Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeneral Plan Amendment Billboards ES AND MOUNTAIN VISTAS - PALM DESERT / 1-10 EAST OF MONTEREY AVENUE f ib:tF n n. j a ES AND MOUNTAIN VISTAS - PALM DESERT / 1-10 EAST OF MONTEREY AVENUE Aim r FOR SALE 4.5 AC. 296-72,i. '' `• m y'"�kS"�, c'4.1.� ak ,. .- v- � 4s++;x r.m. `` •�, t_„ Ywy� ^'`'t,•. vo + + . r ., .�., t..�, ,t p ..` •` •n Y 4i _ �Iw,y. '"ems • 1+.-7R .._•-' ,c r-r_`�i L. VAS_v� . w • '' _y� � 'T �� �•t �.� ...• ifs I .�'�� �sr "� �y NTEREY AVENUE jr NOW a,it `• '� `�it ".. �',T� '} .�..:_�,e ;Rid •,�_— ,: _ - Ps ae7 fi e.+ydyi "'i�,Fi4Wti, 01 T PON ae�.Vim,pye , a,9 t'S 1 f}� -.�w._. _ •. _�! .. � � ,�, .e. Y.� i,�Nit .�:' � ^' t 3.105 TRAN&RTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT ENCY/ TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the On- 3.112 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ Call Engineering Services Agreement with Albert A. Webb As- TRANSPORTATION: Award of Contract to R.J. Noble Com- sociates. pany for the Resurfacing of Van Buren Boulevard, Washington Street to Wood Road and Rehabilitation of Washington Street, 3.106 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ Van Buren Boulevard to Tava Lane, Woodcrest, area, 1st Dis- TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the On- trict. Call Engineering Services Agreement with Kimley-Horn Associ- ates. 3.113 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ TRANSPORTATION: Award of Contract to Bond Blacktop, Inc. 3.107 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ for the Application of Slum Seal and Cape Seal to Roadways, TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Plans and Specifications for various locations, and Fog Seal Application on Palm Drive, from the Construction of Widening Improvements to Install Four Interstate 10 to Camino Campanero, Desert Hot Springs area. Through Traffic Lanes on Winchester Road, Thompson Road to Whisper Heights Parkway (segments), French Valley area, 3rd 3.114 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ District. (Clerk to advertise) TRANSPORTATION: Award of Contract to Skanska USA Civil West California District, Inc., for the Construction of: 1) Old Mo- 3.108 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ rongo Road, Painted Hills Road to 0.4 mile northerly, Desert TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Plans and Specifications for Hot Springs area; 2) 53rd Avenue, Calhoun Street to Van Buren the Construction of Traffic Signal and Lighting, Clinton Keith Street, Coachella Valley area; 3) 54th Avenue, Pierce Street to Road at Grand Avenue, and Modification of Traffic Signal and All American Canal, Coachella Valley area; 4) Signal Modifica- Lighting, Central Avenue and Palomar Street, Murrieta area, 1st tions, Roadway Widening and the Installation of Left Turn & 3 d Districts. (Clerk to advertise) Lanes at Dillon Road and Mountain View Road, Desert Hot Springs area; and, 5) Roadway Widening and the Installation of 3.109 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ Left Turn Lanes at Dillon Road and Little Morongo Road, De- TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Plans and Specifications for sert Hot Springs, 4th & 5th District. the Construction of Median Island Hard-scape Using River Rock on Limonite Avenue, from Baldwin Avenue to 510 feet 3.115 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ east of Clay Street, Indian Hills area, 2nd District. (Clerk to ad- TRANSPORTATION: Award of Contract to Sully-Miller Con- vertise) tracting Company for the Construction of Roadway Widening and Storm Drain Improvements, Valley Way and Armstrong 3.110 .TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ Road, from State Highway 60 to Sierra Avenue, Sunnyslope / TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Plans and Specifications for West Riverside area, 2"d District. the Construction of Miles Avenue Bridge over the Whitewater River, Indio, 4th District. (Clerk to advertise) 4 3.116 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Project Agreement for the 3.111 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ Southwest Road and Bridge Benefit District with Barratt Ameri- TRANSPORTATION: Award of Contract to R.J. Noble Com- can Inc., a Delaware Corporation, 3rd District. pany fcr the Reconstruction of Cajalco Road, from 1,014 feet west of La Sierra Avenue to 519 feet east of Kirkpatrick Road, 3.117 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ and Metal Beam Guard Rail Installation at three locations on TRANSPORTATION: Acceptance of Notice of Completion on Cajalco Road, Lake Nlathews area, 1st District. Storm Damage Repair, Reconstruction of Segments of Tenaja TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 - PAGE 24 TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007, PAGE 25 Road ; Clinton Keith Road in the Santa Ros ateau, Murri- gional F 3tric Medical Group, Inc. • eta area, 1 District. 3.96 SHERIFF-CORONER-PA: Approval of Budget Adjustments to 3.118 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ purchase furniture and make Handicapped Accessibility Office TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Increase in Appropriation for Modifications for the Sheriff's Information Services Bureau, and Developer Agreement— Developer Impact Fees— El Sobrante Budget Adjustments. (4/5 vote required) Road. (4/5 vote required) 3.97 SHERIFF-CORONER-PA: Approval of the Establishment of a 3.119 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ Fee for Tissue Harvesting. TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Increase in Appropriation for . Developer Agreement— Developer Impact Fees — La Sierra 3.98 SHERIFF-CORONER-PA: Approval of an Agreement with Uni- Road and Scott Road Projects. (4/5 vote required) versal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., DBA Southwest Healthcare System for Sexual Assault Forensic Examinations. 3.120 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Funding Agreement between 3.99 SHERIFF-CORONER-PA: Approval of an Agreement with the the County and the Recional Conservation Authority, and Con- Department of Corrections / California Rehabilitation Center for servation Easement for the Regional Conservation Authority for California Law Enforcement Telecommuncations System Ser- the Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road / 1-15 Mitigation Land, 2nd Dis- vices. tri ct. 3.100 SHERIFF-CORONER-PA: Approval of Sole Source Awards for 3.121 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ Coroner Service Contracts. TRANSPORTATION: Approval of a Personal Service Agree- ment for Landscape Maintenance Services for the Transporta- 3.101 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/CODE tion Department. ENFORCEMENT: Approval In-Principle for the Department of Facilities Management, Real Estate Division, to locate suitable 3.122 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ office space for the Code Enforcement Department in the Fifth TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Engineering Services Agree- Supervisorial District. meet with Iteris, Inc. for Traffic Model Development. 3.102 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ 3.123 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ TRANSPORTATION: Adoption of Resolution 2007-306 — First TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Cooperative Agreement be- Cycle of General Plan Amendments (Circulation Element)for tween the County, Flood Control District, and Gallery Ranch 2007 (GPA 729— Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan — 3rd Dis- Partners for the Woodcrest—Via Los Caballeros Storm Drain trict). Project, 1`` District. (See Item. 11.10) 3.103 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ 3.124 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the On- TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Cooperative Agreement be- Call Engineering Services Agreement with HDR Engineering, tween the County and Flood Control District for the Jurupa Inc. Channel, Stage 4 Project, 2'° District. (See Item. 11.11) 3.104 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ 3.125 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the On- TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Cooperative Agreement be- Call Engineering Services Agreement with Iteris, Inc. TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 - PAGE 26 TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007, PAGE 23 3.86 RIVEAE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL c ITER: Ratify tween tf :ounty and Flood Control District for t Hemet Mas- the Amendment to Agreement between the Genzyme, Inc. and ter Drainage Plan Line D, Stage 5 Project, 3rd District. (See the Riverside County Regional Medical Center. Item 11.12) 3.87 RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Ap- 3.126 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ proval of the Fifth Amendment to Agreement between the TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Cooperative Agreement be- County and the California Emergency Physicians Medical tween the County, the Flood Control District, Acacia Credit Group. Fund 10-A, L.L.C., and KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc., for the Horsethief— Calendula Avenue Storm Drain, Stage 2 Pro- 3.88 RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Ratify ject, 1st District. (See Item. 11.13) the Agreement between the County and Perrisofian Putrasa- han, DDS. 3.127 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ TRANSPORTATION: Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance Dis- 3.89 RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Ratify trict No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Zone 78 —Adop- the Professional Medical Services Agreement between the tion of Resolution 2007-366 Confirming the Diagram and As- County and Swift's Critical Care Network for Children Medical sessment and Levying Assessments, 2"d District. (9.7 of Group, Inc. 7/17/07) 3.90 RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Ratify 3.128 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ the Agreement between the County and Town and Country TRANSPORTATION: Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance Dis- Dental, Inc. trict No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Zone 86 —Adop- tion of Resolution 2007-370 Confirming the Diagram and As- 3.91 RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Termi- sessment and Levying Assessments, 3rd District. (9.8 of nation of the Professional Medical Services Agreement be- 7/17/07) tween the County and Neonatology Medical Group, Inc. 3.129 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ 3.92 RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Ap- TRANSPORTATION: Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance Dis- proval to reassign the Agreement between the County and trict No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Zone 74 —Adop- Healthcare Purchasing Partners International to University tion of Resolution 2007-365 Confirming the Diagram and As- HeaithSystem Consortium. sessment and Levying Assessments, 1st District. (9.9 of 7i 17/07) 3.93 RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Notice of Proposed Purchase of two sets of Surgical Power Equipment 3.130 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ from Stryker, without seeking competitive bids. TRANSPORTATION: Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance Dis- trict No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Zone 81—Adoption 3.94 RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Notice of Resolution 2007-367 Confirming the Diagram and Assess- of Proposed Purchase of Anesthesia Monitors, without seeking ment and Levying Assessments, 3rd District. (9.10 of 7/17/07) competitive bids. 3.131 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ 3.95 RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Ratify TRANSPORTATION: Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance Dis- the Ninth Amendment to the Professional Medical Services trict No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Zone 83 —Adop- Agreement between the County of Riverside and Riverside Re- tion of Resolution 2007-368 Confirming the Diagram and As- TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 -PAGE 22 TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007, PAGE 27 sessrr and Levying ,Assessments, 4`' Distric 9.11 of Ordinan >f the County of Riverside Amending 16inance No. 7/17/07) 403 relating to Juvenile Institutions and Schools at Juvenile In- stitutions. (3.44 of 7,117/07) 3.132 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ TRANSPORTATION: Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance Dis- 3.78 PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES: Approval of Agreement with trict No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Zone 84 —Adop- Jewish Family Services of San Diego for Nightengale Manor tion of Resolution 2007-369 Confirming the Diagram and As- Homeless Emergency Shelter Services, 4th District. sessment and Levying Assessments, 1st District. (9.12 of 7/17;'07) 3.79 PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES: Approval of Contract Agreement (CS3497-00) with Olive Crest Treatment Centers, Inc. 3.133 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ TRANSPORTATION: Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance Dis- 3.80 PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES: Approval of Amendment#1 to trict No. 89-1 —Consolidated, Annexation of Zone 87 —Adop- Agreement (06-SA014)with the California Department of Cor- tion of Resolution 2007-371 Confirming the Diagram and As- porations —Adoption of Resolution 2007-352. sessment and Levying Assessments, 4th District. (9.13 of 7/17/07) 3.81 PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES: Approval In-Principle for various sites for the Department of Public Social Services. 3.134 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ TRANSPORTATION: Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance Dis- 3.82 PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES/COMMUNITY ACTION PART- trict No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Zone 90 —Adop- NERSHIP OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Approval of Agreement tion of Resolution 2007-372 Confirming the Diagram and As- (07C-1678)with the State Department of Community Services sessment and Levying Assessments, 15t District. (9.14 of and Development for the 2007 Department of Energy Weatheri- 7/17/07) zation Assistance Program, and Budget Adjustments. (4/5 vote required) 3.135 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ TRANSPORTATION: Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance Dis- 3.83 PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES/COMMUNITY ACTION PART- trict No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Zone 91 —Adop- NERSHIP OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Approval of Agreement tion of Resolution; 2007-373 Confirming the Diagram and As- (07F-4818) with the State Department of Community Services sessment and Levying Assessments, 3rd District. (9.15 of and Development for the 2007 Summer Energy Crisis Re- 711-007) sponse Plan, and Budget Adjustments. (4/5 vote required) 3.136 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ 3.84 PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES/COMMUNITY ACTION PART- TRANSPORTATION: Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance Dis- NERSHIP OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Approval of Agreement trict No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Zone 92 —Adop- (CAP 07-015)with YMCA of Riverside City and County for Pro- tion of Resolution 2007-374 Confirming the Diagram and As- ject L.E.A.D. (Linking Education, Advocacy and Development). sessment and Levying Assessments, 4th District. (9.16 of 7/17/07) 3.85 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: Ap- proval of the Consultant Agreement with Western Tele- 3.137 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ Communications Consulting, Inc. for the Development of an TRANSPORTATION: Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance Dis- Enterprise Communication Strategic Plan, and Budget Adjust- trict No. 39-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Street Lighting ments. (4/5 vote required) Zone 75 —Adoption of Resolution 2007-375 Confirming the Dia- TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 - PAGE 28 T UESDAY, JULY 31, 2007, PAGE 21 Medicoontractor Agreement with Eric M. CL ie, D.C. dba gram ar ssessment and Levying Assessment_, 't District. Raincross Chiropractic and Wellness Center. (9.17 of 7/17/011) 3.67 HUMAN RESOURCES: Approval of Exclusive Care — EPO 3.138 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ Medical Contractor Agreement with Ed Kim, Inc., dba Kim TRANSPORTATION: Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance Dis- Physical Therapy. trict No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Street Lighting Zone 76 —Adoption of Resolution 2007-376 Confirming the Dia- 3.68 HUMAN RESOURCES: Approval of Defense Panel Contracts gram and Assessment and Levying Assessments, 2nd District. for Labor and Employment Related Matters. (9.18 of 7/17/07) 3.69 MENTAL HEALTH: Ratify Fiscal Year 2007-08 Mental Health 3.139 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Rescission of Tax Deed to Contracts with Trilogy Integrated Resources and Volunteer Purchaser of Tax-Defaulted Property for Tax Sale No. TC167, Center of Riverside County. Item 522, Sale Date March 17, 2003, 1st District. 3.70 MENTAL HEALTH: Ratify Fiscal Year 2007-08 Mental Health 3.140 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: INTRODUCTION OF ORDI- Agreement with the Riverside County Superintendent of NANCE 868, an Ordinance of the County of Riverside Electing Schools. to Receive Pari-mutuel Wagering Distribution in Lieu of Taxes or Fees. 3.71 MENTAL HEALTH: Ratify Fiscal Year 2007-08 Contracts be- tween the Departmental of Mental Health and Victor Commu- nity Support Services, Inc. Following items need to be excluded from a master motion, they need to be acted on separately: 3.72 MENTAL HEALTH: Ratify Fiscal Year 2007-08 Mental Health Agreements. 3.141 EXECUTIVE OFFICE: Adoption of Resolution 2007-387 — Cer- tificates of Participation, Series 2007A and 2007B. 3.73 MENTAL HEALTH: Ratify Fiscal Year 2007-08 Out-of-State Mental Health Agreements. 3.142 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Adoption of Resolution 2007-381 — Perris Elementary School District, General Obliga- 3.74 MENTAL HEALTH: Ratify the Second Amendment to the Fis- tion Bonds, 2006 Election, Series 2007. cal Year 2006-07 Negotiated Net Amount Drug Medi-Cal Agreement with the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Pro- 3.143 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Adoption of Resolution grams and Adoption of Resolution 2007-383. 2007-382— San Jacinto Unified School District, General Obliga- tion Bonds, 2006 Election, Series 2007. 3.75 MENTAL HEALTH: Ratify Fiscal Year 2007-08 Contract with Jefferson Transitional Programs to Operate a Safe Haven & Supportive Housing Program. 3.144 SUPERVISOR BUSTER: Legislative Change to the Brown Act Requiring Meeting Notification via the Internet. 3.76 PARKS: Allocation of Development Impact Fee Funds to the Riverside County Parks Department for Trails Expansion, 1 St, 3.145 SUPERVISOR BUSTER: First District Use of Community Im- 2nd & 3`d Districts. (4/5 vote required) provement Designation Funds for the California Inland Empire Council — Boy Scouts of America Rivervalley District, and 3.77 PROBATION: ®ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 403.4, an Budget Adjustments. (4/5 vote required) TUESDAY, JUL Y 31, 2007 - PAGE 20 TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007, PAGE 29 3.146 SUPE SOR STONE: Third District Use of ( munity Im- 3.57 FACILII ; MANAGEMENT: Perris Sheriff's CAblex and provement Designation Funds for the Canine Support Teams, Family Care Clinic—Acceptance of Notice of Completion for Inc., and Community Outreach Ministry, and Budget Adjust- Arizona Pipeline, 51h District. ments. (4/5 vote required) 3.58 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT and MENTAL HEALTH: Mental 3.147 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Fifth District Use of Community Im- Health Homeless Safe Haven —Award of Construction Contract provement Designation Funds for the Moreno Valley Elks to HCH Constructors, Approval of Total Project Budget and #2697, Moreno Valley Military Affairs Committee, Court Ap- Budget Adjustments. (4/5 vote required) pointed Special Advocates, Operation SafeHouse, and Banning Playhouse Bowl Association, Inc., and Budget Adjustments. 3.59 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT and RIVERSIDE COUNTY IN- (4/5 vote required) FORMATION TECHNOLOGY: Approval of First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Michael Brandman 3.148 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Fifth District Use of Community Im- Associates. provement Designation Funds for the Edward-Dean Museum & Gardens, and Budget Adjustments. (4/5 vote required) 3.60 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT and RIVERSIDE COUNTY PARKS AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT: Acceptance of Notice 3.149 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Sole of Completion on Riverside County Regional Park and Open Source Agreement with RHA Landscape Architects Planners, Space District Headquarters Annex Audio Visual System, 2nd Inc. for the Edward-Dean Museum & Gardens — Legacy Rose District. Garden Project, 5`h District. 3.61 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT and RIVERSIDE COUNTY 3.150 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Fifth District Use of Community Im- PARKS AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT: Adoption of Resolu- provement Designation Funds for the Moreno Valley Rockets, tion 2007-267, Authorization to Convey Real Property Interests and Budget Adjustments. (4/5 vote required) to Valley-Wide Recreation & Park District. (4/5 vote required) (3.32 of 7/17/07) 3.151 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Adoption of Resolution 2007-393 Creating the West Desert Municipal Advisory Council. 3.62 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT and TRANSPORTATION: Ap- proval of Acquisition Agreement for the Clinton Keith Road Ex- 3.152 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Adoption of Resolution 2007-394 tension Project, 3rd District. Creating the Romoland — Homeland Municipal Advisory Coun- cil. 3.63 FIRE: Approval of a Sole Source Purchase for a Four Story Expandable Drill Tower. 3.153 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Adoption of Resolution 2007-395 Creating the Good Meadow Municipal Advisory Council. 3.64 FIRE: Approval of a Sole Source Purchase for a Three Story Training and Hose Tower. Following item needs to be excluded from a master motion, it 3.65 HUMAN RESOURCES: Action on Advisory Arbitration Opin- needs to be acted on separately: ions as required by the Memoranda of Understanding between the County of Riverside and SEIU, Local 1997; LIUNA, Local 3.154 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Adoption of Resolution 777; and RSA. (3.39 of 7/17/07) 2007-392—Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes Palo Verde Community College District. 3.66 HUMAN RESOURCES: Approval of Exclusive Care — EPO TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 - PAGE 30 TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007, PAGE 19 3.47 FACI =_S MANAGEMENT: Approval of Le< Agreement— Code Enforcement, Thousand Palms, and Budget Adjustments, 4th District. (4/5 vote required) 3.155 SUPERVISOR WILSON: Fire Hazard Closure—Whitewater Canyon. 3.48 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Riverside County Regional Medi- cal Center Infusion Center—Approval of Total Project Budget, 3.156 SUPERVISOR BUSTER: First District Use of Community Im- Agreement with Capstone Construction Company, and Budget provement Designation Funds for the National Alliance for the Adjustments. (4/5 vote required) Mentally III Annual Walk, and Budget Adjustments. (4/5 vote required) 3.49 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Riverside County Regional Medi- cal Center Window Washer Anchor Points and Working Plat- REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING: form Project—Approval of Total Project Budget, Agreement with Dalke & Sons Construction, Inc., and Budget Adjustments. 4.1 Award of Contract to 4-Con Enpineering, Inc. for the Jurupa (4/5 vote required) Parks Improvement Project, 2n District. 3.50 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Riverside County Regional Medi- 4.2 Award of Contract to Mega Way Enterprises for the Limonite cai Center CIP Extension -Approval of Total Project Budget, Underpass Beautification Project, 2nd District. Agreement with Lee, Burkhart, Liu, Inc., and Budget Adjust- ments. (415 vote required) 4.3 Approval of Agreement with the County of Riverside, and Find- ings for the Mead Valley Road Improvement Project— Phase 1, 3.51 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Approval of Pre-Qualified Con- 1st District. (See Item 3.25) sultant List for As-Needed Services. 4.4 Approval of Second Amendment to Agreement with Albert A. 3.52 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Approval of Pre-Qualified List for Webb Associates, and Agreement between the Transportation As-Needed Environmental Consulting Services. Department and the Redevelopment Agency for the Sherman Road Signalization Project and Romoland Beautification Pro- 3.53 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Approval of Plans and Specifica- ject, 5th District. (See Item 3.39) tions for the Underground Storage Tank System Removal at Riverside County Historic Courthouse and Hall of Justice, 2nd 4.5 Approval of Architectural Services Agreement with STK Archi- District. (Clerk to advertise) tecture, Inc., and Findings for the Thermal Fire Station, 4th Dis- trict. (See Item 3.27) 3.54 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Approval of Plans and Specifica- tions for the Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility Expansion No. 4.6 Approval of Agreement by and between the Redevelopment 3, 5th District. (Clerk to advertise) Agency for the County of Riverside and the Perris Union High School District for the Heritage High School Scoreboards and 3.55 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Approval of Plans and Specifica- Marquee in Romoland and Findings, 51h District. (See Item tions for the Perris Sheriff's Complex and Family Care Clinic 3.28) Fueling Facility and Car Wash, 5th District. (Clerk to advertise) - 4.7 Adoption of RDA Resolution No. 2007-017, Notice of Intention 3.56 FACILITIES MANAGEI LENT: Perris Sheriff's Complex and to Adopt a Resolution of Necessity regarding the West River- Family Care Clinic—Approval of Change Order No. 15 with side Veterinary Hospital Project, APN 181-062-011, 2nd District. ASR Constructors, 5th District. (4/5 vote required) (Set for 9/4/07 @ 9:00 a.m. — Clerk to advertise) TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 - PAGE 18 TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007, PAGE 31 4.8 Adopt of RDA Resolution No. 2007-034, Nc of Intent to (Hrg. SE 4/07 @ 9:30 a.m. — Clerk to advertis( Purchase Real Property in the North Hemet area, APNS 443- 050-002, -003, -004, -022, -023, -024, -027, -028, -029, and - 3.39 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY and TRANSPORTA- 031, 3`d District. (Set for 9/4/07 @ 9:00 a.m. - Clerk to adver- TION: Approval of Agreement by and between the Redevelop- tise) ment Agency for the County of Riverside and the Riverside County Transportation Department for the Sherman Road Sig- 4.9 Adoption of RDA Resolution No. 2007-030, Authorization to nalization Project and Romoland Beautification Project, 5th Dis- Purchase Real Property within the Rubidoux area, APNS 181- trict. (See Item 4.4) 052-012, 181-052-017 and 181-052-018, 2nd District. (4.2 of 6/26/07) 3.40 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Approval for Transition of Custo- dial and Housekeeping Staff to 40 Hour Work Week Schedule. 4.10 Public Hearing on Mid-term Reviews of the Five-Year Redevel- (3.26 of 7/17/07) opment Implementation Plans for the following Project Areas: No. 1-1986; Jurupa Valley; Mid County; Desert Communities; 3.41 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Approval of Fourth Amendment and, Interstate-215 Corridor. (Delay to 9:30 a.m. session) to Lease, Office on Aging, Palm Desert, 4th District. 3.42 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Approval of First Amendment to RIVERSIDE COUNTY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY: Lease, Public Defender, Riverside, and Budget Adjustment, 1st District. (4/5 vote required) 5. (No Business) 3.43 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Approval of Third Amendment to Lease, Community Health Agency, Hemet, 3rd District. INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY MEETING: 3.44 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Adoption of Resolution 2007- 6. (No Business) 036, Notice of Intention to Purchase Real Property— 57.02 acres of vacant land (APN's 327-190-005, 006, 007, 009, 010, 011, 012, 014, 015, 017 and 019 and all but a 1.18-acre portion IN-HON1E SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PUDLIC AUTHORITY: of 327-190-020), and Adoption of Resolution 2007-350, Notice of Intention to Reimburse, 5th District. (4/5 vote required) (Set 7. (No Business) for 9/18107 @ 9:00 a.m. — Clerk to advertise) (Continue to 1:30 p.m. session) COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT'S LEGISLATIVE BODY MEET- 3.45 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Adoption of Resolution 2007- ING: 380, Notice of Authorization to Purchase Real Property in the City of Desert Hot Springs (APN 656-040-039); Adoption of the 8.1 EXECUTIVE OFFICE: Authorization of Judicial Foreclosure Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Action - Community Facilities Districts (CFD) —Adoption of the Monitoring Plan; and Adoption of Resolution 2007-384, Notice following Resolutions: of Intention to Reimburse, 5th District. (4/5 vote required) a. Resolution No. CFD 2007-07 Authorizing Foreclosure Action on 3.46 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Approval of Lease Agreement— certain real property in CFD 87-1 (South "A" Street), 1st District. Department of Public Social Services, Cathedral City, and Budget Adjustments, 4th District. (4/5 vote required) TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 - PAGE 32 TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007, PAGE 17 and ;ount,/ of Riverside / APNs 329-020 -003 and - b. Resolut.-.. No. CFD 2007-08 Authorizing ForecI,___.'e Action on 004, 5 Distrift certain real property in CFD 87-5 (Wild Rose), 1st District. 3.30 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Joint C. Resolution No. CFD 2007-09 Authorizing Foreclosure Action on Community 7acilities Agreement by and among County of Riv- certain real property in CFD 88-4 (Winchester Ranch), 3Id Dis- erside acting by and through Riverside County Service Area trict. No. 152-C, City of Riverside, Riverside Unified School District, and ERP HHoldina Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, 5t'� District. d. Resolution No. CFD 2007-10 Authorizing Foreclosure Action on 3.31 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of First certain real property in CFD 88-8 ("A" Street North), 1st District. Amendment to Loan Agreement with UHC Indio L.P., for Hori- e. Resolution No. CFD 2007-11 Authorizing Foreclosure Action on zons at Indio Senior Apartments in the City of Indio, 4th District. certain real property in CFD 03-1 (Newport Road), 3Id District. 3.32 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Acceptance of Notice f. Resolution No. CFD 2007-12 Authorizing Foreclosure Action on of Completion on Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport Taxiway certain real property in CFD 04-2 (Lakehills Crest), 1st District. G Project, `" District. 8.2 EXECUTIVE OFFICE: Enrollment of FY 2007-08 Special Tax 3.33 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Consent to Assign- Levies for County Community Facilities Districts (CFD) —Adop- ment and Assignment of Lease, French Valley Airport, 3rd Dis- tion of the following Resolutions: trict. a. Resolution 1 lo. CFD 2007-13 Authorizing the Levy and Enroll- 3.34 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Memo- meat of a Special Tax in CFD 85-2 (California Oaks). randum of Lease, Recognition Agreement and Ground Lease Estoppel Certificate — French Valley Airport, 3rd District. b. Resolution No. CFD 2007-14 Authorizing the Levy and Enroll- ment of a Special Tax in CFD 86-1 (Menifee Village). 3.35 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Surren- der of Leasehold Agreement— Jacqueline Cochran Regional C. Resolution No. CFD 2007-15 Authorizing the Levy and Enroll- Airport, 4t' District. ment of a Special Tax in CFD 87-1 (South `A' Street). 3.36 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Sub- d. Resolution No. CFD 2007-16 Authorizing the Levy and Enroll- lease, and Ratify the Subordination, Non-Disturbance and At- ment of a Special Tax in CFD 87-5 (Wild Rose). tornment Agreement, Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport, 4th District. e. Resolution No. CFD 2007-17 Authorizing the Levy and Enroll- _ ment of a Special Tax in CFD 88-4 (Winchester Ranch). 3.37 ECONONMIIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of First Amendment to the Agreement for Engineering Services be- _ f. Resolution No. CFD 2007-18 Authorizing the Levy and Enroll- ttiween the County and Nolte Associates, Inc. for the Mesa ment of a Special Tax in CFD 88-8 (`A' Street— North). Verde Water Distribution Project, 4th District. g. Resolution No. CFD 2007-19 Authorizing the Levy and Enroll- 3.38 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Adoption of Resolu- ment of a Special Tax in CFD 89-1 (Mountain Cove). tion 2007-329, Notice of Intention to Adopt a Resolution of Ne- cessity regarding the El Cerrito Sports Park Project, 2''d District. h. Resolution No. CFD 2007-20 Authorizing the Levy and Enroll- TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 - PAGE -16 TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007, PAGE 33 ment t Special Tax in CFD 89-4. advertisf i. ReSOILltion No. CFD 2007-21 Authorizing the Levy and Enroll- 3.20 COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY/ENVIRONMENTAL ment of a Special Tax in CFD 03-1 (Newport Road). HEALTH: Approval of Leasing one Vehicle. j. Resolution No. CFD 2007-22 Authorizing the Levy and Enroll- 3.21 COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY/PUBLIC HEALTH: Approval ment of a Special Tax in CFD 04-2 (Lake Hills Crest). of Agreement with the State Office of Traffic Safety and County Department of Public Health — Injury Prevention Services, and k. Resolution No. CFD 2007-23 Authorizing the Levy and Enroll- Budget Adjustments. (4/5 vote required) ment of a Special Tax in CFD 05-8 (Scott Road). 3.22 COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY/PUBLIC HEALTH: Ratify the I. Resolution No. CFD 2007-24 Authorizing the Levy and Enroll- Amendment#1 to the Agreement with the State Department of ment of a Special Tax in CFD 07-2 (Clinton Keith). Health Services and Community Health Agency, Department of Public I tealth for Women, Infants and Children Supplemental Nutrition Program (05-45785 A01). 9:30 A.M. PUBLIC HEARINGFI: 3.23 COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY/PUBLIC HEALTH: Approval In-Principle to seek leased space in the City of Riverside for the 9.1 AUDITOR-CONTROLLER: Public Hearing on ®ADOPTION Department of Public Health, 1st District. OF ORDINANCE NO. 860.2, an Ordinance of the County of Riverside Amending Ordinance No. 860 related to Establishing 3.24 COUNTY LIBRARY: Ratify the Joint Use Agreement with Per- a Schedule of Fees for the Issuance of Warrants and Services ris Union High School for the Operation of a Joint Use Library by the Auditor-Controller of the County of Riverside. (3.7 of Heritage High School, 5th District. 7/17/07) 3.25 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Agree- 9.2 COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY/ENVIRONMENTAL ment with the Redevelopment Agency for the County of River- HEALTH: Public Hearing on the Special Assessments for Un- side, and Findings for the Mead Valley Road Improvement Pro- paid Trash Collection Fees —Adoption of Resolution 2007-289 ject— Phase 1, 1st District . (See Item 4.3) Ordering the Confirmation of Special Assessments and Liens Against Parcels of Land for Unpaid and Delinquent Charges for 3.26 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Second Trash Collection Services. (3.8 of 7/17/07) Amendment to Grant Agreement for El Solano Apartments in the City of Blythe, 4th District. 9.3 COUNTY COUNSEL/CODE ENFORCEMENT: Public Hearing on Statement of Expense or Public Nuisance Case No. CV 04- 3.27 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Findings 2766, located at 16214 Pa:�sy Street, Perris, 1st District. for the Thermal Fire Station, 4th District. (See Item 4.5) 9.4 COUNTY COUNSEL/CODE ENFORCEMENT: Public Hearing 3.28 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Findings on Abatement of Public Nuisance [Excess Outside Storage and for the Heritage High School Scoreboard and Marquee Project, Accumulation of Rubbish] on Case No. CV 05-4416, located at _ 5th District. (See Item 4.6) 21426 Austin Avenue, Perris, 1st District. 3.29 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Ground 9.5 COUNTY COUNSEL/CODE ENFORCEMENT: Public Hearing Lease Agreement/ In-N-Out Burger, a California Corporation TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 - PAGE 34 TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007, PAGE 15 5/8/0 Department recommends continuant September on Abate nt of Public Nuisance [Substandard : :;ture and 18, 2007) Accumulation of Rubbish] on Case No. CV 06-1143 and 07- 1516, located at 64581 Dillon Road, North Palm Springs, 5th 3.14 EXECUTIVE OFFICE: Approval of Rate Structure and the Indi- District. gent Defense Contracts for Extraordinary Death Penalty Cases. 9.6 COUNTY COUNSEL/CODE ENFORCEMENT: Public Hearing 3.15 EXECUTIVE OFFICE: Approval of a Fiscal Year 06/07 Budget on Abatement of Public Nuisance [Substandard Structure] on Adjustment for the Habitat Fund. (4/5 vote required) Case No. CV 06-7375, located at 33625 Mission Trail, Wildo- mar, 15t District. 3.16 EXECUTIVE OFFICE: Authorization of Judicial Foreclosure Action —Assessment Districts -Adoption of the following Reso- 9.7 COUNTY COUNSEL/CODE ENFORCEMENT: Public Hearing lutions: on Abatement of Public Nuisance [Substandard Structure] on Case No. CV 07-1153, located at 6980 N. Lovekin Blvd., a. Resolution No. 2007-345 Authorizing Foreclosure Action for Blythe, 4th District. Reassessment Dist. No. 161 R (Winchester Properties), 3 d Dis- trict. 9.8 COUNTY COUNSEL/CODE ENFORCEMENT: Public Hearing on Abatement of Public Nuisance [Excess Outside Storage and b. Resolution No. 2007-346 Authorizing Foreclosure Action for Accumulation of Rubbish] on Case No. CV 05-1828, located at Assessment Dist. No. 167 (North Palm Springs), 5th District. 6980 N. Lovekin Blvd., Blythe, 4th District. c. Resolution No. 2007-347 Authorizing Foreclosure Action for 9.9 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Public Hearing on Reassessment Dist. No. 168 (Rivercrest), 3`d District. Wildomar Landscape Maintenance District No. 2006-1 —Adop- tion of Resolution 2007-362 Confirming the Diagram and As- 3.17 EXECUTIVE OFFICE and FIRE DEPARTMENT: Approval of sessment Levy for Fiscal Year 2007-08, 1st District. (3.13 of Reprogramming of Development Impact Fee (DIF) Allocation 7/17/07) for the Lake Riverside, Cabazon, and Sun City Fire Stations and Revisions to the DIF Public Facilities Needs List, 3`d & 5th 9.10 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Public Hearing on Districts. Adoption of Resolution 2007- 285 Establishing the County Ser- vice Areas Charges for Fiscal Year 2007-2008. (3.28 of 3.18 COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY/ENVIRONMENTAL 6/26/07) HEALTH: INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 769.2, an Ordinance of the County of Riverside Amending Ordinance No. 9.11 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Public Hearing on 769 Establishing Parcel Fees on Land located in the Idyllwild Loma Linda Healthcare Properties, LLC and Loma Linda Uni- and Anza/Pinyon Areas to provide for the Collection of Solid versify Medical Center-Adoption of Resolution 2007-379 Ap- Waste Generated from Residential Use of such Parcels (Annual proving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the California Enter- Rate Adjustment to Waste Collection Agreements for Franchise prise Development Authority, 3`d & 5th District. Area 8). (Hrg. Set 8/281107 @ 9:30 a.m. —Clerk to advertise) 9.12 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT and TRANSPORTATION: Fur- 3.19 COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY/ENVIRONMENTAL ther Public Hearing on Adoption of Resolution 2007-072, Au- HEALTH: Schedule for Public Hearing the Annual Rate Adjust- thorization to Condemn Real Property for Road and Storm ment for Franchise Area 2 of the Waste Collection Agreements Drainage Purposes — Lennar Homes, 3`d District. (4/5 vote re- for Riverside County. (Hrg. Set 9/18/07 @ 1:30 p.m. — Clerk to quired) (9.3 of 6/26/07) TUESDAY, JULY 31,2007 - PAGE 14 TUESDAY, JULY 31,2007, PAGE 35 9,13 TRAM, -.�RTATION & LAND NIANAGEMENJ ENCY/ 3.4 SUPER\ )R TAVAGLIONE: Second District L )f Commu- TRANSPOP,TATION: Public Hearing on Amendment No. 2 to nity Improvement Designation Funds for the Riverside Commu- the Southwest Area Road and Bridge Benefit District and Re- nity Flower Show, and Budget Adjustments. (4/5 vote required) lated Environmental Documents and Findings -Adoption of Resolution 2007-138, V & 3� Districts. (3.61 of 7/17/07) 3.5 SUPERVISOR TAVAGLIONE: Second District Use of Commu- nity Improvement Designation Funds for the Jurupa Community 9.14 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ Services District, and Budget Adjustments. (4/5 vote required) TRANSPORTATION: Public Hearing on Landscaping & Light- ing 7,Vlaintenance District No. 89-1- Consolidated, Landscaping 3.6 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Fifth District Use of Community Im- and Lighting Maintenance District No. 89-1-Consolidated, provement Designation Funds for the Western Coachella Valley Zones 1, 3, 4, 5, o, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 24, Police Activities League, and Budget Adjustments. (4/5 vote 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 377 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, required) 46, 47, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 73. and 77; and Street lighting Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 3.7 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Fifth District Use of Community Im- 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, provement Designation Funds for the Nuview Youth Sports Or- 25, 26, 27, 23; 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, ganization, and Budget Adjustments. (4/5 vote required) 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, and 58 - Adoption of Resolution 2007-364 Confirming the Diagram and 3.8 SUPERVISOR STONE: Third District Use of Community Im- Assessments. (3.64 of 7/17/07) provement Designation Funds for the Idyllwild Arts Foundation, Friends of Valley-Wide Foundation, and Mt. San Jacinto Na- 9.15 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ tional Alliance on Mental Illness, and Budget Adjustments. (4/5 TRANSPORTATION: Public Hearing on Underground Utility vote required) District No. 45, Stetson Avenue, Santa Fe Street to Dartmouth Street-Adoption of Resolution 2007-070 Establishing Under- 3.9 SUPERVISOR STONE: Third District Use of Community Im- ground Utility District No. 45, East Hemet area, 3rd District. provement Designation Funds for the City of San Jacinto, and (3.34 of 6/19/07) Budget Adjustments. (4/5 vote required) 9.16 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Public Hearing on Distribu- 3.10 SUPERVISOR STONE: Third District Use of Community Im- tion of Excess Proceeds for Tax Sale No. 170, Item 262, last provement Designation Funds for the EDA- Summer Recrea- assessed to Modern Home, Inc., 3rd District. tion Program in Menifee Valley, and EDA- Kid Zone Activities for French Valley, and Budget Adjustments. (4/5 vote required) 9.17 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Public Hearing on Distribu- tion of Excess Proceeds for Tax Sale No. 170, Item 354, last 3.11 SUPERVISOR STONE: Third District Use of Community Im- assessed to Ralph Hans Oeffinger, a married man, as his sole provement Designation Funds for the Idyllwild Community Rec- and separate property, 1st District. reation Council, and Budget Adjustments. (4/5 vote required) 9.18 TREASURED.-TAX COLLECTOR: Public Hearing on Distribu- 3.12 THIRD DISTRICT Use of Community Improvement Designation tion of Excess Proceeds for Tax Sale No. 170, Item 446, last Funds for the Temecula Senior Center& Food Bank, and assessed to James F. Roach, a widower, as to an undivided Budget Adjustments. (4/5 vote required) (3.39 of 7/3/07) 1/3 nterest; and Willamine Frethiem, a widow, as to an undi- vided 1/3 interest; and Bradley R. Frethiern, a single man, as to 3.13 EXECUTIVE OFFICE: Recommendations from Committee to an undivided 1/3 interest, 1st District. Deter the Thefts of Aluminum, Brass and Copper. (3.7 of TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 - PAGE 36 TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007, PAGE 13 cess ect 9.19 TREASL. _—R-TAX COLLECTOR: Public Hearir., _i Distribu- tion of Excess Proceeds for Tax Sale No. 170, Item 872, last 2.58 SUPERVISOR WILSON: Reappointment to the Regional Ac- assessed to Steven Frederick as to an undivided one-half inter- cess Project est and Mary Rene Frederick as to an undivided one-half inter- est. 5th District. 2.59 SUPERVISOR WILSON: Reappointment to the County Service Area 51 (Lake Tamarisk— Desert Center) Advisory Council. 9.20 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Public Hearing on Distribu- tion of Excess Proceeds for Tax Sale No. 170, Item 873, last 2.60 SUPERVISOR WILSON: Reappointment to the County Service assessed to.Steven Frederick as to an undivided one-half inter- Area 51 (Lake Tamarisk— Desert Center)Advisory Council. - est and Mary Rene Frederick as to an undivided one-half inter- est, 5th District. 2.61 SUPERVISOR WILSON: Reappointment to the County Service Area 51 (Lake Tamarisk— Desert Center) Advisory Council. 9.21 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Public Hearing on Distribu- tion of Excess Proceeds for Tax Sale No. 170, Item 944, last 2.62 SUPERVISOR WILSON: Reappointment to the County Service assessed to Julia H. Lambert, 4th District. Area 51 (Lake Tamarisk— Desert Center) Advisory Council. 9.22 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Public Hearing on Distribu- 2.63 SUPERVISOR WILSON: Reappointment to the County Service tion of Excess Proceeds for Tax Sale No. 171, Item 7, last as- Area 51 (Lake Tamarisk— Desert Center) Advisory Council. sessed to Travis D. Parker and Linda S. Parker, husband and wife, as joint tenants, 2nd District. POLICY CALENDAR: Presented for Block Approval; Supervisors have the option of excluding discussion items from a master ORAL COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE ON ANY MAT- motion. TER WHICH DOES NOT APPEAR ON THE BOARD'S AGENDA: 3.1 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY and SUPERVISOR WILSON: Coa- chella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan: Ap- CONCURRENT EXECUTIVE SESSION-COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE proval of Agreements with O'Reilly Public Relations and Coa- REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE chella Valley Association of Governments, and Budget Adjust- DISTRICT, FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DIS- ments. (4/5 vote required) TRICT, WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, HOUSING AUTHORITY, PERRIS VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT IN-HOME 3.2 SUPERVISOR BUSTER and SUPERVISOR STONE: Alloca- SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PUBLIC AUTHORITY AND COMMUNITY tion of Funds to Incorporating Cities in the Areas of Wildomar FACILITIES DISTRICTS: and Menifee based on a Net Savings Calculations, and Ap- proval of Amendments to Board Policy A-46. With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed ses- sion pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9: 3.3 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: INTRODUCTION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 871, an Ordinance of the County of Riv- Conference with legal counsel-existing litigation: erside, as an Urgency Measure Prohibiting the Installation of (Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9) Specified Septic Tank Systems in Cherry Valley. (4/5 vote re- quired) A.1 Endangered Habitats League v. County of Riverside et al. (Riverside Superior Court case no. RIC 402952) TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 - PAGE 12 TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007, PAGE 37 A.2 Rede, oment Agency for the County of Riv Ie v. Pauline Final Ma L. Burnett. etc. et al. (Riverside Superior Court case no. RIC 45007 5) 2.45 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 32458 — Hemet area — 3rd A.: Riverside County Flood Control District v. Charles H. Doner District, Schedule A. Approval of Agreements, Bonds and Final (Riverside County Superior Court No. 422328) Map. A.4 Silvia Cole, David T. Cole (minor childl v. County of Riverside 2.46 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ (United States District Court case no. CV05-04605 AG[RCx] TRANSPORTATION: Plot Plan 19763 — Mira Loma area —2nd District. Approval of Subdivision Improvement Agreements. With resoect to every item of business to be discussed in closed ses- sion pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9: 2.47 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Treasurer's Monthly Disclo- sure Report on Investments. Confere7,�e with legal counsel-anticipated litigation: Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code 2.48 SUPERVISOR STONE: Reappointment to the Temecula Pub- Section 54956.9: lic Cemetery District B.i Three cotential cases. 2.49 SUPERVISOR STONE: Reappointment to the Temecula Pub- lic Cemetery District With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed ses- sion pursuant tc Section 54956.8: 2.50 SUPERVISOR STONE: Reappointment to the Temecula Pub- lic Cemetery District C.1 Conference with real property negotiator: Property/ —APN 807-030-001-0 2.51 SUPERVISOR STONE: Reappointment to the Temecula Pub- Neaoti 3tinq party— Kay Hazen lic Cemetery District Unider negotiation — Price/Terms/Conditions 2.52 SUPERVISOR STONE: Reappointment to the Historical Com- C.2 Cor�ferenc._ with real property negotiator: mission Proper y — APN's 327-190-005, 006, 007, 009, 010, 011, 012, 014, 015, 017, and 019, and all but a 1.18-acre portion of 327- 2.53 SUPERVISOR WILSON: Reappointment to the Advisory 190-020 Council on Aging Negotiating partv —Joe Lewis Urder negotiation — Price/Terms/Conditions 2.54 SUPERVISOR WILSON: Reappointment to the CAC Wall of Honor Committee C.3 Conference with real property negotiator: Prcoert,✓—APN's 294-110-003 and 294-110-005 2.55 SUPERVISOR WILSON: Reappointment to the Thousand Neq otiatinq party— Mike Webster Palms Community Council U;-;der neaotiation — Price/Terms/Conditions 2.56 SUPERVISOR WILSON: Reappointment to the Regional Ac- With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed ses- cess Project sion oL;r�zuar.t to Section 54957: 2.57 SUPERVISOR WILSON: Reappointment to the Regional Ac- TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 - PAGE 38 TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007, PAGE 11 TRA 'ORTATION: TRACT MAP 29093 (h or Streets)— D.1 Public E...,.oyee Appointment Mira Loma area—2nd District, Schedule A. Approval of Agree- Title: Director of Public Social Services ments and Bonds for Extension of Time. 2.37 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ RECESS TO LUNCH TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 29148 — Eastvale area — 2nd District, Schedule A. Approval of Agreements and Bonds for Ex- tension of Time. 1:30 P.M. HOUSING AUTHORITY MEETING: 2.38 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ - 10.1 Award of Construction Contract to Joe Putrino General Con- TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 29320-2 —Temescal area tractor for the Replacement of Entry and Rear Sliding Doors at — 1st District, Schedule A. Approval of Agreements and Bonds the Ed Dorado Apartments in Riverside, 1st District. for Extension of Time. 10.2 Award of Construction Contract to Minkler Construction, Inc. for 2.39 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ Two Single-Family Homes, Lots 8 and 9, Home Gardens, 2nd TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 29335-1 (and MS 3963) — District. Glen Ivy area— 1 st District, Schedule A. Approval of Agree- ments and Bonds for Extension of Time. 10.3 Award of Contract to Trinity Custom Construction for the Fair- view Apartments in Lake Elsinore, 1st District. 2.40 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 30069-2 (and MS 3996) — 10.4 Adoption of Resolution 2007-06, the Section 8 Management French Valley area —3rd District, Schedule A. Approval of Assessment Program and Public Housing Assessment System Agreements, Bonds and Final Map. Certification. 2.41 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 30664 — Murrieta area — 3rd 1:30 P.M. FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DIS- District, Schedule B. Approval of Agreements, Bonds and Final TRICT MEETING: Map. 11.1 Public Hearing on Adoption of Resolution F2007-09 Authorizing 2.42 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ the Santa Ana Watershed Benefit Assessment. (11.1 of TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 30905 — Eastvale area — 2nd 6/26/07) District, Schedule A. Approval of Agreements and Bonds for Ex- tension of Time. 11.2 Public Hearing on Adoption of Resolution F2007-10 Authorizing the Santa Margarita Watershed Benefit Assessment. (11.2 of 2.43 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ 6/26/07) TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 30931 — Eastvale area — 2nd _ District, Schedule A. Approval of Agreements, Bonds and Final 11.3 Public Hearing on Adoption of Resolution F2007-11 Authorizing Ma the Whitewater Watershed Benefit Assessment. (11.3 of p 6/26/07) 2.44 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 30931-1 — Eastvale area — 11.4 Public Hearing on Adoption of Resolution F2007-016 Authoriz- 2nd District, Schedule A. Approval of Agreements, Bonds and ing the Zone 3 Elsinore Watershed Benefit Assessment Pro- gram. (11.4 of 6/26/07) TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 -PAGE '10 TUESDAY,JULY 31, 2007, PAGE 39 l 11.5 Apprt of Cooperative Agreement between 1 District, the nue, in tr enifee area (AB 07006), 3rd District. City of Palm Springs, the City of Cathedral City, Endure Invest- 2.28 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ ments and Geiger LLC, for the Palm Springs Master Drainage TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 23626 — Menifee area — Plan Line 34A (Parcel Map 31968), 41h District. 3rd District, Schedule A. Approval of One Year Guarantee and 11.6 Approval of Contract Change Order No. 5 for the Corona Drains Maintenance Agreements. Line 46, Stage 1 Project, 2'd District. (4/5 vote required) 2.29 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 23626-1 — Menifee area— 11.7 Approval of Plans and S9ecifications for the Corona Drains 3rd District, Schedule A. Approval of One Year Guarantee and Lines 1 G, 1 H and 1J, 2' District. (Clerk to advertise) - Maintenance Agreements. 11.8 Approval of Plans and Specifications for the Hemet Master 2.30 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ Drainage Plan Line D, Stage 5 Project, 3rd District. (Clerk to TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 23627 — Murrieta area — advertise) 3rd District, Schedule A. Approval of One Year Guarantee and 11.9 Adoption of Resolution F2007-22, Authorization to Sell an Inter- Maintenance Agreements. est in Real Property for the Sunnymead Channel Project, APN 2.31 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ 479-020-036, 5m District. (4/5 vote required) (11.2 of 7/17/07) TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 23627-1 — Murrieta area— 3rd District, Schedule A. Approval of One Year Guarantee and 11.10 Approval of Cooperative Agreement between the District, the Maintenance Agreements. County and Gallery Ranch Partners for the Woodcrest—Via Los Caballeros Storm Drain Project, 1st District. (See Item. 2.32 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ 3.123) TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 23628 — Murrieta area—3rd District. Schedule A. Approval of One Year Guarantee and Main- 11.11 Approval of Cooperative Agreement between the District and tenance Agreements. the County of Riverside Transportation Department for the Ju- rupa Basin - Storm Drain Extension, 2nd District. (See Item. 2.33 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ 3.124) TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 27887 —Woodcrest area 1st District, Schedule B. Approval of Agreements, Bonds and 11.12 Approval of Cooperative Agreement between the District and Final Map. the County for the Hemet Master Drainage Plan Line D, Stage 5 Project, 3rd District. (See Item. 3.125) 2.34 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 28815 — Lake Mathews 11.13 Approval of Cooperative Agreement between the District,-the area — 1st District, Schedule A. Approval of Agreements and County, Acacia Credit Fund 10-A and KB Home Greater Los Bonds for Extension of Time. Angeles for the Horsethief— Calendula Avenue Storm Drain, Stage 2 Project, 1st District. (See Item. 3.126) 2.35 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 28821-2 — Eastvale area — 11.14 Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Flood Control Feasibility 2nd District, Schedule A. Approval of Agreements and Bonds for Cost Sharing Agreement between the District and the U.S. Extension of Time. Army Corps of Engineers for the Heacock and Cactus Chan- nels, 51h District. 2.36 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 -PAGE 40 TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007, PAGE 9 2.19 COU ' COUNSEL/CODE ENFORCEMEN- approval of Finditiys of Fact, Conclusions and Order to Abate on Public Nui- 11.15 Quarterl; _3closure Report on Investment Portfc,,,— April sance Case No. CV 05-4184, located on Vacant Parcel at S/E through June 2007). Centaur Road and Helios Road, Riverside, 1st District. (9.3 of 7/17!07) 11.16 Response to 2006-2007 Grand Jury Report: Elsinore Valley Cemetery District - Flood Control. (3.10 of 6/26/07) 2.20 MENTAL HEALTH: Proclaim September 2007 as Substance Abuse "Recovery Happens Month." 11.17 Ratify the Amendment No. 1 to the Legal Services Agreement between the District and Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elliott 2.21 PARKS: Riverside County Trails Committee Annual Report for the Murrieta Creek Phase I Project, 3rd District. 2006. 11.18 Ratify the Amendment No. 1 to the Legal Services Agreement 2.22 PARKS: Riverside County Historical Commission Annual Re- between the District and Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elliott port 2006. for the Murrieta Creek Phase II Project, 3rd District. 2.23 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ 11.19 Ratify the Amendment No. 2 to the Legal Services Agreement TRANSPORTATION: Adoption of Resolution 2007-034, Notice between the District and Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elliott of Intention to Change the Name of a portion of Newport Road for the Homeland-Romoland Project, 3d & 5th Districts. to Normandy Road, in the Menifee area, 3rd District. (Hrg. Set for 9/4/07 @ 9:30 a.m. — Clerk to advertise) 11.20 Approval of Legal Services Agreement between the District and Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps for condemnation and other 2.24 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ real property services. TRANSPORTATION: Adoption of Resolution 2007-180, Notice of Intention to Vacate a portion of Oasis Trail, in the Palm De- sert area (AB 03011), 4t District. (Hrg. Set for 9/4/07 @ 9:30 1:30 P.M. COUNTY BOARD AND WASTE RESOURCES MANAGE- a.m. — Clerk to advertise) MENT DISTRICT MEETING: 2.25 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ County: TRANSPORTATION: Adoption of Resolution 2007-226, Notice of Intention to Change the Names of portions of Center Street 12.1 Badlands Landfill —Joint Technical Document Addendum No. 5 to Old Highgrove Road and Spring Street to Blue Mountain of the Solid Waste Facility Permit No. 33-AA -006 to Revise Drive in the Highgrove area, 5th District. (Hrg. Set for 9/4/07 @ Maps Depicting Landfill Footprint and Permit Areas, 5th District. 9:30 a.m. — Clerk to advertise) 12.2 Approval of the Sixth Amendment to the Master Lease with 2.26 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ Agua Mansa MRF, LLC (entitled Amended and Restated Mas- TRANSPORTATION: Adoption of Resolution 2007-263, Notice ter Lease), 2"d District. (12.1 of 6/26/07) of Intention to Vacate Little Lake Road, in the Hemet area (AB 040030 d District. (Hrg. Set for 9/4/07 @ 9:30 a.m. — Clerk to 12.3 2006 El Sobrante Landfill Annual Monitoring Report. advertise) - District: 2.27 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ TRANSPORTATION: Adoption of Resolution 2007-290, Sum- 12. (No Business) marily Vacation of a portion of Briggs Road and Loretta Ave- TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 - PAGE 8 T UESDAY, JULY 31, 2007, PAGE 41 1:30 P.M. RE )NAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DI ;ICT MEET- ING: 2.9 SUPERVISOR TAVAGLIONE: Reappointment to the Children & Families Advisory Committee. 13.1 Riverside County Regional Park & Open-Space District Advi- sory Commission Annual Report 2006. 2.10 SUPERVISOR STONE: Renewal of the Revised Local Emer- gency Declaration for Riverside County due to the epidemic in- 13.2 Allocation of Development Impact Fee Funds to the Riverside festation of bark beetles in the Mountain Communities of Idyll- County Regional Park and Open-Space District for Trails Ex- wild and Pine Cove. pansion, 1", 2"d & 3rd Districts. 2.11 AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER: Renewal of the Local 13.3 Approval of Agreement for Consulting Services with Community Emergency Declaration for Riverside County due to the Spread Works Design Group, Inc. for Master Planning for the Gilman of Pierce's Disease in the Local Vineyards. Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum, and Budget Adjustments. (4/5 vote required) 2.12 AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER: Renewal of the Local Emergency Declaration in Riverside County due to extreme 13.4 Approval of the Idyllwild Well #27 Site Lease Agreement— Idyll- drought conditions. wild Nature Center Area, 3�d District. 2.13 AUDITOR-CONTROLLER: Internal Auditor's Report 2007-302 - Department of Public Social Services. 1:30 P.M. PERRIS VALLEY CEMETERY DISTINCT MEETING: 2.14 AUDITOR-CONTROLLER: Internal Auditor's Report 2007-304- 1 (No Business) Riverside County Regional Medical Center Nursing Registry Fees Follow-Up Audit. 1:30 P.M. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2.15 COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY/ANIMAL SERVICES: Pro- claim August 18, 2007 as Riverside County's Homeless Ani- 15.1 COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY/ENVIRONMENTAL mals Awareness Day. HEALTH: Public Hearing on the Annual Rate Adjustment to a portion of the Waste Collection Agreements for Riverside 2.16 COUNTY COUNSEL: (R)ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE No. County. (3.7 of 7/3/07) 348.4518, an Ordinance of the County of Riverside Amending Ordinance No. 348 relating to Zoning (amending the zoning in 15.2 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ the Lower Coachella Valley District, 4th District, ZC 5514). PLANNING: Public Hearing on an ADOPTION OF ORDI- NANCE NO. 449.234, an Ordinance of the County of Riverside 2.17 COUNTY COUNSEL: (R) ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE No. Extending Ordinance No. 449.228 Establishing Interim W-1 th 348.4520, an Ordinance of the County of Riverside Amending Zoning in portions of the Lakeview and Nuevo Zoning areas, 5' Ordinance No. 348 relating to Zoning (amending the zoning in District. (16.7 of 9/26/06) the Rancho California Area, 3rd District, ZC 7401). 15.3 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ 2.18 COUNTY COUNSEL/CODE ENFORCEMENT: Approval of PLANNING: Further Public Hearing on GENERAL PLAN Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order to Abate on Public Nui- AMENIDMENT NO. 773/CHANGE OF ZONE 7255/ sance Case No. CV 06-1689, located at 8355 Weirick Road, Co- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3486— EA 40565— Cocopah rona, 2"d District. (9.2 of 7/17/07) Nursery—T.C. Morris — Mecca Zoning District— Eastern Coa- TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 - PAGE 42 TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007, PAGE 7 lots f-, ,rater quality basins, and 2 additional __ for future resi- che!la V:,.,-, Area Plan -4th District. Recommer,. —on of Plan- dential development totaling 16.94 acres, approved by the Plan- ning Commission for DENIAL of GPA 773 to amend the land ning Commission. use designation from Rural Residential (5 Acre Minimum) (RR) to Community Development: Medium High Density Residential 1.5 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ (5-8 DU/AC); DENIAL of ZC 7255 to change the zone from PLANNING: SURFACE MINING PERMIT NO. 193, REVISED Light agriculture - 5 Acre Minimum (A-1-5) to Mobile Home NO. 1 - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - EA 40796 - Subdivisions and Mobile Home Parks (R-T); and, DENIAL of Coachella Valley Aggregates/Tom Davis Justice & Associates- CUP 3486 to construct and operate a mobile home park con- Lower Bernardo Canyon Zoning District-Western Coachella taining.382 spaces with accessory recreational open space ar- Valley Area Plan -4th District, 512 gross acres, W-1 zoning. Sur- " eas and structures. (15.1 of 6/26/07) (There is a recommenda- face Mining Permit 193 R1 to revise existing permit to add an ad- tion to continue the matter to October 2, 2007) ditional 256 acres to the existing mining operation and extend operation for an additional 19 years until 2056 with operations 15.4 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ being processed in 4 phases, approved by the Planning Commis- PLANNING: Public Hearing on GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT sion. NO. 8641 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535- Lamar Advertising - Thomas Flanagan -Thousand Palms Zoning District-Western CONSENT CALENDAR: Presented for Block Approval: Supervisors Coachella Valley Area Plan, 4th District. Recommendation of have the option of excluding discussion items from a master motion. Planning Commission for Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Dec- laration for Environmental Assessment No. 41426; Tentative 2.1 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Appointment to the Riverside County Approval of GPA 864, to designate the site as Community Devel- Mental Health Board. opment: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) and to modify and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan 2.2 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Appointment to the Riverside County to allow for relocation of existing billboards if the new location is Mental Health Board. determined to have a minimal impact on the scenic setting; and, Tentative Approval of ZC 7535, to change the zoning from Rural 2.3 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Appointment to the Advisory Commit- Residential (R-R)to Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC). tee on Substance Abuse Committee. 15.5 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ 2.4 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Appointment to the Solid Waste Man- PLANNING: Public Hearing on CHANGE OF ZONE No. 70681 agement Advisory Council. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 32546 - Paz Construction - Civil Trans - Pedley Zoning District- Jurupa Area Plan -2nd District. 2.5 SUPERVISOR TAVAGLIONE: Appointment to the Workforce Recommendation of Planning Commission for Adoption of a Development Board. Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 39650; Tentative Approval of ZC 7068, to change the zone 2.6 SUPERVISOR TAVAGLIONE: Appointment to the Workforce from Light Agricultural -4 Acre Minimum (A-1-4) to Light Agri- Development Board. _- cultural (A-1); and, Approval of TTM 32546, Schedule A, to sub- divide 9.7 acres into a total of 15 residential units, with a mini- 2.7 SUPERVISOR TAVAGLIONE: Appointment to the Assessment mum lot size of acres, and a 10 foot wide trail along the Appeals Board 1 & 2 (Alternate). southerly side to 54`'' Street that will connect to neighboring trail systems in the area. 2.8 SUPERVISOR TAVAGLIONE: Reappointment to the Advisory Committee on Substance Abuse. 15.6 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ PLANNING: Public Hearing on CHANGE OF ZONE No. 73061 T UESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 - PAGE 6 TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007, PAGE 43 TEN- IVE TR,=,CT MAP !`1o. 33324- Dos L - Engineering -- Venture - Rancho California Zoning Area - Southwest Area The following item does not require specific Board action unless the Plan - 157 District. Recommendation of Planning Commission matter is appealed. for Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environ- me:ital Assessment No. 40163; Tentative Approval of ZC 7306 to change the zone from Rural Residential (R-R) to Residential 1.2 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ Agriculture 5 Acre Minimum (R-A-5); and, Approval of TTM 33324. a Schedule D, to subdivide 47.5 acres into 8 lots no less - PLANNING: TENTATIVE INDUSTRIAL PARCEL MAP 35408 than 5 acres each. - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - MMR and Associ- ates /W&W Design Developments Inc. - Lower Coachella Val- 15.7 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ '' ley Zoning District- Eastern Coachella Valley Area Plan -4tn PLANNING: Public Hearirg on CHANGE OF ZONE No. 7352/ District, M-SC Zoning, Schedule E. TIPM 35408 to subdivide PLOT PLAN NO. 21024- Davcon Development-Architects 20 gross acres into 14 industrial parcels, with parcels ranging in Orange - Rancho California Zoning Area, - Southwest Area size from 1.2 to 2.2 acres, approved by the Planning Commis- Plan - 3`u District. Recommendation of Planning Commission sion. for Adoption of a ivlitigated Negative Declaration for Environ- mental Assessment No. 40414; Tentative Approval of ZC 7352 to change the zone from Rural Residential (R-R) to Industrial The follo,,ying items do not reguir _specific Board action unless a Board Park (I-P); and, Approval of PP 210024 to construct a 51,314 member desires to se,the matter for hearina or the matter is appealed. square foot buildirg on 4.93-acre parcel to be used for a Frito -- Lay distribution center and four tenant spaces including 33,159 -- squa:e feet of landscaping and 115 parking stalls. 1.3 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ 15.8 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ PLANNING: PUBLIC USE PERMMIT NO. 705 - REVISED PER- PLANNING: Public Hearing on CHANGE OF ZONE No. 7521 - MIT NO. 4- CEQA EXEMPT- Bonney Architects/Engineering CEQA EXEMPT -Josh Gauge - Ed Lenth -Winchester Zoning Resources- Su n City Zoning Area - Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan - 3' District, 5.41 gross acres, R-1 zoning. PUP 705 Area - Sun City/ Menifee Valley Area Plan - 3rd District. Rec- ommendaticn of Planning Comn nission for Tentative Approval Ru', to provide two new, one-story preschool buildings on the ex- of ZC 7521 to legally define the boundaries of planning areas isting Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, approved by the Plan- 26, 27D, 31, 32, 33, 34A, 34B, 35, 428 and 42C within Specific nina Commission. Plan� No. 301 Amendment No. 2 !Nlenifee Valley Ranch). 1.4 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ 15.9 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ PLANNING: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 246, SUBSTANTIAL CON- PLANNING: Public Hearing on Fast Track (FTA 2007-12) CON- FORMANCE NO. 1/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33976 - NO NEW DITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3472 - NO FURTHER ENVIRON- ENViRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED - Lang- MENTAL DOCUMENTATION NEEDED - Starfield Sycamore Sequoia Partners;RBF Consulting Inc.. - Nuevo Zoning Area - InvestorsLLG - Cant; Engineering Inc. - Temescal Zoning Lakeview/Nuevo Area Plan - 5t" District, SP246A1 Zoning, Area -Temescal Canyon Area Plan - 1 St District. Recommen- _ Schedule A. The Specific Plan Substantial conformance pro- dation of Planning Comi-nission for Approval of Fast Track CUP poses to increase the number of units permitted in Planning Ar- 3472, for a 96,129 sq. ft. neighborhood shopping center with a eas 9 from 1 G3 to 100, and in Planning Area 12 increase the floor area ratio of 0.13 on 13.22 gross acres located in Specific - units count from 92 to 98, and TTM 33976 proposes to subdivide Pan No. 2,;0 Planning Area 19. The project consists of four buildings: Building 1 = 50,120 sq. ft. grocery store with 3,700 63.4 acres into 15 residential lots, with a minimum lot size of 1 sq. ft. retail, 22, 80 sq. ft of shops; Building 2 - 12,900 sq. ft. acre for condominium purposes, construction of 208 residential drug store pad which proposes the sale of alcohol for off site dwelling units, 8 open space lots, one 12.27 acre school site, two TUESDAY. JULY 31. 2007 - PAGE 44 TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007,PAGE 5 AGENDA TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 consum,_._.i: Building 3 = 5.500 sq. ft. drive-thru r_J, and BOARD OF SUPERVISORS — COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Building 4 = 1,029 sq. ft. gas station convenience store with a 1st FLOOR— COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER 3,340 sq. ft. fueling canopy with six fueling stations. The pro- 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, Calif. ject also proposes a total of 531 parking stalls which include (Clerk 951-955-1060) 404 standard parking stalls, 114 compact stalls, and 13 stalls for persons with disabilities. 9:00 A.M. 15.10 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ Invocation by Gloria Peri-Smith, Board Assistant, Clerk of the Board PLANNING: Public Hearing on Fast Track (FTA 2007-15) CON- Office DITiONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3525 - Fiesta Development— Nadel Architects —Homeland Zoning Area — Harvest Valley/ Winchester Area Plan —51h District. Recommendation of Plan- ning Commission for Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declara- Presentation to Ron Komers of Awards that were presented to the River- tion for Environmental Assessment No. 40393, and Approval of side County by NACO (National Association of Counties) for the CUP 3525, for a commercial shopping center on 31.53 acres consisting of the following: 331,974 square feet of building area; Return to Work Program, Injury Intervention Therapy Program, 5 major tenant buildings, 3 pad buildings, 6 shop buildings, and Talent Management Through County Culture Change, and the one gas station with convenience store; 1,737 parking spaces Medical Assignment Program. (1,623 standard stalls, 74 compact stalls, and 40 accessible Presentation of Proclamation Declaring August 18, 2007 as Riverside stalls); 169,747 square feet of landscaped area; and proposesto permit the concurrent sale of beer and wine with the gasoline County's Homeless Animals Awareness Day, to Robert Miller, service station pursuant to subsequent ABC permits and poten- Humane Education Chief— Item 2.15 Director, Betsey Webster, Deputy Director and Renee Poselski, tial findings for PNC to be applied by the future tenant. Presentation of Proclamation Declaring September 2007 as Substance 15.11 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/PLANNING: Public Hearing on GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT Abuse "Recovery Happens Month" to Karen Kane and Jerry NO. 792/CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7300/TENTATIVE TRACT Wengerd on behalf of the Department of Mental Health — Item MAP NO. 34537/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 345361 2.20 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 34535 - Frank Gorman — GW Engineering - Bautista Zoning Area — San Jacinto Valley Area Plan — 3' District. Recommendation of Planning Commission OPENING COMMENTS: for Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environ- mental Assessment No. 40715; Tentative Approval of GPA 792, BOARD MEMBERS to amend a 3.56-acre parcel and a 2.47-acre parcel from Com- munity Development: Low Density Residential (CD: LDR) (1/2 EXECUTIVE OFFICER Acre Minimum) to Community Development: Medium Density Residential (CD: MDR) (2-5 Dwelling Units/Acre), a 1.74-acre STATE BUDGET UPDATE parcel from Community Development: Low Density Residential (CD: LDR) (1/2 Acre Minimum) to Community Development: Commercial Office (CD: CO) (0.35-1.0 Floor Area Ratio) and ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION: 7.99-acre parcel from Community Development: Low Density Residential (CD: LDR) (1/2 Acre Minimum) to Community De- velopment: Commercial Tourist (CD: CT) (0.20-0.35 Floor Area TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 - PAGE 4 TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007, PAGE 45 Any person so remove(' 'I be excluded from further attendance at the meeti " (m which he has Ratio ,ntative Approval of ZC 7300, t0 chal the zones of been removed unless F ssion to attend be granted upon motion adopted b) ijority vote of a 3.56-acre parcel 2.47-acre parcel from Rural Residential (R- the Board. R) t0 Sirgle-Family Residential (R-1); a 1.74-acre parcel from INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE BOARD Rural Residential (R-R) to Commercial Office (C-O), a 7.99- Agendas for the Board meetings are prepared by the Clerk of the Board on Wednesday afternoon acre parcel from Rural Residentiai (R-R) to Tourist Commercial and are available on Friday morning. A supplemental agenda that includes corrections,additions or (C-T) and a 4.24 acre parcel from Rural Residential (R-R') t0 deletions to the agenda,is available on Friday afternoon. Residential Agriculture — i2-Acre Minimum (R-A-1/2); Approval Every meeting of the Board of Supervisors is recorded and duplicate tapes and/or CD's are avail- of T-TM 34537. Schedule B, to subdivide a 4.24-acre parcel into able for a nominal charge. se%an (7) single-family residential lots with '/2 acre minimum lot After each Board meeting a statement of proceedings is prepared which indicates the actions taken size; ;'�pprovai of TTIVI 34536, Schedule A, to subdivide 6.34- — by the Board. acre parcel into 23 residential lots with 7,200 Sq. Ft. minimum lot sizes; and, Approval of TPM 34535, Schedule H, t0 subdl- AGENDA SERVICE PHONE NUMBERS Vida a 20.00-gross acre parcel ranging in size from 1.39 gross Agenda Subscriptions.........................................(951)955-1069 acres to 4.24 gross acres, and one 7.99-acre remainder parcel. Statement of Proceedings Subscriptions................(951)955-1069 Cassette Tapes of Meetings................................(951)955-1069 15.12 T;�ANSPORT,yTION & L,1ND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ General Information...........................................(951)955-1060 PLANNING: Public Hearing on GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT OTHER ACCESS TO BOARD AGENDAS AND STATEMENTS: NO. 800/ CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 71211 TENTATIVE ATIVE TRACT RIVERSIDE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER MAP No. 33371 - Brer,son Communities — Psomas -Antelope 4080 Lemon Street,1st Floor Front Counter Valley Zoning Area — Sun City/ Menifee Valley Area Plan, 3rd Riverside,California District. Recommendation of Planning Commission for Adop- INTERNET ACCESS:.....................http://www.co.riverside.ca.us tics of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental As- sessment No.40053; Tentative Approval of GPA 800, to amend COUNTY ORDINANCES:.......htto://www.co.riverside.ca.us/rivcoords.aso the existing ;and use designation for the project site of Commu- BOARDS,COMMITTEES &COMMISSIONS:.....http://158.61.79.149/bec nity Development: Very High Density Residential (CD:VHDR) (14-20 Dwelling Units per Acre) to Community Development: VARIOUS COUNTY KIOSKS(can(951)955-3100 for locations) High Density Residential CD:HDR) (8-14 Dwelling Units per CURRENT AGENDA ALSO POSTED AT: Acre); Tentative Approval of ZC 7121, to change the existing zone from Scenic Highw�:y COmmerci�l (C-P-S) to General RIVERSIDE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER 4080 Lemon Street,Main Entrance(Exterior) Residential (R-3); and, Approval of TTM 33371, Schedule A, Riverside,California wh'ch proposes to subdivide 17.78 gross acres into six parcels for condominium purposes and the development of a muitifam- RIVERSIDE COUNTY HISTORIC COURTHOUSE p p p 4050 Main Street, 1st Floor Lobby ily residential project. Riverside,California 15.13 TRANSPORT11`',TION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ Assistive listening devices and agenda in alternate formats are avail- PLANNING: Public Hearina on GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT able upon request. American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters, other NO. 317/ CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7228/TENTATIVE TRACT - ` auxiliary aids and services, or reasonable modifications to Board meet- MAP NO. 34014 - Van Daele Development—Albert A Webb ing policies and/or procedures, such as to assist members of the dis- Associates - Eastvale Zoning Area — Prado Mira Loma Area ability community who would like to request a disability-related accom- Plan — 2-d District. Recommendation of Planning Commission modation in addressing the Board, are available if requested at least for Adoption of a ��1iti�;ated Negative Declaration for Environ- 72 hours prior to the Board meeting. Later requests will be accommo- mental Assessment ��ir). 4042^-; Tentative Approval of GPA No. dated to the extent feasible. Please telephone the Clerk of the Board 817, to amend the current land use designation from Commu- office at (951) 955-1003, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 -PAGE 46 PUBLIC INK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS MEETINGS pity Devi _ ment: Medium Density Residential ((__ _ MDR) (2-5 The meetings of the Board of Supervisors are open to the public. A member of the public may ad- dwelling units per acre) to Community Development: Medium dress the Board on any agenda item. Requests to address the Board must be submitted in person High Density Residential (CD: MHDR) (5-8 dwelling units per to the Clerk of the Board prior to the start of the meeting. The Board may limit the public input on any item,based on the number of people requesting to speak and the business of the Board. acre); Tentative Approval of ZC 7228, to change the zoning In addition,a member of the public has the right to address the Board during oral communications from Heavy Agriculture — 10 Acre Minimum (A-2-10) to General on items of interest which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board. Residential (R-3); and, Approval of TTM 34014, Schedule A, to subdivide 40.01 gross acres into residential 29 condominium In accordance with State Law(Brown Act),all matters to be acted on by the Board of Supervisors lots (1 52 Traditional Units / 72 Clustered Units / totaling 224 must be posted at least 72 hours prior to the Board'meeting. In cases of emergency,or when a subject matter arises subsequent to the posting of the agenda,upon making certain findings the Units with a density of 5.6 dwelling units per acre) with a mini- Board may act on an item that is not on the posted agenda. mum lot Size of 16,104 square feet, three (3) open space lots The majority of the Board's Tuesday morning agenda is a consent calendar. After the Invocation, totaling 1.98 acres which includes a 3,206 square foot TOT lot, Pledge of Allegiance,and award presentations,the Chairman of the Board will direct the Clerk to two (2) community facilities, and one (1) passive park, four (4) read into the record any additions,deletions and corrections to the Board's Agenda. The Chairman Edison easement lots totaling 28,454 square feet, One (1) de- will indicate which items have been requested to be held for discussion or continuance,and the remaining items will be acted on in a block motion. Items which are set for a time certain may or tention basin totaling 25,992 square feet, 448 garaged parking may not be called up at exactly the time indicated,depending on the business of the Board. The spaces, 47 off street perpendicular spaces, and 87 on street items that are held for discussion may be taken up at any time,depending on the business of the parking spaces. Board. The agenda is structured alphabetically by Department. There is a brief summary of the depart- 15.14 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ ment's recommended action. PLANNING: Public Hearing on CHANGE OF ZONE No. 7548/ CONDUCT IN THE BOARD ROOM SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 323 SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. 2— CEQA EXEMPT - Spring Mountain Investments, LLC. - The following excerpts from Board Policy A-2,Section 13 Rules of Order,pertaining to conduct and University Zoning District— Highgrove Area Plan, 5th District. decorum within the Board Room. Recommendation of Planning Commission for Tentative Ap- SIGNS. proval of ZC 7548, to amend the existing Specific Plan zoning ordinance text to modify the Development Standards associ- Signs,placards or posters,if brought into the hearing chamber,shall not be located or handled in a aced with the existing zoning classification for Planning Areas 1 manner which prevents any member of the audience from observing or participating in the hearing, or in any way disrupts the hearing process. 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and Approval of SP 323, Substantial Confor- mance No. 2, to modify the Design Guidelines included in Spe- SE4TING. cific Plan No. 323 Spring Mountain Ranch. Unless addressing the Board or entering or leaving the Board Room,all persons in the audience shall remain sitting in the seats provided. No person shall stand or sit in the aisles or along the 15.15 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/ walls nor shall the doorways be blocked. TRANSPORTATION: Public Hearing on an Amendment of an DISRUPTIONS. existing franchise to North Baja Pipeline, LLC to add a one-mile segment of 36-inch natural gas within the County road right-of- All demonstrations,including cheering,yelling,whistling,hand clapping and foot stamping are pro b1(a alone Arrowhead Boulevard between 18'h and Seeley hibited. y y Avenue near Blythe, and an associated �ipeline crossing of Ar- REMOVAL FROM THE BOARD ROOM ;. rowhead Boulevard near Seeley and 14t Avenue —Adoption of Th=Chairman shall order removed from the Board Room any person who commits the following Resolution 2007-386 establishing findings under the California acts in respect to a regular or special meeting of the Board of Supervisors: Environmental Qu_.iity Act in support of the granting said fran- a) Disorderly,contemptuous or insolent behavior toward the Board or any member thereof, chise, and Adoption of ORDINANCE NO. 816.1, an Ordinance which disrupts the orderly course of said meeting; of the County of Riverside Amending Ordinance No. 816 Grant- b) A breach of the peace,boisterous conduct or violent disturbance,tending to interrupt the ing to North Baja Pipeline, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability due and orderly course of said meeting; c) Disobedience of any lawful order of the Chairman,which shall include an order to be Company, its Successors and Assigns, a Franchise for a Period seated or to refrain from addressing the Board;and d) Any other unlawful interference with the due and orderly course of said meeting. TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007, PAGE 47 of Foi ive (45) Years, to Construct, Maintai perate and Repair a Pipeline for the Transportation of Natural Gas along, under and across County Roads and County Rights of Way in the Eastern Portion of Riverside County. i (NOTE: Meeting to be adjourned to August 28, 2007) -31 Established 1893 . • AGENDA FOR MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 SUPERVISOR JOHN TAVAGLIONE SECOND DISTRICT CHAIRMAN SUPERVISOR BOB BUSTER SUPERVISOR JEFF STONE FIRST DISTRICT THIRD DISTRICT SUPERVISOR ROY WILSON SUPERVISOR MARION ASHLEY FOURTH DISTRICT FIFTH DISTRICT LARRY PARRISH CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 - PAGE 48 t- jtm Desert REQUEST FOR PAYMENT �--�--` DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (To be used for all payments not on purchase order) .r " PAY TO: Richards, Watson 8T Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor REVIEWED BY: Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101 FULL DESCRIPTION AMOUNT: Payment for legal services relative to Riverside Co. Case Nos. GPA 864 and C/Z 7535, $21,278.52 Billboards. (Matter Number P6401-1038, Invoice No. 156464 dated December 31, 2007.) 1 certify that the services or supplies included in this request have actually been rendered or received; that the VENDOR# Audited and found correct: prices and quantities are correct; that the claim is' r respects proper and valid; and that the account to be charged is correct. DEPARTMENT HEAD- DATE: 02-11-08 282-'�' LAIAN DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ACE3t+Tfi' NU13ER .: .. [Tm DESCRIPTEC I ,� OUi T )€1`1VC C 11 ?. 1 Char] FUND DEPT/DIV ACTIVITY OBJECT ..... 110 4121 411 3015 Legal services relative to Riverside Co. $21,278 52 156464 Case Nos. GPA 864 and C/Z 7535. RICHMMS, WATSON & GERSHON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION FORTIETH FLOOR 355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90071-3101 (213)626-8484 I.D.No.95-3292015 R-E(,*-FIVER CITY OF PALM DESERT MR. CARLOS L. ORTEGA � # 3 j CITY MANAGER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE .OMMUN[TYDEVELOP0,,N-pgpa,ETMENT PALM DESERT, CA 92260 CITY OF PALM DESERT INVOICE DATE: December 31, 2007 INVOICE NUMBER: 156464 CLIENT NAME: CITY OF PALM DESERT MATTER NAME: V. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE MATTER NUMBER: P6401-1038 CURRENT FEES FOR LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED $22,672.91 COURTESY ADJUSTMENT ($3, 000.00) CURRENT DISBURSEMENTS CHARGED/ADVANCED $1,605.61 TOTAL CURRENT FEES AND DISBURSEMENTS 21,278.52 L TERMS: PAYMENT DUE UPON RECEIPT PLEASE RETURN THIS PAGE WITH YOUR REMITTANCE RICHMMS, WATSON & GERSHON A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION FORTIETH FLOOR 355 SOUTH GRAND AVENUE LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90071-3101 (213)626-8484 I.D. No.95-3292015 CITY OF PALM DESERT December 31, 2007 MR. CARLOS L. ORTEGA INVOICE # 156464 CITY MANAGER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CA 92260 RE: P6401-1038 V. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES RENDERED 11/01/07 GMK WORK ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, AND 5. 80 LEGAL RESEARCH REGARDING SAME AND CORRESPOND WITH MS. MARROQUIN REGARDING SAME. 11/01/07 GLG TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MS. MARROQUIN .10 REGARDING TRIGGER FOR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH NOTICE OF DETERMINATION. 11/01/07 MEM REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE FROM MR. KUNERT . 70 REGARDING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; CONDUCT LEGAL RESEARCH PERTAINING TO STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FILING ACTION AFTER POSTING OF NOTICE OF DETERMINATION; DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO MR. KUNERT REGARDING SAME 11/01/07 MEM REVIEW FILE IN PREPARATION FOR DRAFTING 1.10 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 11/01/07 MEM CONDUCT LEGAL RESEARCH PERTAINING TO WRITS . 70 OF MANDATE 11/01/07 MEM CONDUCT LEGAL RESEARCH PERTAINING TO . 50 POTENTIAL PROVISIONAL REMEDIES TO PREVENT RELOCATION OF BILLBOARDS 11/02/07 GMK CORRESPOND WITH MS. MARROQUIN REGARDING 2 . 70 PROCEDURAL ISSUES RELATING TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND RELATED CEQA ISSUES, AND LEGAL RESEARCH REGARDING SAME. RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON CITY OF PALM DESERT December 31, 2007 MATTER #P6401-1038 PAGE 2 11/02/07 GLG TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MS. MARROQUIN .20 REGARDING ALLEGATIONS TO INCLUDE IN PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND EVIDENTIARY BASIS FOR SAME. 11/02/07 MEM CONDUCT RESEARCH PERTAINING TO LITIGATION .40 TIME LINE 11/02/07 MEM CONDUCT LEGAL RESEARCH REGARDING JUDICIAL 1.70 REVIEW OF CEQA ACTIONS 11/02/07 MEM DRAFT PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 3.70 11/02/07 MEM CONDUCT PUBLIC RECORDS SEARCH AND CALIFORNIA .30 SECRETARY OF STATE SEARCH PERTAINING TO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST 11/02/07 MEM DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO MR. KUNERT REGARDING .20 REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST AND POTENTIAL CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONS CODE VIOLATIONS 11/02/07 MEM DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO MS. AYLAIAN .10 REGARDING REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST 11/02/07 MEM CONDUCT LEGAL RESEARCH REGARDING MITIGATED .50 NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS AND NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS 11/02/07 MEM TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MS. GIOVINCO .10 REGARDING PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS RELATED TO PROJECT 11/02/07 MEM CONDUCT RESEARCH PERTAINING TO NOTICE OF .30 COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION 11/03/07 MEM CONTINUE DRAFTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 3.10 MANDATE 11/03/07 MEM CONDUCT LEGAL RESEARCH REGARDING JUDICIAL .50 REMEDIES IN CEQA ACTIONS 11/03/07 MEM CONDUCT LEGAL RESEARCH PERTAINING TO .80 DISTINCTION BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS AND TRADITIONAL MANDAMUS; ANALYZE IMPLICATIONS OF PROCEEDING UNDER BOTH RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON CITY OF PALM DESERT December 31, 2007 MATTER #P6401-1038 PAGE 3 11/03/07 MEM REVIEW BOARD OF SUPERVISOR AND PLANNING .50 COMMISSION AGENDA'S AND ACTIONS TAKEN WITH RESPECT TO PROJECT 11/03/07 MEM CONDUCT LEGAL RESEARCH PERTAINING TO .80 POTENTIAL CAUSES OF ACTION PERTAINING TO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 11/05/07 GMK WORK ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, AND 3 .70 REVIEW AND ANALYZE DOCUMENTS REGARDING SAME, AND CORRESPOND WITH MS. MARROQUIN REGARDING SAME. 11/05/07 GLG CONFERENCE WITH MS. MARROQUIN REGARDING .40 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE, AND STRATEGY REGARDING OBTAINING STAY OF ALL PROJECT ACTIONS. 11/05/07 MEM DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO MR. KUNERT REGARDING .20 QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO PROJECT AND INITIAL STUDY 11/05/07 MEM CONTINUE DRAFTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 5.20 MANDATE 11/05/07 MEM REVIEW AND RESPOND TO CORRESPONDENCE FROM .10 MR. KUNERT REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 11/05/07 MEM REVIEW AND RESPOND TO MULTIPLE .10 CORRESPONDENCES FROM MR. KUNERT REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 11/05/07 MEM DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO MS. AYLAIAN .10 REGARDING NOTICE OF DETERMINATION 11/05/07 MEM TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MR. KUNERT .30 REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 11/05/07 MEM OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH MS. GIOVINCO .40 REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE AND SEEKING STAY OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 11/05/07 MEM CONDUCT LEGAL RESEARCH PERTAINING TO ZONING .50 AND GENERAL PLAN 11/05/07 MEM RECEIVE TELEPHONE MESSAGE FROM MS. AYLAIAN .10 REGARDING DEVELOPER RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON CITY OF PALM DESERT December 31, 2007 MATTER #P6401-1038 PAGE 4 11/05/07 MEM REVIEW RIVERSIDE 'COUNTY'S GENERAL PLAN AND .70 SPECIFIC PLANS 11/06/07 MEM CONTINUE DRAFTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF 5.40 MANDATE 11/06/07 MEM TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH MS. AYLAIAN .30 REGARDING COUNTY'S GENERAL PLAN 11/06/07 MEM TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MS. AYLAIAN .20 REGARDING GENERAL PLAN 11/06/07 MEM REVIEW AND RESPOND TO CORRESPONDENCE FROM .30 MS. AYLAIAN REGARDING NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION; REVIEW NOTICE 11/06/07 MEM DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO MS. AYLAIAN .10 REGARDING NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION 11/06/07 MEM DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO MS. AYLAIAN .10 REGARDING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE 11/06/07 MEM TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH MS. AYLAIAN .10 REGARDING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE 11/06/07 MEM CONDUCT LEGAL RESEARCH PERTAINING TO .70 EXERCISING PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER FOREIGN CORPORATIONS 11/06/07 MEM REVIEW AND RESPOND TO CORRESPONDENCE FROM .10 MS. AYLAIAN REGARDING SPHERE OF INFLUENCE 11/07/07 GMK REVIEW AND REVISE PETITION FOR WRIT OF 3.60 MANDATE, NOTICE TO PREPARE RECORD AND RELATED COURT FILING DOCUMENTS. 11/07/07 MEM REVIEW AND REVISE PETITION FOR WRIT OF .50 MANDATE 11/07/07 MEM DRAFT NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF ACTION .30 11/07/07 MEM CONDUCT LEGAL RESEARCH REGARDING PREPARATION .40 OF ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD; DRAFT NOTICE OF REQUEST TO PREPARE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD 11/07/07 MEM DRAFT LITIGATION CHART TIME LINE .50 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON CITY OF PALM DESERT December 31, 2007 MATTER #P6401-1038 PAGE 5 11/07/07 MEM CONDUCT LEGAL RESEARCH PERTAINING TO .50 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTIONS 11/08/07 GMK REVIEW AND REVISE PETITION FOR WRIT OF 3 .80 MANDATE, NOTICE TO PREPARE RECORD AND RELATED COURT FILING DOCUMENTS, AND CORRESPOND WITH MS. MARROQUIN REGARDING SAME. 11/08/07 GMK FURTHER REVIEW AND REVISE COURT FILING AND 1.70 CORRESPOND WITH MS. MARROQUIN REGARDING SAME. 11/08/07 MEM REVIEW AND REVISE PETITION FOR WRIT OF 2 .50 MANDATE CREATING ADDITIONAL CAUSES OF ACTION 11/08/07 MEM REVIEW AND RESPOND TO CORRESPONDENCE FROM .10 MR. KUNERT REGARDING ADDITIONAL REVISIONS TO PETITION 11/08/07 MEM OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH MR. KUNERT REGARDING .10 ADDITIONAL CAUSE OF ACTION 11/08/07 MEM CONDUCT RESEARCH PERTAINING TO SERVICE .30 LOCATION OF RESPONDENTS AND REAL PARTY IN INTEREST 11/08/07 MEM DRAFT MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION .80 11/09/07 MEM DRAFT REVISIONS AND FINALIZE PETITION FOR .50 WRIT OF MANDATE AND ACCOMPANYING EXHIBITS 11/09/07 MEM COORDINATE FILING AND SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS .10 11/12/07 MEM CONDUCT LEGAL RESEARCH PERTAINING TO MOTION 6 .10 FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; CONTINUE DRAFTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 11/13/07 DMS CONFER WITH MS. MARROQUIN REGARDING .20 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN CEQA ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO BILLBOARD RELOCATION MATTER 11/13/07 GLG REVIEW AND RESPOND TO ELECTRONIC MEMORANDUM .10 FROM MS. MARROQUIN REGARDING SERVICE OF SUMMONS. 11/13/07 MEM CONTINUE DRAFTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 6. 50 INJUNCTION RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON CITY OF PALM DESERT December 31, 2007 MATTER #P6401-1038 PAGE 6 11/13/07 MEM OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH MR. SNOW REGARDING .20 INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN CEQA ACTIONS 11/14/07 MEM CONDUCT LEGAL RESEARCH REGARDING CEQA 7.40 GUIDELINES AND AESTHETIC AND PLANNING RESOURCES; CONTINUE DRAFTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO MR. KUNERT REGARDING SAME 11/14/07 MEM CONDUCT LEGAL RESEARCH PERTAINING TO NOTICE .40 TO ATTORNEY GENERAL; DRAFT NOTICE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL 11/14/07 MEM CALENDAR OPERATIVE DATES .40 11/15/07 GMK REVIEW AND REVISE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY 3.80 INJUNCTION AND CONFERENCE WITH MS. MARROQUIN REGARDING SAME; TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MS. ALAYIAN REGARDING SAME. 11/15/07 MEM TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MS.AYLAIAN .30 REGARDING PETITION AND MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 11/15/07 MEM CONDUCT RESEARCH PERTAINING TO SERVICE ON .50 ATTORNEY GENERAL; DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO ATTORNEY GENERAL REGARDING PETITION 11/15/07 MEM TELEPHONE CALL TO ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE .10 REGARDING SERVICE 11/16/07 MEM CONDUCT LEGAL RESEARCH PERTAINING TO SERVICE .20 OUTSIDE THE STATE 11/16/07 MEM DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO LAMAR ADVERTISING .40 REGARDING SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND PETITION; PREPARE DOCUMENTS FOR SERVICE 11/16/07 MEM COORDINATE SERVICE ON REAL PARTY IN INTEREST .20 IN LOUISIANA 11/16/07 MEM MULTIPLE TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH LAMAR .40 OUTDOOR ADVERTISING'S NATIONAL AND LOCAL OFFICES REGARDING AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON CITY OF PALM DESERT December 31, 2007 MATTER #P6401-1038 PAGE 7 11/16/07 MEM TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH REGISTERED .20 AGENT; TELEPHONE CALL TO LAMAR ADVERTISING CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS REGARDING SAME 11/16/07 MEM CONDUCT INTERNET SEARCH AND LEGAL SEARCH .30 PERTAINING TO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST; TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH CAPITOL SERVICES 11/16/07 MEM TELEPHONE CONVERSATION WITH CAPITOL .10 CORPORATE SERVICES (SACRAMENTO OFFICE) REGARDING AGENT FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS 11/16/07 MEM DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO MS. AYLAIAN .10 REGARDING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 11/18/07 MEM CONDUCT RESEARCH REGARDING REAL PARTY IN .50 INTEREST 11/19/07 MEM CONDUCT LEGAL RESEARCH REGARDING SUMMONS; .40 OFFICE CONFERENCE WITH MR. KUNERT REGARDING SUMMONS PERTAINING TO REAL PARTY IN INTEREST 11/19/07 MEM REVIEW NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE .10 11/19/07 MEM DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO LAMAR ADVERTISING IN .20 PALM DESERT 11/19/07 MEM COORDINATE SERVICE ON REAL PARTY IN INTEREST .20 IN PALM DESERT 11/20/07 MEM REVIEW STATUS OF SERVICE ON LAMAR ADVERTISING .10 11/21/07 MEM REVIEW PROOFS OF SERVICE .10 11/27/07 MEM DRAFT NOTICE OF STATUS CONFERENCE .10 11/28/07 MEM REVIEW CORRESPONDENCE FROM ATTORNEY GENERAL .10 REGARDING PETITION 11/29/07 GMK CORRESPOND WITH MS. MARROQUIN REGARDING 2 .60 PROCEDURAL ISSUES AND STRATEGY REGARDING SAME; LEGAL RESEARCH REGARDING SAME; REVIEW AND ANALYZE FILE AND COURT RULES REGARDING SAME. RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON CITY OF PALM DESERT December 31, 2007 MATTER #P6401-1038 PAGE 8 11/29/07 MEM CONDUCT LEGAL RESEARCH REGARDING STATUTORY .30 RULES PERTAINING TO SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE; DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO MR. KUNERT REGARDING SAME 11/29/07 MEM CONDUCT LEGAL RESEARCH PERTAINING TO LIST OF .20 RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES 11/29/07 MEM DRAFT CORRESPONDENCE TO COUNTY REGARDING .60 FAILURE TO SERVE LIST OF RESPONSIBLE AGENCIES DESCRIPTION OF DISBURSEMENTS 11/08/07 MESSENGER - U.S. LEGAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 179.00 INC. /COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 11/8/07 11/08/07 MESSENGER - U.S. LEGAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 35.00 INC./PROCESS/CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 11/8/07 11/08/07 MESSENGER - U.S. LEGAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 185.00 INC./LAMAR ADVERTISING COMPANY 11/8/07 11/08/07 MESSENGER - U.S. LEGAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 35.00 INC. /PROCESS/BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY 11/8/07 11/09/07 MESSENGER - U.S. LEGAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 46.50 INC./RIVERSIDE COUNTY OF SUPERIOR COURT 11/9/07 11/13/07 MESSENGER - U.S. LEGAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 185.00 INC. /LAMAR ADVERTISING COMPANY 11/13/07 11/13/07 MESSENGER - U.S. LEGAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 179.00 INC. /THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COURT 11/13/07 11/13/07 MESSENGER - U.S. LEGAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 286.87 INC. /RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 11/13/07 11/13/07 MESSENGER - U.S. LEGAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 35.00 INC. /COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 11/13/07 11/13/07 MESSENGER - U.S. LEGAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES, 35.00 INC. /THE CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 11/13/07 11/30/07 FAX CHARGES 2.8.00 11/30/07 TELEPHONE 1.04 11/30/07 DUPLICATION 184.95 11/30/07 LEGAL RESEARCH 190.25 CURRENT FEES FOR LEGAL SERVICES RENDERED $22,672.91 COURTESY ADJUSTMENT ($3,000.00) e RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON CITY OF PALM DESERT December 31, 2007 MATTER #P6401-1038 PAGE 9 CURRENT DISBURSEMENTS CHARGED/ADVANCED $1,605.61 TOTAL CURRENT FEES AND DISBURSEMENTS $21,278.52 I Theodore K. Stream, State Bar#138160 Jennifer M. Guenther, State Bar#205946 2 Christopher L. Powell, State Bar#253238 GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN & TILDEN, 3 A Professional Corporation 3750 University Avenue, Suite 250 4 Riverside, CA 92501-3335 Telephone: (951) 684-2171 5 Facsimile: (951) 684-2150 6 Attorneys for Real Party in Interest, LAMAR ADVERTISING COMPANY 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE—CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 11 CITY OF PALM DESERT, a municipal ) CASE NO. RIC 485078 corporation, ) 12 ) Assigned for all Purposes to the Honorable Petitioner, ) Gloria Connor Trask, Department 1 13 ) vs. ) 14 ) (PROPOSED)JUDGMENT DENYING COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a political ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 15 subdivision; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ) THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; and DOES 1 ) 16 THOUGH 25, inclusive, ) CEQA 17 Respondents, ) Filed: November 16, 2007 18 ) LAMAR ADVERSTING COMPANY, a ) 19 Louisiana corporation, ) 20 Real Party in Interest. ) 21 22 The above-entitled cause came on regularly for trial on May 23, 2008 in Department 1 of 23 the above-entitled Court, the Honorable GLORIA CONNOR TRASK,Judge, presiding, sitting 24 without a jury. 25 Petitioner, CITY OF PALM DESERT, was represented by Richards, Watson & Gershon, 26 by Gregory M. Kunert. Respondents,THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE and BOARD OF 27 SUPERVISORS, were represented by Deputy County Counsel for the County of Riverside, 28 Tiffany N. North, and Real Party in Interest, LAMAR ADVERTISING COMPANY, were GRESHAM SAVAGE 1 NOLAN&TILDEN, A PROFFS510N4 LCOR MTRJN JUDGMENT DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 3750 University Ave_Ste.250 er Rivslde,CA MI.3335 L490-001—275504.1 (951)684-2171 I represented by Gresham Savage Nolan &Tilden by Theodore K. Stream and Jennifer M. 2 Guenther. 