Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/15/2002 - STAFF REPORTS (31) DATE: May 15, 2002 TO: City Council FROM: Director of Planning & Building COACHELLA VALLEY MULTI-SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN/NATURAL COMMUNITIES CONSERVATION PLAN (CVMSHCP) RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider approving the attached letterto Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) expressing mutual concerns that the cities of Palm Springs, La Quinta, Cathedral City, Indio, and Desert Hot Springs have regarding the CVMSHCP. SUMMARY: The above-mentioned cities have held several meetings to evaluate the status of the CVMSHCP. The City Council Subcommittee consisting of Mayor Kleindienst and City Council Member Mills have met with elected officials and respective cities'staffs to discuss areas of concern. In addition, the City Council Subcommittee has attended several meetings with CVAG, Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, US Fish and Wildlife Service, California Departmentof Fish and Game, Bureau of Land Management, and Tribal Planning staff. As a result of these meetings, the cities have drafted the attached letter addressed to CVAG expressing concerns about the CVMSHCP. BACKGROUND: CVAG and its member agencies have agreed that developing the CVMSHCP would have regional benefit for all agencies. Its purpose is to create a valley-wide program to effectively deal with the Federal Endangered Species Act and State Endangered Species Act. An administrative draft CVMSHCP was prepared in 2000 and the City submitted comments on December 18, 2000. Specific areas of concern included the extent of areas designated for conservation, cost of the plan, and administrative feasibility. Of key concern, then and now, are the areas within Palm Springs that are shown as conservation areas. Specific areas of concern include the Chino Cone(Shadowrock), Tachevah Basin(Mountain Falls), Palm Canyon (Canyon Hotel area), and Santa Rosa Mountain (Palm Hills). Subsequent to the release of the administrative draft CVMSHCP, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game have requested that additional lands be added to the conservation areas resulting in more lands being made potentially undevelopable. ZN The City Council Subcommittee has attempted to deal with the parties involved in the plan and has been frustrated with the current status of the CVMSHCP. The purpose of the attached letter is to send a strong message from multiple CVAG member agencies. The member agencies listed above will ask their own City Councils to endorse the attached letter. If approved, each approving agency will sign the letter and deliver it to CVAG at its June 03, 2002 Executive Committee meeting. bm � ela y _. Director of Pidnning and Building City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. CVAG Memo 2. Draft CVAG Letter 3. Minute Order 3oA z City of La Quinta City of Palm Springs City of Cathedral City 78-495 Calle Tampico 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero La Quinta, CA 92253 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Cathedral City,CA 92234 (760)777-7000 (760)323-8245 (760)770-0372 City of Indio City of 100 Civic Center Mall Desert Hot Springs Hrdio, CA 92201 11-711 West Drive (760)342-6500 Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 (760)329-6411 May 8, 2002 VIAFACSIMILE (760)340-5949AND U.S. MAIL DRAFT Ms. Patricia A. Larson Executive Director Coachella Valley Association of Governments 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Suite 220 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/ Natural Communities Conservation Plan Dear Ms. Larson: The cities of Palm Springs, La Quinta, Cathedral City, Indio and Desert Hot Springs (the "Cities") would like to thank the Coachella Valley Association of Governments ("CVAG") for its efforts and work on the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Communities Conservation Plan (the "Plan"). The workshops held to explain and cultivate the Plan have been helpfiil and informative. However, the Cities feel that additional revisions are necessary before the Cities' support can be offered. The proposed Plan is still very uncertain, and as with many plans of this type, still very fluid. Each workshop brings with it a revised Plan with yet more land being designated for preservation. Because the rationale behind the preservation efforts is neither supported by sound data nor scientific evidence, the Cities are unwilling to include the added acreage into the Plan. On the dates listed below, the following Cities submitted letters expressing concern relating to the Plan: February 27, 2002, City of Indio; December 18, 2000, City of Palm Springs; 3,910 Ms. Patricia A. Larson Executive Director Coachella Valley Association of Governments May 7, 2002 Page 2 November 6, 2000, City of La Quinta and Indio; and July 18, 2000, City of La Quinta. To date, the concerns set forth in these letters have not been addressed. The Cities are disheartened about