Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout18439 - RESOLUTIONS - 7/20/1994 RESOLUTION NO. 18439 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE PENINSULAR RANGES COORDINATED BIGHORN SHEEP METAPOPULATION ECOSYSTEM PLAN BE REVISED PRIOR TO ADOPTION BY VARIOUS STATE AND FEDERAL AGENCIES . WHEREAS the Bureau of Land. Management, US Forest Service, US Fish & Wildlife Service, State Parks and Recreation, and State Resources Agency (the Agencies) have prepared the Peninsular Ranges Coordinated Bighorn Sheep Metatpopulation Ecosystem Plan (the Plan) for the purpose of managing the recovery of Bighorn Sheep within the Peninsular Range Province; and WHEREAS the Plan affects portions of the City of Palm Springs lying within and adjacent to the Santa Rosa Mountains and Sari Jacinto Mountains; and WHEREAS the City of Palm Springs General Plan identified significant wildlife resources within areas within the City limits covered by the Plan; and WHEREAS the Planning Commission at its June 22 , 1994 meeting recommended that the subject Plan is inadequate and that it should be revised prior to adoption by the participating agencies; and WHEREAS the City Council has considered the recommendation of the Planning Commission. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of ' Palm Springs hereby :recommends to the Agencies that the Plan be revised and circulated for public review and that the comments contained in Exhibit A,, attached hereto, be incorporated into the Plan. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that. the City Council 0:1 the City of Palm Springs supports habitat conservation and habitat protection pursuant to the City' s General Plan but cannot support the subject Plan as currently drafted. ADOPTED this 20th _ day of July 1994 . AYES : Members Hodges, Kleindienst, Lyons, Reller•-Spurgin and Mayor Maryanov NOES : None ABSENT: None ATTEST: ITY OF PALM :i' NG , C:ALIFORNIA BYI �— City Clerk CI Managpr REVIEWED & APPROVED — � R18439 Page 2 EXHIBIT A CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Comments on Peninsular Ranges Coordinated Bighorn Sheep Metapopulation Ecosystem Plan June 22, 1994 ' (Revised July 5, 1994) Executive Summary Purpose of Plan. By mentioning the Least Bell' s vireo and desert slender salamander, does this plan apply to these species? Addressing these species in the "Current Status" and "Habitat Requirements and Limiting Factors" implies that the plan applies to these species . These references should be under a separate heading such as "Other Rare, Endangered, or Threatened Species within Planning Area" . The document should clearly state its intent and focus on bighorn sheep or that it is a multi-species document covering three species . Mans and Exhibits . The maps provided in this document are not clear and legible . The map scale and base information render the maps almost unusable. The maps should clearly show boundaries and key geographic features so the reader can understand the proper geographic setting. Map 4, "Potential Impact to San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains Habitat If Cities Are Fully Developed" should not be used in the document . It shows city ' limit boundaries only. This exhibit should not imply that it is possible or realistic that 1000 of any city will be developed. Areas which cannot be developed due to topography, remoteness, habitat values, and other factors should be excluded. This map is inaccurate and misleading and should not be published. Public Participation. The public and the City of Palm Springs participated in a series of workshops . Workshop summaries and/or minutes should be included in this document as an appendix. Many reasonable suggestions were raised at these. workshops and this document should include this information. Essential Habitats . The conclusion that all historical habitat is necessary for recovery should be supported by information and data. This conclusion is far-reaching in its effect on public and private property and is not supported with the necessary biological background to make it a reasonable and viable objective . "How much land" and "what areas" should be the objective, not all historical habitat . It is unreasonable to assume that the ' governmental agencies and private sector can afford to set all historical habitat aside via purchase, easement, or other methods . Environmental Assessment . Prior to Plan adoption an environmental assessment should be prepared and circulated for public review. The environmental assessment, revised Plan and revised maps should be circulated for a joint public review period. R18439 Page 3 Need for a Revised Draft and Further Public Review. The subject document must be coordinated with all affected agencies and parties (public and private) to be an effective resource management document . Currently, the document may provide the minimum level of detail to .achieve the stated goals as defined, by the Coordinated Resource Management Planning Committee (CAMP) but it does not provide a full , understanding of the project objectives . The Plan as currently written is vague and ambiguous with regard to the Santa Rosa Mountains Wildlife Habitat Management Plan (SRMWHMP) and the Plan' s purpose with :regard to the Least Bell' s vireo and desert slender salamander. It is the City' s understanding that the SRMWHMP will be superseded by this Plan. The present text is unclear on this issue. Currently, the Coachella Valley cities, via the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) , are undertaking a Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat planning process (CVMSHP) which should address all species within the CVAG boundaries . The subject Plan should be incorporated into the CVMSHP and should not be a separate Plan. Consistency between plans and public support will be critical for effective implementation of mulL-i-species habitat plans . The City also understands that the Plan will serve as an HCP for the Least Bell ' s vireo and the desert slender salamander, yet the Plan' s objectives in this area are unclear. Additionally, the level of background and analysis; for the Least Bell' s vireo is