3 The Court having received and reviewed all the pleadings on file herein as well as the 4 Administrative Record, counsel for all parties having presented their oral arguments, and the 5 Court, having on June 17, 2008 issued and adopted its Statement of Decision, as attached hereto, 6 and, as its final determination, and being fully advised in the circumstances, and good cause 7 appearing therefore: 8 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that: 9 1. Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Mandate be denied in its entirety; 10 2. Petitioner take nothing by reason of its Petition; and, 11 3. Respondents and/or Real Party in Interest recover costs of suit incurred pursuant to 12 separate cost bills. 13 14 Dated: GLORIA CONNOR TRASK 15 Judge of the Superior Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GRESHAM SAVAGE 2 NOLAN&TILDEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORMRA71oN JUDGMENT DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 3750 University Ave.,Ste.250 Rive-de,CA 92501-3335 L490-001--275504.1 (951)684-2171 F'rw: 06/1912MB 13:32 4824 P.007/009 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TITLE; DATE& DEPT: NUMBER: CITY OF PALM DESERT v. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE June 16, 2008 RIC485078 De artment 1 COUNSEL: REPORTER: None resent None - PROCEEDING: STATEMENT OF DECISION SUFuN1Y QF RI�VERSJ�D�RNtA Petitioner City of Palm Desert("the City")filed this action challenging the approval by respondent County of Riverside ("the County") of the relocation of four billboards ("billboard relocation project) owned by real party in interest Lamar Outdoor Advertising("Lamar"). The billboards are proposed to be moved-from a location adjacent to Interstate-10 to another part of the Interstate-10 corridor near the City's border because they are in the way of aroad-Wdening project. The billboard relocation project approved by the County included an Outdoor Advertising Relocation Agreement between the County and Lamar, a General Plan Amendment, and a Change of Zone ordinance. The Outdoor Advertising Relocation Agreement concerned only the four billboards, which are the subject of this action, The General Plan Amendment and Ordinance 348.4528, pertaining to the Change of Zone,could potentlalfy affect other billboards. On June 13, 2007; the County completed an Initial S-dy for the billboard relocation project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality ('"'CEQA")."CEQA" concluded that a Mitigated Negative Declaration should be prepared. In response to comments annd objections raised by partles including the City,the County eventually conceded that the Initial Study had not been properly completed and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration had not been properly circulated. A Revised Initial Study was prepared. (AR,252-285,) The Revised Initial Study concluded that the project would not have any significant.impacts on the environment and that a Negative Declaration was all that was necessary to comply with CEQA. (AR, 254.) Over the CWs continued objections(AR, 307-309),the County adopted the Negative Declaration and approved the billboard relocation project on October 16, 2007. This action by the City was commenced on November 9,2007. The Petition contains 5 causes of action: 1), violation of CEQA, 2) violation of Government Code section 65300.5, 3) violation of Government Code section 36934,4)violation of Civil Code sections 1595,of seq.,and 5)injunctive relief. G,C, TR k3K Judge C.Creekbaum (mso),Clerk i STATEMENT OF bECISION Page 1 of 3 Pa es • DE � E R � y OF Q � r1 DRIVE • U 1 �}�IARINO p—t578 �3-5�o FRED CALIFORNiA 9226 DESERT6_o611 ��' ' TgL:7 ° 3 4 0 9 6 _ 8 FAX:1 6 p d41 e ett otg p I .,nfo@palm ;tober 2,2007 Comrnissp oector County Plann1n9 Deputy Planning R;versMark BalYs, gth Floor Attn: on Street, 02-1409 9 _Ep41426 4080 l-em California g25 NT ND 348.452 Riverside, NCE AMENpME _ o ftip ► our considefat on of RE. for Y No 348.4529 Commission: submits the attached letter tanning Ordinance Amendment pear P rt hereby s City of Palm �oneAgenda Item 5.1 on The planning Comm s Ep`41426. Sincer ly, ER CROP t Services ANI for pevelopmen Hc..LNtm ervlso rs dated August 27, 2007 Attachment verside County Board of Sup _ Letter to Ftl rd S Kelly Mayor Richa Jean Benson cc: Mayor pro Tem Ferguson Me Jim Finely Council ourt cil M Member Cindy Spiegel embe Bob Sp el Council Member Court 3 `J wgw ON 11111 p'0' sold,, � 1 r �. ,• This map wnta ns dala from Rivers de County GI8 Imagery tom Rhotomapper flown 1st quarter.2004 This maps not,mended to replace a sury y -~ -`� ♦ by Lc Calbma S...yar The aNhor does not cert ty the accuracy o(the data,Ths-^.aF sbrref .. only and sho�tl not be used forc—t,ctcr. - - ! •- - . a 1 . � s Mlinm It v� y A u . •r fMCA01 Ak =� J^ \a 1�7 e i tf _ �' lrCllW s. mt Legend b Proposed Sign x . r• y. Existing Sign w E • — — — r QProject Parcel .• t � ,r'�� -�� 0 - - General Parcel 1 inch equals 400 feet Exhibit Pm pared 06/27/07 11 RIY9R`+iPf CClUAITX � 'v>:� ;a t MA n i fi h+a t�c a t►.a o s r�r�e '� �"� r y•�, ;;�', a �k'�%�� ��` �"•, �-se� ��� '�, � y� .ter �,* � �.:.,�. �.- -.r t. s z..,; ..:�wfi F�.>, �. .. �,..»:. ,',,.�, �''��,,_,`_, �,.,_ ��,�i- ,�, '� .'•. sE ���'_ !°����r�f7�i i,"�ik`I�x��V ,.r'r� Y ��rrj '° <. • ' • . • • • •� e�, .>� .\s �� �� '� > +" fit° �' �, � .� > � � M Est '� '��� r • � • • • I • «a r V. T Z07535 CPA VICINiTY MAP ,- 47 ALLEVESIERTO FS7Y'7.0Y1'I SK' 7F*RO awr�.••.rdv. ....ro+w �-X.sa. [ M ......., e 33 ... W X""! w , , ._ - a"2-ER' AN ,:� AVM . 7�, PALM DES"T 3 R� T ; lk RIVERrSIOE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Thou nd F*ms sy zsr 3' �5 •2"S �* z 5c.G 3 WO , Agenda Item 5.8 Riverside County Planning Commission I July 11, 2007 Development Opportunities Site's Foundation Component: Community Development µ� Surrounding Components: . North: Community Development South: City of Palm Desert East: Community Development West: City of Palm Desert 100 Yr Flood Plain M 1 ''' ' Site Plan Vicinity Map general Plan Existing Zoning Lend Use Site Photos Issues of Concern Recommendations Agenda Item 5.8 Riverside County Planning Commission July 11, 2007 a_ General Plan R a x Current General Plan: �. «r N/A Proposed General Plan: Light Industrial LI 0.25 - 0.6 FAR ( ) ( ) Surrounding Designations: North: Commercial Retail (CR) (0.20 — 0.35 FAR) South: City of Palm Desert East: Commercial Retail (CR) (0.20 — 0.35 FAR) West: City of Palm Desert Site Plan I Vicinity Map Generat Plan Existin Zonin Land Use Site Photas Issues of Concern Recommendations Aylaian, Lauri From: Gregory M. Kunert[GKunert@rwglaw.com] Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 5:50 PM To: Aylaian, Lauri Cc: Maricela E. Marroquin Subject: FW: Fax from Beals, R. (California Department of Transportation) on 4/17/2008 5:29:25 PM Attachments: Document.pdf Laurie: Here is something to add to the mix of information for the City Council on whether to authorize something to buy out the billboards. According to the attached, Caltrans has reconsidered its delaying decision on Lamar's relocation permit, and is now stating they will proceed to act within the next 10 days. If Caltrans issues the permits (which we expect), our only recourse will be to sue Caltrans to challenge that action. However, our chances of success in that action would be even less than our present case against the County. We knew this was an uphill fight from the beginning, and that Lamar and the County ultimately hold all the cards that can serve to compel the relocation if that was their intent. We had hoped to get them to see the wisdom of finding alternative locations based on the pressure our actions could bring, but as you learned, there really is not much in the way of comparable sites that could accomodate a relocation. We are rapidly approaching the end of the line of what we can accomplish legally. We have successfully held them off for over six months, but they seem determined to proceed. So, there it is. Greg > -----Original Message----- > From: fax admin > Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 5:35 PM > To: Gregory M. Kunert > Cc: Liliana Martinez; Gabrielle Duran > Subject: Fax from Beals, R. (California Department of Transportation) on 4/17/2008 5:29:25 PM > > <<Document.pdf>> 1 04/17/2008 17:32 FAX 916 654 6128 CALTRANS HQ LEGAL 10001/002 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LEGAL DIVISION 1120 N Street(MS-57) Sacramento,CA 95814 Telephone: (916)654-2630 ♦ Fax: (916) 654-6128 FAX COVER SHEET To: Gregory M. Kunert Office: RICHARDS, WATSON 7 GERSHON FAX NUMBER TRANSMITTED TO: (213)626-0078 From: Carol Matson for RONALD W. BEALS Client/Matter: State Outdoor Advertising Permit Applications A08-0352 - A08-0359 Date: April 18,2008 DOCUMENTS: Number of Pages 1 Letter 1 2 3 Total = page(s) 1 +cover sheet COMMENTS: ❑ Original will not follow ❑ Original will follow by: U.S. Mail x Originals will follow by: Overnight Mail ❑ Please call upon receipt ❑ Response needed by: OTHER MESSAGE: The information contained in this facsimile message is information protected by attorney-client and/or the attomey/work product privilege.It is intended only for the use of the individual named above and the privileges are not waived by virtue of this having been sent by facsimile.If the person actually receiving this facsimile or any other reader of the facsimile is not the name recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient,any use,dissemination,distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited.If you have received this communication in error,please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address via U.S.Postal Service. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES,PLEASE TELEPHONE US IMMEDIATELY AT(916)654-2630 Received at RWG Law 4/17/2008 5:29:25 PM 04/17/2008 17:32 FAX 916 654 6128 CALTRANS HQ LEGAL Q 002/002 STATE OF CALIFORNjy-BL!SDM5S_IRANSPORTA AND HOUSING AQF N9Y APNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER,GQvemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION LEGAL DIVISION-MS 57 1120 N STREET,SACRAMENTO,CA 95814 P.O.BOX 1438,SACRAMENTO,CA95812-1438 PHONE 916 654-2630 Flex your power? Be energy e FAX (916)654-6128efficient! TTY 711 April 18, 2008 Gregory M. Kunert Via Fax(213) 626-0078 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON 355 South Grand Ave,40'h Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-1301 Pamela J. Walls Via Fax(951) 955-6363 Assistant County Counsel COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 3535 Tenth Street, Suite 300 Riverside, CA 92501 Theodore K. Stream Va Fax(951) 684-2150 GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN&TILDEN 3750 University Avenue, Suite 250 Riverside, CA 92501-3335 Re: State Outdoor Advertising Permit Applications A08-0352 thru A08-0359 City of Palm Desert v. County of Riverside, et. al. (Lamar Advertising,real party in interest) San Bernardino Case No. RIC 485078 Dear Mr. Kunert, Ms. Walls and Mr. Stream: We have received Mr. Stream's letter dated April 17, 2008, rejecting the Department's proposal that the parties agree that action on the above-referenced permits be stayed until the pending litigation is decided. We do not disagree with his conclusion that there is no legal basis for the Department to belay a decision on these applications based on the current litigation. Frankly,that was why we asked for the parties' agreement. It was-and is-our conclusion that such a voluntary stay would reduce the costs for all parties. However, in view of his unwillingness to agree, we will proceed to finalize processing of these applications, and would expect to issue or deny your applications in the next ten days. Thank you very much. Vey yours, ONIL D �V. A S Assistant Chief Counsel "Caltrans improves mobility across California" Received at RWG Law 4/17/2008 5:29:25 PM Permit Requirements Page 1 of 3 C At.IFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Caltrans>Business>Traffic Operations>Outdoor Advertising >Permit Requirements Outdoor Advertising Permit Requirements ................................................ The below information is to be used as general guidelines and does not guarantee approval. STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Outdoor Advertising Branch 1120"N"Street,MS-36 P. O. Box 942874 Sacramento, CA 94274-0001 PHONE(916)654-6473 FAX(916) 651-9359 OUTDOOR ADVERTISING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS Arnold Schwarzenegger,Governor In order for an outdoor advertising display application to be considered for a permit adjacent to an Interstate or primary highway the following criterion must be met: Display Location Must be outside the right of way of any highway. Must be outside of any stream,or drainage channel. There must be an existing business activity within 1000 feet of proposed display location on either side of the highway. Location of property where display is to be placed must be zoned industrial or commercial. Must have current property owner consent,in writing,to place the display at desired location. Must have written permission(building permit)from the local governement having jurisdiction where the display is to be located. Location may not be adjacent to a landscaped section of a freeway. " Location may not be adjacent to a scenic highway." If adjacent to a Bonus"*segment of an Interstate freeway,copy,size,and spacing is more restrictive. Display Display must be 500 feet from any other permitted display on same side of any highway that is a freeway. Display must be 300 feet from any other permitted display on same side of any primary highway that is not a freeway in an unincorporated area. Display must be 100 feet from any other permitted display on same side of any primary highway that is not a freeway and is within the limits of an incorporated city. Display must be 500 feet from an interchange;intersection at grade or safety roadside rest if the highway is a freeway and the location is outside the limits of an incorporated city and outside the limits of an urban area. An electronic changeable message center display must meet the above spacing requirements and be 1000 feet from any other off- premise electronic message center display. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oda/permit_requirements.htm 1/4/2008 Permit Requirements Page 2 of 3 Maximum height for the advertising display area is,25 feet in height and 60 feet in length, not to exceed an overall maximum of 1200 square feet. The above information is to be used as general guidelines and does not guarantee approval. For a permit application contact the Department of Transportation. Landscaped freeway is a section of a freeway which is now,or hereafter may be,improved by the planting at least on one side of the freeway right-of-way of lawns,trees,shrubs,flowers or other ornamental vegetation which shall require reasonable maintenance. Scenic highway is a section of a highway that has been officially designated and maintained scenic pursuant Section 260,261, 262,and 262.5 of the Streets and Highways Code or as referred to in Section 131(s)of Title 23 of United States Code. Bonus segment is any portion of an Interstate freeway which is constructed upon any part of right of way,the entire width of which was acquired for right of way subsequent to July 1, 1956,except those segments of the Interstate system that traverse commercial or industrial zones within the boundaries of incorporated municipalities,as such boundaries existed on September 21, 1959,or other areas where the land use,as of September 21, 1959 was clearly established by State law as industrial or commercial. Laws and Regulations: ODA Act and Code of Regulations FRI Proposed Amendments to the Outdoor Advertising Code of Regulations(Updated 12/01/05) -»Senate Bill Number 315 FAA >>Assembly Bill Number 1449 Assembly Bill Number 762 Senate Bill Number 1480 Obtaining Permit Obtaining License *Permit Requirements >>Political Signs Caltrans Outdoor Advertising Review Board (COARB) The 1958 Bonus Act Forms: Business Name&Contact Name Change Certification by Display Owner of Display within Redevelopment Project Certification by Display Owner of Message Center within Redevelopment Project License_Application Payment Schedule For Poster Panel Removal(EXHIBIT 7-14)561 Permit Application nx Permit&License Cancellation Permit Transfer 511 Political Sign Application PR http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oda/permit_requirements.htm 1/4/2008 • 'Permit Requirements Page 3 of 3 >>Public Records Act Request® Highway Designations: Bonus Segments Classified"Landscaped Freeways" Scenic Highways Urban Boundaries Maps Related Links: Adopt-A-Highway Program California Code of Regulations(Refer to:Title 4-Business Regulations, Division 6-Outdoor Advertising) Tourist Oriented Directional Signs(TODS) Office of Administrative Law Home Office of Administrative Hearings ->Right-of-Way Manual-Chapter 7 FINI Right-of-Way Manual Change 124 nx Adobe Acrobat Reader is required for all the files associated with this symbol:®.Download now! Conditions of Use I Privacy Policy Copyright©2007 State of California http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oda/pennit_requirements.htm 1/4/2008 McNuggets ,4..,.,.., �, 5 MINUTES AHEAD ppEN 24 HOURS - ��..ti -y��;. �� EXIT RIGHT on Ramon - LEFT on Varner s 1. NEXT EXIT TURN LEFT [�1 Mil 11 k _ r - fGi71 s * � 4 . 02 . : ®8 . . r e nd .... f IT .`� AFL :..fi AV iced COFFEE •.itij• ti. . � - - '' �s t a i/kC'.:.�iF ...��.'��"' .� M:... chilled to •- • Quiznos SUB at The Village Exit Cook Street • Turn L f a * r 4 b •s4yr 1 TM Playing what we want' BANKRUPTCY? - , 773-0177 Se Habla Espanol ;. 1 a-� 4� Buzzer Driving is Drunk Driving nhfta �Gii��r� -•�.�t �r ' ..'��'.,^. AOp/y1Y�hlI�M'.".. ., _.ice► . _ a ti �•. , - 04 . 02 n 00 ,4 5 - ram'i _ , Agenda Item No.: 5.5 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 Area Plan: Western Coachella Valley CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 Zoning District: Thousand Palms E.A. Number: 41426 Supervisorial District: Fourth Applicant: Lamar Advertising Project Planner: Russell Brady Planning Commission: July 11, 2006 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: General Plan Amendment No. 864 proposes to designate the site as Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) and to modify and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing billboards if the new location is determined to have a minimal impact on the scenic setting. Change of Zone No. 7535 proposes to alter the site's current zoning classification from Rural Residential (R-R)to Manufacturing— Service Commercial (M-SC). The project is located southerly of Interstate 10, westerly of Portola Avenue, northerly of Dinah Shore Drive, and easterly of Monterey Avenue in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan. ISSUES OF POTENTIAL CONCERN: Justification for the proposed General Plan Amendment General Plan Amendment No. 864 proposes to modify and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing billboards if the new location is determined to have a minimal impact on the scenic setting and to provide a Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) land use designation on the subject site. The site currently has no land use designation. According to the Administration Chapter (Chapter 10) of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP), the proposed General Plan Amendment falls into the Entitlement/Policy Amendment category which involves changes in land use designations or policies that involve land located entirely within a General Plan Foundation Component but that do not change the boundaries of that component. This type of amendment may also involve changes in General Plan policy as Iona as it does not change the Riverside County ision oun ati_i n omponent or a enera Plan Principle. This chapter also addresses the required and optional findings needed to justify a General Plan Amendment. Required Entitlement/Policy Amendment Findings The first two findings and any one or more of the subsequent findings would justify an entitlement/policy amendment: a. The proposed change would not involve a change i n or conflict with: (1) The Riverside County Vision; (2)Any General Plan Principle; or (3)Any Foundation Component designation in the General Plan. A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 Planning Commission Staff Report: July 11, 2007 Page 2 of 4 b. The proposed amendment would either contribute to the achievement of the purposes of the General Plan or, at a minimum, would not be detrimental to them. c. Special circumstances or conditions have emerged that were unanticipated in preparing the General Plan. The followinq findings are made in support of the proposed General Plan Amendment: a. The proposed chance in the Area Plan policy and change to a Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) land use designation will not involve a change in and will not conflict with the following: 11 T (1) The Riverside County Vision —the proposed project does conform to the fundamental values stated in the RCIP Vision Chapter and in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan Vision Summary section, which include, but are not limited to dedication to the preservation of the environmental features that frame the community, preservation of the sense of community within the Area Plan, and commitment to quality development in partnership with those who help build our communities through project design and provision of amenities and i— n rastructure_ (2) Any General Plan Principle— the proposed project will not be i ' General Plan's rinciples which include preserving the unique natur al setting while 17 minimizing the impacts of encroaching and preservation of scenic resources (3) Any Foundation Component designation in the General Plan — the project currently does not have a foundation corn ponent. b. The proposed amendment does contribute to the achievement of the purposes of the General Plan. The proposed project does not have the potential to be detrimental to the purposes of the General Plan and the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan. The proposed project is consistent and compatible with the existing and future surrounding general plan land use designations, zoning classifications, and land uses which include existing existing and planned single family residential land uses. �� ��✓� y c. There have been special circumstances that have emerged that were unanticipated in preparing the Genera an that warrant such a c ange in and us e. a po icy a op e i n the estern Coachella Valley Area Plan's goal is to protect the scenic qualities and visual character of the area. In the case of the proposed project, there are existing billboardsb proposed to be removed by a planned residential project. The proposed modification of thee{{ 7 policy to allow relocation of billboards would essentially maintain the same scenic qualities and visual character that currently exists in the area. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: 1. Existing Land Use (Ex. #1): Vacant 2. Surrounding Land Use (Ex. #1): 1-10 to the north and east, single family residential and vacant land to the south and west GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 Planning Commission Staff Report: July 11, 2007 Page 3 of 4 3. Existing Zoning (Ex. #2): Rural Residential (R-R) 4. Surrounding Zoning (Ex. #2): Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) to the north and east and City of Palm Desert to the south and west 5. General Plan: Land Use: N/A 6. Project Data: Total Acreage: 19.84 7. Environmental Concerns: See attached environmental assessment RECOMMENDATIONS: ADOPTION of a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 41426, based on the findings incorporated in the initial study and the conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; TENTATIVE APPROVAL of GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 amending the land use designation in the General Plan to designate the site as Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio)and to modify and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing billboards if the new location is determined to have a minimal impact on the scenic setting.; TENTATIVE APPROVAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 from Rural Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC) in accordance with Exhibit 3, based upon final adoption by the Board of Supervisors; and, ADOPTION of a RESOLUTION recommending adoption of the General Plan Amendment No. 864 to the Board of Supervisors; CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed project is in conformance with the Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) Land Use Designation, and with all other elements of the Riverside County General Plan. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC) zoning classification of Ordinance No. 348, and with all other applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 348. 3. The public's health, safety, and general welfare are protected through project design. 4. The proposed project is compatible with the present and future logical development of the area. 5. The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 6. The proposed project will not preclude reserve design for the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSCHP). FINDINGS: The following findings are in addition to those incorporated in the summary of findings, and in the attached environmental assessment, which is incorporated herein by reference. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 Planning Commission Staff Report: July 11, 2007 Page 4 of 4 1. The project site is designated currently has no land use designation on the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan. 2. The project proposes to change the land use to Light Industrial (LI)(0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio). 3. The project site is surrounded by properties which are designated Community Development: Commercial Retail (CD: CR) (0.20-0.35 Floor Area Ratio) to the north and east and the City of Palm Desert to the south and west. 4. The zoning for the subject site is Rural Residential (R-R) 5. The project proposes to change the current zoning designation from Rural Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC) 6. The project site is surrounded by properties which are zoned Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P- S)to the north and east and City of Palm Desert to the south and west. 7. The proposed use, for relocation of an existing billboard, is permitted in the Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC)zone. 8. This project is not located within a C riteria Area of the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 9. Environmental Assessment No. 41426 did not identify any potentially significant impacts. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1. As of this writing, no letters, in suppo rt or opposition have been received. 2. The project site is not located within: a. A 100-year flood zone; b. A SKR Core Reserve Area; C. A dam inundation area; d. An Area Drainage Plan; e. A hazardous fire area; f. An agricultural preserve; or g. An Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault hazard zone. 3. The project site is located within: a. The boundaries of the Palm Springs Unified School District; b. Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance Area; and C. Whitewater Watershed. 4. The subject site is currently designated as Assessor's Parcel Number 653-250-012. Y:\Planning Case Files-Riverside office\GPA00864\GPA864 SR.doc Date Prepared: 6/28/07 Date Revised: 7/3/07 !_# Agenda Item 5 8 Riverside County Planning Commission July 11, 2007 ZoningOf- _�.< a,.•is .s y ..p.— Current Zoning: Rural Residential R-R Proposed Zoning: '�*�, Manufacturing —Service Commercial (M-SC) c Surrounding Zoning: North: Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) v South: M . City of Palm Desert East: Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) West: a City of Palm Desert `� V5.0 Site Plan Vicinity Mao General Plan Existing Zoning Lend Use Site Photos Issues of Con eern Recommendations Agenda Item 5.8 Riverside County Planning Commission July 11, 2007 Land Use E � f Current Land Use: 3 z Railroad, Vacant Surrounding Land Uses: North: a Vacant, Single Family Residential South: Vacant, Industrial East: Vacant, Single Family Residential West: Vacant, Industrial ! x. 4 ` "' Site Pian Vicinity fvtas� General Plan Existin Z� oninq I Land Use Site Photos Issues ofi Concern Reeornmendations Agenda Item 5.8 Riverside County Planning Commission July 11, 2007 Now Site Plan lei Iwo - L_ q Y � � I wif R a Of (it IW b R ails ~ R.ii M «re w. ' " ii.r M AM- it +. .� jvV V5,0 ate Pian Vicinity Map General Plan Existing Zoning Lana Use Site Photos Issues of Concern Recommendations jai 4 FAT." ;: - � '- "°� �. � ��•4, ., �"" � �� •*��ac�r�ad 5d+a ?�mf7v�,(li dki(ii PaYit�YYe lkfa icaNWr.iIMC 91►iaYii Ara�i [+a�wiewr•�e� toy -n,: � ;. =�%` �. a a*.����� ww#�,:�+a snag rnx,.�r.�rm.c� a�a� +a�wa:�w.w*x•+a..see+e•�..�� _ � 'tea�, � � :•.:J :ae. �� m y a „ Maw a AI 01v PAC** \ s i r e s a.: : 4 y" it �I Ili, I p �w VV s aw1Yz-- *v a �m at existing billboards on the subject property d Y K 4+F C17 ld FiT i t(C 1 E w, -,<.7 Looking rt east from proposed billboard 430 Site�jite Plan �� � � Recommendations Agenda Item 5.8 Riverside County Planning Commission July 11, 2007 Site Photo 3 s� c � r a sh f Ap xakR a a ` 9 r 'PIF �t F" '� „.� a a � �, a k ., r a,'.. ,c, SEEM, to I n x ,.F 1 _ V j$ a, a 9/20011 , r. x Looking west from proposed billboard 433 ' Site Plan Vicinity aE General Plan ning Land Use _� Site Photos Issues of Concern Recommendations Agenda Item 5.8 Riverside County Planning Commission July 11, 2007 Issues of Concern Preservation of the Scenic Corridor "f V5.0 Site Plan Vicinity Macy General Plan Exisiing Zoning E�and Use Site Photos Issues of Concern Recommendation Agenda Item 5.8 Riverside County Planning Commission I July 11, 2007 Recommendations ADOPTION of a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 41426, based on the findings incorporated in the initial study and the conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; TENTATIVE APPROVAL of GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 amending the land use designation in the General Plan to designate the site as Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) and to modify and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing to a new location as long as the total number of billboards is not increased; TENTATIVE APPROVAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 from Rural Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC) in accordance with Exhibit 3, based upon final adoption by the Board of Supervisors; and, ADOPTION of a RESOLUTION recommending adoption of the General Plan Amendment No. 864 to the Board of Supervisors; Site Plan Vicinit M General Plan Existin Zon+n t anLand Use (�Site Photos Issues of Concern ( Reeommendat¢ons "J�vv V5.0 -- �P L- t_�_ �..._� L....._or � r�.9 I9I ° • v t a - m F, i - P � tt IA— "I I ve o, OC 3 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: INITIAL STUDY Environmental Assessment (E.A.) Number: 41426 Project Case Type (s) and Number(s): General Plan Amendment No. 864, Change of Zone No. 7535 Lead Agency Name: County of Riverside Planning Department Address: P.O. Box 1409, Riverside, CA 92502-1409 Contact Person: Russell Brady Telephone Number: (951) 955-1888 Applicant's Name: Lamar Advertising Applicant's Address: 77-583 El Duna Court, Suite J, Palm Desert, CA 92211 I. PROJECT INFORMATION A. Project Description: General Plan Amendment No. 864 proposes to designate the site as Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) and to modify and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing billboards to a new location as long as the number of billboards is not increased. Change of Zone No. 7535 proposes to alter the site's current zoning classification from Rural Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC). B. Type of Project: Site Specific ®; Countywide ❑; Community El; Policy Z. C. Total Project Area: 19.84 acres Residential Acres: N/A Lots: N/A Units: N/A Projected No. of Residents: N/A Commercial Acres: N/A Lots: N/A Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area: N/A Est. No. of Employees: N/A Industrial Acres: 19.84 Lots: 1 Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area: N/A Est. No. of Employees: N/A Other: D. Assessor's Parcel No(s): 653-250-012 E. Street References: southerly of Interstate 10, westerly of Portola Avenue, northerly of Dinah Shore Drive, and easterly of Monterey Avenue F. Section, Township & Range Description or reference/attach a Legal Description: Township 4 South, Range 6 East, Section 29 G. Brief description of the existing environmental setting of the project site and its surroundings: The project site is located adjacent to 1-10 freeway which is to the north of the site. An existing Southern Pacific rail line crosses the site northwest to southeast. The project site is relatively flat and slopes generally southwest to northeast. The surrounding area is primarily vacant with new and planned residential areas. II. APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING REGULATIONS A. General Plan Elements/Policies: Page 1 of 32 EA41426 1. Land Use: The proposed project currently does not have a land use designation. The proposed project meets all applicable land use policies. 2. Circulation: Adequate circulation facilities exist and are proposed to serve the proposed project. The proposed project meets with all other applicable circulation policies of the General Plan. 3. Multipurpose Open Space: The proposed project meets with all other applicable Multipurpose Open Space element policies. 4. Safety: The proposed project is not located within an special hazard zone (including high Y P P 1 Y g 9 fire area, FEMA flood zone, fault zone, dam inundation zone, area with high liquefaction potential, etc.). The proposed project has allowed for sufficient provision of emergency response services to the future residents of this project through the project design and payment of development impact fees. The proposed project meets with all other applicable Safety element policies. 5. Noise: The proposed project meets with all applicable Noise element policies. 6. Housing: The proposed project meets with all applicable Housing element policies. 7. Air Quality: The proposed project meets all other applicable Air Quality element policies. B. General Plan Area Plan(s): Western Coachella Valley C. Foundation Component(s): N/A D. Land Use Designation(s): N/A E. Overlay(s), if any: N/A F. Policy Area(s), if any: N/A G. Adjacent and Surrounding: 1. Area Plan(s): Western Coachella Valley 2. Foundation Component(s): N/A 3. Land Use Designation(s): Community Development: Commercial Retail (CD: CR) (0.20- 0.35 Floor Area Ratio) to the north and east and the City of Palm Desert to the south and west. 4. Overlay(s) and Policy Area(s), if any: N/A H. Adopted Specific Plan Information 1. Name and Number of Specific Plan, if any: N/A 2. Specific Plan Planning Area, and Policies, if any: N/A I. Existing Zoning: Rural Residential (R-R) Page 2 of 32 EA41426 J. Proposed Zoning, if any: Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC) K. Adjacent and Surrounding Zoning: Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) to the north and east, City of Palm Desert to the south and west. III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below ( x ) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Public Services ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Recreation ❑ Air Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Other ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance IV. DETERMINATION i On the basis of this initial evaluation: A PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS NOT PREPARED ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project, described in this document, have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. A PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS PREPARED ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, NO NEW ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED because (a) all potentially significant effects of the proposed project have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, (b) all potentially significant effects of the proposed project have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, (c) the proposed project will not result in any new significant environmental effects not identified in the earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, (d) the proposed project will not substantially increase the severity of the environmental effects identified in the earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, (e) no considerably different mitigation measures have been identified and (f) no mitigation measures found infeasible have become feasible. ❑ I find that although all potentially significant effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in California Code of Regulations, Section 15162 exist. An ADDENDUM to a previously-certified EIR or Negative Declaration has been prepared and will be considered by the approving body or bodies. Page 3 of 32 EA41426 ❑ I find that at least one of the conditions described in California Code of Regulations, Section 15162 exist, but I further find that only minor additions or changes are necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation; therefore a SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required that need only contain the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. ❑ I find that at least one of the following conditions described in California Code of Regulations, Section 15162, exist and a SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any the following:(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or negative declaration;(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or,(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. June 13, 2007 Signature Date For Ron Goldman, Planning Director Printed Name I Page 4 of 32 EA41426 V. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ASSESSMENT In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21000-21178.1), this Initial Study has been prepared to analyze the proposed project to determine any potential significant impacts upon the environment that would result from construction and implementation of the project. In accordance with California Code of Regulations, Section 15063, this Initial Study is a preliminary analysis prepared by the Lead Agency, the County of Riverside, in consultation with other jurisdictional agencies, to determine whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an Environmental Impact Report is required for the proposed project. The purpose of this Initial Study is to inform the decision-makers, affected agencies, and the public of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated AESTHETICS Would the project 1. Scenic Resources ❑ a) Have a substantial effect upon a scenic highway corridor within which it is located? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ❑ but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and unique or landmark features; obstruct any prominent scenic vista or view open to the public; or result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure C-7 "Scenic Highways" Findings of Fact: a) The proposed project is located adjacent to the 1-10 scenic highway which is designated a County Eligible scenic highway in the General Plan. The proposed policy change to the General Plan will allow for the relocation of existing billboards within the area plan along the 1-10 scenic highway, but will not allow for any new billboards to be constructed. The relocation of billboards will have an equal impact from the current impacts on the scenic corridor. Therefore, the project will not have a significant impact on the scenic corridor. b) The proposed project is located in the lower part of a valley where the scenic resources generally consist of the surrounding hills and mountains. No substantial scenic resources exist in the areas where the billboards would be relocated to. Therefore the project would not damage or remove any scenic resources. The proposed policy change to the General Plan will allow for the relocation of existing billboards within the area plan along 1-10, but will not allow for any new billboards to be constructed. The relocation of billboards will have an equal impact from the current impacts on the scenic resources for the area. Therefore, the project will not have a significant impact on scenic resources. Mitigation: No mitigation is required Monitoring: No monitoring is required Page 5 of 32 EA41426 2. Mt. Palomar Observatory a) Interfere with the nighttime use of the Mt. Palomar Observatory, as protected through Riverside County Ordinance No. 655? Source: GIS database, Ord. No. 655 (Regulating Light Pollution) Findings of Fact: a) According to the RCIP, the project site is located 41.05 miles away from the Mt. Palomar Observatory; which is within the designated 45-mile (ZONE B) Special Lighting Area that surrounds the Mt. Palomar Observatory. Ordinance No. 655 contains approved materials and methods of installation, definition, general requirements, requirements for lamp source and shielding, prohibition and exceptions With incorporation of project lighting requirements of the Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 into the proposed project, this impact will be reduced to a less than significant impact. The proposed project will be required to comply with all pertinent lighting requirements for projects located within Zone B of the Mt. Palomar Special Lighting Area. This is a standard condition of approval and is not considered mitigation pursuant to CEQA. Mitigation: No mitigation is required Monitoring: No monitoring is required 3. Other Lighting Issues ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? b) Expose residential property to unacceptable light N El levels? Source: On-site Inspection, Project Application Description Findings of Fact: a) Billboards may potentially have lighting installed to illuminate the billboard at night. Lighting will be hooded and shielded in accordance with county requirements to prevent creation of substantial light. Reflective surfaces will be minimized in construction of the project which would limit the potential for substantial glare created by the project. The project will not create substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. b) Lighting will be hooded and shielded in accordance with county requirements to prevent exposure of nearby residential areas to unacceptable light levels. Mitigation: No mitigation is required Monitoring: No monitoring is required AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Would the project 4. Agriculture El El ❑ a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Page 6 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ Williamson Act (agricultural preserve) contract (Riv. Co. Agricultural Land Conservation Contract Maps)? c) Cause development of non-agricultural uses within ❑ ❑ 300 feet of agriculturally zoned property (Ordinance No. 625 "Right-to-Farm")? d) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ El El 0 which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure OS-2 "Agricultural Resources," GIS database, and Project Application Materials. Findings of Fact: a) The proposed project is not located on property designated as Prime or Unique Farmland and is not located within an agricultural preserve. The proposed project is not currently designated on the General Plan for agricultural use. The project will not contribute to the cumulative loss of farmland in the County. The project is not located within an agricultural preserve. b) The project will not conflict with an existing agricultural use, or a Williamson Act (agricultural preserve) contract. c) The project is not located within 300 feet of agriculturally zoned property. d) The project does not have the potential to encourage additional development which could result in conversion of farmland to no-agricultural uses. Mitigation: No mitigation is required Monitoring: No monitoring is required AIR QUALITY Would the project 5. Air Quality Impacts ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Page 7 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated d) Expose sensitive receptors which are located within ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 mile of the project site to project substantial point source emissions? e) Involve the construction of a sensitive receptor ❑ ❑ ❑ located within one mile of an existing substantial point source emitter? f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ number of people? Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook Table 6-2 Findings of Fact: a) The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for developing a regional air quality management plan to insure compliance with state and federal air quality standards. The SCAQMD has adopted the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The 2003 AQMP is based on socioeconomic forecasts (including population estimates) provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The County General Plan is consistent with SCAG's Regional Growth Management Plan and SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan. This project is consistent with the General Plan land use designations, and population estimates. The population proposed by this project will not obstruct the implementation of the 2003 AQMP. b) Air quality impacts would occur during site preparation, including grading and equipment exhaust. Major sources of fugitive dust are a result of grading and site preparation during construction by vehicles and equipment and generated by construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces, as well as by soil disturbances from grading and filling. Blowing dust is also of concern in the dry desert areas where PM10 standards are exceeded by soil disturbance during grading, and vehicular travel over unpaved roads. These short-term construction related impacts will be reduced below a level of significance by dust control measures implemented during grading. c)The project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. d) A sensitive receptor is a person in the population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant than is the population at large. Sensitive receptors (and the facilities that house them) in proximity to localized CO sources, toxic air contaminants or odors are of particular concern. High levels of CO are associated with major traffic sources, such as freeways and major intersections, and toxic air contaminants are normally associated with manufacturing and commercial operations. Land uses considered to be sensitive receptors include long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities. Surrounding land uses include residential, which is considered a sensitive receptor, however, the project is not expected to generate substantial point source emissions. The project will not include commercial or manufacturing uses, or generate significant odors. e) The project site does not involve the construction of a sensitive receptor within one-mile of a substantial point source emitter. Page 8 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated f) The project will not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project 6. Wildlife &Vegetation ❑ El ❑ a) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan? b) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ through habitat modifications, on any endangered, or threatened species, as listed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Sections 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations Sections 17.11 or 17.12 ? c) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ E El through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Wildlife Service? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ❑ ❑ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ❑ ❑ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? g) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Source: GIS database, WRCMSHCP, On-site Inspection Findings of Fact: a) The project site does not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan. Page 9 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) No endangered or threatened species were identified on the project site. c) Any relocation of billboards will be required to be reviewed by the Environmental Programs Department to verify that the construction will not impact any sensitive species. d) The project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. e-f) The project site does not support Riparian/Riverine area or vernal pools. g) The project does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Mitigation: No mitigation is required Monitoring: No monitoring is required CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project 7. Historic Resources ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Alter or destroy an historic site? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.5? Source: On-site Inspection, Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: a) The project site is vacant and does not contain any historical structures. b) The proposed project would not cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.5. Mitigation: No mitigation is required Monitoring: No monitoring is required 8. Archaeological Resources ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Alter or destroy an archaeological site. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ ❑ ❑ outside of formal cemeteries? Page 10 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the ❑ ❑ ❑ potential impact area? Source: Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: a-b) No known archaeological sites exist on the project site. c) During grading and other construction activities the project will be required to notify the County Coroner if any human remains are encountered. d) No known religious or sacred uses exist on the project site. Mitigation: No mitigation is required Monitoring: No monitoring is required 9. Paleontological Resources ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, or site, or unique geologic feature? Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure OS-8 "Paleontological Sensitivity" Findings of Fact: a) The project is located within an area of low potential for paleontological resources to exist. Therefore, any potential relocation of billboard's impacts to paleontological resources is considered less than significant. Mitigation: No mitigation is required Monitoring: No monitoring is required GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project 10. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or County ❑ ❑ ❑ Fault Hazard Zones a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death? b) Be subject to rupture of a known earthquake fault, ❑ ❑ ❑ as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Page 11 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure S-2 "Earthquake Fault Study Zones," GIS database, Geologist Comments Findings of Fact: a) No active faults are known to traverse the project site. Therefore, the proposed project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death b) The project site does not lie within a Sate of California Earthquake Hazard Zone (formally called an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone). Mitigation: No mitigation measures required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures required. 11. Liquefaction Potential Zone ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Be subject to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure S-3 "Generalized Liquefaction" Findings of Fact: a) The project is located in an area with moderate potential for liquefaction. The County Geologist shall review plans for any relocation of billboards. Mitigation: No mitigation measures required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures required. 12. Ground-shaking Zone ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Be subject to strong seismic ground shaking? Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure S-4 "Earthquake-Induced Slope Instability Map," and Figures S-13 through S-21 (showing General Ground Shaking Risk) Findings of Fact: There are no known active or potentially active faults that traverse the site and the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The principal seismic hazard that could affect the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along several major active or potentially active faults in southern California. The project is located within a very high ground shaking risk area. California Building Code (CBC) requirements pertaining to commercial development will mitigate the potential impact to less than significant. As CBC requirements are applicable to all development they are not considered mitigation for CEQA implementation purposes. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Page 12 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 13. Landslide Risk ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, collapse, or rockfall hazards? Source: On-site Inspection, Riverside County General Plan Figure S-5 "Regions Underlain by Steep Slope" Findings of Fact: a) Due to the relatively level terrain in the area, the project site is not subject to landslide, collapse, or rockfall hazards. In addition, the project site is not located within an area subject to unstable geologic units or soil. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 14. Ground Subsidence ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in ground subsidence? Source: RCIP Figure S-7 "Documented Subsidence Areas" a) The project site is located in an area susceptible to subsidence but not located near any documented areas of subsidence. California Building Code (CBC) requirements pertaining to residential development will mitigate the potential impact to less than significant. As CBC requirements are applicable to all residential development, they are not considered mitigation for CEQA implementation purposes. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 15. Other Geologic Hazards ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Be subject to geologic hazards, such as seiche, mudflow, or volcanic hazard? Source: On-site Inspection, Project Application Materials Page 13 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Findings of Fact: The project site is not subject to any other geologic hazards, such as seiche, mudflow, or volcanic hazard Mitiqation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 16. Slopes ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Change topography or ground surface relief features? b) Create cut or fill slopes greater than 2:1 or higher ❑ ❑ ❑ than 10 feet? c) Result in grading that affects or negates subsurface ❑ ❑ ❑ sewage disposal systems? Source: Riv. Co. 800 Scale Slope Maps, Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: a) The project area is relatively flat and will not require an extensive amount of grading to relocate billboards. b) The project does not propose slopes greater than 2:1 or higher than 10 feet. c) Grading will not negate or affect the subsurface sewage disposal systems. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required 17. Soils ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? b) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Source: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Surveys, Project Application Materials, On-site Inspection a) The development of the project site may have the potential to result in soil erosion during grading and construction. Standard conditions of approval have been issued by the Flood Control District regarding soil erosion that will further ensure protection of public health, safety, and welfare upon final engineering of the project and are not considered mitigation for CEQA implementation purposes. Page 14 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) The project may be located on expansive soil; however, California Building Code (CBC) requirements pertaining to residential development will mitigate the potential impact to less than significant. As CBC requirements are applicable to all residential development they are not considered mitigation for CEQA implementation purposes. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 18. Erosion ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Change deposition, siltation, or erosion that may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake? b) Result in any increase in water erosion either on or ❑ off site? Source: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Surveys a) The proposed project will not change deposition, siltation, or erosion that may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake. b) The project does not propose substantial impermeable surfaces which would create increased flows that have the potential for water erosion on or offsite. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required 19. Wind Erosion and Blowsand from project either ❑ ❑ ® ❑ on or off site. a) Be impacted by or result in an increase in wind erosion and blowsand, either on or off site? Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure S-8 "Wind Erosion Susceptibility Map," Ord. 460, Sec. 14.2 & Ord. 484 Findings of Fact: a) The project site lies within a high area of wind erosion. Standard Building & Safety requirements for dust control during any grading activities will keep the impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project Page 15 of 32 EA41426 I Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 20. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ❑ ❑ ❑ an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? d) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Source: Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: a) The project proposes relocation of existing billboards; therefore, the project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Through the implementation of standard county requirements, the project will have a less then significant impact from hazardous materials. b) The project proposes the relocation of existing billboards; however, it may result in the minor use and disposal of substances such as household and commercial cleaning products, fertilizers, pesticides, automotive fluids, etc, but the nature and volume of such substances associated with the use would not present the potential to create a significant public or environmental hazard. c) The project will provide adequate access to the proposed use, and will not encroach on any right- of-way; the project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan. d) The project proposes relocation of existing billboards and no schools are located within one-quarter mile of the project site. Therefore, the project will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. e) The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, which could create a significant hazard to the public and/or the environment. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Page 16 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 21. Airports ❑ a) Result in an inconsistency with an Airport Master Plan? b) Require review by the Airport Land Use ❑ ❑ ❑ Commission? c) For a project located within an airport land use plan ❑ or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? d) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, El ❑ ❑ or heliport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure S-19 "Airport Locations," GIS database Findings of Fact: The project site is not located within the vicinity of any public or private airport. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 22. Hazardous Fire Area ❑ ❑ a) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure S-11 "Wildfire Susceptibility," GIS database Findings of Fact: The project is not located in a high fire hazard area. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project 23. Water Quality Impacts ❑ ❑ a) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? b) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ Page 17 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated discharge requirements? c) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ❑ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? d) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? e) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, ❑ ❑ ❑ as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? f) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ ❑ which would impede or redirect flood flows? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Include new or retrofitted stormwater Treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g. water quality treatment basins, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? Source: Riverside County Flood Control District Flood Hazard Report/Condition. Findings of Fact: a) This relocation of existing billboards will require a minimal amount of grading. No known watercourses exist on the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impact on erosion on or offsite. b) Per Regional Water Quality Control Board standards, the relocation of existing billboards will not require inclusion of water quality features since it falls below the level of project creating potentially significant water quality impacts. c) The relocation of existing billboards will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted. d) The proposed project would require a minimal amount of paving to be provided which would increase flows. Due to the low level of increased flows anticipated, these impacts are considered less than significant. e-f) The project is not located within a 100-year floodplain. Page 18 of 32 EA41426 FFPotentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated g) The project will not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. h) Per Regional Water Quality Control Board standards, the relocation of existing billboards will not require inclusion of water quality features since it falls below the level of project creating potentially significant water quality impacts. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 24. Floodplains Degree of Suitability in 100-Year Floodplains. As indicated below, the appropriate Degree of Suitability has been checked. NA- Not Applicable ❑ U - Generally Unsuitable ❑ R - Restricted ❑ a) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? b) Changes in absorption rates or the rate and amount ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of surface runoff? c) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ❑ loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam (Dam Inundation Area)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any ❑ ❑ ❑ water body? Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure S-9 100- and 500-Year Flood Hazard Zones," Figure S-10 "Dam Failure Inundation Zone," Riverside County Flood Control District Flood Hazard Report/Condition, GIS database Findings of Fact: a) The project will alter the existing pattern of drainage on the site at a less than significant level and will direct onsite flow into drainage facilities. b) The project will increase the amount of impermeable surfaces, which will decrease the absorption rates of the site, but at a less than significant level. c) The project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. However, an alluvial fan type watershed would impact the proposed development from the north. In order to protect this tract from flooding, the developer shall construct the required storm drains. Interim inlets shall be provided unless upstream collection facilities have been constructed. d) The project will not cause changes in the amount of surface water in any water body. Page 19 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. LAND USE/PLANNING Would the project 25. Land Use ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b) Affect land use within a city sphere of influence ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ and/or within adjacent city or county boundaries? Source: RCIP, GIS database, Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: a) The project site currently does not have a land use designation on it. The proposed relocation of existing billboards is compatible with surrounding land use designations. The project would not have a substantial alteration of the present of planned land use of an area. b) The project is located adjacent to the City of Palm Desert, but not located within its sphere of influence. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 26. Planning ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Be consistent with the site's existing or proposed zoning? b) Be compatible with existing surrounding zoning? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Be compatible with existing and planned ❑ ❑ ® ❑ surrounding land uses? d) Be consistent with the land use designations and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ policies of the Compre ensive enera an including those of any applicable Speci is—Plan)? _ e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ❑ ❑ ❑ established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Source: Riverside County General Plan Land Use Element, Staff review, GIS database Findings of Fact: a) The proposed relocation of existing billboards would be compatible with the project site's proposed zoning classification of Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC). Page 20 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) The proposed project would be compatible with the surrounding zoning c) The proposed project would be compatible with the existing and planned surrounding land uses. d) The proposed relocation of existing billboards would be consistent with the proposed land use designation of Light Industrial (LI), the proposed change in General Plan policy to allow for relocation of existing billboards within the area plan and with all other applicable General Plan policies. The . proposed change in General Plan oolicv is fitting with the intent for preservation of the scenic qualities of scenic corridors. e) The proposed project would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project 27. Mineral Resources ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource in an area classified or designated by the State that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? c) Be an incompatible land use located adjacent to a ❑ ❑ ❑ State classified or designated area or existing surface mine? d) Expose people or property to hazards from ❑ ❑ ❑ proposed, existing or abandoned quarries or mines? Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure OS-5 "Mineral Resources Area" Findings of Fact: a) The project site is located in an area where the available geologic information indicates that mineral deposits are likely to exist; however, the significance of the deposit is undetermined. b) No abandoned, existing, or proposed quarries or mines are within the immediate project vicinity and current RCIP land uses preclude mining in the area. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. Page 21 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated NOISE Would the project result in Definitions for Noise Acceptability Ratings Where indicated below, the appropriate Noise Acceptability Rating(s) has been checked. NA- Not Applicable A - Generally Acceptable B - Conditionally Acceptable C - Generally Unacceptable D - Land Use Discouraged 28. Airport Noise ❑ ❑ ❑ a) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? NA ® A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ b) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? NA ® A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure S-19 "Airport Locations," County of Riverside Airport Facilities Map Findings of Fact: a) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport that would expose people residing on the project site to excessive noise levels. b) The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, that would expose people residing on the project site to excessive noise levels. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 29. Railroad Noise ❑ ❑ ❑ NA A ® B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure C-1 "Circulation Plan", GIS database, On-site Inspection Findings of Fact: The proposed project is located adjacent to an existing Santa Fe Railroad line. The proposed use for billboards would not be impacted by the noise created from any use of the rail line. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. Page 22 of 32 EA41426 IFPotentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 30. Highway Noise ❑ ❑ ❑ NA [I A ® B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ Source: On-site Inspection, Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: The proposed project is located adjacent to 1-10. The proposed use for billboards would not be impacted by the noise created from traffic on 1-10. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 31. Other Noise ❑ ❑ ❑ NA ® A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ Source: Project Application Materials, GIS database Findings of Fact: No other noise sources have been identified near the project site that would contribute a significant amount of noise to the project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 32. Noise Effects on or by the Project ❑ ❑ ❑ a) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? b) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ❑ ❑ ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels ❑ ❑ ❑ in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? d) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ❑ ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? Source: Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: a) The proposed use for billboards on the project site would not create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Page 23 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) The proposed use for billboards on the project site would not create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. c) The proposed use for billboards on the project site would not expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards of the General Plan or Ordinance No. 847. d) The proposed project would not expose persons to excessive ground-borne vibration or ground- borne noise levels. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project 33. Housing ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? b) Create a demand for additional housing, particularly ❑ ❑ ❑ housing affordable to households earning 80% or less of the County's median income? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? d) Affect a County Redevelopment Project Area? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ❑ ❑ ❑ population projections? f) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ❑ ❑ ❑ either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Source: Project Application Materials, GIS database, Riverside County General Plan Housing Element Findings of Fact: a) The project site is currently vacant; therefore the project will not displace any housing. b) The project will not create a demand for additional housing. c) The project will not displace any people. d) The project will not affect a County Redevelopment Project Area. Page 24 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated e) The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. f) The project could encourage additional residential developments in the area, but the development would have to be consistent with the General Plan; therefore, the project would not induce substantial population growth. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 34. Fire Services ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Source: Riverside County General Plan Safety Element Findings of Fact: The project area is serviced by the Riverside County Fire Department. Any effects will be mitigated by the payment of standard fees to the County of Riverside. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 35. Sheriff Services ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Source: RCIP Findings of Fact: The project area is serviced by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. Any effects will be mitigated by the payment of standard fees to the County of Riverside. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 36. Schools ❑ ❑ ❑ El Source: Palm Springs Unified School District, GIS database Findings of Fact: The proposed project is located within the Palm Springs Unified School District. Since the project will not directly or indirectly increase population, the project is not required to pay school mitigation fees. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Page 25 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 37. Libraries ❑ ❑ ❑ Source: RCIP Findings of Fact: Since the project will not directly or indirectly increase population that would require library service, the project is not required to pay impact fees for libraries. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 38. Health Services ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Source: RCIP Findings of Fact: Since the project will not directly or indirectly increase population that would require health services, the project is not required to pay impact fees for health services. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. RECREATION 39. Parks and Recreation ❑ ❑ ❑ EJ a) Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? b) Would the project include the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? c) Is the project located within a C.S.A. or recreation ❑ ❑ ❑ and park district with a Community Parks and Recreation Plan (Quimby fees)? Source: GIS database, Ord. No. 460, Section 10.35 (Regulating the Division of Land — Park and Recreation Fees and Dedications), Ord. No. 659 (Establishing Development Impact Fees), Parks & Open Space Department Review Findings of Fact: Page 26 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated a-c) Since the project will not directly or indirectly increase population that would require recreational facilities, the project will not have an impact on recreational facilities. The project will not be required to pay quimby fees. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 40. Recreational Trails ❑ ❑ ❑ Source: Riv. Co. 800 Scale Equestrian Trail Maps, Open Space and Conservation Map for Western County trail alignments Findings of Fact: The proposed project is not located adjacent to or near any designated recreational trail. The project will not increase the need for trails in the area. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project 41. Circulation ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ❑ ❑ ❑ service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated road or highways? d) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ❑ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? e) Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? g) Cause an effect upon, or a need for new or altered ❑ ❑ ❑ maintenance of roads? h) Cause an effect upon circulation during the project's ❑ ❑ ® ❑ construction? i) Result in inadequate emergency access or access ❑ ❑ ❑ to nearby uses? j) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative ❑ ❑ ❑ transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Page 27 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Source: RCIP Findings of Fact: a) The proposed relocation of existing billboards would not create additional traffic to the surrounding road network b) The project would not result in inadequate parking capacity. c) The project would not exceed a level of service standard established by the county. d) The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. e) The project would not alter waterborne, rail, or air traffic f) The project would not increase hazards to a design feature g) The project would not cause an effect upon or a need for new or altered maintenance of roads h) The project would not cause a substantial effect on circulation during project construction i) The project would not result in inadequate emergency access j) The project would not conflict with policies supporting alternative transportation Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 42. Bike Trails ❑ ❑ ❑ Source: RCIP Findings of Fact: The proposed project is not located adjacent to or near any designated recreational trail. The project will not increase the need for trails in the area. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project 43. Water ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? Page 28 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ ❑ project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Source: Department of Environmental Health Review Findings of Fact: a-b) The project will not require water service to the site. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 44. Sewer ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, including septic systems, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? b) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment provider that serves or may service the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Source: Department of Environmental Health Review a-b) The project will not require sewer service to the site. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 45. Solid Waste ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? b) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ regulations related to solid wastes (including the CIWMP (County Integrated Waste Management Plan)? Source: RCIP, Riverside County Waste Management District correspondence a-b) The project will not require waste disposal service to the site. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Page 29 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 46. Utilities a) Would the project impact the following facilities requiring or resulting in the construction of new facilities or the expansion of existing facilities; the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? a) Electricity? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Natural gas? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Communications systems? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Storm water drainage? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Street lighting? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ❑ ❑ ® El- Source: RCIP Findings of Fact: Letters to the applicable servicing entities did not elicit any responses indicating that the proposed project would require substantial new facilities or expand facilities. Mitigation: No mitigation measures required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. OTHER 47. Other: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Source: Staff review Findings of Fact: Mitigation: Monitoring: OTHER 48. Other: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Source: Staff review Findings of Fact: Mitigation: Monitoring: Page 30 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated OTHER 49. Other: ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Source: Staff review Findings of Fact: Mitigation: Monitoring: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 50. Does the project have the potential to substantially ❑ ❑ El degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare, or endangered plant or animal to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Source: Staff review, Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: Implementation of the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife populations to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 51. Does the project have the potential to achieve short- ❑ ❑ ❑ term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one that occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) Source: Staff review, Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 52. Does the project have impacts which are individually ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Page 31 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects as defined in California Code of Regulations, Section 15130)? Source: Staff review, Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 53. Does the project have environmental effects that will ❑ ❑ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Source: Staff review, project application Findings of Fact: The proposed project would not result in environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. VI. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration as per California Code of Regulations, Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: Earlier Analyses Used, if any: RCIP: Riverside County Integrated Project Location Where Earlier Analyses, if used, are available for review: Location: County of Riverside Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, CA 92505 Y:\Planning Case Files-Riverside office\GPA00864\GPA864-CZ7535-EA41426.doc Revised:817/06 Page 32 of 32 EA41426 Agenda Item No.: 5.5 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 Area Plan: Western Coachella Valley CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 Zoning District: Thousand Palms E.A. Number: 41426 Supervisorial District: Fourth Applicant: Lamar Advertising Project Planner: Russell Brady Planning Commission: July 11, 2006 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: General Plan Amendment No. 864 proposes to designate the site as Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) and to modify and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing billboards if the new location is determined to have a minimal impact on the scenic setting. Change of Zone No. 7535 proposes to alter the site's current zoning classification from Rural Residential (R-R)to Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC). The project is located southerly of Interstate 10, westerly of Portola Avenue, northerly of Dinah Shore Drive, and easterly of Monterey Avenue in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan. ISSUES OF POTENTIAL CONCERN: Justification for the proposed General Plan Amendment General Plan Amendment No. 864 proposes to modify and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing billboards if the new location is determined to have a minimal impact on the scenic setting and to provide a Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) land use designation on the subject site. The site currently has no land use designation. According to the Administration Chapter (Chapter 10) of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP), the proposed General Plan Amendment falls into the Entitlement/Policy Amendment category which involves changes in land use designations or policies that involve land located entirely within a General Plan Foundation Component but that do not change the boundaries of that component. This t e of amendment may also involve changes in General Plan policy as Iona as it dnPs not change the Riverside County ision oun anon omgonent or a �Pnera Plan Principle. This chapter also addresses the required and optional findings needed to justify a General Plan Amendment. Required Entitlement/Policy Amendment Findings The first two findings and any one or more of the subsequent findings would justify an entitlement/policy amendment: a. The proposed change would not involve a change i n or conflict with: (1) The Riverside County Vision; (2) Any General Plan Principle; or (3) Any Foundation Component designation in the General Plan. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 Planning Commission Staff Report: July 11, 2007 Page 2 of 4 b. The proposed amendment would either contribute to the achievement of the purposes of the General Plan or, at a minimum, would not be detrimental to them. �-9L^/ _ c. Special circumstances or conditions have emerged that were unanticipated in preparing the General Plan. \, The following findings are made in support of the proposed General Plan Amendment: a. The proposed changE in the Area Plan policy and change to a Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) land use designation will not involve a change in and will not conflict with the following: 1 T (1) The Riverside County Vision —the proposed project does conform to the fundamental values stated in the RCIP Vision Chapter and in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan Vision Summary section, which include, but are not limited to dedication to the preservation of the environmental features that frame the community preservation of the sense of communitv within the Area Plan, and commitment to quality development in partners ip with those who help build our communities through project design and provision o amenities and in rastructure, (2)Any General Plan Principle— the proposed project wil l not be in -QWfIirA-;Nith the- 5 General Plan's principles, which include mserving the unique natural setting while V� minlnllZlnp the imparts of encroaching and preservation of scenic resources (3) Any Foundation Component designation in the General Plan — the project currently does not have a foundation component. b. The proposed amendment does contribute to the achievement of the purposes of the General Plan. The proposed project does not have the potential to be detrimental to the purposes of the General Plan and the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan. The proposed project is consistent and compatible with the existing and future surrounding general plan Ian ucT�se aesi nation o classifici a it ons, an al nc!-uses whichinc u e existin existing and planned single family residential land uses. ) C . �; ,� +0 M - Sc I,��� ��✓t -7 c. There have been special circumstances that have emerged that were unanticipated in preparing the Genera an that warrant such a c ange in an us e. a po icy a op a in the estern Coachella Valley Area Plan's goal is to protect the scenic qualities and visua character of the area. In the case of the proposed project, there are existing billboards proposed to be removed by a planned residential project. The proposed modification of th -7 policy to allow relocation of billboards would essentially maintain the same scenic qualities and visual character that currently exists in the area. a' SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: 1. Existing Land Use (Ex. #1): Vacant 2. Surrounding Land Use(Ex. #1): 1-10 to the north and east, single family residential and vacant land to the south and west GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 Planning Commission Staff Report: July 11, 2007 Page 3 of 4 3. Existing Zoning (Ex. #2): Rural Residential (R-R) 4. Surrounding Zoning (Ex. #2): Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) to the north and east and City of Palm Desert to the south and west 5. General Plan: Land Use: N/A 6. Project Data: Total Acreage: 19.84 7. Environmental Concerns: See attached environmental assessment RECOMMENDATIONS: ADOPTION of a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 41426, based on the findings incorporated in the initial study and the conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; TENTATIVE APPROVAL of GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 amending the land use designation in the General Plan to designate the site as Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) and to modify and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing billboards if the new location is determined to have a minimal impact on the scenic setting.; TENTATIVE APPROVAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 from Rural Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC) in accordance with Exhibit 3, based upon final adoption by the Board of Supervisors; and, ADOPTION of a RESOLUTION recommending adoption of the General Plan Amendment No. 864 to the Board of Supervisors; CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed project is in conformance with the Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) Land Use Designation, and with all other elements of the Riverside County General Plan. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC) zoning classification of Ordinance No. 348, and with all other applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 348. 3. The public's health, safety, and general welfare are protected through project design. It—I ;4 1� 4. The proposed project is compatible with the present and future logical development of the area. 5. The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 6. The proposed project will not preclude reserve design for the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSCHP). FINDINGS: The following findings are in addition to those incorporated in the summary of findings, and in the attached environmental assessment, which is incorporated herein by reference. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 Planning Commission Staff Report: July 11, 2007 Page 4 of 4 1. The project site is designated currently has no land use designation on the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan. ["'L'2. The project proposes to change the land use to Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio). 3. The project site is surrounded by properties which are designated Community Development: Commercial Retail (CD: CR) (0.20-0.35 Floor Area Ratio) to the north and east and the City of Palm Desert to the south and west. It-- 4. The zoning for the subject site is Rural Residential (R-R) je,".k r1N v-4- 5. The project proposes to change the current zoning designation from Rural Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing—Service Commercial (M-SC) vr./� 01. G-t—A 01..,E 6. The project site is surrounded by properties which are zoned Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P- S)to the north and east and City of Palm Desert to the south and west. 7. The proposed use, for relocation of an existing billboard, is permitted in the Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC)zone. • 8. This project is not located within a C riteria Area of the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 9. Environmental Assessment No. 41426 did not identify any potentially significant impacts. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1. As of this writing, no letters, in suppo rt or opposition have been received. 2. The p�IA 4-le d within: a. 100- ear flood zone; b. A KR Core eserve Area; C. A dam inundation area; d. An Area Drainage Plan; e. A hazardous fire area; f. An agricultural preserve; or g. An Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault hazard zone. 3. The project site is located within: a. The boundaries of the Pal m Springs Unified School District; b. Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance A rea; and C. Whitewater Watershed. 4. The subject site is currently designated as Assessor's Parcel Number 653-250-012. Y:\Planning Case Files-Riverside office\GPA00864\GPA864 SR.doc Date Prepared: 6/28/07 Date Revised: 7/3/07 NOBLE & COMPANY, LLC Mr. Russell Brady Contract Planner Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9`h Floor Riverside, CA 92502-1409 By e-mail rbrady@rctlma.org Also By FAX(951)955-3157 RE: General Plan Amendment No. 864/Change of Zone No. 7535-EA4126 Dear Mr. Brady: Thank you for returning my telephone call so promptly today as well as for the information that you provided therein. Based upon our conversation, it appears that the subject property, upon which billboards are proposed to be allowed, is the railroad right of way running along the south side of I-10 between Monterey Avenue and Portola Avenue(extended). Our company, Noble & Company, LLC, developed Gateway Industrial Park at Palm Desert which is adjacent to the south of the subject property, separated from same only by a 50 foot wide storm water channel which is owned by the City of Palm Desert. In addition to our role as developer, I am currently the President of the Gateway Industrial Park at Palm Desert Property Owners Association as well as a property owner within the development. We were not aware of the action proposed in the subject case until late last week when an owner of property abutting the subject land sent us a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing. Notice of the hearing was not received by the Association,Noble &Company, LLC or me individually. By copies of this letter I am notifying other affected property owners. Please be advised that I, individually and on behalf of the Gateway Industrial Park at Palm Desert Property Owners Association, strongly oppose proposed General Plan Amendment No. 864 and Change of Zone No. 7535-EA4126. The installation of billboards along the subject strip of land would have serious negative effects on both the aesthetic and economic values of properties within Gateway Industrial Park at Palm Desert. Sincerely, Thomas S.Noble CC: Julie Peccorini,Esq. Dan Rosenthal Gateway Property Owners 74-075 El Paseo, Suite A3 o Palm Desert, California 92260 Tel. (760) 836-9073•Fax (760) 836-9074• E-mail: Noblecompanyllc@aol.com L CARVER COMPANIES SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPERS July 10, 2007 Mr. Russell Brady Contract Planner Riverside County Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9`h Floor Riverside, CA 92502-1409 By e-mail rbradv!a rctlma.org Also by FAX (951) 955-3157 Re: General Plan Amendment No. 864 Change of Zone No. 7535-EA4126 Dear Mr. Brady: The undersigned is the General Partner of Desert Gateway, L.P. which although is outside of your distribution of a Notice of the above item, we will be adversely impacted if approved by the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. It is unconceivable that the Planning Department could recommend approval of this application when it is in direct contradiction to the present General Plan of the County. All of us owners of the abutting properties to the South have come under the strict sign ordinances of the City of Palm Desert. Our visibility from the freeway will be greatly impaired by these highway billboards just a few feet away. 4Sinc ely, Ro William Carver RWC/sj 74-947 HIGHWAY I I I • INDIAN WELLS,CALIFORNIA 92210 (760)773-5855 • FAX(760)773-9565 U?I 1 Ul LCJC!f 10. 1 7 d 140DULIU00 INLWrUM I MLC 41_ Ln I H I l= r'Hl7t F71 F' FOCUS REAL ESTATE - LP f VIA PIAL AND FACSIM LE July 1.0,2007 Russell Brady Contract Planner RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 4080 Lemon St.,9th Floor Riverside, CA 92502-1409 RE, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT No.864,ZONE 7535—EA4I426 Dear Mr.Brady. Our firm serves as managing Partner Of the,Monterey Shore Business Park development located immediately adjacent to Interstate 10 in Palm Desert, Our project is part of the Gateway Industrial Park waster planned project. We acquired this site a year ago and have recently completed construction of an 83,000 square foot high-end business park. We are currently marketing the units Within our business park to prospective purchasers. As part of our acquisition due diligence,we carefully evaluated the existing entitlewcut and conditions of development that would apply in this area. We were particularly focused on the high quality architectural guidelines and the sign program that would apply to the Gateway ' Industrial Park. As part of our project,we have included a project identification sign along the freeway that will provide businesses within our project with overall project identity,allowing their clients and vendors to identify the project's location. The Western Coachella Valley Area Plan did not at the time of our acquisition,nor does it currently,allow for new billboards along I- As a property owner presumably located within the statutory notice area,we were surprised that we did not receive formal notice of this siguiticant change in County Land Use Policy. Since we learned of this matter on Monday,July 9,2007,by copy of a letter from the Owners Association, we have not,had an opportunity to formally research this matter and, due to prior schedule constraints, will be unable to attend Wednesday's hearing. We did,however want to register our objection to this zone change. We selected this property for acquisition and development based in large part on the high quality architectural and aesthetic standards established for this arca and our belief that current County policy would be Maintained. 16485 LAGUNA CANYON ROAD, SUITS 200 - IRVINE, CA 92618 TEL, 949.45;�.2240 AAX. 949.453.2244 WEBStTER www_rocusrelp.corn - -------- ..`.... .... ..�.-.� �....,-- 1 MUL- V L7 U L .14 Mr. Russell Brady July 10, 2007 Page.2 We believe that the addition of billboards to.this location would have serious,detr mental aesthetic and economic effect.on our project. As Mr.Noble,president of our Owner's Association noted in his recent letter,I am sure that the other property owners located within the Gateway Industrial Park would share this concern. Sincerely, Focus REAL ESTATE,LF r Richard M.Ortwein Managing Partner cc, Roy Wilson, Supervisor,District 4,County of Riverside(via fax) Thomas S.Noble(via email and fax) Lauri.AyWau,Director of Planning,City of Palm Desert r Y OF fl M DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346—o6ii FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-desert.org July 5, 2007 Russell Brady County of Riverside Permit Assistance Center 4080 Lemon Street, Ninth Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Ref: General Plan Amendment No. 864/Change of Zone No. 7535-EA41426 Dear Mr. Brady: The City of Palm Desert has received a Notice of Public Hearing and intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration regarding the subject proposed amendment to the County General Plan. The City of Palm Desert objects strongly to this proposal. The existing General Plan for Riverside County explicitly recognizes the aesthetic quality of the 1-10 corridor through the Coachella Valley. It rightfully acknowledges that "the scenic qualities of the Coachella Valley are widely cherished by residents and visitors alike". In recognition of the importance of this precept, Policy WCVAP 14.2 prohibits a placement of a billboard within the western Coachella Valley. Further, WCVAP 14.4 identifies 1-10 as a scenic corridor and, therefore, prohibits placement of single support freestanding signs for advertising. The idea that the General Plan and the current zoning should be revised to allow relocation of billboards that are being removed for development flies in the face of the General Plan. Where new development requires removal of billboards, installation of new or replacement billboards should not be permitted. Instead, the removal of existing signs should be used as an opportunity to implement the letter and intent of the General Plan, which is to preserve the Valley's visual character "particularly in the face of expanding urbanization". To do any less simply because the applicant, Lamar Advertising, stands to benefit financially from such permission reduces to financial terms something on which no financial value can or should be placed. We respectfully request that the Riverside County Planning Commission deny the applicant's request. This would be consistent with the County's General Plan and with the preservation of the scenic corridor and the aesthetic value of the Coachella Valley, which sets it above and apart from Orange County and other Southern California communities. Sincerely, �V d c and Kelly Mayor, City of Palm Dese cc: Council Member Jim Ferguson Council Member Cindy Finerty Council Member Robert Spiegel Mayor Pro Tem Jean Benson City Manager Carlos Ortega C�nimo ON Afcrtuo ruts NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING and INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the project shown below: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 / CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 — EA41426 — Applicant: Lamar Advertising — Fourth Supervisorial District — Thousand Palms Zoning Dist r t — Western Coachella Valley Area Plan: Currently no General Plan Land Use Designation — No Policy Area Location: South ly of Interstate 10, westerly of Portola Avenue, northerly of Dinah Shore Drive, and easterly ot`Monterey Avenu e 19.84 Net Acres - Zoning: Rural Residential (R-RI Pursuant to Ordinance 348, Riverside County Land se Ordinance and Ordinance No. 460, Riverside County Subdivision Ordinance; The General Plan Amendment proposes to designate the site as Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) and to modify and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing billboards if the new location is determined to have a minimal impact on the scenic setting. The Change of Zone proposes to alter the site's current zoning classification from Rural Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC). —APN: 653-250-0JEDNIESDAY, ------ - TIME OF HEARING: M. or as soon as possible thereafter. DATE OF HEARING: JULY 11 2007 PLACE OF HEARING: ERN CENTER FOR ARCHAEOLOGY AN PALEONTOLOGY tKWA HEMET, CALIFORNIA 92543 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING THIS PROJECT, PLEASE CONTACT PROJECT PLANNER, Russell Brady, Ph (951) 955- , or E-mail at bcanseco@rctima.org. Project information is also available on the Planning Department's Plannin�Commission agenda web page at: http://www.rctlma.org/planning. 1�50 Tpy ,, T CASS-3151 The Riverside County Planning Department has determined that the above project will not have a significant effect on the environment and has recommended adoption of a mitigated negative declaration. The Planning Commission will consider the proposed project and the proposed mitigated negative declaration, at the public hearing. The case file for the proposed project and the proposed mitigated negative declaration may be viewed Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., (with the exception of Noon-1:00 p.m. and holidays) at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. For further information or an appointment, contact the project planner. Any person wishing to comment on a proposed project may do so, in writing, between the date of this notice and the public hearing or appear and be heard at the time and place noted above. All comments received prior to the public hearing will be submitted to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission will consider such comments, in addition to any oral testimony, before making a decision on the proposed project. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Be advised that, as a result of public hearings and comment, the Planning Commission may amend, in whole or in part, the proposed project. Accordingly, the designations, development standards, design or improvements, or any properties or lands, within the boundaries of the proposed project, may be changed in a way other than specifically proposed. Please send all written correspondence to: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PERMIT ASSISTANCE CENTER RECEIVED Attn: Russell Brady, 4080 Lemon Street, 9ch Floor, Riverside, CA 92501 -� 4 17 2007 6u 1 OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 1409, Riverside, CA 92502 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE THIS MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY _ 'his map mrt.ns date tom R,wsde C o,n t,GIS.I ma ge ry kpn Ph 010 fl—1st_ n 2000 This msp a mt inti, tl•a uth - -ofthe bata.Ths sfor r_ -_ ywitshoJd_ � e�dt`��cCa6bmia Surveyor TMa r�l ,r TM ULM a G � • ,;e�•• _ � �=�1;'�� fi Z� �;�\'� �� M♦ ~•ti , III b l� 41 Fill I No • i; �41F Legend Y n c Proposed Sign N ztt� �rl Existing Sign Project Parcel General Parcel 4 , 1 inch equals 400 feet Exhibit Prepared 06/27/17/ ' _ - At• +'1-_� 'his map mrtaim data tom Riverside County GIS Imagery tom Phatomapper town t t quarter 2006.This map a not Interbea to repia ic.Calibmia Sun,eyoc The author d—not certity the accaacy onhe data.To,• only and shodtl nr. a ed for c NJ Niz , of , 1 d aV r may . \ ♦ ♦/ �, `�' . \ �-.ti :fir� � `�i Zf t � � `ram` \,•'1� .. � � .. = Ir MEN IM 01 AMM Proposed Sign ,{ \\ , ' ' ' .