HomeMy WebLinkAbout20762 - RESOLUTIONS - 10/15/2003 RESOLUTION NO. 2CI762 '
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF: PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE INITIAL STUDY AS COMPLETE
AND FILING OF THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT, RELATING TO THE
PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTSAND CASE 5.00870,
A REVISION TO PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT 268, THE INDIAN OASIS RESORT, A PRELIMINARY
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT INCLUDING A 700 ROOM
RESORT HOTEL, TIMESHARE, VACATION UNITS,
CONDOMINIUM HOTEL, CASITAS , AND/OR
CONDOMINIUMS/APARTMENTS AND RELATED USES, 400,000
SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, BUSINESS PARK AND OFFICE
SPACE AND AN 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE, ON 273 ACRES SITE,
AT THE INTERSECTION OF CROSSLY ROAD AND MESQUITE
AVENUE, W-M-11.L.,W-0, M-1, M-1I1. AND WI.L. ZONES,
SECTION 20.
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2001, Ernest G. Noia on behalf of Lawrence Joseph Bow, Leonard
Charles Bow, Arthur Diaz, Jr., Belinda Sue Short, the Indian land owners, (collectively referred to
as the "Applicant') filed an application with the City pursuant to City of Palm Springs Zoning '
Ordinance Section 9403.00 for a Planned Development District for a 500 room resort hotel, 200
vacation units, 500,000 square feet of retail/commercial, office and business park uses, an 18 hole
golf course and support facilities, and General Plan Amendments to: 1) remove the Palm Spring
Bypass transportation corridor from the ,Circulation Map; 2) delete the extension of Mesquite
Avenue east of the Mid Valley Parkway from the Circulation Map; 3) modify Policy 3.30.1 with the
addition of text; 4) add Policy 3:30.14 "The Mid Valley Center" to the General Plan; and 5) add a
footnote to General Plan Land Use Density and Intensity Table (Page 1-27), Land Use,
Commercial/ Industrial, BI - Business/Industrial; and
WHEREAS, the proposed development was considered a "project' pursuant to the terms of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration was prepared for this Project and was distributed to the State Clearinghouse and
responsible agencies and other interested parties for public review and comment in accordance
with Section 21092(b)(1)of the California Public Resources (:ode (the California Environmental
Quality Act); and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared for the approved project which evaluated the potential
environmental impacts of the project; and
WHEREAS,the Initial Study concluded that although the approved project had the potential to have
a significant effect on the environment that the approved project would not have a significant impact
on the environment because of the proposed mitigation measures; and
Page 1 of 12
�(/1 `GdC
6 -b
Resolution 20762
Page 2
WHEREAS, the Initial Study was provided to the State Clearinghouse and assigned Number #
2001051117; and
WHEREAS, the State Clearinghouse provided the Initial Study to the fourteen relevant state
agencies, including but not limited to the State Department of Conservation, State Department of
Fish and Game, State Resources Agency, State Lands Commission; and
WHEREAS, the State Department of Conservation, State Department of Fish and Game, State
Resources Agency, and State Lands Commission, upon receipt and review of the Initial Study and
related environmental documents, did not provide written comment on the approved project; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study adequately described the potential environmental impacts of the
approved project; and
WHEREAS, following preparation of the Initial Study, the public, including environmental groups
had the opportunity to file objections and no such objections were filed; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission and City Council held public hearings on June 20, 2001 and
July 5, 2001 respectively, to solicit written and public comments on the Initial Study; and
WHEREAS, there were no objections made at the Planning Commission and City Council Public
Hearings to the approved project, and its potential environmental impacts including, but not limited
to, impacts to Coachella Valley Milk Vetch and sand transport; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the BIA is required to
comply with NEPA before implementing federal action regarding a lease for the property; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to NEPA, an Environmental Assessment (EA)was prepared by the Bureau
of Indian Affairs (BIA), a trustee agency for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (The Tribe)
and the individual Indian allottees/Applicant; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to NEPA, the BIA selected the Proposed Action Alternative because it best
met the purpose and needs of The Tribe; and
WHEREAS, the BIA prepared the EA to address the impacts of the approximately 270 acre
project, located on the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation; and
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2001, the BIA determined that the proposed federal action to approval
the request by individual Indian allottees for the land lease, did not constitute a major federal
action, and was consistent with Tribal goals of diversifying income and providing economic self-
sufficiency to tribal members through what the BIA determined to the suitable use of the subject
property; and
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2001 the BIA determined that the proposed federal action would not
significantly affect the quality of the environment within the meaning of NEPA; and
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2001 the BIA determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact
' (FONSI) was appropriate for the project and that an Environmental Impact Statement was not
required; and
Page 2 of 12
��cau�uuun <oiv<
Page 3
WHEREAS, as part of the BIA's issuance of a FONSI, the public, including environmental groups '
had the opportunity to file objections and no such objections were filed; and
WHEREAS, the Tribe, a federally recognized Indian Tribe with sovereign authority over the Agua
