoidance and minimization measures for all Covered Activities within the Plan Area; protocols for western burrowing owl relocation methods that are approved by the Wildlife Agencies; and other important components of a comprehensive Long- Term Conservation Strategy. Development and implementation of these components are required under the CVMSHCP and needed to maintain self-sustaining populations of western burrowing owl within the Plan Area.
Framework to Address Compliance and Implementation Issues for Western Burrowing Owl
The Wildlife Agencies propose that CVCC and Permittees utilize the following two-part framework to address the compliance and implementation issues identified in this letter and
5 fulfill their obligations for western burrowing owl under the CVMSHCP and the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits:
1. Develop a Long-Term Conservation Strategy for Western Burrowing Owl. CVCC will collaborate with the Wildlife Agencies to prepare a written Long-Term Conservation Strategy, which will be subject to approval by the Wildlife Agencies. An effective and actionable Long-Term Conservation Strategy (as outlined in Section 8.5.2 of the CVMSHCP) must be based on current and scientifically valid methods and must include additional data, research, and evaluation of the effects of loss of western burrowing owl occurrences based on an up-to-date understanding of their distribution and abundance, including a population estimate, in the Plan Area (inside and outside the Conservation Areas). The Long-Term Conservation Strategy must also identify long-term conservation goals and objectives that ensure long-term persistence of self-sustaining populations or meta populations in the Plan Area. The CVMSHCP and Wildlife Agencies’ Permits require Permittees to maintain a minimum of 16 pairs of western burrowing owls within the Conservation Areas during the Interim Conservation Strategy period, until studies can identify the long-term conservation needs of the species in the Plan Area (CVMSHCP 8.5.2, Service's Biological Opinion). As part of developing the Long-Term Conservation Strategy, CVCC must identify a minimum number of sites occupied by western burrowing owl and the carrying capacity for those sites (CVMSHCP Section 8.5.2). At the time of Plan initiation, the initial evaluation of the effects of loss of burrowing owl occurrences, based on limited data, concluded that 55% (CDFW Permit) and 60% (Service Permit) of burrowing owl occurrences were located in the Reserve Assembly, while 45% (CDFW Permit) and 40% (Service Permit) of burrowing owl occurrences were located outside Conservation Areas (the Service's analysis included additional burrowing owl location data). Based on our current understanding of burrowing owl presence in Coachella Valley, the percentage of burrowing owl occurrences inside the Reserve Assembly is likely significantly lower, and the percentage of burrowing owl occurrences outside Conservation Areas significantly higher, than suggested by the initial datasets used to evaluate the effects of loss of burrowing owl occurrences. Based on updated data on burrowing owl occurrences and a population estimate in the Plan Area, the Long-Term Conservation Strategy must re-evaluate the effect of loss of burrowing owl occurrences as part of the analysis to determine long-term conservation goals and objectives for western burrowing owl and inform the need for other actions to ensure self-sustaining populations of western burrowing owl in the Plan Area.
The Long-Term Conservation Strategy will be a document that can be updated in the future when new information is obtained through the Monitoring Program or when Adaptive Management is needed (Section 8.5.2 of the CVMSHCP), subject to the approval of the Wildlife Agencies. CVCC will submit a draft Long-Term Conservation Strategy to the Wildlife Agencies for review no later than two years from the date of this letter (see Attachment 1: Timeline for Two-Part Framework to Address Compliance Issues). The Wildlife Agencies will review the draft Long-Term Conservation Strategy prior to
6 finalization and approve it only if it fully complies with the CVMSHCP, IA, and Wildlife Agencies' Permits.
2. Address Compliance and Implementation Issues While Developing a Long-Term Conservation Strategy.
a. Implement Requirements for Protection of Western Burrowing Owl. To ensure compliance with the CVMSHCP and Wildlife Agencies’ Permits during the development of the Long-Term Conservation Strategy, CVCC and Permittees will implement requirements for protection of western burrowing owl provided by the Wildlife Agencies. The Wildlife Agencies will provide CVCC and Permittees with a written summary clarifying applicable requirements related to western burrowing owl under the CVMSHCP and the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits, as well as CESA, during development of the Long-Term Conservation Strategy, including, but not limited to, early coordination with the Wildlife Agencies for all Covered Activities—both inside and outside Conservation Areas—where western burrowing owl may be present.
Permittees will be required to coordinate with the Wildlife Agencies, which includes meeting with the Wildlife Agencies as needed and obtaining approval for actions prior to the start of project activities. The Wildlife Agencies will provide the written summary to CVCC and Permittees within 3 months of the date of this letter. CVCC and Permittees will implement the requirements upon receipt of the written summary. b. Implement Adaptive Management for Protection of Western Burrowing Owl.