• : Existing Sign X, I — — — ♦4 ;'�-*$ 4 , :,y i—J Project Parcel General Parcel l inch equals 400 feet , `• ' Ich nit Pmpered 06l27/07 CITY OF P 1 0 1 1 P I ' 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 by TEL: 760 346-o6ii FAX: 760 341-7098 NN info@palm-desert.org October 2, 2007 Riverside County Planning Commission Attn: Mark Balys, Deputy Planning Director 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92502-1409 RE: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 348.4529 — EA41426 Dear Planning Commission: The City of Palm Desert hereby submits the attached letter for your consideration of Planning Commission Agenda Item 5.1 on Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4529 — EA41426. Sincer ly, HOMER CROY ACM for Development Services HC:LA/tm Attachment: - Letter to Riverside County Board of Supervisors dated August 27, 2007 cc: Mayor Richard S. Kelly Mayor Pro Tem Jean Benson Council Member Jim Ferguson Council Member Cindy Finerty Council Member Bob Spiegel `�nIxi(o ON RFUCLED MR CITY Of r M OESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346—o6ii FAX: 760 341-7098 info@paim-deserr.org August 27, 2007 The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors County of Riverside c/o Clerk of the Board Ms. Nancy Romero 4080 Lemon Street, 1st Floor P.O. Box 1147 Riverside, California 92502-1147 Re: Environmental Assessment (E.A.) Number 41426; General Plan Amendment No. 864; Change of Zone No. 7535 Dear Chairman and Board of Supervisors: Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21177 and other provisions of California law, the City of Palm Desert ("Palm Desert") objects to the above-referenced project, to the above-referenced initial study, and to any proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration related thereto. The grounds on which Palm Desert objects include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: 1. Environmental Assessment Number 41426 ("the initial study") is inadequate and fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub.Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines in that it fails to adequately explain and analyze the basis for the conclusions of insignificance with respect to Aesthetics/Scenic Resources, Biological Resources and Planning and Land Use. 2. The initial study violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines in that it fails to complete the Mandatory Findings of Significance (checklist items 50, 51 , 52 and 53). 3. The initial study violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines in that it fails to consider the cumulative impacts that the proposed modifications and policy additions to the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan will have with respect to an Riverside County Board of Supervisors GPA No. 864 — Billboards Page 2 of 3 August 27, 2007 unknown number of future billboard relocation projects. Though the project applicant proposes specific billboard relocations, the effect of the amended and added policies will allow for unlimited billboard relocations in the future. How many "existing billboards" are there within the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan that might be relocated to more harmful and aesthetically sensitive locations under the amended policy? The initial study entirely ignores the long-term, cumulative impacts. 4. The County has completely failed to consult with neighboring and affected agencies that share responsibility for preserving resources in the Coachella Valley, including scenic resources. The initial study completely ignores the impact on such resources that will result in such neighboring jurisdictions. 5. The initial study and the proposed project completely fail to consider the impact that permitting relocation of billboards will have on the long-range possibility of eliminating scenic blight inflicted by existing billboards. 6. The initial study completely fails to consider the impact the project and potential cumulative impacts will have on the planning and land use goals and policies of Palm Desert and other affected agencies. 7. The initial study completely fails to consider the effect the project's impacts and potential cumulative impacts will have on property situated in areas relatively free from billboards and protected by policies proscribing billboard proliferation that will now face billboards newly placed in their vicinity. 8. The initial study concludes that a "Mitigated Negative Declaration" ("MND") is appropriate. A MND is proper where "the initial study has identified potentially significant" environmental impacts, but those impacts will be mitigated to the point of insignificance by project modifications and/or mitigation measures, along with mitigation monitoring mechanisms, identified in the MND (Pub. Res. Code § 21064.5). A MND is not appropriate where, as here, the County identifies no potentially significant impacts. It is obvious, though, that there are potentially significant impacts which the County hopes to ignore by its deficient initial study and its misleading and improper finding that the MND is appropriate. The proper procedure is to identify the potentially significant impacts as such, then identify specific measures to be taken to reduce those potentially significant impacts to a point of insignificance. (worditmicorrbiiIboards RivCo Supervisors 8-27-07) CITY OF PALM DESERT Riverside County Board of Supervisors GPA No. 864 — Billboards Page 3 of 3 August 27, 2007 9. No proposed "Mitigated Negative Declaration" has been published, circulated or made available for public inspection and comment, nor have any mitigation measures been identified. It is impossible for the public to determine whether the potentially significant impacts can be and will be mitigated to insignificance. Palm Desert respectfully submits that approval of this project on the initial study would be in violation of CEQA. Accordingly, Palm Desert respectfully requests that this Honorable Board of Supervisors duly perform its lawful duty to deny this project, deny approval of the initial study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, and refrain from any approval of this project until a proper EIR has been duly prepared, circulated and certified. Sincerely, R OS L. ORTEG City anager CL :LA cc: Mayor Richard S. Kelly Mayor Pro Tern Jean Benson Council Member Jim Ferguson Council Member Cindy Finerty Council Member Bob Spiegel (word/tm/corr/billboards RivCo Supervisors 8-27-07) CITY OF PALM DESERT Y Copies also given to: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Gregory M. Kunert Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101 (word/tm/corr/billboards RivCo Planning Commission 10-02-07) r G ARTICLE XIX ADVERTISING REGULATIONS Section 19.1. PURPOSE AND INTENT. Because Riverside County is a large, diverse and rapidly expanding jurisdiction,the Board of Supervisors finds that proper sign control is necessary for aesthetic and safety reasons. More specifically, proper sign control is necessary to provide for the preservation and protection of open space and scenic areas,the many natural and man-made resources, and the established rural communities within Riverside County. Proper sign control also safeguards the life,health,property and public welfare of Riverside County residents by providing the means to adequately identify businesses and other sign users,by prohibiting,regulating and controlling the design, location and maintenance of signs, and by providing for the removal and limitation of sign use. It is the intent of this ordinance to provide for such control. All displays and signs described herein shall conform to the applicable provisions of this article. If any specific zoning classification within this ordinance shall impose more stringent requirements than are set forth within this article,the more stringent provisions shall prevail. Section 19.2. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this ordinance,the following words or phrases shall have the following definitions. a. "ABANDONED" means either: (1)Any outdoor advertising display that is allowed to continue for more than one year without a poster,bill,printing,painting, or other form of advertisement or message; or (2)Any outdoor advertising display that does not appear on the inventory required by Section 19.3.b.12.; or (3)Any on-site advertising structure or sign that is allowed to continue for more than 90 days without a poster,bill,printing,painting, or other form of advertising or message for the purposes set forth in Section 19.2.m.hereof. b. Repealed. Amended Effective: 07-23-99(Ord.348.3881) c. 'EDGE OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY" means a measurement from the edge of a right-of-way horizontally along a line normal or perpendicular to the centerline of the freeway or highway. d. Repealed. Amended Effective: 07-23-99(Ord.348.3881) e. "FREE STANDING SIGN" means any sign which is supported by one or more columns or uprights imbedded in the ground, and which is not attached to any building or structure. • f. "FREEWAY" means a divided arterial highway for through traffic with full control of access and with grade separations at interSection s. g. "HIGHWAY" means roads, streets,boulevards, lanes, courts,places, commons, trails, ways or other rights-of-way or easements used for or laid out and intended for the public passage of vehicles or persons. h. "ILLEGAL OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAY" means any of the following: (1)An outdoor advertising structure or outdoor advertising sign erected without first complying with all applicable county ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of its construction, erection or use. (2)An outdoor advertising structure or outdoor advertising sign that was legally erected but whose use has ceased, or the structure upon which the advertising display is placed has been abandoned by its owner, and not maintained or used for a period of not less than one year. (3)An outdoor advertising structure or outdoor advertising sign that was legally erected which later became nonconforming as a result of the adoption of an ordinance; the amortization period for the display provided by the ordinance rendering the display nonconforming has expired; and conformance has not been accomplished. (4)An outdoor advertising structure or outdoor advertising sign which does not comply with this Article, the Outdoor Advertising Display Permit referenced in Section 19.3.a. hereof, the State Outdoor Advertising Permit referenced in Section 19.3.b.(4)hereof or any related building permit. (5)An outdoor advertising structure or outdoor advertising sign which is a danger to the public or is unsafe. i. "ILLEGAL ON-SITE ADVERTISING STRUCTURE OR SIGN" means any of the following. (1)An on-site advertising structure or sign erected without first complying with all applicable County ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of its construction, erection or use. (2)An on-site advertising structure or sign that was legally erected, but whose use has ceased, or the structure upon which the advertising display is placed has been abandoned by its owner, and not maintained or used to identify or advertise an ongoing business for a period of not less than 90 days. (3)An on-site advertising structure or sign that was legally erected which later became nonconforming as a result of the adoption of an ordinance; the amortization period for the display provided by the ordinance rendering the display nonconforming has expired; and conformance has not been accomplished. j. "MAXIMUM HEIGHT" means the highest point of the structure or sign measured from the average natural ground level at the base of the supporting structure. Provided,however, within the boundaries of the R-VC Zone(Rubidoux-Village Commercial), maximum height shall mean the height measured from the average adjacent finish grade (excluding artificial berms and raised planters)to the uppermost portion of the border of the surface area of the sign,except that: (1) Structural supports and non-sign architectural features may project above the maximum height limit to the limits prescribed in the applicable zoning ordinances and (2) Signs affixed to the building may be placed at any height as long as the sign conforms to the other regulations of this ordinance. k. ANON-COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE OR SIGN@ means any structure,housing, sign, device,figure, statuary,painting, display, message, placard or other contrivance, which is designed, constructed, created,engineered, intended or used to provide data or information that does not do any of the following: (1)Advertise a product or service for profit or for a business purpose; (2)Propose a commercial transaction; or (3)Relate solely to economic interests. 1. "ON-SITE ADVERTISING STRUCTURE OR SIGN" means any structure,housing, sign, device, figure, statuary, painting, display,message placard, or other contrivance, or any part thereof, which is designed, constructed, created, engineered, intended, or used to advertise, or to provide data or information that does either of the following: (1)Designates, identifies, or indicates the name of the business of the owner or occupant of the premises upon which the structure or sign is located. (2)Advertises the business conducted, services available or rendered, or the goods produced, sold, or available for sale, upon the premises where the structure or sign is located. in. "OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAY" means an outdoor advertising structure or outdoor advertising sign used for outdoor advertising purposes,not including on-site advertising signs as herein defined and directional sign structures as provided in Riverside County Ordinance No. 679. An outdoor advertising display may be commonly known or referred to as an 'off-site" or an Aoff-premises" billboard. Amended: 07-23-99(Ord.348.3881) n. "OUTDOOR ADVERTISING SIGN" means any card, cloth,paper, metal,painted, plastic or wooden sign of any character placed for outdoor advertising purposes and affixed to an outdoor advertising display or structure. Amended: 07-23-99(Ord.348.3881) o. "OUTDOOR ADVERTISING STRUCTURE" means a structure of any kind or character erected,used or maintained for outdoor advertising purposes,upon which any poster, bill, printing, painting or other advertisement of any kind whatsoever may be placed, including statuary, for outdoor advertising purposes. Such structure shall be constructed or erected upon a permanent foundation or shall be attached to a structure having a permanent foundation. p. "SCENIC HIGHWAY" means any officially designated state or county scenic highway as defined in Streets and Highway Code Section s 154 and 261 et seq. q. "SHOPPING CENTER" means a parcel of land not less than three acres in size, on which there exists four or more separate business uses that have mutual parking facilities. 18. Repealed. Amended Effective: 07-23-99(Ord.348.3881) s. >SIGNIFICANT RESOURCES'means any County, State or Federal site which has significant or potentially significant social, cultural,historical, archaeological, recreational or scenic resources, or which plays or potentially could play a significant role in promoting tourism. For the purposes of this article, the term significant resources shall include,but not be limited to, the following: (1)Riverside National Cemetery. A strip, 660 feet in width, measured from the edge of the right-of-way line on both sides of I-215 from the interSection of Van Buren Boulevard southerly to Nance Road, and on both sides of Van Buren Boulevard from the interSection of I-215 westerly to Wood Road. (2) Scenic Highways. (3)A corridor 500 feet in width adjacent to both sides of all highways within three-tenths (3/10)of a mile of any Regional, State or Federal park or recreation area. (4)A corridor 500 feet in width adjacent to both sides of State Highway 74 (State Route 74)extending from its interSection with Interstate 15 to its interSection with Winchester Road (State Route 79), and from there easterly to the city limits of the City of Hemet,on both sides of the road. (5)A corridor 500 feet in width adjacent to both sides of I-15 from the Riverside/San Diego County line northerly to the city limits of the City of Temecula. (6)A corridor 500 feet in width adjacent to both sides of Grand Avenue from the city limits of the City of Lake Elsinore,just northerly of Bonnie Lea Drive, to Clinton Keith Road, and adjacent to both sides of Clinton Keith Road from Interstate 15 to the city limits of the City of Murrieta. (7)A corridor 550 feet in width, measured from the edge of the right-of-way line adjacent to both sides of Interstate 15, extending from its interSection with state Highway 60 southerly to the city limits of the City of Norco. Amended Effective: 07-23-99(Ord.348.3881) 11-31-00(Ord.348.3964) 02-23-04(Ord.348.4110) t. Repealed. Amended Effective: 07-23-99(Ord.348.3881) Section 19.3. OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS. No person shall erect,use or maintain an outdoor advertising display in the unincorporated area of the County, except in accordance with the following provisions. The changing of an advertising message or customary maintenance of a legally existing outdoor advertising display shall not require a permit pursuant to this Section . a.PERMIT PROCEDURE. (1)Application. In addition to all other applicable Federal, State, and local laws,rules, regulations and ordinances,no outdoor advertising display shall be placed, erected,used or maintained until an Outdoor Advertising Display Permit therefor has been issued by the County Planning Director,on the form provided by the County Planning Department accompanied by the filing fee set forth in Ordinance No. 671. The application shall consist of ten copies of a plot plan drawn to scale, containing the name, address or telephone number of the applicant, a copy of the current valid State Outdoor Advertising Permit referenced in Section 19.3.b.(4)hereof and a general description of the property upon which the outdoor advertising display is proposed to be placed. The plot plan shall show the precise location,type, and size of the proposed outdoor advertising display, all property lines, zoning, and the dimensions, location of and distance to the nearest advertising displays,building,business districts, significant resources as defined by Section 19.2.s. of this ordinance,public and private roads, and other rights-of-way, building setback lines, and specifically planned future road right-of-way lines, and any and all other information required by the Planning Director such that the proposed display may be readily ascertained, identified, and evaluated. (2)Issuance/Denial. The Planning Director shall, within forty-five(45) days of the filing of a complete permit application, approve and issue the Outdoor Advertising Display permit if the standards and requirements of this ordinance have been met; otherwise,the permit shall be denied. Judicial review of a decision denying the permit shall be made by a petition for writ of administrative mandamus filed in the Riverside County Superior Court, in accordance with the procedure set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.8.. Amended: 07-23-99(Ord.348.3881) I1-24-00(Ord.348.3961) (3)Assuming the Planning Director issues an Outdoor Advertising Display Permit, no person shall place, erect, use, maintain, alter, repair or relocate an outdoor advertising display or connect an outdoor advertising display to a power supply without first obtaining a building permit from the Department of Building and Safety. (4)Revocation. Any Outdoor Advertising Display Permit which has been issued as a result of a material misrepresentation of fact by the applicant or his agent, whether or not a criminal prosecution is initiated therefor, or which does not comply with this Article, the State Outdoor Advertising Permit referenced in Section 19.3.b.(4)hereof or any related building permit may be revoked by the Planning Director. The Planning Director shall forthwith give written notice of revocation to the applicant. Unless the permittee files with the Planning Department a written request for a hearing within 10 days of the date the notice was mailed,the Planning Director=s decision to revoke will be considered final. Failure to timely file a written request for a hearing constitutes a waiver of the right to a hearing. Notice of the hearing shall be given by mail to the permittee. The timely filing of a written notice to appeal shall stay the revocation until such time as the Planning Director issues their decision to grant or deny the appeal. Within 30 days after notice is given, or if a hearing is requested, within 30 days from the date of mailing the Planning Director—s decision to deny the appeal, any outdoor advertising display authorized by the Outdoor Advertising Display Permit shall be removed at the permittee's expense. Failure to remove the display within 30 days shall be deemed a separate violation of this ordinance. b. STANDARDS. (1)General Plan. Outdoor advertising displays shall be consistent with the Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. (2)Zoning. Outdoor advertising displays are permitted only in the C-1/C-P, M-SC, M-M �a and M-H Zones provided that the display meets all of the other requirements of the 011 zoning classification and this Article. Outdoor advertising displays are expressly prohibited in all other zones. (3)Height. The maximum height of an outdoor advertising display shall not exceed a height of 25 feet from the roadbed of the adjacent freeway or highway to which the display is oriented, or a maximum height of 25 feet from the grade on which it is 44 6 constructed, whichever is greater. (4)Setbacks. No outdoor advertising display shall be erected within an established setback or building line, or within road rich -nf--wav lines or future road right-of way lines as shown on any! i i` c Plan of Highways. A minimum setback om a property line of one foot shall be required. No person shall place, erect,use or maintain any outdoor advertising display located within 660 f et from the ed a of the ri ht of way of, and the copy which is visible from, any primary highway without first obtaining a valid State Outdoor Advertising Permit. (5)Poles. A maximum of two steel poles are allowed for support of an outdoor advertising display. (6)Roof Mounts. No outdoor advertising display shall be affixed on or over the roof of any building and no display shall be affixed to the wall of a building so that it projects above the parapet of the building. For the purposes of this Section, a mansard style roof shall be considered a parapet. (7)Number of Displays. No more than one proposed outdoor advertising display per application shall be permitted. (8)Number of Display Faces. No more than two display faces per outdoor advertising display shall be permitted. Only single face,back-to-back and V-type displays shall be allowed provided that they are on the same outdoor advertising structure and provided that the V-type displays have a separation between display faces of not more than 25 feet. Amended Effective: 11-24-00(Ord.348.3961) (9)Display Face Size. No outdoor advertising display shall have a total surface area of more than 300 square feet. (10)Display Movement. No outdoor advertising display shall move or rotate, to display any moving and/or rotating parts. No propellers, flags, or other noise creating devices, and no architectural embellishments which utilize mechanical or natural forces for motion, shall be permitted. Use of daylight reflective materials or electronic message boards using flashing, intermittent or moving light or lights is prohibited,provided, however, that electronic message boards displaying only time and/or temperature for periods of not less than 30 seconds is permitted. (11)Mobile Displays. No person shall place, use, maintain, or otherwise allow a mobile vehicle, trailer, or other advertising display not permanently affixed to the ground, as defined in Section 19.2.m. of this ordinance, to be used as an outdoor advertising display. Amended Effective: 11-24-00(Ord.348.3961) (12)Display Inventory. In order to evaluate and assess outdoor advertising displays within the unincorporated area of Riverside County, within 180 days of the effective date of this ordinance and on each fifth anniversary after the effective date of this ordinance, and upon notice, each display company with outdoor advertising displays within the unincorporated area of the County shall submit to the County Department of Building and Safety, a current Inventory of the outdoor advertising displays they currently own and/or maintain within the unincorporated area of the County. Failure to submit a current or accurate inventory shall be deemed to be a separate violation of this ordinance. (13) Lighting and Illumination of Displays. An outdoor advertising display may be illuminated,unless otherwise specified, provided that the displays are so constructed that no light bulb, tube,filament, or similar source of illumination is visible beyond the display face. Displays making use of lights to convey the effect of movement or flashing, intermittent,or variable intensity shall not be permitted. Displays shall use the most advanced methods to insure the most energy efficient methods of display illumination. Within the Palomar Observatory Special Lighting Area, all displays shall comply with the requirements of County Ordinance No. 655. (14) Spacing. No outdoor advertising display shall be located within 500 feet in any direction from any other outdoor advertising display on the same side of the highway; provided,however,that if in a particular zone a different interval shall be stated, the spacing interval of the particular zone shall prevail. No outdoor advertising display shall be erected within the boundary of any significant resource as defined in Section 19.2.s. of this ordinance. No outdoor advertising display shall be located within 150 feet of property for which the zoning does not allow advertising displays;provided,however, that an outdoor advertising display may be placed within 150 feet of property for which zoning does not allow displays, if at the time an application for an Outdoor Advertising Display Permit is applied for, there is no existing residential structure or an approved building permit for a residential structure within 150 feet of the location of the proposed outdoor advertising display. (15) Identification. No person shall place, erect,use or maintain an outdoor advertising display and no outdoor advertising display shall be placed, erected, used or maintained anywhere within the unincorporated area of the County unless there is securely fastened thereto and on the front display face thereof,the name of the outdoor advertising display owner in such a manner that the name is visible from the highway. Any display placed, erected, or maintained without this identification shall be deemed to be placed, erected, and maintained in violation of this Section . c. ENFORCEMENT. Wherever the officials responsible for the enforcement of administration of the County Land Use Ordinance No. 348 or their designated agents,have cause to suspect a violation of this article, or whenever necessary to investigate either an application for the granting, modification,or any action to suspend or revoke an outdoor advertising display permit, or whenever necessary to investigate a possible violation, such persons may lawfully gain access to the appropriate parcel of land upon which a violation is believed to exist. The following provisions shall apply to the violations of this article: (1)All violations of this article committed by any person, whether as agent, employee, officer, principal, or otherwise, shall be a misdemeanor. (2)Every person who knowingly provides false information on an outdoor advertising display permit application shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (3)Every person who fails to stop work on an outdoor advertising display, when so ordered by the Director of the Building and Safety Department or the Planning Director, or their designees shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (4)Every person who,having received notice to appear in court to answer a related charge, willfully fails to appear, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. (5)A misdemeanor may be prosecuted by the County in the name of the People of the State of California, or may be redressed by civil action. Each violation is punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars (1,000.00), or by imprisonment in the County jail for a term of not more than six months, or by both fine and imprisonment. (6)Every person found guilty of a violation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for every day during a portion of which the violation is committed, continued, or permitted by such person. (7)Every illegal outdoor advertising display and every abandoned outdoor advertising display is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall be subject to abatement by repair,rehabilitation, or removal in accordance with the procedures contained in Section 3. of County Ordinance No. 457. d. NONCONFORMING SIGNS. Every outdoor advertising display which does not conform to this ordinance shall be deemed to be a nonconforming sign and shall be removed or altered in accordance with this ordinance as follows: (1)Any outdoor advertising display which was lawfully in existence prior to the effective date of the enactment of County Ordinance No. 348.2496 (July 16, 1985) shall be abated or brought into conformance with these provisions by July 17, 1990. (2)Any outdoor advertising display which was lawfully in existence prior to the effective date of the enactment of County Ordinance No. 348.2856 (June 30, 1988)but after the effective date of the enactment of County Ordinance No. 348.2496 (July 16, 1985) shall be abated or brought into conformance with these provisions by July 1, 1993. (3)Any outdoor advertising display which was lawfully in existence prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 348.2989 but after the effective date of the enactment of County Ordinance No. 348.2856 (June 30, 1988)shall be abated or brought into conformance with these provisions within eleven years of the effective date of County Ordinance No. 348.2989 (June 20, 1989). (4)If Federal or State law requires the County to pay just compensation for the removal of any such lawfully erected but nonconforming outdoor advertising display, it may remain in place until just compensation as defined in the Eminent Domain Law (Title 7, of Part 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure) is paid. e. ILLEGAL AND ABANDONED SIGNS. All illegal outdoor advertising displays and all abandoned outdoor advertising displays shall be removed or brought into conformance with this ordinance immediately. County Ordinance No. 725 applies to all illegal outdoor advertising displays and abandoned outdoor advertising displays. In enforcing Ordinance No. 725 as it relates to illegal outdoor advertising displays and abandoned outdoor advertising displays the Notice required to be given to owner of the property shall also be given to (h)the owner of the sign, if the identification plate required by Business and Professions Code Section s 5362 and 5363 is affixed and(ii) the advertiser, if any, identified on the sign provided the address of the advertiser can reasonably be determined. Section 19.4. ON-SITE ADVERTISING STRUCTURES AND SIGNS. No person shall erect an on-site advertising structure or sign in the unincorporated area of the County that is in violation of the provisions contained within any specific zoning classification in this ordinance or that is in violation of the following provisions. a. FREE-STANDING SIGNS. (1)Located within 660 feet of the nearest edge of a freeway right of way line. a)The maximum height of a sign shall not exceed 45 feet. b)The maximum surface area of a sign shall not exceed 150 square feet. (2)Shopping Centers -All Locations. Notwithstanding the provisions of sub-paragraphs 1 and 2, an alternate standard for free standing on-site advertising signs for shopping centers is established as follows: a)The maximum surface area of a sign shall not exceed 50 square feet or.25 percent (1/4 of 1 percent) of the total existing building floor area in a shopping center, whichever is greater, except that in any event,no sign shall exceed 200 square feet in surface area. b)The maximum height of a sign shall not exceed 20 feet. (3)All Other Locations. a)The maximum height of a sign shall not exceed 20 feet. b)The maximum surface area of a sign shall not exceed 50 square feet. (4)Number of Free-standing Signs - All Locations. Not more than one free-standing sign shall be permitted on a parcel of land, except that if a shopping center has frontage on two or more streets,the shopping center shall be permitted two free-standing signs, provided that the two signs are not located on the same street; are at least 100 feet apart and the second sign does not exceed 100 square feet in surface area and 20 feet in height. b. SIGNS AFFIXED TO BUILDINGS -ALL AREAS. (1)No on-site advertising sign shall be affixed on, above or over the roof of any building, and no on-site advertising sign shall be affixed to the wall of a building so that it projects above the parapet of the building. For the purposes of this Section , a mansard style roof shall be considered a parapet. (2)The maximum surface area of signs affixed to a building shall be as follows: a)Front wall of building - The surface area of the sign shall not exceed ten percent of the surface area of the front face of the building. b) Side walls of a building- The surface area of the sign shall not exceed ten percent of the surface area of the side face of the building. c)Rear wall of a building-The surface area of the sign shall not exceed five percent of the surface area of the rear face of the building. c. ON-SITE SUBDIVISION SIGNS shall be subject to the following minimum standards: (19)No sign shall exceed 100 feet in surface area. (20)No sign shall be within 100 feet of any existing residence that is outside of the subdivision boundaries. (21)No more than two such signs shall be permitted for each subdivision. (22)No sign shall be artificially lighted. d. ON-SITE IDENTIFICATION SIGNS. On-site identification signs affixed to the surface of walls,windows, and doors of permanent structures, which do not exceed four inches in letter height and do not exceed four square feet in area are permitted in addition to any other sign permitted in this ordinance. e. ON-SITE SIGNAGE ALONG SCENIC CORRIDORS DESIGNATED WITHIN THE EASTERN COACHELLA VALLEY AND WESTERN COACHELLA VALLEY COMMUNITY PLANS. (1)The provisions of subSection s a,b, c, and d of Section 19.4 of this ordinance shall apply to areas within the boundaries of the adopted Eastern Coachella Valley Plan (ECVP) and Western Coachella Valley Plan(WCVP), with the following exceptions: a) In areas adjacent to scenic corridors as designated by the ECVP or WCVP, if a business chooses to advertise with a sign affixed to its primary building in lieu of a free-standing sign, then the maximum surface area of the sign affixed to the building shall not exceed the following: 1. Front wall of building - ten percent of the surface area of the front face of the building. 2. Side walls of building - ten percent of the surface area of the side face of the building. 3. Rear wall of building - ten percent of the surface area of the rear face of the building. b) MONUMENT SIGNS - For monument signs as defined within the policies of the ECVP or WCVP, along highway or freeway scenic corridors: 1. For a single business or tenant advertised,maximum surface area shall not exceed 150 square feet, and overall height shall not exceed 10 feet. 2. For multiple businesses or tenants advertised, maximum surface area shall not exceed 200 square feet, and overall height shall not exceed 12 feet. c) SHEATHED-SUPPORT SIGNS -For sheathed-support signs as defined within the policies of the ECVP or WCVP, along freeway scenic corridors: 1. For locations within 330 feet of the nearest edge of a freeway right-of-way line: a. For a single business or tenant advertised,maximum surface area shall not exceed 150 square feet, and overall height shall be equal to that of the use advertised,up to a maximum of 25 feet. b. For multiple businesses or tenants advertised, maximum surface area shall not exceed 200 square feet, and overall height shall be equal to that of the use advertised,up to a maximum of 25 feet. 2. For locations within 660 feet of the terminus of a freeway exit or the origination of a freeway entrance: a. For a single business or tenant advertised,maximum surface area shall not exceed 150 square feet, and overall height shall not exceed 35 feet. b. For multiple businesses or tenants advertised, maximum surface area shall not exceed 200 square feet, and overall height shall not exceed 35 feet. c. Neither a single-business sheathed-support sign nor a multiple-business sheathed-support sign shall be erected along a highway scenic corridor. d)The minimum spacing between free-standing signs located within 330 feet of the nearest edge of a freeway right-of-way line shall be that distance necessary so as not to adversely obscure the visibility of adjacent free-standing on-site advertising signs. e)For the purposes of Article XIX, any sign which would otherwise meet the definition of AON-SITE ADVERTISING STRUCTURE AND SIGNS@ in Section 19.2.e of this ordinance shall also be deemed to meet this definition if the sign advertises the business conducted, services available or rendered, or the goods produced, sold or available for sale on an adjacent parcel cooperatively on a joint sign, provided that the business on that adjacent parcel utilizes no other freestanding on-site advertising sign located on its parcel, and that a plot plan is submitted and approved for the parcel containing the sign. Added Effective: 05-06-99(Ord.348.3868) Section 19.5. Repealed. Amended Effective: 07-23-99(Ord.348.3881) Section 19.6 Repealed. Amended Effective: 10-15-98(Ord.348.3842) Amended Effective: 07-23-99(Ord.348.3881) Section 19.7. NON-COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES OR SIGNS. Anywhere a display, structure or sign is permitted by this ordinance, a non-commercial message may be placed on such display, structure or sign.@ Amended Effective: 07-23-99(Ord.348.3881) Section 19.8 RUBIDOUX VILLAGE POLICY AREA SIGNS. General provisions for advertising signs within the Rubidoux Village Policy Area of the Jurupa Community Plan. No person shall erect an on-site advertising structure or sign in the Designated Rubidoux Village Policy Area of the Jurupa Community Plan zoned as Rubidoux Village-Commercial(R-VC)that is in violation of the provisions contained within any specific zone classification in this ordinance or that is in violation of the following provisions. a. COMMERCIAL SIGNS. (1)All signs must be mounted on freestanding ground-mounted supports, supported from elements in the landscape such as arbors and arcades, or anchored to the building either with surface mounts, or suspended from walls or ceilings. No roof mounted structures are permitted. Standard pole mounted signs are not permitted. (2)Illuminated signs may be used within the Rubidoux-Village Commercial Zone of the Rubidoux Village Policy Area boundaries of the Jurupa Community Plan. Illuminated signs are permitted under the following criteria: 1) Internal illumination for text,background or both. 2)External illumination that does not spill over onto adjacent property or over public rights of way so as to cause a nuisance or a hazard. 3)Neon type signs in which the sign text and/or graphic design is made up on fluorescent tubes. 4)All conduits and raceways must be concealed unless appropriate to the architectural design of the sign and its support structure. (3)Murals and Artwork as Signage. Murals and other works of art intended to serve as signage to identify, locate or list the goods and/or services provided must comply with the standards of this ordinance. (4)Projecting signs, cantilevered or supported from a building wall or other structural support may be double sided;however, only one side will be counted in calculating allowable sign area. (5)Landmark Identification. These identifying elements of building architecture or of the landscape are unique features in the urbanscape of the public street. Landmarks are significant only in relation to their unique identity and limited use: a) Landmark identification is intended to announce a special place and may not be used for product or service advertising. b)Where architectural or landscape landmarks are created on private property, signage may be affixed or suspended. c)When permitted signage is affixed to a landmark structure, the sign must remain below the eave, cornice, or parapet cap of the structure and in no case may it project over or above the roof plane. In this circumstance, the height limit is determined by the approved height of the landmark structure. Exception: When the landmark structure is higher than an adjoining roof, a permitted sign may project over the lower roof. d)A landmark architectural element may be used as a double or triple sided sign support and will count only as a single sign. (6)It is required that primary and secondary identification signs, whether free-standing or attached to the building,be designed as a thematically appropriate and compatible component of the building design or of the landscape architecture. Materials, details and colors must be compatible with and appropriate in terms of the overall design of the building=s architecture. (7)Copy is limited to the name of the business, a logo or logotype, and standard subtext associated with the name of the business of the logo/logotype and limited to a simple recitation of the general goods or services is not permitted. (8)Posters and other temporary signage may not be permanently affixed to any exterior portion of the buildings or the landscape. (9)Notwithstanding the requirements of the underlying zoning ordinances for the zone classifications, free-standing signs may be placed in setback areas. (10)Commercial buildings shall display at least one street address sign visible from the adjoining streets with numerals/letters a minimum of our inches high. (11)No standard signs such as franchise,major brand or corporate signs, which have not been modified or specifically designed to meet the requirements of this ordinance shall be permitted. b. SHOPPING CENTER SIGNS. A shopping center is defined as a minimum six acre development under single ownership or development control having as anchor tenant(s) a major retail user(s). (1)Primary Identification Signs. These are used as the primary identification of the entire shopping center. These signs must be located so as to be read from either Mission Boulevard, Rubidoux Boulevard and/or Riverview Drive. The total number of signs is limited to one per site. 1)Free-standing: Limited in area to 120 square feet or a maximum of.25 percent(1/4 of 1 percent) of the approved building area not to exceed 200 square feet and not to exceed 20 feet in height. 2) Building mounted: Limited to 120 square feet in area. (2)Secondary Identification Signs: These signs serve the same purpose as the primary signs except that they may be located along local streets and alleys. The total number of signs per site is limited to one per street frontage for each local street faced by the building. 1)Free-standing: Limited to 40 square feet in area and may not exceed 12 feet in height. 2)Building mounted: Limited to 40 square feet in area. 3. LARGE PROJECT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS. To be regarded as a large project, a project must meet the following criteria: The parcel or combination of parcels must be a minimum of 20,000 square feet; gross tenant space must be a minimum of 12,000 square feet and there must be a minimum of five lease/tenant spaces. (1)Primary Identification. These are used as the primary identification of an entire project or complex of buildings. These signs must be located so as to be read from either Mission Boulevard, Rubidoux Boulevard and/or Riverview Drive. The total number of signs per site is limited to one per street frontage. 1) Free-standing: Limited to 120 square feet in area and may not exceed 16 feet in height. 2) Building mounted: Limited to 80 square feet in area. (2)Secondary Identification: The regulations for shopping center secondary identification signage apply. 4. SMALL PROJECT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS. (1)Primary Identification. These area used as the primary identification of an entire project or complex of buildings. These signs must be located so as to be read from either Mission Boulevard, Rubidoux Boulevard and/or Riverview Drive. The total number of signs per site is limited to one per street frontage. 1. Free-standing: Limited to 80 square feet in area and may not exceed 16 feet in height. 2. Building mounted. Limited to 80 square feet in area. (2)Secondary Identification. The regulations for shopping center secondary identification signage apply. 5. SINGLE TENANT BUILDINGS AND MAJOR TENANT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS. Copy is limited to the name of the business, the business owners, the logo or logotype, and a standard subtext associated with the name of the business or the logo/logotype. The total number of signs per site is limited to one per frontage for each local street or alley faced by the building or project. However, one additional sign is permitted per frontage facing an enclosed court not visible from a public street. (1)Free-standing: Limited to 40 square feet in area and may not exceed 12 feet in height. (2)Building mounted: Limited to 40 square feet in area. 6. MINOR TENANTS IDENTIFICATION SIGNS. Copy is limited to the name of the business, the business owners, the logo or logotype, and a standard subtext associated with the name of the business or the logo/logotype. (1)Free-standing or building mounted: Limited to ten square feet in area. (2)Number of signs: Limited to one. Except: corner suites and spaces may have one additional sign to be displayed on the alternate frontage, and one additional sign is permitted per frontage facing an enclosed court not visible from a public street. (3)Tenant spaces set back under loggias or similar architectural features that serve as pedestrian ways may use one additional sing either on the exterior face of the building (or suspended perpendicular to the building)or under the loggia either building mounted or suspended. 7. DOOR AND WINDOW TENANT IDENTIFICATION SIGNS. For individual office and small shape identification: These signs are permitted in addition to all other permitted sign under this Section and are mounted or installed on windows and doors visible to passers by. (1)Business name identification: Limited to two square feet in area. (2)Addresses and suite numbers: Limited to one square foot in area. (3)If installed immediately adjacent to the primary entry, this sign may be mounted on the building. 8. SPECIAL PURPOSE SIGNS. (1)Locator Boards and Tenant Directories. Kiosks and free-standing slab type directories are considered architectural features and must comply with the provisions of this Section and the development standards of the zone classification for the property. Building mounted sign boxes or slab type directories need only meet the provisions of this Section 1. Signs are limited to 12 square feet per face. 2. Signs shall be designed as a component part of the building design or of the landscape architecture. Materials, details and colors must be compatible with an appropriate in terms of the overall design of the complex. (2)Flagpoles, Banners and Flags. Banners and flags are permitted as follows: 1) The manner of suspension or support must be compatible with the architectural character of the buildings or the landscape theme. 2) No single flag or banner shall exceed 64 square feet nor shall the length exceed 15 feet. 3) Flag poles are not permitted to exceed 70 feet in height. 4) The copy or message on the flag/banner may be any permitted under the provisions of SubSection g: Door and Window Tenant Identification Signs. 5) Banners suspended between buildings must be secured per State Uniform Building Code requirements and adequately secured against wind and gravity loads. 1) Flags and banners are to be permanent features of the project. No temporary flags or banners are permitted. (3)Special Event and Sale Signage: Special event and sale signage is intended to be temporary, mobile and of short duration. 1) The signs may be window mounted or painted for no more than three weeks prior to and during the event; thereafter, the sign must be removed within three working days. 2) These signs may be mounted on kiosks, slabs or wall-mounted announcement boards. 3) Temporary free-standing signs created specifically to announce an event or a sale are limited to eight square feet in area and may be double sided. (4)Public Facilities Identification and Directional Signs: Special signs for bathrooms. wheelchair access, elevators, telephones, etc. are limited to two square feet; providing, however, that nothing in this ordinance is to be construed to contravene the dictates of Federal or State legislation with regard to signage for the handicapped. (5)Directional Signs for Access and Loading. These directional and instructional signs are limited to four square feet per sign and must be located so that those requiring the directions can easily find them. (6)Court Name Signs: 1) Limited to 20 square feet per sign. 2) Limited to one sign for each point of access from public right-of-ways. 1. FUTURE FACILITIES SIGNS. These signs are intended to announce the impending development of a facility. They may be free-standing or building mounted. (1)Maximum Size: 32 square feet in a four foot by eight foot panel. (2)Refer to the ARubidoux Village Design Workbook@ for the design, color and font specifications for the header and footer bands. 1) Copy is limited to the name of the future facility, logo/logotype, the subtext description of the project, the developer(s), lender, architect, landscape architect and/or engineer and major tenants, the proposed time of opening and a contact name and telephone number to pre-leasing information. 2) Maximum Height: ten feet. 3) When smaller signs are utilized, the required header and footer bands must be proportionately sized and incorporated. 10. PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SIGNS. (1)Maximum Size: 32 square feet in a four foot by eight foot panel. (2)Refer to the ARubidoux Village Design Workbook@ for the design, color and font specifications for the header and footer bands. 1) Copy is limited to the name of the future facility, logo/logotype, the subtext description of the project, the developer(s), the general contractor, the lender, the architect, landscape and/or engineer and major tenants, the proposed time of opening and a contact name and telephone number to pre-leasing information. 2) Maximum Height: ten feet. 3) When smaller signs are utilized, the required header and footer bands must be proportionately sized and incorporated. 11. SIGN MATERIALS. Signs may be constructed of the following materials: 1. Neon. Neon tube lighting, particularly that of an artistic nature, reflecting the new technology and shaping methods of the medium.. Restricted to the Rubidoux-Village Commercial area only. 2. Wood. Laser carved, sand blasted and built-up wooden signs, particularly those hanging from wall or ceiling brackets and receiving spotlight illumination. 3. Metal, Brass, Copper, Gold Plate and Brushed Metal Signs. Either plaques or individual letters. 4. Wood Letters. Wood letters and numbers may be used in locations that are sheltered from the weather. 5. Painting Signs. Hand painted signs on walls, wood or other backing material, mounted or free-standing. 6. Plastic, Acrylic and Other Synthetic Materials. Plastic sign bands used in connection with a larger sign board or glazed sign box. 7. Concrete. Concrete may be used as a primary sign material and may be either natural or tinted in color. Any surface treatment consistent with the design of the project and the ARubidoux Village Design Workbook@ may be used. When used as a base or structural support material, the design and finish treatment must be consistent with the overall design statement of the project=s architecture. 8. Banner and Flag Material. Banners and flags must be of all-weather fabric treated to withstand both water and solar exposure. Treated canvas, sail cloth and woven nylon are acceptable examples. Samples of the materials must accompany the sign permit application. 1. PROCESSING PROCEDURE (1)For applications within the Rubidoux Village Policy Area of the Jurupa Community Plan, approval of the design and location of said sign shall be obtained from the County Economic Development Agency before the application will be accepted for processing by the County Planning Department. (2)No outdoor advertising sign(s) and/or structure(s) shall be placed or erected until an application has been approved by the County Economic Development Agency, and a permit issued by the County Planning Director on the form provided by the County Planning Department accompanied by the filing fee set forth in Ordinance No. 671 and meeting the requirements of Section 18.30 of this ordinance. (3)Said application shall consist of five copies of a plot plan drawn to scale,containing the name, address or telephone number of he applicant, and a general description of the property and/or structure upon which the outdoor advertising sign(s) and/or structure(s) are proposed to be placed. (4)The plot plan shall show the precise location, type, and size of the proposed outdoor advertising sign(s) and/or structure(s), all property lines, zoning, and the dimension, location of and distance to the nearest building, public and private roads, and other rights- of-way,building setback lines, and specifically planned future road right-of-way lines, and any and all other information required in such a manner that the proposed sign(s) and/or structure(s)may be readily ascertained, identified, and evaluated. in. APPROVALS AND MODIFICATIONS. The design of all signs for specific projects must accompany the application for plot plan review, conditional use permit or building permit, depending on the nature and size of the proposed project. (5)Modification. Where a modification is requested that does not exceed a ten percent deviation from the standards contained in this Section, the Planning Director with the consent of the Executive Director of the Redevelopment Agency shall review and approve the request with or without conditions. There shall be a ten day appeal period from the Planning Director=s decision which shall then be heard before the Planning Commission within 45 days of the date of appeal. (6)Amendment to the Rubidoux Village Policy Area Sign Program. Any amendment to the ARubidoux Village Design Workbook@ requiring the sign program shall be reflected in Section 19.8 of this ordinance. (7)A specific plan or large project that seeks to adopt its own sign program may do so. The proposed specific plan project must be compatible with an clearly related to the regulations of this ordinance and specific findings must be so made. Added Effective: 11-28-97(Ord.348.3804) Amended Effective: 10-15-98(Ord.348.3842) 05-06-99(Ord.348.3857) j' Section 19.9 RELOCATED OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAYS. ,Nothing in this Article shall prevent Riverside County from entering into -&billboard relocation agreement under the following circumstances with an outdoor advertising display owner an or wi a owner o e an on which that display is constructed or erected. a. The billboard relocation agreement concerns an already-existing outdoor advertising V) la display that is being relocated on the same underlyingparcel of land because the original location of the display is within an existing or contemplated public right-of-way. A display may be relocated to a portion of the underlying parcel that is zoned so as to prohibit outdoor advertising displays if the already-existing display is located in a zone that prohibits such displays. A display may also be relocated to a portion of the underlying parcel that is within the boundaries of a significant resource as defined in this Article if the already-existing display is located within the boundaries of a significant resource. b. The already-existing outdoor advertising display either complies with all applicable Riverside County ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of the relocation, or is a legal nonconforming outdoor advertising display in the sense that it complied with all the applicable Riverside County ordinances and regulations in effect at the time of its construction or erection. c. Except as explicitly provided otherwise in this Section 19.9, the relocated outdoor advertising display shall be subject to the permit procedures and standards described in this Article. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY ON A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND CHANGE OF ZONE IN THE THOUSAND PALMS ZONING DISTRICT — WESTERN COACHELLA VALLEY AREA PLAN, FOURTH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT, AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing at which all interested persons will be heard, will be held before the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County, California, on the 1st Floor Board Chambers, County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 at 1:30 P.M. to consider the application submitted by Lamar Advertising, on General Plan Amendment No. 864, which proposes to designate the site as Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) and to modify and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing billboards if the new location is determined to have a minimal impact on the scenic setting; and, Change of Zone No. 7535, which proposes to change the zoning from Rural Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC), or such other zones as the Board may find appropriate. The project is located southerly of Interstate 10, westerly of Portola Avenue, northerly of Dinah Shore Drive, and easterly of Monterey Avenue in the Thousand Palms Zoning District — Western Coachella Valley Area Plan, Fourth Supervisorial District. The Planning Commission has found that approval of the project will not have a significant effect on -the environment and has recommended the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 41426. The proposed project case file may be viewed from the date of this notice until the public hearing, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at 4080 Lemon Street, 1st Floor, Riverside, CA 92501, and at the Riverside County Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor, Riverside, CA 92501. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING THIS PROJECT, PLEASE CONTACT PROJECT PLANNER RUSSELL BRADY AT (951) 955-8632 OR EMAIL rbrady(cDrctlma.org. Any person wishing to testify in support of or in opposition to the proposed project may do so in writing between the date of this notice and the public hearing, or may appear and be heard at the time and place noted above. All written comments received prior to the public hearing will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Supervisors will consider such comments, in addition to any oral testimony, before making a decision on the proposed project. If you challenge the above item in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence to the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors at, or prior to, the public hearing. Be advised that as a result of the public hearing and the consideration of all public comment, written and oral, the Board of Supervisors may amend, in whole or in part, the proposed project and/or the related environmental document. Accordingly, the designations, development standards, design or improvements, or any properties or lands within the boundaries of the proposed project, may be changed in a way other than specifically proposed. Please send all written correspondence to: Clerk of the Board RECEIVED Nancy Romero 4080 Lemon Street, 1st Floor Post Office Box 1147 �I l�_ 2 ' 2007 Riverside, CA 92502-1147 Dated: July 19, 2007 'OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Clerk of the Board CITY OF PALM DESERT By: Cecilia Gil, Board Assistant Publication: The Press Enterprise The Desert Sun P.O. Box 792 P.O. Box 2734 Riverside, CA 92501 Riverside, CA 92519 DATE PUBLISHED: Saturday, July 21, 2007 OF R1 yRo Clerk of the Board o* *tea County Administrative Center y�p(6S P°� l . P.O.Box 1147 Eo`� � 49 ,�.Fe.�.. z* 4080 Lemon Street, 15'Floor o.y ® RINEY 60%W5 "'4y9•�' Riverside, CA92502-1147 w� 02 1A $ 00.3f10 w 0004632930 JUL19 2007 IL LL MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 92504 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE This may affect your property 653250046 CITY OF PALM DESERT 73510 FRED WARING DR PALM DESERT CA 92260 Mi rw � � r` C a o U- < HUj J %N'� N � LL 4 Riverside County Integrated Prot-^* Page 1 of 84 Western Coachella Valley Area Plan ` -r�p TABLE OF CONTENTS Vision..Summary_ Introduction A_Speci l._.Note..on Implementing the Vision Location Features Setting Unique Features Whitewater River The Colorado River Aqueduct Coachella Valley Preserve/Thousand Palms Canyon& Oasis Willow Hole Preserve Whitewater River Floodplain Preserve Peninsular Ranges Indio Hills Little San Bernardino Mountains —In dian...Canyons Heritage Park Lake Cahuilla San Gorgonio Pass Unique Communities Bermuda Dunes Bonnie Bell Indio Hills http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 2 of 84 North Palm Springs Painted Hills Sky..Valtey Snow Creek Thousand Palms Valley View Village West Garnet W.est.Palm._Springs...V illage. Incorporated Cities Lan_ d Use Plan Land.Use Concert Policy Areas Policy_Areas. Rancho Mirage Sphere of Influence Policy Area San GoMon_io_Pass Wind Energy Policy Area Hot.Svrings..Polk-v..Area Saecific Plans Land-Use 1se Local Land Use Policies Bermuda Dunes and Palm Springs Airport Influence Areas Sky Valley.Rural.._Village_O..v_erlay Sky Valley Mobile Home Parks and Recreational Vehicle Parks Residential Uses Thousand Palms Levees http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proj-^* Page 3 of 84 Section 8 Sand Source Area Commercial Retail Uses Commercial Office Uses Industrial Uses Recreational Vehicle Development Signage Light Pollution Circulation Local Circulation Policies Vehicular Circulation System Trails._and.._Bikewav System Scenic Highways Multipurpose Op -en Local Open Space Policies Watershed. Floodplains, and Watercourses Habitat Conservation Hazards Local Hazard Policies Flooding and Dam Inundation Wind Erosion& Blowsand Wildland Fire Hazard Seismic/Liquefaction Slone LIST OF FIGURES http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 4 of 84 1: Location 2: Physical Features 3: Land Use Plan 4: Policy Areas 5: Bermuda Dunes Airport...Influen...ce.Policy Area 6: Mt. Palomar Nighttime Lighting Policy 7: Circulation 8.:._Trails._and.._B_ikeway system 9: Scenic Highways 10:.._Fringe-toed Lizard Habitat Areas 11:_Coachella_Valiev..Association of Governments._MSHCP 12: Flood Hazards 13: Wildfire Susceptibility 14: Seismic Hazards 15: SteepS lope 16; Slope Instability_ LIST OF TABLES 1 _Land Use._Designations Summary 2:_Statistical Summary of the Western_Coachella Valley Area Plan 3: Adopted Specific Plans in Western Coachella Valley Area Plan 4: Land Compatibility._Guidelines._for Airport Safety Zones for March,_Flabob. Bermuda Dunes, Chino and Skylark Airports Vision Summary The County of Riverside General Plan and Area Plans have been shaped http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Pro't Page 5 of 84 by the RCIP Vision. Following is a summary of the Vision Statement that includes many of the salient points brought forth by the residents of Western Coachella Valley as well as the rest of the County of Riverside. The RCIP Vision reflects the County of Riverside in the year 2020. So, "fast forward" yourself to 2020 and here is what it will be like. "Riverside County is a family of special communities in a remarkable environmental setting." It is now the year 2020. This year(incidentally, also a common reference to clear vision), is an appropriate time to check our community vision. Twenty years have passed since we took an entirely new look at how the County of Riverside was evolving. Based on what we saw, we set bold new directions for the future. As we now look around and move through the County, the results are notable. They could happen only in response to universal values strongly held by the people. Some of those values are: •Real dedication to a sense of community; •Appreciation for the diversity of our people and places within this expansive landscape; •Belief in the value of participation by our people in shaping their communities; •Confidence in the future and faith that our long term commitments will pay off; •Willingness to innovate and learn from our experience; •Dedication to the preservation of the environmental features that frame our communities; •Respect for our differences and willingness to work toward their resolution; • Commitment to quality development in partnership with those who help build our communities; •The value of collaboration by our elected officials in conducting public business. Those values and the plans they inspired have brought us a long way. True, much remains to be done. But our energies and resources are being invested in a unified direction,based on the common ground we have affirmed many times during the last 20 years. Perhaps our achievements will help you understand why we believe we are on the right path. http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 6 of 84 Population Growth The almost doubling of our population in only 20 years has been a challenge,but we have met it by focusing that growth in areas that are well served by public facilities and services or where they can readily be provided. Major transportation corridors serve our communities and nearby open space preserves help define them. Our growth focus is on quality, not quantity. That allows the numbers to work for us and not against us. We enjoy an unprecedented clarity regarding what areas must not be developed and which ones should be developed. The resulting pattern of growth concentrates development in key areas rather than spreading it uniformly throughout the County. Land is used more efficiently, communities operate at more of a human scale, and transit systems to supplement the automobile are more feasible. Our Communities and Neighborhoods Your choice in the kind of community and neighborhood you prefer is almost unlimited here. From sophisticated urban villages to quality suburban neighborhoods to spacious rural enclaves, we have them all. If you are like most of us, you appreciate the quality schools and their programs that are the centerpiece of many of our neighborhoods. Not only have our older communities matured gracefully,but we boast several new communities as well. They prove that quality of life comes in many different forms. Housing We challenge you to seek a form of housing or a range in price that does not exist here. Our housing choices, from rural retreat to suburban neighborhood to exclusive custom estate are as broad as the demand for housing requires. Choices include entry level housing for first time buyers, apartments serving those not now in the buying market, seniors'housing, and world class golf communities. You will also find "smart" housing with the latest in built-in technology as well as refurbished historic units. The County of Riverside continues to draw people who are looking for a blend of quality and value. Transportation It is no secret that the distances in this vast County can be a bit daunting. Yet, our transportation system has kept pace amazingly well with the growth in population, employment and tourism and their demands for mobility. We are perhaps proudest of the new and expanded transportation corridors that connect growth centers throughout the County. They do more than provide a way for people and goods to get where they need to be. Several major corridors have built-in expansion capability to accommodate varied forms of transit. These same corridors are designed http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proj` Page 7 of 84 with a high regard for the environment in mind, including providing for critical wildlife crossings so that our open spaces can sustain their habitat value. Conservation and Open Space Resources The often-impassioned conflicts regarding what lands to permanently preserve as open space are virtually resolved. The effort to consider our environmental resources, recreation needs,habitat systems, and visual heritage as one comprehensive,multi-purpose open space system has resulted in an unprecedented commitment to their preservation. In addition, these spaces help to form distinctive edges to many of our communities or clusters of communities. What is equally satisfying is that they were acquired in a variety of creative and equitable ways. Air Quality It may be hard to believe,but our air quality has actually improved slightly despite the phenomenal growth that has occurred in the region. Most of that growth, of course,has been in adjacent counties and we continue to import their pollutants. We are on the verge of a breakthrough in technical advances to reduce smog from cars and trucks. Not only that, but our expanded supply of jobs reduces the need for people here to commute as far as in the past. Jobs and Economy In proportion to population, our job growth is spectacular. Not only is our supply of jobs beyond any previously projected level, it has become quite diversified. Clusters of new industries have brought with them an array of jobs that attract skilled labor and executives alike. We are particularly enthusiastic about the linkages between our diversified business community and our educational system. Extensive vocational training programs, coordinated with businesses, are a constant source of opportunities for youth and those in our labor force who seek further improvement. Agricultural Lands Long a major foundation of our economy and our culture, agriculture remains a thriving part of the County of Riverside. While we have lost some agriculture to other forms of development, other lands have been brought into agricultural production. We are still a major agricultural force in California and compete successfully in the global agricultural market. Educational System Quality education, from pre-school through graduate programs, marks the http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 8 of 84 County of Riverside as a place where educational priorities are firmly established. A myriad of partnerships involving private enterprise and cooperative programs between local governments and school districts are in place, making the educational system an integral part of our communities. Plan Integration The coordinated planning for multi-purpose open space systems, community based land use patterns, and a diversified transportation system has paid off handsomely. Integration of these major components of community building has resulted in a degree of certainty and clarity of direction not commonly achieved in the face of such dynamic change. Financial Realities From the very beginning, our vision included the practical consideration of how we would pay for the qualities our expectations demanded. Creative, yet practical financing programs provide the necessary leverage to achieve a high percentage of our aspirations expressed in the updated RCIP. Intergovernmental Cooperation As a result of the necessary coordination between the County, the cities and other governmental agencies brought about through the RCIP, a high degree of intergovernmental cooperation and even partnership is now commonplace. This way of doing public business has become a tradition and the County of Riverside is renowned for its many model intergovernmental programs. Introduction The Western Coachella Valley Area Plan contains policies that guide the physical development and land uses in the unincorporated western portion of the Coachella Valley. The Area Plan is not a stand-alone document,but rather an extension of the General Plan and Vision Statement. The County of Riverside Vision Statement details the physical, environmental, and economic characteristics that the County aspires to achieve by the year 2020. Using the Vision Statement as the primary foundation,the General Plan establishes standards and policies for development within the entire unincorporated County territory, while the Area Plan details standards and policy direction relating specifically to the Western Coachella Valley. The Western Coachella Valley Area Plan doesn't just provide a description of the location, physical characteristics, and special features here. It contains a Land Use Plan, statistical summaries,policies, and accompanying exhibits that allow anyone interested in the continued http://www.rctima.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.htmi 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proj�— Page 9 of 84 prosperity of this distinctive region to understand where the future is headed. Background information also provides insights that help in understanding the issues that require special focus here and the reasons for the more localized policy direction found in this document. Each section of the Area Plan addresses critical issues facing Western Coachella Valley. Perhaps a description of these sections will help in understanding the organization of the Area Plan as well as appreciating the comprehensive nature of the planning process that led to it. The Location section explains where the Area Plan fits with what is around it and how it relates to the cities that impact it. Physical features are described in a section that highlights the planning area's communities, surrounding environment, and natural resources. This leads naturally to the Land Use Plan section, which describes the land use system guiding development at both the countywide and area plan levels. While a number of these designations reflect the unique features found only in the Western Coachella Valley, a number of special policies are still necessary to address unique situations. The Policy Areas section presents these policies. Land use related issues are addressed in the Land Use section. The Area Plan also describes relevant transportation issues,routes, and modes of transportation in the Circulation section. The key to understanding our valued open space network is described in the Multipurpose Open Space section. There are both natural and man made hazards to consider, and they are spelled out in the Hazards section. Unincorporated land is all land A Special Note on Implementing the Vision within the County that is not within an incorporated city or The preface to this area plan is a summary version of the Riverside an Indian Nation. Generally, it County Vision. That summary is, in turn, simply an overview of a much is subject to policy direction more extensive and detailed Vision of Riverside County two decades or and under the land use more into the future. This area plan, as part of the Riverside County authority of the Board of General Plan, is one of the major devices for making the Vision a reality. Supervisors. However, it may No two area plans are the same. Each represents a unique portion of the also contain state and federal incredibly diverse place known as Riverside County. While many share properties that lie outside of certain common features, each of the plans reflects the special Board authority. characteristics that define its area's unique identity. These features include not only physical qualities, but also the particular boundaries used to define them, the stage of development they have reached, the dynamics of change expected to affect them, and the numerous decisions that shape development and conservation in each locale. That is why the Vision cannot and should not be reflected uniformly. Policies at the General Plan and Area Plan levels implement the Riverside County Vision in a range of subject areas as diverse as the scope of the Vision itself. The land use pattern contained in this area plan is a further expression of the Vision as it is shaped to fit the terrain and the conditions here. http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Projert Page 10 of 84 To illustrate how the Vision has shaped the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan, the following highlights reflect certain strategies that link the Vision to the land.This is not a comprehensive enumeration; rather, it emphasizes a few of the most powerful and physically tangible examples. Open Space,Conservation & Community Separators-The Western Coachella Valley area is characterized by a vast network of natural open space with tremendous habitat,rural and scenic value for both local residents and the region at large. With approximately three-fourths of the land designated for open space uses,the Area Plan seeks to preserve this unique natural setting while minimizing the impacts of encroaching urban uses. Population Growth - This plan focuses growth in areas well served by public facilities and services or where they can readily be provided. Development is concentrated in key unincorporated areas located near existing development and major roadways. Residential land uses provide for a variety of densities, which in turn provide for a variety of housing choices. The rural and open space character of remote areas is protected through the use of appropriate rural and open space land use designations. These areas serve as natural boundaries between unincorporated communities,protect sensitive habitat areas, limit susceptibility to natural hazards, and serve as tremendous visual and passive recreational amenities. Intergovernmental Cooperation - While any County land use plan requires some degree of coordination with other jurisdictions and responsible agencies, this plan identifies a key approach to addressing an area in the future development of Western Coachella Valley. The plan proposes a joint planning effort between the County,the City of Rancho Mirage and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians for a strategic area located along Interstate 10. Data in this area plan is current as of October 7, 2003. Any General Plan amendments approved subsequent to that date are not reflected in this area plan and must be supported by their own environmental documentation. A process for incorporating any applicable portion of these amendments into this area plan is part of the General Plan Implementation Program. Location The central location and relative extent of Western Coachella Valley-well over 650 square miles- is clearly evident in Figure 1,Location. As the entryway to the vast desert areas of eastern Riverside County, Western Coachella Valley is surrounded by the mountainous area of the Riverside Extended Mountain Area Plan(REMAP)to the west and southwest,The Pass Area Plan to the west, the Eastern Coachella Valley Area Plan to the east, and San Bernardino County and the Joshua Tree National Park to the http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proje-t Page 11 of 84 northeast. The Western Coachella Valley Area Plan boundary encompasses eight cities: Desert Hot Springs, Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells, La Quinta, and Indio. Figure 1: Location http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 12 of 84 '3 03 Olt Aa Zrs 1 l� fx �. 7, http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proj(­ Page 13 of 84 Features The Riverside County Vision builds heavily on the value of its remarkable environmental setting. That characterization certainly applies here. The Western Coachella Valley is situated to capture mountain views in nearly every direction. This section describes the setting, features, and functions that are unique to the Valley. These defining characteristics are shown on Figure 2, Physical Features. Setting The Western Coachella Valley area is characterized by a variety of contrasting and dramatic geographic features. Ringed by the rugged San Jacinto, Santa Rosa, and Little San Bernardino Mountains, the Coachella Valley contains a series of low-lying desert flatlands, sloping dunes and rolling foothills. Cove-like areas line the base of the Santa Rosa Mountains. The Whitewater River runs the length of the Valley. The Western Coachella Valley is framed by the San Jacinto Mountains and Santa Rosa Mountains National Monument to the west and Joshua Tree National Park to the north and east. The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California's Colorado River Aqueduct traverses from east to west along the majority of the Area Plan,paralleling Interstate 10 north of Dillon Road. The following is a description of the geographically unique areas found in the Western Coachella Valley. Unique Features The Western Coachella Valley area is a predominantly desert and mountainous region containing a number of significant natural open space features: Whitewater River The Whitewater River is the primary drainage course in the area, spanning the length of the Coachella Valley. The upper part of the river, in the San Gorgonio Wilderness, is dry throughout most of its Whitewater length with the exception of its most westerly end, which quickly River percolates into the groundwater basin or is diverted for use. The river is fed by several tributaries, including the San Gorgonio River, Mission Creek, Little and Big Morongo Creeks, and Box Canyon Wash. The Colorado River Aqueduct http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Projer+ Page 14 of 84 The Colorado River Aqueduct was built from 1933-1941 and is owned and operated by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Colorado River water imported via the Aqueduct provides supplemental water to nearly 17 million people in Riverside County and Southern California's coastal plain. Coachella Valley Preserve/Thousand Palms Canyon&Oasis Located 10 miles east of Palm Springs and north of Interstate 10,the Coachella Valley Preserve encompasses approximately 20,000 acres. It contains the last undisturbed watershed in the Coachella Valley and the sources of water-carried and wind-borne sand that create the dune habitat of the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard. The Preserve straddles the Indio Hills and the San Andreas Fault. The floor of the Preserve is aim composed of alluvial fans and isolated terraces of desert pavement Oasis dissected by wash areas in the north, along with extensive sand fields and dunes. The persistent northwesterly winds in the Coachella Valley move the finer particles and sands from the alluvial fans south of the Indio Hills into the ever-changing sand dunes. Wildlife in the Coachella Valley Preserve is varied and abundant. About 180 animal species inhabit the Preserve, including a large population of resident and migratory birds. There are five rare animals occurring in the Valley. One species, the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard, is a threatened species inhabiting the blowsand fields. The Coachella Valley contains several unique and rare habitat types. One of these,palm oasis woodland, is found in numerous groves within the Preserve and is sustained primarily by water made available through faulting and fracturing of underlying bedrock material. Water flowing underground from a higher elevation is stopped by an intersecting fault block and rises to ground level, creating a unique aquatic environment. Another type of habitat located in this preserve,blowsand fields, is created by a combination of surface water and wind transport processes. The sand fields are dependent upon the periodic flooding that funnels sand originating in the northern half of the watershed through Thousand Palms Canyon. Sandy wash, rocky slopes, alluvial plains, and other habitats are also protected in the Coachella Valley Preserve. Willow Hole Preserve Located north of Cathedral City at the west end of the Indio Hills, the Willow Hole Preserve provides critical blowsand habitat for the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard and various sensitive species. Other biological resource values include mesquite hummocks and a fan palm oasis. Whitewater River Floodplain Preserve http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proje^* Page 15 of 84 The Whitewater River Floodplain Preserve is located south of Interstate 10 and east of Indian Avenue, and consists of 1,230 acres of Bureau of Land Management and Coachella Valley Water District land. One of the primary purposes of the preserve is to protect and enhance the habitat of the endangered Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard. Peninsular Ranges Composed mainly of the San Jacinto Mountains and Santa Rosa Mountains National Monument,this system of bold,high mountains runs north to northwest and includes the 8,716-foot-high Toro Peak in the Santa Rosa Mountains, and 10,831-foot San Jacinto Peak in the San Jacinto Mountains. The Peninsular Ranges act as an effective barrier to an the eastward moving storms and cooler air masses of the southern Jacinto Mountains California coastal area. w The lower elevations of the Peninsular Ranges, including canyon bottoms, alluvial fans, and mountain slopes, serve as habitat for the endangered Bighorn Sheep. Within this narrow band of habitat,Bighorn Sheep need to be able to move daily, seasonally, and annually to make use of the sparse and sometimes sporadically available resources found within their home ranges. Habitat loss is considered to be one of the greatest threats to `p the species' continued existence. Indio Hills ighorn Sheep With a maximum elevation of 1,740 feet, the Indio Hills are located in the east- central portion of the Coachella Valley and are the largest unit of hills within the Valley area. The hills are bordered on the southwest by the San Andreas Fault and are divided in their central portion by Thousand Palms Canyon. The hills serve as a significant sand source for the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard Preserve dunes. Little San Bernardino Mountains Reaching elevations over 5,000 feet, the Little San Bernardino Mountains, located within the Joshua Tree National Park, frame the northeastern edge of the Coachella Valley. Indian Canyons Heritage Park Located at the junction of the Palm, Andreas, and Murray Canyons on the Indian Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, the Indian Canyons Heritage Park Canyons features extensive native fan palm oases and the historic Cahuilla Village Heritage Park and contains a great variety of plant and animal species. Lake Cahuilla http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 16 of 84 Located in the City of La Quinta,the 135-acre Lake Cahuilla and the surrounding 710-acre, County-operated recreation area is a valuable scenic and recreational asset for Western Coachella Valley,providing opportunities for sightseeing, fishing, swimming,hiking, and camping. San Gorgonio Pass The San Gorgonio Pass area extends west of Indian Avenue to the foothills north and west, south to the City of Palm Springs, and west through the Interstate 10 corridor between the San Jacinto and San Gorgonio Mountains. The portion of this geographic feature within the boundaries of the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan is generally characterized by a large expanse of open desert and mountainous terrain, an along with isolated pockets of development. A number of utility corridors Gorgonio Wind Energy are concentrated in this area, including high voltage electrical Area transmission lines and the Devers Substation. Due to the constant prevailing westerly winds, the highest concentration of commercial wind energy development in the County occurs in this area. Unique Communities The majority of urban development is within the cities,with the exception of several communities and rural enclaves scattered throughout the valley. Land uses found in the unincorporated Western Coachella Valley area include suburban and rural residential, commercial, industrial, mining, wind energy, and recreational uses. Existing residential developments in the area are located primarily in 11 communities: Bermuda Dunes, Bonnie Bell, Indio Hills,North Palm Springs,Painted Hills, Sky Valley, Snow Creek,Thousand Palms, Valley View Village, West Garnet, and West Palm Springs Village. Of these, Bermuda Dunes and Thousand Palms are the largest and most developed communities. Bermuda Dunes This area is located in the vicinity of the intersection of Washington Street and Interstate 10, north of the cities of Indian Wells, Indio and La Quinta. The area has good access to Interstate 10 and State Route 111, and community sewer and water service is available. The area south of Interstate 10 is characterized by medium density residential and resort- type development, with limited higher density development along Washington Street and 42nd Street. The area north of Interstate 10 includes Sun City Palm Desert, a senior citizen residential community, mobilehome subdivisions, rural residential uses, agricultural areas, a recreational vehicle park, an industrial park, and Fringe-toed Lizard habitat. http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.htmi 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proje-+ Page 17 of 84 Bonnie Bell Located north of Interstate 10 along Whitewater Canyon Road, the community of Bonnie Bell is a small residential enclave nestled in Whitewater Canyon. The small size of this enclave set among trees gives the area a rural feel, despite the presence of some small lots. Indio Hills Indio Hills is an expansive,but sparsely developed,rural residential enclave located along Dillon Road, east of Thousand Palms Canyon Road, on the northeast edge of the Coachella Valley Preserve. North Palm Springs North Palm Springs is a small community located between Desert Hot Springs and Palm Springs along Dillon Road and Indian Avenue. It is characterized by scattered suburban and rural residential areas, with commercial and small-scale industrial uses along Dillon Road and Indian Avenue. Painted Hills Painted Hills is a residential rural community located along the western edge of State Route 62 southerly of Pierson Boulevard and northerly of Interstate 10. Sky Valley The Sky Valley community is located along Dillon Road between w Thousand Palms Canyon Road and Bennett Road. The area is characterized primarily by large-lot rural residential uses,but also ky includes two mobile home parks and ercommunity center. Just west of Valley Chamber of Sky Valley, along Dillon Road,between Corkill and Bennett Roads, is the Commerce largest concentration of mobile home parks and recreation vehicle parks in unincorporated Riverside County. Snow Creek Located south of Interstate 10 at the base of the San Jacinto Mountains, the community of Snow Creek is another residential enclave set among trees. The mountain view has attracted celebrities to this area. Thousand Palms The Thousand Palms area is located along Interstate 10 at the intersection of Ramon Road. This unincorporated area is characterized by mobile http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 18 of 84 home subdivisions, single-family residential neighborhoods and rural residential development. Commercial and industrial developments are x Y located along Ramon Road and Varner Road. Tourist-oriented commercial uses such as truck stops, motels, and fast-food restaurants are located at the interchanges of Interstate 10 with Ramon Road and, to Thousand a lesser extent, Monterey Avenue. Palms Community Center Valley View Village Located east of State Route 62 and north of Dillon Road,the rural community of Valley View Village is characterized by relatively flat desert terrain with scattered very low density and rural residential land uses. West Garnet The community of West Garnet is a small low density residential neighborhood located southerly of Interstate 10 and westerly of Indian Avenue at the Wall Road bridge crossing of Interstate 10. West Palm Springs Village West Palm Springs Village is a medium density residential community located north of Interstate 10 at Verbenia Avenue. This area includes single-family residences and mobile homes on small lots set amongst sloping desert terrain. Many of the lots here remain undeveloped. A "sphere of influence"is the Incorporated Cities area outside of and adjacent to a city's border that the city has identified as a future logical extension of its jurisdiction. The Western Coachella Valley encompasses the area surrounding the While the County of Riverside cities of Desert Hot Springs,Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho has land use authority over city Mirage, Palm Desert, Indian Wells,La Quinta, and Indio. These eight sphere areas, development in cities total 165,845 acres. Land use and development within each city are these areas directly affects governed by their respective general plans. circulation, service provision, and community character Figure 2: Physical Features within the cities. http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proje-+ Page 19 of 84 .a "n .r . , � r "► Y � Ibl I I I I i"F :w�ii�er I ryr �r1 rJw° ,' s It 00 " .. �. Ae Area Plan Bounds LL'��IIMMIWWMiwwWl�MfIrIMNf '.Ar f „±8ia,:waa+✓<wr R'�x,xw�.wrbrrx w!wwarar«Wre�rw # zs 4m.�year MP ewn'1 i�'k a' -�'keRm+T�.rnN�wS M�aasxuxa�.lrr:a�arnrt'xt.s^wMeew�!ylrr rtw.n.w�..xex wo wnn'w-:y+r:w�3s ecet ti.:ac «�Mr�w.roq xxsa etm xqp, : Ww.a+®art.assedru ww#rw. mxu�a±aaam,*,a w,•.ew¢. w �ta::+PdM' �.a��a. Neae.'a�xzurax 1s F�h�i5e° �y. ( M`fiw�-�M�Na;n+,�61'+vv5.iriwxw ie,iKa Ana na�W.� - YAY'Y.',�wsxa�mdk.axv!%r .NF g,++ww+wawh a.fi.rlR�.rR11WFa�' �- �N++n:sw Mr say*a*+w1 a+wsRra+�«r=M.aWr cans�z..t °x°*" ___ _ _ _ _ wxsA*s• ar daM;,wrw Awx#4 � http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proj-11 Page 20 of 84 Land Use Plan Each of our rural areas and The Land Use Plan focuses on preserving the unique features in the communities has a special Western Coachella Valley area and, at the same time, guides the character that distinguishes accommodation of future growth. To accomplish this, more detailed land them from urban areas and use designations are applied than for the countywide General Plan. from each other. They benefit from some conveniences such as The Western Coachella Valley Land Use Plan, Figure 3, depicts the small-scale local commercial geographic distribution of land uses within this area plan. The area plan is services and all-weather access organized around 30 Area Plan land use designations and 5 overlays. roads, yet maintain an These area plan land uses derive from, and provide more detailed unhurried, uncrowded lifestyle. direction than,the five General Plan Foundation Component land uses: Open Space,Agriculture, Rural, Rural Community, and Community -RCIP Vision Development. Table 1,Land Use Designations Summary, outlines the development intensity, density, typical allowable land uses, and general characteristics for each of the area plan land use designations within each Foundation Component. The General Plan Land Use Element contains more detailed descriptions and policies for the Foundation Components and each of the area plan land use designations. Many factors led to the designation of land use patterns. Among the most influential were the Riverside County Vision and Planning Principles, both of which focused, in part, on preferred patterns of development within the County; ongoing habitat conservation planning through the Coachella Valley Association of Governments Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(CVMSHCP)process; established patterns of existing uses and parcel configurations; current zoning; and the oral and written testimony of County residents, property owners, and representatives of cities, Indian tribes, and organizations at the many Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors hearings. Furthermore, the Plan recognizes the importance of preserving the Valley's scenic and cultural resources in order to protect the area's largest industry,tourism. The result of these considerations is shown in Figure 3, Land Use Plan, which portrays the location and extent of proposed land uses. Table 2, Statistical Summary of the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan,provides a summary of the projected development capacity of the Plan if all uses are built as proposed. This table includes dwelling unit, population, and employment capacities. Land Use Concept The extensive heritage of rural living continues to be accommodated in areas The Western Coachella Valley Area Plan Land Use Plan ranges in committed to that lifestyle, and character from suburban style development found in Bermuda Dunes, its sustainability is reinforced Thousand Palms and Sun City Palm Desert, to remote rural areas such as by strong open space and urban Sky Valley and Indio Hills, to the outlying mountainous and desert terrain typical of the Valley area. The Land Use Plan seeks to maintain the http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proje-+ Page 21 of 84 development commitment character of these areas, while allowing additional urban development in provided for in the RCIP areas adjacent to the Interstate 10 corridor and preserving the character of Vision. the alle 's remote desert and mountainous areas. Figure 3, Land Use lan, illustrates the geographic distribution of land uses in Western -RCIP Vision Coachella Valley. The area plan proposes a mix of lower density residential land uses ranging from Rural Residential to Medium Density Residential uses near urban centers, except along Washington Street and Avenue 42 in Bermud Dunes, which will continue to provide for areas of High Density Residential development. Ample land exists cumulatively within Coachella Valley cities to accommodate most of the residential and commercial growth through the year 2020. The Land Use Plan focuses Community Development land uses, including residential,commercial and industrial uses, along Interstate 10 and the Pierson Boulevard and Dillon Road corridors, while maintaining a mix of urban uses in Bermuda Dunes, Thousand Palms, and the area north of Interstate 10 in the vicinity of Sun City Palm Desert. The Western Coachella Valley Area Plan Land Use Plan identifies the area within the City of Rancho Mirage's Sphere-of-Influence as having significant development potential, due in large part to the area's centralized Valley location,proximity to Interstate 10, and large amount of vacant land, much of which is Indian-owned. This plan creates a policy area designed to establish policies and guidelines for development in this area, in concert with a joint planning effort involving the City of Rancho Mirage and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Also identified within this Land Use Plan is the location of a Rural Village within the community of Sky Valley. Shown with the Rural Village Overlay designation on the Land Use Plan, Figure 3, this village is designed to allow for a concentration of rural residential uses, a small neighborhood commercial center, public, and open space uses, thus allowing Sky Valley residents access to localized commercial and public services. The vast majority of the Western Coachella Valley area is designated for rural and open space uses, reflective of the remote desert and mountainous nature of the area. These uses separate Community Development areas, creating distinct community edges and enhancing community identity. Open space areas for habitat conservation occupy over 40 percent of the total unincorporated area. These include areas in the State Route 74/Santa Rosa Mountains area south of Palm Desert and Indian Wells; along the eastern edge of the San Gorgonio Pass north and south of Interstate 10 and west of State Highway 62; north of Desert Hot Springs; throughout the Indio Hills and Coachella Valley Preserve; and areas east of Dillon Road and east of Indio Hills. http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proje-t Page 23 of 84 1 1 ti l r � i d a c. YID p' l lt l I A I http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 24 of 84 Table 1 Land Use Designations Summary Building Foundation Area Plan Intensity Component Land Use Range Notes Designation (du/ac or FAR)1,2,3 • Agricultural land including row crops, groves, Agriculture nurseries, dairies, poultry farms,processing plants, and Agriculture (AG) 10 ac min. other related uses. •One single-family residence allowed per 10 acres except as otherwise specified by a policy or an overlay. •Single-family residences with a minimum lot size of 5 Rural acres. Residential 5 ac min. •Allows limited animal keeping and agricultural uses, ( ) recreational uses, compatible resource development(not including the commercial extraction of mineral resources) and associated uses and governmental uses. • Single-family residential uses with a minimum lot size of 10 acres. •Areas of at least 10 acres where a minimum of 70% of Rural the area has slopes of 25% or greater. Mountainous 10 ac min. •Allows limited animal keeping, agriculture, (RM) recreational uses,compatible resource development Rural (which may include the commercial extraction of mineral resources with approval of a SMP) and associated uses and governmental uses. •Single-family residential uses with a minimum lot size of 10 acres. •Allows limited animal keeping, agriculture, recreational,renewable energy uses including solar, Rural Desert 10 ac min. geothermal and wind energy uses, as well as associated (RD) uses required to develop and operate these renewable energy sources, compatible resource development (which may include the commercial extraction of mineral resources with approval of SMP), and governmental and utility uses. Estate Density • Single-family detached residences on large parcels of 2 Residential 2 ac min. to 5 acres. (RC-EDR) �eeping Limited agriculture, intensive equestrian and animal uses are expected and encouraged. http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 25 of 84 Very Low • Single-family detached residences on large parcels of 1 Density to 2 acres. Residential 1 ac mini. .Limited agriculture, intensive equestrian and animal (RC-VLDR) keeping uses are expected and encouraged. Rural Community Low Density • Single-family detached residences on large parcels oflh Residential 1/2ac min. . 1 acre. Residential •Limited agriculture, intensive equestrian and animal keeping uses are expected and encouraged. Conservation •The protection of open space for natural hazard (C) N/A protection, and natural and scenic resource preservation. Existing agriculture is permitted. Conservation •Applies to public and private lands conserved and Habitat N/A managed in accordance with adopted Multi Species (CH) Habitat and other Conservation Plans. • Includes bodies of water and natural or artificial drainage corridors. Water(W) N/A • Extraction of mineral resources subject to SMP may be permissible provided that flooding hazards are addressed and long term habitat and riparian values are maintained. Open Space •Recreational uses including parks,trails, athletic fields, Recreation(R) N/A and golf courses. • Neighborhood parks are permitted within residential land uses. • One single-family residence allowed per 20 acres. Rural (RUR) 20 ac min. •Extraction of mineral resources subject to SMP may be permissible provided that scenic resources and views are protected. Mineral • Mineral extraction and processing facilities. Resources N/A •Areas held in reserve for future mineral extraction and (MR) processing. Estate Density • Single-family detached residences on large parcels of 2 Residential 2 ac min. to 5 acres. (EDR) •Limited agriculture and animal keeping is permitted, however, intensive animal keeping is discouraged. Very Low • Single-family detached residences on large parcels of 1 Density to 2 acres. Residential 1 ac min. .Limited agriculture and animal keeping is permitted, (VLDR) however, intensive animal keeping is discouraged. Low Density • Single-family detached residences on large parcels of1h Residential 1/2ac min. to 1 acre. (LDR) •Limited agriculture and animal keeping is permitted, however, intensive animal keeping is discouraged. http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 26 of 84 • Single-family detached and attached residences with a Medium density range of 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre. Density •Limited agriculture and animal keeping is permitted, Residential 2 - 5 du/ac however, intensive animal keeping is discouraged. (MDR) • Lot sizes range from 5,500 to 20,000 sq. ft., typical 7,200 sq. ft. lots allowed. Medium High •Single-family attached and detached residences with a Density density range of 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre. Residential 5 - 8 du/ac .Lot sizes range from 4,000 to 6,500 sq. ft. (MHDR) High Density •Single-family attached and detached residences, Residential 8 - 14 du/ac including townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard homes, (HDR) patio homes,townhouses, and zero lot line homes . Very High Density 14 - 20 •Single-family attached residences and multi-family Residential du/ac dwellings. (VHDR) Highest •Multi-family dwellings, includes apartments and Density 20+du/ac condominium. Residential •Multi-storied(3+) structures are allowed. Community (HHDR) Development •Local and regional serving retail and service uses. The amount of land designated for Commercial Retail Commercial 0.20- 0.35 exceeds that amount anticipated to be necessary to serve Retail(CR) FAR the County's population at build out. Once build out of Commercial Retail reaches the 40% level within any Area Plan, additional studies will be required before CR development beyond the 40 % will be permitted. Commercial 0.20 - 0.35 •Tourist related commercial including hotels, golf Tourist(CT) FAR courses, and recreation/amusement activities. Commercial 0.35 - 1.0 •Variety of office related uses including financial, legal, Office (CO) FAR insurance and other office services. •Industrial and related uses including Light Industrial 0.25 - 0.60 warehousing/distribution, assembly and light (LI) FAR manufacturing,repair facilities, and supporting retail uses . Heavy 0.15 - 0.50 'More intense industrial activities that generate Industrial (HI) FAR significant impacts such as excessive noise, dust, and other nuisances. Business Park 0.25 - 0.60 'Employee intensive uses, including research& development,technology centers, corporate offices, (BP) FAR "clean" industry and supporting retail uses. http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 27 of 84 Public < 0.60 FAR :chools. Civic uses such as County administrative buildings and Facilities (PF) •Includes combination of small-lot single family 5 -40 du/ac residences, multi-family residences, commercial retail, Community office,business park uses,civic uses, transit facilities, Center(CC) 0'FAR'3 and recreational open space within a unified planned development area. This also includes Community Centers in adopted specific plans. •This designation is applied to areas outside of Community Centers. The intent of the Mixed Use designation is not to identify a particular mixture or Planning Area intensity of land uses,but to designate areas where a mixture of residential,commercial, office, entertainment, educational, and/or recreational uses,or other uses is planned. Overlays and Policy Areas Overlays and Policy Areas are not considered a Foundation Component. Overlays and Policy Areas address local conditions and can be applied in any Foundation Component. The specific details and development characteristics of each Policy Area and Overlay are contained in the appropriate Area Plan. Community •Allows Community Development land use designations to be applied through General Development Plan Amendments within specified areas within Rural, Rural Community, Agriculture, Overlay(CDO) or Open Space Foundation Component areas. Specific policies related to each Community Development Overlay are contained in the appropriate Area Plan. Community Center •Allows for either a Community Center or the underlying designated land use to be Overlay(CCO) developed. Rural Village •The Rural Village Overlay allows a concentration of residential and local-serving Overlay(RVO) commercial uses within areas of rural character. and Rural Village •The Rural Village Overlay allows the uses and maximum densities/intensities of the Overlay Study Medium Density Residential and Medium High Density Residential and Commercial Area(RVOSA) Retail land use designations. • In some rural village areas, identified as Rural Village Overlay Study Areas, the final boundaries will be determined at a later date during the consistency zoning program. ( The consistency zoning program is the process of bringing current zoning into consistency with the adopted general plan.) Watercourse •The Watercourse Overlay designates watercourses, including natural or controlled Overlay(WCO) stream channels and flood control channels. Specific •Permits flexibility in land uses designations to account for local conditions. Consult the Community applicable Area Plan text for details. Development Designation Overlay Policy Areas •Policy Areas are specific geographic districts that contain unique characteristics that http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 28 of 84 merit detailed attention and focused policies. These policies may impact the underlying land use designations. At the Area Plan level,Policy Areas accommodate several locally specific designations, such as the Limonite Policy Area(Jurupa Area Plan),or the Scott Road Policy Area(Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan). Consult the applicable Area Plan text for details. NOTES: t FAR=Floor Area Ratio, which is the measurement of the amount of non-residential building square footage in relation to the size of the lot. Du/ac=dwelling units per acre, which is the measurement of the amount of residential units in a given acre. 2 The building intensity range noted is exclusive,that is the range noted provides a minimum and maximum building intensity. 