limited and habitat areas are only generally described. The Plan also must, establish its legal context and authority. ' As mentioned in these comments, it is vague and may not be legally adequate . As currently written, the City does not believe the Plan meets the requirments under the Endangered Species Act and that the Plan lacks legal aulthority to meet its objective of being a Recovery Plan. The Plan should be revised and circulated for another public review period in conjunction with its companion environmental assessment . Specific Comments . Disclaimers : - Any changes to the Plan should be subject to public review and affected parties and agencies should be provided with draft documents and a formal public review period. The second disclaimer seems out of place . It should be located in the document text and should include a detailed discussion of the issue including specific focus on types of zoning and development criteria and how private properties will be dealt with under the Plan. ' Pages 18-19 . Least Bell' s vireo. The habitat for this species is generally described; however, specific maps should be included in the document . The full range of this species including critical habitat designations and current conservation/recovery programs should be documented. As currently written, information, status, and regional context is insufficient . Pages 21-27 . This section should be expanded to address all three species, not: just bighorn sheep. _ R18439 Page 4 J Pages 28-34 . This chapter should be expanded to include sections for other agencies (cities and counties) and private lands . The Plan' s effect on other governmental agencies and private lands should be addressed in detail . Representatives from these entities should have been included on the CRMP. This issue was raised by City staff at the workshops . Pages 39-41, Items 2-4 . All of these suggested mitigation ' strategies should contain a disclaimer or advisory note . This note should clearly state that these are suggested methods to deal with mitigation and do not represent a comprehensive list of mitigation strategies to reduce impacts to affected species . In addition, the strategies should address all three species covered in this plan. Specific comments are as follows : 3 . a. This statement is unclear and should be further refined. What does "leaving at least 50-yard gaps with no more that 20-yard strips of vegetation" mean? If the recommendation is suggesting that boundaries should have limited landscaping adjacent to natural areas and no hedges along the outside boundary, then that is what it should say. Adding "gaps" and "strips" is confusing. Natural boundaries are becoming the state of the art for ecologically sensitive golf courses and should not be a concern to the golf industry unless the policy and purpose are unclear. 3 . b. Bighorn sheep specifications should be included in the document (technical appendix) . ' 3 . g. Limiting landscape to "native vegetation" is not practical and may cause misunderstanding. Non- native plant species which are non-invasive and non-toxic should not be prohibited outright . Exotic species may also be advantageous since they may not be adapted to the natural conditions and may not be invasive. Landscape and ecosystem management should not be limited by generalized requirements which may not actually work for project design and habitat management . 3 . h. Add riparian areas . 4 . a. This statement is acceptable as a general policy. However, it should not be taken as the only method of dealing with the various types of habitat and situations . This policy should be expanded to deal with the range or types of habitat and careful, well planned development should not be precluded. Habitat status (qualitative) must be established. How does this policy relate to Number 3 , above . They seem to be in conflict . 4 . b. Recommending such a limited density needs to be well-documented with substantial evidence and ' may not be suitable for all habitat . This policy is in conflict with the Palm Springs General Plan and does not allow for reasonable development opportunities . The City objects to this policy as currently written. 4 . f . See response to Number 3-g, above . The same comment applies . 4 . g. Careful well-planned trails near residential areas provide proper access to adjoining natural lands . Prohibiting trail development will R18439 Page 5 encouracle makeshift trails and may result in more habitat damage . The principal. of active trail (people) management by creating ecologically sensitive outdoor experiences needs to be a viable option. Outright prohibition of trail heads and construction may create greater conflict and damage . Page 41 . 1 .a. This section should clarify whose:: responsibility it , will be to prepare, evaluate, and implement the recommendations contained in this section. Maintenance of trails in non-critical areas should not be prohibited while the entire trail system is being evaluated. Lack of routine: trail maintenance could cause sever problems relating to erosion, safety, and access . This policy should be modified. Page 42-C. l .a. (2) Funding sources, timing, and purchase/exchange priorities need to be established. Considering the time frame this Plan covers, property owners need to be dealt with fairly and equitably regarding the . timing of purchases . Property owners with lands with development potential should not have to wait indefinitely whale funding is secured. Page 45-2 . a. The City has permit authority over tours within the City and should be consulted regarding any changes to tour operations . Page 46-4 .a. Based upon comments contained herein this written response, the City opposes designating all ' historical habitat- as critical . Page 48-1 .a. Add cities to the list of responsible agencies for trail closures . 2 . a. Add cities to the list of responsible agencies . Pages 71-72 . Compensation-Formula. This formula needs to be fully explained.. As currently drafted, the City cannot determine how this formula works or how it will be implemented. The City opposes incorporating this formula into the Plan until it is fully documented.