Consistent with the Adaptive Management provision of the IA (Sections 11.3.1 and
20.3) and CVMSHCP (Section 6.8.2), the Wildlife Agencies and CVCC will collaborate to update inadequate and ambiguous Plan language regarding avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for western burrowing owl, using best available science and ensuring consistency with the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits, including, but not limited to, requirements for all Covered Activities as necessary to avoid Take of western burrowing owl individuals, nests, and eggs throughout the Plan Area. CVCC will submit draft updated language to the Wildlife Agencies for review within 6 months of the date of this letter. The Wildlife Agencies will approve updates to inadequate and ambiguous plan language to ensure consistency with the CVMSHCP, IA, and Wildlife Agencies' Permits.
c. Assess Loss of Western Burrowing Owl Occurrences. An assessment is necessary to determine the extent of loss of occurrences identified in the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits and whether the impacts envisioned under the CVMSHCP and authorized under the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits have been exceeded. CVCC, in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies, will identify a mechanism by which CVCC and Permittees will track and report on the disturbance to and loss of occurrences (habitat and burrows) associated with: (1) the number of known western burrowing owl occurrences authorized for loss in the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits; and (2) all other western burrowing owl occurrences lost or disturbed throughout the Plan Area, both inside and outside Conservation Areas, since the approval of the Plan. CVCC should
7 develop this mechanism and submit it to the Wildlife Agencies for review and approval within 3 months of the date of this letter. CVCC and Permittees will complete the tracking and reporting activities pursuant to the approved mechanism within 6 months of the Wildlife Agencies’ approval of the mechanism so that the resulting data is available to inform the development of the Long-Term Conservation Strategy.
d. Prepare or Revise Maintenance Manuals and Update Periodic Surveys. CVCC, Riverside County Flood Control, Coachella Valley Water District, and Imperial Irrigation District (CDFW Permit, p. 37; CVMSHCP, p. 4-167) will prepare or revise western burrowing owl–specific manuals for maintenance staff that include appropriate avoidance actions, based on Wildlife Agencies’ Permit requirements and best available science, that apply to the levees, berms, dikes, and similar features within the Plan Area (both inside and outside Conservation Areas) that are maintained by those Permittees. CVCC and these relevant Permittees will submit an outline for each manual to the Wildlife Agencies for review and approval within 3 months of the date of this letter and will submit the draft manuals to the Wildlife Agencies for review and approval within 6 months of the date that the Wildlife Agencies approve each outline. Within 6 months of the date of this letter, CVCC and relevant Permittees will also submit to the Wildlife Agencies for review and approval proposed plans with survey methodology and timeframes for periodic surveys for western burrowing owl within levees, berms, dikes, and similar features within the Plan Area, which will inform appropriate measures to encourage western burrowing owls to use these features and to avoid and minimize impacts to western burrowing owl. CVCC and relevant Permittees will conduct the periodic surveys according to the plans approved by the Wildlife Agencies.
Conclusion
Among other long-term conservation goals and objectives for western burrowing owl, including those to be identified in a Long-Term Conservation Strategy, Permittees have an overarching obligation to ensure the long-term persistence of self-sustaining populations of western burrowing owl in the Plan Area. The issues summarized above constitute significant issues with the implementation of, and compliance with, the CVMSHCP and the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits. The Wildlife Agencies have outlined a framework to address these issues and will support CVCC and Permittees on a path to full compliance with the CVMSHCP and the Wildlife Agencies’ Permits. The Wildlife Agencies acknowledge that implementation of the CVMSHCP is an immense task, and we want to work in partnership with CVCC and Permittees to ensure the success of the CVMSHCP. The Wildlife Agencies will schedule a meeting with CVCC in the upcoming weeks to start the process of addressing these issues. We look forward to collaborating with CVCC on this framework to ensure consistency and compliance with the CVMSHCP, IA, and Wildlife Agencies’ Permits.
8 If you have any questions about these comments, please contact Jacob Skaggs, Senior Environmental Scientist Specialist ([email protected]), and Lory Salazar-Velasquez, Fish and Wildlife Biologist (lory [email protected]).