the continued non-resolution of these major issues. Without resolution of these issues, the Cities are unable to support the Plan. It is frustrating for the Cities to attend meetings that appear to cover the same issues previously discussed. The inactions of CVAG create an appearance that CVAG is unable to facilitate a practical solution to resolve the concerns. One of the major unresolved issues is the Cities' need for the Plan to accormnodate projects which have been approved prior to the Plan's adoption. Several of the Cities notified CVAG of this need at the beginning of this process. The areas encompassed within previously approved projects must not be designated as conservation area; instead, these areas must be awarded the benefit of the Plan and implementation agreement. To date, this has been met with much resistance. It is very important to the Cities that the Plan accommodate projects that already have been approved so that the Plan can move forward. Further, the Cities need to be sure that the key areas needed for economic development within the Coachella Valley not be unnecessarily designated as open space. It appears that there is a blanket approach to preservation which needs to be replaced with a methodical look so that only sensitive areas that are absolutely critical to species preservation be protected. The creation of open space is not the purpose of the Plan. It appears that the Plan has designated quite a number of acres to open space when there has been no supportable data showing the need to include the area as habitat. The Cities feel that only those areas with supportable data evidencing habitat preservation be designated as open space within the Plan. In addition, two of the Cities (La Quinta and Palm Springs) have serious concerns about the limitations being imposed on recreational opportunities within the conservation areas. Opportunities for the public to experience the areas being conserved must be a key element to the success of this Plan. Hopefully we can arrange a meeting with all parties involved so that the above concerns can be addressed. However, until the Plan is revised to address the above concerns,the Cities' support cannot be offered. 77589 v I 30AV Ms. Patricia A. Larson Executive Director Coachella Valley Association of Goverranents May 7, 2002 Page 3 Dated: May , 2002 CITY OF LA QUINTA By: DRAFT J. PENA Mayor Dated: May_, 2002 CITY OF INDIO By: DRAFT BEN GODFREY Mayor Dated: May_, 2002 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS By: DRAFT WILLIAM G. KLEINDIENST Mayor Dated: May_, 2002 CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY By: DRAFT GEORGE STETTLER Mayor Dated: May_, 2002 CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS By: DRAFT MATT WYUKER Mayor 77589 v.l 30#w Date: April 11, 2002 To: Kathy Jenson, La Quinta Michael Shoberg, Desert Hot Springs Cynthia Kinser, Cathedral City, J. Luis Lopez, Indio, Geralyn Skapik, Palm Springs City Attorney From: Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building Subject: CVMSHCP — Executive Committee Request— Revised to Include Indio Comments Representatives of La Quinta, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, and Cathedral City have met and reviewed proposed habitat conservation areas proposed in the Preferred Alternative and Alternatives prepared by FWS and CDFG. Based upon ongoing meetings with CVAG, FWS, and CDFG, utilizing the Project Advisory Group and individual agency meetings, there is a concern that the process, timing, and conservation planning efforts undertaken in the CVMSHCP program are taking too long and that conservation areas are excessive, unreasonable, and exceed the scope of the ESA and CESA. Based upon mutual concerns, it is recommended that CVAG Executive Committee, host a review meeting to evaluate the CVMSHCP program, review proposed conservation areas and develop recommendations and strategies to create and implement a CVMSHCP that meets the needs of CVAG members, seeks appropriate incidental take permits, and coordinates with other programs. Specific Areas of Concern are as follows: La Quinta — Travertine/Green Project—This project involves golf, residential, and resort land uses. It was already approved by the City via a Specific Plan, and the EIR has been certified. The City wishes to ensure that the adoption and implementation of the CVMSHCP will in no way interfere with the development of this project. If possible, the City would like to have the CVMSHCP incorporate the project, so that it can proceed under the protections of the Plan. If this cannot be accomplished, the City will explore the "not a part" approach. The City is in the process of checking with the property owners to verify their wishes. City Owned Acres at the top of the Cove —The City owns approximately 114 acres south of Tecate that have been removed from the conservation designation. This acreage is inadequate for certain types of projects, and is not large enough for a municipal golf course. CVWD owns additional land in the area