Caliente Indian Reservation and which exercises authority to administer environmental land use
regulations, including environmental review and analysis, within the boundaries of the Agua
Caliente Indian Reservation; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Tribe have entered into a number of agreements, including Tribal
Council/City Agreement No. 1324 and approved Supplemental Agreements#1-5 relating thereto,
which constitutes a land use contract for the processing of development entitlements, including
environmental review and approvals, for certain lands within the reservation, whereby the City
provides planning, engineering and building administrative services; and
WHEREAS, the Tribe has final land use authority over all land use issues within the Reservation,
including but not limited to building and utility permits, changes of zone,variances from applicable
zoning requirements, conditional use permit, planned development district permits, tentative and
final tract and parcel maps, changes or amendments to the general plan, enforcement of zoning
and building codes, compliance with state and federal environmental regulations, and related
matters to the above ; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) consultation with the
appropriate federal agencies occurred, including FWS; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to ,
consider Applicant's application for the Project was published in the Desert Sun newspaper and
provided to adjacent property owners in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed all pertinent environmental documents priorto the
public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2001, a public hearing for the Project was held by the Planning
Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing there were no oral or written objections to the project or the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS,on June 20,2001,the Planning Commission,in accordance with applicable law,voted
to recommend that the City Council approve filing of the mitigated negative declaration and
adoption of the initial study and environmental assessment relating to Case No. 5.00870, General
Plan Amendments and Planned Development District 268; and
WHEREAS, on July 5, 2001, a public hearing for the Project was held by the City Council in
accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS,pursuantto Government Code Section 66412.3,the City Council considered the effect
of the Project, on the housing needs of the region in which Palm Springs is situated and balanced
these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental '
resources; and
Page 3 of 12
Page.4 . .. .
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that the approval of the Initial Study represented the
balance of these respective needs in a manner which is most consistent with the City's obligation
pursuant to its police powers to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the City Council carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in
connection with the hearing on the Project, including but not limited to the staff report, all
environmental data including the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment, the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration, and all written and oral testimony presented; and
WHEREAS, on July 5, 2001, the City Council, in accordance with applicable law, voted to file the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the IS/EA and approve the proposed project, Case No.
5.00870, General Plan Amendments and Planned Development District 268; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2001, the City of Palm Springs prepared and filed a Notice of Determination
on the project with the County Clerk of the Riverside County, in accordance with state law; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Determination was not challenged on any grounds, including biological
grounds, within the statute time for such a challenge; and
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2001, the City of Palm Springs prepared and caused to be filed a Notice of
Determination on the project and related County Administrative fee with the State of California
Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, in accordance with state law; and
WHEREAS, the Notice of Determination was not challenged on any grounds, including biological
grounds, within the statute time for such a challenge; and
WHEREAS,August 16, 2001,the BIA considered the Environmental Assessment and FONSI and
the City prepared Initial Study and determined that both documents represented the balance of
these respective needs in a manner which is most consistent with the Tribe's obligation pursuant
to its responsibilities to protect the Tribe's public health, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2001, the BIA reviewed and approved the project; and
WHEREAS, on May 15, 2003, Ernest G. Nola, on behalf of Leonard Bow, Lawrence Bow, Sue
Short, Arthur Diaz Jr., the Indian landowners, and Mid Valley Center LP, (Collectively referred to
as "Applicant") filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 9403.00 for a revision to the
Planned Development District for a 700 total maximum unit resort hotel,timeshare,vacation units,
condominium hotel, casitas,condominiums/apartments,400,000 square feet of retail/commercial,
office and business park uses, an 18 hole golf course and support facilities, and a General Plan
Amendment to: Amend the text of the General Plan to amend Policy 3.30.14 Mid-Valley Center,
renaming the Policy"Indian Oasis Resort,"and to increase the allowable building height from one-
hundred (100)feet to one-hundred thirty(130)feet for the resort hotel only, to amend the land use
diagram for a portion of the project adjacent to existing condominium uses to allow residential uses
(timeshare/condominiums) and to consider elimination of portions of the equestrian trail from the
Whitewater River; and
WHEREAS, the applicants are the same applicant as the previous approved project; and
' WHEREAS the Applicant has filed a General Plan Amendment and a Planned Development District
Page 4 of 12
Page 5 . ..