3 Clustering is encouraged in all residential designations. The allowable density of a particular land use designation may be clustered in one portion of the site in smaller lots, as long as the ratio of dwelling units/area remains within the allowable density range associated with the designation. The rest of the site would then be preserved as open space or a use compatible with open space(e. g., agriculture, pasture or wildlife habitat). Within the Rural Foundation Component and Rural Designation of the Open Space Foundation Component,the allowable density may be clustered as long as no lot is smaller thanlh acre. This'h acre minimum lot size also applies to the Rural Community Development Foundation Component. However, for sites adjacent to Community Development Founda- tion Component areas, 10,000 square foot minimum lots are allowed. The clustered areas would be a mix of 10,000 and/z acre lots. In such cases, larger lots or open space would be required near the project boundary with Rural Community and Rural Foundation Component areas. Table 2 Statistical Summary of the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan Base Land Use Designations a,h Land Use Designation Acreage I Dwelling Units Population Employment Agriculture Foundation Component Agriculture(AG) 695 35 103 35 Agriculture Total 1695 35 103 35 Rural Foundation Component Rural Residential (RR) 20,170 3,026 8,986 NA Rural Mountainous (RM) 760 38 113 NA Rural Desert(RD) 12,609 630 1,872 NA Rural Total 33,539 3,694 10,971 0 Rural Community Foundation Component Estate Density Residential (RC-EDR) 105 37 109 NA http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 29 of 84 Very Low Density Residential (RC- 718 359 1,066 NA VLDR) Low Density Residential (RC-LDR) 0 0 0 NA Rural Community Total 1823 1396 11,175 10 Open Space Foundation Component Open Space-Conservation (OS-C) 2,727 NA NA NA Open Space-Conservation Habitat(OS- 107,941 NA NA NA CH) Open Space-Water(OS-W) 4,415 NA NA NA Open Space-Recreation (OS-R) 2,524 NA NA 379 Open Space-Rural (OS-RUR) 69,126 1,728 5,133 NA Open Space-Mineral Resources (OS- 2,174 NA NA 65 MIN) Open Space Total 188,907 1,728 5,133 444 Community Development Foundation Component Estate Density Residential (EDR) 1,905 667 1,980 NA Very Low Density Residential (VLDR) 446 223 662 NA Low Density Residential (LDR) 335 402 1,193 NA Medium Density Residential (MDR) 8,713 30,497 90,576 NA Medium High Density Residential 1,499 9,745 28,942 NA (MHDR) High Density Residential (HDR) 1,143 12,574 37,345 NA Very High Density Residential (VHDR) 128 2,179 6,473 NA Highest Density Residential (HHDR) 0 0 0 NA Commercial Retail (CR)c 1,174 2,465 7,322 7,057 Commercial Tourist (CT) 398 NA NA 6,500 Commercial Office (CO) 14 NA NA 541 Light Industrial (LI) 4,507 NA NA 57,948 Heavy Industrial (HI) 36 NA NA 314 Business Park(BP) 180 NA NA 2,934 Public Facilities (PF) 2,314 NA NA 625 Community Center(CC) 0 0 0 0 http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 30 of 84 Community Development Total 1221792 158,752 1174,493 175,919 Other Land Uses, Overlays and Policy Areasd Rural Community-Estate Density 0 0 0 NA Residential 2 Glen Eden Policy Area 0 0 0 NA Medium Density Residential (2-4 du/ac) 0 0 0 NA Vista Santa Rosa Policy Area 1 1 4 NA Rural Village Overlay 116 71 211 60 Rural Village Overlay Study Area 0 0 0 0 Community Center Overlay 0 0 0 0 Community Retail Overlay 0 0 0 0 Other, Overlays and Policy Areas Total 117 72 215 60 BUILDOUT PROJECTIONS 246,756 64,677 192,090 76,458 TOTAL Other City 165,539 Indian Lands 9,228 Freeways 1,780 Other Total 176,547 AREA PLAN TOTAL ACRES 423,303 Overlays and Policy Areas The following provides the acreages for each Overlay and/or Policy Area within the Area Plan . Overlays and Policy Areas are districts that contain unique standards tailored to a local geographic area. In some instances, th Overlays and Policy Areas alter the allowable uses and maximum densities/intensities within the particular disti In these cases, the buildout potential resulting from the application of the Overlays and Policy Areas has been accounted for in the Base Land Use Designations above. Please see the Area Plan for a description of the uniqu, features contained within each Overlay or Policy Area. Acreage Overlays Mixed Use Planning Area 0 Community Development Overlay 0 Specific Community Development Designation Overlays and Policy Areas Wind Energy 23,719 http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Projeo* Page 31 of 84 Hot Springs 3,066 Sky Valley Mobile Home & RV Parks 48 Section 8 Sand Source Area 622 Total 27,455 NOTES: a. Statistics reflect the midpoint for the theoretical range of build-out projections. Reference Appendix E of the General Plan for assumptions and methodology. b. Overlay figures reflect the additional dwelling units,population and employment permissible under this category. c. It is assumed that Commercial Retail designation will buildout at 40% Commercial Retail and 60% Medium Density Residential. d. The acreage for the Overlays and Policy Areas have not been included in the acreage totals to avoid double counting. Policy Areas Not all areas within an Area Plan are the same. Distinctiveness is a primary means of avoiding the uniformity that so often plagues conventional suburban development. A Policy Area is a portion of an Area Plan that contains special or unique characteristics that merit detailed attention and focused policies. The location and boundaries of Policy Areas are shown on Figure 4,Policy Areas, and are described in detail below. Policy Areas Three policy areas have been designated within the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan. In some ways,these policies are even more critical to the sustained character of the Western Coachella Valley than some of the basic land use policies because they reflect deeply held beliefs about the kind of place this is and should remain. Their boundaries are shown on Figure 4, Policy Areas. These boundaries are only approximate and may be interpreted more precisely as decisions are called for in these areas. This flexibility, then, calls for considerable sensitivity in determining where conditions related to the policies actually exist, once a focused analysis is undertaken on a proposed development project. Rancho Mirage Sphere of Influence Policy Area The Rancho Mirage Sphere of Influence Policy Area is generally located in the center of the Western Coachella Valley planning area, on both sides of Interstate 10 at Ramon Road. The area includes the entire Sphere of Influence of the City of Rancho Mirage. Characterized by a series of http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 32 of 84 sloping dunes,hillsides and flat desert terrain, this area consists primarily of large vacant parcels, with some commercial uses near the intersection of Interstate 10 and Ramon Road. South of Interstate 10 in this policy area lies the Agua Caliente Casino. The community of Thousand Palms abuts the eastern edge of the Policy Area. One of the primary goals of this area plan is to contain and concentrate growth in several strategic unincorporated areas while preserving the rural and open space characteristics of the outlying IV areas. As demand for new development continues, the importance of •ui ' " the areas designated for community development will magnify, as ,r. will the need for sound, comprehensive planning. Undeveloped area west of Bob Hope Dr. This policy area, the majority of which is designated for community development, is one of the key components of the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan. Several issues and opportunities underlie the importance of the study area, including: • Biological and visual values of Indio Hills; • Supply of affordable housing for future Casino and other employment-generating land uses; •Adequate public facilities, including transportation, for future development; •Transit opportunities with direct access to rail and Interstate 10; • Burgeoning resort and casino industries and regional commercial demand; •Prominent, centralized location within the Coachella Valley; and • Abundance of vacant and/or underutilized land, divided among large parcels. Dealing with these issues and maximizing these opportunities requires meaningful, action-oriented, inter-jurisdictional cooperation. Though this policy area overlaps areas under the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside, the City of Rancho Mirage, and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, each shall retain land use authority over properties within their respective boundaries, unless other arrangements are made. WCVAP = Western Coachella Policies: Valley Area Plan Policy WCVAP 1.1 Form a joint planning effort with the City of Rancho http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 33 of 84 Mirage and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians to address land use planning and environmental review of development projects within the Policy Area, as identified on Figure 4, Policy Areas. WCVAP 1.2 Coordinate with local agencies to ensure adequate service provision for all development within the Policy Area. WCVAP 1.3 Encourage property owners within this policy area to develop their properties under a single Specific Plan application covering the entire area. WCVAP 1.4 Coordinate development strategies with the Thousand Palms Community Council and the Riverside County Economic Development Agency. WCVAP 1.5 Coordinate development strategies with the cities of Palm Desert and Cathedral City to ensure that development within the Policy Area does not adversely impact these cities. WCVAP 1.6 Require that development be sensitive to and retain the unique topographical features within and adjacent to the planning area. WCVAP 1.7 Ensure a mix of land uses that creates a vital, economically and environmentally healthy area that is supportive of transit and other forms of alternative modes of transportation, promotes walkability and civic life, and provides a variety of housing, civic,employment, and open space opportunities throughout the planning area. General land uses may include a mix of: •Regional and local-serving commercial uses; •Tourist facilities; •Residential densities from Medium to High Density Residential; •Active and passive open space areas; •Mixed use; • Cultural, educational, and civic uses; •Transit facilities; http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proiect Page 34 of 84 • Employment-intensive office and business park uses; and •Light Industrial uses north of Interstate 10. WCVAP 1.8 Incorporate open space and recreational amenities into the planning area in order to enhance recreational opportunities and community aesthetics. WCVAP 1.9 Apply the City of Rancho Mirage's adopted standards for median strips along specific roadways as those roadways extend into the City's Sphere of Influence. San Gorgonio Pass Wind Energy Policy Area The San Gorgonio Pass Wind Energy Area(see Figure 4) is considered to be one of the best areas in the nation for the development of wind energy. This is due primarily to the air pressure differences that exist between western Riverside County and the Coachella Valley. As air moves from the high pressure to low pressure area, it is, in effect, "funneled" through the Pass, creating ideal wind energy conditions. However,the siting of wind energy facilities can result in impacts to the environment and the general community, including scenic viewsheds, nearby residents, and, increasingly,nearby existing wind energy facilities. The sheer size of the wind turbine structures may block scenic views; noise generated by wind turbines could impact nearby residents; and spinning wind turbine blades could create wake effects, which could an adversely affect existing downwind wind turbines. Gorgonio Pass Wind Energy Area Wind energy development in the San Gorgonio Pass area was studied through the San Gorgonio Wind Resource Study EIR(1982), a joint environmental document prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and Riverside County. The document assessed three scenarios for wind energy development in the area. The document also includes criteria for the development of wind energy on both a countywide basis and specifically for the San Gorgonio Pass area. Since the adoption of the San Gorgonio Wind Implementation Monitoring Program(WIMP), reports have been prepared, and substantial wind energy development has occurred. Reflecting the evolution of wind energy over the years,the specific policies for wind energy development in the San Gorgonio Pass are listed below: Policies: WCVAP 2.1 Require that wind turbines address through appropriate design the Pacific Crest Trail alignment. WCVAP 2.2 Continue to require wind energy development to http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 35 of 84 contribute a fair-share to the Wind Implementation Monitoring Program(WIMP)prior to construction of wind turbines. WCVAP 2.3 Except in the area designated Public Facilities on Edom Hill,prohibit the placement of commercial wind turbine arrays east of Indian Avenue, north of Pierson Boulevard, and south of Highway 111. WCVAP 2.4 Require proposed wind energy development to address significant impacts caused by wind turbine wake effects upon existing and approved downwind wind turbines. WCVAP 2.5 Prohibit the location of wind turbines within the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument. WCVAP 2.6 Other renewable resources such as solar generators, energy storage, distributed generation and cogeneration should complement wind energy uses. Limited industrial and commercial uses, serviced by alternative energy, where appropriate and consistent with existing residential uses should develop within portions of existing and future wind parks. Hot Springs Policy Area The Hot Springs Policy Area is a 4.75 square mile area located southeasterly of the City of Desert Hot Springs and westerly of the Sky Valley community.This area(including all of Sections 3,4, 10, and 11, the north half of Section 14, and the northeast quarter of Section 15, all in Township 3 South,Range 5 East) is recognized as a thermal resource area with hot mineral water that is clean, clear, and free of sulfur odor. The availability of this water for use in hot mineral water spas has been a primary factor in the siting of numerous mobile home parks and recreational vehicle parks in this area. This resource provides potential health benefits and assists in the attraction of tourists and seasonal residents to the Coachella Valley,thereby contributing to the local economy. For these reasons, it is appropriate to make special provision to allow for additional land uses developed specifically to utilize this natural resource. These may include hotels, motels, recreational vehicle parks, mobile home parks, residential developments, and institutional uses. Policies: WCVAP 3.1 Encourage the development of destination resorts, health and fitness facilities, and special needs housing that is specifically designed for utilization of the hot mineral water thermal resources for either personal use or structural hnp://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proiect Page 36 of 84 heating/water heating. WCVAP 3.2 Require that all destination facilities and residential development at Community Development densities have available the public facilities and services appropriate for the type of facilities proposed. WCVAP 3.3 Within this area, destination resorts may include service stations, car washes, mini-marts, small stores, and restaurants, provided that these commercial uses are associated with the destination resort, are built concurrently with or after the resort, and occupy not more than five percent of the total developed land area of the resort. (The latter phrase shall not apply if the area of these accessory commercial uses is designated Commercial Tourist or Commercial Retail.) WCVAP 3.4 Notwithstanding the mapped Area Plan designations in this area, any proposal to amend the Area Plan from a designation in the Rural foundation component to a designation in the Community Development foundation component that is submitted in conjunction with a land use or land division application that is specifically designed to utilize this natural hot water resource shall be exempt from the 5-year limit placed on Foundation Component general plan amendments, as described in the Administration Element. The authority for preparation of Specific Plans Specific Plans is found in the California Government Code, Specific plans are regulatory documents that provide a bridge between the Sections 65450 through 65457. General Plan and individual development projects in a more area-specific manner than is possible with community-wide zoning ordinances. Specific plans establish detailed land use, density and development standards, infrastructure requirements, and other policies addressing relevant area issues. Specific Plans are identified in this section as Policy Areas because detailed study and development direction is provided in each plan. Policies related to any listed specific plan can be reviewed at the Riverside County Planning Department. The eight specific plans located in the Western Coachella Valley planning area are listed in Table 3, Adopted Specific Plans in Western Coachella Valley Area Plan. Each of these specific plans is determined to be a Community Development Specific Plan, with the exception of Specific Plan No. 170 (Tesoro). Specific Plan No. 170 (Tesoro) was approved for development a number of years ago,but was never developed and has subsequently been purchased for habitat conservation. The approval of the Tesoro Specific Plan will be considered for rescission during the initial round of Specific http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated ProiPi-t Page 37 of 84 Plan reviews. Table 3 Adopted Specific Plans in Western Coachella Valley Area Plan Specific Plan Specific Plan # Mission Lakes 107 North Star 151 Tesoro 170 Andreas Cove 211 Coral Mountain* 218 Center Pointe 225 Adams Ranch 231 Sun City Palm Desert 281 Source: Riverside County Planning Department. * Portions of this specific plan extend into a neighboring Area Plan. Table 4 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Airport Safety Zones for March,Flabob,Bermuda Dunes, Chino,and Skylark Airports1,2 afet ey Maximum Population Density Maximum by St m Coverage Land Use 03 03 No significant obstructions4 Area I No petroleum or explosives No above-grade powerlines Uses in Structures:5 25% of net area No residential 25 persons/ac. 50% of gross area or No hotels, motels OR 65% of net area No restaurants,bars 150 persons/bldg. whichever is greater No schools,hospitals, government servk (see text in the source document No concert halls, auditoriums for the Comprehensive Land Use No stadiums, arenas Area II Plan for explanation) No public utility stations,plants Uses not in structures: No Public communications facilities 50 persons/ac. No uses involving, as the primary activit Residential manufacture, storage, or distribution of 2.5 Acre minimum lots explosives or flammable materials.6 Uses in structures:5 http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 38 of 84 75 persons/ac. or 300 persons/bldg. (see text in the source document for the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for explanation) Not Applicable 50% of gross area or Discourage schools, auditoriums, 65% of net area amphitheaters, stadiums Area III whichever is greater Discourage uses involving, as the primar activity, manufacture, storage, or distribution of explosives or flammable materials.6 1. The following uses shall be prohibited in all airport safety zones: a. Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated w airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA-approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator. b. Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at an airport. c. Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds,or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area. d. Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft andb aircraft instrumentation. 2. Avigation easements shall be secured through dedication for all land uses permitted in any safety zones. 3. No structures permitted in ETZ or ISZ. 4. Significant obstructions include but are not limited to large trees,heavy fences and walls, tall and steep berm and retaining walls, non-fragible street light and sign standards,billboards. 5. A structure includes fully enclosed buildings and other facilities involving fixed seating and enclosures limiti the mobility of people, such as sports stadiums, outdoor arenas, and amphitheaters. 6. This does not apply to service stations involving retail sale of motor vehicle fuel if fuel storage tanks are installed underground. Source: Extracted from Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission Comprehensive Land Use Plan Figure 4: Policy Areas http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proj--t Page 39 of 84 # 1 l t i f a Val - �,,,,,, E w , a http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.htnil 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 40 of 84 Figure 5: Bermuda Dunes Airport Influence Policy Area http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proj--t Page 41 of 84 o s F , Too j9 } _ 4c e� b 1 4.- t E a y y 0" �V • Bermuda Dunes Ait ( P o,... .._._,.. 4.1 4 VIIr1�Psi y�o ,r Bermuda max." Durfes N„, A <. �� »�, was _' _ "°fir, ..'' .. http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7152007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 42 of 84 Land Use While the General Plan Land Use Element and Area Plan Land Use Map guide future development patterns in Western Coachella Valley, additional policy guidance is often necessary to address local land use issues that are unique to the area or that require special policies that go above and beyond those identified in the General Plan. These policies may reinforce County regulatory provisions,preserve special lands or historic structures,require or encourage particular design features or guidelines, or restrict certain activities, among others. The intent is to enhance and/or preserve the identity,character, and features of this unique area. The Local Land Use Policies section provides a host of policies to address those land use issues relating specifically to the Western Coachella Valley area. Local Land Use Policies Bermuda Dunes and Palm Springs Airport Influence Areas Due to issues of noise, safety, and land use compatibility, the Riverside y County Airport Land Use Commission establishes more stringent land 11 use regulations for areas adjacent to airports that lie within "Airport Influence Areas." Bermuda Dunes Airport, a private airport located in the community of Bermuda Dunes, is surrounded primarily by urban uses. These areas fall within the unincorporated County. ermuda Dunes Airport In the case of Palm Springs Airport,the airport influence area does not affect any unincorporated lands. There are three safety zones associated with the Bermuda Dunes Airport Influence Area. These safety zones are shown in Figure 5, Bermuda Dunes Airport Influence Policy Area. Properties within these zones are subject to regulations governing such issues as development intensity, density,height of structures, and noise. Within Area II, the minimum lot size for residential development is 2.5 acres. These land use restrictions are fully set forth in Appendix L and are summarized in Table 4, Land Use Compatibility Guidelines for Airport Safety Zones for March,Flabob, Bermuda Dunes, Chino, and Skylark Airports , and land use proposals shall be evaluated for appropriateness within these safety zones. For more information on these zones and additional airport policies, refer to Appendix L and the Land Use, Circulation, Safety and Noise Elements of the Riverside County General Plan. Policies: WCVAP 4.1 To provide for the orderly development of Bermuda Dunes Airport and the surrounding area, comply with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Bermuda Dunes Airport as fully http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Prof- Page 43 of 84 set forth in Appendix L and as summarized in Table 4, as well as any applicable policies related to airports in the Land Use, Circulation, Safety and Noise Elements of the Riverside County General Plan. Sky Valley Rural Village Overlay The Sky Valley Rural Village overlay area encompasses 115 acres along Dillon Road in the Sky Valley community. While the underlying designation on Figure 3, Land Use Plan, is Rural Residential, this area would be allowed to accommodate additional residential and commercial development under the regulations of the Rural Village Overlay. The intent of the Sky Valley Rural Village Overlay is to establish an intimate rural core that provides local-serving commercial and public services for the residents of Sky Valley, and allows for additional estate density and very low density residential development, while preserving the community's rural character. The Village would consist of a small commercial/public use core area, with the remainder consisting of single family residential development and open space. The General Plan Land Use Element details policies for development within Rural Village areas countywide. The following policies for the Sky Valley Rural Village Overlay area provide additional and more restrictive policies regarding residential density, commercial intensity, and development design. Policies: WCVAP 5.1 Limit residential development to a density not to exceed 0.4 dwelling units per acre(2-'/z-acre minimum lot size). WCVAP 5.2 Allow clustered lots of minimum size one(1) acre, but maintain the overall density of the Village area at 0.4 dwelling units per acre. WCVAP 5.3 Limit new commercial and public uses to a single core area not to exceed five(5) acres in size. WCVAP 5.4 Require that development maintains the rural character of the area. WCVAP 5.5 Ensure that development is compatible with existing and adjacent uses. Sky Valley Mobile Home Parks and Recreational Vehicle Parks http://www.rctlma.org/generalplmVap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proje(-r Page 44 of 84 In addition to the mapped Hot Springs Policy Area located westerly of Sky Valley, the same type of thermal resources exist in portions of Sky Valley in the vicinity of the existing mobile home park and recreational vehicle park southerly of Dillon Road. In order to utilize this natural resource, it is appropriate to make special provision to allow for the expansion of these land uses in this Rural Residential designated area. WCVAP 6.1 Notwithstanding the mapped Area Plan designations of the subject properties, any proposal to amend the Area Plan from a designation in the Rural foundation component to a designation in the Community Development foundation component that is submitted in conjunction with a land use or land division application that is specifically designed to provide for expansion of an existing mobile home park or recreational vehicle park, or the establishment of new mobile home parks or recreational vehicle parks on properties located south of Dillon Road in the east half of the northwest quarter and the west half of the northeast quarter of Section 21, Township 3 South, Range 6 East, S.b. b. and M. that are contiguous to such parks shall be exempt from the 5-year limit placed on Foundation Component general plan amendments, as described in the Administration Element, provided that: a. The project is specifically designed to provide for the utilization of the hot mineral water thermal resources by the project's future residents, customers, and guests. b. The total acreage that may utilize this exemption is limited to a maximum of 40.75 acres. c. The proponent shall submit, in conjunction with the project application, a hydrogeological report assessing the presence of the resource and its potential for use by the project's future residents, customers, and guests. d. Adequate services are available to the project, including sewer service. e. The project is designed to be compatible with its rural surroundings. Residential Uses The scenic qualities of the Coachella Valley make the area a special place to live. With the Valley continuing to face growth and development pressures, it is essential that current and future residents are able to maintain views of the desert and mountainous terrain from their homes. The following policies apply only to new residential developments http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proj-^ Page 45 of 84 approved after the effective date of this General Plan having densities of 8 dwelling units per acre or more, within the High, Very High, and Highest Density Residential land use designations, and address building height and compatibility issues between adjacent, varying residential densities. (Note: Policies relating to rooflines and buildings may not be applicable to mobile home parks.) Policies: WCVAP 7.1 Utilize single-story units adjacent to existing single family developments. WCVAP 7.2 Ensure that two-story residential units do not block views from adjacent single family residences. WCVAP 7.3 Require additional front and side-yard setbacks, where necessary, in order to ensure land use compatibility. WCVAP 7.4 Ensure that architectural design is compatible with or enhances adjacent development. WCVAP 7.5 Enhance blockwalls with special treatment or design. WCVAP 7.6 Require residential development to incorporate the following design criteria: a. Roofline variation,through level changes and/or different building heights. b. Setback variation of units to reduce a straight-line effect, but in no case less than required by the County Land Use Ordinance. c. Facade treatment variation through use of compatible materials or colors. d. Consideration for security through lighting and visibility of common areas from units. e. Use of walls, landscaped berms, and plant materials in combination to provide screening buffers to roadways and adjacent land uses. f. Use of street trees and landscaping along interior roadways and parking areas. g. Placement of trees and other plant materials on both http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 46 of 84 sides of walls along street frontages and other rights-of- way. h. Development projects with carports shall be designed with carports located out of view of the frontage street and other right-of-ways or provide with substantial screening. i. All buildings shall be provided with design treatments for roofs and facade with tile or other appropriate materials. j. The use of native and/or water-efficient plants, where feasible. Thousand Palms Levees The Coachella Valley Water District is currently working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, along with other federal and state agencies, to design a system of levees to protect certain developed areas of Thousand Palms from flooding hazards, while maintaining the sand transport system essential to the survival of the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard. The community of Thousand Palms is an area that has been identified as needing additional housing units;however, development has been constrained by these flood hazards. Some of the area that has been designated Rural Residential on the Area Plan due to flood hazards may be made available for development if it is protected from floodwaters by these levees. Policies: WCVAP 8.1 Notwithstanding the mapped Area Plan designation of Rural Residential in this area, any proposal to amend the Area Plan designation of lands that will be removed from the 100-year flood plain as a result of the construction of the planned levee system from the Rural foundation component to either the Community Development or Rural Community foundation component shall be exempt from the 5-year limit placed on Foundation Component general plan amendments, as described in the Administration Element. WCVAP 8.2 Density transfers from unprotected areas to protected areas of Thousand Palms will be encouraged where the proposed development is compatible with the surrounding areas of the community and environmental and infrastructure concerns can be satisfactorily resolved. Section 8 Sand Source Area Policies: http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Pro1Pr+ Page 47 of 84 WCVAP 9.1 Notwithstanding the provisions of this General Plan allowing for clustering and density transfer,no new lot shall be established within Section 8, Township 4 South,Range 6 East smaller than five acres in gross area. Merger of parcels smaller than five acres shall be encouraged. A minimum lot size of ten acres shall be required for second unit permits. Commercial Retail Uses Commercial uses are found in scattered locations throughout the Valley. In order to ensure that commercial development does not degrade the visual qualities of the Valley, it is important to establish screening elements that shield potentially unsightly areas from public view. In addition to those policies found in the General Plan,the following policy applies to Commercial Retail uses in the Western Coachella Valley: Policies: WCVAP 10.1 Require screening through landscaping, or other effective mechanisms, of outdoor storage areas, other than authorized sales and display areas. Commercial Office Uses The following policies apply to Commercial Office uses in the Western Coachella Valley: Policies: WCVAP 11.1 Professional offices may be found consistent within the Medium High, High,Very High, and Highest Density Residential land use designations under the following: •All projects shall use single-story construction, and/or additional building setbacks,blockwalls, landscaped berms, trees and other landscaping where adjacent to residential development. •Parking areas shall be well screened from residential developments, and traffic conflicts shall be limited. •Professional office uses must comply with the Commercial Office land use designation policies found in the Land Use Element. Industrial Uses http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 48 of 84 The Land Use Plan for Western Coachella Valley designates over 4,500 acres of land for industrial development. Several of these areas are located along the Interstate 10 corridor, with some nearby areas designated for residential uses. Preserving the visual qualities of the Valley and ensuring compatibility with adjacent uses are the focus of the policies listed below. In addition to those policies found in the General Plan, the following policies shall apply to industrial land uses in the Western Coachella Valley: Policies: WCVAP 12.1 Require a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet for industrial uses. WCVAP 12.2 Ensure that industrial buildings do not exceed fifty feet in height. WCVAP 12.3 Discourage industrial uses which may conflict with residential land uses either directly or indirectly. WCVAP 12.4 Require the screening and/or landscaping of outdoor storage areas, such as contractor storage yards and similar uses. WCVAP 12.5 Permit limited commercial uses within existing and proposed industrial development. Recreational Vehicle Development The vast desert and mountainous terrain, along with a pleasant, moderate winter climate and an abundance of recreational opportunities, makes the Coachella Valley a haven for recreational vehicle (RV)enthusiasts. Many RV parks can be found scattered throughout the Valley. Several are located within one mile on either side of Dillon Road between Mountain View and Bennett Roads. As with any other type of land use,RV developments require guidelines for service provision, land use compatibility, safety, and accessibility. Recreational vehicle development in the Western Coachella Valley shall be classified into two categories: Resort Recreational Vehicle, and Remote Recreational Vehicle. Resort Recreational Vehicle developments are projects that offer improved facilities for RVs, including full hookups for sewage disposal and water. These parks may also provide recreational amenities such as golf courses, swimming pools,recreational lakes, and recreational buildings. Internal roads are paved and designed to control drainage. Resort RV http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proj-1 Page 49 of 84 developments are appropriate primarily in urban areas, and require community water and sewer facilities in accordance with Community Development land use standards. Remote Recreational Vehicle developments differ from Resort RV projects in several ways: • Spaces are not fully improved. • Spaces accommodate tent camping. • Sewers are not available. •Fully developed recreational facilities are not provided, though open space areas may be provided. • Internal roads may not be paved. •The development site is designed to provide a campground appearance. Remote RV developments are appropriate primarily in rural and outlying areas, and must be compatible with surrounding uses. The following policies shall apply to recreational vehicle development in the Western Coachella Valley: Policies: WCVAP 13.1 Ensure proper service provision, land use compatibility, design standards, safety, and accessibility for RV development in Western Coachella Valley through adherence to General Plan policies found in the Land Use Element. WCVAP 13.2 Allow Resort RV developments within the following land use designations: Low, Medium, Medium High, High, and Very High Density Residential Areas,Commercial Tourist, and Open Space-Recreation. WCVAP 13.3 Limit Resort RV developments to a density of sixteen(16) spaces per acre. WCVAP 13.4 Allow Remote RV developments within the following land use designations: Very Low Density Residential, Estate Density Residential,Rural Residential, Rural Mountainous, Rural Desert, Open Space- Recreation, and Open Space-Rural. http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Projerr Page 50 of 84 WCVAP 13.5 Limit Remote RV developments to a density of seven (7) spaces per acre. i' Signage The scenic qualities of the Coachella Valley are widely cherished by residents and visitors alike. Effective regulation of outdoor advertising is one important component of preserving the Valley's visual character, particularly in the face of expanding urbanization. Policies: WCVAP 14.1 Adhere to the Advertising Regulations of the County Land Use Ordinance, Section 19, regarding outdoor advertising for all development within the Western Coachella Valley. WCVAP 14.2 Prohibit the placement of billboards within the Western Coachella Valley. For incidental commercial uses within existing and proposed n�C� resort/country club type developments the o owmg signage policies shall apply: WCVAP 14.3 Incidental commercial use signage shall be oriented toward residents and visitors inside such developments. a. Free-standing or monument signs are not permitted. b. Wall signs shall be limited to 6 square feet in size and placed no higher than 8 feet high. c. All signs shall be non-illuminated. d. No more than 2 signs shall be permitted. WCVAP 14.4 For premises adjacent to the right-of-way of scenic IZ corridors, single support free-standing signs for on-site advertising shall be prohibited. A sign affixed to buildings, a free-standing monument sign, or a free-standing sheathed-support sign which has minimal impact on the scenic setting shall be utilized for on- site advertising purposes along the below-referenced scenic corridors. a. For purposes of this policy, scenic corridors include: • State Route 111 http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project _ Page 51 of 84 • State Route 62 •Ramon Road,between Interstate 10 and the City of Rancho Mirage •Bob Hope Drive,between Interstate 10 and the City of Rancho Mirage •Washington Street,between Interstate 10 and the Cities of Indian Wells and La Quinta •Palm Drive •Pierson Boulevard • Monterey Avenue, Kubic Road, Interstate 10 to the Cities of Rancho Mirage-Palm Desert • State Route 74 •Country Club Drive between Washington Street and the City of Palm Desert •Fred Waring Drive • Snow Creek Road •Dillon Road • Whitewater Canyon Road • Interstate 10 • Varner Road •42nd Avenue b. For purposes of this area plan, the following definitions shall apply: (1)FREE-STANDING MONUMENT SIGN means a sign whose height does not exceed 2/3 of its length, with a single base of the sign structure which is on the ground, or no more than I foot above adjacent grade if located in a raised mound or landscaped area. http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project_ Page 52 of 84 (2)FREE-STANDING SHEATHED-SUPPORT SIGN means a sign supported by at least two uprights constructed in or decoratively covered in design, materials and colors which match those of the use advertised, which blends harmoniously with the surrounding environment, and which is located far enough from adjacent free-standing signs to reduce visual clutter. (3) SIGNS AFFIXED TO BUILDINGS means any on-site advertising sign painted or otherwise reproduced on the outer face of a building,or attached to the outer face of a building. (4) HIGHWAY SCENIC CORRIDOR means those arterial roadways designated within this area plan that have prominent scenic vistas open to public view. (5)FREEWAY SCENIC CORRIDOR means those divided arterial highways or highway sections, with full control of access and with grade separations at intersections, designated within this community plan which have prominent scenic vistas open to public view. c. On-site advertising signs for businesses located along freeway scenic corridors shall comply with the following: (1) Businesses located within 660 feet of the terminus of a freeway exit ramp or the origination of a freeway entrance ramp may utilize either monument or sheathed-support signs in addition to signs affixed to buildings. i. A free-standing monument sign for a single business or tenant may be approved with a maximum height of 10 feet and a maximum surface area of 150 square feet. A free-standing monument sign for multiple businesses or tenants may be approved with an overall height of 12 feet or less and a maximum surface area of 200 square feet. ii. A free-standing sheathed-support sign for a single business or tenant may be approved with a maximum height of 35 feet and a maximum surface area of 150 square feet. A http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Projp^+ Page 53 of 84 (I 1 a free-standing sheathed-support sign for multiple businesses or tenants may be approved with a maximum height of 35 feet. The maximum surface area shall be the greater of either 150 square feet, or .25 percent(1/4 of 1 percent) of the total existing building floor area, except that in any event,no sign shall exceed 200 square feet in surface area. iii. A sign affixed to a building, advertising the business contained therein, shall not exceed 10 percent of the surface area of the building wall facing the freeway. A single sign, or a total of all signs, affixed to a building and advertising multiple businesses contained therein shall not exceed 10 percent of the surface area of the building wall facing the freeway. (2) Businesses located within 330 feet of the nearest edge of a freeway right-of-way line,but farther than I� 660 feet from the terminus of a freeway exit ramp or the origination of a freeway entrance ramp, may utilize either monument or sheathed-support signs in addition to signs affixed to buildings. i. A free-standing monument sign for a single business or tenant may be approved with a maximum height of 10 feet and a maximum surface area of 150 square feet. A free-standing monument sign for multiple businesses or tenants may be approved with an overall height of 12 feet or less and a maximum surface area of 200 square feet. ii. A free-standing sheathed-support sign for a single business or tenant may be approved with a maximum height of 25 feet, or the actual height of the primary building advertised, whichever is less, and a maximum surface area of 150 square feet. A free-standing sheathed-support sign for multiple businesses or tenants may be approved with an overall height of 25 feet, or the actual height of the primary building advertised, whichever is less. The maximum surface area shall be the greater of either 150 http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 54 of 84 square feet, or .25 percent(1/4 of 1 percent) Y I of the total existing building floor area, except that in any event, no sign shall exceed 200 square feet in surface area. iii. A sign affixed to a building, advertising a single business contained therein, shall not exceed 10 percent of the surface area of the building wall facing the freeway. A single sign, or a total of all signs, affixed to a building and advertising multiple businesses contained therein shall not exceed 10 percent of the surface area of the building wall facing the freeway. d. On-site advertising signs for businesses located along highway scenic corridors shall comply with the following (1) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this policy, a single-business monument sign may be approved with a maximum height of 10 feet, and a maximum 150 square feet of sign surface area. A multiple-business monument sign may be approved with a maximum height of 12 feet or less, and a maximum 200 square feet of sign surface area. (2) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this policy, a single-business sheathed-support sign or a multiple-business•sheathed-support sign shall not be erected along a highway scenic corridor. (3) A sign affixed to a building, advertising the business contained therein, shall not exceed 10 percent of the surface area of the building wall facing the highway. A single sign, or a total of all signs, affixed to a building and advertising multiple businesses contained therein shall not exceed 10 percent of the surface area of the building wall facing the highway. Light Pollution The continued growth of urban activities throughout the Valley has many consequences. One of the attractions for residents is the brilliance of the nighttime sky on clear nights, unencumbered by lighting scattered over a large urban area. Wildlife habitat areas can also be negatively impacted by artificial lighting.As development continues to encroach from established urban cores into both rural and open space areas,the effect of nighttime http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proj--t Page 55 of 84 lighting on star-gazing and open space areas will become more pronounced. Furthermore, the Mount Palomar Observatory, located in San Diego County, requires darkness so that the night sky can be viewed clearly. The presence of the observatory necessitates unique nighttime lighting standards in several areas of Riverside County. See Figure 6, Mount Palomar Nighttime Lighting Policy. The following policies are intended to limit light leakage and spillage that may obstruct or hinder the view. Policies: WCVAP 15.1 Where outdoor lighting is proposed, require the inclusion of outdoor lighting features that would minimize the effects on the nighttime sky and wildlife habitat areas. WCVAP 15.2 Adhere to the lighting requirements of the County Ordinance Regulating Light Pollution for standards that are intended to limit light leakage and spillage that may interfere with the operations of the Palomar Observatory. Figure 6: Mt. Palomar Nighttime Lighting Policy http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 56 of 84 E , —71 Sit LT Row i >. s & y, _kIA y .... s h ( irk$ Y Swr L s J• a ;c 7 3 -31Yc- w,a�.iPMY. Lr.w.raw..srw.;.eA.wym http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Projp t Page 57 of 84 Circulation The circulation system is vital to the prosperity of a community. It provides for the movement of goods and people within and outside of the community and includes motorized and non-motorized travel modes such as bicycles,trains, aircraft, automobiles, and trucks. In Riverside County, the circulation system is also intended to accommodate a pattern of concentrated growth,providing both a regional and local linkage system between unique communities. This system is multi-modal,which means that it provides numerous alternatives to the automobile, such as transit, pedestrian systems, and bicycle facilities so that Riverside County citizens and visitors can access the region by a number of transportation options. Innovative designs allow for As stated in the Vision and the Land Use Element,the County is moving increased density in key away from a growth pattern of random sprawl toward a pattern of locations, such as near transit concentrated growth and increased job creation. The intent of the new stations, with associated growth patterns and the new mobility systems is to accommodate the benefits. In these and other transportation demands created by future growth and to provide mobility neighborhoods as well, walking, options that help reduce the need to utilize the automobile. The circulation bicycling, and transit systems system is designed to fit into the fabric of the land use patterns and are attractive alternatives to accommodate the open space systems. driving for many residents. While the following section describes the circulation system as it relates RCIP Vision to the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan, it is important to note that the programs and policies are supplemental to, and coordinated with,the policies of the General Plan Circulation Element. In other words, the circulation system of Western Coachella Valley is tied to the countywide system and its long range direction. As such, successful implementation of the policies in the Area Plan will help to create an interconnected and efficient circulation system for the entire County. Local Circulation Policies Vehicular Circulation System The vehicular circulation system that supports the Land Use Plan for the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan is shown on Figure 7, Circulation. This system is anchored by four major transportation corridors: Interstate 10, State Route 62, State Route 74 and State Route 111. A system of major and secondary arterials and collector and local roads serves both regional and local needs. Policies: WCVAP 16.1 Design and develop the vehicular roadway system per Figure 7, Circulation, and in accordance with the Functional http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 58 of 84 Classifications section and standards specified in the General Plan Circulation Element. WCVAP 16.2 Maintain the County's roadway Level of Service standards as described in the General Plan Circulation Element. WCVAP 16.3 Consider the following regional and community wide transportation options when developing transportation improvements in the WCVAP. a. Construct a new interchange on I-10 at Portola Avenue. b. Support the development of regional transportation facilities and services (such as high-occupancy vehicle lanes, express bus service, and fixed transit facilities), which will encourage the use of public transportation and ridesharing for longer distance trips. Trails and Bikeway System The County of Riverside contains bicycle, pedestrian, and multi-purpose trails that traverse urban, rural, and natural areas. These trails accommodate hikers,bicyclists, equestrian users, and others as an integral part of the County's circulation system. These multi-use trails serve both as a means of connecting the unique communities and activity centers throughout the County and as an effective alternate mode of transportation. In addition to transportation,the trail system also serves as a community amenity by providing recreation and leisure opportunities. The rural nature of much of the unincorporated Valley area along with its tremendous scenic qualities make trails a particularly attractive recreational amenity. The Western Coachella Valley Area Plan trail system is shown in Figure 8,Trails and Bikeway System. Policies: WCVAP 17.1 Develop a system of local trails that enhances the Western Coachella Valley's recreational opportunities and connects with the Riverside County regional trails system and the Eastern Coachella Valley Area Plan trails system. WCVAP 17.2 Implement the Trails and Bikeway System,Figure 8, as discussed in the General Plan Circulation Element. Scenic Highways The scenic beauty of the Western Coachella Valley is often enjoyed while traveling on its highways. Several of these routes within the region have http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proj--t Page 59 of 84 been designated or identified as scenic highways for inclusion in the State I� Scenic Highways program. Morever, scenic highways play an important role in encouraging the growth of recreation and tourism--both important aspects of the Riverside County economy. Scenic Highways designations :Dillon recognize this value and place restrictions on adjacent development to Road help protect this resource for future generations. The location of scenic highways in the Western Coachella Valley area is shown in Figure 9,Scenic Highways. Policies: WCVAP 18.1 Protect the scenic highways in the Western Coachella Valley from change that would diminish the aestheti value of adjacent properties in accordance with policies in the Scenic Corridors sections of the Land Use, Multipurpose Open Space, and Circulation Elements. Figure 7: Circulation http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 60 of 84 � 1 KI 1 1 � 1 1 a� a �v T r t http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Prot--* Page 61 of 84 Figure 8: Trails and Bikeway System http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 62 of 84 LO fit m� It fl 000 fill ' 10, y 2 �e13� S M« , q x I �1111,,,� http://www.rctlma.org/generalplaiVap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proj— Page 63 of 84 Figure 9: Scenic Highways http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 64 of 84 s � a e , z 4 E � � e > L {sue x Y� •6 eft ........ :��� � '..> '4 � .0 /V County Eligible V State Designated State Eligible http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proj--t Page 65 of 84 Multipurpose Open Space The open space system and the The appeal of the Coachella Valley lies in its dramatic and expansive methods for its acquisition, natural setting. The Western Coachella Valley area contains a vast open maintenance, and operation are space network that encompasses a diverse variety of habitats, including calibrated to its many riparian corridors, sand dunes,foothills, alluvial fans, and mountains. functions: visual relief, natural These open space areas provide visual relief, serve as habitat for flora and resources protection, habitat fauna,provide recreational opportunities, form edges to communities, and preservation,passive and active otherwise establish the Valley's unique character. Open space areas also recreation,protection from are important in protecting citizens from natural hazards. natural hazards, and various combinations of these purposes. Due in part to this open and scenic environment,the Coachella Valley This is what is meant by a continues to experience growth and development pressures threatening the multipurpose open space very setting that makes this such a unique region. Establishing a balance system. between preserving open space areas and accommodating additional population is essential to maintaining the spectacular quality of life -RCIP Vision enjoyed by Valley residents and visitors and to sustain cultural and environmental values that draw tourists to this area. Policies: WCVAP 19.1 Protect visual and biological resources in the Western Coachella Valley through adherence to General Plan policies found in the Fish and Wildlife Habitat section of the Multipurpose Open Space Element. A watershed is the entire region Local Open Space Policies drained by a waterway that drains into a lake or reservoir. It is the total area above a given point on a stream that Watershed, Floodplains, and Watercourses contributes water to the flow at that point, and the topographic Western Coachella Valley lies within the Whitewater River Watershed dividing line from which region. This watershed consists of the Whitewater River, which runs the surface streams flow in two length of the Valley, and its tributaries, including the San Gorgonio River, different directions. Clearly, Mission Creek, Little and Big Morongo Creeks, and Box Canyon Wash. watersheds are not just water. A Other important streams include Snow, Chino,Falls Creek and Murray single watershed may include Creek,Tahquitz and Andreas Creeks on the San Jacinto Mountains, and combinations of forests, Palm Canyon, which separates the San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains. glaciers, deserts, and/or These and smaller perennial streams create a system of ever-changing grasslands. channels within the Valley that change its physical appearance. Policies: Watercourses are the corridors WCVAP 20.1 Protect the Whitewater River watershed and habitat, and provide recreational opportunities and flood protection http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 66 of 84 of streams, rivers, and creeks, through adherence to policies in the Open Space,Habitat and whether permanent or seasonal, Natural Resources Preservation section of the General Plan Land natural or channelized. Use Element and the Watershed Management section of the General Plan Multipurpose Open Space Element. A major thrust of the Habitat Conservation multipurpose open space system is the preservation of With its rich and varied landscape, the Western Coachella Valley components of the ecosystem accommodates several ecological habitats that are home to numerous flora and landscape that embody the and fauna. Increasing development pressures in the Valley will continue historic character and habitat to impact habitat areas for species such as the Peninsular bighorn sheep of the County, even though and the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard. Preserving habitat not only some areas have been impacted aids in sustaining species' survival,but also maintains the quality of life in by man-made changes. the Valley and promotes tourism. -RCIP Vision Alluvial fans in the Coachella Valley are important natural and habitat resource areas. Further,they are especially prone to wind erosion, as well as the occurrence of blowsand, although these conditions are not limited to these areas alone. Although blowsand acts as a hazard towards human activity, it serves as an essential element to maintaining habitat areas within the Valley. The Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard and several other species are adapted to live on wind-blown sand. The protection of this species requires that its blowsand habitat be protected from land use developments that would result in habitat loss. The Fringe-toed Lizard habitat area is shown on Figure 10, Fringe-toed Lizard Habitat Areas. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments is preparing,on behalf of its member agencies, a proposed Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(CVMSHCP),which is intended to cover 28 species of plants and animals in the Coachella Valley. Currently,this plan proposes z; k. to conserve between 200,000 and 250,000 acres of privately owned land through general plan land use designations, zoning/development standards and an aggressive acquisition program for a total conservation area of between 700,000 and 750,000 acres. Figure 11, Coachella Valley Coachella Association of Governments MSHCP, delineates that portion of the Valley Fringe-toed CVMSHCP that lies within the Western Coachella Valley area. This Plan Lizard is not yet adopted and is subject to change. This map is for informational purposes only. Policies: WCVAP 21.1 Protect biological resources in the Western Coachella Valley through adherence to General Plan policies found in the Fish and Wildlife Habitat section of the Multipurpose Open Space Element, as well as policies contained in the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan,upon the http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated ProjQ Page 67 of 84 latter's adoption. WCVAP 21.2 Require all development activities within Fringe- toed Lizard habitat areas be compatible with the conservation principles and provisions of the Fringe-toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan and the standards of the Multipurpose Open Space Element. WCVAP 21.3 Preserve the environmentally sensitive alluvial fan areas flowing out of the canyons of the Santa Rosa Mountains. Figure 10: Fringe-toed Lizard Habitat Areas http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 68 of 84 k g, r , x r, £: ' . .._ gin. , 3 3 c i i i> ' I � a s u > x;- +Sxn L x s p Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard Habitat http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proj--t Page 69 of 84 Figure 11: Coachella Valley Association of Governments MSHCP http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 70 of 84 Ui r ( 3 W r t a © ' � a http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated ProjP,,t Page 71 of 84 Hazards Hazards are natural and man-made conditions that must be respected if life and property are to be protected as growth and development occur. As the ravages of wildland fires, floods, earthquakes, and other disasters become clearer through the news,public awareness and sound public policy combine to require serious attention to these conditions. Portions of the Western Coachella Valley are subject to hazards such as flooding, dam inundation, wind erosion and blowsand, seismic occurrences, and wildland fire. These hazards are depicted on the hazards maps,Figure 12 to Figure 16, and are located throughout the Western Coachella Valley area at varying degrees of risk and danger. Some hazards must be avoided entirely, while the potential impacts of others can be mitigated by special building techniques. The following policies provide additional direction for relevant issues specific to the Western Coachella Valley. Local Hazard Policies Flooding and Dam Inundation One-hundred-year flood zones have been identified throughout the planning area. The Western Coachella Valley has experienced severe flooding many times throughout its history,resulting in the loss of lives and millions of dollars in property damage. Alluvial fan runoff from mountain ranges and hills after severe storms is a source of much of the area's flooding potential. The tremendous capital investments made in dikes, channels, levees, and dams over this century have not,however, eliminated flood hazards. Development has occurred without adequate protection in some areas. Policies: WCVAP 22.1 Adhere to the flood proofing, flood protection requirements, and Flood Management Review requirements of Riverside County Ordinance No. 458 Regulating Flood Hazard Areas. WCVAP 22.2 Require that proposed development projects that are. subject to flood hazards, surface ponding,high erosion potential, or sheet flow be submitted to the Coachella Valley Water District or the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District for review. WCVAP 22.3 Create flood control projects that maximize multi- http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/Wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 72 of 84 recreational use and water recharge when possible. WCVAP 22.4 Protect life and property from the hazards of flood events through adherence to the Flood and Inundation Hazards section of the General Plan Safety Element. Wind Erosion& Blowsand Wind erosion most commonly occurs when barren sand or sandy loam soils are exposed to high wind in the absence of moisture. Alluvial fans in the Western Coachella Valley are especially prone to wind erosion, although wind erosion is not limited to these areas. Human activity can increase wind erosion by disrupting soil formations and compaction, disturbing the stabilizing and wind-breaking effect of dunes, and most significantly, removing surface vegetation and its stabilizing effects. Blowsand, the most severe form of wind erosion, occurs largely due to natural conditions. Blown sand can cause significant damage to property, and also results in the nuisance and expense of removing sand from roadways and other property, where it interferes with normal activity. Additionally,blowsand introduces a high level of suspended particulates into the air, including PM10, which can create respiratory problems. Despite its ability to cause property damage, alter normal activity, and create health problems,blowsand is also an essential element to maintaining habitat areas within the Valley. Many species in the Coachella Valley, as discussed in the Habitat Conservation section of this area plan, are adapted to live on wind blown sand. Creating a safe Blowsand environment for the residents of Western Coachella Valley and, at the Source Area environment time, protecting a valuable habitat resource requires,therefore, a delicate balance. Policies: WCVAP 23.1 Minimize damage from, and exposure to, wind erosion and blowsand through adherence to the Slope and Soil Instability Hazards section of the General Plan Safety Element. WCVAP 23.2 Require protection of soil in areas subject to wind erosion or blowsand. Mitigation measures that may be required include,but are not limited to, windbreaks, walls,fences, vegetative groundcover,rock, other stabilizing materials, and installation of an irrigation system or provision of other means of irrigation. WCVAP 23.3 Control dust through the policies of the Particulate Matter section of the General Plan Air Quality Element. http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Pro1Pr+ Page 73 of 84 Wildland Fire Hazard Due to the mountainous nature and flora of portions of the Western Coachella Valley and prevailing winds in the San Gorgonio Pass region, some of the areas in the Western Coachella Valley are subject to a risk of fire hazards. The highest danger of wildfires can be found in the most rugged terrain where, fortunately, development intensity is relatively low. Methods to address this hazard include such techniques as not building in high-risk areas, creating setbacks that buffer development from hazard areas, maintaining brush clearance to reduce potential fuel, establishing low fuel landscaping, and applying special building techniques. In still other cases, safety-oriented organizations such as Fire Safe can provide assistance in educating the public and promoting practices that contribute to improved public safety. Refer to Figure 13,Wildfire Susceptibility,to see the locations of the wildfire zones within the Western Coachella Valley area. Policies: WCVAP 24.1 Protect life and property from wildfire hazards through adherence to the Fire Hazards section of the General Plan Safety Element. Liquefaction occurs primarily Seismic/Liquefaction in saturated, loose,fine to medium-grained soils in areas Western Coachella Valley is traversed by several active and potentially where the groundwater table is active fault zones, including the San Andreas Fault, and has experienced within about 50 feet of the several earthquakes of moderate magnitude since records have been kept. surface. Shaking causes the The primary seismic hazards which result are ground shaking and the soils to lose strength and potential for ground rupture along the surface trace of the fault. Secondary behave as liquid. Excess water seismic hazards result from the interaction of ground shaking with pressure is vented upward existing soil and bedrock conditions, and include liquefaction, settlement, through fissures and soil cracks and landslides. and a water-soil slurry bubbles onto the ground surface. The Policies: resulting features are known as "sand boils", "sand blows"or WCVAP 25.1 Protect life and property from seismic related "sand volcanoes."Liquefaction- incidents through adherence to the Seismic Hazards section of the related effects include loss of General Plan Safety Element. bearing strength, ground oscillations, lateral spreading, Slope and flow failures or slumping. Proposals for the development of mountainous terrain in the Western Coachella Valley area raise a number of land use and safety concerns regarding slope, including drainage, erosion, fire, and vehicular access. Continued urbanization of hillside areas can lead to increased risk and damage from erosion and slope failures. The probability of landslides and mudslides can be affected by hillside development and associated site http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 74 of 84 designs, grading, and landscaping techniques,particularly in areas inherently prone to such slope failures. Development of hillside areas could also impact the extraordinary scenic values of the Coachella Valley. Policies: WCVAP 26.1 Protect life and property through adherence to the Slope and Soil Instability Hazards section of the General Plan Safety Element,the Environmentally Sensitive Lands section of the General Plan Multipurpose Open Space Element,the Hillside Development and Slope section of the General Plan Land Use Element, and the policies of the Rural Mountainous and Open Space-Rural Land Use Designations. WCVAP 26.2 Prohibit development on slopes exceeding 25 percent, except as otherwise specified herein. Figure 12: Flood Hazards http://www.rctlma.org/generalplaiVap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Pro,�P^* Page 75 of 84 17 Mm WOO LA �a 4 f� S s s M m - H � .v my a d ey 4 f N ew q .. r Plod Prone Areas CSC?Y.= If"&oc SM it X)Ycar Flood Zone Stroarrk Rry .Canal Dam Hazard Zones http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html /2 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 76 of 84 Figure 13: Wildfire Susceptibility http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.htm] 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proj--t Page 77 of 84 get z - ',... �a � Ili 9 f Wildfire Zortes Very High High Modcraw http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 78 of 84 Figure 14: Seismic Hazards http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Proj-,t Page 79 of 84 +w4N r. x > —t—_ 3 I a li--Nil . . r 10 .... J7 hL , t � lanl � i" a ro "nw `araa�w�..lr . http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 80 of 84 Figure 15: Steep Slope http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated ProjP,+ Page 81 of 84 s � Y t n I{ i oy4u I x �y v t -rsn b T f 4 t r� �T t ar _ a s *a AR r E •,y' _ �&. to ��b Sl"w - Seva:e +Re`a�Weet �P""�^ s4i1::sYms�.szaace.�vs :t ro` ,. glo Len d= 15 .,. . .w . , . awar.nw+.r�wws..s. http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 82 of 84 Figure 16: Slope Instability http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 Riverside County Integrated Project Page 83 of 84 s,. 74 E � N .� ,a 4 �awta� lrl:cl� lligh St ceptib lity to%6%mwally http://www.rctlma.org/generalplan/ap2/wcvap.html 7/2/2007 1;4►1J RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON V11 ATTORNEYS AT LAW—A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION \ / /'(' 355 South Grand Avenue,40th Floor,Los Angeles,California 9oo71-3iol !i/ / /�i V�/� Telephone 213.626.8484 Facsimile 213.626.0078 �1N`J 1\7fl MEMORANDUM ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE TO: Mr. Carlos Ortega,City Manager CC: Ms. Laurie Aylaian FROM: GregoryM. Kunert DATE: April 23, 2008 SUBJECT: City of Palm Desert v. County of Riverside(Lamar Advertising) 1. Background This case is a challenge by the City of Palm Desert against a series of Riverside County actions taken in September and October,2007,to facilitate relocation of four billboards owned by Lamar Advertising from their present location(north of the 110 freeway and Varner Road east of Cook Street)to a sliver of unincorporated County land south of the I10 freeway just east of Monterey Avenue in the railroad right-of- way. The County's widening of Vamer Road necessitates that the billboards at their existing location be removed or relocated. Prior to the County's October,2007 actions, the County's General Plan prohibited any new billboards in County territory along the I10 freeway in the Coachella Valley. The County could not compel removal of Lamar's billboards without paying just compensation for the value of the billboards under the California Outdoor Advertising Act and the Eminent Domain Law,however. Rather than compel removal of the billboards, the County approved General Plan amendments, a Zoning Ordinance text amendment and a Zone change, authorizing relocation of existing billboards under certain circumstances, so as to allow Lamar to relocate the billboards and avoid paying compensation. At the direction of the City Council, we filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate challenging the County's actions on a variety of theories, primarily involving the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"). As we explained to City staff and to the City Council prior to filing the case,the facts are and were sufficient to justify CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. P 6401\103 8\10510 23.1 RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON - ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Mr. Carlos Ortega, City Manager April 23,2008 Page 2 the filing, though by no means would the case be a sure winner. As we also explained at the outset,even if we were to prevail in the litigation,the legal theories by which we could mount an arguably meritorious challenge to the County's actions would not guarantee that the billboard relocation would not proceed. The County would always retain ultimate authority over its planning and zoning matters, and State law authorizes, and even encourages,billboard relocation agreements. Thus, though our Petition might compel the County to take additional steps(preparation of an EIR, for example) before proceeding, the County would have the ultimate authority at some point to authorize the relocation. At the time we filed the Petition, City staff believed that neither the County nor Lamar had given serious attention to alternative sites for relocating the billboards. If,by filing the Petition, the City could cause enough annoyance and delay, it was hoped that the County and Lamar would look harder for alternative sites so as to avoid delay. 2. Status of the Litigation We filed the Petition in November of last year. The County responded,as did Lamar, the Real Party in Interest. We are assigned to Judge Gloria Trask in Riverside. The Countyprepared and certified its Administrative Record. In accordance with the briefing schedule established by Judge Trask,we have filed the City's Opening Brief. The County and Lamar jointly filed an Opposition Brief, and we filed the City's Reply Brief on April 23, 2008. The hearing on the Petition is scheduled for May 9,2008. After completing analysis of the Administrative Record and briefing of the case, our view of the merits and likelihood of success are essentially unchanged. We believe we have presented strong arguments that the County actions allowing for billboards along a stretch of I10 where no billboards presently exist requires an EIR,and that the County cannot approve or execute any billboard relocations without first going through the EIR process. Yet, the County's/Lamar's argument that this is merely a matter of relocating existing billboards resulting in no net increase in billboards along the I10 may have a sufficient ring of logic to persuade the Court not to force the County through the more drawn-out EIR process. CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. P6401\1038\1051023.1 RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Mr. Carlos Ortega, City Manager April 23, 2008 Page 3 We believe the Court should rule in the City's favor,but we recognize that there is a significant chance our Petition will be denied. 3. Status of Lamar's Caltrans Permit During the course of this litigation,another matter arose that may substantially affect the ultimate result. Jurisdiction over permits to construct or relocate billboards along interstate highways in California rests with the Outdoor Advertising Department of Caltrans, pursuant to the Outdoor Advertising Act. One of the requirements for securing a Caltrans permit involves approval by the local land-use authority(in this case,the County). City staff contacted Caltrans personnel early this year and learned that Lamar had not applied for the necessarypermits. Initially,Caltrans personnel expressed to City staff some skepticism toward the Lamar application, and suggested that Caltrans would not be inclined to issue the permits. In March of this year, Lamar applied to Caltrans for the permits necessary for this proposed relocation. Shortly after the applications were filed,Caltrans staff advised City staff that their view had changed, but because of the pending litigation, the Lamar applications had been transferred from the local regional Caltrans office to headquarters in Sacramento. We contacted the Caltrans personnel in Sacramento who are dealing with the Lamar applications,and submitted two separate letter briefs urging Caltrans either to deny the Lamar applications or at least defer decision on the applications until after our Court hearing on May 9. Originally,the Caltrans General Counsel's office agreed to delay action on the permits. However, in the last week, Caltrans has again reversed its position and has indicated it will be deciding the matter (and, as they have indicated, issuing the permits)within the next few days. jf1hLfahmaLpermits are issued, this will compound the difficulty we face in delaying the billboard relocations. It would probably require an entirely new lawsuit against Caltrans to challenge the permit, and an injunction to prohibit any actions taken to reloca e e 1 oar s pursuant to the permits. The chance of success is speculative at this point. If we are successful in our action against the County,we CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. P6401\1038\1051023.1 RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON ' ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Mr. Carlos Ortega, City Manager April 23, 2008 Page 4 would have some basis for challenging the Caltrans permits. If we are unsuccessful, we would have no real basis for challenging the permits. 4. Options As noted above,one of the goals of this litigation was to possibly induce the County and Lamar to look for alternate locations north of the I10 freeway. This possibility was discussed among counsel for the parties at a settlement conference required by law in CEQA. Contrary to City staff s original belief, it appears that Lamar did undertake substantial work to identify potential alternative locations. Lamar indicated that they were able to find no comparable sites in the vicinity that could meet state and federal requirements for billboards along interstate highways. City staff has met independently with Lamar officials to confirm that. City staff concluded that there are two potential alternative sites, but each of them presents complications and/or substantially higher costs. In addition, I understand that City staffhas spoken with Supervisor Wilson concerning the matter in an effort to explore alternatives. In connection with those discussions,we were asked whether we could give a rough estimate of what the value of the four Lamar billboards might be in the event the County and the City were to pursue a possible buy-out to avoid having the billboards relocated. We spoke to a number of appraisers with whom we regularly work on eminent domain matters, including appraisers who have special expertise in valuing billboards. Predictably, the appraisers expressed great caution about the reliability of any estimate they might provide without having specifically looked at the subject billboards and compared them to the area market. There are many factors which enter into valuing billboards. Some key factors include the size of the signs,whether the signs are illuminated at night, and whether the signs have one or two display sides. Our appraisers veryroughly estimated the value oflarge,two-sided,fully illuminated billboards along the I10 corridor at anywhere from$250,000 to$1,000,000 per sign. A quick inspection of the subject billboards reveals that only one of them is the large, CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL 15 SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENTS HEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. P6401\1038\1051023.1 t RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Mr. Carlos Ortega, City Manager April 23,2008 Page 5 two-sided,fully illuminated variety. The other three are of the small size and are not illuminated(though they are two-sided). Our appraisers roughly estimated the value of those at anywhere from$100,000 to $250,000. If our appraisers'rough estimates hold up,the total cost to buy Lamar out of all four billboards can be estimated to range from a low-end of$550,000 to a high end of $1,750,000. CONFIDENTIAL THIS MATERIAL IS SUBJECT TO THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND/OR THE ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGES. DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CONTENT5HEREOF. DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS. P6401\1038\1051023.1 �A I Aylaian, Lauri From: Gregory M. Kunert[GKunert@rwglaw.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 7:50 PM To: Aylaian, Lauri Subject: County of Riverside case Laurie, I just recalled from the closed session I attended last October that one of the Councilmembers (perhaps Ferguson?) had to leave the room due to some sort of conflict. I do not know what the conflict was, but we should probably make sure that Councilmember does not receive a copy of the memo. The same is true for whomever is serving as City Attorney at tomorrow's meeting. I believe we have this case because BBK has a conflict of interest due to representation of the County. Hence, the BBK attorney should not get the memo and should not be in the room when this matter is discussed. Greg NOTICE: This communication may contain privileged or other confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this communication to the intended recipient, please advise the sender by reply email and immediately delete the message and any attachments without copying or disclosing the contents. Thank you. 1 � � i pow G i fi� (�q) IFS 48z 1 I Theodore K. Stream, State Bar#138160 Jennifer M. Guenther, State Bar 4205946 2 Christopher L. Powell, State Bar#253238 GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN& TILDEN, 3 A Professional Corporation 3750 University Avenue, Suite 250 4 Riverside, CA 92501-3335 Telephone: (951)684-2171 5 Facsimile: (951) 684-2150 6 Attorneys for Real Party in Interest, LAMAR ADVERTISING COMPANY 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE—CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 11 CITY OF PALM DESERT, a municipal ) CASE NO. RIC 485078 corporation, ) 12 ) Assigned for all Purposes to the Honorable Petitioner, ) Gloria Connor Trask, Department 4 13 ) vs. ) 14 ) REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a political ) OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER'S 15 subdivision; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ) REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; and DOES 1 ) 16 THOUGH 25, inclusive, CEQA 17 Respondents, Filed: November 16, 2007 18 ) LAMAR ADVERSTING COMPANY, a ) Trial Date: May 9, 2008 19 Louisiana corporation, ) Time: 9:30 a.m. 20 Real Party in Interest. ) 21 22 Real Party in Interest, LAMAR ADVERTISING COMPANY("Lamar"), submits the 23 following objections to the materials submitted by Petitioner, CITY OF PALM DESERT (the 24 "City"), along with its Request for Judicial Notice. 25 26 27 28 GRESHAM SAVAGE 1 NOLAN&TILDEN, A P0.0e�MAL COADO"MN REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 3750 University Ave.,Ste.250 261462.1 Riverside,CA 92501-3335 (951)6W2171 1 SERVICE LIST 2 Xafe � „FK �y44 y � �r •'�1?+ r n�v },;•.�t F � " , -yrY h '}`.! up w TIECy s r ) 'atN' Nn k �i i ':�s yy*� 'b•s �f �i{',1y a �1 __�JJ,4 vit r^F_�A,'-Mb .r.s �ri•iW s ��<,'a,'tRi'ik �a, .....m... .uT +Sti �.4._ �:� .'21 .i"F'A. 3 4 Gregory M. Kunert, SBN 94058 Petitioner, CITY OF PALM DESERT Maricela E. Marroquin, SBN 232321 5 RICHARDS, WATSON&GERSHON 355 South Grand Avenue, 40 Floor 6 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101 Tel. No.: (231) 626-8484 7 Fax No.: (231) 626-0078 8 Joe S. Rank, SBN 113607 Respondents, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; 9 County Counsel BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE Pamela J. Walls, SBN 123446 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 10 Asst. County Counsel Tiffany N. North, SBN 228068 11 Deputy County Counsel County of Riverside 12 3535 Tenth Street, Suite 300 Riverside, CA 92501 13 Tel.No.: (951) 955-6300 Fax No.: (951) 955-6363 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GRESHAM SAVAGE 6 NOLAN&TILDEN, A PROFMIONALCOR'ORA310N REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 3750 Univ—'ty Ave.,Ste.250 Riverside,CA 97501-3335 261462.1 (9511684-2171 11 I Theodore K. Stream, State Bar#138160 Jennifer M. Guenther, State Bar#205946 2 Christopher L. Powell, State Bar#253238 GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN& TILDEN, 3 A Professional Corporation 3750 University Avenue, Suite 250 4 Riverside, CA 92501-3335 Telephone: (951)684-2171 5 Facsimile: (951) 684-2150 6 Attorneys for Real Party in Interest, LAMAR ADVERTISING COMPANY 7 Joe. S. Rank, State Bar#113607 8 County Counsel Tiffany N. North, State Bar#228068 9 Deputy County Counsel COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 10 3535 Tenth Street, Suite 300 Riverside, CA 92501 11 Telephone:-._ (951) 955-6300 Facsimile: (951) 955-6363 12 Attorneys for Respondents, 13 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE 14 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 15 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA 16 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE—CENTRAL DISTRICT 17 CITY OF PALM DESERT, a municipal ) CASE NO. RIC 485078 corporation, ) 18 ) Assigned for all Purposes to the Honorable Petitioner, ) Gloria Connor Trask, Department 4 19 ) vs. ) 20 ) REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S AND COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a political RESPONDENTS' JOINT 21 subdivision; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; and DOES 1 ) AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO 22 THOUGH 25, inclusive, ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 23 Respondents, CFiled: 24 LAMAR ADVERTTING COMPANY, a ovember 16, 2007 25 Louisiana corporation, e: May 9, 2008 26 Real Party in Interest. 9:30 a.m. 27 28 GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN&TILDEN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION PROTMIONALCOPPOILA710H TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE - 750 University Ave.51e-250 Ri a lds,CA 97501-3335 261425.1 (951)694-2171 I TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1 2 II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................2 3 A. After a Diligent Search, Lamar Found a Site that Met the Difficult County 4 and State Regulations and Requirements. ...............................................................2 5 B. Relocating the Signs from High-End Residential to an Industrial Park by theTracks ................................................................................................................3 6 C. The County Ensured that the Relocation Would be Sound for the 7 Coachella Valley—Both Environmentally and for Future Planning.......................3 8 D. After Publicly Noticed Hearings, the County Approved the Relocation of theSigns. .................................................................................................................4 9 10 E. Palm Desert Filed a Lawsuit, Claiming NIMBY. ...................................................5 III. PALM DESERT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER THE FAIR 11 ARGUMENT STANDARD OF REVIEW.........................................................................5 12 A. The Burden of Proof is Palm Desert's.....................................................................5 13 B. Palm Desert Does Not Support Its Arguments with Substantial Evidence.............5 14 IV. PALM DESERT PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A FAIR 15 ARGUMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...................................7 A. Palm Desert Has Not Raised a Fair Argument that the Relocation of the 16 Outdoor Signs Within the Same Corridor Has a Potential Aesthetic 17 Impact......................................................................................................................7 1. The Administrative Record Contains Abundant Support for the 18 County's Adoption of a Negative Declaration. ..........................................7 19 2. Palm Desert's"Vague Expression of Concern"Related to Economics and Aesthetics Falls Short of a Fair Argument as a 20 Matter of Law..............................................................................................8 21 B. Palm Desert Has Not Presented Evidence That Raises a Fair Argument of 22 an Environmental Impact Related to Planning Resources.....................................10 1. The General Plan Amendment Will Not Allow"New"Billboards 23 in Scenic Areas, but Simply Maintains the Status Quo.............................10 24 2. Palm Desert Actively Engaged with the County Regarding the 25 Approvals...................................................................................................11 3. Palm Desert's New Argument Challenging the Findings is 26 Untimely and Unfounded. .........................................................................11 27 C. Palm Desert Does Not Raise any Fair Argument of Cumulative Impacts. ...........12 28 - - GRESHAM SAVAGE i NoLAN do TILDEN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION W Uai4 lty A""W. ON TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 750 Unlvetclty Ave.,Sh.250 Ri—Ide,CA 9Z5013335 261425.1 (951)684-Z171 D. Palm Desert Does Not Raise a Single Potential Impact to Biological 1 Resources...............................................................................................................13 2 E. The Amendment Does Not Create Inconsistencies Within the General Plan........................................................................................................................14 3 4 F. A Second Reading Was Not Required for Adoption of the Ordinance.................14 G. Palm Desert Presented No Experts and No Evidence. ..........................................15 5 V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................15 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - ii - GRESHAM SAVAGE NOL N&TILDEN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION NOFENnNAL CORPORAIWN TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 750 Udve'effy Ave„Ste.250 Rivenkk,CA 91.501.3335 261425.1 (951)W2171 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 Cases Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield, 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 3 1206 (2004)........................................................................................................................10 4 Citizen Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley, 222 Cal, App. 3d 748, 759(1990).....................9 5 Communi[ties For A Better Environment v. California Resources Agency, 103 Cal. App. 6 4t 98, 114 (2002) ..............................................................................................................12 Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency, 108 Cal. App. 4th 859, 877 7 (2003).................................................................................................................................11 8 Gentry v. City ofMurrieta, 36 Cal. App. 4th 1359, 1379 (1995)...............................................5, 6 9 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1130 10 (1993) (Laurel Heights II)...................................................................................................6 Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 47 Cal.3d 376, 11 398 (1988)..........................................................................................................................12 12 Lucas Valley Homeowners Assoc. v. County ofMarin, 233 Cal. App. 3d 130, 163 (1991) ...........6 13 Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors 91 Cal App. 14 4th 342, 384 (2001). ........................................................................ .............................12 15 Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento, 124 Cal. App. 4th 903 (2004).......................................10 Porterville Citizens for Responsible Hillside Development v. City of Porterville, 157 Cal, 16 App. 4' 885 (Nov. 9, 2007)........................................... ................10 .................................... 17 Quail Creek Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas, 29 Cal. App, 4th 18 1597, 1602 (1994)................................................................................................................6 19 Silveira v. Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District, 54 Cal. App. 4th 980, 988 (1997).....................8 Snarled Traffic Obstructs Progress v. City and County of San Francisco, 74 Cal. App. 20 4th 797, 793 (1999) .............................................................................................................6 21 Statutes 22 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 5205, 5226............................................................................................2 23 Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 5412........................................................................................................2 24 Cal. Bus. &Prof. Code § 5490........................................................................................................9 25 Cal.Code Regs., Title 14, §15000 et seq. ..............................................................................passim 26 Gov. Code § 25131........................................................................................................................14 27 Gov. Code § 65854........................................................................................................................14 28 Pub. Res. Code § 21080 (c).............................................................................................................7 - GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN&TiLDEN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION 50 U d ALCORPjty An.Ste. 50 TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 750 Unlvenity Ave.Ste.250 Ri-aide,CA 92501-3335 261425.1 (951)684-2171 Pub. Res. Code § 21082.2 (c)........................................................................................................10 1 2 Pub. Res. Code § 21083 (b)...........................................................................................................12 Pub. Res. Code § 21168...................................................................................................................5 3 4 Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a)............................................................................................................12 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - iv- 3RESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN&TILDEN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION 50 UrJ MltyC'w.Stc 250 TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 750 Wdvenlly Ave.Ste.250 Ri—fdq CA 9M-3335 261425.1 (951)681-2171 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 The City of Palm Desert is seeking to prevent the County of Riverside and Lamar from 3 relocating four billboards from one side of the I-10 Freeway to the other side. The relocation is 4 necessary because the County is improving a road parallel to the 1-10 from two lanes to a major 5 six-lane street. As a result, the four(4) billboard signs that had been in existence for more than 6 30 years are now at the centerline of the street. 7 The County proposed to relocate the signs to a strip of land outside of Palm Desert's sphere of influence that is not only adjacent to the I-10 corridor,but that is parallel to two sets of 8 railroad tracks owned by the Union Pacific. The City complains because it says that the boards 9 will interfere with the visibility and the aesthetics related to buildings in an industrial park 10 located on a wes�side the freeway. 11 But Palm Desert cites no evidence to support its burden of proving that a fair argument of 12 an environmental impact exists because: 13 1. There are already billboards present at the new site; 2. The signs are being relocated within the same corridor along the same freeway; 14 3. The industrial buildings that it supposedly"affects aesthetically"are not even facing 15 the highway; 4. Approximately 50 trains go through the area a day on two sets of tracks and block any 16 view from the freeway to the industrial buildings; 17 5. The area is already heavily graded and disturbed in order to raise the tracks approximately 14 feet above freeway level; 18 6. -There is a 50-foot storm water canal that has been graded into the area on therest 19 sid the tracks; When the signs are relocated they will have to be reduced in size to comply with new 20 state laws thereby reducing the total advertising space and sign area; 21 8. The signs will be relocated from a predominately high end residential area to a industrial/commercial area; 22 9. The County supported its negative declaration with substantial evidence(including experts)to support its conclusion that there are no environmental impacts; 23 10. The City can only point to vague expressions of aesthetics and economic concerns 24 and no evidence in an effort to create a fair argument. 25 Because Petitioner cannot point to substantial evidence to make a fair argument of environmental impacts, its petition must be denied. 26 27 28 �;RESHAM SAVAGE - 1 Nowv&Tmr)EN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION 50 Urd eMtyONAL Cw.Ste. TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 750 Vnlveislty Ave.54.250 Rlvenlde,CA 92S01.3335 261425.1 (951)684-2171 II. BACKGROUND 1 As part of the Conditions of Approval for two major residential development projects, 2 and to facilitate the Bob Hope Classic, a major event for the Coachella Valley,the County of 3 Riverside required the expansion of Varner Road from a two-lane rural road to a six-lane major 4 thoroughfare. (AR 168). This expansion project has been completed except for one item: four of 5 Lamar's billboards are now in the middle of the expanded road. The County could have 6 exercised eminent domain powers, condemned the signs, and paid a six- or seven-figure number 7 as compensation to Lamar. It instead decided to work with Lamar to relocate the signs, as is 8 expressly encouraged by the Legislature.1 9 A. After a Diligent Search, Lamar Found a Site that Met the Difficult County and State Regulations and Requirements. 10 In relocating the signs,the County and Lamar were required to find a site that complied 11 with both County and State criteria. It was originally contemplated that the signs could simply 12 be moved back from the expanded roadway. But the proposed surrounding development is 13 entirely residential in nature and the State Outdoor Advertising Act requires any billboard to be 14 located within 1000 feet of an existing business. (AR 177; Bus. & Prof. C. §§ 5205, 5226). 15 Other sites, located on private property, were also explored,but found either to be unobtainable 16 or to not meet State law requirements. (AR 177-78). 17 Ultimately, it was determined that the 19.84 acres narrow strip of land between the 18 railroad tracks and the I-10 freeway,past the Portola Avenue overpass, not only met the criteria, but was one of the only sites available for the relocation of the signs. (Id.) This fact is not 19 disputed by the Petitioner's Community Deve opment Director, who agreed that"by virtue of the 20 geography and the location of Palm Desert, [relocated signs] will end up in Palm Desert because 21 we're the only ones with a narrow strip of County property left along the freeway." (AR 167). 22 The location offered the additional benefit of relocating the signs from surrounding residential 23 neighborhoods to an area that is substantially commercial and industrial development. (AR 7). 24 25 ' "It is a policy of this state to encourage local entities and display owners to enter into relocation agreements 26 which allow local entities to continue development in a planned manner without expenditure of public funds while allowing the continued maintenance of private investment and a medium of public communication.Cities, 27 counties,cities and counties,and all other local entities are specifically empowered to enter into relocation agreements on whatever terms are agreeable to the display owner and the city,county,city and county,or other 28 local entity,and to adopt ordinances or resolutions providing for relocation of displays." Cal.Bus.&Prof. Code§5412. GRESHAM SAVAGE —2 N�O��L�AN&TILDEN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION .p00"WRJNALCORPORAMON TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 750 University Ave.Ste.25D Riverside,CA 92901.333E 261425.1 (951)6M•2171 I B. Relocating the Signs from High-End Residential to an Industrial Park by the Tracks The proposed new site is located within the railroad right-of-way that is otherwise 2 undesi ng ated for a particular land use. Therefore, it requires a technical zone change to permit 3 the placement of billboards. The areas on the opposite side of the I-10 freeway, to the north and 4 east of the proposed site, lie within the County and, while primarily vacant, are designated for 5 commercial retail uses. (AR 20, 22). The areas to the west and south,once over the railroad 6 track gradient, are located within the City of Palm Desert and are either vacant or developed as 7 light industrial uses. (AR 20, 22, 24) (see Attachment A(AR 32))2. 8 The site itself is within the highly disturbed and graded area between the freeway 9 shoulder and the 14-foot slope leading up to the double-set of Union Pacific railroad tracks. (AR 10 52). A light industrial/business park is located on the opposite side of the tracks, separated by a 11 50-foot storm water canal, but is at a higher elevation—and is even with the railroad track bed 12 itself. (AR 25-27). This limits any exposure to the signs from the industrial buildings because the signs are completely obscured by the more than 50 passing trains that occur daily on both 13 sets of tracks. (AR 24-27, 33, 52). In addition,the industrial buildings do not face the freeway, 14 but instead face an ancillary access road and pose an unadorned solid block face to passing cars. 15 (AR 26, 59). 