that could easily be combined with the City property for a large scale recreational use project. While there is no current plan on the board for such a project, the City does not wish to be precluded from such an option in the future. Our goal is to ensure there is flexibility on this front �h Page 2 of 5 CVMSHCP— Executive Committee Request- Revised April 11, 2002 under the Plan. Property West of Bear Creak Channel —The Wildlife Agencies appear to be amenable to a program whereby the private property west of the channel will retain some development rights. The City's interest is to ensure that the property owner's rights are not taken. Section 5 — West to Travertine—This is the section of privately owned property which has been subdivided into numerous long, narrow lots. The City wishes to ensure that the adoption of the Plan does not result in a take of the property owner's rights. This has been under discussion, but it is possible that this will "not be a part" of the plan. Palm Springs — Chino Canyon Area (Shadowrock Resort)—This planning area includes the approved Shadowrock Resort which includes hotel, residential, and golf land uses. It was approved by Planned Development District and Development Agreement and the EIR has been certified. The City wishes to ensure that the adoption and implementation of the CVMSHCP will in no way interfere with the development of this project. The City prefers that this project be incorporated into the CVMSHCP so that the project can proceed under the protection of the Plan. The City may consider a "not a part" approach and would look forward to reviewing proposed language. Canyon Resort and Specific Plan —This project area includes hotel, residential, and golf land uses. It has been approved as a Specific Plan, Planned Development District, and Development Agreement and has a certified EIR. The City is encouraged by recent dialogue and looks forward to ensuring that this area can be developed in the future. The City wishes to ensure that the CVMSHCP, once adopted and implemented, will in no way interfere with development of this project. As noted above, the City wishes to incorporate this project into the CVMSHCP so that the project can proceed with the protection of the Plan. Tachevah Basin (Preserve Golf)—This proposed project is a golf course development without any other land uses adjacent to or within proposed conservation areas. The property is leased from the City and Riverside County Flood Control District. As noted above, the City wishes to have this project incorporated into the plan so that the project can proceed with the protection of the plan. The City may consider a "not a part" approach as noted above and below. Palm Hills (Palm Hills Specific Plan No. 1)—This planning area is located in the very northern Santa Rosa Mountains. The proposed Specific Plan includes hotel, residential, and golf land uses. The City desires to have the CVMSHCP incorporate the project so that it can proceed under the protection of the Plan. Page 3 of 5 CVMSHCP- Executive Committee Request - Revised April 11, 2002 Desert Hot Springs -- Morongo Wash -The initial study suggested the need to transport sand from north to south. It included various widths of land on either side of the washes to take into account actual parcel sizes, severance issues, etc. The original plan determined the need to transport blow sands, but did not identify a need to preserve any species along the wash. The more recent plan expands the width along the channels to address connectivity of species (Palm Springs Pocket Mouse)from north to south. The width of the properties along the channel has increased. This needs to be evaluated parcel-by-parcel to determine the impacts on development for locations that may be too wide. We believe that we can come to agreement with Fish & Game and Fish & Wildlife on most of these. Underlying this, is whether or not there is even a need to be concerned about maintaining a corridor for connectivity of species. This preference does not seem to have a scientific basis. We understand that a study by the USGS determined that narrower channeled swaths were better for transporting blow sand, while the species connectivity issue would favor wider paths. 1-1 0/Palm Drive/Varner Road - Our greater concern is the area bounded by the 1-10 freeway, Palm Drive, and Varner Road. This was not included as an area of concern by the Scientific Advisory Committee but is now proposed to be included in the plan. This is important to the future freeway development of the city, and there is no indication that the area is necessary to the plan. Cathedral City has the very same concern since this designation continues east across Palm Drive into their city limits/sphere of influence. 