application with the City and has paid the required filing fees; and ,
WHEREAS, the proposed development is considered a "project' pursuant to the terms of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared forthis Project and has been distributed to the State Clearinghouse
and responsible agencies and other interested parties for public review and comment in
accordance with Section 21092(b)(1)of the California Public Resources Code (the California
Environmental Quality Act); and
WHEREAS, a Summary of Hydrology was prepared by Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc., on
April 17, 2001, which analyzed the potential hydrological impacts of the project and which
developed mitigation measures specifically designed to be incorporated into this project in order
to mitigate potential project related environmental impacts to a level of less than significant, and
recommendations from the CVWD and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District have been incorporated into the conditions of approval; and
WHEREAS, a Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis was prepared by James W. Cornet, on
January 14, 2001, which evaluated the potential biological impacts of the project and which
developed mitigation measures specifically designed to be incorporated into this project in order
to mitigate potential project related environmental impacts to a level of less than significant; and
WHEREAS, the Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis that were prepared for the project
included an intensive plant and animal survey of the project site; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the biological survey of the Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis '
were to determine the vascular plant and vertebrate animal species that occur on and immediately
adjacent to the project site; and to ascertain the presence of any plant or animal species state or
federally listed as threatened or endangered; and to determine the presence of any plant or animal
species being formally proposed for state or federal listing; and to ascertain the existence of any
other significant biotic elements or communities; and to develop measures to mitigate significant
adverse impacts of the project on any listed or proposed species or unique biotic elements or
communities; and
WHEREAS, the Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis that was prepared for the project
found that the project site had been impacted by the use of off-road vehicles; and
WHEREAS, the Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis found that portions of the project site
had been used as an illegal dump; and
WHEREAS,the Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis found that the existing channelization
of the Whitewater River and construction of the levees disturbed natural habitat conditions on
approximately 25% of the project site; and
WHEREAS, the Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis found that more than half of the site
has been severely impacted by human disturbances; and
WHEREAS, as part of the preparation of the Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis, the
California Department of Fish and Game was contacted for information regarding biological
elements of the project site and concerns regarding rare, proposed or listed species; and
Page 5 of 12
rage b
WHEREAS, the Coachella Valley Milk Vetch was not found on the project site as part of the
Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis; and
WHEREAS, the Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis found that the project would result in
loss of Sonoran creosote bush scrub habitat, including the native plant and animal species found
onsite; and
WHEREAS, the Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis found that the habitat of the project
site is widespread in the southwest and therefore the loss of such habitat is not a significant
negative impact to the existence of the community; and
WHEREAS, the Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis found that the project site is
surrounded on all sides by residential uses, golf courses and commercial development; and
WHEREAS, no suitable habitat exists downwind or downstream of the project site for which the
project could provide for sand transport, because all areas downstream and downwind are fully
developed with urban development; and
WHEREAS, a Traffic Impact Study was prepared by Endo Engineering, in February 2001, and
revised in August 2003, analyzing the potential traffic impacts of the project and which developed
mitigation measures specifically designed to be incorporated into this project in order to mitigate
potential project related environmental impacts to a level of less than significant; and
' WHEREAS, an Air Quality and Noise Impact Study was prepared by Endo Engineering, on
February 2001, analyzing the potential air quality and noise impacts of the project and which
developed mitigation measures specifically designed to be incorporated into this project in order
to mitigate potential project related environmental impacts to a level of less than significant; and
WHEREAS, an Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties, was prepared by CRM TECH,
on January 11, 2001, analyzing the potential impact of the project on historical and cultural
resources in the area and which developed mitigation measures specifically designed to be
incorporated into this project in order to mitigate potential project related environmental impacts
to a level of less than significant; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study prepared for the project evaluated the potential environmental
impacts of the project and concluded that although the project has the potential to have a
significant effect on the environment that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment because of the proposed mitigation measures; and
WHEREAS, the Initial Study adequately describes the potential environmental impacts of the
project; and
WHEREAS, the BIA Environmental Assessment and subsequent FONSI was based upon the
aforementioned technical reports, with the exception of the revised traffic study; and
WHEREAS, the physical conditions have not been altered since 2001 and the project site is
' physically the same site upon which the project was approved in 2001; and
Page 6 of '12
Resolution 20762
Page 7