16 While the relocated signs will be well-spaced, with more than 600 feet between each of 17 the four signs (AR 172), they are not alone—two other existing billboards are adjacent to the 18 Project site. (AR 24, 25) (see Attachment B (AR 33)). Furthermore, within the industrial park, 19 "on the buildings themselves you have temporary banners right across the back of these 20 buildings, which are acting themselves as billboards." (AR 59). 21 C. The County Ensured that the Relocation Would be Sound for the Coachella Valley— Both Environmentally and for Future Planning. 22 To facilitate the relocation of the signs,the County proposed a General Plan Amendment 23 to expressly allow for the relocation of existing billboards, and to provide a General Plan land 24 use designation to the property where none had existed previously. (AR 63). Although the 25 County's General Plan never prohibited the relocation of billboard signs—only the addition of 26 new signs—the Amendment of the Signage Component of the local Land Use Policies for the 27 Western Coachella Valley Area Plan (WCVAP) ensures that any relocated signs must comply z Attachments A and B have been reproduced from their original electronic format for clarity,but are identical to 28 those included at pages 000032 and 000033 in the administrative record GRESHAM SAVAGE - NO1.AN&TILDEN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION PO OF,J 70NAL Cn,St.. 5N TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 750 UNvenity Ave.Ste.250 R(v Mde,CA 92501-3335 261425.1 (951)684-1171 I with the Advertising Regulations of the County Land Use Ordinance and specifically limits the 2 circumstances under which any relocation of a sign could occur. (AR 227-28). Both the 3 original signs,and the proposed relocation site are within the WCVAP. A zone change was also 4 proposed to comply with the proposed General Plan land use designation. (Id.) An initial study 5 was prepared in compliance with CEQA and a negative declaration prepared based upon the 6 finding that no potentially significant impact would occur as a result of the relocation.' (AR 97- 126). 7 D. After Publicly Noticed Hearings, the County Approved the Relocation of the Signs. 8 The County Planning Commission, after proper notice,recommended approval at a 9 public hearing on the proposed Amendment and Zone Change on July 11, 2007. (AR 63). On 10 July 31, 2007, the County Board of Supervisors thereafter adopted the Negative Declaration and 11 tentatively approved the General Plan Amendment and Zone change,paving the way for a 12 Resolution to then be adopted by the County Board. (AR 65, 165). Although several letters 13 objecting to the relocation were submitted to the County,nearly all focused on the potential 14 economic impact related to the industrial complex,a non-CEQA issue. (AR 36-42). 15 Prior to the adoption of the Resolution,however, the County determined that the 16 Negative Declaration was improperly completed. (AR 247). While each section adequately 17 explained the County's determination of no impact,the actual boxes specifically identifying the determination of"no impact" for certain sections had not been checked. (E.g., AR 113-14, 125). 18 Out of an abundance of caution,the County decided to correct these omissions and re-notice the 19 negative declaration for public comment and hearing at the same time the Resolution was 20 adopted. (AR 216). In addition, the County decided to clarify the language of Ordinance 348 to 21 make it clear that the County is permitted to enter into Relocation Agreements. (AR 247). 22 After making proper findings,the Planning Commission adopted the Negative 23 Declaration, and again recommended approval to the Board of Supervisors on October 3, 2008. 24 (AR 202, 310, 315). Although Palm Desert submitted a letter to the Planning Commission 25 objecting to the project, it did not raise one potentially significant impact supported by 26 substantial evidence, but instead provided a laundry list of items it believed should have been 27 s While the box for "Mitigated Negative Declaration"was inadvertently checked,a review of the actual 28 document demonstrates that no mitigation was required based upon the findings that the project would not result in any potentially significant impacts. GRESHAM SAVAGE -4 NOLAN&TILDEN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION VW Uniimsity CA,Ste. ON 50 TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 5750 UNvenity Ave.,Sig.250 Riwslde,CA 92501-3335 261425.1 (951)68C2171 I considered more thoroughly. (AR 303-06). Based upon the approval of the Planning 2 Commission, the Board of Supervisors adopted the Negative Declaration and Resolution, 3 amending the General Plan and Ordinance. (AR 316-47). 4 E. Palm Desert Filed a Lawsuit, Claiming NIMBY. 5 Shortly thereafter, the City of Palm Desert filed this lawsuit. In its petition, the City 6 claims that the County did not properly consider the potential aesthetic impacts on local 7 businesses and the I-10 corridor, and that biological impacts were not properly considered. The City further contends that the potential cumulative impacts of expressly permitting relocation 8 within the Western Coachella Valley should also have been addressed, despite the negative 9 declaration specifically stating that, should any future relocation be identified, additional 10 environmental review will be necessary. Such environmental review would be in additional to 11 meeting the State and Local regulatory requirements. Despite the litany of alleged violations, 12 Palm Desert does not raise a single potential impact related to the approvals at issue, or support 13 any of its allegations with substantial evidence in the record. Unless and until Palm Desert meets 14 this burden, which it cannot, the Petition must be denied. 15 III. PALM DESERT BEARS THE BURDEN OF PROOF UNDER THE FAIR ARGUMENT STANDARD OF REVIEW 16 A. The Burden of Proof is Palm Desert's. 17 Palm Desert suggests in its Opening Brief that it is the Respondents' burden to support its 18 determination to approve the proposed project and adopt a Negative Declaration and that any 19 such decision must be supported by in depth analysis in the administrative record. This is not the 20 test for whether a Negative Declaration is appropriate. California puts the burden of proof 21 squarely on the petitioner/appellant: 22 "Even if the initial study fails to cite evidentiary support for its findings, `it remains the appellant's burden to demonstrate by citation to the record the 23 existence of substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of significant environmental impact." Gentry v. City of-Murrieta, 36 Cal. App. 4th 1359, 1379 24 (1995) (citations omitted). (Emphasis added). 25 B- Palm Desert Does Not Support Its Arguments with Substantial Evidence 26 The test to be applied in CEQA actions is the"substantial evidence"test. (Public 27 Resources Code § 21168.) In applying the substantial evidence test in the case of a Negative 28 Declaration, the court must determine whether there is substantial evidence as to whether any GRESHAM SAVAGE _ 5 NoL4N&TnzEN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION Pb1ES...Jty A-,Ste. ON 250 TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 750 UNverdty An„Ste.?50 Riverside,CA 9=-3335 261425.1 (951)694-2171 I "fair argument" of environmental impact was presented. Quail Creek Botanical Gardens 2 Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas,29 Cal. App. 4th 1597, 1602 (1994). This means that if a 3 lead agency determines that no impacts will result from the project, the Petitioner must show that 4 substantial evidence has been presented to the lead agency that contradicts that determination- 5 substantial evidence that shows that specific, significant impacts may result if the Project goes forward. Generalized concerns and fears do not rise to the level of"substantial evidence". 6 Lucas Valley Homeowners Assoc. v, County of Marin, 233 Cal. App. 3d 130, 163 (1991). 7 Nor can such substantial evidence be merely". . . argument, speculation, unsubstantiated 8 opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly erroneous or inaccurate, or evidence of social or 9 economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the 10 environment..." (Guidelines, § 15384(a)4). Instead, substantial evidence is defined as"facts, 11 reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts." 12 (Guidelines, § 15384 (b)). Without evidence of such a potentially significant impact, "a public 13 agency must adopt a neg dec to such effect and, as a result, no EIR is required." Quail Creep 29 14 Cal.App. 4th at 1601-1602. 15 In essence,the court is to review the sufficiency of the evidence to see if it can support a 16 fair argument. Quail Creek, 29 Cal. App. 4th at 1602. Where there is no substantial evidence included in the record contradicting the findings of the administrative agency,the agency's 17 decision must be upheld. Any dispute as to the adequacy or credibility of the evidence must be 18 resolved in favor of the administrative agency. "Once a negative declaration is issued or an EIR 19 is complete,that decision is protected by concerns for finality and presumptive correctness." 20 Snarled Traffic Obstructs Progress v. City and County of San Francisco, 74 Cal. App. 4th 797, 21 793 (1999),(citing § 21167.2 and Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 22 6 Cal. 4th 1112, 1130 (1993) (Laurel Heights I.). 23 Palm Desert cannot point to the absence of evidence in the record to meet its burden: 24 "`An absence of evidence in the record on a particular issue does not automatically invalidate a negative declaration. The lack of study is hardly 25 evidence that there will be a significant impact."' Gentry v. City of Murrieta, 36 Cal. App. 4th 1359, 1379 (1995)(citations omitted). (Emphasis added). 26 27 ° CEQA Guidelines are found in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations and will hereafter be referred to 28 as"Guidelines". GRESHAM SAVAGE -6 NOI.AN&TILDEN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION PROFMMALC0RP01U9IDN TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 750 UNvealty Ave.Re.750 Rivenlde,CA 92501-3335 261425.1 (951)6SC7171 I If Palm Desert is unable to point to such substantial evidence, it cannot overcome the 2 presumption that the agency proceeded appropriately in adopting the Negative Declaration. 3 Palm Desert offers nothing, other than to state that additional analysis should have been 4 completed. This does not meet its burden of proof. Therefore, Palm Desert's Petition for Writ of Mandate should be denied. 5 6 IV. PALM DESERT PRESENTED NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTING A FAIR ARGUMENT OF POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 7 When, after careful review of a proposed Project, an agency finds that the project will 8 have no potentially significant impact, CEQA requires that the agency adopt a negative 9 declaration, stating: "If a lead agency determines that a proposed project, not otherwise exempt 10 from this division would not have a significant effect on the environment, the Iead agency shall 11 adopt a negative declaration to that effect." Pub. Res. C. § 21080(c). In this case,the County 12 prepared an initial study, visited the site,reviewed photographs and reviewed the potential 13consequences of both relocating, and not relocating,these signs. After careful analysis, it was properly determined that the relocation would not have a potentially significant impact and, as 14 required by CEQA, adopted a Negative Declaration. Palm Desert has not and cannot offer any 15 evidence to the contrary. 16 A. Palm Desert Has Not Raised a Fair Argument that the Relocation of the Outdoor 17 Suns Within the Same Corridor Has a Potential Aesthetic Impact 18 Palm Desert first contends that the record does not support the Negative Declaration's 19 determination that"the relocation of outdoor advertising displays will not increase,but may, 20 actually,reduce impact from the current impacts on the scenic resources for the area." (Pet. Op. Br. at 5:6-9). But a simple glance through the administrative record shows that the County's 21 determination is correct. Palm Desert's reliance on a self-serving letter and the complaints from 22 individuals associated with the industrial park do not present a fair argument to the contrary. 23 1. The Administrative Record Contains Abundant Support for the County's 24 Adoption of a Negative Declaration. 25 Despite Palm Desert's assertions to the contrary, the record is ripe with evidence to 26 support the determination that the relocation of the billboards will not have a significant impact on aesthetics. The initial study acknowledges that the signs, although relocating to the opposite 27 side of the freeway,will remain in the original I-10 corridor, which is designated a"County 28 GRESHAM SAVAGE Noun&THMEN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION PROYE9 MALCae.on,MM TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE M University Awe St4 2% Nveaide,CA 9=-3935 261425.1 MI)661.21n1 I eligible scenic highway" in the General Plan. (AR 360). Because the signs are already located 2 in the corridor, the view will remain equal throughout the corridor and have no new or different 3 impacts than already exist. (AR 361). The signs are being relocated from a residential area to an 4 area that already contains billboards and is near industrial and commercial land uses—uses that 5 are not considered sensitive. (Id.) The signs will be required to comply with current standards for outdoor advertising, thereby reducing the overall impact of the boards by more than 800 6 square feet of advertising space. (AR 169). 7 Both staff and County Supervisors also visited the proposed relocation site to ensure that 8 any scenic views, beyond the view of the back of the industrial park,would not be impacted. 9 Supervisor Ashley confirmed"those signs are not going to impede the view of the mountains." 10 (AR 171). The photographs presented at the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors 11 hearings further confirmed that fact. (E.g.,AR 31 [showing proposed relocation site and backs 12 of industrial park obscuring distant mountains]; AR 32 [showing back of existing signs, 13 industrial park buildings, and raised elevation of railroad bed] (see Attachment A); AR 33 14 [showing existing signs and train, with proposed relocated signs superimposed at correct 15 locations] (see Attachment B). 16 The County took all of this evidence into consideration in making its determination, and with nothing offered to counter that evidence, properly found that no aesthetic impact would 17 result from the relocation of the signs pursuant to CEQA.S 18 2. Palm Desert's "Vague Expression of Concern" Related to Economics and 19 Aesthetics Falls Short of a Fair Argument as a Matter of Law. 20 In support of its contention, Palm Desert relies upon its own letter from the Mayor of 21 Palm Desert and his incorrect application and interpretation of the WCVAP. Palm Desert further 22 relies on the verbal assertions of the industrial park owners that their property value and commercial appeal will be diminished as a result of the billboard relocations. Its reliance on 23 such testimony, however, is misplaced, as the misapplication of an ordinance and complaints of 24 potential economic impacts are simply not sufficient to rise to the level of a fair argument. 25 26 5 While the Initial Study must contain"[aln identification of environmental effects by use of a checklist,matrix, 27 or other method,provided that entries on a checklist or other form are briefly explained to indicate that there is some evidence to support the entries"(Guidelines,§ 15063(d)(3)),such entries are not intended to be a fully 28 analyzed discussion of each particular impact,but rather a brief explanation of each answer. See,Silveira v. Las Gallinas Valley Sanitary District,54 Cal.App.4th 980,988(1997). GRESHAM SAVAGE _ 8 NoLAN&TILDEN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION PROMMONALCOV RAiWN TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 750 Univ..fty Ave.S4.250 Plveni&,CA 925M.3335 261425.1 (953)6wn71 1 Palm Desert's citation to the Mayor's self-serving letter does not offer evidence of a fair 2 argument. Although the Mayor of Palm Desert appears to interpret section 14.2 of the WCVAP 3 of the County's General Plan as a means of eliminating all outdoor advertising within the 4 Western Coachella Valley, the very fact that the ability to relocate a sign within the Valley 5 already existed under Ordinance 348 (although narrowly drafted) contradicts this conclusion. 6 (AR 247). Furthermore, Section 14.1 provides that such billboard may exist, so long as it adheres to the County's Advertising Regulations for outdoor advertising. (AR 480). Nor does 7 14.4 apply to the relocation or use of billboards, but instead specifically addresses"on-premise"6 8 signs and limits the ability of premises adjacent to scenic corridors to have free-standing 9 monument signs to advertise their businesses. (AR 481). No such"scenic corridor"restrictions 10 are placed upon the two sections of the WCVAP, sections 14.1 and 14.2,pertaining to billboard 11 signs. 12 Nor do the comments raised as to "specific aesthetic impacts to adjacent property to the 13 South in Palm Desert" (Pet. Op. Br. at 6:6)rise to the level of a fair argument. "An economic or 14 social change by itself shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment." Citizen 15 Action to Serve All Students v. Thornley, 222 Cal. App. 3d 748, 759 (1990). A closer review of 16 the specific comments referenced by Palm Desert in its Opening Brief reveals that each of these comments is based upon economic factors,rather than an actual environmental impact: 17 . "The installation of billboards along the subject strip of land would have serious negative 18 effects on both the aesthetic and economic values within Gateway Industrial Park at Palm Desert." Thomas S. Noble,Noble& Co. (AR 36); 19 • "As developers and owners of Desert Gateway Self Storage, we are deeply concerned with this proposal as billboards would have an adverse impact on our property and 20 business."Malcolm R. Riley, Desert Gateway Self Storage, LLC(AR 38); 21 . "We believe that the proposed General Plan Amendment and relocation of the billboards 22 would be unsightly and would have a negative impact on both the esthetic appearance of our property as well as the economic value of our facility."Randall E. Kessler,owner of 23 property leased to White Cap Contractor Supply(AR 39); 24 o "We believe that the addition of billboards to this location would have serious, detrimental aesthetic and economic effect on our project."Richard M. Ortwein, 25 Managing Partner of Focus Real Estate, LP, managing partner of Monterey Shore Business Park(AR 41-42). 26 27 6 Business&Professions Code 5490 defines"on-premises"signs as an"advertising display that is located within the boundaries of a development project,as defined by Section 65928 of the Government Code,that identifies 28 the name of the development project,its business logo,or the goods,wares,and services existing or available within the development project." -9 - GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN&TRZEN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION .PROFESSIONAL CAWOMTON TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 7M Wversity Ave.,Ste.250 Riverside,CA 92501-333S 261425.1 (951)6e4-2171 I Such economic objections are not properly considered under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines? 2 section 15064 (e) specifically states that"Economic and social changes resulting from a project 3 shall not be treated as significant effects on the environment." See also, Pub. Res. C. § 21082.2 4 (c). "CEQA is not a fair competition statutory scheme."Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control 5 v. City of Bakersfield, 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1206 (2004). 6 Nor does Petitioner's reliance on Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento, 124 Cal. App. 4ch 903 (2004) support its position. Instead,the more recent case of Porterville Citizens for 7 Responsible Hillside Development v. City of Porterville, 157 Cal. App. 4,' 885 (Nov. 9, 2007)is 8 controlling here. Unlike in Pocket Protectors, and similar to Porterville, the objections to 9 aesthetics are vague"expressions of concern" related to personal property"unsupported by 10 specific factual basis or any photographic evidence." Porterville, 157 Cal. App. 4a1 at 902-903. 11 Here,the record contradicts Palm Desert's "vague expressions of concern"that, because the 12 view of the back or side of the buildings will be blocked for brief seconds at 600-foot intervals 13 by the four billboards (assuming trains are not passing between the freeway and the buildings), 14 there is an aesthetic impact to a"proposed scenic corridor." As demonstrated above, the record 15 supports the opposite findings and confirms the findings of the County. 16 B. Palm Desert Has Not Presented Evidence That Raises a Fair Argument of an Environmental Impact Related to Planning Resources. 17 Palm Desert next appears to argue that the proposed relocation of the billboards and 18 adoption of the General Plan Amendment allowing for that relocation will have environmental 19 impacts on planning resources. In making this argument, Palm Desert challenges not only the 20 General Plan Amendment, but also the County's procedures and interpretation of its own statutes 21 under CEQA, without actually stating what any specific environmental impacts might be. 22 1. The General Plan Amendment Will Not Allow"New" Billboards in Scenic Areas, but Simply Maintains the Status Quo. 23 In arguing that the proposed General Plan Amendment will allow for uninhibited 24 relocation of existing billboards along the proposed"scenic eligible"I-10 corridor, Palm Desert 25 misses one very important element: The amendment does not allow for the relocation of 26 existing billboards to an area of"significant resources", unless the billboard originated in 27 an area of"significant resources." (AR 247, 249). The General Plan allows for those 28 7 Title 14,California Code of Regulations,§ 15000 et seq, :;RESHAM SAVAGE - 10 - NoLAN&/T-..ILDEN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION PROFUSIONALWUrdverWtyu .,Stc ON TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 50 UNversity Ave..$le.250 Wwrtlde,CA 9MI-3336 261425.1 (991)694-2171 I billboards located within"eligible scenic highways"to remain there, and this provision does not 2 oppose that policy. Despite the unsupported opinion of its own Community Development 3 Director relied upon by Petitioner, the relocation of billboards will not create further impacts on 4 scenic corridors. Rather, any relocated sign will be required to comply with the current 5 requirements for smaller faces, greater distances between signs, and less invasive footings. (AR 6 169). Such an advantage was recognized by the Board of Supervisors. (AR 176). Permitting the relocation of billboards within the same scenic eligible corridor merely maintains the status 7 quo—it does not augment the potential land uses within the scenic eligible corridor. 8 2. Palm Desert Actively Engaged with the County Regarding the Approvals. 9 Palm Desert also argues that the County failed to consult with the City and disregarded 10 environmental impacts on the cities adjacent to the relocation site. Palm Desert was notified of 11 the proposed General Plan Amendment(AR 4, 140, 401)and, as demonstrated by its numerous 12 correspondences with the County regarding the matter, actively participated in the approval 13 process. (E.g., AR 35, 71-72, 158-160, 303,307-309). Palm Desert does not, however, identify 14 a single potentially significant environmental impact on the City in its Opening Brief. Nor, other 15 than the alleged"economic impacts", can evidence of such an impact be found in the 16 Administrative Record. Where a petitioner does not make a clear argument, supported by 17 citations to the administrative record, the reviewing court is not required to do so on its behalf. 18 Friends of the Eel River v. Sonoma County Water Agency, 108 Cal. App. 4th 859, 877 (2003). 3. Palm Desert's New Argument Challenging the Findings is Untimely and 19 Unfounded. 20 In a final attempt to attack the County's determination, Palm Desert raises the new 21 argument that the Staff Report's findings of"special circumstances" is"just plain wrong."(Pet. 22 Op. Br. at 9:8-9). In support of this statement, Palm Desert refers to a portion of the General 23 Plan without any reference or explanation as to how a policy of coordinated and integrated land use applies to the relocation of billboard signs, or how it is substantial evidence of a potential 24 significant environmental impact,or even what that environmental impact might be. 25 Furthermore, by failing to raise this argument during the administrative process, Palm Desert has 26 waived its ability to raise this objection before the trial court. In order to allow an administrative 27 body the opportunity to deal with opponents' "concerns",judicial review under CEQA is limited 28 to those issues that were raised and exhausted at each level of the administrative process. A GRESHAM SAVAGE - 11 Nno��LA�N..&TILDEN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION pw.. WMIONALCOMPAVON TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 750 UW—ty Ave.Ste 250 Rlversldt CA 92SOI-3335 261425.1 (951)6!4•Z171 I petitioner may not raise objections for the first time at the trial court level. Pub. Res. Code, § 2 21177(a);Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Bd. of Supervisors, 91 Cal. 3 App. 4th 342, 384 (2001). 4 Moreover, Petitioner's argument that the County's "special circumstances"findings are 5 "just plain wrong"is flawed for another reason. It is based upon the assumption that the signs 6 are being relocated from a non-scenic eligible area to a designated scenic highway. That assumption is false. The signs are simply being relocated within an approximately three-mile 7 stretch of the same freeway to a more appropriate area where at least billboard signs already exist 8 and an industrial park has been constructed. (AR 24). Furthermore,the County did adequately 9 consider the Riverside County Integrated Project and General Land Use Elements (E.g.,AR 7, 10 83, 272, 273). Petitioner has not shown otherwise. 11 C. Palm Desert Does Not Raise any Fair Argument of Cumulative Impacts. 12 Palm Desert's attempt to create an image of the "great wall of billboards"in arguing that 13 the County failed to consider the future cumulative effects of the proposed relocation of the signs 14 is unfounded. CEQA provides that, in determining whether a proposed project will have a 15 significant effect on the environment, a local agency must also consider whether the possible 16 effects of a project are individually limited, but"cumulatively considerable." Pub. Res. C. § 17 21083 (b). Environmental effects of a project are"cumulatively considerable"when the "incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of 18 past projects,the effects of current projects, and the effects of probable future projects."Id. 19 (Emphasis added). 20 CEQA, however, does not require prophecy or speculation. That is, CEQA does not 21 require discussion in an EIR of"specific future action that is merely contemplated or a gleam in 22 a planner's eye." Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California, 47 23 Cal.3d 376, 398 (1988). Thus, while CEQA requires that the cumulative effects of a project be 24 considered, CEQA does not require speculation, and only probable future projects need be 25 considered by the lead agency in determining whether impacts are"cumulatively considerable". 26 Pub. Res. C. § 21083 (b); Communities For A Better Environment v. California Resources 27 Agency, 103 Cal. App. 4" 98, 114 (2002). 28 GRESHAM SAVAGE - 12 - Nou,N&TMDEN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION MU"tt ityAw,°""n°" TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 750 Unlverslty Ave.Sle.750 Rlvevide,CA 92501.3335 1 211421.1 (951)6SC2171 I In this case,the Initial Study did consider cumulative impacts of the Amendments, 2 finding that: 3 The proposed project allows for the relocation of existing billboards. Cumulative impacts of allowing relocation of existing billboards would be equal or reduced to 4 the current impacts of the existing billboards. The development standards for height and display size, combined with the spacing requirements between 5 billboards, eliminates any potential cumulative impacts on multiple relocations impacting any one area significantly by preventing any continuous blockage of 6 the scenic resources. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. (AR 284). 7 The General Plan Amendment requires that any proposal to relocate billboards be limited g to only those where the original location of the signs is within a proposed public right-of-way, 9 and where the original display complied with all regulations at the time it was erected. It is 10 uncertain, however, which signs within the County of Riverside might be affected in the future, 11 if any. Furthermore, any future displays that are proposed for relocation may be relocated to a 12 significant resource area only if they had originally existed in a significant resource area. Any 13 relocated sign would have to meet the current design standards, in addition to all applicable County and State regulations. (AR 256). Any new relocation agreements would be subject to 14 further CEQA review. (Id.) Thus,the potential foreseeable effects related to cumulative impacts 15 are addressed to the extent feasible, and Palm Desert has offered no evidence of any potential 16 cumulative impacts contradicting this analysis. 17 D. Palm Desert Does Not Raise a Single Potential Impact to Biological Resources. 18 Despite Palm Desert's assertion that the relocation of the billboards to the heavily graded 19 and disturbed strip of unlandscaped land between the I-10 freeway and the railroad tracks could 20 have potentially significant impacts on biological resources, there is no evidence to support this 21 assertion. Just the opposite is true. In preparing the initial study, the County first consulted the 22 GIS database and Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. (AR 23 103). The County's analysis,however,was not limited to these consultations,but also included 24 an onsite inspection of the proposed relocation area. (Id.) Not surprisingly (see Attachments A and B), this onsite inspection did not identify any endangered,threatened, or sensitive species, 25 biological resources, vernal pools, or migratory corridors that could otherwise be impacted in the 26 small,barren strip of land in between the large interstate freeway and the mainline tracks of the 27 Union Pacific. (AR 103-104). Palm Desert offers no evidence to the contrary. Furthermore, any 28 future relocations, separate from the current four signs, are currently unknown and"will be Z.RESHAM SAVAGE - 13 - NoLAN&TILDEN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION ""°'S'ONALCOAeOUMM TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 750 University Ave.Ste.250 Rlve,ede,CA 91901d333 261425.1 (931)M4-2171 I required to be reviewed by the Environmental Programs Department to verify that the 2 construction will not impact any sensitive species,"just as with any other proposed project. (AR 3 104). Palm Desert has not met its burden of presenting a fair argument supported by substantial 4 evidence that a biological impact will occur. 5 E. The Amendment Does Not Create Inconsistencies Within the General Plan. 6 In its next argument,Palm Desert essentially reiterates its prior assertions that the proposed Amendments create an internally inconsistent General Plan. As stated above, this 7 argument is based upon the false premise that new billboards will be relocated within areas of 8 "significant resources". This is simply not the case. Rather, a sign may be relocated to an area 9 of"significant resources"only when two conditions are met: (1)the signs must be removed to 10 accommodate a public improvement project; and(2)the sign already exists within an area of I 1 "significant resources." (AR 237, 247). The wording of the Amendment is specifically intended 12 to comply with the County's policy of no new billboards, while maintaining the status quo- 13 although an improved status quo given the necessity to reduce the face size and support structure 14 of each board. (AR 169, 230, 237). Because Palm Desert cannot meet its burden of 15 demonstrating a fair argument based upon substantial evidence "which is clearly erroneous or 16 inaccurate..." (Guidelines, § 15384(a)), it fails to demonstrate such a fair argument here. 17 F. A Second Reading Was Not Required for Adoption of the Ordinance. 18 Palm Desert is simply incorrect in its assertion that the County improperly adopted Ordinance 348.4529. Government Code Section 25131,which requires the second reading for 19 the adoption of an ordinance, does not apply to "ordinances which by statute can be passed only 20 after notice and a public hearing." In this case,the adopted Ordinance was a zoning ordinance, 21 which,under Government Code section 65854,requires notice and a public hearing for the 22 adoption of a zoning ordinance: 23 § 65854. Public hearing upon ordinance or amendment; notice 24 The planning commission shall hold a public hearing on the proposed zoning ordinance or amendment to a zoning ordinance. Notice of the hearing shall be 25 given pursuant to Section 65090 and, if the proposed ordinance or amendment to a zoning ordinance affects the permitted uses of real property, notice shall also be 26 given pursuant to Section 65091. 27 A second reading of the Ordinance was not required in light of the public notice of the Adoption of the ordinance. (AR 211). 28 Z;AESHAM SAVAGE - 14 - NoLkN&nLDEN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION 1'°'M'CNALCO"IMAr°" TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 750 Urd"afty Ave.,Ste.= Ri—side,CA 92501-3335 261425.1 (951)W-2171 I G. Palm Desert Presented No Experts and No Evidence 2 It is well established that expertise is something to be valued in environmental analysis. See: Guidelines, § 15064 (f) (5). But in the instant case,nothing whatsoever rises even to the 3 point of disagreement between experts or even substantial evidence presented by someone 4 offering more than a mere opinion. The only evidence offered by Palm Desert as "substantial 5 evidence of a fair argument" is the letter from its Mayor. 6 Guidelines, section 15384 shows that expert opinion is valuable: 7 "(a) "Substantial evidence" as used in these guidelines means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument 8 can be made to support a conclusion, even thought other conclusions might also be reached... 9 (b) Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated 10 upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts."(Emphasis added.) Certainly, in this case, County's trained Staff prepared a detailed and thorough initial 11 study based not only on references, but also on site visits. All that Palm Desert did was to 12 present broad, generalized statements from persons who were in no way identified as experts. 13 As a consequence, County's position has never been refuted by anything of substance. 14 V. CONCLUSION 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition for Writ of Mandate should be denied. 16 Dated: April 7, 2008 GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN&TILDEN, 17 A Pr fessi nal Corporation 18 19 0 ore-4 K. Stream Jennifer M. Guenther 20 Christopher L. Powell Attorneys for Real Party in Interest, 21 LAMAR ADVERTISING COMPANY 22 Dated: April 7, 2008 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 23 By: 24 Joe S. Rank, County Counsel Tiffany N.North, Deputy County Counsel 25 Attorneys for Respondents, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; 26 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 27 28 :aRESHAMSAVAGE - 15 - NOLAN&nLDEV, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION PWRM750Uni emityAOe,Ste. 50 TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 750 Unlvenity Ave„Ste.250 Rivmide,CA 92501-3335 261425.1 (951)694-2171 Apr 07 2008 3: 52PM jnt!,� Counsel 95 56322 p. 2 G. Palm Desert Presented No Experts and No Evidence 1 2 It is well established that expertise is something to be valued in environmental analysis_ See: Guidelines, § 15064 (f) (5). But in the instant case,nothing whatsoever rises even to the 3 point of disagreement between experts or even substantial evidence presented by someone 4 offering more than a mere opinion. The only evidence offered by Palm Desert as "substantial 5 evidence of a fair argument" is the letter from its Mayor. 6 Guidelines,section 15384 shows that expert opinion is valuable: 7 "(a) "Substantial evidence" as used in these guidelines means enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument g can be made to support a conclusion, even thought other conclusions might also be reached... 9 (b) Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts."(Emphasis added,) 10 Certainly,in this case, County's trained Staff prepared a detailed and thorough initial 11 study based not only on references,but also on site visits. All that Palm Desert did was to 12 resent broad, , generalized statements from persons who were in no way identified as experts. 13 As a consequence, County's position has never been refuted by anything of substance. 14 V. CONCLUSION 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Petition for Writ of Mandate should be denied. 16 Dated: April 7, 2008 GRESHAM SAVAGE NOLAN&TILDEN, 17 A Professional Corporation 18 By: 191 Theodore K. Stream Jennifer M.Guenther 20 Christopher L. Powell Attorneys for Real Party in Interest, 21 LAMAR ADVERTISING COMPANY 22 Dated: April 7, 2008 CO i OF RIVERSIDE 23 By: 24 Joe R CREespon t Ti : N. oD ty County Counsel 25 Attorneys for ts, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; 26 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 27 28 GRESMNI SAVAGE — 15 NOLAN&Tmr)EN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AIMIORITIES IN OPPOSTTION 3 Pei/H95DNAL Am S/ L2W TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE i7lO UNvestty Ave.5i4270 §Uver A U 92SK-1538 MA25.1 (457)681-Z171 i t v 4 a :..., , - • .ie°e'a.+'�� (.. -rr* °�-r "' " - `�°{' bw,y .ei. 'i3 +" M ,., ,'' -'7x..'' . �y t~��q � �� w , lei• t' , �"�' r^� .� . 'y" ,y I i t ;'•' e'F; iq„ '•gyp .:i ti _ ti -41:1 r pow q" � �h!'• '�.-�^ � } ,� -�3 - ,y.� ��* -'r'�'R, � Ste+„+ •�s~ � t."fir,w:�'�♦p'�,� > � - '�a .t, m. t- t 1 ye 4 R 4 N1 a # •F '' c 4 / • I PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 3 I am employed in the County of Riverside, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and not a parry to the within action, my business address is 3750 University Avenue, Suite 4 250, Riverside, CA 92501-3335. 5 On April 7, 2008, I served copies of the within documents described as REAL PARTY IN INTEREST'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION 6 TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE on the interested parties in this action in a sealed envelope addressed as follows: 7 SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST 8 ❑ BY MAIL - I am "readily familiar"with the firm's practice of collecting and processing 9 correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on the same day in the ordinary course of business, with postage 10 thereon fully prepaid at Riverside, California. I am aware that on motion of the parry served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is 11 more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. 12 BY PERSONAL SERVICE - I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the addressee pursuant to C.C.P. § 1011. 13 ❑X BY EXPRESS MAIL/OVERNIGHT DELIVERY - I caused such envelope to be 14 delivered by hand to the office of the addressee via overnight delivery pursuant to C.C.P. § 1013(c), with delivery fees fully prepaid or provided for. 15 BY FACSIMILE - I caused such document to be delivered to the office of the addressee 16 via facsimile machine pursuant to C.C.P. § 1013(e). Said document was transmitted to the facsimile number of the office of the addressee from the office of Gresham Savage 17 Nolan & Tilden, in Riverside, California, on the date set forth above. The facsimile machine I used complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 2003(3) and no error was 18 reported by the machine. Pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 2009(i), I caused the machine to print a record of the transmittal, a copy of which is attached to this 19 declaration. 20 ❑ FEDERAL - I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. 21 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 22 foregoing is true and correct. 23 Executed on April 7, 2008, at Riverside, California. 24 25 Susan Byrd 26 27 28 :;RESHAM SAVAGE - 16- NOLAN&T[LDEN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION PROFMIONALCORPORAMN TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 150 Udwafty Ave,Ste 250 Rimslde,CA 92501-3335 261425.1 (951)6"2171 1 SERVICE LIST 2lit Nr4o42tik v 1 Mks n5 .S l t F G g4u'�..1« NOW1 if • 3 t.'.Y� a t y .,t `v:..i. . '�.»,_ � ,... .,.r f �t c . ... aY. 4 Gregory M. Kunert, SBN 94058 Petitioner, CITY OF PALM DESERT Maricela E. Marroquin, SBN 232321 5 RICHARDS, WATSON&GERSHON 355 South Grand Avenue, 40 Floor 6 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101 Tel. No.: (231)626-8484 7 Fax No.: (231) 626-0078 8 Joe S. Rank, SBN 113607 Respondents, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; 9 County Counsel BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE Tiffany N. North, SBN 228068 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 10 Deputy County Counsel County of Riverside 11 3535 Tenth Street, Suite 300 Riverside, CA 92501 12 Tel.No.: (951) 955-6300 Fax No.: (951) 955-6363 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 :RESHAM SAVAGE - 17 - 40LAN&TILDEN, MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION 50 Urd mitt'A",StC om 290 TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE 50 UNve�sty Ave,Ste,75p tivenfde,CA 915M-3335 261425.1 (951)684-M71 lbkJ& RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON VW ATTORNEYS AT LAW—A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 355 South Grand Avenue,4oth Floor,Los Angeles,California 90071-3101 Telephone 213.626.8484 Facsimile 213.626.0078 RICHARD RICHARDS(1916-1988) March 13, 2008 GLENN R.WATSON (RETIRED) HARRY L.GERSHON VIA FEDEX (1922-2007) STEVEN L.DORSEY WILLIAM L.STRAUSZ MIT CH ELL E.ABBOTT GREGORY W.STEPANICICH LE BROWNS WILLIAM James Arbis WILLIAM B.RUDEII QUINN M.BARROW CAROLW.LYNCH Program Manager GREGORY M.KUNERT THOMAS M.JIM80 Caltrans Outdoor Advertising Program ROBERT C.CECCON STEVEN EVM.N G.EN IS 1120 N Street KEVIN G.ENNIS ROBIN D.HARRIS MICHAEL ESTRADA M.S.36 LAURENCE S.WIENER STEVEN ORR B.TILDEN KIM Sacramento, California 95814 SASKIA T.ASAMURA KAYS ER O.SLIME PETER M.THORSON TAMES L.MARKMAN Re: Lamar Applications A08-0352 through A08-0357 CRAIG A.STEELE T.PETER PIERCE TERENCE R.BOGA LISA BOND JANET E.COLESON Dear Mr. Arbis: ROXANNE M.DIAZ JIM G.GRAYSON ROY A.CLARKE WILLIAM P.CURLEY III MICHAEL F.YOSHIBA I am writing you at the suggestion of Ron Beals. I represent the City of Palm Desert REGINA N.DANNER PAULA REZ BAEZA TERESA MO•U RANG ("Palm Desert") in litigation now pending in the Riverside County Superior Court ERESA BRUCEOWAY D ANA W.K.CHGALLUANG ("the Pending Litigation'), challenging a proposed billboard relocation along PATRICK K.BOBKO BILL D.DU NSMORE Interstate 10 adjacent to Palm Desert. The Pending Litigation challenges several AMY GREYSON DEBORAH R.HAKMAN 1 D.CRAIG FOX actions of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors("County")adopting a general ALEXANDER ABBE DAVID M.SNOW plan amendment and zone changes in order to allow four billboards to be erected LOLLY A.EN RIQUEZ KIRS R.BOWMAN G..IN DER KHAISA along Interstate 10. Lamar Advertising Co. ("Lamar") is the Real Party in Interest OVINCO GINETT TRISHIA ORTIZ named in the Pending Litigation. Palm Desert has filed its opening brief in the CANDICE K.LEE DAVID G.ALDERSON Pending Litigation and a hearing on Palm Desert's Petition is scheduled for May MELISSA C.LAUZARDO MARICGE A MA TINNE T 9, 2008 in Riverside County Superior Court before the Honorable Gloria Trask. GENA M.STIN NETT JENNIFER PETRUSIS STEVEN L.FLOWER Copies of Palm Desert's Petition for Writ of Mandate and Opening Memorandum CHRISTOPHER J.DIAZ MATTHEW E.COHEN DEBBIE Y.CHO of Points and Authorities are enclosed for you information. GEOFFREY WARD ERIN L.POWERS TOUSSAINT S.BAILEY WHITN EY G. L KENNETH We understand that Lamar has recently applied for a permit pursuant to Business& J I-.PO POOLSE SERITA R.HOLNESS Professions Code§ 5350 to relocate and erect the four billboards that are the object OF COUNSEL MARK L.LAMKEN of County's actions and the Pending Litigation. For many reasons,including those SAYRE WEAVER NORM A.DUPONT JIM R.KARPIAK explained below,we do not believe that Lamar's proposed relocation complies with SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE the Outdoor Advertising Act (Business & Professions Code §§ 5200, et seq.) TELEPHONE 415.421,8484 ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE ("ODA"). We urge Caltrans to refrain from acting on Lamar's permit application TELEPHONE 714.990.0901 until the outcome of the Pending Litigation is known. 311��0� RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON James Arbis March 13, 2008 Page 2 As the enclosed Petition alleges,the County adopted a general plan amendment and zone changes for the sole and express purpose of allowing the County to enter into billboard relocation agreement with Lamar regarding the subject billboards. Had the County not taken those actions,the proposed relocation would be in violation of the ODA. The County's general plan prohibits and discourages billboards, yet the amendment carved a special exception to allow for these four billboards. Moreover, under governing law,without the County's zone change to light industrial zoning, Lamar's proposed relocation would not satisfy the requirements of Business & Professions Code § 5408 concerning billboards in"business areas." The County's land use actions are a necessary prerequisite to lawful approval of Lamar's pending permit application. If Palm Desert is successful in the Pending Litigation, those actions will be void and of no force and effect. Therefore, no decision on Lamar's permit application should be made until the outcome of the Pending Litigation, lest that decision itself be invalid and subject to judicial challenge. Moreover,the ODA itself requires that Lamar's permit application be denied where, as here, it depends on local land use actions taken solely to promote the objectives of the billboard owner. In a case remarkably similar to the present circumstances, the California Supreme Court interpreted the ODA so as to prohibit this sort of piecemeal land use decisions in order to allow proliferation of billboards. United Outdoor Advertising Co. v. Business, Transportation and Housing Agency,(1988) 44 Cal.3d 242. As the Supreme Court in United Outdoor Advertising observed,the ODA is in part intended to avoid "piecemeal land use regulation [that] would contravene the Legislature's intent to limit billboards to areas of concentrated commercial and industrial activity." 44 Cal.3d at 248. Such "piecemeal land use regulation" is precisely what the County actions that are the subject of the Pending Litigation seek to accomplish. The County expressly contravenes many of its long-standing land use policies to enact specific measures to facilitate Lamar's objectives. Moreover, the United Outdoor Advertising court held: Generally, state action that zones certain areas commercial or RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON James Arbis March 13,2008 Page 3 industrial will be accepted by the federal government for purposes of the Highway Beautification Act. (23 U.S.C. § 131(d).) But the zoning must have independent validity. Action that is not part of comprehensive zoning and is intended primarily to permit outdoor advertising_structures is not recognized for outdoor advertising control purposes. (23 C.F.R. § 750.708(b).) The site approval in this case was granted solely to permit billboards on the parcels. 44 Cal.3d at 248 (emphasis added). In that circumstance, the California Supreme Court held that a permit under the ODA could not lawfully issue. Nor could the standards for a permit be accomplished simply by re-zoning the subject property,as Lamar and the County of Riverside have attempted here: Nor can the requirements of section 5205 necessarily be met by plaintiff or another outdoor advertiser persuading the county to rezone the parcels commercial. The Act does not simply condition the issuance of a billboard permit on having applicants jump through the additional hoop of obtaining an appropriate zoning change from the county. As we have seen,zoning enacted to permit billboards is not recognized for outdoor advertising control purposes. 44 Cal.3d at 251. The County's action,though couched as legislative zone changes and a general plan amendment, are in practical intent and effect a mere "site approval." The site was chosen by Lamar for billboard relocation, the relocation was proposed to the County, and the County specifically legislated for the sole purpose of approving Lamar's site selection. "Site approval . . . is no substitute for the deliberate implementation of the general plan . . ." 44 Cal.3d at 250. The ODA itself mandates that it be interpreted in a manner consistent with federal law and regulations under the Highway Beautification Act. See, Business & RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON James Arbis March 13,2008 Page 4 Professions Code § 5405(e) (allowing displays pursuant to regulations that do not conflict with federal laws); §5415(regulations under ODA must be consistent with federal law and regulations, and "no outdoor advertising shall be placed or maintained adjacent to any interstate highway or primary highway in violation ofthe national standards promulgated pursuant to subsections (c) and (f) of Section 131 of Title 23 of the United States Code . . ."); § 5443(b)(relocation agreements must be consistent with federal regulations in such a way as to not cause a reduction in federal aid highway funds). The federal regulations that the ODA requires be followed state, in pertinent part, (b) State and local zoning actions must be taken pursuant to the State's zoning enabling statute or constitutional authority and in accordance therewith. Action which is not a part of comprehensive zoning and is created primarily to permit outdoor advertising structures, is not recognized as zoning for outdoor advertising control purposes. 23 C.F.R. § 750.708(b). Accordingly,Lamar's application seeks permits that would violate both federal law and,by virtue thereof,the ODA. Moreover,Lamar's application seeks permits that would be directly contrary to the California Supreme Court's holding regarding the ODA in United Outdoor Advertising. The Pending Litigation challenges the County of Riverside's land use decisions expressly rendered in order to facilitate Lamar's proposed billboard relocation. If Palm Desert is successful in that litigation,there will no basis for granting Lamar's permit application, and any permit issued will be subject to judicial challenge as void. Moreover,issuing the permit in the present circumstances would violate both the ODA and federal statutes and regulations. For all of those reasons,we respectfully request on behalf of the City of Palm Desert that no action on Lamar's pending applications be taken until such time as the Pending Litigation is resolved. RICHARDS I WATSON I GERSHON James Arbis March 13, 2008 Page 5 If you have any questions or need any additional information,please do not hesitate to contact me. Very t ly yours, reg .. une Enclosure cc: Ron Beals, Esq. P6401\1038M38832.1 I RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation 2 GREGORY M. KUNERT (94058) MARICELA E. MARROQUIN (232321) 3 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101 4 Telephone: (213) 626-8484 Facsimile: (213) 626-0078 5 Attorneys for Petitioner, 6 CITY OF PALM DESERT 7 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 8 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE - CENTRAL DISTRICT 9 10 CITY OF PALM DESERT, a municipal Case No. RIC 485078 11 corporation, PETITIONER'S MEMORANDUM zo z 12 Petitioner, OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR En 0 13 vs. WRIT OF MANDATE W � L7 14 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a political [CEQA] o w subdivision; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Un 15 OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; AND Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to < DOES 1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE, Govt. Code §6103 — a 16 � J 0 < Respondents. [Assigned for All Purposes to: Honorable Gloria Q W 17 Trask] x a 18 Date: May 9, 2008 LAMAR ADVERTISING COMPANY, a Time: 9:30 a.m. %yi 19 Louisiana corporation, Dept: 1 20 Real Party In Interest. Judge: Honorable Gloria Trask 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401\1038\1036763.1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 3 PAGE(S) 4 I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 II. Statement of Facts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 6 7 III. CEQA Requires That the County Prepare and Certify an EIR for the Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8 9 A. The Project Will Have A Significant Impact on Aesthetic Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 10 11 B. The Project Will Have a Significant Impact on Planning z 12 Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 o � W � 13 C. Cumulative Impacts Were Not Considered in the ND . . . . . . . . . . . 11 z o 14 o D. Biological Impacts Were Not Considered By the ND . . . . . . . . . . . 13 a 15 3 16 IV. The General Plan Amendment Violates Government Code Section o 65300.5 By Creating Internal Inconsistencies Within Q W 17 the General Plan E2 a 18 �964,p V. The County Violated Government Code Section 36934 In Adopting %v; 19 Ordinance No. 348.4529 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 20 21 VII. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -i- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401\1038\1036763.1 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 2 PAGES) 3 STATUTES: 4 Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission of Ventura County 5 (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6 Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. Co. of Ventura 7 (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 8 County of Los Angeles v. Lawndale 9 (1962) 202 Cal.App. 2d 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 10 Kings Co. Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford 11 (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 o 12 Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. County of Riverside 13 (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1212 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 W � � a o a 14 Oro Fino Gold Mining v. County of El Dorado 0 15 (1980) 225 Cal.App.3d 872 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 ¢ � cn 16 Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento ¢ W 17 2004 124 Cal.App.4th 903 = Z 18 Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas I (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6 i 19 20 San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. County of Stanislaus 21 (1984) 27 Cal.App.4th 713 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 22 Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma 23 (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1307 4 24 CASES: 25 26 California Environmental Quality Act: 27 Section 15105(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 28 Section 15355 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 -ii- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401\1038\1036763.1 1 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (Continued) 2 3 E PAGS) Section 15065(c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4 Section 15130(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5 Government Code: 6 7 Section 36934 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 14, 15 Section65300.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 14 8 Public Res. Code Section 21000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9 WCVAP: 10 Section14.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 11 z Z 12 o � En ce 0 w 0 13 c� — Z 14 z o Ln 15 C 16 o Q w 17 a 18 it 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -iii- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P640I\1038\1036763.1 1 I. Introduction 2 To avoid paying just compensation for the removal of fourbillboards owned by Lamar 3 Outdoor Advertising("LOA"),Respondents("the County")hastily approved a General Plan 4 amendment, two zone changes, and an agreement to allow for the relocation of the LOA 5 billboards ("Project") while paying mere lip service to the requirements of the California 6 Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.). The Project 7 overturns a long-standing County General Plan policy to discourage and eliminate billboards 8 located on highways through scenic corridors. The proposed site for the relocation of the 9 LOA billboards is on a County designated scenic highway, yet the County determined that 10 the Project has no potential impact on the environment and adopted a negative declaration 11 that ignores potential impacts on aesthetics, land use and planning and biological resources, zo 0 12 or cumulative impacts. The record does not support the County's CEQA findings. The CIL, o 13 potential for significant environmental impacts from the Project requires that the County w � z o 14 prepare an EIR. ted Government Code Section 65300.5 by creating internal inconsistencies 0 a 15 in its General Plan. Moreover, the County violated Government Code 3 N J 16 The County also viola§36934 by adopting an ordinance without following statutorily 0 W 17 required procedures, and its approval of a billboard relocation agreement is ultra vires and = Z V o Fe a 18 void. Therefore, the City respectfully requests that the Court grant the petition, invalidate v 19 the Project approvals, and require the County to comply with CEQA by preparing an EIR. 20 II. Statement of Facts 21 The Project allows for the construction of an unspecified number of new billboards 22 in a scenic corridor along I-10. This new development is hidden under the guise of 23 "relocating" existing billboards, the location of which County officials find inconvenient. 24 The Project is motivated by the County's desire to avoid paying compensation for removing 25 the LOA billboards; the LOA billboards stand in the way of the construction of a 26 road-widening project, which was a condition imposed on a developer in conjunction with 27 28 -1- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401\1038\1036763.1 I the County's approval of the Delfino Resort Palm Desert Project. (1 AR 51)' 2 The LOA billboards will be relocated to a narrow remnant area along I-10, bordered 3 to the south and west by the City of Palm Desert("Site"). (2 AR 254) The Site is adjacent 4 to,and intrusively visible from,an area recognized in the County's General Plan as a County 5 eligible scenic highway. (2 AR 256) The Project is more specifically comprised of the 6 following: (1) A General Plan amendment designating the Site as Light Industrial and 7 modifying and adding policies to the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan ("WCVAP") to 8 allow for billboard relocations; (2) The adoption of an Ordinance ("Change of Zone No. 9 7535") altering the Site's zoning from Rural Residential to Manufacturing-Service 10 Commercial; (3) The adoption of an Ordinance ("Change of Zone No. 7574") authorizing 11 the County to enter into Outdoor Advertising Relocation Agreements ("Agreement"); (4) o s 12 Authorizing the execution of an Agreement to relocate the LOA billboards. (2 AR 252) _ - Ck_1 13 In its rush to shortcut the approval of the Project, the County performed only a W � �a a z o 14 perfunctory review of the potential environmental impacts of the Project. On June 13,2007, oLn 15 the County prepared an initial study ("IS") for the Project, consisting of a general plan 3 16 amendment and Zone Change 7535. (1 AR 95-126) The IS concluded that although the o Q W 17 Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would not be a significant ua E_ 18 effect because revisions in the Project were made or agreed to by the Project proponent and, yi 19 thus, a mitigated negative declaration ("MND") would be prepared. (1 AR 97) No 20 mitigation measures were actually identified. (1 AR 95-126) 21 The County received numerous written comments on the proposed MND(1 AR 35-42, 22 70-72), including letters from the City raising concerns about impacts to aesthetic resources 23 and inconsistencies between the Project and the County's General Plan. (1 AR 35, 71-72) 24 A City representative also spoke at the July 11, 2007 Planning Commission meeting(1 AR 25 53-54) and the July 31, 2007 Board meeting(1 AR 166-67) in opposition to the MND. On 26 July 31, 2007, the County tentatively approved a MND for the Project (1 AR 65), and the 27 28 ' "AR"refers to the administrative record. The number preceding AR refers to the volume number. The number following AR refers to the page number. -2- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P640I\1038\1036763.1 1 City again lodged a written objection,noting that"[a] MND is not appropriate"where"the 2 County identifies no potentially significant impacts. . . [T]here are potentially significant 3 impacts which the County hopes to ignore by its deficient initial study and its misleading and 4 improper finding that the MND is appropriate." (1 AR 159) The City also objected on the 5 bases that the proposed MND was not published, circulated or made available for public 6 inspection and comment as required by CEQA Guidelines § 15105(b) and that the IS also 7 failed to include the Mandatory Findings of Significance. (1 AR 158-160) Confronted with 8 the City's objections,the County conceded the IS"was not properly completed"and that the 9 County had not properly circulated the MND for review. (3 AR 428, 429) 10 The County subsequently prepared a revised initial study for the Project ("Revised 11 IS"). In addition to the General Plan amendment and Change of Zone 7535, the Revised IS zo s 12 also addressed (1) Change of Zone 7574, to permit the County to enter into outdoor Ln= � 13 advertising relocation agreements, and(2) the Agreement with LOA. (2 AR 252) Despite w � � a Z o 14 the fact the Project had not been revised to reduce any impacts since the original IS found o " a 15 several potential impacts,the Revised IS concluded the Project would not have any potential 16 for significant impacts on the environment, and a negative declaration ("ND") would be Ln Q w 17 prepared. (2 AR 254) The City again objected to the Revised IS. (2 AR 307-09) 18 Instead of conducting a thorough environmental review, the County decided instead -64.5 =-Ko 19 to rubber-stamp the Revised IS. On October 16, 2007, the County approved the ND for the 20 Project. (2 AR 224) The County also adopted Resolution No. 2007-446 to amend its 21 General Plan (2 AR 226-229) and Ordinance No. 348.4528 (1 RJN 1-3)z pertaining to 22 Change of Zone 7535 (2 AR 224), both of which were initially introduced to the Board on 23 July 31, 2008 (1 AR 196). The Board also adopted Ordinance No. 348.4529 pertaining to 24 Change of Zone 7574 (2 AR 329-331) which the Board considered for the first time on 25 October 16, 2007. (1 AR 196) The Board also authorized executing the Agreement. (2 AR 26 332-337) On October 18, 2007, the County filed a ND. (2 AR 311) 27 28 Z"RJN"refers to Request for Judicial Notice. The number preceding RJN refers to the exhibit number. The number following RJN refers to the page number within the exhibit. -3- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401\1038\1036763.1 1 III. CEQA Requires That the County Prepare and Certify an EIR for the Project 2 CEQA requires an EIR if the record contains evidence of a "fair argument" that the 3 project may have significant impacts: 4 "Since the preparation of an EIR is the key to environmental protection under CEQA - indeed constituting the very heart of the CEQA scheme - 5 accomplishment of CEQA's high objectives requires the preparation of an EIR `whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the 6 project may have a significant environmental impact.' [citations omitted] . . . `If there was substantial evidence that the proposed project might have a 7 significant environmental impact, evidence to the contrary is not sufficient to support a decision to dispense with preparation of an EIR and adopt a negative 8 declaration, because it could be `fairly argued' that the project might have a significant environmental impact.' [citations omitted] Consequently, there is 9 `a low threshold requirement for preparation of an EIR.' [citations omitted]" (emphasis added) 10 11 Oro Fino Gold Mining v. County of El Dorado (1980) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 880-881. 6 0 12 Moreover,"[Djeference to the agency's determination is not appropriate and its decision Ln 0 13 not to require an EIR can be upheld only when there is no credible evidence to the Z o 14 contrary. [citation omitted]" (emphasis added) Sierra Club v. County of Sonoma (1992) 6 o � a a 15 Cal.AppAth 1307, 1317-1318. � a N a 16 There is at least a"fair argument"that the Project will have significant environmental o Q W 17 impacts on aesthetics, planning and biological resources and will have cumulative impacts Z2 a 18 the County did not adequately consider. Contrary to the evidence provided in the record,the v 19 County proceeded to adopt a ND for the Project, determining the Project would not cause a 20 significant impact on the environment. 21 A. The Project Will Have A Significant Impact on Aesthetic Resources 22 The County improperly determined that relocating four billboards would have a"less 23 than significant impact" upon the scenic corridor to which they will be relocated. The ND 24 so finds despite acknowledging that Change of Zone 7535 "concerns property located 25 adjacent to the 1-10 scenic highway, which is designated a County eligible scenic highway 26 in the General Plan." (2 AR 256) The City repeatedly reminded the County that the General 27 Plan "identifies I-10 as a scenic corridor and, therefore, prohibits placement of single 28 freestanding signs for advertising." (1 AR 35, 71) -4- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401\1038\1036763.1 I California courts have held that any substantial negative aesthetic effect is a significant 2 environmental impact under CEQA. Any"substantial, negative effect of a project on view 3 and other features of beauty could constitute a `significant' environmental impact under 4 CEQA." Quail Botanical Gardens v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.AppAth 1597, 1604. 5 The IS itself identifies, then ignores, significant view impacts, offering the 6 unsupported conclusion that"relocation of the outdoor advertising displays will not increase, 7 but may, actually, reduce impact from the current impacts on the scenic resources for the 8 area." (2 AR 256-257) The ND provides no facts to support this outlandish claim and 9 ignores substantial evidence that belies the conclusion. For example, the City noted that: 10 "The existing General Plan for Riverside County recognizes the aesthetic quality of the I-10 corridor throughout the Coachella Valley. It rightfully 11 acknowledges that `the scenic qualities of the Coachella Valley are widely cherished by residents and visitors alike'. In recognition of this precept, o s 12 Policy WCVAP 14.2 prohibits the placement of a billboard in the Coachella N o Valley. Further, WCVAP 14.4 identifies I-10 as a scenic corridor and, w o 13 therefore,prohibits the placement of a single sign support freestanding signs for advertising. 14 o W "If approved,the proposed General Plan Amendment will forever guarantee 15 advertising billboards along the I-10 corridor in the Coachella Valley. Where new development requires the removal of existing billboards, installation of — < 16 new or replacement billboards should not be permitted. To do any less o simply because Lamar Advertising stands to benefit financially from such 17 permission reduces to financial terms something on which no financial value " o can or should be placed." (1 AR 71) 18 �r E?ro 19 The ND contradicts its unsubstantiated conclusion that relocating the billboards may 20 reduce impacts on the scenic resources in the area. In response to the question of whether 21 the Project will "[s]ubstantially damage scenic resources . . .," the County determined that 22 the Project will have less than a significant impact. Elsewhere the ND itself recognizes the 23 undeniable aesthetic impacts of the Project, stating that "[t]he relocation of these displays 24 will alter the view of the properties located adjacent to or near the new location of a relocated 25 billboard." (2 AR 257) Determined to avoid the time and expense of preparing an EIR, 26 while still unable to deny those impacts, the County attempts to dismiss the impacts by 27 claiming the primary land uses currently existing adjacent to or near the corridor are 28 -5- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401\1038\1036763.1 I commercial and industrial "which are not considered sensitive land uses that would be 2 affected by an advertising display located adjacent to or near the specific land use." (Id.) 3 The County's claim that a commercial land use will not be affected by billboards 4 located adjacent to or near it is without support. The Planning Commission's Minute Order 5 acknowledged"specific aesthetic impacts to adjacent property to the south in Palm Desert" 6 was a controversial issue. (1 AR 80) The ND did not analyze the specific aesthetic impacts 7 to adjacent property,despite numerous property owners submitting objections to the Project 8 on the basis the Project would negatively impact the aesthetic quality of the area. (1 AR 9 36-42) One property owner noted it selected the location to operate its business"in large part 10 on the high quality architectural and aesthetic standards established for this area." (1 AR 41) 11 Another stated it"vehemently object[ed]to billboards being located on the south side ofI-10. z o2 2 12 Billboards at this location will cause sight pollution and significantly adversely affect the Ln 0 13 view corridor." (1 AR 37) These types of comments alone constitute substantial evidence W � c� Z o 14 to establish a fair argument of environmental impacts. See Pocket Protectors v. City of o tn 15 Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 937 ("the opinions of area residents, if based on 16 direct observation, may be relevant as to aesthetic impact and may constitute substantial o w 17 evidence in support of a fair argument; no special expertise is required on this topic.") x M V o 18 The ND minimizes the Project's substantial adverse impacts on aesthetic resources by ;Imp, %,sue. 19 stating a"heavily trafficked railroad line ... blocks the views of the scenic resources in the 20 corridor more than any relocated display would." (2 AR 257) The County's creative 21 argument that railroads intermittently passing through the area affect the scenic resources in 22 the corridor more so than four billboards that will create a continuous impact on the area is 23 illogical at best. A determination that"this is not as bad as other impacts" does not comply 24 with CEQA. CEQA requires an honest assessment of each project, on its own merits. 25 The County should not be permitted to circumvent the CEQA process by simply 26 ignoring any potential impacts that would necessitate an EIR. Accordingly, the County 27 should grant the writ of mandate and order the County to prepare an EIR. 28 -6- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401\1038\1036763.1 I B. The Project Will Have a Significant Impact on Planning Resources 2 The Project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy. In direct contravention of the 3 General Plan's policy to preserve the scenic qualities of scenic highways, the Project will 4 allow billboards to be relocated along a County eligible scenic highway. The ND's 5 conclusion that the Project will have"less than significant impact"on planning resources is 6 devoid of any supporting evidence. The ND summarily proclaims the proposed policy 7 change "is fitting with the intent for preservation of the scenic qualities of scenic corridors 8 and preventing any further impacts on the scenic corridors,"(2 AR 273)but does not explain 9 how relocating billboards along a scenic corridor is fitting with that intent. Nor does the ND 10 explain how a General Plan amendment that will permit an undetermined amount of 11 billboards to be located along a scenic corridor will somehow prevent further impacts on zo 2 12 scenic corridors. Contrary to the policy in the General Plan, allowing the relocation of 0 _ C) wo 13 billboards will create, rather than prevent, further impacts on the scenic corridors: z o . 14 "[The billboards] weren't part of the General Plan. They weren't envisioned o W to be part of the General Plan. The General Plan clearly states that there shall 15 be no billboards. Only ones that are grandfathered are there. By changing 4 the General Plan to allow for the relocation of the billboards what we're 16 doing is just shifting ... the grandfathered billboards to a new location and, o ¢ unfortunately, by virtue of the geography and the location of Palm Desert, w 17 they will end up in Palm Desert because we're the only ones with a narrow o strip of County property left along the freeway." (1 AR 166-67) 18 19 In order to prevent impact on scenic corridors, the County could pay just compensation for 20 removal of the billboards or relocate the billboards to an area that is not along a scenic 21 highway. The County did not consider any alternatives because to do so "would delay the 22 process." (1 AR 56) Desire to avoid delay is not a valid reason to bypass CEQA. 23 The ND also falsely claims that"the proposed relocation of existing billboards would 24 be consistent ...with all other applicable General Plan policies." (2 AR 273) That claim is 25 belied by the language of the General Plan policy to "[p]rohibit offsite outdoor advertising 26 displays that are visible from Designated and Eligible State and County Scenic 27 Highways." (2 RJN 34)(emphasis added). Contrary to the claims in the ND,the relocation 28 -7- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401\1038\1036763.1 1 of the billboards will do precisely what the General Plan intends to prohibit:allow billboards 2 to be visible from a County eligible scenic highway. 3 The ND also incorrectly claims the Project "would be compatible with existing and 4 planned surrounding land uses". (2 AR 273) The County did not consider the Project's 5 impact on neighboring jurisdictions, especially areas like the City that are relatively free of 6 billboards. The County failed to consider these impacts despite acknowledging that the Site 7 is adjacent to the City on both the south and west. (2 AR 254) The County "completely 8 failed to consult with neighboring and affected agencies that share responsibility for 9 preserving resources in the Coachella Valley,including scenic resources." (1 AR 159) With 10 respect to neighboring cities, the ND simply states that: 11 "The I-10 freeway corridor is located adjacent to the Cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indio, and Coachella but is Z � a 2 12 only located within the spheres of influence of the Cities of Palm Springs , Desert Hot Springs, Rancho Mirage, and Indio. No Memorandum of Ln 13 Understanding (MOU) exists between these cities and the County of Riverside to provide similar development standards in areas either in the 14 city's sphere or adjacent to city boundaries. Locating billboards is not o W anticipated to affect adjacent land uses on any property." (2 AR 272) 15 0. N 16 Simply because a MOU does not exist between the County and affected cities with o Q Q w 17 respect to development standards does not mean that the County is free to disregard any a 18 environmental impacts on the cities adjacent to the Project. In fact, the County's General %Yi 19 Plan policy provides that the County should coordinate and work with jurisdictions regarding 20 land use decisions. The General Plan states: 21 "In order to implement the General Plan, the County of Riverside must perform a number of administrative functions that are not necessarily 22 exclusive to land use issues. This includes updating the existing ordinances and developing procedures to carry out the direction of the General Plan as 23 well as coordinating with outside agencies. The intent of these policies is to provide directions to allow for the continued operation of non-conforming 24 uses as well as to ensure a coordinated planning effort between the County and cities,LAFCO,service providers,and the County Airport Land 25 Use Commission." (2 RJN 17) (emphasis added) 26 The County failed to work with the City to ensure compatibility between the County and 27 City's land use policies, despite the fact that the Project is adjacent to the City. 28 1H -8- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401\1038\1036763.1 I The County also attempts to skirt CEQA by claiming it needs to create a solution for 2 a planning problem that it did not know existed when the General Plan was adopted. The 3 Planning Commission Staff Report, dated July 11, 2007, makes the following finding in 4 support of the Project: "There have been special circumstances that have emerged that were 5 unanticipated in the preparing of the General Plan that warrant such a change in land use." 6 (2 AR 244) Of course,the Staff Report fails to identify the"special circumstances"that have 7 emerged. Even if it were true, that affords no basis for failing to comply with CEQA. 8 Moreover, the Staff Report's finding that "special circumstances" have emerged, is 9 just plain wrong. The General Plan clearly states: 10 "the Land Use Element and General Plan Land Use Map are intended to help guide Riverside County to achieve an integrated and coordinated land use, 11 open space, and transportation system. Central to the vision for Riverside County is the desire to maintain and enhance the character of Riverside Z Z � 12 County, including its extraordinary natural resources and unique o N o communities, by clearly defining areas which are suitable for future 13 growth and those which are suitable to be preserved and maintained. aKey to this goal is the need to focus future growth into a pattern that z o 14 complements and incorporates the transportation and multi-purpose open o tt W space systems. In essence, future growth should be directed to areas that are a 15 well served by public facilities and services and preserve significant 4 environmental features such drainage ways, land subject to extreme natural N 16 hazards, or lands that offer scenic beauty." (2 RJN 11) (emphasis added) o Q W 17 The only"special circumstance"is the County's desire not to pay just compensation for the r Z 18 removal of the LOA billboards. That circumstance is not new, and surely existed when the Ps %s'i 19 General Plan policies were adopted. 20 The Project also conflicts with a county land use policy adopted for the purpose of 21 avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. - An EIR is required if the record 22 demonstrates a fair argument that the project conflicts with a land use policy that was 23 "adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect." Pocket 24 Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 925-926, 929. In that case, 25 the city approved a MND for a project comprised of large detached homes within an area the 26 City designated as a planned unit development ("PUD") for townhouses or similar 27 development. Id. at 909-10. Petitioners argued that the city should have prepared an EIR 28 because the project could significantly impact the environment due to potential conflicts with -9- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401\1038\1036763.1 I the city's land use policies and regulations. Id. at 925-26. The court of appeal noted that the 2 CEQA IS Checklist includes the question of whether a project may "[c]onflict with any 3 applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation ... adopted for the purpose of avoiding or 4 mitigating an environmental effect." Id. at 929. The court found that the PUD's 5 development guidelines stressed the importance of landscaping and setbacks and prescribed 6 specific rules for any project within the PUD. Id. at 930. The court concluded that because 7 the record supported a fair argument that the land use policies were adopted to avoid or 8 mitigate environmental effects, then a conflict with the policy itself was grounds for 9 requiring an EIR. Id. at 934. 10 Here,the Riverside County Integrated Project General Plan's Land Use Element with 11 respect to scenic corridors states: oz 12 "Riverside County contains abundant natural visual resources, including _ low-lying valleys,mountain ranges,rock formations,rivers,and lakes.These = 13 features are often enjoyed via the County's many roadways. Due to the UJ a visual significance of many of these areas, several roadways have been z o 14 officially recognized as either Eligible or Designated State or County Scenic o w Highways. The intent of these policies is to conserve significant scenic 15 resources along designated scenic highways for future generations and to manage development along scenic highways and corridors so as not 16 to detract from the area's scenic quality." (2 RJN 33) (emphasis added) m Q W 17 The General Plan seeks to conserve the scenic resources along designated scenic highways. = � a 18 A number of land use policies further this intent, including policies to: �24_pl %s'i 19 "Preserve and protect outstanding scenic vistas and visual features for the enjoyment of the traveling public [and] Prohibit offsite outdoor advertising displays that are 20 visible from Designated and Eligible . . . Scenic Highways." (2 RJN 33-34) March 4, 2008. 21 22 The Project is located adjacent to "the I-10 scenic highway, which is designated as a 23 County eligible scenic highway in the General Plan." (2 AR 256) Relocating four billboards 24 along a scenic highway directly contradicts the General Plan's intent to conserve the 25 significant scenic resources of the area. Moreover,the relocation of the LOA billboards will 26 conflict with the General Plan's policy to prohibit billboards that are visible from a County 27 eligible scenic highway. The relocation of the billboards will also contradict the policy to 28 protect scenic vistas for the enjoyment of the traveling public. As noted by one Project -10- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401\1038\1036763.1 I opponent, "billboards at this location will cause sight pollution and significantly adversely 2 affect the view corridor." (1 AR 129) The City itself emphasized that the Site is "a scenic 3 corridor with the mountain vistas in addition to recently developed, high end, nice looking 4 commercial properties that will be obscured by the proposed signage." (1 AR 166) Because 5 substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the land use policies were 6 adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects, as established in Pocket Protectors, the 7 Project's conflict with the policy itself requires an EIR. 8 C. Cumulative Impacts Were Not Considered in the ND 9 In addition,the ND fails to adequately consider the cumulative impacts of the Project. 10 The Project allows billboards to be relocated if(1) they are within a contemplated public 11 right-of-way, and (2) the displays complied with County ordinances and regulations at the o s 12 time they were erected. (2 AR 252) The County, however, did not conduct a study to = � 0 13 determine how many billboards exist in the County, and how many of those billboards are W � C.7 14 within a contemplated public right-of-way and complied with County ordinances and 0 0 a 15 regulations at the time they were erected. Knowing this information is crucial for N Q 16 determining the cumulative impacts that the Project may have on the Site. 0tZ 17 "Cumulative impacts" are defined as "two or more individual effects which, when V � a 18 considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental Yi 19 impacts." (Guidelines §15355.) A cumulative impacts analysis must evaluate the severity 20 and likelihood of a proj ect's cumulative impacts when"viewed in connection with the effects 21 of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future 22 projects." Guidelines §§15065(c), 15130(b);San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue Center v. 23 County of Stanislaus (1984) 27 Cal.App.4th 713, 740; Kings Co. Farm Bureau v. City of 24 Hanford(1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 719-720. A cumulative, regional impacts analysis is 25 a "vital provision" under CEQA. Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission of 26 Ventura County (1975) 13 Ca1.3d 263, 283. "A cumulative impact analysis which 27 understates information concerning the severity and significance of cumulative impacts 28 impedes meaningful public discussion and skews the decisionmaker's perspective concerning -11- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401\1038\1036763.1 I the environmental consequences of the project, the necessity for mitigation measures, and 2 the appropriateness of project approval." Citizens to Preserve the Ojai v. Co. of Ventura 3 (1985) 176 Cal.App.3d 421, 431. 4 Here, the ND finds the Project has no potential cumulative impact: 5 "The development standards for height and display size, combined with the spacing requirements between billboards,eliminates any potential cumulative 6 impacts on multiple relocations impacting any one area significantly by preventing any continuous blockage of the scenic resources. The project 7 does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable." (2 AR 284) 8 9 In its October 16, 2007 letter to the Board, the City discussed the glaring problems 10 with the ND's treatment of the cumulative impacts. The City stated: 11 "The initial study violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines in that it fails to consider the cumulative impacts that the proposed modifications and policy Z 2 12 additions to the [WCVAP] will have with respect to an unknown number of o a future billboard relocation projects. Though the project applicant proposes Ln 13 specific billboard relocations the effect of the amended and added LL, o p policies c� will allow for unlimited billboard relocations in the future. How many z o 14 `existing billboards' are there within the [WCVAP] that might be o W relocated to more harmful and aesthetically sensitive locations under the Ln 15 amended policy? The initial study entirely ignores the long-term cumulative impacts." (1 AR 158) (emphasis added) — 3 16 Ln o Q W 17 The County ignored that deficiency. In fact,it is clear that one supervisor did not even V o i� a 18 understand what is entailed in a cumulative impacts analysis: "This is relocating four �9 16-P, %yi 19 existing; this isn't four additional billboards. So you we are talking about the cumulative 20 effect; the cumulative effect, uh, would be zero." (3 AR 431). 21 In response to this comment, a City representative explained that: 22 "the policy ... changes the general plan as a whole, so any billboard now along the freeway anywhere, ... besides these four, can be located to any 23 other portion of I-10, which is a - a scenic corridor, uh; this pres - specific proposal is the four in question,but in the future there is gonna be more that 24 can be relocated due to ... urban expansion along the freeway, so, again, we think - the environmental study addresses these four poles, but the general 25 policy is county-wide for the Coachella Valley and it doesn't address the ... county as a whole, the Coach - Coachella Valley as a whole." (Id.). 26 27 28 -12- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401\1038\1036763.1 I The County never bothered to determine how many cumulative billboards could 2 potentially be relocated to this area and never analyzed the potential impacts or need for 3 mitigation. An EIR is required to properly assess cumulative impacts. 4 D. Biological Impacts Were Not Considered By the ND 5 The County did not even attempt to consider the Project's impact on biological 6 resources despite the City repeatedly informing the County that its analysis failed to 7 adequately explain the basis for its conclusions of insignificance with respect to Biological 8 Resources. (1 AR 158 and 2 AR 308) The County determined that the Project will have less 9 than significant impacts, "either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species 10 identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special species in local or regional plans, policies, or 11 regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Wildlife Service." 0 0 12 As to all other items under biological resources in the Revised IS checklist, the County LO 0 13 determined that the Project would have no impact. (2 AR 261) Aware that it was not W � L7 z o 14 conducting an adequate environmental analysis with respect to biological resources, the o " w Q15 County made findings deferring analysis of biological impacts. (2 AR 262, findings b 3 N J 16 through 0 Yet, in purporting to defer consideration of biologic impacts to consideration of o a z 17 specific relocation proposals, the County fails to acknowledge the Project itself contains a Q 18 proposal for the relocation of the LOA billboards. The County completely ignored its own 19 (legally deficient) findings. The Revised IS includes the Agreement that "proposes to 20 relocate 4 existing outdoor advertising displays (billboards) from apns 626-130-003, 21 626-150-010 and 626-140-003 to apn 653-250-012"as part of the Project description. (2 AR 22 252) In fact, the County executed the Agreement on October 16, 2007, the same day it 23 approved the ND. (2 AR 286-291) The County, therefore, should have analyzed the 24 Project's impacts on the biological resources of the proposed site where the LOA billboards 25 will be relocated. 26 By refusing to analyze the Project's impacts on the biological resources in the area, 27 the County has failed to comply with CEQA. Accordingly,the County should grant the writ 28 of mandate and order the County to prepare an EIR. -13- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401\1038\1036763.1 I IV. The General Plan Amendment Violates Government Code Section 65300.5 By 2 Creating Internal Inconsistencies Within the General Plan 3 Government Code Section 65300.5 requires that the "general plan and elements and 4 parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of 5 policies for the adopting agency." See also Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. 6 County of Riverside(1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1212, 1235 (Internal inconsistency in county's 7 general plan is grounds for a writ of mandate). 8 Here, the WCVAP was amended to allow the relocation of outdoor advertising 9 displays along a scenic corridor. (2 AR 226-229) Prior to the amendment, Section 14.2 of 10 the WCVAP stated its policy was to"[p]rohibit the erection of billboards within the Western 11 Coachella Valley." (3 AR 481) As amended, Section 14.2 of the WCVAP allows for zo 2 12 erection of relocated billboards. (2 AR 296) Moreover,the amendment directly contradicts 0 a 13 other portions of the General Plan that prohibit billboards along scenic corridors. For W � LD z o 14 instance,the General Plan includes policies to"[p]rohibit offsite outdoor advertising displays Ln 15 that are visible from Designated and Eligible State and County Scenic Highways" and to 3 3 N 16 "[p]reserve and protect outstanding scenic vistas and visual features for the enjoyment of the Ce Z 17 traveling public."(2 RJN 33-34) The amendment to allow relocation of outdoor advertising V o 2 Q 18 displays to areas within the WCVAP is inconsistent with and directly contradicts the policy a61 P, %,sue, 19 of prohibiting offsite outdoor advertising displays visible from County designated and 20 eligible scenic highways. The County's action is contrary to law and must be invalidated. 21 V. The County Violated Government Code Section 36934 In Adopting Ordinance 22 No. 348.4529 23 The County failed to provide the required two readings by both introducing and 24 adopting Ordinance No. 348.4529 on the same day. Government Code Section 36934 25 provides that"[o]rdinances shall not be passed within five days of their introduction. . ." On 26 October 16, 2007, at its regular meeting, the County adopted Ordinance No. 348.4529 to 27 authorize the County to enter into outdoor advertising relocation agreements. (2 AR 237-39; 28 316) By adopting Ordinance No. 348.4529 on the same day that it was introduced, the -14- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401\1038\1036763.1 I County violated Government Code Section 36934 and,thus,Ordinance No.348.4529 is void. 2 See, County of Los Angeles v. Lawndale (1962) 202 Cal.App. 2d 20 (ordinance was not an 3 urgency measure, and thus, could not be adopted on the same day it was introduced). 4 Furthermore,because Ordinance No. 348.4529 is void,the County did not have the authority 5 to enter into the Relocation Agreement and it, too, is void and ultra vires. 6 VII. Conclusion 7 The City, and others, repeatedly highlighted the flaws with the County's 8 environmental analysis and presented substantial evidence to support a fair argument the 9 Project would have significant impact on the environment. The record presents a fair 10 argument that relocating the LOA billboards along a County designated scenic corridor will 11 have a significant impact on aesthetic resources,planning and land use,biological resources zo o 12 and will have cumulative impacts that were not properly analyzed. W � 13 The City respectfully requests that its Petition be granted, and that a writ of mandate c5 z o 14 issue commanding the County to set aside Resolution 2007-446, Ordinance Nos. 348.4528 O Q15 and 348.4529 and any other actions in furtherance of the Project, and to refrain from further N 16 action or approval of the Project without first complying fully with CEQA including, o Q x W 17 preparation, circulation and certification of a proper EIR. V o 18 DATED: March 5, 2008 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON Z-No19 A Professional Corporation GRE RY KUNERT 20 MAR ELA E. M RR QUIN 21 By. 22 re nert 23 Attorneys for Petitioner 24 25 26 27 28 -15- MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401\1038\1036763.1 I PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I, Gabrielle Duran, declare: 3 I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is Richards, Watson &Gershon, 355 South 4 Grand, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, California. On March 5, 2008, I served the within documents: 5 PETITIONER'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN 6 SUPPORT OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE [CEQA] [ ] by causing facsimile transmission of the document(s) listed above from 7 (213) 626-8484 to the person(s) and facsimile number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 P.M. This transmission was reported as complete and without 8 error. A copy of the transmission report(s), which was properly issued by the transmitting facsimile machine, is attached. Service by facsimile has been made 9 pursuant to a prior written agreement between the parties. 10 [ ] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon z o fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, addressed as C) I 1 set forth below. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for collection and processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. w g 12 Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that z same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I zo 13 am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cn o cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit a 14 for mailing contained in this affidavit. cn 15 [ X ] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre- Y paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a FEDERAL EXPRESS `t 16 agent for delivery, or deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by a FEDERAL EXPRESS, in an envelope or package designated by the express =r 17 service carrier, with delivery fees paid or provided for, addressed to the person(s) ,sw at the address(es) set forth below. 18 [ ] by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the 19 address(es) set forth below. 20 [ ] by causing personal delivery by First Legal Support Services, 1511 West Beverly Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90026 of the document(s) listed above to the 21 person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. 22 See Attached Service List 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. _ 24 25 Executed on March 5, 2008. GABRIELLE DURAN 26 27 28 -\v.doc 1 SERVICE LIST 2 3 Joe S. Rank, County Counsel Pamela J. Walls, Assistant County Counsel 4 3535 Tenth Street, Suite 300 5 Riverside, California 92501-3674 Telephone: (951) 955-6300 6 Fax: (951) 955-6363 Attorneys for Respondents, County of Riverside 7 and Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside 8 Jennifer Guenther, Esq. 9 Gresham, Savage, Nolan &Tilden 3750 University Avenue, Suite 250 10 Riverside, California 92501-3335 Telephone: (951) 684-2171 C) 0 11 Fax: (951) 684-2150 _ Attorneys for Real Party In Interest, LU 0 12 w g Lamar Advertising Company — 0 13 o Lamar Advertising Company ¢¢ 14 77583 El Duna Suite J 3 Palm Desert, California 92211 — 3 15 L a a a ¢ w 16 17 i9r r� 18 r 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 P6401-1038\1036828v Lloc 19k4►Tj RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON VNIf ATTORNEYS AT LAW—A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 355 South Grand Avenue,4oth Floor,Los Angeles,California 90071-3101 Telephone 213.626.8484 Facsimile 213.626.0078 RECEIVED RICHA(D9RIICi9DS November 16, 2007 88) GLENN R.WATSON (RETIRED) VIA US MAIL :0)11[UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HARRY L G ERS HON(1922-200]) cITY OF PAIX DESERT STEVEN L.DORSEY Lauri Aylaian WILLIAM L.STRAUSZ MITCHELL E.ABBOTT City of Palm Desert GREG O RV W.STEPANICICH ROCHELLE BROWNE Director of Community Development WILLIAM B.RUDELL QUINN M.BARROW CAROL W.LYNCH 73-510 Fred Waring Drive EGORY M. UNERT G RTHOMAS M.IIMBO Palm Desert, CA 92260 ROBERT C.CECCON STEVEN H.KAUFMANN KEVIN G.ENNIS ROBIN D.HARRIS MICHAEL ESTRADA Re: City of Palm Desert v. County of Riverside, et al., UIURESTE WIENER STEVEN R.ORR San Bernardino County Court Case Numbers RIC 485078 B.TILDEN KIM SASKIA T.ASAMURA KAYSER O.SLIME PETER M.THORSON JAMES L MARKMAN Dear Ms. Aylaian: CRAIG A.STEELE T.PETER PIERCE TERENCE R.BOGA LISA BONNDD Enclosed please find a copy of the Petition for Writ of Mandate that was filed with ANET COL )ROXA E.E M.DI Z the Court on November 9 2007. Respondents were served with the Petition on ROl(ANNE M.DIAZ , JIM G.GRAYSON ROY A.CLARKE November 13, 2007. WILLIAM P.CURLEY III MICHAEL F.YOSHIBA REGINA N.DANNER PAUTA GUTTER REZ BAEZA TERESA HO-URANO please contact me if you have any questions or would like to further discuss this BRU CE W.GALLOWAY DIANA K.CHUANG matter. BILLY D.DUNSMORE AMY GREYSON DEBORAH R.HAKMAN D.CRAIG FOX Thank you. ALEXANDER ABBE PATRICK K.BOB KO DAVID M.SNOW Lo LLY A.ENRIQUEZ Larni . KIRSTEN R.BOWMAN G.INDER KHALSA GINETTA L GIOVINCO TRISHA 0RTIZ CANDICE K.LEE DAVID G.ALDERSON M EUSSA C.LAUZARDO oqui MART CELA E.MARROQUiN GENA M.STINNETT I ENNIFER PETRUSIS STEVEN L FLOWER 10070-0031\1015213vl.doc CH RISTOPHER J.DIAZ MATTHEW E.COHEN ANDREW TAM DEBBIEY.CHO G EOFFREY WARD cc: Greg Kunert, Esq. ERIN L POWERS TOUSSAINT S.BAILEY WHITNEY G.MCDONALD OF COUNSEL MARK L LAMKEN SAYRE WEAVER WILLIAM K.KRAMER NORMAN A.DUPONT JIM R.KARPIAK SAN FNANCISCO OFFICE TELEPHONE 415.421.8484 ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE TELEPHONE 714.990.0901 F NOU-09-2007 14:36 FROM Richards,Watson 4 Uershon IU y195177901009907e P.04i25 fR' COPY 4Q FA E 1 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation 2 GREGORY M. KUNERT (94058) MARICELA E. MARROQUIN 232321) F Q L E 0 3 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor ,SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA. Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 4 Telephone: (213) 626-8484 NOV 0 9 2007 Facsimile: (213) 626-0078 5 Attorneys for Petitioner, �---� 6 CITY OF PALM DESERT 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE — CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 0 11 CITY OF PALM DESERT, a municipal Case No. = o ce corporation, w 12 PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE `—' x Petitioner, AND COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE z 13 RELIEF [Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1085 N cn o vs. and 1094.5; Public Resources Code Section a 14 1 21000 et seq.] 3 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a political Ln a 15 subdivision; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Govt. OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; AND Code §6103 16 DOES 1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE, u o i 17 Respondents. 18 LAMAR ADVERTISING COMPANY, a 19 Louisiana corporation, 20 Real Party In Interest. 21 22 Petitioner, the City of Palm Desert ("the City") alleges as follows: 23 24 INTRODUCTION 25 1. Petitioner, the City of Palm Desert ("the City") challenges the discretionary 26 decisions of the County of Riverside ("County") and the Board of Supervisors of the 27 County of Riverside (`Board") to adopt a General Plan amendment and enact zone 28 changes to allow for the relocation of four existing billboards, along with approval of an P6401-1038\10119590.doc PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE I Outdoor Advertising Display Relocation Agreement("Billboard Relocation Agreement") 2 with Lamar Advertising ("Project"). The County and Board are referred to collectively 3 as "Respondents." 4 1 2. The Project overturns a long-standing policy of the County, reflected in the 5 County's General Plan, to discourage, prohibit and eventually eliminate advertising 6 billboards located on highways through scenic corridors. Contrary to that policy, the 7 legislative enactments comprising the Project allow for the construction of an unspecified 8 number of new billboards located in scenic corridors where no billboards previously 9 existed, hidden under the guise of"relocation" of existing billboards, the location of 10 which County officials find inconvenient. The legislative enactments comprising the 0 0 11 Project contemplate and are motivated by the County's desire to avoid paying 0 12 compensation for removing four specific billboards owned by Lamar Advertising on W � Z z 2 13 land needed so that the County can widen a road("The Lamar billboards"). However, o " 14 the legislative enactments, in establishing a completely new billboard policy allowing for Q a a N 15 billboard relocations where billboards were not permitted to be erected, are not by their Qti 16 terms limited to those specific billboards. _ ; 17 3. The Lamar billboards will be relocated to a narrow remnant area along may, 18 Interstate 10, bordered to the south and west by the City ("Site"). The Site is adjacent to 19 and intrusively visible from an area recognized in the County's General Plan as a scenic 20 highway. The Site constitutes a narrow strip of land sandwiched between the Interstate 21 10 right-of-way and the City such that, to any common traveler along Interstate 10, it 22 appears to be within the City's boundaries. Furthermore, the General Plan amendment 23 and zone changes will potentially allow outdoor advertising displays to be moved into 24 areas that are within the City's sphere of influence. 25 4. Specifically, this lawsuit challenges Respondents' actions in: 26 a. Adopting Resolution No. 2007-446 that approves General Plan 27 Amendment No. 864 ("General Plan Amendment") and the negative 28 declaration. The General Plan Amendment designates the Site as -2- PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401-103 8\10119590.doc 1 I Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) and modifies and 2 adds policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for 3 the relocation of existing billboards to a new location as long as the 4 net number of billboards is not increased; 5 b. Adopting Ordinance No. 348.4528 ("Change of Zone No. 7535") 6 that alters the Site's current zoning classification from Rural 7 Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC); 8 C. Adopting Ordinance No. 348.4529 ("Change of Zone No. 7574") 9 that amends the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 10 to authorize the County to enter into an outdoor advertising 0 0 11 relocation agreement when: (1) the original location of the outdoor "' a 12 advertising display is within a contemplated right-of-way, and(2) w � Zo 13 the outdoor advertising complied with all applicable County o " " Qa 14 ordinances and regulations in effect at the time it was erected. The — 3 15 amendment also allows an outdoor advertising display located in a cn o Q Q w 16 significant resource area to be relocated to another site within a 0 17 significant resource area regardless of whether it is on the same or 18 different parcel; 19 d. Authorizing the execution of the Outdoor Advertising Display 20 Relocation Agreement that allows for the Lamar billboards from 21 Riverside County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 626-130-003, 626- 22 150-010, and 626-140-003 to 653-250-012. 