10% Development Policy-Another factor of concern is exactly how the 10% development of parcels within the plan will be implemented and regulated, and which properties the 10% development restriction will apply to. Cathedral City-Areas of Concern: Palm Drive Corridor to Varner Road (Secton 20 and Section 19 south of Varner Road) - This corridor provides a future entry for both the Cities of Cathedral City and Desert Hot Springs. This corridor is of economic value to the future of both cities. This area was not identified as necessary for conservation by the Scientific Advisory Committee. Section 29 (south of Varner Road, west of the Mountain View Road alignment) - The City would like to preserve the opportunity for future development. The 1-10 freeway provides a major barrier in which most infrastructure and services will need to be independent of the development south of the freeway. Therefore, there needs to be adequate land area for development to justify the costs of services and infrastructure, as the small areas for development recommended by with Wildlife agencies would make most development north of the freeway cost prohibitive. Page 4 of 5 CVMSHCP — Executive Committee Request - Revised April 11, 2002 1-10 Corridor (from Date Palm Drive to Palm Drive) - The Wildlife agencies have recommended as a compromise a development strip on the north side of the freeway. The City concurs that if a development node at Palm Drive, as described above, and with the area provided for development at Date Palm Drive, that the connection of these nodes would be beneficial. West Cathedral Canyon - The City has a pending development application for a project on the western side of the Cathedral Canyon cove. This application has not been deemed complete, and as result no recommendation has been made by the City. . In preliminary discussions with the Wildlife agencies there has been a desire to work cooperatively together with regard to the development opportunities on this property. The City would like to preserve it ability to work with this applicant or any successors to explore viable development opportunities for the property through the City's review process. Indio — The City of Indio opposes including any properties currently designated for urban uses, other than open space, in ouradopted General Plan. This includes all properties within our incorporated boundaries and within our sphere of influence area. There are several hundred acres thatwould be captured byAlternative#3 including properties atthe following locations: Northwest corner of Dillon Road and Avenue 44 (entitlements approved for the Indian Lakes Water Ski Resort) Vacant land on the north side of the All-American Canal west of Jackson Street(designated for Residential-Low Planned Development) Vacant land north of Avenue 38 and east of Adams Street (designated for Equestrian Estates and Adams 34 Specific Plan. There have been discussions with various entities regarding creating a "not a part" approach. The "not a part" language that has been provided seems to fully preserve the status quo. Before any City agrees to the "not a part" approach, the Cities want to verify that the currently offered language will be what is incorporated into the Plan and that there will be no other restrictions written into the Plan. The cities have concerns regarding the concept of the per-acre development charges. The concerns include: (a) the amount of the fee; (b) whether there will be sufficient nexus; and (c) whether it will be applied to public projects, such as a municipal golf courses, roadways, and other public projects. The cities are seriously concerned about the level of trail closure being proposed as part of the Plan. The cities would like to see scientific justification for the closures. A trail connecting Palm Desert and La Quinta is desired, as well as maintaining connectivity from Palm Desert to Palm Page 5 of 5 CVMSHCP— Executive Committee Request - Revised April 11, 2002 Springs. A less rigid closure schedule is preferred. The cities want Co make sure that the development process is in no way lengthened by the CVMSHCP process. Projects face enough uncertainty in these times. It is essential that the Plan add certainty, not time delays, to projects. It is believed that it is in the best interest of all CVAG members to develop a list of the issues and participate in the proposed Executive Committee subcommittee. The items listed in this document address key issues and it is not all-inclusive. Each City has participated in the CVMSHCP process and may have submitted separate, more detailed comments. MINUTE ORDER NO. APPROVING THE ATTACHED LETTER TO COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS EXPRESSING MUTUAL CONCERNS THAT THE CITIES OF PALM SPRINGS, LA QUINTA, CATHEDRAL CITY, INDIO, AND DESERT HOT SPRINGS HAVE REGARDING THE CVMSHCP. I HEREBY CERTIFY that this Minute Order, approving the attached letter to Coachella Valley Association of Governments expressing mutual concerns that the cities of Palm Springs, La Quinta, Cathedral City, Indio, and Desert Hot Springs have regarding the CVMSHCP, was adopted by the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, in a meeting thereof held on the 15" of May, 2002. PATRICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk 3� �