WHEREAS, the scope of the project is nearly identical to the project which was approved by the '
City, and recommended for approval by the Tribe in 2001; and
WHEREAS, in 2001, the Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity did not submit any written
or oral opposition to the project; and
WHEREAS, the letter prepared by the Sierra Club and Center for Biological Diversity, is late,
untimely and addresses issues which have been fully and public:ally previously reviewed bythe BIA,
City and Tribal Council; and
WHEREAS, a significant controversy does not exist regarding the findings and conclusions of the
Initial Study and Environmental Assessment; and
WHEREAS,on November 12,2002,the Tribe adopted the Tribal Habitat Conservation Plan(Tribal
HCP) for the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation; and
WHEREAS, the project was reviewed by the Tribe for conformity with the approved Tribal HCP;
and
WHEREAS, the Tribe reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with
the Project, including but not limited to the staff report, all environmental data including the Initial
Study and Environmental Assessment; and
WHEREAS, the Tribe has reviewed the proposed project and recommended the inclusion of '
biological and cultural mitigation measures, which have been incorporated into the mitigation
program; and
WHEREAS, the Tribe recommended that the Valley Floor Conservation Area (VFCA) Mitigation
Fee for this project, $800 per acre, be paid prior to issuance of a building or grading permit by the
City of Palm Springs; and
WHEREAS, the Tribe recommended that prior to any ground or habitat disturbing activities, pre-
construction surveys shall be completed by the project proponent to determine the presence of
burrowing owl, and if present, that burrowing owls shall be excluded from burrows in the
development envelope and within an appropriate buffer zone by installing one way doors in burrow
entrances or other technique as deemed appropriate, and that, if present, that occupied burrows
not be disturbed during the nesting season unless a qualified biologist verifies that birds have not
begun laying eggs or juveniles are foraging independently; and
WHEREAS, the Tribe recommended that a cultural resource monitor be present during all ground
disturbing activities and that should buried deposits be encountered, construction be halted; and
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2003, the Tribe determined that the approval of Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration represented the balance of these respective needs in a manner
which is most consistent with the Tribe's obligation to protect the Tribe's public health, safety, and
welfare; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to '
consider Applicant's application for the Project was provided to adjacent property owners in
Page 7 of 12
Page 8
accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is similar to the project previously approved in 2001; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission reviewed all pertinent environmental documents prior to the
public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2003, a public hearing for the Project was held by the Planning
Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to Government Code Section 66412.3,the Planning Commission considered
the effect of the Project, on the housing needs of the region in which Palm Springs is situated and
has balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources; the approval of the proposed Planned Development District represents
the balance of these respective needs in a manner which is most consistent with the City's
obligation pursuant to its police powers to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council file a mitigated
negative declaration and found that the Initial Study fully disclosed the potential environmental
effects of the project; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to consider
Applicant's application for the Project was published in the Desert Sun and provided to all adjacent
property owners located within 400 feet of the project site in accordance with applicable law; and
' WHEREAS,the City Council has reviewed all pertinent environmental documents prior to the public
hearing; and
WHEREAS, on October 15, 2003, a public hearing for the Project was held by the City Council in
accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66412.3, the City Council has considered the
effect of the Project, on the housing needs of the region in which Palm Springs is situated and has
balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and
environmental resources; the approval of the proposed Planned Development District represents
the balance of these respective needs in a manner which is most consistent with the City's
obligation pursuant to its police powers to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented
in connection with the hearing on the Project, including but not limited to the staff report, all
environmental data including the initial study,the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, and all
written and oral testimony presented.
THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1:
' That the City Council adopts all of the aforementioned recitals as project findings.
Page 8 of 12
Section 2: '
Regarding previous CEQA approvals, the City Council finds as follows:
On July 5, 2001, the City Council, in accordance with applicable law, voted to file the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and adopt the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment and
approve the Mid Valley Center and El Mirador Resort, (Case No. 5.00870), General Plan
Amendments and Planned Development District 268. On July 6, 2001, the City of Palm
Springs prepared and filed a Notice of Determination on the project with the County Clerk
of the Riverside County, in accordance with state law. On July 6, 2001, the City of Palm
Springs prepared and filed a Notice of Determination on the project and related County
Administrative fee with the State of California Resources Agency, Department of Fish and
Game, in accordance with state law. The Notice of Determination was not challenged on
any grounds, including biological grounds. No challenges were filed during the statute
period questioning the conclusion of any of the environmental documents.