Sincerely,
Kim Freeburn Brian Croft
Environmental Program Manager Field Supervisor
California Department of Fish and Wildlife U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Attachment 1. Timeline for Two-Part Framework to Address Compliance Issues cc:
Wildlife Agencies
Mary Beth Woulfe, USFWS, Acting Colorado Desert Division Supervisor, [email protected]
Noelle Ronan, USFWS, Wildlife Biologist, [email protected] Heather Brashear, CDFW, Senior Environmental Scientist Supervisor, [email protected]
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission/Coachella Valley Association of Governments Peter Satin, Conservation Program Manager, [email protected] CVMSHCP Permittees
Elizabeth King, Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, [email protected] Dina El-Tawansy, District Director, California Department of Transportation, dina.el- [email protected]
Armando Quintero, Director, California Department of Parks and Recreation, [email protected]
Charlie McCledon, City Manager, City of Cathedral City, [email protected] Bill Pattison, City Manager, City of Coachella, [email protected] Doria Wilms, City Manager, City of Desert Hot Springs, [email protected]
9 Christopher Freeland, City Manager, City of Indian Wells, [email protected] Bryan Montgomery, City Manager, City of Indio, [email protected] Jon McMillen, City Manager, City of La Quinta, [email protected] Chris Excobedo, Interim City Manager, City of Palm Desert, [email protected] Scott Stiles, City Manager, City of Palm Springs, [email protected] Isaiah Hagerman, City Manager, City of Rancho Mirage, [email protected] Jim Barrett, General Manager, Coachella Valley Water District, [email protected] Jamie Asbury, General Manager, Imperial Irrigation District, [email protected] Brian Macy, General Manager, Mission Springs Water District, [email protected] Jeffrey A. Van Wagenen Jr., Chief Executive Officer, County of Riverside, [email protected]
Jason Uhley, General Manager/Chief Engineer, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, [email protected]
Kyla Brown, General Manager, Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District, [email protected]
Andy Cortez, Chief Executive Officer, Riverside County Waste Resources Management District, [email protected]
10 Attachment 1. Timeline for Two-Part Framework to Address Compliance Issues Task
No.
Task Responsible
Parties
Deliverables Timeline
1 Develop
Long-Term
Conservation
Strategy
CVCC, subject
to approval of
the Wildlife
Agencies
CVCC will submit a draft Long-
Term Conservation Strategy to the
Wildlife Agencies for review and
approval.
CVCC will submit the draft
no later than 2 years from the
date of this letter.
2(a) Implement
requirements
for species
protection
CVCC,
Permittees,
and the
Wildlife
Agencies
Wildlife Agencies will provide a
written summary of requirements
to CVCC and Permittees; CVCC
and Permittees will implement said
requirements.
Wildlife Agencies will
provide the written summary
within 3 months of the date
of this letter; CVCC and
Permittees will start
implementation upon receipt
of summary.
2(b) Implement
adaptive
management
CVCC, subject
to approval of
the Wildlife
Agencies
CVCC will submit draft updates to
inadequate/ambiguous Plan
language to the Wildlife Agencies
for review and approval.
CVCC will submit the draft
updates within 6 months of
the date of this letter.
2(c) Assess loss of
western
burrowing
owl
occurrences
CVCC,
Permittees,
and the
Wildlife
Agencies
CVCC will submit a proposed
mechanism to track/report the loss
of western burrowing owl
occurrences to the Wildlife
Agencies for review and approval;
CVCC and Permittees will conduct
tracking/reporting utilizing the
approved mechanism.
CVCC will submit a
proposed mechanism within
3 months of the date of this
letter; CVCC and Permittees
will complete
tracking/reporting utilizing
the approved mechanism
within 6 months of the
Wildlife Agencies’ approval
of the mechanism.
2(d) Prepare or
revise
maintenance
manuals
CVCC,
relevant
Permittees,
and the
Wildlife
Agencies
CVCC, in collaboration with
relevant Permittees, will submit a
draft outline for each maintenance
manual to the Wildlife Agencies
for review and approval; CVCC, in
collaboration with relevant
Permittees, will submit draft
manuals based on the approved
outlines to the Wildlife Agencies
for review and approval.
CVCC will submit draft
outlines within 3 months of
the date of this letter; CVCC
will submit each draft manual
within 6 months of the
Wildlife Agencies’ approval
of the respective outline.
2(d) Update
periodic
surveys
CVCC,
relevant
Permittees,
and the
Wildlife
Agencies
CVCC, in collaboration with
relevant Permittees, will submit
draft survey plans to the Wildlife
Agencies for review and approval;
CVCC and relevant Permittees will
conduct periodic surveys
consistent with approved plans.
CVCC will submit draft
survey plans within 6 months
of the date of this letter;
CVCC and relevant
Permittees will conduct
periodic surveys according to
the timeframes in the
approved survey plans.
Kristie Ramos, CMC
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Brad Anderson
Thursday, January 15, 2026 11 :35 AM
City Clerk; Isaiah Hagerman , CPA
[email protected]
Public Comment -City of Rancho Mirage Council meeting of January 15, 2026 (1 :PM) - Agenda Item: 5.B.
Follow up
Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside The City of Rancho Mirage . DO NOT CLICK links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe .
I External sender
Make sure you trust this sender before taking any actions .