Section 3: Regarding previous NEPA approvals, the City Council finds as follows:
On August 16, 2001, the BIA determined that the proposed federal action to approval the
request by individual Indian allottees for the land lease, did not constitute a major federal
action, and was consistent with Tribal goals of diversifying income and providing economic
self-sufficiency to tribal members through what the BIA determined to the suitable use of
the subject property. On August 16, 2001 the BIA determined that the proposed federal
action would not significantly affect the quality of the environment within the meaning of '
NEPA. On August 16, 2001 the BIA determined that the Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) was appropriate and that an Environmental Impact Statement was not required
and, as part of the BIA's issuance of a FONSI, the public, including environmental groups
had the opportunity to file objections. No challenges were filed during the statute period
questioning the conclusion of any of the environmental documents.
Section 4: Regarding minor changes to the proposed project, the City Council finds:
The proposed project includes minor changes to the previously approved project, including
modification of the approved Planned Development District to allow a for greater flexibility
including a 700 unit resort hotel, with a variety of related visitor serving uses allowed
including timeshare,vacation units,condominium hotel,casitas,condominiums/apartments,
a reduction in 100,000 square feet of corporate business park and retail area for a 400,000
square feet of corporate business park and retail space integrated,and a request for a hotel
height of one-hundred thirty (130), which is in excess of the one hundred (100)feet which
was previously approved for the project, and the land use designation would also change
for a portion of the project from IND to M-15, and the Golf symbol would be added in two
locations to the General Plan Land Use Diagram. The revisions to the project have been
fully evaluated in the IS and EA and related environmental documents, and the City Council
has determined that these changes to the project are less than significant.
Section 5: Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council finds as follows:
Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council finds that a draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative ,
Declaration has been prepared and completed in compliance with CEQA,the State's CEQA
Page 9 of 12
Resoluiton 20762
Page 10
Guidelines, and the City's CEQA Guidelines and that the Initial Study, related special
studies and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)fully addresses, all project changes,the
general environmental setting of the proposed Project, its potentially significant
environmental impacts, and mitigation measures related to each potentially significant
environmental effect for the proposed Project.
The City Council has reviewed and analyzed the information contained in the Initial Study
and Mitigated Negative Declaration and determined that the Initial Study prepared for the
project adequately evaluated the potential environmental impacts of the project and
concluded that although the project has the potential to have a significant effect on the
environment, the project will not have a significant impact on the environment because the
proposed mitigation measures which will be incorporated into the project as conditions of
approval will reduce the project related environmental impacts to a level of less than
significant. The City Council therefore certifies the Initial Study as complete and files the
Mitigated Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment.
Section 6: Pursuant to NEPA, the City Council finds as follows:
Pursuant to NEPA, an Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared by the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA), a trustee agency for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (The
Tribe)and the individual Indian allottees/Applicant. Pursuant to NEPA,the BIA selected the
Proposed Action Alternative because it best met the purpose and needs of The Tribe. The
Tribe, a federally recognized Indian Tribe with sovereign authority over the Agua Caliente
' Indian Reservation and which exercises authority to administer environmental land use
regulations, including environmental review and analysis,within the boundaries of the Agua
Caliente Indian Reservation. The City and the Tribe have entered into a number of
agreements, including Tribal Council/City Agreement No. 1324 and approved Supplemental
Agreements#1-5 relating thereto,which constitutes a land use contract for the processing
of development entitlements, including environmental review and approvals, for certain
lands within the reservation, whereby the City provides planning, engineering and building
administrative services.The Tribe has final land use authority over all land use issues within
the Reservation, including but not limited to building and utility permits, changes of zone,
variances from applicable zoning requirements, conditional use permit, planned
development district permits, tentative and final tract and parcel maps, changes or
amendments to the general plan, enforcement of zoning and building codes, compliance
with state and federal environmental regulations, and related matters to the above.
The BIA prepared the EA to address the impacts of the approximately 270 acre project,
located on the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation. Pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) consultation with the appropriate federal agencies occurred, including
FVVS. On August 16, 2001, the BIA determined that the proposed federal action to
approval the request by individual Indian allottees for the land lease, did not constitute a
major federal action, and was consistent with Tribal goals of diversifying income and
providing economic self-sufficiency to tribal members through what the BIA determined to
the suitable use of the subject property. On August 16, 2001 the BIA determined that the
proposed federal action would not significantly affect the quality of the environment within
the meaning of NEPA. On August 16, 2001 the BIA determined that a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) was appropriate for the project and that an Environmental
' Impact Statement was not required. As part of the BIA's issuance of a FONSI, the public,
Page 10 of 12
Page 11
including environmental groups had the opportunity to file objections and no such objections
were filed.
Section 7:
By adoption of this resolution, the City Council hereby certifies the Initial Study as complete
and order the filing of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Environmental Assessment
for Case 5.0870-PD-268 and incorporates same herein by reference. The City Council also
acknowledges and incorporates by reference the BIA Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact completed by the BIA on August 16, 2001,
Section 8: Regarding the Coachella Valley Milk Vetch, the City Council finds:
The Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis that were prepared forthe project included
an intensive plant and animal survey of the project site. The intent of the biological survey
of the Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis were to determine the vascular plant and
vertebrate animal species that occur on and immediately adjacent to the project site, and
to ascertain the presence of any plant or animal species state or federally listed as
threatened or endangered, and to determine the presence of any plant or animal species
being formally proposed for state or federal listing, and to ascertain the existence of any
other significant biotic elements or communities, and to develop measures to mitigate
significant adverse impacts of the project on any listed or proposed species or unique biotic
elements or communities.
As part of the preparation of the Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis,the California '
Department of Fish and Game was contacted for information regarding biological elements
of the project site and concerns regarding rare, proposed or listed species. The Coachella
Valley Milk Vetch was notfound on the project site as part of the Biological Assessment and
Impact Analysis. The Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis found thatthe project site
is surrounded on all sides by residential uses, golf courses and commercial development.
The Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis found that the project would result in loss
of Sonoran creosote bush scrub habitat, including the native plant and animal species found
onsite. The Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis found that the habitat of the project
site is widespread in the southwest and therefore the loss of such habitat is not a significant
negative impact to the existence of the community.
Section 9: Regarding the issue of sand transport, the City Council finds:
The Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis that were prepared for the project included
an intensive plant and animal survey of the project site. The intent of the biological survey
of the Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis were to determine the vascular plant and
vertebrate animal species that occur on and immediately adjacent to the project site, and
to ascertain the presence of any plant or animal species state or federally listed as
threatened or endangered, and to determine the presence of any plant or,animal species
being formally proposed for state or federal listing, and to ascertain the existence of any
other significant biotic elements or communities, and to develop measures to mitigate
significant adverse impacts of the project on any listed or proposed species or unique biotic
elements or communities. ,
Page 11 of 12
------------
Page 12
' The Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis that was prepared for the project
found that the project site had been impacted by the use of off-road vehicles.The Biological
Assessment and Impact Analysis found that portions of the project site had been used as
an illegal dump. The Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis found that the existing
channelization of the Whitewater River and construction of the levees disturbed natural
habitat conditions on approximately 25%of the project site. The Biological Assessment and
Impact Analysis found that more than half of the site has been severely impacted by human
disturbances.As part of the preparation of the Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis,
the California Department of Fish and Game was contacted for information regarding
biological elements of the project site and concerns regarding rare, proposed or listed
species.The Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis found that the projectwould result
in loss of Sonoran creosote bush scrub habitat, including the native plant and animal
species found onsite.The Biological Assessment and Impact Analysis found thatthe habitat
of the project site is widespread in the southwest and therefore the loss of such habitat is
not a significant negative impact to the existence of the community. The Biological
Assessment and Impact Analysis found that the project site is surrounded on all sides by
residential uses, golf courses and commercial development. No suitable habitat exists
downwind or downstream of the project site for which the project could provide for sand
transport, because all areas downstream and downwind are fully developed with urban
development. Therefore, the impact of the project on the issue of sand transport is not
considered a significant negative impact on this biological community.
Section 10: Pursuant to the City - Tribal Land Use Agreement dated 1977, the City Council
finds:
' That the City Council has ordered the filing of a mitigated negative declaration for the
project and thatthe Tribal Council has been provided copies of such supporting documents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council certifies
the Initial Study as complete and in conformity with CEQA, and orders the filing of a mitigated
negative declaration relating to Case 5.0870-PD-268.
ADOPTED this 151" day of October, 2003
AYES: Members Mills, Reller-Spurgin and Mayor pro tem Oden
NOES: None
ABSENT: Member Hodges and Mayor Kleindienst
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
City Clerk City Manager
Reviewed and approved:
Page 12 of 12