January 15, 2026
City of Rancho Mirage
City Council/ City Hall
69825 Hwy 111
Rancho Mirage, CA . 92270
Attention : Clerk of the Board
Re: Written testimony in regards to Agenda Item: 5.B . (Tenth Amendment of unique relationship with City officials and private sector business/Ritz Carlton , proposed Ordinance No. 1233) Dear current elected and appointed City Council members, Please review my written statement listed below prior to the consideration of agenda Item as listed.
Position: In Opposi ti on (as presented)
Its necceary to again submit written statements that were submitted earlier (First Reading/Introduction) of the proposed expansion of the private sector business Ritz Carlton located near Rancho Mirage City Hall due to the citys planning (censorship techniques) of projects without concern of impacts related to those types of major projects on city residents and businesses .
Please see attached (Written testimony subm itted on December 17 , 2025) to the Rancho Mirage city clerks email address in regards to this subject .
Thank you,
Brad Anderson I 37043 Ferber Dr . Rancho Mirage , CA . 92270 1 Cc:
----------Forwarded message ---------
From : Brad Anderson
Date: Wed, Dec 17, 2025, 2:00 PM
Subject: Public Comment -City of Rancho Mirage Council meeting of December 18, 2025 (1 :PM) PUBLIC HEARING TOPIC -6.A.
To:
December 17, 2025
City of Rancho Mirage
City Council/ City Hall
69825 Hwy 111
Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270
Attention: Clerk of the Board
Re: Written testimony in regards to Agenda Item: 6.A. (PUBLIC HEARING -City titled: Environmental Assessment Case No. EA21-0002, General Plan Zoning Map Amendment Case No. GPZMA21-0001, Major Modification Case No. MOD21-0004, & Tentative Parcel Map Case No. TPM23-0002 (TPM38768) - Ritz Carlton (Rancho Mirage). APN's: 689-330-026, -028, -031, -032, -034; 689-020-012, -014; & 689-331- 001 -018).
Dear current elected and appointed City Council members, Please review my written statements listed below prior to the consideration of agenda Item 6.A. (PUBLIC
HEARING)
Position: In Opposition (as presented)
It's critical that future action of potential nullification of this body's decisions related to this and other governing action (PUBLIC HEARING topics) be conducted appropriately. Please be advised that prior public hearings conducted under the city's authority over the past year have been compromised by radical political maneuvers of city officials.
Unusual methods conducted by city officials of censorship techniques of city controlled written meeting minutes (Official Public Record) have removed critical information -such as a brief description (summary) of concerns and opinions expressed by public testimony along with abandonment of recording if any stances (In opposition or support or other) were indicated during public comment(s) and 2 those verbal statements were not recorded within the official public record (written meeting minutes) of city controlled proceedings.
It's crystal clear that city of Rancho Mirage has exceed their authority with their operation of censorship techniques in regards to recording verbalize public testimony (written meeting minutes/official public record) in an accurate fashion of (Public Hearing topics) held under it's authority.
Please be aware that aspects of the citys constructed staff report (Page 209 -Planning Commission) deceived the reader. It was mentioned that "multiple public comments were received during the public hearing. As sumarized in the meeting minutes" -
Please be advised that the citys constructed written recorded meeting minutes of those proceedings DIDN'T SUMARIZED any of the public comments received. ONLY the speakers names were recorded within the official public record.
Contacted work for the proposed development may be unfavourable for a fair and high quality workforce. (Organized labor) appears to be an element that the developer wishes to sidestep. The development accepted federal government resources during the recent COVID-19 narrative event, and apparently will be unwilling to employ properly trained and compensated workforce (organized labor) that would mirror the development desired public impression of an elite level of service and accommodation.
It's reasonable to consider that the encroachment of the proposed development on undeveloped land (hillside) will cause an environmental experiment to wildlife (animals/flora ect...) that is currently unaffected and undisturbed. Drainage (water run-off) would be increased if desired construction of the underlying development encroachment towards the desert floor is granted.
Public appreciation of Rancho Mirages undisturbed natural hillsides should be perserved for future generations. Pollutes such as building and night time unnatural light sources will be an unprecedented destruction of a natural resource.
It's reasonable to consider that recent traffic signal pattern modification that placed limitation on high traffic volumes to allow east bound (down hill) traffic of Frank Sinatra Drive to enter the intersection (Frank Sinatra Dr./ Hwy 111) before other traditional traffic flows is intentional and puposely Imposed possibility by city officials and Coachella Valley Association of Government (CVAG) administrators. It's highly recommended to abandon modifying traffic signals to accommodate special Interests.
Please don't take any reprisal actions against my private property or person for reporting this true and accurate summary of concerns and opinions.
Sincerely,
Brad Anderson I 37043 Ferber Dr. Rancho Mirage, CA. 92270 Cc:
3