23 5. The County's actions alleged herein violate provisions of the California 24 Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"), Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq., 25 and the CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. Sections 15000, et seq. ("CEQA 26 Guidelines"), in several respects, including, but not limited to: (1) Respondents' initial 27 study and environmental assessment number 41426 does not adequately analyze or 28 evaluate the environmental impacts of the Project; (2) substantial evidence supports a fair -3- P6401-1038\1011959v5.doc PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE I argument that the Project has potential adverse impacts so as to require an Environmental 2 Impact Report ("EIR"); (3) Respondents impermissibly failed to evaluate, and failed to 3 adopt, feasible mitigation measures that could reduce the Project's significant, adverse 4 environmental impacts; (4) the Project, as approved, has several significant, unresolved 5 aesthetic/scenic and planning and land use impacts that were not addressed in the initial 6 study and environmental assessment and that may cause harm to the City's residents and 7 to the public generally; (5) Respondents' initial study and environmental assessment 8 wholly fails to consider the cumulative impact that the new policy of allowing relocation 9 of existing billboards along scenic corridors may have beyond the immediate impact of 10 relocating the Lamar billboards; (6) the amendment to the Coachella Valley Area Plan zo 0 11 creates inconsistencies within the General Plan; (7) Change of Zone No. 7574 was � o 12 adopted without the requisite second reading; and (8) Respondents acted outside of their w — = 13 authority in approving and entering into the Billboard Relocation Agreement. Z � O Ln 0 14 Accordingly, Respondents abused their discretion, failed to proceed as required by law, a 15 and Respondents' decisions approving the Project are not supported by substantial cn 0 < Q 16 evidence. w 17 6. The City seeks a writ of mandate, inter alia: = , 18 a. Rescinding Resolution No. 2007-446; 19 b. Invalidating and setting aside Respondents above-described land use 20 approvals; and 21 C. Compelling Respondents to comply with CEQA and analyze the 22 environmental impact of the Project. 23 PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 24 7. The City is a municipal corporation duly incorporated and existing under 25 and pursuant to the Constitution and by virtue of the general laws of the State of 26 California. The City is situated in the County of Riverside, California. The City, and its 27 constituents and residents, will be adversely affected by the environmental impacts of the 28 Project, and thus, the City is beneficially interested in this action. 4- PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401-1038\1 0 1 195M.doc 1 8. The City is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that respondent 2 County of Riverside is a political subdivision organized pursuant to the laws of the State 3 of California. The City is further informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that the 4 County is the lead agency responsible under CEQA for evaluating the environmental 5 impacts of the Project. 6 9. The City is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that respondent 7 Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside is the duly authorized governing body of 8 the County. 9 10. The City is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Real Party in 10 Interest Lamar Advertising Company ("Lamar") is a Louisiana Corporation, doing 0 0 11 business in California, and is the applicant for approval of the Project. The City is "' a � 12 informed and believes, and thereupon alleges Lamar is a foreign corporation that has not o W C7 — = 13 registered with the California Secretary of State. z � o " 14 11. The City is unaware of the true names and capacities of those respondents Q ° a — 3 15 sued herein as DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, and therefore sues said respondents by N a Q w 16 fictitious names. The City is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that each of 17 these fictitiously named respondents is in some manner responsible for the wrongful ill.6 ,lp IS conduct alleged in this Petition. The City will amend this Petition to substitute their true 19 names and capacities when the same have been ascertained. 20 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 21 12. The City is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that on or about 22 May or June 2007, Respondents prepared an initial study for the Project. The Project that 23 was the subject of the original initial study did not include Change of Zone No. 7574 or 24 the Billboard Relocation Agreement. The initial study concluded that although the 25 Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there would not be a 26 significant effect because revisions in the Project were made or agreed to by the Project 27 proponent and, thus, a mitigated negative declaration would be prepared. The City is, 28 -5- PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401-1038\1011959v5.doc I informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Respondents subsequently prepared a 2 1 mitigated negative declaration. 3 13. The City is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that on or about 4 June 27, 2007, the City received a Notice of Public Hearing and Intent to Adopt a 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration ("Mitigated Negative Declaration Notice") from 6 Respondents noticing the public hearing for July 11, 2007. 7 14. On or about July 5, 2007, the City prepared and submitted comments in 8 response to the Mitigated Negative Declaration Notice regarding the General Plan 9 Amendment and Change of Zone 7535. The City objected to the proposal because, 10 among other grounds, it would impact the aesthetic quality of the Interstate 10 Corridor. 0 0 11 The City is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Respondents received w 12 these written comments. 0 0 13 15. The City is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that at its July 11, ow 14 2007 meeting, the Planning Commission recommended approval of Ordinance Number 15 348.429 that would adopt Change of Zone 7535. The City provided comment at the L J o a Q w 16 Planning Commission meeting. c 17 16. On or about July 12, 2007, the City prepared and submitted to =y, 18 Respondent's detailed written comments regarding the Planning Commission's 19 recommended approval of the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone 7535 to 20 1 allow the relocation of the existing billboards along the Interstate 10 corridor in 21 Coachella Valley. The City's comments included, but were not limited to, issues 22 pertaining to the Project's impacts on aesthetics. The City noted that the General Plan 23 recognizes the aesthetic quality of the Interstate 10 corridor and thus has polices 24 prohibiting the placement of billboards in the Coachella Valley. The City is informed 25 and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Respondents received these written comments. 26 17. The City is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that at its July 31, 27 2007 meeting, the Board tentatively approved both the General Plan Amendment and 28 Change of Zone No. 7535. The City is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges the -6- PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401-1038\1011959v5.doe _ I Board also tentatively approved the mitigated negative declaration. The City attended 2 this hearing and provided comment. 3 18. The City is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that on or about 4 August 2007, the County prepared a revised initial study for the Project("Revised Initial 5 Study"). The Revised Initial Study concluded that the Project would not have a 6 significant impact on the environment, and a negative declaration would be prepared. 7 19. The City is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that 8 Respondents did not provide the City with a notice of intent to adopt a negative 9 declaration. 10 20. On or about August 27, 2007, the City prepared and submitted additional 0 0 11 written comments regarding the Project. The City informed Respondents that the initial Ee d 12 study and environmental assessment number 41426 was inadequate and failed to comply ' o W � � a — 0 13 with CEQA because, among other grounds, it: zLA o (A LL 14 (1) does not explain or analyze the basis for the conclusions with respect Q a a N 15 to Aesthetics/Scenic Resources, Biological Resources and Planning and Land Use; M a Q W 16 (2) fails to complete the Mandatory Findings of Significance as to _ ; 17 checklist items 50, 51, 52 and 53; V 18 (3) fails to consider the cumulative impacts that the proposed 19 modifications and policy additions to the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan will have 20 with respect to an unknown number of future billboard relocation projects; 21 (4) fails to consider the impact on scenic resources and how this impact 22 will effect neighboring jurisdictions; 23 (5) fails to consider the impact that permitting relocation of billboards 24 will have on the long-range possibility of eliminating scenic blight; 25 (6) fails to consider the Project's impact and potential cumulative 26 impacts will have on the planning and land use goals and policies of the City and other 27 affected agencies; 28 -7- PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401-1038U 011959v5.doc 1 (7) fails to consider the Project's impact and potential cumulative 2 impacts on property situated in areas relatively free from billboard and protected by 3 policies proscribing billboard proliferation; 4 (8) concludes that a mitigated negative declaration is appropriate even 5 though the County does not identify any potentially significant impacts nor identify 6 specific measures to reduce the potentially significant impacts to a level of insignificance; 7 (9) the mitigated negative declaration was not published, circulated or 8 made available for public inspection and comment, nor were any mitigation measures 9 identified. 10 The City is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Respondents Zo o 11 received these written comments. � w g 12 21. The City is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges that, at its c� Z o 13 October 16, 2007 meeting, the Board adopted Resolution 2007-446 thereby approving o " Ln 0 14 General Plan Amendment No. 864 and the negative declaration. The Board also adopted Q a 15 Ordinance No. 348.4528 thereby approving Change of Zone 7535. The Board also Ln J Q < " ¢ w 16 adopted Ordinance No. 348.4529 thereby approving Change of Zone 7574. The Board LJ � Q 17 also approved the Billboard Relocation Agreement. V 18 22. The City is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that the negative 19 declaration was filed and posted with the Riverside County Clerk on October 18, 2007. 20 23. The Project is a "project" within the meaning of CEQA, and is not exempt 21 from CEQA compliance. 22 24. The City has performed any and all conditions precedent to the filing of this 23 lawsuit, and has fully exhausted its administrative remedies by participating in all phases 24 of the administrative process. Specifically, the City has provided written comments 25 pertaining to the initial study and Revised Initial Study and the City's decision to adopt a 26 mitigated negative declaration and negative declaration. In addition, the City participated 27 in public hearings regarding the Project 28 -8- PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401-1038\1011959v5.doc 1 25. The City has complied with Public Resources Code Section 21167.5 and, 2 prior to filing this lawsuit, has personally served upon the County and Board, a Notice of 3 Intent to File a CEQA Action("Notice"). A true and correct copy of the City's Notice 4 and proof of service is attached hereto as Exhibit"A" and is incorporated herein. 5 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 6 (Writ of Mandate Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1085 7 and/or 1094.5 et seq. for Violation of CEQA) 8 26. The City incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein 9 paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Petition. 10 27. The amendment of a general plan is a "project" subject to CEQA and zo 0 11 CEQA Guidelines. The enactment of a zoning ordinance is also a "project" subject to � 12 CEQA and CEQA Guidelines. W o0 Z z `= 13 28. The City's comments regarding the Project raised various issues of concern � o " 0 14 pertaining to the Project having a significant impact on the environment, which the City Q a U) Q 15 alleges were not adequately analyzed in any environmental review prepared, filed and 0 Q 16 adopted by Respondents in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. _ W 0 17 29. Instead of properly responding to the City's comments on the Project by iu E, 18 providing sufficient evidence that the Project would not create a significant 19 environmental impact, or by ordering the preparation of an EIR for the Project to address 20 and analyze all potential environmental impacts reasonably expected to result from the 21 Project, and propose mitigation measures to address the impacts, Respondents proceeded 22 to adopt and post a negative declaration for the Project, determining contrary to the 23 evidence provided in the record that the Project would not cause a significant impact on 24 the environment. 25 30. The boxes checked on the Revised Initial Study with respect to aesthetics 26 proclaimed: 27 28 -9- PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401-1038\1011959v5.doc I a. The relocation of the four billboards would have "less than 2 significant impact"upon the scenic highway corridor where they 3 will be relocated; 4 b. The Project would have "less than significant impact" on obstructing 5 any prominent scenic vista or view open to the public and would not 6 result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public 7 view. 8 31. The conclusion that the relocation of the billboards will have "less than 9 significant impact" on aesthetic resources is not supported by the evidence. Respondents 10 failed to properly consider the impact that relocating the billboards would have on 0z o 11 neighboring jurisdictions, especially areas like the City that are relatively free of 4 0 12 billboards. The Revised Initial Study also fails to consider the impact that permitting W � l7 a — z 2 13 relocation of billboards will have on the long-range possibility of eliminating scenic o `" LA LL 14 blight in the area. Q a — 3 15 32. The Revised Initial Study attempts to minimize the Project's substantial U-) Q > 16 adverse impacts on aesthetic resources by stating that a "heavily trafficked railroad line 17 ... blocks the views of the scenic resources in the corridor more than any relocated :•�. K.,!p 18 display would. The relocation of the outdoor advertising displays will not increase,but 19 may, actually, reduce impact from the current impacts on the scenic resources for the 20 area." There is no support for the claim that railroads that intermittently pass through the 21 area affect the scenic resources in the corridor more than four billboards that will create a 22 continuous impact on the scenic resources. Moreover, it is unfathomable that relocating 23 the four billboards along the scenic corridor will somehow improve the scenic resources 24 in the area. 25 33. In addition, the Revised Initial Study fails to properly consider the 26 cumulative impacts that the Project will have with respect to an unknown number of 27 future billboard relocation projects. The Project allows outdoor advertising displays to be 28 relocated if(1) they are within a contemplated public right-of-way, and(2) the displays -10- PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401-1038\101 19590.doc I complied with County ordinances and regulations at the time they were erected. 2 Respondents, however, failed to determine how many outdoor advertising displays exist 3 in the County, and how many of those outdoor advertising displays meet the two above 4 mentioned conditions. By ignoring the potential cumulative impacts, Respondents have 5 not properly analyzed the Project's effect on the aesthetic resources in the area. 6 34. The boxes checked on the Revised Initial Study with respect to planning 7 proclaimed: 8 a. The Project would have "less than significant impact" upon 9 compatibility with existing and planned surrounding land uses; 10 b. The Project would be consistent with the land use designations and 0 0 11 policies of the General Plan 0. 12 35. The conclusion that the Project will have "less than significant impact" on W - = 13 planning resources is not supported by the evidence. The Revised Initial Study claims z 2 o " 0 14 that the Project would be compatible with existing and planned surrounding land uses. Q a — 3 15 The Revised Initial Study acknowledges that the Interstate 10 freeway corridor is Q > 16 bordered by the City on the south and west. Nevertheless, the Revised Initial Study fails 17 to adequately consider the impacts on the planning and land use goals and policies of the 'y 18 City. 19 36. Moreover, the Revised Initial Plan's assertion that the proposed relocation 20 of existing billboards is consistent "with all other applicable General Plan policies" is 21 false. The General Plan specifically discusses the County's policy to "[p]rohibit offsite 22 outdoor advertising displays that are visible from Designated and Eligible State and 23 County Scenic Highways." The General Plan states that the intent of the policy is "to 24 conserve significant scenic resources along designated scenic highways for future 25 generations and to manage development along scenic highways and corridors so as not to 26 detract from the area's scenic quality." Therefore, despite the conclusions reached by the 27 Revised Initial Study, it is impossible that the Project will not have a significant impact 28 on planning resources. -11- PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401-1038\101195M.doc 1 37. Respondents failed to follow their own General Plan's policy of 2 coordinating and working with jurisdictions regarding land use decisions. Respondents 3 failed to work with the City to ensure compatibility between the County's land use 4 policies and the City's land use policies, despite the fact that the Project is bordered on 5 the south and west by the City. 6 38. The foreseeable environmental impacts that require study and consideration 7 of mitigation measures were not adequately considered prior to Respondents' adopting 8 the negative declaration. 9 39. Respondents violated CEQA by failing to adequately respond to the 10 numerous comments regarding and objections to the proposed negative declaration. 02 11 40. Respondents violated CEQA, because upon information and belief, they did 12 not provide the City with notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration. W � c� < — = 13 41. Because the environmental review of the Project, conducted by z � o " a14 Respondents as the lead agency for the Project, did not meet the minimum requirements � < 15 for environmental review imposed by CEQA, the adoption of Resolution No. 2007-446 Ln J Q > 16 approving the negative declaration must be set aside, and the matter must be returned to _ Z 17 Respondents for compliance with CEQA and for preparation, examination and : =v•I., 18 certification of a full environmental impact report("EIR"), as required by law. 19 42. The City has no adequate remedy at law because only a writ of mandate 20 commanding Respondents to set aside and rescind Resolution No. 2007-446 could protect 21 the City and its residents from the adverse impacts of the General Plan Amendment and 22 zone changes. 23 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 24 (Violation of Government Code § 65300.5) 25 43. The City incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein 26 paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Petition. 27 44. Government Code Section 65300.5 mandates that a General Plan must be 28 internally consistent. Respondents' amended the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan so -12- PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401-1038\1011959v5.doc I that it is no longer consistent with the overall General Plan. For instance, the Western 2 Valley Coachella Plan, which is a part of the General Plan, was amended to allow the 3 relocation of outdoor advertising displays along a scenic corridor. This directly 4 contradicts another portion of the General Plan that specifically prohibits outdoor 5 advertising displays along scenic corridors. By amending the General Plan in a manner 6 that creates inconsistencies, Respondents have failed to proceed in the manner required 7 by law and have abused their discretion. 8 45. The City will be affected by the amendment to the General Plan because it 9 will affect the kinds of land uses permitted adjacent to and near the City, and will 10 therefore affect the landscape of the areas surrounding the City and the quality of life for 0 0 11 residents in the City. Ln 0 12 46. The City has no adequate remedy at law because only a writ of mandate w � — =z 13 commanding Respondents to set aside and rescind Resolution No. 2007-446, which � O a14 adopted the amendment to the General Plan and commanding the County to revise the Q — 3 15 General Plan so that it is internally consistent, will prevent the City and its residents from Ln 0 a Q w 16 being injured. = Z 17 47. The City has incurred attorneys' fees in filing this Petition and will incur �V .s•, 18 fees in prosecuting it in an amount yet to be determined. 19 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 20 (Violation of Government Code Section 36934) 21 48. The City incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein 22 paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Petition. 23 49. On October 16, 2007, Respondents adopted Change of Zone 7574 thereby 24 amending provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 to authorize the County to 25 enter into an outdoor advertising relocation agreements when certain conditions were 26 met. 27 50. Pursuant to Government Code Section 36934, no ordinance may be passed 28 within five days of its introduction. Two readings are therefore required, one to -13- PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401-1038\1011959v5.doc I introduce the ordinance, and a second to adopt the ordinance. Upon information and 2 belief, Respondents adopted Change of Zone 7545 on the same day that it was introduced 3 in violation of Government Code Section 36934. 4 51. The City has no adequate remedy at law because only a writ of mandate 5 commanding Respondents to set aside and rescind adoption of Change of Zone 7545, will 6 prevent the City and its residents from being injured. 7 52. The City has incurred attorneys' fees in filing this Petition and will incur 8 fees in prosecuting it in an amount yet to be determined. 9 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 10 (Violation of Civil Code §§ 1595 et seq.) 0 0 11 53. The City incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein 12 paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Petition. w � � Q — 0 13 54. The Billboard Relocation Agreement between the County and Lamar is a ow Qa 14 contract and therefore must comply with the statutory requirements for contracts. The a 15 Billboard Relocation Agreement fails to comply with the requirements of the Civil Code N 0 a Q w 16 because an object of the contract, specifically the object of relocating the four outdoor Q 17 advertising displays is unlawful because the County does not have authority to enter into 18 this contract. 19 55. The Billboard Relocation Agreement is void and unenforceable because the 20 County acted outside of its authority in approving it. 21 56. The City has no adequate remedy at law because only a peremptory writ of 22 mandate commanding the County to set aside its approval of the Project, ordering the 23 County to conform the Billboard Relocation Agreement with the requirements of the 24 Civil Code and with CEQA, And prohibiting the County from re-approving the Project 25 unless it first considers the Project's environmental impacts as required by CEQA, and 26 revises the Project so that it is consistent with the revised plans and policies and adopts 27 all feasible mitigation measures as required by CEQA, will prevent the City and its 28 residents from being injured. -14- PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401-1038\1011959v5.doc 1 57. The City has incurred attorneys' fees in bringing this action, and will 2 continue to incur such fees in prosecuting this action, in an amount not yet known. This 3 action will benefit all those who work and live in the region affected by the impacts of 4 this Project. 5 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 6 (Injunctive Relief) 7 58. The City incorporates by reference as though fully set forth herein 8 paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Petition. 9 59. The City will suffer great, immediate and irreparable harm if the Project is . 10 allowed to proceed without legally adequate environmental review. 0 0 11 60. The City has no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in law,by damages or En 12 otherwise, for the harm it will suffer as a result of Respondents' failure to comply with w0 -- = 13 CEQA and the unmitigated environmental impacts that will foreseeably occur as a result z o ow a 14 of the Project. NQ 15 61. The City therefore requests preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, to 0 Q w 16 restrain and prevent Respondents from proceeding with the Project unless and until it 17 conducts a legally adequate environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and all foreseeable KE:?, 18 environmental impacts are mitigated to the maximum extent that is reasonably feasible 19 under the circumstances. 20 PRAYER 21 WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays for relief as follows: 22 First Cause of Action: 23 1. A judgment be entered ordering that a Writ of Mandate issue compelling 24 Respondents to comply with CEQA before proceeding any further or taking any further 25 action on the Project including, without limitation, compelling Respondents to prepare an 26 Environmental Impact Report before proceeding with the Project; 27 28 -15- P6401-1038\1011959v5.doc PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE I Second Cause of Action: 2 2. A judgment be entered ordering that a Writ of Mandate issue compelling 3 Respondents to set aside their adoption of Resolution 2007-446 and prohibiting 4 Respondents from re-approving any General Plan amendment that creates internal 5 inconsistencies within the General Plan. 6 Third Cause of Action 7 3. A judgment be entered ordering that a Writ of Mandate issue compelling 8 Respondents to set aside and rescind adoption of Ordinance No. 348.4529 and prohibiting 9 Respondents from re-adopting Ordinance No. 348.4529 without first complying with 10 Government Code Section 36934. Zo Z 11 Fourth Cause of Action � Ke' 0 12 4. Declaratory relief that the object of the Billboard Relocation Agreement is W � C7 a Z o 13 illegal and that the Billboard Relocation Agreement is void, or in the alternative, that o " a14 certain provisions of the Billboard Relocation Agreement are illegal and void because of a 15 unlawful objects; � J o w 16 Fifth Cause of Action 17 5. Temporary and permanent injunctive relief, to prevent and restrain 18 Respondents from proceeding with the Project pending full and legally adequate 19 environmental review under CEQA; and 20 As to All Causes of Action: 21 6. An award of all reasonable litigation costs and expenses, including expert 22 witness fees and attorney fees, to the extent permitted by law; and, 23 24 25 26 27 28 -16- PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401-103 8\101 l 959v5.doc 1 7. Such other and further relief as may appear to the Court to be just. 2 3 DATED: November 9, 2007 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation 4 GREGORY M. KUNERT MARICE A . MARROQ I 5 6 By: 7 .cela . Ma in Attorney for Pe tioner 8 CITY OF DESERT 9 [PURSUANT TO CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 446, THIS PETITION IS DEEMED VERIFIED BY OPERATION OF LAW.] 10 Z 11 o � 12 LU 0 13 zID O W 14 a a — 3 15 o w 16 < 17 'v 18 r 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -17- PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDATE P6401-103 8\101195 9v5.doc I RICHARDS, WATSON& GERSHON A Professional Corporation 2 GREGORY M. KUNERT (94058) MARICELA E. MARROQUIN (232321) 3 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101 4 Telephone: (213) 626-8484 Facsimile: (213) 626-0078 5 Attorneys for Petitioner, 6 CITY OF PALM DESERT 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE— CENTRAL DISTRICT 10 z = I 1 CITY OF PALM DESERT, a municipal Case No. corporation, W s 12 NOTICE OF COMMENCEMENT OF Petitioner, ACTION [Public Resources Code §21167.5] Z tn 13 cn o vs. Exempt from Filing Fees Pursuant to Govt. 14 Code §6103 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, a political o Q 15 subdivision; BOARD OF SUPERVISORS a W OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE; AND _ ; 16 DOES 1 THROUGH 25, INCLUSIVE, vo < 17 Respondents. y, 18 LAMAR ADVERTISING COMPANY, a 19 Louisiana corporation, 20 Real Party In Interest. 21 22 23 TO THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 24 OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE: 25 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Petitioner, City of Palm Desert has commenced an 26 action in the above-entitled Court, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act 27 (Pub.Res.Code §21000, et seq.) ("CEQA") against the County of Riverside ("the 28 County") and the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside ("Board") challenging Notice of Commencement of Action P6401-1038\1011962v1.doc 1 l' I the County and Board's decision, embodied in Resolution No. 2007-446, adopted on 2 October 16, 2007, adopting a negative declaration and General Plan Amendment No. 864 3 to allow for the relocation of four existing billboards. 4 The City is also challenging the County and Board's decision to adopt Ordinance 5 No. 348.4528 and Ordinance No. 348.4529. The City is further challenging the County 6 and Board's decision to execute the Outdoor Advertising Display Relocation Agreement. 7 8 DATED: November 8, 2007 RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON A Professional Corporation 9 GREGORY M. KUNERT 10 MARICE A E. MARROQUIN z = o a11 y: ;41 N a 12 ce 1 arro LLJ� °� Attorneys or Petitioner z2 13 CITY OF PALM DESERT o " w 0 14 a 3 15 o < > 16 ¢ w a 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- Notice of Commencement of Action P6401-1038\1011962v1.doc t�y' 3r I PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I,Audrey J. Powell, declare: 3 I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action; my business address is Richards, Watson&Gershon, 355 South 4 Grand, 40th Floor, Los Angeles, California. On November 8, 2007, I served the within documents: 5 Notice of Commencement of Action 6 [Public Resources Code Section 21167.5] 7 [ ] by causing facsimile transmission of the document(s) listed above from (213) 626-8484 to the person(s) and facsimile number(s) set forth below on this 8 date before 5:00 P.M. This transmission was reported as complete and without error. A copy of the transmission report(s),which was properly issued by the 9 transmitting facsimile machine, is attached. Service by facsimile has been made 10 pursuant to a prior written agreement between the parties. z [ ] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon o 11 fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, addressed as N a set forth below. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for collection and w 12 processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Q Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that o 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I cn o am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal 14 cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit 3 for mailing contained in this affidavit. cn n 15 [ ] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre- 16 paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a agent for delivery, or deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by, in an envelope or Q 17 package designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or 2 provided for, addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. [X] by causing personal delivery by First Legal Support Services, 1511 West Beverly 19 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90026 of the document(s) listed above to the 20 person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. The County of Riverside The Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of 21 4080 Lemon Street the County of Riverside Riverside, CA 92501 4080 Lemon Street 22 Riverside, CA 92501 23 The Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside 24 4080 Lemon Street 25 Riverside, CA 92501 26 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws o the State of Ca o i that the above 27 is true and correct. Executed on November 8, 2007. 2 8 RE" P LL -\v.doc r, 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 I,Audrey J. Powell, declare: 3 I am a resident of the State of California and over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action;my business address is Richards, Watson& Gershon, 355 South 4 Grand,40th Floor, Los Angeles, California. On November 9, 2007, I served the within documents: 5 Notice of Commencement of Action 6 [Public Resources Code Section 21167.51 7 [ ] by causing facsimile transmission of the document(s) listed above from (213) 626-8484 to the person(s) and facsimile number(s) set forth below on this 8 date before 5:00 P.M. This transmission was reported as complete and without error. A copy of the transmission report(s), which was properly issued by the 9 transmitting facsimile machine, is attached. Service by facsimile has been made 10 pursuant to a prior written agreement between the parties. z o [ ] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon o 11 fully prepaid, in the United States mail at Los Angeles, California, addressed as a set forth below. I am readily familiar with the firm's practice for collection and uj g 12 processing correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that zo 13 same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I cn o am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal Q d 14 cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit 3 for mailing contained in this affidavit. cn 15 a [ ] by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope and affixing a pre- _ 16 paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to a agent for delivery, or deposited in a box or other facility regularly maintained by , in an envelope or a 17 package designated by the express service carrier, with delivery fees paid or %6 provided for, addressed to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. =y� 18 r [X] by causing personal delivery by First Legal Support Services, 1511 West Beverly 19 Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90026 of the document(s) listed above to the 20 person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. Lamar Advertising Company 21 77583 El Duna, Suite J Palm Desert, CA 92211 22 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State o al' rn' that the above is true and correct. Executed on November 9, 2007. 24 25 AUD Y J. L 26 27 28 -W.doc REr E1 V ED OCT 2 -')� 2007 PC Staff Report: Page 1 of 2 ,1i,i_� rt; 2:(iPMENTt1R'.'.� TMENT Agenda Item No.: 5.1 Engineer]Rep.: NIA Area Map: Countywide Change of Zone Casa No.: 7574 Zoning : N1A Planning Commission: 10/312007 Supervisorial District: All Project Planner: Mark Balys E.A.1EIR Number: EA 41426 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: Change of Zone Case No. 7574 is a proposal to amend the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 concerning relocated outdoor advertising displays. The amended provisions authorize the County to enter into an outdoor advertising relocation agreement when. (1) the original location of the outdoor advertising display is within a contemplated public right-of-way, and (2) the outdoor advertising display complied with all applicable County ordinances and regulations in effect at the time it was erected. The amended provisions also allow an outdoor advertising display located in a "Significant Resources" area to be relocated to another site within a "Significant Resources" area whether that site is on the same or a different parcel. BACKGROUND: On July 11, 2007 the Planning Commission recommended that the Board of Supervisors adopt General Plan Amendment No. 864, Change of Zone Case No. 7535 and the related mitigated negative declaration for E.A. No. 41426. These cases were filed by Lamar Advertising to enable it to relocate four outdoor advertising displays to a site located southerly of 1-10, westerly of Portola Avenue, northerly of Dinah Shore Drive, and easterly of Monterey Avenue in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan. The Board of Supervisors heard the cases on July 31, 2007 and tentatively approved them. Subsequently, it was determined that E.A. No. 41426 was not properly completed. It was also determined that the existing provisions of Ordinance No. 348 concerning relocated outdoor advertising displays are narrowly drafted and may unnecessarily subject the County to costly relocation expenses. To address this concern, Change of Zone Case No_ 7574 is being presented for your consideration. E.A. No. 41426 is also being amended to correct the deficiencies and include the textual change to Ordinance No. 348_ This change together with GPA No. 864, Change of Zone No. 7535, and an outdoor advertising display relocation agreement will return to the Board of Supervisors as a single package on October 16, 2007. RECOMMENDATION: That the Riverside County Planning Commission recommend to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. ADOPTION of Change of zone Case No. 7574 amending Section 19.3 of Ordinance No. 348 concerning Relocated Outdoor Advertising Displays, and ADOPTION of a Negative Declaration for EA No_ 41426. FINDINGS: 1. Section 65802 of State Planning law provides that no provisions of the law shall restrict or limit the procedures that the legislative body of any county enacts, amends, administers, or provides for the administration of any zoning law, ordinance, rule, or regulation. 2_ Section 65800 of State Planning law states that it is the State's intention to provide only a minimum of limitation in order that counties may exercise the maximum degree of control over local zoning matters. 3. Appendix K, Section AI-1 of the Riverside County General Plan Implementation Program provides for the preparation of a County Development Code that is consistent with the County of Riverside General Plan and Land Use Map. PC Staff Report: Page 2 of 2 CONCLUSIONS: 1. Change of zone Case No. 7574 will provide regulations to address relocated outdoor advertising displays within unincorporated Riverside County_ 2_ The public's health, safety and general welfare are protected through this ordinance amendment. I Change of Zone Case No. 7574 is compatible with the present and future development of Riverside County. 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with all other applicable provisions of Ordinance No_ 348 and the general plan_ SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA FROM: TLMA- Planning Department SUBMITTAL DATE: October 3, 2007 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 / CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 / CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7574 / OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAY RELOCATION AGREEMENT — NEGATIVE DECLARATION — Applicant: Lamar Advertising — Engineer / Representative: Thomas Flanagan - Fourth Supervisorial District — Thousand Palms Zoning District —Western Coachella Valley Area Plan: No Landuse Designation — Location: Southerly of Interstate 10, westerly of Portola Avenue, northerly of Dinah Shore Drive, and easterly of Monterey Avenue in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan — 19.84 Gross Acres - Zoning: u, Rural Residential (R-R)- REQUEST: The General Plan Amendment proposes to designate the L' site as Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) and to modify oU and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing w m billboards to a new location as long as the number of billboards is not increased. The Change of �U Zone 7535 proposes to alter the site's current zoning classification from Rural Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC). Change of Zone 7475 will amend Ordinance w �� No. 348 to define the ability to relocate existng outdoor advertising Displays. � F=a 00 0 RECOMMENDED MOTION: 3 W, The Planning Department recommended Approval; and, o THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED: ADOPTION of a NEGATIVE DECLARATION for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 41426, based on the findings incorporated in the initial study and the conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; TENTATIVE APPROVAL of GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 amending the land use designation in the General Plan to designate the site as Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) and to dify and add policies in the Western on Goldman Planning Director RG:cv o a 4 � c d a N Vi C C O O U U E: w 8 O N 0 X W N t O 4. Prev. Agn. Ref. District: Fourth Agenda Number: 15 . 2 Form 11 p (Rev 03102/07) CADocuments and Settingslmbalysft DolmentslBILLBOARDS-DESER-Rl lA.doc The Honorable Board of Supervisors RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864/CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535/CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 75741 OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAY RELOCATION AGREEMENT Page 2 of 2 Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing to a new location as long as the total number of billboards is not increased; TENTATIVE APPROVAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 from Rural Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC), based upon final adoption by the Board of j Supervisors; and, TENTATIVE APPROVAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7574 Amending Section 19.3 of Ordinance No. 348 concerning Relocated Outdoor Advertising displays; and, The Planning Department further recommends: APPROVAL of the OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAY RELOCATION AGREEMENT; and, ADOPTION of RESOLUTION NO. 2007-446 recommending adoption of the General Plan Amendment No. 864 to the Board of Supervisors. i I I I I I I I i I Board of Supervisors County of Riverside 2 RESOLUTION NO.2007-446 3 AMENDING THE 4 RIVERSIDE COUNTY GENERAL PLAN 5 6 WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65350 et seq., public 7 hearings were held before the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on July 31, 2007 and before the 8 Riverside County Planning Commission on July 11, 2007 to consider proposed amendments to the 9 Western Coachella Valley Area Plan Land Use Map of the Riverside County General Plan;and, 10 WHEREAS, all the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and 11 Riverside County CEQA implementing procedures have been satisfied; and, 12 WHEREAS,the above matters were discussed fully with testimony and documentation presented 13 by the public and affected government agencies; now,therefore, 14 WHEREAS, the proposed general plan amendments are hereby declared to be severable and if 15 any proposed amendment is adjudged unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, the remaining proposed 16 amendments shall not be affected thereby;now,therefore, 17 BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED AND ORDERED by the Board of Supervisors 18 of the County of Riverside, and in regular session assembled on October 16,2007 that: 19 General Plan Amendment No. 864 (GPA00864) is a proposal to amend the Western Coachella 20 Valley Area Plan by amending 19.84 acres of the Land Use Map designation to Light Industrial within the z21 Community Development foundation on a previously undesignated property located southerly of 22 Interstate 10, westerly of Portola Avenue, northerly of Dinah Shore Drive, and easterly of Monterey U z23 Avenue in the Fourth Supervisorial District, as shown on the exhibit entitled "GPA00864, Exhibit 6" a Ov 24 copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. This amendment is also a proposal > , 25 to amend the Signage Component of the local Land Use Policies within the Western Coachella Valley a. 26 Area Plan, particularly policies WCVAP 14.1 and WCVAP 14.2 which propose to require adherence to IL 27 the Advertising Regulations of the County Land Use Ordinance and to allow relocation of existing m 28 1 I billboards pursuant to the County's Advertising Regulations, as shown on the exhibit entitled 2 "GPA00864,Exhibit A"a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3 This amendment is associated with Change of Zone No. 7535, which was considered with this 4 amendment at the public hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors. This 5 amendment (GPA00864) is evaluated by Negative Declaration/Environmental Assessment No. 41426. 6 Change of Zone No. 7535 proposes to change the zoning on the proposed amendment site ("the site') 7 from Rural Residential(R-R)to Manufacturing—Service Commercial (M-SC). 8 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors, based on the evidence presented 9 on this matter,both written and oral, including Environmental Assessment No. 41426,that: 10 1. The site is located in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan(WCVAP). 11 2. The Western Coachella Valley Area Plan Land Use Map determines the extent, intensity, 12 and location of land uses within the WCVAP. 13 3. The site currently does not have a land use designation. 14 4. The proposed amendment would amend 19.84 acres of the Land Use Map designation to 15 Light Industrial within the Community Development Foundation Component. 16 5. The site is bordered (in clockwise order)on the north by properties designated Commercial 17 Retail within the Community Development Foundation Component, on the east by 18 properties designated Commercial Retail within the Community Development Foundation i 19 Component, on the south by properties within the City of Palm Desert, and to the west by II 20 properties within the City of Palm Desert. The site is partially bordered by Interstate 10 to 21 the north and east. 22 6. The site is zoned R-R (Rural Residential). The associated Change of Zone No. 7535 23 proposes to change the zoning on the site to M-SC(Manufacturing—Service Commercial. 24 7. The site is bordered (in clockwise order) on the north by properties zoned C-P-S (Scenic 25 Highway Commercial), on the east by properties zoned C-P-S (Scenic Highway 26 Commercial) and Rural Residential (R-R), on the south by properties within the city of 27 Palm Desert, and to the west by properties within the City of Palm Desert and zoned R-R I 28 (Rural Residential). 2 I 1 8. The site currently contains vacant land. 2 9. Surrounding land uses (in clockwise order) include to the north vacant land and scattered 3 residences, to the east vacant land and scattered residences, to the south an industrial park 4 and vacant land,to the west an industrial park and vacant land. 5 10. The proposed amendment also revises the Signage Component of the local Land Use 6 Policies within the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan,particularly policies WCVAP 14.1 7 and WCVAP 14.2 and requires adherence to the Advertising Regulations of the County 8 Land Use Ordinance and allows relocation of existing billboards pursuant to the County's 9 Advertising Regulations, as shown on the exhibit entitled "GPA00864, Exhibit A" a copy 10 of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 11 11. The proposed amendment does not involve a change in the Riverside County Vision or any 12 General Plan Principle in the General Plan. I 13 12. The proposed amendment would contribute to the achievement of the purposes of the 14 General Plan. 15 13. Special circumstances or changes have emerged that were unanticipated in preparing the 16 General Plan. 17 14. The proposed general plan amendment will not be detrimental to public health, safety, and 18 welfare. 19 15. The proposed amendment is consistent with the policies of the Western Coachella Valley 20 Area Plan and with all policies of the Riverside County General Plan, as adopted on 21 October 7,2003. 22 16. The findings of the initial study performed pursuant to Environmental Assessment No. 23 41426(a copy of which is attached hereto)are incorporated herein by reference. The initial 24 study determined that all of the environmental impacts of the proposed general plan 25 amendment ("the project") were insignificant or would be lessened to a level of non- 26 significance through the conditions of approval applied to the associated tentative tract 27 map. The initial study concluded that the project, including its conditions of approval, 28 would not have a significant effect on the environment. 3 t I BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that it ADOPTS the Negative 2 Declaration/Environmental Assessment No. 41426 and ADOPTS General Plan Amendment No. 864 3 (GPA00864) amending 19.84 acres of the Land Use Map designation to Light Industrial within the 4 Community Development Foundation Component, as described herein and as shown on the exhibit 5 entitled, "GPA00864, Exhibit 6"and to amend the Signage Component of the local Land Use Policies 6 within the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan, particularly policies WCVAP 14.1 and WCVAP 14.2 7 which propose to require adherence to the Advertising Regulations of the County Land Use Ordinance 8 and to allow relocation of existing billboards pursuant to the County's Advertising Regulations, as shown 9 on the exhibit entitled"GPA00864, Exhibit A"a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein 10 by reference. 11 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that the custodians of the i 12 documents upon which this decision is based are the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and the County 13 Planning Department, and that such documents are located at 4080 Lemon Street,Riverside, California. 14 15 16 17 18 YAAdvanced Planning\GENERAL PLAN CYCLES\2007 Cycle\3rd Cycle\RESOLLMONTINAL Cycle 3 2007 Board Resolution.doc 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i 4 GPA00864 - Exhibit A "SIGNAGE" The scenic qualities of the Coachella Valley are widely cherished by residents and visitors alike. Effective regulation of outdoor-adveAis signage is one important component of preserving the Valley's visual character,particularly in the face of expanding urbanization. Policies WCVAP 14.1 Except as provided in these policies, require AAer-e to the AdvaFtising adveF fis ng r all development within the Western Coachella Valley to adhere to the Advertising Regulations of the County Land Use Ordinance,hereinafter referred to as `the County's Advertising Regulations.' WCVAP 14.2 Prohibit the erection of ids outdoor advertising displays within the Western Coachella Valley except outdoor advertisingdisplay isnlays that are being relocated pursuant to and in accordance with the outdoor advertising display relocation provisions of the County's Advertising Regulations." I I i Supervisor Wilson CZ07536 GPA00864 Planner: Russell Brady District 4 Date: 7/11107 DATE DRAWN:7/2/07 Proposed General Plan Exhibit 6 r LI 19.84 AC 0 On Oeolr 7, .Yr M!'N IM M OrwrN -8M nw I.ne w Q.Ny�s+rs Nr�nnm9.rrN gw.nNO.Gwrq NW..11rw... rN PYnmydrbin iR.nwt RPr MIrAuw C* vPly Mu�dw.dfnp�r,l,+ r Anew IMnnnRrort pMr.w..ra tt+FMnlh Crnq vlrriy 7 Dy )I JMY i00J1q>n INb (7060)DF7-iI77 f > RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Zone Thousand Palms ASSESSORS ousan ams District: E BK.PG. 663-25 Township/Range:T4SR6E , THOMAS Section : 29 0 415 830 1,660 2,490 BROS.pG 788 F4 Feet � ;/�i►• � ,'.'fin.r.ry%♦' p?P *i 9'4� 1��f! �!�i� L.. _._ ._ -. _ _. `. :.`'.f 1 ! i i� r!• <<. • lei •� iA•� ! ! °' t •FI♦j pr- r: - 6 aVJ a• .�• tier rr�I ,j iL' '�1.i •ee !+ of • k 1. s. �♦! �' P."yti �E, tt'44i•4 rk 4'fig �..� •.,. �* + .irr• eR f ; . 4 tr`f, srr wiI ��. i• '�:. I¢ll,! ��� Ede P`tY•d •; . d !r• !r t+t +� �1` �� �► ►' Ili, s; �q$ a�.d'•q} �. • 1 a. 1 <1 �. l'�� w♦ �/' £�� !, d we y, '.t,■. fyvcA,s.�' � •,r � �.,�,�ar,, Rf '�.. i j/!� � y<b _;.•%• �ylly+ 1, . ''��' �t+E"�7 bCF°�yE }''•+` rl;�"4'„r' ,Cfr,F ;� �"'i WY Aww \ +r��w i,,� ♦ .j0•�A �an� '. Baer.• .J�r�if f�f,��r �e"�!_ � �_ + b: t � -Y•v -';-Fe' J�l,�,t�.s. •i�(a,1 V+� :,�!�0! .� • rt� ,�.-�",,� � c.,,.�-�.i,� ,•y �'r� !: ..� yam.^. • �►`/Va �v�,� .t.F�'�,.t'ef� .A.fr..C.✓,�r �' "�s�► i.ai�yi►s!*itAW, w��►. I'. P e if�' %orL q't`. r t} ft • t f+w< � b® � to +. ♦•• c-y- �� ♦' $ !�S' l� D�4's •aa. f �e •'.re t`ill�y i�i 6 t„ . (a^ Coo IF tu4yP Phi! lP S., lr-A ►� •j�•4t� ?+��•��G•�. �+ r id�6rtis'.. �I +� A'R,.�i U .wit-�� '�' �d: • � ? ` �f. r5�_A,.,r r��f /y`. f�?G 3•'�.iR+►,��,E►a E��� F n •y''�` r ,,//.. .. .••'i0' f�.c�'St�,,�;pfilE/'E%'�t�e.s.:h,.s .,. .t f a�der• RZk6.is� r� r r t �r�r�'q"E ''•Jc+ ur•.i..i1 s.r's�•1 l7t►,C try �r' � _ .1 �. n,'r '! • ..CZ�•: ,dI r'�ir t P.icrz��f r�cn d R,�t'.. f .�.. r. tea. J f- ,,t, te..^Is!-Etd LtEj d!�'fJ S ®. •(` .�' �.�, ' �A``•r tom' h'w; * i}C••rR k'••� L..i•LY.'.ii YYi?t( /f. % ��IF/� .,r-J' �: 10 or ■ �_ +i6tf{`r`� J��r'rf r! r� / t I�('it :p"/ � "��1rt ■ ��� � Yr��d�ys�Ije�sf1�if F"�+1x ,++e� c .IF,�'�f,�-ail.' SI�r'fri;/r"�.�`"#J6I•"•"'t,t��, f'rf +' �y` �WW -Ml P_vlllo� r' r _s■■■®� sip unnrl � � r ��!lIIIIi111u •iullulilli�enu� ■_��� p 1 � � ., ' - , • r • —�+� . .....-//IIr,1f% • 'wquTi.fl .r....iiii����•j� = i 6 � `�" 0•�►��if•wi1 :�' �O �� it �pnulll O e � Sir 111 /�j���I11. �, �� ► I 1 1 llllel//lrrl . 0 fill r '�, '. • ` w1�w.Ir��� Oft. mom IN I Ulm aw Pm+.w.�;'-. 1 'a �.,f,''�''; ;,+cam r�♦♦� jr% ® a o ♦• rc ¢ a as. I4:lr I?ic ck 4AEL''.£,EP�� 0 L,:� ® e►1�[v'i�as r ` • t 1 l ttd1'y ► ,,`? � � � fi ' O d / • fin ` aor "4-. az ',E,� �A�' gill l �u•� 9WI �i•►�O .vaf�• nel All s±, 1 -q. • 1 1 11 111 11 '-• �e1 � Supervisor Wilson CZ07535 G PA00864 Planner: Russell Brady District 4 Date: 7111/07 DATE DRAWN:712107 Land Use Exhibit 1 VAC SF.RES TRI PALM GOLF COURSE COURSE LM GOLF CO SF RES SF RES TRI PALM GOLF COURSE TRIP LF GO RSE r VAC 1984AC VAC 60 tisy �Fa R PALM DESERT SPYDER CIR n x.2COL&gCo WWRMxald. dannu Grrd W�hepPrr P n - nP nnvl Vw do. —sM dN-W o�dRl�rfrCwWPxrl�.llr e�w . _ I�I,nxNoonVYrdltlxrt HP"I &tlrnY ph""tiWxM�ye 1% M4-r Inlernrdan,P cx4a M Rwr Cwi/Plxww9 Oyab�xn�Illua N - M190!)155dI00.in Mxf-1�x190N NPJiJq xln h6�•I1KJ M1.fi77x RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT ASSESSORS Zone strict:Thousand Palms w 4 BK. PG 653-25 Township/Range:T4SR6E V THOMAS$ 788 F4 Section : 29 0 400 800 1,600 2,400BROS.PG Feet Supervisor Wilson CZ07535 GPA00864 Planner: Russell Brady District 4 Date: 7/11/07 DATE DRAW 7rM7 PROPOSED ZONING Exhibit 3 R-T R T R-S R.T R,T G1JC-P R-5 R-T R-5 R-T R-T R•T R-T R-T R-3 z R-T R-T R-4 R'T R-5 R-5 R-5 C-P•S R•T R-5 R-5 R-4 M-SC R, (R-R) 19.84 AC R R-5 R-4 -S ti C-P-S PALM DESERT O-Oms.t,2Uo3.1i.r C-*-fRerv.fA.dr r -np IrW•..a..yi.een.w ur+.ce.oerrA al erste.Carty rrbM.7M n.. nu- Pi- P11 IMy rol i Mam1Nw.d 4na Im Vun h rrwleM b uM-.�M1ln9 iai9 a h--r.lNer.wen.plr�r woad M RwY-M Canty PMWy Drr-Yrrt.alpr.In . - NR.r15oaJ 9l131M,In llurr4n rt(909)ea0d1A,>Mlntl-r117f0)T6Sd]1Ja RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Zone H Assessors District: Thousand Palms Bk.Pg. 653-25 Township/Range: T4SR6E w Thomas Section : 29 0 440 880 s 1,760 2 Bros. Pg. 788 F4 Feet 760 7766417 Palm Desert-Plannig 04 0329 10-02-2007 /S I y 0 P 0 1 M 91S1RT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 j TEU 760 346-o6ii I FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-daert.org October 2, 2007 Riverside County Planning Commission Attn: Mark Balys, Deputy Planning Director 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, California 92502-1409 RE: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 348.4529—EA41426 Dear Planning Commission: The City of Palm Desert hereby submits the attached letter for your consideration of Planning Commission Agenda Item 5.1 on Ordinance Amendment No. 348.4529 — EA41426. I Sincer y, i HOMER CROY ACM for Development Services HC:LA]tm Attachment: - Letter to Riverside County Board of Supervisors dated August 27, 2007 cc: Mayor Richard S. Kelly Mayor Pro Tem Jean Benson Council Member Jim Ferguson Council Member Cindy Finerty Council Member Bob Spiegel i c'S�.ewrvfr 760 7766417 Palm Desert-Planni9 lla 04 32 10-02-2007 3/5 Y 0 P � I M DESfRI 73-510 FRED WARING DRlvE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEIA 76o 346-9611 FAX; 760 341-7098 info@pWm-dcscrs.org August 27, 2007 The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors County of Riverside c/o Clerk of the Board Ms. Nancy Romero 4080 Lemon Street, 1"r Floor P.O. Box 1147 Riverside, Caldomia 92502-1147 Re: Environmental Assessment (E.A.) Number 41426; General Plan Amendment No. 864; Change of Zone No, 7535 Dear Chairman and Board of Supervisors: Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21177 and other provisions of California law, the City of Palm Desert ("Palm Desert") objects to the above-referenced project, to the above-referenced initial study, and to any proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration related thereto. The grounds on which Palm Desert objects include, but are not necessarily limited to,the following: 1. Environmental Assessment Number 41426 ("the initial study") Is inadequate and fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub.Res. Code §§ 21000, of seq.) ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines in that it fails to adequately explain and analyze the basis for the conclusions of insignificance with respect to Aesthetics/Scenic Resources, Biological Resources and Planning and Land Use. 2. The initial study violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines In that it fails to complete the Mandatory Findings of Significance (checklist items 50, 51, 52 and 53). 3. The initial study violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines in that it fails to consider the cumulative impacts that the proposed modifications and policy additions to the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan will have with respect to an I MU/lbb41I Palm [Msert - Pfam ug 04 06:23 10-02-2uu/ 419 Riverside County Board of Supervisors GPA No. 864—Billboards Page 2 of 3 August 27, 2007 unknown number of future billboard relocation projects. Though the project applicant proposes specific billboard relocations, the effect of the amended and added policies will allow for unlimited billboard relocations in the future. How many "existing billboards" are there within the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan that might be relocated to more harrnful and aesthetically sensitive locations under the amended policy? The initial study entirely ignores the long-term, cumulative impacts. 4. The County has completely failed to consult with neighboring and affected agencies that share responsibility for preserving resources in the Coachella Valley, including scenic resources. The initial study completely ignores the Impact on such resources that will result in such neighboring jurisdictions. 5. The initial study and the proposed project completely fail to consider the impact that permitting relocation of billboards will have on the long-range possibility of eliminating scenic blight inflicted by existing billboards. 6. The initial study completely fails to consider the impact the project and potential cumulative impacts will have on the planning and land use goals and policies of Palm Desert and other affected agencies. 7. The initial study completely fails to consider the effect the project's impacts and potential cumulative impacts will have on property situated in areas relatively free from billboards and protected by policies proscribing billboard proliferation that will now face billboards newly placed in their vicinity, 8. The initial study concludes that a "Mitigated Negative Declaration" ("MND") is appropriate. A MND is proper where "the initial study has identified potentially significant" environmental impacts, but those impacts will be mitigated to the point of insignificance by project modifications and/or mitigation measures, along with mitigation monitoring mechanisms. identified in the MND (Pub. Res. Code § 21064.5). A MND is not appropriate where, as here, the County identifies no potentially significant impacts. It is obvious, though, that there are potentially significant impacts which the County hopes to ignore by its deficient initial study and its misleading and improper finding that the MND is appropriate. The proper procedure is to identify the potentially significant impacts as such, then identify specific measures to be taken to reduce those potentially significant impacts to a point of insignificance. (wordArn/eorrlbillboards RivCo Supervisors 8-27-07) CITY OF PALM DESERT 760 7766417 Palm Desert- Plannig 04 08 5 10412-1U0r 5 5 Riverside County Board of Supervisors GPA No. 864—Billboards Page 3 of 3 August 27, 2007 9. No proposed "Mitigated Negative Declaration" has been published, circulated or made available for public inspection and comment, nor have any mitigation measures been identified. It is impossible for the public to determine whether the potentially significant impacts can be and will be mitigated to insignificance. Palm Desert respectfully submits that approval of this project on the initial study would be In violation of CEQA. Accordingly, Palm Desert respectfully requests that this Honorable Board of Supervisors dully perform its lawful duty to deny this projed, deny approval of the initial study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, and refrain from any approval of this project until a proper EIR has been duly prepared, circulated and certified. Sincerely, OS L. ORTEG City anager CL :LA cc: Mayor Richard S. Kelly Mayor Pro Tern Jean Benson Council Member Jim Ferguson Council Member Cindy Finerty Council Member Bob Spiegel I l I ( tm/car/billboards RivCo Supervisors 8-27-07) CITY OF PALM DESERT T` I Y 01 P M OESERI 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346—o61 FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-desert.org October 16, 2007 The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors County of Riverside c/o Clerk of the Board Ms. Nancy Romero 4080 Lemon Street, 1 st Floor P.O. Box 1147 Riverside, California 92502-1147 Re: Environmental Assessment (E.A.) Number 41426; General Plan Amendment No. 864; Change of Zone No. 7535 Dear Chairman and Board of Supervisors: Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21177 and other provisions of California law, the City of Palm Desert objects to the above-referenced project, initial study and Negative Declaration related thereto. The grounds on which Palm Desert objects include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: 1. The General Plan states, "The scenic qualities of the Coachella Valley are widely cherished by residents and visitors alike. Effective regulations of outdoor advertising is one important component of persevering the Valley's visual character, particularly in the face of expanding urbanization". The proposed General Plan Amendment is contrary to this statement as well as several Policies identified in the General Plan. 2. Finding C in the County's staff report states, "There have been special circumstances that have emerged that were unanticipated in the preparing of the General Plan that warrant such a change in land use". This finding is adequate and correct since the General Plan clearly states that the Coachella Valley's visual character needs to be preserved, "particularly in the face of expanding urbanization." The General Plan anticipated the future development of the Coachella Valley and prohibits billboards. riiMl F)GV=I.i i.l VeV{P Riverside County Board of Supervisors GPA No. 864 — Billboards Page 2 of 3 October 16, 2007 3. General Plan Amendment No. 864 contradicts General Plan Policy WCVAP 14.2, which prohibits the placement of billboards in the Western Coachella Valley. 4. General Plan Amendment No. 864 contradicts General Plan Policy WCVAP 14.4, which identifies Interstate10 as a scenic corridor and, therefore, prohibits the placement of a single freestanding sign for advertising. 5. Environmental Assessment Number 41426 ("the initial study") is inadequate and fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub.Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines in that it fails to adequately explain and analyze the basis for the conclusions of insignificance with respect to Aesthetics/Scenic Resources, Biological Resources and Planning and Land Use. 6. The initial study violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines in that it fails to consider the cumulative impacts that the proposed modifications and policy additions to the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan will have with respect to an unknown number of future billboard relocation projects. Though the project applicant proposes specific billboard relocations, the effect of the amended and added policies will allow for unlimited billboard relocations in the future. How many "existing billboards" are there within the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan that might be relocated to more harmful and aesthetically sensitive locations under the amended policy? The initial study entirely ignores the long-term, cumulative impacts. 7. The initial study completely fails to consider the impact the project and potential cumulative impacts will have on the planning and land use goals and policies of Palm Desert and other affected agencies. 8. The initial study completely fails to consider the effect the project's impacts and potential cumulative impacts will have on property situated in areas relatively free from billboards and protected by policies proscribing billboard proliferation that will now face billboards newly placed in their vicinity. Approval of this project would violate and contradict the goals and policies of the County's General Plan in regards to signage in the Western Coachella Valley. In addition, approval of this project on the initial study would be in violation of CEQA based on the items described above. Accordingly, Palm Desert respectfully requests that this Honorable Board of Supervisors deny the proposed General Plan Amendment G:\Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Billboards RivCo Supervisiors 10-16-2007.doc CITY OF PALM DESERT Riverside County Board of Supervisors GPA No. 864 — Billboards Page 3 of 3 October 16, 2007 and Change of Zone. Denying this request is consistent with the County's General Plan and will improve our scenic corridor and the aesthetic value of the Coachella Valley, which sets us apart from Orange County and other Southern California communities. Sincerely, 1-7 Tony Bagato Principal Planner cc: Mayor Richard S. Kelly Mayor Pro Tern Jean Benson Council Member Jim Ferguson Council Member Cindy Finerty Council Member Bob Spiegel City Manager Carlos L. Ortega Director of Community Development / Planning, Lauri Alyaian GAPlanning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Billboards RivCo Supervisiors 10-16-2007.doc CITY OF PALM DESERT I I Y 0 1 III1 fl1 0E5ER1 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-o6ii FAX: 760 341-7098 lilt info@palm-deserc.org October 16, 2007 The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors County of Riverside c/o Clerk of the Board Ms. Nancy Romero 4080 Lemon Street, 1st Floor P.O. Box 1147 Riverside, California 92502-1147 Re: Environmental Assessment (E.A.) Number 41426; General Plan Amendment No. 864; Change of Zone No. 7535 Dear Chairman and Board of Supervisors: Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21177 and other provisions of California law, the City of Palm Desert objects to the above-referenced project, initial study and Negative Declaration related thereto. The grounds on which Palm Desert objects include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: 1. The General Plan states, "The scenic qualities of the Coachella Valley are widely cherished by residents and visitors alike. Effective regulations of outdoor advertising is one important component of persevering the Valley's visual character, particularly in the face of expanding urbanization". The proposed General Plan Amendment is contrary to this statement as well as several Policies identified in the General Plan. 2. Finding C in the County's staff report states, "There have been special circumstances that have emerged that were unanticipated in the preparing of the General Plan that warrant such a change in land use". This finding is inadequate and incorrect since the General Plan clearly states that the Coachella Valley's visual character needs to be preserved, "particularly in the face of expanding urbanization." The General Plan anticipated the future development of the Coachella Valley and prohibits billboards. i Riverside County Board of Supervisors GPA No. 864 - Billboards Page 2 of 3 October 16, 2007 3. General Plan Amendment No. 864 contradicts General Plan Policy WCVAP 14.2, which prohibits the placement of billboards in the Western Coachella Valley. 4. General Plan Amendment No. 864 contradicts General Plan Policy WCVAP 14.4, which identifies Interstatel0 as a scenic corridor and, therefore, prohibits the placement of a single freestanding sign for advertising. 5. Environmental Assessment Number 41426 ("the initial study") is inadequate and fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub.Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines in that it fails to adequately explain and analyze the basis for the conclusions of insignificance with respect to Aesthetics/Scenic Resources, Biological Resources and Planning and Land Use. 6. The initial study violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines in that it fails to consider the cumulative impacts that the proposed modifications and policy additions to the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan will have with respect to an unknown number of future billboard relocation projects. Though the project applicant proposes specific billboard relocations, the effect of the amended and added policies will allow for unlimited billboard relocations in the future. How many "existing billboards" are there within the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan that might be relocated to more harmful and aesthetically sensitive locations under the amended policy? The initial study entirely ignores the long-term, cumulative impacts. 7. The initial study completely fails to consider the impact the project and potential cumulative impacts will have on the planning and land use goals and policies of Palm Desert and other affected agencies. 8. The initial study completely fails to consider the effect the project's impacts and potential cumulative impacts will have on property situated in areas relatively free from billboards and protected by policies proscribing billboard proliferation that will now face billboards newly placed in their vicinity. Approval of this project would violate and contradict the goals and policies of the County's General Plan in regards to signage in the Western Coachella Valley. In addition, approval of this project on the initial study would be in violation of CEQA based on the items described above. Accordingly, Palm Desert respectfully requests that this Honorable Board of Supervisors deny the proposed General Plan Amendment &'.Planning\Tony BagatoMord Files\Billboards RivCo SuperAsiors 10-16-2007.doc CITY OF PALM DESERT Riverside County Board of Supervisors GPA No. 864 — Billboards Page 3 of 3 October 16, 2007 and Change of Zone. Denying this request is consistent with the County's General Plan and will improve our scenic corridor and the aesthetic value of the Coachella Valley, which sets us apart from Orange County and other Southern California communities. Sincerely, 1-7 r� Tony Bagato Principal Planner cc: Mayor Richard S. Kelly Mayor Pro Tem Jean Benson Council Member Jim Ferguson Council Member Cindy Finerty Council Member Bob Spiegel City Manager Carlos L. Ortega Director of Community Development / Planning, Lauri Alyaian GAPlanning\Tony BagatdWord Files'Billboards RivCo Superrsiors 10-16-2007.doc CITY OF PALM DESERT I I I Y OF � 11 [ M 9E5EP 1 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 76o 346—o6n FAX: 760 341-7o98 info@palm-deserr.org October 16, 2007 The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors County of Riverside c/o Clerk of the Board Ms. Nancy Romero 4080 Lemon Street, 1st Floor P.O. Box 1147 Riverside, California 92502-1147 Re: Environmental Assessment (E.A.) Number 41426; General Plan Amendment No. 864; Change of Zone No. 7535 Dear Chairman and Board of Supervisors: Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21177 and other provisions of California law, the City of Palm Desert objects to the above-referenced project, initial study and Negative Declaration related thereto. The grounds on which Palm Desert objects include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: 1. The General Plan states, "The scenic qualities of the Coachella Valley are widely cherished by residents and visitors alike. Effective regulations of outdoor advertising is one important component of persevering the Valley's visual character, particularly in the face of expanding urbanization". The proposed General Plan Amendment is contrary to this statement as well as several Policies identified in the General Plan. 2. Finding C in the County's staff report states, "There have been special circumstances that have emerged that were unanticipated in the preparing of the General Plan that warrant such a change in land use". This finding is inadequate and incorrect since the General Plan clearly states that the Coachella Valley's visual character needs to be preserved, "particularly in the face of expanding urbanization." The General Plan anticipated the future development of the Coachella Valley and prohibits billboards. Riverside County Board of Supervisors GPA No. 864 — Billboards Page 2 of 3 October 16, 2007 3. General Plan Amendment No. 864 contradicts General Plan Policy WCVAP 14.2, which prohibits the placement of billboards in the Western Coachella Valley. 4. General Plan Amendment No. 864 contradicts General Plan Policy WCVAP 14.4, which identifies Interstate10 as a scenic corridor and, therefore, prohibits the placement of a single freestanding sign for advertising. 5. Environmental Assessment Number 41426 ("the initial study") is inadequate and fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub.Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines in that it fails to adequately explain and analyze the basis for the conclusions of insignificance with respect to Aesthetics/Scenic Resources, Biological Resources and Planning and Land Use. 6. The initial study violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines in that it fails to consider the cumulative impacts that the proposed modifications and policy additions to the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan will have with respect to an unknown number of future billboard relocation projects. Though the project applicant proposes specific billboard relocations, the effect of the amended and added policies will allow for unlimited billboard relocations in the future. How many "existing billboards" are there within the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan that might be relocated to more harmful and aesthetically sensitive locations under the amended policy? The initial study entirely ignores the long-term, cumulative impacts. 7. The initial study completely fails to consider the impact the project and potential cumulative impacts will have on the planning and land use goals and policies of Palm Desert and other affected agencies. 8. The initial study completely fails to consider the effect the project's impacts and potential cumulative impacts will have on property situated in areas relatively free from billboards and protected by policies proscribing billboard proliferation that will now face billboards newly placed in their vicinity. Approval of this project would violate and contradict the goals and policies of the County's General Plan in regards to signage in the Western Coachella Valley. In addition, approval of this project on the initial study would be in violation of CEQA based on the items described above. Accordingly, Palm Desert respectfully requests that this Honorable Board of Supervisors deny the proposed General Plan Amendment G:',Planning\Tony Bagato\Word Files\Billbcards RivCo Supervisiors 10-16-2007.doc CITY OF PALM DESERT I Riverside County Board of Supervisors GPA No. 864 — Billboards Page 3 of 3 October 16, 2007 and Change of Zone. Denying this request is consistent with the County's General Plan and will improve our scenic corridor and the aesthetic value of the Coachella Valley, which sets us apart from Orange County and other Southern California communities. Sincerely, Tony Bagato Principal Planner cc: Mayor Richard S. Kelly Mayor Pro Tem Jean Benson Council Member Jim Ferguson Council Member Cindy Finerty Council Member Bob Spiegel City Manager Carlos L. Ortega Director of Community Development / Planning, Lauri Alyaian G:\Planning\Tony BagatoMord Files`Billboards RivCo Supervisiors 10-16-2007.doc CITY OF PALM DESERT SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Ar COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA -t FROM: TLMA - Planning Department SUBMITTAL DATE: October 11, 2007 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 / CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 / CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7574 / OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAY RELOCATION AGREEMENT — NEGATIVE DECLARATION — Applicant: Lamar Advertising — Engineer / Representative: Thomas Flanagan - Fourth Supervisorial District — Thousand Palms Zoning District —Western Coachella Valley Area Plan: No Landuse Designation — Location: Southerly of Interstate 10, westerly of Portola Avenue, northerly of Dinah Shore Drive, and easterly of Monterey Avenue in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan — 19.84 Gross Acres - Zoning: W Rural Residential (R-R) - REQUEST: The General Plan Amendment proposes to designate the S2 site as Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) and to modify Et o and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing w billboards to a new location as long as the number of billboards is not increased. The Change of jZone 7535 proposes to alter the site's current zoning classification from Rural Residential (R-R) w to Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC). Change of Zone 7574 will amend Ordinance w c No. 348 to define the ability to relocate exisiting outdoor advertising displays. } �ti o =, RECOMMENDED MOTION: UJ L" ui The Planning Department recommended Approval; and, o THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED: ADOPTION of a NEGATIVE DECLARATION for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 41426, based on the findings incorporated in the initial study and the conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; APPROVAL of GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 amending the land use designation in the General Plan to designate the site as Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) in accordance with Exhibit 6 and dif�y and add policies in the Western fQ Ron Goldman Planning Director RG:mb z; z; 0 0 a a O C C ym N 0 0 U U ❑ ❑ E 0 2 � rL Prev. Agn. Ref. District: Fourth Agenda Number: • Form 11p (Rev 03/02107) c_IDOCUMF-1WrusWL0CALS-1J9rrV\CPgrpms61Form 11 for SOS 10.16 2007 doc The Honorable Board of Supervisors RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864/ CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535/ CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7574/OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAY RELOCATION AGREEMENT October 11, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing outdoor advertising displays to new locations when: (1) the original location of the outdoor advertising display is within a contemplated public right-of-way, and (2) the outdoor advertising display complied with all applicable County ordinances and regulations in effect at the time it was erected APPROVAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 and adoption of related Ordinance No. 348.4528 providing for the change from Rural Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing - Service Commercial (M-SC) in accordance with Exhibit 3; and, APPROVAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7475 and adoption of related Ordinance No. 348.4529 providing for the addition of Subsection 19.3.e of Ordinance No. 348 in accordance with Exhibit 4. The Planning Department further recommends: APPROVAL of the OUTDOOR ADVERTISING DISPLAY RELOCATION AGREEMENT with Lamar; and, ADOPTION of RESOLUTION NO. 2007-446 adopting the General Plan Amendment No. 864. i c COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM: INITIAL STUDY Environmental Assessment (E.A.) Number: 41426 Project Case Type (s) and Number(s): General Plan Amendment No. 864, Change of Zone No. 7535, Change of Zone No. 7574, and Outdoor Advertising Displacement Agreement Lead Agency Name: County of Riverside Planning Department Address: P.O. Box 1409, Riverside, CA 92502-1409 Contact Person: Russell Brady Telephone Number: (951) 955-1888 Applicant's Name: Lamar Advertising Applicant's Address: 77-583 El Duna Court, Suite J, Palm Desert, CA 92211 I. PROJECT INFORMATION A. Project Description: General Plan Amendment No. 864 proposes to designate the site as Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) and to modify and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing billboards to a new location as long as the net number of billboards is not increased. Change of Zone No. 7535 (Ordinance No. 348.4528) proposes to alter the site's current zoning classification from Rural Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC). Change of Zone No. 7574 (Ordinance No. 348.4529) proposes to amend the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 concerning relocated outdoor advertising displays. The amended provisions authorize the County to enter into an outdoor advertising relocation agreement when: (1) the original location of the outdoor advertising display is within a contemplated public right-of-way, and (2) the outdoor advertising display complied with all applicable County ordinances and regulations in effect at the time it was erected. The amended provisions also allow an outdoor advertising display located in a "Significant Resources" area to be relocated to another site within a "Significant Resources" area whether that site is on the same or a different parcel. Outdoor Advertising Display Relocation Agreement proposes to relocate 4 existing outdoor advertising displays (billboards) from apns 626-130-003, 626-150-010 and 626-140-003 to apn 653-250-012. B. Type of Project: Site Specific ®; Countywide ❑; Community ❑; Policy ®. C. Total Project Area: 19.84 acres Residential Acres: N/A Lots: N/A Units: N/A Projected No. of Residents: N/A Commercial Acres: N/A Lots: N/A Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area: N/A Est. No. of Employees: N/A Industrial Acres: 19.84 Lots: 1 Sq. Ft. of Bldg. Area: N/A Est. No. of Employees: N/A Other: D. Assessor's Parcel No(s): 653-250-012 E. Street References: southerly of Interstate 10, westerly of Portola Avenue, northerly of Dinah Shore Drive, and easterly of Monterey Avenue Page 1 of 1 EA41426 ti F. Section, Township & Range Description or reference/attach a Legal Description: Township 4 South, Range 6 East, Section 29 G. Brief description of the existing environmental setting of the project site and its surroundings: The project site is located adjacent to 1-10 freeway which is to the north of the site. An existing Southern Pacific rail line crosses the site northwest to southeast. The project site is relatively flat and slopes generally southwest to northeast. The surrounding area is primarily vacant with new and planned residential areas. II. APPLICABLE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING REGULATIONS A. General Plan Elements/Policies: 1. Land Use: The proposed project currently does not have a land use designation. The proposed project meets all applicable land use policies. 2. Circulation: Adequate circulation facilities exist and are proposed to serve the proposed project. The proposed project meets with all other applicable circulation policies of the General Plan. 3. Multipurpose Open Space: The proposed project meets with all other applicable Multipurpose Open Space element policies. 4. Safety: The proposed project is not located within any special hazard zone (including high fire area, FEMA flood zone, fault zone, dam inundation zone, area with high liquefaction potential, etc.). The proposed project has allowed for sufficient provision of emergency response services to the future residents of this project through the project design and payment of development impact fees. The proposed project meets with all other applicable Safety element policies. 5. Noise: The proposed project meets with all applicable Noise element policies. 6. Housing: The proposed project meets with all applicable Housing element policies. 7. Air Quality: The proposed project meets all other applicable Air Quality element policies. B. General Plan Area Plan(s): Western Coachella Valley C. Foundation Component(s): N/A D. Land Use Designation(s): N/A E. Overlay(s), if any: N/A F. Policy Area(s), if any: N/A G. Adjacent and Surrounding: 1. Area Plan(s): Western Coachella Valley 2. Foundation Component(s): N/A Page 2of2 EA41426 3. Land Use Designation(s): Community Development: Commercial Retail (CD: CR) (0.20- 0.35 Floor Area Ratio) to the north and east and the City of Palm Desert to the south and west. 4. Overlay(s) and Policy Area(s), if any: N/A H. Adopted Specific Plan Information 1. Name and Number of Specific Plan, if any: N/A 2. Specific Plan Planning Area, and Policies, if any: N/A I. Existing Zoning: Rural Residential (R-R) J. Proposed Zoning, if any: Manufacturing - Service Commercial (M-SC) K. Adjacent and Surrounding Zoning: Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) to the north and east, City of Palm Desert to the south and west. III. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below ( x ) would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Less than Significant with Mitigation ^ Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 1 �_Aesthelic-c-) ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials ❑ Public Services ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Recreation ❑ Air Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Other ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance IV. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: A PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS NOT PREPARED ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project, described in this document, have been made or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. A PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS PREPARED ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, NO NEW ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED because (a) all potentially significant effects of the proposed project have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, (b) all potentially significant effects of the proposed project have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, c the Page 3 of 3 EA41426 proposed project will not result in any new significant environmental effects not identified in the earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, (d) the proposed project will not substantially increase the severity of the environmental effects identified in the earlier EIR or Negative Declaration, (e) no considerably different mitigation measures have been identified and (f) no mitigation measures found infeasible have become feasible. ❑ I find that although all potentially significant effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable legal standards, some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in California Code of Regulations, Section 15162 exist. An ADDENDUM to a previously-certified EIR or Negative Declaration has been prepared and will be considered by the approving body or bodies. ❑ I find that at least one of the conditions described in California Code of Regulations, Section 15162 exist, but I further find that only minor additions or changes are necessary to make the previous EIR adequately apply to the project in the changed situation; therefore a SUPPLEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required that need only contain the information necessary to make the previous EIR adequate for the project as revised. ❑ I find that at least one of the following conditions described in California Code of Regulations, Section 15162, exist and a SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required: (1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any the following:(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR or negative declaration;(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or,(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR or negative declaration would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. June 13, 2007 Signature Date For Ron Goldman, Planning Director Printed Name Page 4 of 4 EA41426 V. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ASSESSMENT In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code Section 21 000-21 1 78.1), this Initial Study has been prepared to analyze the proposed project to determine any potential significant impacts upon the environment that would result from construction and implementation of the project. In accordance with California Code of Regulations, Section 15063, this Initial Study is a preliminary analysis prepared by the Lead Agency, the County of Riverside, in consultation with other jurisdictional agencies, to determine whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an Environmental Impact Report is required for the proposed project. The purpose of this Initial Study is to inform the decision-makers, affected agencies, and the public of potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated AESTHETICS Would the project 1. Scenic Resources ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Have a substantial effect upon a scenic highway corridor within which it is located? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and unique or landmark features; obstruct any prominent scenic vista or view open to the public; or result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure C-7 "Scenic Highways" Findings of Fact: a) The proposed policy changes to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance No. 348.4529 will allow for the relocation of existing outdoor advertising displays ("displays") only under very restrictive conditions. The proposed policy changes require a valid outdoor advertising display relocation agreement between the County and the applicant. In addition, the existing displays may be relocated only if (1) their original location is within a contemplated public right-of-way; and (2) the displays complied with all applicable County ordinances and regulations in effect at the time they were erected. There shall not be a net increase in the existing number of outdoor advertising displays. The outdoor advertising display relocation agreements shall be subject to further CEQA review and are required to comply with all CEQA requirements. The displays may be relocated to a significant resource area only if they had originally existed in a significant resource area. Any relocated display would be required to meet current design standards of Ordinance No. 348 compared with the outdated development standards that were applied to the displays when they were initially erected. Therefore, the proposed General Plan and Zoning Ordinance changes would not increase but may, in some instances, reduce the impact on the scenic highway corridor. Proposed Change of Zone No. 7535 concerns property located adjacent to the 1-10 scenic highway, which is designated a County eligible scenic highway in the General Plan. The outdoor advertising relocation agreement (Relocation Agreement) involves the relocation of four existing outdoor advertising displays to this area. Page 5 of 5 EA41426 The 1-10 freeway corridor is located in the lower part of a valley where the scenic resources generally consist of the surrounding hills and mountains. The view of these scenic resources is generally equal throughout the corridor. Any current outdoor advertising display has virtually the same impact on blocking this view as a display would at any relocated site. Additionally, a heavily trafficked railroad line exists on the southern side of the 1-10 corridor. Trains frequently travel slowly and are occasionally stopped along this corridor. Due to the location of the railroad tracks, length of the train, and size of the train cars, these trains block the views of the scenic resources in the corridor more than any relocated display would. The relocation of the outdoor advertising displays will not increase, but may, actually, reduce impact from the current impacts on the scenic resources for the area. Therefore, the project will not have a significant impact on scenic resources. Hence, the project will not have a significant impact on the scenic highway corridor. b) The proposed policy changes to the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance No. 348.4529 will allow for the relocation of existing displays, but will not allow for any new outdoor advertising displays to be constructed. Proposed Change of Zone No. 7535 and the Relocation Agreement involve the relocation of existing displays to new locations within the 1-10 freeway corridor. The relocation of these displays will alter the view from properties located adjacent to or near the new location of a relocated billboard. The primary land uses currently existing adjacent to and near this corridor that would be impacted by any display relocation are commercial and industrial, which are not considered sensitive land uses that would be affected by an advertising display located adjacent to or near the specific land use. The existing residential land uses adjacent to or near the corridor are minimal and are generally located a minimum of 100' from the I-10 right-of-way. Advertising displays would be located adjacent to the 1-10 right-of-way, with a minimum one-foot (1') setback pursuant to Ordinance No. 348, to maximize the view from the freeway. Ordinance No. 348 requires that any advertising display not exceed 25' in height from the freeway/highway roadbed or from the grade at which it is constructed (whichever is greater) and no display face shall exceed 300 square feet. The development standards for height and display size, combined with the spacing requirements between displays (500'), eliminates any potential cumulative impacts on multiple relocations impacting any one area significantly by preventing any continuous blockage of the scenic resources. The distance of any existing residential land use from any potential relocated display combined with the development standards for outdoor advertising displays in Ordinance No. 348 would create less than significant impacts on scenic resources. The project would not result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public view. Mitigation: No mitigation is required Monitoring: No monitoring is required 2. Mt. Palomar Observatory ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Interfere with the nighttime use of the Mt. Palomar Observatory, as protected through Riverside County Ordinance No. 655? Source: GIS database, Ord. No. 655 (Regulating Light Pollution) Findings of Fact: Page 6 of 6 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) According to the RCIP, the project site is located 41.05 miles away from the Mt. Palomar Observatory; which is within the designated 45-mile (ZONE B) Special Lighting Area that surrounds the Mt. Palomar Observatory. Ordinance No. 655 contains approved materials and methods of installation, definition, general requirements, requirements for lamp source and shielding, prohibition and exceptions With incorporation of project lighting requirements of the Riverside County Ordinance No. 655 into the proposed project, this impact will be reduced to a less than significant impact. The proposed project will be required to comply with all pertinent lighting requirements for projects located within Zone B of the Mt. Palomar Special Lighting Area. This is a standard condition of approval and is not considered mitigation pursuant to CEQA. Mitigation: No mitigation is required Monitoring: No monitoring is required 3. Other Lighting Issues ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? b) Expose residential property to unacceptable light ❑ ❑ ® ❑ levels? Source: On-site Inspection, Project Application Description Findings of Fact: a) Billboards may potentially have lighting installed to illuminate the billboard at night. Lighting will be hooded and shielded in accordance with county requirements to prevent creation of substantial light. Reflective surfaces will be minimized in construction of the project which would limit the potential for substantial glare created by the project. The project will not create substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. b) Lighting will be hooded and shielded in accordance with county requirements to prevent exposure of nearby residential areas to unacceptable light levels. Mitigation: No mitigation is required Monitoring: No monitoring is required AGRICULTURE RESOURCES Would the project 4. Agriculture ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing agricultural use, or a ❑ ❑ ❑ Page 7 of 7 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Williamson Act (agricultural preserve) contract (Riv. Co. Agricultural Land Conservation Contract Maps)? c) Cause development of non-agricultural uses within ❑ ❑ ❑ 300 feet of agriculturally zoned property (Ordinance No. 625 "Right-to-Farm")? d) Involve other changes in the existing environment ❑ ❑ ❑ which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure OS-2 "Agricultural Resources," GIS database, and Project Application Materials. Findings of Fact: a) The proposed project is not located on property designated as Prime or Unique Farmland and is not located within an agricultural preserve. The proposed project is not currently designated on the General Plan for agricultural use. The project will not contribute to the cumulative loss of farmland in the County. The project is not located within an agricultural preserve. b) The project will not conflict with an existing agricultural use, or a Williamson Act (agricultural preserve) contract. c) The project is not located within 300 feet of agriculturally zoned property. d) The project does not have the potential to encourage additional development which could result in conversion of farmland to no-agricultural uses. Mitigation: No mitigation is required Monitoring: No monitoring is required AIR QUALITY Would the project 5. Air Quality Impacts ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute ❑ ❑ ® ❑ substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors which are located within ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 mile of the project site to project substantial point source emissions? e) Involve the construction of a sensitive receptor ❑ ❑ ❑ located within one mile of an existing substantial point source emitter? Page 8 of 8 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated f) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ number of people? Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook Table 6-2 Findings of Fact: a) The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is responsible for developing a regional air quality management plan to insure compliance with state and federal air quality standards. The SCAQMD has adopted the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The 2003 AQMP is based on socioeconomic forecasts (including population estimates) provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The County General Plan is consistent with SCAG's Regional Growth Management Plan and SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan. This project is consistent with the General Plan land use designations, and population estimates. The population proposed by this project will not obstruct the implementation of the 2003 AQMP. b) Air quality impacts would occur during site preparation, including grading and equipment exhaust. Major sources of fugitive dust are a result of grading and site preparation during construction by vehicles and equipment and generated by construction vehicles and equipment traveling over exposed surfaces, as well as by soil disturbances from grading and filling. Blowing dust is also of concern in the dry desert areas where PM10 standards are exceeded by soil disturbance during grading, and vehicular travel over unpaved roads. These short-term construction related impacts will be reduced below a level of significance by dust control measures implemented during grading. c) The project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. d) A sensitive receptor is a person in the population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant than is the population at large. Sensitive receptors (and the facilities that house them) in proximity to localized CO sources, toxic air contaminants or odors are of particular concern. High levels of CO are associated with major traffic sources, such as freeways and major intersections, and toxic air contaminants are normally associated with manufacturing and commercial operations. Land uses considered to be sensitive receptors include long-term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, retirement homes, residences, schools, playgrounds, child care centers, and athletic facilities. Surrounding land uses include residential, which is considered a sensitive receptor, however, the project is not expected to generate substantial point source emissions. The project will not include commercial or manufacturing uses, or generate significant odors. e) The project site does not involve the construction of a sensitive receptor within one-mile of a substantial point source emitter. f) The project will not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Mitiqation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. Page 9 of 9 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project 6. Wildlife & Vegetation ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan? b) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ ❑ ❑ through habitat modifications, on any endangered, or threatened species, as listed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Sections 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (Sections 17.11 or 17.12)? c) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Wildlife Service? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any ❑ ❑ ❑ native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian ❑ ❑ ❑ habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally ❑ ❑ ❑ protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? g) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances ❑ ❑ ❑ protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Source: GIS database, CVMSHCP, On-site Inspection Findings of Fact: a) The project does not conflict with the provisions of a Habitat Conservation Plan (the draft Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan), Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan. b) Any proposal for relocation would study the subject relocation site for any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species that may exist on site in accordance with the draft CVMSHCP. c) Any proposal for relocation would study the subject relocation site for any sensitive species that may exist on site in accordance with the draft CVMSHCP. Page 10 of 10 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated d) Any proposal for relocation would study the subject relocation site for endangered or threatened species that may exist on site in accordance with the draft CVMSHCP. e-f) Any proposal for relocation would study the subject relocation site for potential riparian/riverine areas that may exist on site in accordance with the draft CVMSHCP. g) The project does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Mitigation: No mitigation is required Monitoring: No monitoring is required CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project 7. Historic Resources ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Alter or destroy an historic site? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of a historical resource as defined in California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.5? Source: On-site Inspection, Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: a) The project site is vacant and does not contain any historical structures. b) The proposed project would not cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.5. Mitigation: No mitigation is required Monitoring: No monitoring is required 8. Archaeological Resources ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Alter or destroy an archaeological site. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the ❑ ❑ ❑ significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to California Code of Regulations, Section 15064.5? c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ❑ ❑ ❑ outside of formal cemeteries? d) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ potential impact area? Source: Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: Page 11 of 11 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated a-b) No known archaeological sites exist on the project site. c) During grading and other construction activities the project will be required to notify the County Coroner if any human remains are encountered. d) No known religious or sacred uses exist on the project site. Mitigation: No mitigation is required Monitoring: No monitoring is required 9. Paleontological Resources ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource, or site, or unique geologic feature? Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure OS-8 "Paleontological Sensitivity' Findings of Fact: a) The project is located within an area of low potential for paleontological resources to exist. Therefore, any potential relocation of billboard's impacts to paleontological resources is considered less than significant. Mitigation: No mitigation is required Monitoring: No monitoring is required GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project 10. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or County ❑ ❑ ❑ Fault Hazard Zones a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death? b) Be subject to rupture of a known earthquake fault, ❑ ❑ ❑ as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure S-2 "Earthquake Fault Study Zones," GIS database, Geologist Comments Findings of Fact: a) No active faults are known to traverse the project site. Therefore, the proposed project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death Page 12 of 12 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated b) The project site does not lie within a Sate of California Earthquake Hazard Zone (formally called an Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone). Mitigation: No mitigation measures required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures required. 11. Liquefaction Potential Zone ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Be subject to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure S-3 "Generalized Liquefaction" Findings of Fact: a) The project is located in an area with moderate potential for liquefaction. The County Geologist shall review plans for any relocation of billboards. Mitigation: No mitigation measures required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures required. 12. Ground-shaking Zone ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Be subject to strong seismic ground shaking? Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure S-4 "Earthquake-Induced Slope Instability Map," and Figures S-13 through S-21 (showing General Ground Shaking Risk) Findings of Fact: There are no known active or potentially active faults that traverse the site and the site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The principal seismic hazard that could affect the site is ground shaking resulting from an earthquake occurring along several major active or potentially active faults in southern California. The project is located within a very high ground shaking risk area. California Building Code (CBC) requirements pertaining to commercial development will mitigate the potential impact to less than significant. As CBC requirements are applicable to all development they are not considered mitigation for CEQA implementation purposes. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 13. Landslide Risk ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, collapse, or rockfall hazards? Page 13 of 13 EA41426 Potentially - Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Source: On-site Inspection, Riverside County General Plan Figure S-5 "Regions Underlain by Steep Slope" Findings of Fact: a) Due to the relatively level terrain in the area, the project site is not subject to landslide, collapse, or rockfall hazards. In addition, the project site is not located within an area subject to unstable geologic units or soil. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 14. Ground Subsidence ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in ground subsidence? Source: RCIP Figure S-7 "Documented Subsidence Areas" a) The project site is located in an area susceptible to subsidence but not located near any documented areas of subsidence. California Building Code (CBC) requirements pertaining to residential development will mitigate the potential impact to less than significant. As CBC requirements are applicable to all residential development, they are not considered mitigation for CEQA implementation purposes. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 15. Other Geologic Hazards ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Be subject to geologic hazards, such as seiche, mudflow, or volcanic hazard? Source: On-site Inspection, Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: The project site is not subject to any other geologic hazards, such as seiche, mudflow, or volcanic hazard Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 16. Slopes ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Change topography or ground surface relief features? b) Create cut or fill slopes greater than 2:1 or higher ❑ ❑ ❑ Page 14 of 14 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated than 10 feet? c) Result in grading that affects or negates subsurface ❑ ❑ ❑ sewage disposal systems? Source: Riv. Co. 800 Scale Slope Maps, Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: a) The project area is relatively flat and will not require an extensive amount of grading to relocate billboards. b) The project does not propose slopes greater than 2:1 or higher than 10 feet. c) Grading will not negate or affect the subsurface sewage disposal systems. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required 17. Soils ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? b) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Source: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Surveys, Project Application Materials, On-site Inspection a) The development of the project site may have the potential to result in soil erosion during grading and construction. Standard conditions of approval have been issued by the Flood Control District regarding soil erosion that will further ensure protection of public health, safety, and welfare upon final engineering of the project and are not considered mitigation for CEQA implementation purposes. b) The project may be located on expansive soil; however, California Building Code (CBC) requirements pertaining to residential development will mitigate the potential impact to less than significant. As CBC requirements are applicable to all residential development they are not considered mitigation for CEQA implementation purposes. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 18. Erosion ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Change deposition, siltation, or erosion that may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake? b) Result in any increase in water erosion either on or ❑ ❑ ❑ off site? Page 15 of 15 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Source: U.S.D.A. Soil Conservation Service Soil Surveys a) The proposed project will not change deposition, siltation, or erosion that may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake. b) The project does not propose substantial impermeable surfaces which would create increased flows that have the potential for water erosion on or offsite. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required 19. Wind Erosion and Blowsand from project either ❑ ❑ ® ❑ on or off site. a) Be impacted by or result in an increase in wind erosion and blowsand, either on or off site? Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure S-8 "Wind Erosion Susceptibility Map," Ord. 460, Sec. 14.2 & Ord. 484 Findings of Fact: a) The project site lies within a high area of wind erosion. Standard Building & Safety requirements for dust control during any grading activities will keep the impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project 20. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with ❑ ❑ ❑ an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? d) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Page 16 of 16 L- EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of ❑ ❑ ❑ hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Source: Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: a) The project proposes relocation of existing billboards; therefore, the project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Through the implementation of standard county requirements, the project will have a less then significant impact from hazardous materials. b) The project proposes the relocation of existing billboards; however, it may result in the minor use and disposal of substances such as household and commercial cleaning products, fertilizers, pesticides, automotive fluids, etc, but the nature and volume of such substances associated with the use would not present the potential to create a significant public or environmental hazard. c) The project will provide adequate access to the proposed use, and will not encroach on any right- of-way; the project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan. d) The project proposes relocation of existing billboards and no schools are located within one-quarter mile of the project site. Therefore, the project will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. e) The project site is not located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, which could create a significant hazard to the public and/or the environment. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 21. Airports ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Result in an inconsistency with an Airport Master Plan? b) Require review by the Airport Land Use ❑ ❑ ❑ Commission? c) For a project located within an airport land use plan ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or Page 17 of 17 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated working in the project area? d) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ or heliport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure S-19 "Airport Locations," GIS database Findings of Fact: The project site is not located within the vicinity of any public or private airport. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 22. Hazardous Fire Area ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure S-11 "Wildfire Susceptibility," GIS database Findings of Fact: The project is not located in a high fire hazard area. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project 23. Water Quality Impacts ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? b) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ® ❑ discharge requirements? c) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? d) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? e) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area, ❑ ❑ ❑ as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Page 18 of 18 L_ EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? f) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ ❑ which would impede or redirect flood flows? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Include new or retrofitted stormwater Treatment ❑ ❑ ❑ Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) (e.g. water quality treatment basins, constructed treatment wetlands), the operation of which could result in significant environmental effects (e.g. increased vectors and odors)? Source: Riverside County Flood Control District Flood Hazard Report/Condition. Findings of Fact: a) This relocation of existing billboards will require a minimal amount of grading. No known watercourses exist on the project site. Therefore, the project would have no impact on erosion on or offsite. b) Per Regional Water Quality Control Board standards, the relocation of existing billboards will not require inclusion of water quality features since it falls below the level of project creating potentially significant water quality impacts. c) The relocation of existing billboards will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted. d) The proposed project would require a minimal amount of paving to be provided which would increase flows. Due to the low level of increased flows anticipated, these impacts are considered less than significant. e-f) The project is not located within a 100-year floodplain. g) The project will not otherwise substantially degrade water quality. h) Per Regional Water Quality Control Board standards, the relocation of existing billboards will not require inclusion of water quality features since it falls below the level of project creating potentially significant water quality impacts. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 24. Floodplains Degree of Suitability in 100-Year Floodplains. As indicated below, the appropriate Degree of Suitability has been checked. NA - Not Applicable X U - Generally Unsuitable ❑ R - Restricted ❑ Page 19 of 19 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? b) Changes in absorption rates or the rate and amount ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of surface runoff? c) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of ❑ ❑ ❑ loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam (Dam Inundation Area)? d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any ❑ ❑ ❑ water body? Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure S-9 "100- and 500-Year Flood Hazard Zones," Figure S-10 "Dam Failure Inundation Zone," Riverside County Flood Control District Flood Hazard Report/Condition, GIS database Findings of Fact: a) The project will alter the existing pattern of drainage on the site at a less than significant level and will direct onsite flow into drainage facilities. b) The project will increase the amount of impermeable surfaces, which will decrease the absorption rates of the site, but at a less than significant level. c) The project will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. However, an alluvial fan type watershed would impact the proposed development from the north. In order to protect this tract from flooding, the developer shall construct the required storm drains. Interim inlets shall be provided unless upstream collection facilities have been constructed. d) The project will not cause changes in the amount of surface water in any water body. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. LAND USE/PLANNING Would the project 25. Land Use ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b) Affect land use within a city sphere of influence ❑ ❑ ® ❑ and/or within adjacent city or county boundaries? Source: RCIP, GIS database, Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: Page 20 of 20 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) The proposed site for the zone change currently does not have a land use designation on it. The proposed relocation of existing billboards is compatible with surrounding land use designations. The project would not have a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area. b) The 1-10 freeway corridor is located adjacent to the Cities of Palm Springs, Cathedral City, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indio, and Coachella but is only located within the spheres of influence of the Cities of Palm Springs, Desert Hot Springs, Rancho Mirage, and Indio. No Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) exists between these cities and the County of Riverside to provide similar development standards in areas either in the city's sphere or adjacent to city boundaries. Locating billboards is not anticipated to affect adjacent land uses on any property. The impacts of relocating billboards are primarily aesthetic. The impacts associated with aesthetics are determined to be less than significant. Therefore these impacts would not be substantial enough to alter existing or planned land uses in adjacent cities. The allowance of relocation of existing billboards adjacent to these cities along the 1-10 freeway corridor would not affect land use within these cities. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 26. Planning ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Be consistent with the site's existing or proposed zoning? b) Be compatible with existing surrounding zoning? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Be compatible with existing and planned ❑ ❑ ® ❑ surrounding land uses? d) Be consistent with the land use designations and ❑ ❑ ® ❑ policies of the Comprehensive General Plan (including those of any applicable Specific Plan)? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ❑ ❑ ❑ established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Source: Riverside County General Plan Land Use Element, Staff review, GIS database Findings of Fact: a) The proposed relocation of existing billboards would be compatible with the project site's proposed zoning classification of Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC). b) The proposed project would be compatible with the surrounding zoning c) The proposed project would be compatible with the existing and planned surrounding land uses. d) The proposed relocation of existing billboards would be consistent with the proposed land use designation of Light Industrial (LI), the proposed change in General Plan policy to allow for relocation of existing billboards within the area plan and with all other applicable General Plan policies. The Page 21 of 21 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated proposed change in General Plan policy is fitting with the intent for preservation of the scenic qualities of scenic corridors and preventing any further impacts on the scenic corridors. e) The proposed project would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project 27. Mineral Resources ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource in an area classified or designated by the State that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ ❑ ❑ mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? c) Be an incompatible land use located adjacent to a ❑ ❑ ❑ El State classified or designated area or existing surface mine? d) Expose people or property to hazards from ❑ ❑ ❑ proposed, existing or abandoned quarries or mines? Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure OS-5 "Mineral Resources Area" Findings of Fact: a) The project site is located in an area where the available geologic information indicates that mineral deposits are likely to exist; however, the significance of the deposit is undetermined. b) No abandoned, existing, or proposed quarries or mines are within the immediate project vicinity and current RCIP land uses preclude mining in the area. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. NOISE Would the project result in Definitions for Noise Acceptability Ratings Where indicated below, the appropriate Noise Acceptability Rating(s) has been checked. NA - Not Applicable A - Generally Acceptable B - Conditionally Acceptable C - Generally Unacceptable D - Land Use Discouraged 28. Airport Noise ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ a) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two Page 22 of 22 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated miles of a public airport or public use airport would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? NA ® A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ b) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? NA ® A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure S-19 "Airport Locations," County of Riverside Airport Facilities Map Findings of Fact: a) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport that would expose people residing on the project site to excessive noise levels. b) The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, that would expose people residing on the project site to excessive noise levels. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 29. Railroad Noise ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ NA A ® B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ Source: Riverside County General Plan Figure C-1 "Circulation Plan", GIS database, On-site Inspection Findings of Fact: The proposed project is located adjacent to an existing Santa Fe Railroad line. The proposed use for billboards would not be impacted by the noise created from any use of the rail line. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 30. Highway Noise ❑ ❑ ❑ NA ❑ A ® B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ Source: On-site Inspection, Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: The proposed project is located adjacent to 1-10. The proposed use for billboards would not be impacted by the noise created from traffic on 1-10. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Page 23 of 23 L_ EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 31. Other Noise ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ NA ® A ❑ B ❑ C ❑ D ❑ Source: Project Application Materials, GIS database Findings of Fact: No other noise sources have been identified near the project site that would contribute a significant amount of noise to the project. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 32. Noise Effects on or by the Project ❑ ❑ ❑ a) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? b) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ❑ ❑ ❑ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels ❑ ❑ ❑ in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? d) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ ❑ ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? Source: Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: a) The proposed use for billboards on the project site would not create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. b) The proposed use for billboards on the project site would not create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. c) The proposed use for billboards on the project site would not expose persons to noise levels in excess of standards of the General Plan or Ordinance No. 847. d) The proposed project would not expose persons to excessive ground-borne vibration or ground- borne noise levels. Page 24 of 24 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project 33. Housing ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? b) Create a demand for additional housing, particularly ❑ ❑ ❑ housing affordable to households earning 80% or less of the County's median income? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, ❑ ❑ ❑ necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? d) Affect a County Redevelopment Project Area? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ❑ ❑ ❑ population projections? f) Induce substantial population growth in an area, ❑ ❑ ❑ either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Source: Project Application Materials, GIS database, Riverside County General Plan Housing Element Findings of Fact: a) The project site is currently vacant; therefore the project will not displace any housing. b) The project will not create a demand for additional housing. c) The project will not displace any people. d) The project will not affect a County Redevelopment Project Area. e) The project will not cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections. f) The project could encourage additional residential developments in the area, but the development would have to be consistent with the General Plan; therefore, the project would not induce substantial population growth. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. Page 25 of 25 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 34. Fire Services ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Source: Riverside County General Plan Safety Element Findings of Fact: The project area is serviced by the Riverside County Fire Department. Any effects will be mitigated by the payment of standard fees to the County of Riverside. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 35. Sheriff Services ❑ ❑ ® El- Source: RCIP Findings of Fact: The project area is serviced by the Riverside County Sheriff's Department. Any effects will be mitigated by the payment of standard fees to the County of Riverside. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 36. Schools ❑ ❑ ❑ Source: Palm Springs Unified School District, GIS database Findings of Fact: The proposed project is located within the Palm Springs Unified School District. Since the project will not directly or indirectly increase population, the project is not required to pay school mitigation fees. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 37. Libraries ❑ ❑ ❑ Source: RCIP Findings of Fact: Since the project will not directly or indirectly increase population that would require library service, the project is not required to pay impact fees for libraries. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Page 26 of 26 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 38. Health Services ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Source: RCIP Findings of Fact: Since the project will not directly or indirectly increase population that would require health services, the project is not required to pay impact fees for health services. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. RECREATION 39. Parks and Recreation ❑ ❑ ❑ El a) Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? b) Would the project include the use of existing ❑ ❑ ❑ neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? c) Is the project located within a C.S.A. or recreation ❑ ❑ ❑ and park district with a Community Parks and Recreation Plan (Quimby fees)? Source: GIS database, Ord. No. 460, Section 10.35 (Regulating the Division of Land — Park and Recreation Fees and Dedications), Ord. No. 659 (Establishing Development Impact Fees), Parks & Open Space Department Review Findings of Fact: a-c) Since the project will not directly or indirectly increase population that would require recreational facilities, the project will not have an impact on recreational facilities. The project will not be required to pay quimby fees. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 40. Recreational Trails ❑ ❑ ❑ Source: Riv. Co. 800 Scale Equestrian Trail Maps, Open Space and Conservation Map for Western County trail alignments Page 27 of 27 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Findings of Fact: The proposed project is not located adjacent to or near any designated recreational trail. The project will not increase the need for trails in the area. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project 41. Circulation ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of ❑ ❑ ❑ service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated road or highways? d) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ❑ ❑ ❑ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? e) Alter waterborne, rail or air traffic? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? g) Cause an effect upon, or a need for new or altered ❑ ❑ ❑ maintenance of roads? h) Cause an effect upon circulation during the project's ❑ ❑ ® ❑ construction? i) Result in inadequate emergency access or access ❑ ❑ ❑ to nearby uses? j) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative ❑ ❑ ❑ transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Source: RCIP Findings of Fact: a) The proposed relocation of existing billboards would not create additional traffic to the surrounding road network b) The project would not result in inadequate parking capacity. c) The project would not exceed a level of service standard established by the county. d) The project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. e) The project would not alter waterborne, rail, or air traffic Page 28 of 28 EA41426 AM- Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated f) The project would not increase hazards to a design feature g) The project would not cause an effect upon or a need for new or altered maintenance of roads h) The project would not cause a substantial effect on circulation during project construction i) The project would not result in inadequate emergency access j) The project would not conflict with policies supporting alternative transportation Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 42. Bike Trails ❑ ❑ ❑ Source: RCIP Findings of Fact: The proposed project is not located adjacent to or near any designated recreational trail. The project will not increase the need for trails in the area. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project 43. Water ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Require or result in the construction of new water treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ ❑ project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Source: Department of Environmental Health Review Findings of Fact: a-b) The project will not require water service to the site. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. Page 29 of 29 L- EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 44. Sewer ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities, including septic systems, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? b) Result in a determination by the wastewater ❑ ❑ ❑ treatment provider that serves or may service the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? Source: Department of Environmental Health Review a-b) The project will not require sewer service to the site. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 45. Solid Waste ❑ ❑ ❑ a) Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? b) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ regulations related to solid wastes (including the CIWMP (County Integrated Waste Management Plan)? Source: RCIP, Riverside County Waste Management District correspondence a-b) The project will not require waste disposal service to the site. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. 46. Utilities a) Would the project impact the following facilities requiring or resulting in the construction of new facilities or the expansion of existing facilities; the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? a) Electricity? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Natural gas? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Communications systems? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Storm water drainage? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Street lighting? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Page 30 of 30 L— EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Source: RCIP Findings of Fact: Letters to the applicable servicing entities did not elicit any responses indicating that the proposed project would require substantial new facilities or expand facilities. Mitigation: No mitigation measures required. Monitoring: No monitoring measures are required. OTHER 47. Other: N/A ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Source: Staff review Findings of Fact: Mitigation: Monitoring: OTHER 48. Other: N/A ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Source: Staff review Findings of Fact: Mitigation: Monitoring: OTHER 49. Other: N/A ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Source: Staff review Findings of Fact: Mitigation: Monitoring: MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 50. Does the project have the potential to substantially ❑ ❑ ❑ Page 31 of 31 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare, or endangered plant or animal to eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Source: Staff review, Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: Implementation of the proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife populations to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. 51. Does the project have the potential to achieve short- ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one that occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) Source: Staff review, Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: Any long term impacts associated with the allowance of relocation of existing billboards will be equal to the current impacts since no net increase in billboards will be permitted. The proposed project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals. 52. Does the project have impacts which are individually ❑ ❑ ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects as defined in California Code of Regulations, Section 15130)? Source: Staff review, Project Application Materials Findings of Fact: The proposed project allows for the relocation of existing billboards. Cumulative impacts of allowing relocation of existing billboards would be equal or reduced to the current impacts of the existing billboards. The development standards for height and display size, combined with the spacing requirements between billboards, eliminates any potential cumulative impacts on multiple Page 32 of 32 EA41426 Potentially Less than Less No Significant Significant Than Impact Impact with Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated relocations impacting any one area significantly by preventing any continuous blockage of the scenic resources. The project does not have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. 53. Does the project have environmental effects that will ❑ ❑ ❑ cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Source: Staff review, project application Findings of Fact: The proposed project allows for relocation of existing billboards. The potential impacts associated with this project would be focused on impacts of views in the area which would not be considered as an adverse effect on human beings. The proposed project would not result in environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. VI. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration as per California Code of Regulations, Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: Earlier Analyses Used, if any: RCIP: Riverside County Integrated Project Location Where Earlier Analyses, if used, are available for review: Location: County of Riverside Planning Department 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor Riverside, CA 92505 Y:\Planning Case Files-Riverside office\GPA00864\GPA864-CZ7535-EA41426.doc Revised: 8/7/06 Page 33 of 33 EA41426 CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMEN T OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT CONFIDENTIAL CLOSED SESSION REQUEST: Council direction regarding recent Riverside County Board of Supervisors approval of General Plan Amendment No. 864/Change of Zone No. 7535 (billboards along Interstate 10). SUBMITTED BY: Lauri Aylaian Director, Community Development DATE: August 9, 2007 CONTENTS: Site Map Site Plan for Existing Signage Site Plan for Proposed Signage County of Riverside Planning Department Staff Report Submittal to the Board of Supervisors County of Riverside, State of California — 17 July 2007 Recommendation: That the City Council give direction to staff regarding desired response, if any, to the recent decision by the County Board of Supervisors that will allow erection of a minimum of four(4) billboards on the south side of Interstate 10 between Monterey Avenue and Portola Avenue. Executive Summary: On July 12, 2007, the City Council approved a letter to the Board of Supervisors opposing a proposed General Plan amendment and zone change that will allow placement of billboards in unincorporated Riverside County between the 1-10 and the railroad tracks on the northern boundary of Palm Desert. At its 31 July, 2007 meeting, the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors on a 3-2 vote approved the amendment to the County's General Plan, the re-zone, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration associated with these signs. Staff now requests direction from the Council regarding potential litigation or other actions as a result of the action taken by the Board. Staff Report Case General Plan Amendment - No. 864 Change of Zone No. 7535-Billboards August 8, 2007 Page 2 of 3 Discussion: The northern city limits of Palm Desert are on the south side of the Southern Pacific Railroad tracks, just south of Interstate 10. The land that lies between the railroad tracks and Interstate 10 is technically unincorporated Riverside County, and is therefore regulated by the County. In June 2007, the County proposed a re-zoning, a General Plan Amendment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration that would allow billboards from other areas in the western Coachella Valley to be relocated when development necessitated their removal from existing locations. They also proposed that zoning consistent with placement of billboards be designated to the narrow strip of land between 1-10 and the railroad tracks from Monterey Avenue to Portola Avenue. This strip of land was designated in the County's General Plan as Rural Residential, but was previously unidentified in zoning maps. The applicant who requested the change of zone and the General Plan Amendment is Lamar Advertising, owner of a number of billboards in the western Coachella Valley. Because the General Plan for the western Coachella Valley specifically prohibits billboards along scenic corridors and identifies the 1-10 as a scenic corridor, an amendment to the General Plan was necessary. Lamar Advertising argued that there would be no net change in the scenic value of the I-10 corridor since the billboards that would move to this location were actually being displaced by development in Thousand Palms,just north of the 1-10 between El Dorado Drive and Washington Street. The City of Palm Desert has a long history of opposing billboards within the city limits and has worked hard to maintain this higher standard within its jurisdiction. As such, the City opposed placement of billboards in the subject strip of land since they appear to general residents and to the motoring public to be within the City of Palm Desert. They also arguably obstruct view of the mountains and of recent commercial development along Dinah Shore Drive. The City Council approved letters both to the County Planning Commission and to the Board of Supervisors protesting the proposed General Plan amendment and zone change. Letters from the Monterey Shore Business Park Development, Desert Gateway Self-Storage, Carver Companies, and Nobel & Company were also submitted to the County Planning Department and the Clerk of the Board protesting the proposed actions. City staff has been unable to identify any letters that were written in support of the proposed project. Staff also spoke against the General Plan amendment and Zone change at both the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors meetings. G:1PLANNINGUANINE JUDYIWORD FILESISTAFF REPORTSGP AMD 864 CZ 7535 BILLBOARDS DOC 2 Staff Report Case General Plan Amendment - No. 864 Change of Zone No. 7535-Billboards August 8, 2007 Page 3 of 3 On Tuesday, July 10, the County Planning Commission found in favor of the proposed General Plan Amendment and re-zone, and on Tuesday, July 31, the County Board of Supervisors did the same. The near-term results of these actions will be that four(4) billboards will be erected in the locations shown on the attached site plan when others are demolished to make way for the widening of Varner Road, as shown in the attached plan. However, it is staff's belief that in the long-term even more billboards can be installed when and if they are relocated from other places along the 1-10 corridor in the western Coachella Valley. If the City Council so desires, staff can direct the City Attorney to file suit against the County of Riverside on behalf of the City of Palm Desert challenging the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the CEQA action taken by the County. Such suit would need to be filed in the immediate future in order to protect the City's options in this matter. Submitted By: LAURI AYLAIAN Director, Community Development Approv . - 6e OMER CROY ACM, Developmen ervices CARLOS L. ORTEGA City Manager G:IPLANNINGUANINEJUD)WORD FB_ESISTAFFREPORTSIGPAMD 864 CZ 7535 BILLBOARDS.DOC 3 i A AM 4r lit IOr � „r � �� .�` �►,� .�.,, �,� , ,,_ I t �� 4 , � Le-end 4 Bad GeneralExisting Sign to be Relo all Am jw� V-19 Reference Street f WAW ' - ;� fW+E , , ' i��� MOWS WON OWNS f...<�_� «: ' WAS I inch equals 600 feet �.rya �___ _:___.- m ` Y - tom R—.de County GIB.Ima tom Ph. 1 er 2005.Th1s map$ of,beMed t pl o[Theauthordoes notcerhfy the a—acyor, - -�, Doty and sh,*d not oe tieaion ,-fi, '",y, ` � �` � .. �;,,,.;,�y� `-mat:.` ` a •. f :7 .. '. tiGl°�LLI.1.5 ,e • \ \ Fti� 3 Ftrt�q Asa;° � `.\ � • ` Aq . I ' ,!slat , ,s, R �I, ♦ / / Legend L e..� 'l Ll k IYGllW ♦ `' Proposed Sign N � \ Existing Sign W ; Project Parcel - ' t t � . ... �•`-'`".^^' ., `^.•'���t i'i���-'ras�.�.. ., i—•�-•,�.ram _ ~ .General Parcel - 1 inch equals 400 feet J. - EduAit P.p—d:06/27/07 ` Agenda Item No.: 5.5 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 Area Plan: Western Coachella Valley CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 Zoning District: Thousand Palms E.A. Number: 41426 Supervisorial District: Fourth Applicant: Lamar Advertising Project Planner: Russell Brady Planning Commission: July 11, 2006 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF REPORT PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: General Plan Amendment No. 864 proposes to designate the site as Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) and to modify and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing billboards if the new location is determined to have a minimal impact on the scenic setting. Change of Zone No. 7535 proposes to alter the site's current zoning classification from Rural Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing —Service Commercial (M-SC). The project is located southerly of Interstate 10, westerly of Portola Avenue, northerly of Dinah Shore Drive, and easterly of Monterey Avenue in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan. ISSUES OF POTENTIAL CONCERN: Justification for the proposed General Plan Amendment General Plan Amendment No. 864 proposes to modify and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing billboards if the new location is determined to have a minimal impact on the scenic setting and to provide a Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) land use designation on the subject site. The site currently has no land use designation. According to the Administration Chapter (Chapter 10) of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP), the proposed General Plan Amendment falls into the Entitlement/Policy Amendment category which involves changes in land use designations or policies that involve land located entirely within a General Plan Foundation Component but that do not change the boundaries of that component. This type of amendment may also involve changes in General Plan policy as long as it does not change the Riverside County Vision, Foundation Component, or a General Plan Principle. This chapter also addresses the required and optional findings needed to justify a General Plan Amendment. Required Entitlement/Policy Amendment Findings The first two findings and any one or more of the subsequent findings would justify an entitlement/policy amendment: a. The proposed change would not involve a change in or conflict with: (1) The Riverside County Vision; (2) Any General Plan Principle; or (3) Any Foundation Component designation in the General Plan. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 Planning Commission Staff Report: July 11, 2007 Page 2 of 4 b. The proposed amendment would either contribute to the achievement of the purposes of the General Plan or, at a minimum, would not be detrimental to them. c. Special circumstances or conditions have emerged that were unanticipated in preparing the General Plan. The following findings are made in support of the proposed General Plan Amendment: a. The proposed change in the Area Plan policy and change to a Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) land use designation will not involve a change in and will not conflict with the following: (1) The Riverside County Vision — the proposed project does conform to the fundamental values stated in the RCIP Vision Chapter and in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan Vision Summary section, which include, but are not limited to dedication to the preservation of the environmental features that frame the community, preservation of the sense of community within the Area Plan, and commitment to quality development in partnership with those who help build our communities through project design and provision of amenities and infrastructure. (2) Any General Plan Principle —the proposed project will not be in conflict with the General Plan's principles, which include preserving the unique natural setting while minimizing the impacts of encroaching urban uses and preservation of scenic resources. (3) Any Foundation Component designation in the General Plan — the project currently does not have a foundation component. b. The proposed amendment does contribute to the achievement of the purposes of the General Plan. The proposed project does not have the potential to be detrimental to the purposes of the General Plan and the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan. The proposed project is consistent and compatible with the existing and future surrounding general plan land use designations, zoning classifications, and land uses which include existing existing and planned single family residential land uses. c. There have been special circumstances that have emerged that were unanticipated in preparing the General Plan that warrant such a change in land use. The policy adopted in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan's goal is to protect the scenic qualities and visual character of the area. In the case of the proposed project, there are existing billboards proposed to be removed by a planned residential project. The proposed modification of the policy to allow relocation of billboards would essentially maintain the same scenic qualities and visual character that currently exists in the area. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: 1. Existing Land Use (Ex. #1): Vacant 2. Surrounding Land Use (Ex. #1): 1-10 to the north and east, single family residential and vacant land to the south and west GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 Planning Commission Staff Report: July 11, 2007 Page 3 of 4 3. Existing Zoning (Ex. #2): Rural Residential (R-R) 4. Surrounding Zoning (Ex. #2): Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) to the north and east and City of Palm Desert to the south and west 5. General Plan: Land Use: N/A 6. Project Data: Total Acreage: 19.84 7. Environmental Concerns: See attached environmental assessment RECOMMENDATIONS: ADOPTION of a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 41426, based on the findings incorporated in the initial study and the conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; TENTATIVE APPROVAL of GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 amending the land use designation in the General Plan to designate the site as Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) and to modify and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing billboards if the new location is determined to have a minimal impact on the scenic setting.; TENTATIVE APPROVAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 from Rural Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC) in accordance with Exhibit 3, based upon final adoption by the Board of Supervisors; and, ADOPTION of a RESOLUTION recommending adoption of the General Plan Amendment No. 864 to the Board of Supervisors; CONCLUSIONS: 1. The proposed project is in conformance with the Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) Land Use Designation, and with all other elements of the Riverside County General Plan. 2. The proposed project is consistent with the Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC) zoning classification of Ordinance No. 348, and with all other applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 348. 3. The public's health, safety, and general welfare are protected through project design. 4. The proposed project is compatible with the present and future logical development of the area. 5. The proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. 6. The proposed project will not preclude reserve design for the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSCHP). FINDINGS: The following findings are in addition to those incorporated in the summary of findings, and in the attached environmental assessment, which is incorporated herein by reference. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 Planning Commission Staff Report: July 11, 2007 Page 4 of 4 1. The project site is designated currently has no land use designation on the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan. 2. The project proposes to change the land use to Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio). 3. The project site is surrounded by properties which are designated Community Development: Commercial Retail (CD: CR) (0.20-0.35 Floor Area Ratio) to the north and east and the City of Palm Desert to the south and west. 4. The zoning for the subject site is Rural Residential (R-R) 5. The project proposes to change the current zoning designation from Rural Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC) 6. The project site is surrounded by properties which are zoned Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P- S)to the north and east and City of Palm Desert to the south and west. 7. The proposed use, for relocation of an existing billboard, is permitted in the Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC) zone. 8. This project is not located within a Criteria Area of the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 9. Environmental Assessment No. 41426 did not identify any potentially significant impacts. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 1. As of this writing, no letters, in support or opposition have been received. 2. The project site is not located within: a. A 100-year flood zone; b. A SKR Core Reserve Area; C. A dam inundation area; d. An Area Drainage Plan; e. A hazardous fire area; f. An agricultural preserve; or g. An Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault hazard zone. 3. The project site is located within: a. The boundaries of the Palm Springs Unified School District; b. Mt. Palomar Lighting Ordinance Area; and C. Whitewater Watershed. 4. The subject site is currently designated as Assessor's Parcel Number 653-250-012. Y:\Planning Case Files-Riverside office\GPA00864\GPA864 SR.doc Date Prepared: 6/28/07 Date Revised: 7/3/07 Transmission Report Date/Time 10-02-2007 04 10 12 p m. Transmit Header Text Local ID 1 760 7766417 Local Name 1 Palm Desert- Plannig Local ID 2 Local Name 2 This document : Confirmed (reduced sample and details below) Document size : 8.5"x1 1 " CITY OF PALM DESERT Department of Community Development 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert,California 92260-2578 Tel: (760)346-0611 Fax: (760-776-6417 FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: Mark Balys(Sophia) DATE: October 2.2007 COMPANY: Riv.Co. Planning FAX NUMBER:(951)955-3157 TRANSMITTED BY: Tonya Monroe.Administrative Secretary MESSAGE: Please forward the following letter to the Planning Commission for their consideration of Ordinance No.348 4529-EA41426. Thank you! Number of pages transmitted— 5 (Including cover page) Total Pages Scanned : 5 Total Pages Confirmed : 5 No. IJob I Remote Station Start Time I Duration Pages Line Mode Job Type Results 001 1618 1909 955 3157 04.01:10 p.m. 10-02-2007 100.08,21 5/5 11 JEC IHS I CP14400 Abbreviations: HS: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3 WS: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save FA: Fail RP: Report EC: Error Correct CITY OF PALM DESERT Department of Community Development 1 � 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260-2578 }1 Tel: 760 346-0611 Fax: (760-776-6417 FAX TRANSMITTAL TO: Mark Balys (Sophia) DATE: October 2, 2007 COMPANY: Riv. Co. Planning FAX NUMBER: (951) 955-3157 TRANSMITTED BY: Tonya Monroe, Administrative Secretary MESSAGE: Please forward the following letter to the Planning Commission for their consideration of Ordinance No. 348.4529 - EA41426. Thank you! Number of pages transmitted 5 (including cover page) y I Y Df r M DLSE � I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 760 346-o6ii FAX: 760 341-7098 infoC1)pa1m-desert.org August 27, 2007 The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors County of Riverside c/o Clerk of the Board Ms. Nancy Romero 4080 Lemon Street, 1st Floor P.O. Box 1147 Riverside, California 92502-1147 Re: Environmental Assessment (E.A.) Number 41426; General Plan Amendment No. 864; Change of Zone No. 7535 Dear Chairman and Board of Supervisors: Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21177 and other provisions of California law, the City of Palm Desert ("Palm Desert") objects to the above-referenced project, to the above-referenced initial study, and to any proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration related thereto. The grounds on which Palm Desert objects include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: 1. Environmental Assessment Number 41426 ("the initial study") is inadequate and fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub.Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines in that it fails to adequately explain and analyze the basis for the conclusions of insignificance with respect to Aesthetics/Scenic Resources, Biological Resources and Planning and Land Use. 2. The initial study violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines in that it fails to complete the Mandatory Findings of Significance (checklist items 50, 51 , 52 and 53). 3. The initial study violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines in that it fails to consider the cumulative impacts that the proposed modifications and policy additions to the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan will have with respect to an �,nmto c ert¢o ruu Riverside County Board of Supervisors GPA No. 864 — Billboards Page 2 of 3 August 27, 2007 unknown number of future billboard relocation projects. Though the project applicant proposes specific billboard relocations, the effect of the amended and added policies will allow for unlimited billboard relocations in the future. How many "existing billboards" are there within the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan that might be relocated to more harmful and aesthetically sensitive locations under the amended policy? The initial study entirely ignores the long-term, cumulative impacts. 4. The County has completely failed to consult with neighboring and affected agencies that share responsibility for preserving resources in the Coachella Valley, including scenic resources. The initial study completely ignores the impact on such resources that will result in such neighboring jurisdictions. 5. The initial study and the proposed project completely fail to consider the impact that permitting relocation of billboards will have on the long-range possibility of eliminating scenic blight inflicted by existing billboards. 6. The initial study completely fails to consider the impact the project and potential cumulative impacts will have on the planning and land use goals and policies of Palm Desert and other affected agencies. 7. The initial study completely fails to consider the effect the project's impacts and potential cumulative impacts will have on property situated in areas relatively free from billboards and protected by policies proscribing billboard proliferation that will now face billboards newly placed in their vicinity. 8. The initial study concludes that a "Mitigated Negative Declaration" ("MND") is appropriate. A MND is proper where "the initial study has identified potentially significant" environmental impacts, but those impacts will be mitigated to the point of insignificance by project modifications and/or mitigation measures, along with mitigation monitoring mechanisms, identified in the MND (Pub. Res. Code § 21064.5). A MND is not appropriate where, as here, the County identifies no potentially significant impacts. It is obvious, though, that there are potentially significant impacts which the County hopes to ignore by its deficient initial study and its misleading and improper finding that the MND is appropriate. The proper procedure is to identify the potentially significant impacts as such, then identify specific measures to be taken to reduce those potentially significant impacts to a point of insignificance. (word/tmlcorr/billboards RivCo Supervisors 8-27-07) CITY OF PALM DESERT Riverside County Board of Supervisors GPA No. 864 — Billboards Page 3 of 3 August 27, 2007 9. No proposed "Mitigated Negative Declaration" has been published, circulated or made available for public inspection and comment, nor have any mitigation measures been identified. It is impossible for the public to determine whether the potentially significant impacts can be and will be mitigated to insignificance. Palm Desert respectfully submits that approval of this project on the initial study would be in violation of CEQA. Accordingly, Palm Desert respectfully requests that this Honorable Board of Supervisors duly perform its lawful duty to deny this project, deny approval of the initial study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, and refrain from any approval of this project until a proper EIR has been duly prepared, circulated and certified. Sincerely, -'r �t v R OS L. ORTEG City anager CL :LA cc: Mayor Richard S. Kelly Mayor Pro Tern Jean Benson Council Member Jim Ferguson Council Member Cindy Finerty Council Member Bob Spiegel (word/tm/corr/billboards RivCo Supervisors 8-27-07) CITY OF PALM DESERT Riverside County Planning Commission - October 3, 2007 Agenda Page 1 of 5 Location: Planning Home> Public Hearings> 2007 Planning Commission>October 3,2007 Agenda (Posted to Web 9/21/07,Last Updated 9/21/07) October 3,2007 9:00 A.M. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION 4080 LEMON STREET, 1ST FLOOR, BOARD CHAMBERS RIVERSIDE,CALIFORNIA 92501 CALL TO ORDER-ROLL CALL SALUTE TO THE FLAG NOTE: If you wish to speak, please complete a"SPEAKER IDENTIFICATION FORM"and give it to the Secretary.The purpose hearing is to allow interested parties to express their concerns. Please do not repeat information already given. If you have no information,but wish to be on record,simply give your name and address and state that you agree with the previous speaker(s In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if any accommodations are needed, please contact Sophia Q. Nolasco or E-mail at snolasco@rctlma.org. Request should be made at least 48 hours or as soon as possible prior to the scheduled me Click .Here to_View Important_Information on. Conditions of-Approval and This Agenda Be advised that some of the Public Hearing Presentation PDF's included on this page are over 1 Megabyte in size and may tak expected to open on a dial up connection. *Staff Reports, Environmental Assessment's and Public Hearing Presentations are in Adobe PDF format.You will need the Ad installed on your computer to view these staff reports.Click the image below to get the reader. Reader' _. 1.0 CONSENT CALENDAR 1.1 FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 31279 - EA38976 - Coachella 41, LLC - Lower Coachella Valley Zoning District - Fourth Supervisorial District - Eastern Coachella Valley Area Plan: Community Development: Medium Density Residential (MDR) (2-5 DU/AC Min.) - Location: Northerly of Avenue 55, easterly of Jackson Street-Zoning: One-Family Dwelling- 10,000 square foot minimum (R-1-10,000) - 20 Acres - Schedule A - A tentative tract map to divide 20 acres into 41 single-family residential lots with a park/retention basin site REQUEST: EXTENSION OF TIME TO SEPTEMBER 28,2008- FIRST EXTENSION. Project Planner: Paul Clark Ph: (760)863-8277 or E-mail at pclark@rctlma.org Staff Recommendation:APPROVAL subject to all previous conditions. 1.2 FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 31008 - Applicant: Leon Road, LLC - Third Supervisorial District - Winchester Zoning Area - Harvest Valley/Winchester Area Plan: Community Development: Medium Density Residential (CD- MDR) (2-5 dwelling units per acre) - Location: Southeasterly corner of Holland Road and http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/planning/content/hearings/pc/2007/pc 100307_agenda/p... 10/2/2007 Riverside County Planning C ission - October 3, 2007 Agenda • Page 2 of 5 Leon Road, Northeasterly corner of Euculyptus Road and Craig Avenue - 160 Acres - Zoning: One-Family Dwellings (R-1) - Schedule A - 7, 200 sq. ft. minimum, a 5.01 acre park,approximatley 29.33 acres of open space/drainage lots and a regional trail REQUEST: EXTENSION OF TIME TO APRIL 13,2008- FIRST EXTENSION. Project Planner: Dave Mares Ph: (951)955-9541 or E-mail dmares@rctlma.org Staff Recommendation:APPROVAL subject to all previous conditions. 1.3 FIRST EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 30592 - Applicant: Stowe-Passco Development - First Supervisorial District - North Perris Zoning Area - Mead Valley Area Plan: - Location: Westerly side of Interstate 215, southerly side of Rider Street and westerly side of Patterson Avenue-32.5 Acres-Zoning:One-Family Dwellings (R-1)-Schedule A REQUEST: EXTENSION OF TIME TO MAY 18,2008- FIRST EXTENSION. Project Planner: Dave Mares Ph: (951)955-9541 or E-mail dmares@rctlma.org Staff Recommendation:APPROVAL subject to all previous conditions. 2.0 ORAL COMMUNICATION ON ANY MATTER NOT ON THE AGENDA. 3.0 ITEMS THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS BE CONTINUED WITHOUT DISCUSSION:9:00 a.m.or as soon as possible thereafter. (Presentation available upon Commissioners request) 3.1 NONE 4.0 4.0 ITEMS THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL UNDER ONE MOTION UNLESS A COMMISSION MEMBER OR MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC DESIRES TO DISCUSS THE MATTER:9:00 a.m.or as soon as possible thereafter. 4.1 NONE 5.0 PUBLIC HEARING:9:00 a.m.or as soon as possible thereafter: 5.1 ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 348.4529 - EA41426 - Applicant: County of Riverside - AII Supervisorial Districts-The text of Section 19.2 of Ordinance No. 348 will be amended to define the ability to relocate existing outdoor advertising displays(billboards). Project Planner: Mark Balys Ph: (951)955-3150 or E-mail at mbalys@rctlma.org (Legislative) Staff Recommendation:APPROVAL 5.2 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 32722 - EA39801 - Applicant: RJL Builders, Inc - Engineer/Representative: O'Malley Engineering Corporation - Second Supervisorial District-Glen Avon Zoning District-Jurupa Area Plan: Community Development: Medium http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/planning/content/hearings/pc/2007/pc 100307_agenda/p... 10/2/2007 Riverside County Planning C-----nission - October 3, 2007 Agenda Page 3 of 5 Density Residential (CD: MDR) (2-5 Dwelling Units per Acre) - Location: Northerly of Mission Boulevard,Westerly of Camino Real,and Southerly of SH-60-5.66 Gross Acres- Zoning:One-Family Dwellings(R-1) REQUEST: The Tentative Tract Map proposes a Schedule A subdivision of 5.66 acres into 16 single family residential lots,with 7200 square feet minimum lots and one(1)9,227 square foot remainder lot. APN: 174-170-034 Project Planner: Christian Hinojosa Ph:(951)955-0972 or E-mail at chinojos@rctlma.org (Quasi-judicial) Staff Recommendation:APPROVAL 5.3 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 32011 - EA39478 -Applicant: Warm Springs Investments - Engineer/Representative: VSL Engineering - Third Supervisorial District - Rancho California Zoning Area-Southwest Area Plan: Community Development: Medium Density Residential (CD: MDR) (2-5 dwelling units per acre) - Location: Northerly of High Vista Drive, southerly of Auld Road, westerly of Pourroy Road, and easterly of Shadetree Drive. - 12 Gross Acres-Zoning: Crown Valley Village Specific Plan No. 238, Planning Area No. 8(SP238, PA8) REQUEST: Tentative Tract Map proposes a Schedule A subdivision of 12.0 gross acres into thirty-three (33) single-family residential lots with a minimum lot size of 7,200 square feet, one 2.1 acre park, and three open space lots for a water quality basin and enhanced landscaping. APN:963-090-002 Project Planner:Alisa Krizek Ph: (951)955-9075 or E-mail at akrizek@rctlma.org (Quasi-judicial) Staff Recommendation:APPROVAL 5.4 TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 34461, PLOT PLAN NO. 21352 - EA40641 - Applicant: Pacific Pointe Partners - Engineer/Representative: KCT Consultants Inc. - Third Supervisorial District - Rancho California Zoning Area - Southwest Area Plan: Community Development: Mixed Use Policy Area (MUPA) - Location: Northerly of Murrieta Hot Springs Road, easterly of Sky Canyon Road and westerly of Town View Avenue - 13.28 Gross Acres-Zoning:Specific Plan (SP 213, PA 9) REQUEST: The parcel map proposes a Schedule E subdivision of 13.28 gross acres into four commercial/industrial parcels and a lot dedicated for additional right-of-way.The plot plan proposes to construct a 13.28-acre commercial / industrial park that will include 18 buildings, supporting retail, office, and warehouse uses. The project proposes 174,519 square feet of building covering 31 percent of the project site with a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.31. The project proposes 618 parking stalls, including 31 handicap stalls, and 30 loading spaces. Additionally, the proposed 90,209 square feet of landscaping covers 15.8 percent of the site. APNs:957-371-001,957-371-002,957-371-003 and 957-371-004 Project Planner:Alisa Krizek Ph: (951)955-9075 or E-mail at akrizek@rctlma.org (Quasi-judicial) Staff Recommendation:APPROVAL http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/planning/content/hearings/pc/2007/pc 100307_agenda/p... 10/2/2007 Riverside County Planning C ission - October 3, 2007 Agenda • Page 4 of 5 r 5.5 CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7435 / TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 34724 - EA41100 - Applicant: Bratene Construction & Engineering - Engineer/Representative: Bratene Construction& Engineering-Third Supervisorial District- Rancho California Zoning Area- Southwest Area Plan: Rural Community: Estate Density Residential (RC: EDR) (2 Acre Minimum) - Location: Southerly of Linda Rosea Road and Seawind Circle, and easterly of Linda Via. -5 Gross Acres-Zoning: Residential Agriculture-5 Acre Minimum(R-A-5) REQUEST: The change of zone proposes to change the zoning classification from Residential Agricultural - 5 Acre Minimum (R-A-5) to Residential Agricultural - 2 Acre Minimum (R-A-2). The tentative parcel map proposes a Schedule H subdivision of five acres into two residential lots with a minimum lot size two acres. APN:951-240-004 Project Planner:Alisa Krizek Ph: (951)955-9075 or E-mail at akrizek@rctlma.org (Legislative) Staff Recommendation:APPROVAL 5.6 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3460 - CEQA Exempt - Applicant: Dallal Harb Engineer/Representative: ANZ Engineering Consultants- Third Supervisorial District Antelope Valley Zoning Area - Suncity Menifee Valley Area Plan: Community Development: Commercial Retail (0.20-0.35 Floor Area Ratio) - Location: Northerly of Shady Lane Center, southerly of Scott Road, easterly of Murrieta Road, and westerly of Helen Lane. - 1.92 Gross Acres-Zoning:Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) REQUEST: The Conditional Use Permit is to permit the sale of beer, wine, and distilled spirits for off premises consumption(ABC Type 21-Off Sale General)for an existing 1,000 square foot convenience store. Additionally, the project proposes to expand the 1,000 square foot liquor store and market to 1,714.05 square feet, enhance the existing fagade of the facility, provide concrete paving along the project site and 3,100 square feet of landscaping,and 76'of additional right-of-way on Scott Road. APN: 384-010-006 Project Planner: Miguel Vazquez Ph: (951)955-2402 or E-mail at mvazquez@rctlma.org (Quasi-judicial) Staff Recommendation:APPROVAL 5.7 PUBLIC USE PERMIT 799, REVISED PERMIT NO. 2 - CEQA Exempt - Applicant: Steven Paschall - Engineer/Representative: Megaland Engineneers - Third Supervisorial District-Sun City Zoning District-Sun City/Menifee Area Plan:Community Development: Business Park (B-P) (Floor Area Ratio 0.25-1.0)- Location: Westerly of Bradley Road, southerly of Rio Vista Drive,westerly of Via Naravilla and northerly of Park Avenue. - 1.93 Gross Acres-Zoning:Commercial Office(C-O) REQUEST: A revision to Public Use Permit 799R1 for the construction and operation of a 58-room assisted living center comprised of five 1-story buildings, 29 parking spaces and 28.2%area for landscaping. APN: 336-180-003 Project Planner: Miguel Vazquez Ph: (951)955-2402 or E-mail at mvazquez@rctima.org (Quasi-judicial)(Continued from 9/19/07) Staff Recommendation:APPROVAL http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/planning/content/hearings/pc/2007/pc 100307_agenda/p... 10/2/2007 Riverside County Planning C nission - October 3, 2007 Agenda Page 5 of 5 5.8 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 31189 - EA40335 - Applicant: Nick Boernsen - Engineer/Representative: Boernsen Construction Company - Fifth Supervisorial District - Nuevo Zoning Area - Lakeview/Nuevo Area Plan : Rural Community: Low Density Residential ('/z Acre Minimum) - Location: Southerly of Apricot Avenue, northerly of 13th Street, easterly of North Drive and westerly of 11th Street - 10 Gross Acres - Residential Agricultural Zone(R-A) REQUEST: Tentative Tract Map proposes a Schedule B subdivision of 10 gross acres into 8 residential lots of no less than 1 acre each. APN:427-240-001 Project Planner: Matt Straite Ph: (951)955-0545 or E-mail at mstraite@rctlma.org (Quasi-judicial) Staff Recommendation:APPROVAL 6.0 PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY'S COMMENTS 7.0 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS 8.0 COMMISSIONERS'COMMENTS http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/planning/content/hearings/pc/2007/pc 100307_agenda/p... 10/2/2007 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING and INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION A PUBLIC HEARING has been scheduled before the RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION to consider the project shown below: ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 348.4529 — EA41426 — Applicant: County of Riversde — All Supervisorial Districts — The text of Section 19.2 of Ordinance No. 348 will be amended to define the ability to relocate existing outdoor advertising displays (billboards) - (Legislative) TIME OF HEARING: 9:00 A.M. or as soon as possible thereafter. DATE OF HEARING: WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2007 PLACE OF HEARING: RIVERSIDE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING ROOM RIVERSIDE COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER 4080 LEMON STREET — FIRST FLOOR RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING THIS PROJECT, PLEASE CONTACT PROJECT PLANNER, Mark Balys, Ph (951) 955-3150, or E-mail at mbalys@rctlma.org. Project information is also available on the Planning Department's Planning Commission agenda web page at: http://www.rctlma.org/planning. The Riverside County Planning Department has determined that the above project will not have a significant effect on the environment and has recommended adoption of a mitigated negative declaration. The Planning Commission will consider the proposed project and the proposed mitigated negative declaration, at the public hearing. The case file for the proposed project and the proposed mitigated negative declaration may be viewed Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., (with the exception of Noon-1:00 p.m. and holidays) at the County of Riverside Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor, Riverside, California, 92501. For further information or an appointment, contact the project planner. Any person wishing to comment on a proposed project may do so, in writing, between the date of this notice and the public hearing or appear and be heard at the time and place noted above. All comments received prior to the public hearing will be submitted to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission will consider such comments, in addition to any oral testimony, before making a decision on the proposed project. If you challenge this project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Be advised that, as a result of public hearings and comment, the Planning Commission may amend, in whole or in part, the proposed project. Accordingly, the designations, development standards, design or improvements, or any properties or lands, within the boundaries of the proposed project, may be changed in a way other than specifically proposed. Please send all written correspondence to: COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE PERMIT ASSISTANCE CENTER Attn: Mark Balys, Deputy Planning Director, 4080 Lemon Street, 91h Floor, Riverside, CA 92502-1409 ACT'i� 12W7 (tMUNH'P DEVELOPMENT D6pagNT CITY OF PALM DESERT RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT P.O. Box 1409, Riverside, CA 92502 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE THIS MAY AFFECT YOUR PROPERTY I Y 0 Pill M 01HRI 73-51 o FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346-o6ii FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-deserr.org August 27, 2007 The Honorable Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors County of Riverside c/o Clerk of the Board Ms. Nancy Romero 4080 Lemon Street, 1st Floor P.O. Box 1147 Riverside, California 92502-1147 Re: Environmental Assessment (E.A.) Number 41426; General Plan Amendment No. 864; Change of Zone No. 7535 Dear Chairman and Board of Supervisors: Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21177 and other provisions of California law, the City of Palm Desert ("Palm Desert") objects to the above-referenced project, to the above-referenced initial study, and to any proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration related thereto. The grounds on which Palm Desert objects include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: 1. Environmental Assessment Number 41426 ("the initial study") is inadequate and fails to comply with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub.Res. Code §§ 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA") and the CEQA Guidelines in that it fails to adequately explain and analyze the basis for the conclusions of insignificance with respect to Aesthetics/Scenic Resources, Biological Resources and Planning and Land Use. 2. The initial study violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines in that it fails to complete the Mandatory Findings of Significance (checklist items 50, 51 , 52 and 53). 3. The initial study violates CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines in that it fails to consider the cumulative impacts that the proposed modifications and policy additions to the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan will have with respect to an .�;i11N11D ON IECCQED PIMI Riverside County Board of Supervisors GPA No. 864 — Billboards Page 2 of 3 August 27, 2007 unknown number of future billboard relocation projects. Though the project applicant proposes specific billboard relocations, the effect of the amended and added policies will allow for unlimited billboard relocations in the future. How many "existing billboards" are there within the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan that might be relocated to more harmful and aesthetically sensitive locations under the amended policy? The initial study entirely ignores the long-term, cumulative impacts. 4. The County has completely failed to consult with neighboring and affected agencies that share responsibility for preserving resources in the Coachella Valley, including scenic resources. The initial study completely ignores the impact on such resources that will result in such neighboring jurisdictions. 5. The initial study and the proposed project completely fail to consider the impact that permitting relocation of billboards will have on the long-range possibility of eliminating scenic blight inflicted by existing billboards. 6. The initial study completely fails to consider the impact the project and potential cumulative impacts will have on the planning and land use goals and policies of Palm Desert and other affected agencies. 7. The initial study completely fails to consider the effect the project's impacts and potential cumulative impacts will have on property situated in areas relatively free from billboards and protected by policies proscribing billboard proliferation that will now face billboards newly placed in their vicinity. 8. The initial study concludes that a "Mitigated Negative Declaration" ("MND") is appropriate. A MND is proper where "the initial study has identified potentially significant" environmental impacts, but those impacts will be mitigated to the point of insignificance by project modifications and/or mitigation measures, along with mitigation monitoring mechanisms, identified in the MND (Pub. Res. Code § 21064.5). A MND is not appropriate where, as here, the County identifies no potentially significant impacts. It is obvious, though, that there are potentially significant impacts which the County hopes to ignore by its deficient initial study and its misleading and improper finding that the MND is appropriate. The proper procedure is to identify the potentially significant impacts as such, then identify specific measures to be taken to reduce those potentially significant impacts to a point of insignificance. (word/tm/corr/billboards RivCo Supervisors 8-27-07) CITY OF PALM DESERT Riverside County Board of Supervisors GPA No. 864 — Billboards Page 3 of 3 August 27, 2007 9. No proposed "Mitigated Negative Declaration" has been published, circulated or made available for public inspection and comment, nor have any mitigation measures been identified. It is impossible for the public to determine whether the potentially significant impacts can be and will be mitigated to insignificance. Palm Desert respectfully submits that approval of this project on the initial study would be in violation of CEQA. Accordingly, Palm Desert respectfully requests that this Honorable Board of Supervisors duly perform its lawful duty to deny this project, deny approval of the initial study and proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, and refrain from any approval of this project until a proper EIR has been duly prepared, circulated and certified. Sincerely, L R OS L. ORTEG City anager CL :LA cc: Mayor Richard S. Kelly Mayor Pro Tem Jean Benson Council Member Jim Ferguson Council Member Cindy Finerty Council Member Bob Spiegel (word/tm/corr/billboards RivCo Supervisors 8-27-07) CITY OF PALM DESERT Copies also given to: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Gregory M. Kunert Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand Avenue, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071-3101 (word/tm/corr/billboards RivCo Supervisors 8-27-07) I IN Y O f P n L M 0 1 1 R I 73-5i0 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 76O 346—o6ii FAX: 760 34►-7098 info@palm-desert.org August 13, 2007 Mr. Greg Kunert Richards, Watson & Gershon 355 South Grand, 40th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Re: County of Riverside Project: General Plan Amendment No. 864 Change of Zone No. 7535 Dear Mr. Kunert: The attached file contains a copy of our complete record to date for County of Riverside Project General Plan Amendment No. 864 and Change of Zone No. 7535. Please review the file and give me a call to discuss the matter further. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Lauri Aylaian Director of Community Development /tm Enclosure !i FedUS Airbill `'"�` 6 9 4 8 2 6 0 0 116 Form 5 : Tracking ID No. Number Express 1 From Pfaaaapn a"ape:sh of 4a Express Package Service Packages upto 150lbs. Sender'sFel I t, J' �j/�n o FedExPriori ,Overnight FedEx Standard Overnight FedEx First Overnight Date (7 D Account Number 1214-5404—E3 ❑Ne,businesorr ang-Friday ❑Nest besinessaftemoon- Earliest nest business morning shipments wr be it Irvered on Monday Saturday Oelivany NOT available. delivery to select locabons- unless SATURDAY Delivery Is selected. Saturday Delivery NOT available. Sender's ; l FedEx 2Day FedEx Express Saver �1 Name h.(JI. �V Q1QJ�1. Phone(760) 346-061 1 El Secondbosness day-Thursday ❑Third business day.- r X�/ shipments deli vered Saturday Delivery NOT available unless SATURDAY Delivery is selected. �- Fed.Envelope rate notavailetee.Minimum charge:One-pound rate ---� -Tomoatloled— C ITY OF PALM DESERT/AEI 4b Express MService Packages overl5olbs Company 18�1 I r14 P 9 9 —. FedEx IDayFreight FedEx2DayFre ht FedEx3Da�Freight ❑ Naebusinass Y--Friday ❑ Secondb1. day. rnursdar L� Mira business y-- shipments ll bedel'vered on Monday shipments wdl he delivered on Monday Saturday Delrvery NOT evadable. Address 73510 FRED WAR ING DR unless SATURDAY Delivery is selected. unless SATURDAY Delivery is selected. OepMnoorlSui—w o 'Call far CoAr urn: --Tainost locareos. 5 Packaging CityPALM DESERT State CA zip 92260-2578 FedEx ❑ FedEX Pak- ❑ FedEx ❑ FedEx ❑ Other Envelope' Includes FedEx SmallPak Box Tube FedEx large Pak,and FedEv sturdy Pak. `Declared value limb 5508. 2 Your Internal Billing Reference First 24 characters will appear on invoice. 6 Special Handling :addressigsc. 3 TO r`e l ❑ SATURDAY Delivery —, HOLD at Ex Location ❑ at edE7c Loedabon Recipient's FedEvStandamOvernight �, ,r„ir:sy• Name Phone 1 FedEc First Overnighc FedEx E.press IedE.Felt 0,r,in, FedEx Pdordy Overnight and Saver,or Fed Ex 30ay Freight Fall Wine to select locations. �` � pJ�� L�/� Does this shipmerd contain dangerous goods? Company to l rdsa Wo—+Son -Qef-5ka V D Ice ❑ No As ramacnea ❑ SheipVars Declaration ❑ Dry e,9,ON IBIS kg Shipper s Declaration. not required. RBCIplerrt'S Dangerous goods including dry ical can.ha stepped in Fedrx packaging. ❑ Cargo Aircraft Only Address 3SS soU+k a r la 4A F�106r 7 Payment Blllro: F4rler FedEx Acct No.or Credit Card No.Mllaw. We cannot deliver m P.O.bows or P.O.ZIP coda. is DeWFbur78uitaRtoom XAendernseednn 1 will i ❑Recipient ; Third Pary ❑ Cred'RCard ❑ Cash/Check Address e broad. To request a package be held at a specific Fed Es location,print redE<address here. redo,A—No Exp Ilk r /� Cradd card No _Data City 1 �S �L�eIe5 State e ZIP Y0071 Total Packages Total Weight Total Declared Valuet -- — J I $ .00 03332 9951 1 tour Ialelayls limited to Sl0O unless you declare a highs,value see back to,detach.By using this Airbill you agree to the Fedrx Use only service conditions on the back of this Airbill and in the current Fed&Service Guide,Including terms thatJimq our liability. S ':',,'Residential Delivery Signature Options If you require a signature,check Direct hall Find drop-off locations at fedex.com He Signature DirectSignature Indirect Signature Anyone a[recipuor d no one is ev Table et GD4 ❑Packgemaybeleh ❑ ddressmaysgnfo, ❑recipienrsaddress,anyone 519 Simplify your shipping.Manage your account.Access all the tools you need. withautobtiouloge ear ary at a neighboring address noy hign:ne for delivery. signardeiivery. Rev.Date I1/85•Pen 1158279b19W2DD5 FadEnPRI NTED IN U.S.A,-SRF Terms And Conditions Definitions On this Airbill,"we,""our,""us,"and"FedEx" We won't be liable Filing A Claim YOU MUST MAKE ALL CLAIMS IN e - refer to Federal Express Corporation,its employees,and agents. —for your acts or omissions,including but not limited to WRITING and notify us of your claim within strict time limits "You"and"your"refer to the sender,its employees,and agents. improper or insufficient packing,securing,marking,or set out in the current FedEx Service Guide. Agreement To Terms By giving us your package to deliver, addressing,or those of the recipient or anyone else with You may call our Customer Service department at you agree to all the terms on this Airbill and in the current an interest in the package. 1.800.GoFedEz 1.800.463.3339 to report a claim;however, FedEx Service Guide,which is available upon request.You — if you or the recipient violates any of the terms of you must still file a timely written claim. also agree to those terms on behalf of any third parry with an our Agreement. Within nine months(from the ship date)after you notify us of interest in the package.If there is a conflict between the current FedEx Service Guide and this Airbill,the current FedEx —for loss of or damage to shipments of prohibited items. your claim,you must send us all the information you have Service Guide will control.No one is authorized to change —for loss,damage,or delay caused by events we cannot about it. We aren't obligated to act any claim until you have paid all transportation charges,,a and you may not deduct the terms of our Agreement. control,including but not limited to acts of God,perils of the amount of your claim from those charges. Responsibility For Packaging And Completing Airbill the air,weather conditions,acts of public enemies,war, You are responsible for adequately packaging your goods and strikes,civil commotions,or acts of public authorities If the recipient accepts your package without noting any properly filling out this Airbill.If you omit the number of with actual or apparent authority. damage on the delivery record,we will assume the package was delivered in good condition.For us to process your claim, packages and/or weight per package,our billing will be based Declared Value Limits you must make the original shipping cartons and packing on our best estimate of the number of packages we received •The highest declared value allowed for a FedEx Envelope, available for inspection. and/or an estimated"default'weight per package as FedEx Pak,or FedEx Sleeve shipment is$500. determined by us. Right To Inspect We may,at our option,open and inspect Responsibility For Payment Even if you give us different •For other shipments,the highest declared value allowed is your packages before or after you give them to us to deliver. $50,00payment instructions,you will always be primarily responsible for value,i unless your package contains items of extraordinary Right Of Rejection We reserve the right to reject a all deliverycosts,as well as an costwe incur in either returningvalue,in which case the highest declared value allowed shipment when such shipment would be likely to cause y is$500. dela or damage to other shipments, your package to you or warehousing it pending disposition. Y 9 p equipment,or •Items of extraordinary value include shipments containing personnel;or if the shipment is prohibited by law;or if the Limitations On Our Liability And Liabilities Not Assumed such items as artwork,jewelry,furs,precious metals,nego- shipment would violate any terms of our Airbill or the current tiable instruments,and other items listed in the current FedEx FedEx Service Guide. •Our liability in connection with this shipment is limited to the Service Guide. C.O.D.Services C.O.D.SERVICE IS NOT AVAILABLE WITH lesser of your actual damages or$100,unless you declare a .You may send more than one package on this Airbill and fill THIS AIRBILL.If C.O.D.Service is required,please use a FedEx j higher value,pay an additional charge,and document your in the total declared value for all packages,not to exceed C.O.D.Airbill. actual loss in a timely manner.You may pay an additional the$100,$500,or$50,000 per package limit described above. charge for each additional$100 of declared value.The Air Transportation Tax Included A federal excise declared value does not constitute,nor do we provide,cargo (Example: 5 packages can have a total declared value of up tax when required by the Iriternal Revenue Code on the air liability insurance. to$250,000.)In that case,our liability is limited to the actual transportation portion of this service,if any,is paid by us. value of the packages)lost or damaged,but may not exceed •In any event,we will not be liable for any damage,whether the maximum allowable declared value(s)orthetotal declared Money-Back Guarantee In the event of untimely delivery, direct,incidental,special,or consequential,in excess of the value,whichever is less.You are responsible for proving the FedEx will,at your request and with some limitations,refund declared value of a shipment,whether or not FedEx had actual loss or damage. or credit all transportation charges.See the current FedEx knowledge that such damages might be incurred,including Service Guide for more information. but not limited to loss of income or profits. P8f 015879,flav 11/D5 LvJ V V 1 FA CSIMI T CLERK OF THE BOARD l..[.aL� COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CENTER 4080 Lcmon Street— 15'Floor Anncx Riverside,California To: Lauri Aylainn From: Sandi Schlemmer, Sr. Board,Assistant Fax: 760-776-6417 Fax: 951-955-1071 Phone: 760.3460611 Phone: 951-955-9864 or 951-955-1069 City of Palm Desert Date: 8/13/2007 Subject: GPA 864, Zone Change 7535, EA 41426 Comments: I have a request that you want the minute order for the above referenced matter, on the Riverside County Board of Supervisors agenda for July 31, 2007, 15.4. Please note that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and/or Notice of Determination have been TENTATIVELY APPROVED and will not be processed and sent for posting until the final adoption of the zone change by ordinance and the general plan amendment by resolution. I have no way to determine when that will occur; additional processing by the Planning Department Project Manager and our County Counsel is required, and then the sµ t � submit to the Board for final adoption. P o Pil Jf-� D rfro-leA �Lot(J (010- Cr.� l � � �,�d FIZ-1f) foo"k � 5 And�� o"re l �� SUBMITTAL I u THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA J la lb FROM: TLMA - Planning Department SUBMITTAL DATE: July 17, 2007 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 / CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 -- MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION — Applicant: Lamar Advertising — Engineer / Representative: Thomas Flanagan - Fourth Supervisorial District — Thousand Palms Zoning District — Western Coachella Valley Area Plan: No Landuse Designation — Location: Southerly of Interstate 10, westerly of Portola Avenue, northerly of Dinah Shore Drive, and easterly of Monterey Avenue in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan — 19.84 Gross Acres - Zoning: Rural Residential (R-R) - REQUEST: The General Plan Amendment proposes to designate the site as Community Development. Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) and to modify and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing iC1billboards to a new location as long as the number of billboards is not increased. The Change of Zone proposes to alter the site's current zoning classification from Rural Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing —Service Commercial (M-SC). 0 RECOMMENDED MOTION: �m The Planning Department recommended Approval; and, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED: � W j o ADOPTION of a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT NO. 41426, based on the findings incorporated in the initial study and the conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; TENTATIVE APPROVAL of GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 amending the land use designation in the General Plan to designate the site as Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0-6 floor area ratio) in accordance with Exhibit 6 and to modify and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing to a new location as long as the total number of billboards is creas ; Ron-Goldman Planning Director RG:vc Q. MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS On motion of Supervisor Tavaglione, seconded by Supervisor Ashley and duly y carried,IT WAS ORDERED that the above matter is tentatively approved as recommended, and that staff is directed to prepare the necessary documents for final action. O � Ayes: Tavaglione, Wilson and Ashley Nays: Buster and Stone Nancy Romero Absent: None. ,, f o C er f e oard s o ;• � in Date: July 1, (?07 a w xc: Planning,Applicapt;Co.Co_ Deputy o IL Prev. Agn. Ref. District: Agenda Number: 'orm l 1p (Rev 03/02Jo7) Y:1J-1ann1n0 Case pllea-ANerslge orICe10PA00664%11A doC 15 a 4 vvr ivr -vv. --- atui Vital ll V1 111G LVCIlY ,VVV The Honorable Board o-, ,,jpervisors RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864/CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 July 17, 2007 Page 2 of 2 TENTATIVE APPROVAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 from Rural Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC) in accordance with Exhibit 3, based upon final adoption by the Board of Supervisors; and, ADOPTION of a RESOLUTION recommending adoption of the General Plan Amendment No- 864 to the Board of Supervisors. STATEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ALL MEMBERS PRESENT JULY 31, 2007 TUESDAY 9:00 A.M. Invocation by Gloria Peri-Smith, Board Assistant, Clerk of the Board Office Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag Presentation to Ron Komers of Awards that were presented to the Riverside County by NACO (National Association of Counties) for the Return to Work Program, Injury Intervention Therapy Program, Talent Management Through County Culture Change, and the Medical Assignment Program. Presentation of Proclamation Declaring August 18, 2007 as Riverside County's Homeless Animals Awareness Day, to Robert Miller, Director, Betsey Webster, Deputy Director and Renee Poselski, Humane Education Chief Presentation of Proclamation Declaring September 2007 as Substance Abuse "Recovery Happens Month" to Karen Kane and Jerry Wengerd on behalf of the Department of Mental Health OPENING COMMENTS: BOARD MEMBERS Supervisor Tavaglione introduced Bob Grey, Acting Chancellor at University of California at Riverside. Supervisor Stone praised Fire Chief John Hopkins and the department for their efforts regarding the Menifee and Sun City fire. EXECUTIVE OFFICER 1 .1 CLERK OF THE BOARD: Proof of Publications. (APPROVED) 1 .2 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/PLANNING: TENTATIVE INDUSTRIAL PARCEL MAP 35408 — MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION — MMR and Associates / W&W Design Developments Inc. — Lower Coachella Valley Zoning District — Eastern Coachella Valley Area Plan — 4th District, M-SC Zoning, Schedule E. TIPM 35408 to subdivide 20 gross acres into 14 industrial parcels, with parcels ranging in size from 1 .2 to 2.2 acres, approved by the Planning Commission. (RECEIVED AND FILED) 1 .3 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/PLANNING: PUBLIC USE PERMIT NO. 705 — REVISED PERMIT NO. 4 — CEQA EXEMPT — Bonney Architects/Engineering Resources— Sun City Zoning Area — Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan — 3rd District, 5.41 gross acres, R-1 zoning. PUP 705 R4 to provide two new, one-story preschool buildings on the existing Good Shepherd Lutheran Church, approved by the Planning Commission. (RECEIVED AND FILED) 1 .4 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/PLANNING: SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 246, SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. 1/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33976 — NO NEW ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION REQUIRED — Lang-Sequoia Partners/RBF Consulting Inc.. — Nuevo Zoning Area — Lakeview/Nuevo Area Plan — 5th District, SP246A1 Zoning, Schedule A. The Specific Plan Substantial conformance proposes to increase the number of units permitted in Planning Areas 9 from 103 to 100, and in Planning Area 12 increase the units count from 92 to 98, and TTM 33976 proposes to subdivide 63.4 acres into 15 residential lots, with a minimum lot size of 1 acre for condominium purposes, construction of 208 residential dwelling units, 8 open space lots, one 12.27 acre school site, two lots for water quality basins, and 2 additional lots for future residential development totaling 16.94 acres, approved by the Planning Commission. (RECEIVED AND FILED) 1.5 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/PLANNING: SURFACE MINING PERMIT NO. 193, REVISED NO. 1 — MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION - EA 40796 — Coachella Valley Aggregates/Tom Davis Justice & Associates — Lower Bernardo Canyon Zoning District — Western Coachella Valley Area Plan - 4th District, 512 gross acres, W-1 zoning. Surface Mining Permit 193 R1 to revise existing permit to add an additional 256 acres to the existing mining operation and extend operation for an additional 19 years until 2056 with operations being processed in 4 phases, approved by the Planning Commission. (RECEIVED AND FILED) 2.1 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Appointment to the Riverside County Mental Health Board. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.2 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Appointment to the Riverside County Mental Health Board. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.3 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Appointment to the Advisory Committee on Substance Abuse Committee. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.4 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Appointment to the Solid Waste Management Advisory Council. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.5 SUPERVISOR TAVAGLIONE: Appointment to the Workforce Development Board. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.6 SUPERVISOR TAVAGLIONE: Appointment to the Workforce Development Board. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.7 SUPERVISOR TAVAGLIONE: Appointment to the Assessment Appeals Board 1 & 2 (Alternate). (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.8 SUPERVISOR TAVAGLIONE: Reappointment to the Advisory Committee on Substance Abuse. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.9 SUPERVISOR TAVAGLIONE: Reappointment to the Children & Families Advisory Committee. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.10 SUPERVISOR STONE: Renewal of the Revised Local Emergency Declaration for Riverside County due to the epidemic infestation of bark beetles in the Mountain Communities of Idyllwild and Pine Cove. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.11 AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER: Renewal of the Local Emergency Declaration for Riverside County due to the Spread of Pierce's Disease in the Local Vineyards. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.12 AGRICULTURAL COMMISSIONER: Renewal of the Local Emergency Declaration in Riverside County due to extreme drought conditions. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.13 AUDITOR-CONTROLLER: Internal Auditor's Report 2007-302 - Department of Public Social Services. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.14 AUDITOR-CONTROLLER: Internal Auditor's Report 2007-304- Riverside County Regional Medical Center Nursing Registry Fees Follow-Up Audit. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.15 COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY/ANIMAL SERVICES: Proclaim August 18, 2007 as Riverside County's Homeless Animals Awareness Day. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.16 COUNTY COUNSEL: (R) ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE No. 348.4518, an Ordinance of the County of Riverside Amending Ordinance No. 348 relating to Zoning (amending the zoning in the Lower Coachella Valley District, 4th District, ZC 5514). (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.17 COUNTY COUNSEL: (R) ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE No. 348.4520, an Ordinance of the County of Riverside Amending Ordinance No. 348 relating to Zoning (amending the zoning in the Rancho California Area, 3 d District, ZC 7401). (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.18 COUNTY COUNSEL/CODE ENFORCEMENT: Approval of Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order to Abate on Public Nuisance Case No. CV 06-1689, located at 8355 Weirick Road, Corona, 2nd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.19 COUNTY COUNSEL/CODE ENFORCEMENT: Approval of Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order to Abate on Public Nuisance Case No. CV 05-4184, located on Vacant Parcel at S/E Centaur Road and Helios Road, Riverside, 1st District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.20 MENTAL HEALTH: Proclaim September 2007 as Substance Abuse "Recovery Happens Month." (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.21 PARKS: Riverside County Trails Committee Annual Report 2006. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.22 PARKS: Riverside County Historical Commission Annual Report 2006. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.23 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Adoption of Resolution 2007-034, Notice of Intention to Change the Name of a portion of Newport Road to Normandy Road, in the Menifee area, 3rd District. (SET FOR HRG. 9/4/07 @ 9:30 A.M.) 2.24 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Adoption of Resolution 2007-180, Notice of Intention to Vacate a portion of Oasis Trail, in the Palm Desert area (AB 03011), 4th District. (SET FOR HRG. 9/4/07 @ 9:30 A.M.) 2.25 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Adoption of Resolution 2007-226, Notice of Intention to Change the Names of portions of Center Street to Old Highgrove Road and Spring Street to Blue Mountain Drive in the Highgrove area, 5th District. (SET FOR HRG. 9/4/07 @ 9:30 A.M.) 2.26 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Adoption of Resolution 2007-263, Notice of Intention to Vacate Little Lake Road, in the Hemet area (AB 04003), 3rd District. (SET FOR HRG. 9/4/07 @ 9:30 A.M.) 2.27 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Adoption of Resolution 2007-290, Summarily Vacation of a portion of Briggs Road and Loretta Avenue, in the Menifee area (AB 07006), 3rd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.28 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 23626 — Menifee area — 3rd District, Schedule A. Approval of One Year Guarantee and Maintenance Agreements. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.29 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 23626-1 — Menifee area — 3rd District, Schedule A. Approval of One Year Guarantee and Maintenance Agreements. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.30 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 23627 — Murrieta area — 3rd District, Schedule A. Approval of One Year Guarantee and Maintenance Agreements. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.31 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 23627-1 — Murrieta area — 3rd District, Schedule A. Approval of One Year Guarantee and Maintenance Agreements. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.32 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 23628 — Murrieta area — 3rd District, Schedule A. Approval of One Year Guarantee and Maintenance Agreements. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.33 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION- TRACT MAP 27887 — Woodcrest area - 1 st District, Schedule B. Approval of Agreements, Bonds and Final Map. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.34 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 28815 — Lake Mathews area — 1 st District, Schedule A. Approval of Agreements and Bonds for Extension of Time. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.35 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 28821-2 — Eastvale area — 2nd District, Schedule A. Approval of Agreements and Bonds for Extension of Time. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.36 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 29093 (Interior Streets) — Mira Loma area — 2nd District, Schedule A. Approval of Agreements and Bonds for Extension of Time. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.37 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION- TRACT MAP 29148 — Eastvale area — 2nd District, Schedule A. Approval of Agreements and Bonds for Extension of Time. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.38 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 29320-2 — Temescal area — 1 st District, Schedule A. Approval of Agreements and Bonds for Extension of Time. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.39 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 29335-1 (and MS 3963) — Glen Ivy area — 1 st District, Schedule A. Approval of Agreements and Bonds for Extension of Time. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.40 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 30069-2 (and MS 3996) — French Valley area — 3rd District, Schedule A. Approval of Agreements, Bonds and Final Map. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.41 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION- TRACT MAP 30664 — Murrieta area — 3rd District, Schedule B. Approval of Agreements, Bonds and Final Map. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.42 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 30905 — Eastvale area — 2nd District, Schedule A. Approval of Agreements and Bonds for Extension of Time. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.43 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 30931 — Eastvale area — 2nd District, Schedule A. Approval of Agreements, Bonds and Final Map. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.44 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 30931-1 — Eastvale area — 2nd District, Schedule A. Approval of Agreements, Bonds and Final Map. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.45 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: TRACT MAP 32458 — Hemet area — 3rd District, Schedule A. Approval of Agreements, Bonds and Final Map. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.46 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Plot Plan 19763 — Mira Loma area — 2nd District. Approval of Subdivision Improvement Agreements. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.47 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Treasurer's Monthly Disclosure Report on Investments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.48 SUPERVISOR STONE: Reappointment to the Temecula Public Cemetery District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.49 SUPERVISOR STONE: Reappointment to the Temecula Public Cemetery District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.50 SUPERVISOR STONE: Reappointment to the Temecula Public Cemetery District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.51 SUPERVISOR STONE: Reappointment to the Temecula Public Cemetery District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.52 SUPERVISOR STONE: Reappointment to the Historical Commission. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.53 SUPERVISOR WILSON- Reappointment to the Advisory Council on Aging. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.54 SUPERVISOR WILSON- Reappointment to the CAC Wall of Honor Committee. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.55 SUPERVISOR WILSON- Reappointment to the Thousand Palms Community Council. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.56 SUPERVISOR WILSON- Reappointment to the Regional Access Project. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.57 SUPERVISOR WILSON- Reappointment to the Regional Access Project. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.58 SUPERVISOR WILSON- Reappointment to the Regional Access Project. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.59 SUPERVISOR WILSON- Reappointment to the County Service Area 51 (Lake Tamarisk — Desert Center) Advisory Council. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.60 SUPERVISOR WILSON- Reappointment to the County Service Area 51 (Lake Tamarisk — Desert Center) Advisory Council. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.61 SUPERVISOR WILSON- Reappointment to the County Service Area 51 (Lake Tamarisk — Desert Center) Advisory Council. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.62 SUPERVISOR WILSON- Reappointment to the County Service Area 51 (Lake Tamarisk — Desert Center) Advisory Council. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 2.63 SUPERVISOR WILSON- Reappointment to the County Service Area 51 (Lake Tamarisk — Desert Center) Advisory Council. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.1 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY and SUPERVISOR WILSON- Coachella Valley Multi- Species Habitat Conservation Plan: Approval of Agreements with O'Reilly Public Relations and Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.2 SUPERVISOR BUSTER and SUPERVISOR STONE: Allocation of Funds to Incorporating Cities in the Areas of Wildomar and Menifee based on a Net Savings Calculations, and Approval of Amendments to Board Policy A-46. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.3 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY- INTRODUCTION AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 871, an Ordinance of the County of Riverside, as an Urgency Measure Prohibiting the Installation of Specified Septic Tank Systems in Cherry Valley. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.4 SUPERVISOR TAVAGLIONE: Second District Use of Community Improvement Designation Funds for the Riverside Community Flower Show, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.5 SUPERVISOR TAVAGLIONE: Second District Use of Community Improvement Designation Funds for the Jurupa Community Services District, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.6 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Fifth District Use of Community Improvement Designation Funds for the Western Coachella Valley Police Activities League, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.7 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Fifth District Use of Community Improvement Designation Funds for the Nuview Youth Sports Organization, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.8 SUPERVISOR STONE: Third District Use of Community Improvement Designation Funds for the Idyllwild Arts Foundation, Friends of Valley-Wide Foundation, and Mt. San Jacinto National Alliance on Mental Illness, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.9 SUPERVISOR STONE: Third District Use of Community Improvement Designation Funds for the City of San Jacinto, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.10 SUPERVISOR STONE: Third District Use of Community Improvement Designation Funds for the EDA — Summer Recreation Program in Menifee Valley, and EDA — Kid Zone Activities for French Valley, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.11 SUPERVISOR STONE: Third District Use of Community Improvement Designation Funds for the Idyllwild Community Recreation Council, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.12 THIRD DISTRICT Use of Community Improvement Designation Funds for the Temecula Senior Center & Food Bank, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.13 EXECUTIVE OFFICE: Recommendations from Committee to Deter the Thefts of Aluminum, Brass and Copper. (CONT'D. TO 9/18/07 @ 9:00 A.M.) 3.14 EXECUTIVE OFFICE: Approval of Rate Structure and the Indigent Defense Contracts for Extraordinary Death Penalty Cases. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.15 EXECUTIVE OFFICE: Approval of a Fiscal Year 06/07 Budget Adjustment for the Habitat Fund. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.16 EXECUTIVE OFFICE: Authorization of Judicial Foreclosure Action — Assessment Districts - Adoption of the following Resolutions: a. Resolution No. 2007-345 Authorizing Foreclosure Action for Reassessment Dist. No. 161 R (Winchester Properties), 3rd District. b. Resolution No. 2007-346 Authorizing Foreclosure Action for Assessment Dist. No. 167 (North Palm Springs), 5th District. c. Resolution No. 2007-347 Authorizing Foreclosure Action for Reassessment Dist. No. 168 (Rivercrest), 3rd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.17 EXECUTIVE OFFICE and FIRE DEPARTMENT: Approval of Reprogramming of Development Impact Fee (DIF) Allocation for the Lake Riverside, Cabazon, and Sun City Fire Stations and Revisions to the DIF Public Facilities Needs List, 3rd & 5th Districts. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.18 COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY/ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 769.2, an Ordinance of the County of Riverside Amending Ordinance No. 769 Establishing Parcel Fees on Land located in the Idyllwild and Anza/Pinyon Areas to provide for the Collection of Solid Waste Generated from Residential Use of such Parcels (Annual Rate Adjustment to Waste Collection Agreements for Franchise Area 8). (SET FOR HRG. 8/28/07 @ 9:30 A.M.) 3.19 COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY/ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: Schedule for Public Hearing the Annual Rate Adjustment for Franchise Area 2 of the Waste Collection Agreements for Riverside County. (SET FOR HRG. 9/18/07 @ 1:30 P.M.) 3.20 COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY/ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: Approval of Leasing one Vehicle. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.21 COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY/PUBLIC HEALTH: Approval of Agreement with the State Office of Traffic Safety and County Department of Public Health — Injury Prevention Services, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.22 COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY/PUBLIC HEALTH: Ratify the Amendment #1 to the Agreement with the State Department of Health Services and Community Health Agency, Department of Public Health for Women, Infants and Children Supplemental Nutrition Program (05-45785 A01). (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.23 COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY/PUBLIC HEALTH: Approval In-Principle to seek leased space in the City of Riverside for the Department of Public Health, 1st District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.24 COUNTY LIBRARY: Ratify the Joint Use Agreement with Perris Union High School for the Operation of a Joint Use Library Heritage High School, 5th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.25 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Agreement with the Redevelopment Agency for the County of Riverside, and Findings for the Mead Valley Road Improvement Project — Phase 1 , 1" District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.26 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Second Amendment to Grant Agreement for El Solano Apartments in the City of Blythe, 4th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.27 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Findings for the Thermal Fire Station, 4th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.28 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Findings for the Heritage High School Scoreboard and Marquee Project, 5th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.29 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Ground Lease Agreement / In-N-Out Burger, a California Corporation and the County of Riverside / APNs 329-020-020, -003 and -004, 5th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.30 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Joint Community Facilities Agreement by and among County of Riverside acting by and through Riverside County Service Area No. 152-C, City of Riverside, Riverside Unified School District, and ERP Holding Co., Inc., a Delaware Corporation, 5th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.31 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of First Amendment to Loan Agreement with UHC Indio L.P., for Horizons at Indio Senior Apartments in the City of Indio, 4th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.32 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Acceptance of Notice of Completion on Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport Taxiway G Project, 4th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.33 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Consent to Assignment and Assignment of Lease, French Valley Airport, 3rd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.34 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Memorandum of Lease, Recognition Agreement and Ground Lease Estoppel Certificate — French Valley Airport, 3rd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.35 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Surrender of Leasehold Agreement — Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport, 4th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.36 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Sublease, and Ratify the Subordination, Non-Disturbance and Attornment Agreement, Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport, 4th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.37 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of First Amendment to the Agreement for Engineering Services between the County and Nolte Associates, Inc. for the Mesa Verde Water Distribution Project, 4th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.38 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Adoption of Resolution 2007-329, Notice of Intention to Adopt a Resolution of Necessity regarding the El Cerrito Sports Park Project, 2nd District. (SET FOR HRG. 9/4/07 @ 9:30 A.M.) 3.39 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY and TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Agreement by and between the Redevelopment Agency for the County of Riverside and the Riverside County Transportation Department for the Sherman Road Signalization Project and Romoland Beautification Project, 5th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.40 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Approval for Transition of Custodial and Housekeeping Staff to 40 Hour Work Week Schedule. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.41 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Approval of Fourth Amendment to Lease, Office on Aging, Palm Desert, 4th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.42 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Approval of First Amendment to Lease, Public Defender, Riverside, and Budget Adjustment, 1 st District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.43 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Approval of Third Amendment to Lease, Community Health Agency, Hemet, 3rd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.44 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Adoption of Resolution 2007-036, Notice of Intention to Purchase Real Property — 57.02 acres of vacant land (APN's 327- 190-005, 006, 007, 009, 010, 011 , 012, 014, 015, 017 and 019 and all but a 1.18-acre portion of 327-190-020), and Adoption of Resolution 2007-350, Notice of Intention to Reimburse, 5th District. (SET FOR 9/18/07 @ 9:00 A.M.) 3.45 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Adoption of Resolution 2007-380, Notice of Authorization to Purchase Real Property in the City of Desert Hot Springs (APN 656-040-039); Adoption of the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring Plan; and Adoption of Resolution 2007-384, Notice of Intention to Reimburse, 5th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.46 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Approval of Lease Agreement — Department of Public Social Services, Cathedral City, and Budget Adjustments, 4th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.47 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Approval of Lease Agreement — Code Enforcement, Thousand Palms, and Budget Adjustments, 4th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.48 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Riverside County Regional Medical Center Infusion Center— Approval of Total Project Budget, Agreement with Capstone Construction Company, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.49 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Riverside County Regional Medical Center Window Washer Anchor Points and Working Platform Project — Approval of Total Project Budget, Agreement with Dalke & Sons Construction, Inc., and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.50 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Riverside County Regional Medical Center CIP Extension - Approval of Total Project Budget, Agreement with Lee, Burkhart, Liu, Inc., and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.51 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Approval of Pre-Qualified Consultant List for As- Needed Services. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.52 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Approval of Pre-Qualified List for As-Needed Environmental Consulting Services. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.53 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Approval of Plans and Specifications for the Underground Storage Tank System Removal at Riverside County Historic Courthouse and Hall of Justice, 2nd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.54 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Approval of Plans and Specifications for the Larry D. Smith Correctional Facility Expansion No. 3, 5th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.55 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Approval of Plans and Specifications for the Perris Sheriff's Complex and Family Care Clinic Fueling Facility and Car Wash, 5th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.56 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Perris Sheriff's Complex and Family Care Clinic — Approval of Change Order No. 15 with ASR Constructors, 5th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.57 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT: Perris Sheriff's Complex and Family Care Clinic — Acceptance of Notice of Completion for Arizona Pipeline, 5th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.58 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT and MENTAL HEALTH: Mental Health Homeless Safe Haven — Award of Construction Contract to HCH Constructors, Approval of Total Project Budget and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.59 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT and RIVERSIDE COUNTY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: Approval of First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Michael Brandman Associates. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.60 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT and RIVERSIDE COUNTY PARKS AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT: Acceptance of Notice of Completion on Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District Headquarters Annex Audio Visual System, 2nd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.61 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT and RIVERSIDE COUNTY PARKS AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT: Adoption of Resolution 2007-267, Authorization to Convey Real Property Interests to Valley-Wide Recreation & Park District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.62 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT and TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Acquisition Agreement for the Clinton Keith Road Extension Project, 3rd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.63 FIRE: Approval of a Sole Source Purchase for a Four Story Expandable Drill Tower. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.64 FIRE: Approval of a Sole Source Purchase for a Three Story Training and Hose Tower. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.65 HUMAN RESOURCES: Action on Advisory Arbitration Opinions as required by the Memoranda of Understanding between the County of Riverside and SEIU, Local 1997; LIUNA, Local 777; and RSA. (ACCEPTED DECISION #3 & CONT'D. OTHER 2 CASES TO 8/28/07 @ 9.00 A.M.) 3.66 HUMAN RESOURCES: Approval of Exclusive Care — EPO Medical Contractor Agreement with Eric M. Custode, D.C. dba Raincross Chiropractic and Wellness Center. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.67 HUMAN RESOURCES: Approval of Exclusive Care — EPO Medical Contractor Agreement with Ed Kim, Inc., dba Kim Physical Therapy. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.68 HUMAN RESOURCES: Approval of Defense Panel Contracts for Labor and Employment Related Matters. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.69 MENTAL HEALTH: Ratify Fiscal Year 2007-08 Mental Health Contracts with Trilogy Integrated Resources and Volunteer Center of Riverside County. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.70 MENTAL HEALTH: Ratify Fiscal Year 2007-08 Mental Health Agreement with the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.71 MENTAL HEALTH: Ratify Fiscal Year 2007-08 Contracts between the Departmental of Mental Health and Victor Community Support Services, Inc. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.72 MENTAL HEALTH: Ratify Fiscal Year 2007-08 Mental Health Agreements. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.73 MENTAL HEALTH: Ratify Fiscal Year 2007-08 Out-of-State Mental Health Agreements. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.74 MENTAL HEALTH: Ratify the Second Amendment to the Fiscal Year 2006-07 Negotiated Net Amount Drug Medi-Cal Agreement with the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs and Adoption of Resolution 2007-383. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.75 MENTAL HEALTH: Ratify Fiscal Year 2007-08 Contract with Jefferson Transitional Programs to Operate a Safe Haven & Supportive Housing Program. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.76 PARKS: Allocation of Development Impact Fee Funds to the Riverside County Parks Department for Trails Expansion, 1 St 2nd & 3rd Districts. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.77 PROBATION: ® ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 403.4, an Ordinance of the County of Riverside Amending Ordinance No. 403 relating to Juvenile Institutions and Schools at Juvenile Institutions. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.78 PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES: Approval of Agreement with Jewish Family Services of San Diego for Nightengale Manor Homeless Emergency Shelter Services, 4th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.79 PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES: Approval of Contract Agreement (CS3497-00) with Olive Crest Treatment Centers, Inc. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.80 PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES: Approval of Amendment #1 to Agreement (06- SA014) with the California Department of Corporations — Adoption of Resolution 2007-352. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.81 PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES: Approval In-Principle for various sites for the Department of Public Social Services. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.82 PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES/COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Approval of Agreement (07C-1678) with the State Department of Community Services and Development for the 2007 Department of Energy Weatherization Assistance Program, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.83 PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES/COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Approval of Agreement (07F-4848) with the State Department of Community Services and Development for the 2007 Summer Energy Crisis Response Plan, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.84 PUBLIC SOCIAL SERVICES/COMMUNITY ACTION PARTNERSHIP OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY: Approval of Agreement (CAP 07-015) with YMCA of Riverside City and County for Project L.E.A.D. (Linking Education, Advocacy and Development). (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.85 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: Approval of the Consultant Agreement with Western Tele-Communications Consulting, Inc. for the Development of an Enterprise Communication Strategic Plan, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.86 RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Ratify the Amendment to Agreement between the Genzyme, Inc. and the Riverside County Regional Medical Center. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.87 RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Approval of the Fifth Amendment to Agreement between the County and the California Emergency Physicians Medical Group. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.88 RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Ratify the Agreement between the County and Perrisofian Putrasahan, DDS. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.89 RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Ratify the Professional Medical Services Agreement between the County and Swift's Critical Care Network for Children Medical Group, Inc. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.90 RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Ratify the Agreement between the County and Town and Country Dental, Inc. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.91 RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Termination of the Professional Medical Services Agreement between the County and Neonatology Medical Group, Inc. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.92 RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Approval to reassign the Agreement between the County and Healthcare Purchasing Partners International to University HealthSystem Consortium. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.93 RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Notice of Proposed Purchase of two sets of Surgical Power Equipment from Stryker, without seeking competitive bids. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.94 RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Notice of Proposed Purchase of Anesthesia Monitors, without seeking competitive bids. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.95 RIVERSIDE COUNTY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER: Ratify the Ninth Amendment to the Professional Medical Services Agreement between the County of Riverside and Riverside Regional Pediatric Medical Group, Inc. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.96 SHERIFF-CORONER-PA: Approval of Budget Adjustments to purchase furniture and make Handicapped Accessibility Office Modifications for the Sheriff's Information Services Bureau, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.97 SHERIFF-CORONER-PA: Approval of the Establishment of a Fee for Tissue Harvesting. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.98 SHERIFF-CORONER-PA: Approval of an Agreement with Universal Health Services of Rancho Springs, Inc., DBA Southwest Healthcare System for Sexual Assault Forensic Examinations. (DELETED) 3.99 SHERIFF-CORONER-PA: Approval of an Agreement with the Department of Corrections / California Rehabilitation Center for California Law Enforcement Telecommuncations System Services. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.100 SHERIFF-CORONER-PA: Approval of Sole Source Awards for Coroner Service Contracts. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.101 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/CODE ENFORCEMENT: Approval In-Principle for the Department of Facilities Management, Real Estate Division, to locate suitable office space for the Code Enforcement Department in the Fifth Supervisorial District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.102 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Adoption of Resolution 2007-306 — First Cycle of General Plan Amendments (Circulation Element) for 2007 (GPA 729 — Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan — 3rd District). (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.103 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the On-Call Engineering Services Agreement with HDR Engineering, Inc. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.104 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the On-Call Engineering Services Agreement with Iteris, Inc. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.105 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION- Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the On-Call Engineering Services Agreement with Albert A. Webb Associates. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.106 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION.- Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the On-Call Engineering Services Agreement with Kimley-Horn Associates. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.107 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Plans and Specifications for the Construction of Widening Improvements to Install Four Through Traffic Lanes on Winchester Road, Thompson Road to Whisper Heights Parkway (segments), French Valley area, 3rd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.108 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Plans and Specifications for the Construction of Traffic Signal and Lighting, Clinton Keith Road at Grand Avenue, and Modification of Traffic Signal and Lighting, Central Avenue and Palomar Street, Murrieta area, 1st & 3rd Districts. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.109 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Plans and Specifications for the Construction of Median Island Hard-scape Using River Rock on Limonite Avenue, from Baldwin Avenue to 510 feet east of Clay Street, Indian Hills area, 2r,d District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.110 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Plans and Specifications for the Construction of Miles Avenue Bridge over the Whitewater River, Indio, 4t" District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.111 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Award of Contract to R.J. Noble Company for the Reconstruction of Cajalco Road, from 1 ,014 feet west of La Sierra Avenue to 519 feet east of Kirkpatrick Road, and Metal Beam Guard Rail Installation at three locations on Cajalco Road, Lake Mathews area, 1st District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.112 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Award of Contract to R.J. Noble Company for the Resurfacing of Van Buren Boulevard, Washington Street to Wood Road and Rehabilitation of Washington Street, Van Buren Boulevard to Tava Lane, Woodcrest, area, 1st District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.113 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION- Award of Contract to Bond Blacktop, Inc. for the Application of Slurry Seal and Cape Seal to Roadways, various locations, and Fog Seal Application on Palm Drive, from Interstate 10 to Camino Campanero, Desert Hot Springs area. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.114 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION- Award of Contract to Skanska USA Civil West California District, Inc., for the Construction of: 1) Old Morongo Road, Painted Hills Road to 0.4 mile northerly, Desert Hot Springs area; 2) 53rd Avenue, Calhoun Street to Van Buren Street, Coachella Valley area; 3) 54th Avenue, Pierce Street to All American Canal, Coachella Valley area; 4) Signal Modifications, Roadway Widening and the Installation of Left Turn Lanes at Dillon Road and Mountain View Road, Desert Hot Springs area; and, 5) Roadway Widening and the Installation of Left Turn Lanes at Dillon Road and Little Morongo Road, Desert Hot Springs, 4th & 5th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.115 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Award of Contract to Sully-Miller Contracting Company for the Construction of Roadway Widening and Storm Drain Improvements, Valley Way and Armstrong Road, from State Highway 60 to Sierra Avenue, Sunnyslope / West Riverside area, 2nd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.116 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Project Agreement for the Southwest Road and Bridge Benefit District with Barratt American Inc., a Delaware Corporation, 3rd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.117 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION- Acceptance of Notice of Completion on Storm Damage Repair, Reconstruction of Segments of Tenaja Road and Clinton Keith Road in the Santa Rosa Plateau, Murrieta area, 1 st District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.118 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Increase in Appropriation for Developer Agreement — Developer Impact Fees — El Sobrante Road. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.119 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Increase in Appropriation for Developer Agreement — Developer Impact Fees — La Sierra Road and Scott Road Projects. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.120 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Funding Agreement between the County and the Regional Conservation Authority, and Conservation Easement for the Regional Conservation Authority for the Cantu-Galleano Ranch Road / 1-15 Mitigation Land, 2nd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.121 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Approval of a Personal Service Agreement for Landscape Maintenance Services for the Transportation Department. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.122 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION.- Approval of Engineering Services Agreement with Iteris, Inc. for Traffic Model Development. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.123 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Cooperative Agreement between the County, Flood Control District, and Gallery Ranch Partners for the Woodcrest — Via Los Caballeros Storm Drain Project, 1 St District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.124 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Cooperative Agreement between the County and Flood Control District for the Jurupa Channel, Stage 4 Project, 2nd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.125 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Cooperative Agreement between the County and Flood Control District for the Hemet Master Drainage Plan Line D, Stage 5 Project, 3rd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.126 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Approval of Cooperative Agreement between the County, the Flood Control District, Acacia Credit Fund 10-A, L.L.C., and KB Home Greater Los Angeles, Inc., for the Horsethief— Calendula Avenue Storm Drain, Stage 2 Project, 1st District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.127 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION.- Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance District No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Zone 78 — Adoption of Resolution 2007-366 Confirming the Diagram and Assessment and Levying Assessments, 2nd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.128 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance District No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Zone 86 — Adoption of Resolution 2007-370 Confirming the Diagram and Assessment and Levying Assessments, 3rd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.129 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION.- Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance District No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Zone 74 — Adoption of Resolution 2007-365 Confirming the Diagram and Assessment and Levying Assessments, 1st District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.130 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance District No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Zone 81— Adoption of Resolution 2007-367 Confirming the Diagram and Assessment and Levying Assessments, 3 d District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.131 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION- Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance District No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Zone 83 — Adoption of Resolution 2007-368 Confirming the Diagram and Assessment and Levying Assessments, 4th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.132 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION- Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance District No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Zone 84 — Adoption of Resolution 2007-369 Confirming the Diagram and Assessment and Levying Assessments, 1st District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.133 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance District No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Zone 87 — Adoption of Resolution 2007-371 Confirming the Diagram and Assessment and Levying Assessments, 4th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.134 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance District No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Zone 90 — Adoption of Resolution 2007-372 Confirming the Diagram and Assessment and Levying Assessments, 1st District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.135 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance District No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Zone 91 — Adoption of Resolution 2007-373 Confirming the Diagram and Assessment and Levying Assessments, 3rd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.136 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION- Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance District No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Zone 92 — Adoption of Resolution 2007-374 Confirming the Diagram and Assessment and Levying Assessments, 4th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.137 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION- Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance District No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Street Lighting Zone 75 — Adoption of Resolution 2007-375 Confirming the Diagram and Assessment and Levying Assessments, 1st District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.138 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance District No. 89-1 — Consolidated, Annexation of Street Lighting Zone 76 — Adoption of Resolution 2007-376 Confirming the Diagram and Assessment and Levying Assessments, 2nd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.139 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Rescission of Tax Deed to Purchaser of Tax-Defaulted Property for Tax Sale No. TC167, Item 522, Sale Date March 17, 2003, 1st District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.140 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE 868, an Ordinance of the County of Riverside Electing to Receive Pari-mutuel Wagering Distribution in Lieu of Taxes or Fees. (APPROVED AS RECOMM. W/CORRECTION TO ORDINANCE) 3.141 EXECUTIVE OFFICE: Adoption of Resolution 2007-387 — Certificates of Participation, Series 2007A and 2007B. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.142 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Adoption of Resolution 2007-381 — Perris Elementary School District, General Obligation Bonds, 2006 Election, Series 2007. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.143 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Adoption of Resolution 2007-382 — San Jacinto Unified School District, General Obligation Bonds, 2006 Election, Series 2007. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.144 SUPERVISOR BUSTER: Legislative Change to the Brown Act Requiring Meeting Notification via the Internet. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.145 SUPERVISOR BUSTER: First District Use of Community Improvement Designation Funds for the California Inland Empire Council — Boy Scouts of America Rivervalley District, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.146 SUPERVISOR STONE: Third District Use of Community Improvement Designation Funds for the Canine Support Teams, Inc., and Community Outreach Ministry, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.147 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Fifth District Use of Community Improvement Designation Funds for the Moreno Valley Elks #2697, Moreno Valley Military Affairs Committee, Court Appointed Special Advocates, Operation SafeHouse, and Banning Playhouse Bowl Association, Inc., and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.148 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Fifth District Use of Community Improvement Designation Funds for the Edward-Dean Museum & Gardens, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.149 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Sole Source Agreement with RHA Landscape Architects Planners, Inc. for the Edward-Dean Museum & Gardens — Legacy Rose Garden Project, 5th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.150 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Fifth District Use of Community Improvement Designation Funds for the Moreno Valley Rockets, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.151 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Adoption of Resolution 2007-393 Creating the West Desert Municipal Advisory Council. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.152 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Adoption of Resolution 2007-394 Creating the Romoland — Homeland Municipal Advisory Council. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.153 SUPERVISOR ASHLEY: Adoption of Resolution 2007-395 Creating the Good Meadow Municipal Advisory Council. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.154 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Adoption of Resolution 2007-392 — Tax and Revenue Anticipation Notes Palo Verde Community College District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 3.155 SUPERVISOR WILSON- Fire Hazard Closure Whitewater Canyon. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) i 3.156 SUPERVISOR BUSTER: First District Use of Community Improvement Designation Funds for the National Alliance for the Mentally III Annual Walk, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 4.1 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Award of Contract to 4-Con Engineering, Inc. for the Jurupa Parks Improvement Project, 2nd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 4.2 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Award of Contract to Mega Way Enterprises for the Limonite Underpass Beautification Project, 2nd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 4.3 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Agreement with the County of Riverside, and Findings for the Mead Valley Road Improvement Project — Phase 1 , 1 St District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 4.4 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Second Amendment to Agreement with Albert A. Webb Associates, and Agreement between the Transportation Department and the Redevelopment Agency for the Sherman Road Signalization Project and Romoland Beautification Project, 5th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 4.5 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Architectural Services Agreement with STK Architecture, Inc., and Findings for the Thermal Fire Station, 4th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 4.6 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Approval of Agreement by and between the Redevelopment Agency for the County of Riverside and the Perris Union High School District for the Heritage High School Scoreboards and Marquee in Romoland and Findings, 5th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 4.7 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Adoption of RDA Resolution No. 2007-017, Notice of Intention to Adopt a Resolution of Necessity regarding the West Riverside Veterinary Hospital Project, APN 181-062-011 , 2nd District. (SET FOR 9/4/07 @ 9:00 A.M.) 4.8 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Adoption of RDA Resolution No. 2007-034, Notice of Intent to Purchase Real Property in the North Hemet area, APNS 443- 050-002, -003, -004, -022, -023, -024, -027, -028, -029, and -031 , 3rd District. (SET FOR 9/4/07 @ 9:00 A.M.) 4.9 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Adoption of RDA Resolution No. 2007-030, Authorization to Purchase Real Property within the Rubidoux area, APNS 181- 052-012, 181-052-017 and 181-052-018, 2nd District. i (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 4.10 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Public Hearing on Mid-term Reviews of the Five-Year Redevelopment Implementation Plans for the following Project Areas: No. 1-1986; Jurupa Valley; Mid County; Desert Communities; and, Interstate-215 Corridor. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 8.1 EXECUTIVE OFFICE: Authorization of Judicial Foreclosure Action - Community Facilities Districts (CFD) — Adoption of the following Resolutions: a. Resolution No. CFD 2007-07 Authorizing Foreclosure Action on certain real property in CFD 87-1 (South "A" Street), 1st District. b. Resolution No. CFD 2007-08 Authorizing Foreclosure Action on certain real property in CFD 87-5 (Wild Rose), 1 St District. c. Resolution No. CFD 2007-09 Authorizing Foreclosure Action on certain real property in CFD 88-4 (Winchester Ranch), 3rd District. d. Resolution No. CFD 2007-10 Authorizing Foreclosure Action on certain real property in CFD 88-8 ("A" Street North), 1 St District. e. Resolution No. CFD 2007-11 Authorizing Foreclosure Action on certain real property in CFD 03-1 (Newport Road), 3rd District. f. Resolution No. CFD 2007-12 Authorizing Foreclosure Action on certain real property in CFD 04-2 (Lakehills Crest), 1st District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 8.2 EXECUTIVE OFFICE: Enrollment of FY 2007-08 Special Tax Levies for County Community Facilities Districts (CFD) — Adoption of the following Resolutions: a. Resolution No. CFD 2007-13 Authorizing the Levy and Enrollment of a Special Tax in CFD 85-2 (California Oaks). b. Resolution No. CFD 2007-14 Authorizing the Levy and Enrollment of a Special Tax in CFD 86-1 (Menifee Village). C. Resolution No. CFD 2007-15 Authorizing the Levy and Enrollment of a Special Tax in CFD 87-1 (South 'A' Street). d. Resolution No. CFD 2007-16 Authorizing the Levy and Enrollment of a Special Tax in CFD 87-5 (Wild Rose). e. Resolution No. CFD 2007-17 Authorizing the Levy and Enrollment of a Special Tax in CFD 88-4 (Winchester Ranch). f. Resolution No. CFD 2007-18 Authorizing the Levy and Enrollment of a Special Tax in CFD 88-8 ('A' Street — North). g. Resolution No. CFD 2007-19 Authorizing the Levy and Enrollment of a Special Tax in CFD 89-1 (Mountain Cove). h. Resolution No. CFD 2007-20 Authorizing the Levy and Enrollment of a Special Tax in CFD 89-4. i. Resolution No. CFD 2007-21 Authorizing the Levy and Enrollment of a Special Tax in CFD 03-1 (Newport Road). j. Resolution No. CFD 2007-22 Authorizing the Levy and Enrollment of a Special Tax in CFD 04-2 (Lake Hills Crest). k. Resolution No. CFD 2007-23 Authorizing the Levy and Enrollment of a Special Tax in CFD 05-8 (Scott Road). I. Resolution No. CFD 2007-24 Authorizing the Levy and Enrollment of a Special Tax in CFD 07-2 (Clinton Keith). (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 9.1 AUDITOR-CONTROLLER: Public Hearing on ® ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 860.2, an Ordinance of the County of Riverside Amending Ordinance No. 860 related to Establishing a Schedule of Fees for the Issuance of Warrants and Services by the Auditor-Controller of the County of Riverside. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 9.2 COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY/ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: Public Hearing on the Special Assessments for Unpaid Trash Collection Fees — Adoption of Resolution 2007-289 Ordering the Confirmation of Special Assessments and Liens Against Parcels of Land for Unpaid and Delinquent Charges for Trash Collection Services. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 9.3 COUNTY COUNSEL/CODE ENFORCEMENT: Public Hearing on Statement of Expense on Public Nuisance Case No. CV 04-2766, located at 16214 Pansy Street, Perris, 1st District. (CONT'D. TO 9/18/07 @ 9:30 A.M.) 9.4 COUNTY COUNSEL/CODE ENFORCEMENT: Public Hearing on Abatement of Public Nuisance [Excess Outside Storage and Accumulation of Rubbish] on Case No. CV 05-4416, located at 21426 Austin Avenue, Perris, 1 st District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 9.5 COUNTY COUNSEL/CODE ENFORCEMENT: Public Hearing on Abatement of Public Nuisance [Substandard Structure and Accumulation of Rubbish] on Case No. CV 06-1143 and 07-1516, located at 64581 Dillon Road, North Palm Springs, 5th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 9.6 COUNTY COUNSEL/CODE ENFORCEMENT: Public Hearing on Abatement of Public Nuisance [Substandard Structure] on Case No. CV 06-7375, located at 33625 Mission Trail, Wildomar, 1st District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 9.7 COUNTY COUNSEL/CODE ENFORCEMENT: Public Hearing on Abatement of Public Nuisance [Substandard Structure] on Case No. CV 07-1153, located at 6980 N. Lovekin Blvd., Blythe, 4th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 9.8 COUNTY COUNSEL/CODE ENFORCEMENT: Public Hearing on Abatement of Public Nuisance [Excess Outside Storage and Accumulation of Rubbish] on Case No. CV 05-1828, located at 6980 N. Lovekin Blvd., Blythe, 4th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 9.9 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Public Hearing on Wildomar Landscape Maintenance District No. 2006-1 — Adoption of Resolution 2007-362 Confirming the Diagram and Assessment Levy for Fiscal Year 2007-08, 1 st District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 9.10 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Public Hearing on Adoption of Resolution 2007- 285 Establishing the County Service Areas Charges for Fiscal Year 2007-2008. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 9.11 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGENCY: Public Hearing on Loma Linda Healthcare Properties, LLC and Loma Linda University Medical Center - Adoption of Resolution 2007-379 Approving the Issuance of Revenue Bonds by the California Enterprise Development Authority, 3rd & 5" District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 9.12 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT and TRANSPORTATION: Further Public Hearing on Adoption of Resolution 2007-072, Authorization to Condemn Real Property for Road and Storm Drainage Purposes — Lennar Homes, 3rd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 9.13 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Public Hearing on Amendment No. 2 to the Southwest Area Road and Bridge Benefit District and Related Environmental Documents and Findings — Adoption of Resolution 2007-138, 1s' & 3" Districts. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) i 9.14 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Public Hearing on Landscaping & Lighting Maintenance District No. 89-1- Consolidated, Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 89-1- Consolidated, Zones 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 49, 51, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 73, and 77; and Street lighting Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, and 58 -Adoption of Resolution 2007-364 Confirming the Diagram and Assessments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 9.15 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Public Hearing on Underground Utility District No. 45, Stetson Avenue, Santa Fe Street to Dartmouth Street-Adoption of Resolution 2007-070 Establishing Underground Utility District No. 45, East Hemet area, 3Id District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 9.16 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Public Hearing on Distribution of Excess Proceeds for Tax Sale No. 170, Item 262, last assessed to Modern Home, Inc., 3rd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 9.17 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Public Hearing on Distribution of Excess Proceeds for Tax Sale No. 170, Item 354, last assessed to Ralph Hans Oeffinger, a married man, as his sole and separate property, 1st District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 9.18 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Public Hearing on Distribution of Excess Proceeds for Tax Sale No. 170, Item 446, last assessed to James F. Roach, a widower, as to an undivided 1/3 interest; and Willamine Frethiem, a widow, as to an undivided 1/3 interest; and Bradley R. Frethiem, a single man, as to an undivided 1/3 interest, 1st District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 9.19 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Public Hearing on Distribution of Excess Proceeds for Tax Sale No. 170, Item 872, last assessed to Steven Frederick as to an undivided one-half interest and Mary Rene Frederick as to an undivided one-half interest, 5th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 9.20 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Public Hearing on Distribution of Excess Proceeds for Tax Sale No. 170, Item 873, last assessed to Steven Frederick as to an undivided one-half interest and Mary Rene Frederick as to an undivided one-half interest, 5th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 9.21 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Public Hearing on Distribution of Excess Proceeds for Tax Sale No. 170, Item 944, last assessed to Julia H. Lambert, 4th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 9.22 TREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR: Public Hearing on Distribution of Excess Proceeds for Tax Sale No. 171, Item 7, last assessed to Travis D. Parker and Linda S. Parker, husband and wife, as joint tenants, 2nd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 9.23 Greg Taber stated that he attended the Secretary of State's hearing in Sacramento yesterday and spoke about the Sequoia Red Team. 9.24 Shirley Ferrante spoke about her living situation. 9.25 Steve Parker spoke on the Granite Liberty Quarry and submitted a document. 9.26 Suzy Angell, Seville Jones and Ryan Michaels spoke about the medical use of cannabis (medical marijuana). 9.27 Paul Jacobs discussed three voting systems reports, and Tom Courbat and Art Cassel spoke about the electronic voting systems and asked that EOP be included in the committee. CONCURRENT EXECUTIVE SESSION-COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT, FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, HOUSING AUTHORITY, PERRIS VALLEY CEMETERY DISTRICT, IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PUBLIC AUTHORITY AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS: With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9: Conference with legal counsel-existing litigation: (Subdivision (a) of Government Code Section 54956.9) A.1 Endangered Habitats League v. County of Riverside et al. (Riverside Superior Court case no. RIC 402952) A.2 Redevelopment Agency for the County of Riverside v. Pauline L. Burnett, etc. et al. (Riverside Superior Court case no. RIC 450075) (BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED SETTLEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF REAL PROPERTY (APN179-130-006) FOR $1 ,700,000 INCLUSIVE OF ALL COSTS, INTEREST AND FEES WITH JUDGMENT IN CONDEMNATION TO BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE COUNTY) A.3 Riverside County Flood Control District v. Charles H. Doner (Riverside County Superior Court No. 422328) (BOARD UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED SETTLEMENT OF CASE FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AND EASEMENT FOR $327,212.26 INCLUSIVE OF COSTS, INTEREST AND FEES WITH JUDGMENT OF CONDEMNATION TO BE ENTERED IN FAVOR OF THE COUNTY) A.4 Silvia Cole, David T. Cole [minor child] v. County of Riverside (United States District Court case no. CV05-04605 AG[RCx] With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9: Conference with legal counsel-anticipated litigation: Initiation of litigation pursuant to subdivision (c) of Government Code Section 54956.9: B.1 Three potential cases. With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to Section 54956.8: C.1 Conference with real property negotiator: Property — APN 807-030-001-0 Negotiating party — Kay Hazen Under negotiation — Price/Terms/Conditions C.2 Conference with real property negotiator: Property — APN's 327-190-005, 006, 007, 009, 010, 011 , 012, 014, 015, 017, and 019, and all but a 1 .18-acre portion of 327-190-020 Negotiating party — Joe Lewis Under negotiation — Price/Terms/Conditions C.3 Conference with real property negotiator: Property — APN's 294-110-003 and 294-110-005 Negotiating party— Mike Webster Under negotiation — Price/Terms/Conditions With respect to every item of business to be discussed in closed session pursuant to Section 54957: D.1 Public Employee Appointment Title: Director of Public Social Services 10.1 HOUSING AUTHORITY: Award of Construction Contract to Joe Putrino General Contractor for the Replacement of Entry and Rear Sliding Doors at the Ed Dorado Apartments in Riverside, 1 St District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 10.2 HOUSING AUTHORITY: Award of Construction Contract to Minkler Construction, Inc. for Two Single-Family Homes, Lots 8 and 9, Home Gardens, 2 d District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 10.3 HOUSING AUTHORITY: Award of Contract to Trinity Custom Construction for the Fairview Apartments in Lake Elsinore, 1 St District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 10.4 HOUSING AUTHORITY: Adoption of Resolution 2007-06, the Section 8 Management Assessment Program and Public Housing Assessment System Certification. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 11 .1 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Public Hearing on Adoption of Resolution F2007-09 Authorizing the Santa Ana Watershed Benefit Assessment. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 11 .2 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Public Hearing on Adoption of Resolution F2007-10 Authorizing the Santa Margarita Watershed Benefit Assessment. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 11.3 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Public Hearing on Adoption of Resolution F2007-11 Authorizing the Whitewater Watershed Benefit Assessment. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 11 .4 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Public Hearing on Adoption of Resolution F2007-016 Authorizing the Zone 3 Elsinore Watershed Benefit Assessment Program. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 11 .5 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Approval of Cooperative Agreement between the District, the City of Palm Springs, the City of Cathedral City, Endure Investments and Geiger LLC, for the Palm Springs Master Drainage Plan Line 34A (Parcel Map 31968), 4th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 11 .6 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Approval of Contract Change Order No. 5 for the Corona Drains Line 46, Stage 1 Project, 2 d District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 11.7 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Approval of Plans and Specifications for the Corona Drains Lines 1 G, 1 H and 1 J, 2nd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 11 .8 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Approval of Plans and Specifications for the Hemet Master Drainage Plan Line D, Stage 5 Project, 3rd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 11 .9 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Adoption of Resolution F2007-22, Authorization to Sell an Interest in Real Property for the Sunnymead Channel Project, APN 479-020-036, 51h District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 11 .10 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Approval of Cooperative Agreement between the District, the County and Gallery Ranch Partners for the Woodcrest — Via Los Caballeros Storm Drain Project, 1st District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 11 .11 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Approval of Cooperative Agreement between the District and the County of Riverside Transportation Department for the Jurupa Basin - Storm Drain Extension, 2 d District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 11 .12 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Approval of Cooperative Agreement between the District and the County for the Hemet Master Drainage Plan Line D, Stage 5 Project, 3rd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 11 .13 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Approval of Cooperative Agreement between the District, the County, Acacia Credit Fund 10-A and KB Home Greater Los Angeles for the Horsethief— Calendula Avenue Storm Drain, Stage 2 Project, 1st District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 11 .14 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Approval of Amendment No. 2 to the Flood Control Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement between the District and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for the Heacock and Cactus Channels, 5th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 11 .15 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Quarterly Disclosure Report on Investment Portfolio (April through June 2007). (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 11 .16 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Response to 2006-2007 Grand Jury Report: Elsinore Valley Cemetery District - Flood Control. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 11 .17 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Ratify the Amendment No. 1 to the Legal Services Agreement between the District and Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elliott for the Murrieta Creek Phase I Project, 3rd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 11 .18 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Ratify the Amendment No. 1 to the Legal Services Agreement between the District and Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elliott for the Murrieta Creek Phase II Project, 3 d District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 11 .19 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Ratify the Amendment No. 2 to the Legal Services Agreement between the District and Nossaman, Guthner, Knox and Elliott for the Homeland-Romoland Project, 3rd & 5th Districts. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 11 .20 FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT: Approval of Legal Services Agreement between the District and Luce, Forward, Hamilton & Scripps for condemnation and other real property services. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 12.1 WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT: Badlands Landfill — Joint Technical Document Addendum No. 5 of the Solid Waste Facility Permit No. 33-AA -006 to Revise Maps Depicting Landfill Footprint and Permit Areas, 5th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 12.2 WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT: Approval of the Sixth Amendment to the Master Lease with Agua Mansa MRF, LLC (entitled Amended and Restated Master Lease), 2nd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 12.3 WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT: 2006 El Sobrante Landfill Annual Monitoring Report. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 13.1 REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT: Riverside County Regional Park & Open-Space District Advisory Commission Annual Report 2006. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 13.2 REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT: Allocation of Development Impact Fee Funds to the Riverside County Regional Park and Open-Space District for Trails Expansion, 1 st 2nd & 3rd Districts. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 13.3 REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT: Approval of Agreement for Consulting Services with Community Works Design Group, Inc. for Master Planning for the Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum, and Budget Adjustments. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 13.4 REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT: Approval of the Idyllwild Well #27 Site Lease Agreement — Idyllwild Nature Center Area, 3rd District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 15.1 COMMUNITY HEALTH AGENCY/ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH: Public Hearing on the Annual Rate Adjustment to a portion of the Waste Collection Agreements for Riverside County. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 15.2 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/PLANNING: Public Hearing on an ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 449.234, an Ordinance of the County of Riverside Extending Ordinance No. 449.228 Establishing Interim W-1 Zoning in portions of the Lakeview and Nuevo Zoning areas, 5th District. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 15.3 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/PLANNING: Further Public Hearing on GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 773/CHANGE OF ZONE 7255/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 3486 — EA 40565 — Cocopah Nursery — T.C. Morris — Mecca Zoning District — Eastern Coachella Valley Area Plan — 4th District. Recommendation of Planning Commission for DENIAL of GPA 773 to amend the land use designation from Rural Residential (5 Acre Minimum) (RR) to Community Development: Medium High Density Residential (5-8 DU/AC); DENIAL of ZC 7255 to change the zone from Light Agriculture — 5 Acre Minimum (A-1-5) to Mobile Home Subdivisions and Mobile Home Parks (R-T); and, DENIAL of CUP 3486 to construct and operate a mobile home park containing 382 spaces with accessory recreational open space areas and structures. (CONT'D. TO 10/2/07 @ 1:30 P.M.) 15.4 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/PLANNING: Public Hearing on GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 / CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 - Lamar Advertising — Thomas Flanagan - Thousand Palms Zoning District — Western Coachella Valley Area Plan, 4th District. Recommendation of Planning Commission for Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 41426; Tentative Approval of GPA 864, to designate the site as Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) and to modify and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing billboards if the new location is determined to have a minimal impact on the scenic setting; and, Tentative Approval of ZC 7535, to change the zoning from Rural Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC). (TENT. APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 15.5 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/PLANNING: Public Hearing on CHANGE OF ZONE No. 7068/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 32546 — Paz Construction — Civil Trans — Pedley Zoning District — Jurupa Area Plan — 2nd District. Recommendation of Planning Commission for Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 39650, Tentative Approval of ZC 7068, to change the zone from Light Agricultural — 4 Acre Minimum (A-1-4) to Light Agricultural (A-1); and, Approval of TTM 32546, Schedule A, to subdivide 9.7 acres into a total of 15 residential units, with a minimum lot size of acres, and a 10 foot wide trail along the southerly side to 54th Street that will connect to neighboring trail systems in the area. (TENT. APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 15.6 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/PLANNING: Public Hearing on CHANGE OF ZONE No. 7306/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 33324 — Dos LLC — Engineering Venture — Rancho California Zoning Area - Southwest Area Plan — 1st District. Recommendation of Planning Commission for Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 40163; Tentative Approval of ZC 7306 to change the zone from Rural Residential (R-R) to Residential Agriculture 5 Acre Minimum (R-A-5); and, Approval of TTM 33324, a Schedule D, to subdivide 47.5 acres into 8 lots no less than 5 acres each. (TENT. APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 15.7 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/PLANNING: Public Hearing on CHANGE OF ZONE No. 7352/ PLOT PLAN NO. 21024 — Davcon Development — Architects Orange — Rancho California Zoning Area — Southwest Area Plan — 3rd District. Recommendation of Planning Commission for Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 40414; Tentative Approval of ZC 7352 to change the zone from Rural Residential (R-R) to Industrial Park (I-P); and, Approval of PP 21024 to construct a 51 ,314 square foot building on 4.93-acre parcel to be used for a Frito Lay distribution center and four tenant spaces including 33,159 square feet of landscaping and 115 parking stalls. (TENT. APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 15.8 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/PLANNING: Public Hearing on CHANGE OF ZONE No. 7521 — CEQA EXEMPT — Josh Gause — Ed Lenth — Winchester Zoning Area — Sun City / Menifee Valley Area Plan - 3rd District. Recommendation of Planning Commission for Tentative Approval of ZC 7521 to legally define the boundaries of planning areas 26, 27D, 31, 32, 33, 34A, 34B, 35, 42B and 42C within Specific Plan No. 301 Amendment No. 2 (Menifee Valley Ranch). (TENT. APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 15.9 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/PLANNING: Public Hearing on Fast Track (FTA 2007-12) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3472 - NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION NEEDED - StarField Sycamore Investors LLC — Canty Engineering Inc. - Temescal Zoning Area — Temescal Canyon Area Plan — 1st District. Recommendation of Planning Commission for Approval of Fast Track CUP 3472, for a 96,129 sq. ft. neighborhood shopping center with a floor area ratio of 0.18 on 13.22 gross acres located in Specific Plan No. 256 Planning Area 19. The project consists of four buildings: Building 1 = 50,120 sq. ft. grocery store with 3,700 sq. ft. retail, 22,880 sq. ft of shops; Building 2 = 12,900 sq. ft. drug store pad which proposes the sale of alcohol for off site consumption; Building 3 = 5,500 sq. ft. drive-thru pad, and Building 4 = 1,029 sq. ft. gas station convenience store with a 3,340 sq. ft. fueling canopy with six fueling stations. The project also proposes a total of 531 parking stalls which include 404 standard parking stalls, 114 compact stalls, and 13 stalls for persons with disabilities. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 15.10 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/PLANNING: Public Hearing on Fast Track (FTA 2007-15) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 3525 - Fiesta Development — Nadel Architects - Homeland Zoning Area — Harvest Valley/Winchester Area Plan — 5th District. Recommendation of Planning Commission for Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 40393, and Approval of CUP 3525, for a commercial shopping center on 31.53 acres consisting of the following: 331,974 square feet of building area; 5 major tenant buildings, 3 pad buildings, 6 shop buildings, and one gas station with convenience store; 1,737 parking spaces (1,623 standard stalls, 74 compact stalls, and 40 accessible stalls); 169,747 square feet of landscaped area; and proposes to permit the concurrent sale of beer and wine with the gasoline service station pursuant to subsequent ABC permits and potential findings for PNC to be applied by the future tenant. (APPROVED AS RECOMM. CUP W/CHANGES TO CONDITIONS) 15.11 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/PLANNING: Public Hearing on GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 792/CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 73001TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 34537/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 34536/TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 34535 - Frank Gorman — GW Engineering - Bautista Zoning Area — San Jacinto Valley Area Plan — 3rd District. Recommendation of Planning Commission for Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 40715; Tentative Approval of GPA 792, to amend a 3.56-acre parcel and a 2.47-acre parcel from Community Development: Low Density Residential (CD: LDR) (1/2 Acre Minimum) to Community Development: Medium Density Residential (CD: MDR) (2-5 Dwelling Units/Acre), a 1.74-acre parcel from Community Development: Low Density Residential (CD: LDR) (1/2 Acre Minimum) to Community Development: Commercial Office (CD: CO) (0.35-1.0 Floor Area Ratio) and 7.99-acre parcel from Community Development: Low Density Residential (CD: LDR) (1/2 Acre Minimum) to Community Development: Commercial Tourist (CD: CT) (0.20- 0.35 Floor Area Ratio); Tentative Approval of ZC 7300, to change the zones of a 3.56- acre parcel 2.47-acre parcel from Rural Residential (R-R) to Single-Family Residential (R-1); a 1.74-acre parcel from Rural Residential (R-R)to Commercial Office (C-O), a 7.99-acre parcel from Rural Residential (R-R) to Tourist Commercial (C-T) and a 4.24 acre parcel from Rural Residential (R-R) to Residential Agriculture-'/2-Acre Minimum (R-A-1/2); Approval of TTM 34537, Schedule B, to subdivide a 4.24-acre parcel into seven (7) single-family residential lots with '/2 acre minimum lot size; Approval of TTM 34536, Schedule A, to subdivide 6.34-acre parcel into 23 residential lots with 7,200 Sq. Ft. minimum lot sizes; and, Approval of TPM 34535, Schedule H, to subdivide a 20.00- gross acre parcel ranging in size from 1.39 gross acres to 4.24 gross acres, and one 7.99-acre remainder parcel. (TENT. APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 15.12 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/PLANNING: Public Hearing on GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 800/ CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7121/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP No. 33371 - Brenson Communities — Psomas - Antelope Valley Zoning Area — Sun City/ Menifee Valley Area Plan, 3rd District. Recommendation of Planning Commission for Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No.40053; Tentative Approval of GPA 800, to amend the existing land use designation for the project site of Community Development: Very High Density Residential (CD:VHDR) (14-20 Dwelling Units per Acre) to Community Development: High Density Residential (CD:HDR) (8-14 Dwelling Units per Acre); Tentative Approval of ZC 7121, to change the existing zone from Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) to General Residential (R-3); and, Approval of TTM 33371, Schedule A, which proposes to subdivide 17.78 gross acres into six parcels for condominium purposes and the development of a multifamily residential project. (TENT. APPROVED AS RECOMM. W/ADDITION OF COND.) 15.13 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/PLANNING: Public Hearing on GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 817/ CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7228/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 34014 - Van Daele Development—Albert A Webb Associates - Eastvale Zoning Area — Prado— Mira Loma Area Plan —2nd District. Recommendation of Planning Commission for Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 40424; Tentative Approval of GPA No. 817, to amend the current land use designation from Community Development: Medium Density Residential (CD: MDR) (2-5 dwelling units per acre) to Community Development: Medium High Density Residential (CD: MHDR) (5-8 dwelling units per acre); Tentative Approval of ZC 7228, to change the zoning from Heavy Agriculture — 10 Acre Minimum (A-2-10) to General Residential (R-3); and, Approval of TTM 34014, Schedule A, to subdivide 40.01 gross acres into residential 29 condominium lots (152 Traditional Units / 72 Clustered Units /totaling 224 Units with a density of 5.6 dwelling units per acre)with a minimum lot size of 16,104 square feet, three (3) open space lots totaling 1.98 acres which includes a 3,206 square foot TOT lot, two (2) community facilities, and one (1) passive park, four(4) Edison easement lots totaling 28,454 square feet, one (1) detention basin totaling 25,992 square feet, 448 garaged parking spaces, 47 off street perpendicular spaces, and 87 on street parking spaces. (TENT. APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 15.14 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/PLANNING: Public Hearing on CHANGE OF ZONE No. 7548/ SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 323 SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE NO. 2 — CEQA EXEMPT - Spring Mountain Investments, LLC. - University Zoning District— Highgrove Area Plan, 51h District. Recommendation of Planning Commission for Tentative Approval of ZC 7548, to amend the existing Specific Plan zoning ordinance text to modify the Development Standards associated with the existing zoning classification for Planning Areas 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and Approval of SP 323, Substantial Conformance No. 2, to modify the Design Guidelines included in Specific Plan No. 323 Spring Mountain Ranch. (TENT. APPROVED AS RECOMM.) 15.15 TRANSPORTATION & LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY/TRANSPORTATION: Public Hearing on an Amendment of an existing franchise to North Baja Pipeline, LLC to add a one-mile segment of 36-inch natural gas within the County road right-of-way along Arrowhead Boulevard between 18`h and Seeley Avenue near Blythe, and an associated pipeline crossing of Arrowhead Boulevard near Seeley and 141h Avenue — Adoption of Resolution 2007-386 establishing findings under the California Environmental Quality Act in support of the granting said franchise, and Adoption of ORDINANCE NO. 816.1, an Ordinance of the County of Riverside Amending Ordinance No. 816 Granting to North Baja Pipeline, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, its Successors and Assigns, a Franchise for a Period of Forty-Five (45) Years, to Construct, Maintain, Operate and Repair a Pipeline for the Transportation of Natural Gas along, under and across County Roads and County Rights of Way in the Eastern Portion of Riverside County. (APPROVED AS RECOMM.) The Chairman declared the meeting adjourned to August 28th, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. in memory of 1st Srgt. Eric M. Holke, Elizabeth (Betty) Tavaglione, Terry Story Deininger and Frank Duran. John Tavaglione, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors ATTEST: Nancy Romero, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors e7/31/2007 08:84 FAX Clerk Of The Board 2 001/007 FAX CLERK OF THE BOARD 'S 1j ; ' OFFICE Mgro,,sq� FOR IMMEDIATE DELIVERY DATE: July 31, 2007 8:29:42 AM Total Pages: 7 (Including Cover Sheet) TO: Rachelle - City of Palm Desert FROM: Cecilia Gil, Board Assistant FAX NO: 760-340-0574 FAX NO: 951-955-1071 PHONE: 760-346-0611 ext. 304 PHONE: 951-955-8464 Per your request, I have attached here a copy of the mailing list for GPA 864, Change of Zone 7535, which is item 15.4 of today's meeting. I also attached a copy of the AD (Notice of Public Hearing), we sent out to the Press Enterprise and Desert Sun for publication last July 21, 2007. Thank you! County Administrative Center 4080 Lemon Street•"Is'Floor•Riverside,California 92501 • (961)955-1060 • FAX(951)955-1071 Received Jul-31-07 08:40am From— To-CITY OF PALM DESERT Page 01 0,7/31/2007 08:34 FAX Clerk Of The Board Q 002/007 y PROPERTY OWNERS CERTIFICATION FORM L Catherine Matthews . Ccrtify that on 6/12/07 —' The attached property owners list was prepared by Riverside County GIS , Al"N(s) 653-250-012 or case number For Company or Individual's Name.-Flaming Department Distance buffered 600' Pursuant to application requirements furnished by the Riverside County Planning Department, Said list is a complete and true compilation of the owners of the subject property end all other property owners within 600 feet of the property involved, or if that area yields less than 25 different owners, all property owners within a notification area expanded to yield a minimum of 25 different owners, to a maximum notification area of 2,400 feet from the project boundaries, based upon the latest equalized assessment rolls. If the project is a subdivision with identified off-site access/improvements, said list includes a complete and true compilation of'the names and marling addresses of the owners of all property that is adjacent to the proposed off-site improvement/alignment. I further certify that the information filed iS true and correct to the best of my laiowledge. I understand that incorrect or incomplete information may be grounds for rejection or denial of the application_ r NAME: Catherine Matthews =LE GIS Specialist 11 ADDRESS: 4080 Lemon Street 2"d Floor verside. Ca. 92502 TELEPHONE NUMBER(8 a.m.—5 p.m.): 951 955-8156 Received Jul-31-07 08:40am From- To—CITY OF PALM DESERT Page 02 0.7/31/2007 08:35 FAX Clerk Of The Board Z 003/007 r Ym rating * ® www.avery.con AVSRV'a§R5ZTbf 3 � 962T"' 1 1ty 1-800-GO-AVERY se v 653170044 5531T0049 ANDREW STEVENS SHENANDOAH SPRINGS DEV CO INC 9080 SANTA MONICA BLV 7266 f:DINCEP.AVE STE L LOS ANCELES CA 90069 HUNTINCTON BEACH CA 92647 653250012 653250039 SOUTHERN PACIFIC,TRANSPORTATION Co MONTEREY GATEWAY PARTNERS 1700 FARNAM ST 1 OTH FL 5 2552 WALNUT AVE STE 150 OMAHA NE 68102 TUSTIN CA.92780 653250042 653250043 G&G PROP BEDROSIAN PALM DESERT 72922 GRAPEVINE ST 4285 N GOLDEN 5TATE BLV PALM (DESERT CA 92260 FRESNO CA 93722 653250044 653250045 MARYSVIL,LE DRIVE IN THEATRE CO PROMONTORY DEV STEPHEN ABOUAF GLENN WEISSMAN RANDALL KC;_5SLER LORRAINE WEISSMAN JAN KESSLER, ETAL 320 SYCAMORE LN 1000 MARINA VILLAGE 130 BRADBURY CA 91010 ALAMEDA CA 94501 653250046 653250051 CITY OF PALM DESERT MONTEREY 170 73510 FRED WARING DR 323 W COURT ST STE 403 PALM DESERT CA 92260 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92401 653250053 653250054 MONTEREY 170 CVWD 323 W COURT ST STE 301 P O BOX 1058 SAN BERNARDINO CA 92401 COACHELLA CA 92236 663250065 653250051 PERRY KOON DESERT GATEWAY SELF STORAGE ELIZABETH KOON 456 MONTGOMERY NO 1000 P O BOX 182144 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94104 CORONADO CA 92175 ltt '9 �� TSide.C2.L1S/l`W�XX)i �`a 1vZiFiL�I�t.}1t171 W6965 q!j e6 a�1_z/'asil,��t� �p�de�a6py�a5 a la a6���nogi;up ud�5� 07 Received Jul-31-UT 08;4Uam From- To-CITY OF PALM DESERT Page 03 0Z/31/2007 08:35 FAX Clerk Of The Board Q 004/007 � nntin www.avery.com AVE T��3 Z' seJ,,,� yam% LW596ZTg � �t ® 1-800-GO-AVERY 653250058 65325OD63 PALM DESERT ASSOC SHENANDOAH SPRINGS 701 S PARKER ST NO 1000 7266 EDINGER AVE ORANGE CA 92668 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 653250073 653251001 BERDAN PARCEL C LB/VCC PALM DESERT NFT PARCEL C 125 E SIR FRANCIS DRAKE 501 SPECTRUM CIR LARKSPUR CA 94939 OXNARD CA 93030 653251002 553251003 PAUL PAN ICO GREGORY VENHAUS CARRIE PANICO JULI VENHAUS 74055 HIGHWAY 111 78550 AVENUE 41 PALM DESERT CA 92260 13ERMUDA DUNES CA 92203 053251004 653251010 ESLAVI HOLDINGS CHAUNCEY GANNETT 6100 WILSHIRE BLV NO 360 LEE GANNETT LOS ANGELES CA 900.48 31155 AVD ALVERA CATHEDRAL CY CA 92234 653251011 653251012 MICHAEL KESSLER MARK KESSLER LISA KE55LER MAUREEN KESSLER 3025 E DOMINGUEZ 2966 VICTORIA ST CARSON CA 90810 RANCHO DOMINGUEZ CA 00221 653251019 653251023 STEWART HILL STUART SOBEK JUDY HILL PHYLLIS SOBEK 74850 JONI DR 3909 OCEANIC DR NO 403 PALM DESERT CA 92260 OCEANSIDE CA 92056 553251025 653251026 ROBERT GALIPPO CASSIA NEMOPHILA JANET GALIPPO 81304 GREEN AVE 3 YORKSHIRE CT INDIO CA 90201 RANCHO MIRAGE CA 92270 ittjRiU6y%w3Ajqwo Off rside.ca.us/cw/m� IPZISI RV int_hnn DwZ965 1!--ge6 a s 07 LUO7' �DA8'MMAn apldej a6zynias a;a a6siinoq!;ue uo!ssDj LUl Received Jul-31-07 08:40am From- To-CITY OF PALM DESERT Page 04 0;/31/2007 08:35 FAX Clerk Of The Board 2 005/007 qRS inting www.avery.com © AVERVItSoO of 3 Use Avery TE`M WTE 5962"A 11-800-00-AVERY 653251028 653260041 A MARQUEZ PALM DESERT 31 SANDRA MARQUEZ 355 S GRAND AVE STE 2900 3270 AMBERHILL DR LOS ANGELES CA 90071 HIGHLAND CA 92346 653270021 653270033 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO DAN ARTHOFER P O BOX 410 KATHY ARTHOFER LONG BEACH CA 90801 P O BOX 10179 PALM DESERT CA 92255 653820015 653820028 SAMS REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST SAMS REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST 34220 MONTEREY AVE 1301 SE 10TH ST PALM DESERT CA.92211 BENTONVILLE AR 72716 653630001 653830002 SHENANDOAH SPRINGS DEV CO 1NG SHENANDOA 9RINGS DEV CO INC 7266 EDINGERAVE NO L 7266 EDIN AVE NO L HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTIN SON BEACH CA 91647 653870001 663870005 FOCUS PALM DESERT PALM DESERT ASSOC 1648E LAGUNA CANYON NO 2D 30398 ESPERANZA IRVINE CA 92618 RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA CA 92668 653670006 685020014 BRENT OUCOING COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AMI DUCOING 3499 10TH ST 3818 E CORONADO ST RIVERSIDE CA 92501 ANAHEIM CA 92807 1ttUyvv �tside.ca.us/cw/m Wot.htm aplde�a6eu��5 3a aGeunoq ue u�07 Received Jul-31-O7 08:40am From- To-CITY OF PALM DESERT Page 05 07/31/2007 08:35 FAX Clerk 0f The Board IM 006/007 Impression antibourrage et A s6chage rapid utilise=•le 9abarit 51600 Thomas Flanagan Lamar Advertising 77-583 El Duna Ct,Ste J - Palm Desert,CA 92211 Union Pacific Railroad Johnson Martin Mailstop 1690 1400 Douglas St Omaha, NE 56179 Received Jul-31-07 09:40am From- To-CITY OF PALM DESERT Page 06 07/31/2007 08:35 FAX Clerk Of The Board 007/007 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY ON A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND CHANGE OF ZONE IN THE THOUSAND PALMS ZONING DISTRICT — WESTERN COACHELLA VALLEY AREA PLAN, FOURTH SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT, AND NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing at which all interested persons will be heard, will be held before the Board of Supervisors of Riverside County, California, on the 1s` Floor Board Chambers. County Administrative Center, 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, on Tuesday, July 31, 2007 at 1:30 P.M. to consider the application submitted by Lamar Advertising, on General Plan Amendment No. 864. which proposes to designate the site as Community Development: tight Industrial (LI) (025 to 0.6 floor area ratio) and to modify and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing billboards if the new location is determined to have a minimal impact on the scenic setting: and, Change of Zone No. 7535, which proposes to change the zoning from Rural Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC), or such other zones as the Board may find appropriate. The project is located southerly of Interstate 10, westerly of Portola Avenue, northerly of Dinah Shore Drive, and easterly of Monterey Avenue in the Thousand Palms Zoning District — Western Coachella Valley Area Plan, Fourth Supervisorial District. The Planning Commission has found that approval of the project will not have a significant effect on the environment and has recommended the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment No. 41426. The proposed project case file may be viewed from the date of this notice until the public hearing, Monday through Friday, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at 4080 Lemon Street, 1" Floor, Riverside, CA 92501, and at the Riverside County Planning Department, 4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor, Riverside, CA 92601. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING THIS PROJECT, PLEASE CONTACT PROJECT PLANNER RUSSELL BRADY AT(951) 955-8632 OR EMAIL rbradyQrctlma.org. Any person wishing to testify in support of or in opposition to the proposed project may do so in writing between the date of this notice and the public hearing, or may appear and be heard at the time and place noted above. All written comments received prior to the public hearing will be submitted to the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Supervisors will consider such comments, in addition to any oral testimony, before making a decision on the proposed project. If you challenge the above Item in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence to the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors at, or prior to, the public hearing. Be advised that as a result of the public hearing and the consideration of all public comment, written and oral, the Board of Supervisors may amend, in whole or in part, the proposed project and/or the related environmental document. Accordingly, the designations, development standards, design or improvements, or any properties or lands within the boundaries of the proposed project, may be changed in a way other than specifically proposed. Please send all written correspondence to- Clerk of the Board Nancy Romero 4080 Lemon Street, 1 st Floor Post Office Box 1147 Riverside, CA 92502-1147 Dated: July 19, 2007 Clerk of the Board By: Cecilia Gil, Board Assistant Publication: The Press Enterprise The Desert Sun P.O. Box 792 P.O. Box 2734 Riverside, CA 92501 Riverside, CA 92519 DATE PUBLISHED: Saturday, July 21, 2007 Received Jul-31-07 08:40am From- To-CITY OF PALM DESERT Page 07 SUBMITTAL TO THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS �. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA ; FROM: TLMA - Planning Department SUBMITTAL DATE: July 17, 2007 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 / CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 — MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION — Applicant: Lamar Advertising — Engineer / Representative: Thomas Flanagan - Fourth Supervisorial District — Thousand Palms Zoning District — Western Coachella Valley Area Plan: No Landuse Designation — Location: Southerly of Interstate 10, westerly of Portola Avenue, northerly of Dinah Shore Drive, and easterly of Monterey Avenue in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan — 19.84 Gross Acres - Zoning: Rural Residential (R-R) - REQUEST: The General Plan Amendment proposes to designate the LU site as Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) and to modify 0 and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing o billboards to a new location as long as the number of billboards is not increased. The Change of W Zone proposes to alter the site's current zoning classification from Rural Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing—Service Commercial (M-SC). w 0 RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning Department recommended Approval; and, THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED: uJ W 7 � a c ADOPTION of a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 41426, based on the findings incorporated in the initial study and the conclusion that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; TENTATIVE APPROVAL of GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864 amending the land use designation in the General Plan to designate the site as Community Development: Light Industrial (LI) (0.25 to 0.6 floor area ratio) in accordance with Exhibit 6 and to modify and add policies in the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan to allow for relocation of existing to a new location as long as the total number of billboarZno creas ; an Planning Director RG:vc ?. T C� U a a a a a E� C N N h C C O O V 0 ❑ ❑ E o C :) o in Q x W o n Prev. Agn. Ref. District: Agenda Number: Form 11 p (Rev 03102107) YAPlannin9 Case NwRiverside 01 icWGPA0088411 IA doc 15 4 The Honorable Board of Supervisors RE: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 864/ CHANGE OF ZONE NO, 7535 July 17, 2007 Page 2 of 2 TENTATIVE APPROVAL of CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 7535 from Rural Residential (R-R) to Manufacturing — Service Commercial (M-SC) in accordance with Exhibit 3, based upon final adoption by the Board of Supervisors; and, ADOPTION of a RESOLUTION recommending adoption of the General Plan Amendment No. 864 to the Board of Supervisors. C'7/187-2007 15:22 760863 SUPERVISOR WIL PAGE 02/02 CIT Y Of P 0 1 M 0 1S1R � 73-510 FRED WAIUNc; DRjvs ,• PALM DESERT, CALIr01kNI1k 9226o-2578 Tu-, 76o 346—o6tj FAXX: 760 341-7098 i4oCapa lm-descrt.ott July 12, 07 Board of upervisors, 4"' District Riverside County AQ8. e n S_treot, 5t'Floor -- Riverside CA 92501 Ref: G erai Plan Amendment No. 864/Change of Zone No 7535-EA41426 Dear Sup rvisors: On July 11, 2007, the Riverside County Planning Commission recommended approval the subject General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone allowing the relocatior of existing billboards along the 1-10 corridor in the Coachella Valley. If the General lan Amendment and Change of Zone are approved, Lamar Advertising will propose o relocate four (4) advertising billboards on the north side of 1-10 to the south sid Et between Monterey Avenue and Portola Avenue, an the outskirts of the City of PEilm Desert's boundaries, The process for approving these billboards is a minister I act with the Riverside County and, therefore, the City of Palm Desert will not have any further input regarding these billboards. The Ci of Palm Desert is strongly opposed to the proposed General Plan Amendm nt. The existing General Plan for Riverside County recognizes the aestheti quality of the 1-10 corridor throughout the Coachella Valley. It rightfully I acknowl dges that "the scenic qualities of the Coachella Valley are widely cherished by resid nts and visitors alike". In recognition of this precept, Policy WCVAP 14.2 prohibits the placement of a billboard in the Coachella Valley, Further, WCVAP 14.4 identifies 1-10 as a scenic corridor and, therefore, prohibits the placement of single sign support freestanding sighs for advertising. If appro ed, the proposed General Plan Amendment will forever guarantee advertisi g billboards along the 1-10 corridor in the Coachella Valley. Where new develop ent requires the removal of existing billboards, installation of new or replace ent billboards should not be permitted. To do any less simply because Lamar dverting stands to benefit financially from such permission reduces to financial terms something on which no financial value can or should be placed. 3 L�wnH p+l!WAux 07/18/2007 15:23 7608631 SUPERVISQR WIL PAGE Board of Supervisors General F Ian Amendment No. 864 Change lof Zone No. 7535-EA41426 Page 2 We respe tfully request that the Riverside Board of Supervisors deny the proposed General tan Amendment and Change of Zone. Denying this request is consistent with the ounty's General Plan and will improve our scenic corridor and the aesthetic ialue of the Coachella Valley, which distinguish it from Orange County and other Sou hem California communities. Sincerely, Rilc 4aK Mayor, Ci of Palm Desert cc: Ma or Pro Tom Jean Benson Cm veil Member Jim Ferguson Cow neii Member Cindy Finerty Co ncil Member Robert Spiegel City Manager Carlos Ortega Co,my Plannar Russeil Brady I 1 i CI1 � Of Pot ID DES A I MALCOLM RILEY & ASSOCIATES Retail Properties • Investment Brokerage r-3 n C=3� --� F" C= July 25,2007 N) a rr Ci _..t LA; r*s -v n rn Clerk of the Board N n_ Nancy Romero 4080 Lemon Street, 1`Floor a% rn P.O. Box 1147 Riverside,CA 92502-1147 Re: General Plan Amendment No. 864/Change of Zone No. 7535 Objection to Planned Amendment by Property Owners Desert Gateway Self Storage—73-750 Dinah Shore Drive,Parcel 4 of Parcel Map No.24255 Dear Ms. Romero: We have just been made aware of the proposed above-referenced amendment which calls for rezoning that would allow billboards to be placed along the south side of I-10. As the.develgpers and owners of Desert Gateway Self Storage,we are deeply concerned with this proposal as billboards would have an adverse impact on our property and business. Desert Gateway Self Storage was recently developed with an eye toward freeway visibility;our buildings and landscaping were designed to be attractive and appealing to freeway traffic. The City of Palm Desert Architectural Review Committee paid particular attention to our North elevation,as well as landscaping visible from the freeway. The proposed billboards along the south side of the freeway would be a great detriment to our business. In addition,the proposed billboards would put us at a disadvantage to our competitors on the North side of the freeway who would have clear visibility. The rezoning is unfair to those of us who have developed, in good faith,based on existing land use and in accordance with the high architectural standards of the community. Also,we take the position that the destruction of the view"freeway"corridor(established by the City of Palm Desert)with the construction of garish billboards,the purpose of which is to capture the eye and divert one's attention,and not to be pleasing and attractive to its surroundings,does create a substantial negative impact to the environment. The new subdivision, Monterey 170,composed of retail and a business park,will be negatively impacted along with the new homes and apartments in the immediate area. Accordingly,we strongly oppose the General Plan Amendment No. 864 and Change of Zone No. 7535-EA4126. Very truly yo Malcolm R. Partner,Desert Gateway Self Storage,LLC cc: Richard S. Kelly,Mayor of Palm Desert Corporate Office: 11640 San Vicente Boulevard,Suite 202,Los Angeles,California 90049 310/820-5891 FAX:310/820-5654 I Y OF rnLM DESERI 73-51 o FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 76o 346—o6ii FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-deserr.org July 12, 2007 Board of Supervisors, 4ch District Riverside County 4080 Lemon Street, 51h Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Ref: General Plan Amendment No. 864/Change of Zone No. 7535-EA41426 Dear Supervisors: On July 11, 2007, the Riverside County Planning Commission recommended approval of the subject General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone allowing the relocation of existing billboards along the 1-10 corridor in the Coachella Valley. If the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone are approved, Lamar Advertising will propose to relocate four (4) advertising billboards on the north side of 1-10 to the south side between Monterey Avenue and Portola Avenue, on the outskirts of the City of Palm Desert's boundaries. The process for approving these billboards is a ministerial act with the Riverside County and, therefore, the City of Palm Desert will not have any further input regarding these billboards. The City of Palm Desert is strongly opposed to the proposed General Plan Amendment. The existing General Plan for Riverside County recognizes the aesthetic quality of the 1-10 corridor throughout the Coachella Valley. It rightfully acknowledges that "the scenic qualities of the Coachella Valley are widely cherished by residents and visitors alike". In recognition of this precept, Policy WCVAP 14.2 prohibits the placement of a billboard in the Coachella Valley. Further, WCVAP 14.4 identifies 1-10 as a scenic corridor and, therefore, prohibits the placement of single sign support freestanding sighs for advertising. If approved, the proposed General Plan Amendment will forever guarantee advertising billboards along the 1-10 corridor in the Coachella Valley. Where new development requires the removal of existing billboards, installation of new or replacement billboards should not be permitted. To do any less simply because Lamar Adverting stands to benefit financially from such permission reduces to financial terms something on which no financial value can or should be placed. n )nixr[n naato rArF] Board of Supervisors General Plan Amendment No. 864 Change of Zone No. 7535-EA41426 Page 2 We respectfully request that the Riverside Board of Supervisors deny the proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone. Denying this request is consistent with the County's General Plan and will improve our scenic corridor and the aesthetic value of the Coachella Valley, which distinguish it from Orange County and other Southern California communities. Sincerely, Ric a Kel Mayor, City of Palm Desert cc: Mayor Pro Tern Jean Benson Council Member Jim Ferguson Council Member Cindy Finerty Council Member Robert Spiegel City Manager Carlos Ortega County Planner Russell Brady CITY Df P H I M UESERi 10"INTIO 04 RKYWO nnI I Y 01 1 d I M 0 1 IN I 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346—o6ii FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-desert.org July 12, 2007 Board of Supervisors, 41h District Riverside County 4080 Lemon Street, 5th Floor Riverside, CA 92501 Ref: General Plan Amendment No. 864/Change of Zone No. 7535-EA41426 Dear Supervisors: On July 11, 2007, the Riverside County Planning Commission recommended approval of the subject General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone allowing the relocation of existing billboards along the 1-10 corridor in the Coachella Valley. If the General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone are approved, Lamar Advertising will propose to relocate four (4) advertising billboards on the north side of 1-10 to the south side between Monterey Avenue and Portola Avenue, on the outskirts of the City of Palm Desert's boundaries. The process for approving these billboards is a ministerial act with the Riverside County and, therefore, the City of Palm Desert will not have any further input regarding these billboards. The City of Palm Desert is strongly opposed to the proposed General Plan Amendment. The existing General Plan for Riverside County recognizes the aesthetic quality of the 1-10 corridor throughout the Coachella Valley. It rightfully acknowledges that "the scenic qualities of the Coachella Valley are widely cherished by residents and visitors alike". In recognition of this precept, Policy WCVAP 14.2 prohibits the placement of a billboard in the Coachella Valley. Further, WCVAP 14.4 identifies 1-10 as a scenic corridor and, therefore, prohibits the placement of single sign support freestanding sighs for advertising. If approved, the proposed General Plan Amendment will forever guarantee advertising billboards along the 1-10 corridor in the Coachella Valley. Where new development requires the removal of existing billboards, installation of new or replacement billboards should not be permitted. To do any less simply because Lamar Adverting stands to benefit financially from such permission reduces to financial terms something on which no financial value can or should be placed. ., CJ PRINTED axrznntoWEE f Board of Supervisors General Plan Amendment No. 864 Change of Zone No. 7535-EA41426 Page 2 We respectfully request that the Riverside Board of Supervisors deny the proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone. Denying this request is consistent with the County's General Plan and will improve our scenic corridor and the aesthetic value of the Coachella Valley, which distinguish it from Orange County and other Southern California communities. Sincerely, Ric a Kel Mayor, City of Palm Desert cc: Mayor Pro Tern Jean Benson Council Member Jim Ferguson Council Member Cindy Finerty Council Member Robert Spiegel City Manager Carlos Ortega County Planner Russell Brady CIIy Of PUS M [ PI 0INTEO 0M IMIEO I'M 07/31/2007 10:03 FAX 760 778 4731 The Desert Sun Class Q 001 PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) STATE OF CALIFORNIA INo. 2s10 County of Riverside BOAURD OF SUPERVISORS OF RIVERSIDE AND CHANGE.OON A F ZONE INLTHE THOUSAND PALMS ZONING DISTRICT- WESTERN COA- PERVISORIAAL DISTRICT PANO LANK FOURTH Sri. TENT TO gpppT A IItiITiGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearin I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of a hold Dall Interested m super visors of d,W9- the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen side County Cre i ifomla,on the 1st Floor Board River- years,and not a a to or interested in the Chambers, bounty Administrative Center, 4080Board above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a Lemon Street, Riveimlele,on Tueaday, July 31, 2007 at 0 P.M. to consider the applicatlon Lamar Advertising,on General Plan printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISEW'413 Amendment No. n64 whichyyroposes to desigg- nate the it as Community development: LI ht COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, industrial nogg ify a (dL�(0.25 to 0.8 floor area ratio) ; LI t printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, Valley Area pro,,Po aliowlfotrtle We-ter of ez s Ina County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been billboards if the new location is determined to have a minimal impact on the scenic setting;and, adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Chance of Zone g No-71i35, which pro uses to Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of Manufacturin(I-t rvrce uraI RusfdentlaP(R-R)to such other zones as the Boom"1ercial (M-SQ,or California under the date of March 24,1988.Case ate.The project is located soutneri 'of Interstate Number 191236;that the notice,of which the Shoreest rl f oegIteAv Mpme early of Dinah annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller the Thousand Palms Zoning District' avenue In Coachella Valle F t - Western than non pariel,has been published in each regular District, Y Area Plan, ourth Suparvisorlal and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any The Planning Commission has sound that a pprov- supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: at of the pro)ec)wilt not have a significant effect an plan of anrMitigated Ne�trecommended lrato foB July 21",2007 En ronmont. Aasewmenf No.4142& _____________________________ ___ ---------- The proposed-project case file may be viewed from the dato of this notice until the Ing, pMponday through Friday, from B. O Public he to at 4080 Lemon Street, st Floor. Riverside,Riv rside,sCA ------------------------ ry g d at All in the year 2007 partMent 4080hLemon Street 9tfi Floor ngivar side, CA 925o1. I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION REGARDING THIS PROJECT PLEASE CONTACT PROJECT PLAN- foregoing is true and correct. EMAIL br SELL BM oYAT(951) g55-0632 OR Dated at Palm Springs,California this----24 th,----day Any person wishing to testify in support of or in wr og be to the proposed pro(ect may do so in writing between the data of this notice and the of---------- Jul ----- �-----------,2007 pphe ublic hearing, or may ap ear and be heard at y Montsmreeivi ads prior ato te he public hi written earl g will be Submitted to the Board of Supervisors and the Board of Supervisors will consider such com- ments, in addition to any oral testimon before making a decision on-tha Proposed �..---•----!',•ra".. r P Posed project. �.----1------""""^----"--- If you challenge the above item in court,you may --------------- SignA[urt L be limited to refer a only those Issues you or I someone else raised at the public hearing de- scribed In this notice, or in written correspon- dence to the plannfn9 Commission or Board of Sddyypervisors at,or prior to the public hearing. Be thevcodnsider tlon of alt public public heari and ng and oral,the Board of Supervisors may amend in whole or)n part, the proposed project and/or the designations,development sta ards,clos1®^thor cimprovements, or any properties or lands within hanged inrla wayas of hother thandspecfically o posedd, y pro- -Please Bend air written correspondence to: Clerk of the Board Nancy omero 4080 LemOrl Street 1st Floor Post Office 95 -1Rivd 202147 Dated:July 19,20w Clerk of the Board By; Ceellia pil.Board Assistant PUBLISHED;Saturday, July 21,2007 Received Jul-31-07 09:48ain From-760 778 4731 To-CITY OF PALM DESERT Page 01 Aylaian, Lauri From: Tran, Minh C. [MCTran@co.riverside.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, July 31, 2007 8:07 AM To: Aylaian, Lauri Subject: RE: Riverside County's billboard regulations Lauri, the County has not compensated Lamar for the billboards. Minh -----Original Message----- From: laylaian@ci.palm-desert.ca.us [mailto:laylaian@ci.palm-desert.ca.us] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 2 :01 PM To: Tran, Minh C. Subject: RE: Riverside County's billboard regulations Thanks, Minh. Do you know if the County has already compensated Lamar Advertising for the billboards? Or are they asking for the General Plan Amendment as a way around having to pay monetary compensation? Lauri Aylaian Director of Community Development PS: If you get the permits anytime between now and noon tomorrow, please let me know. -----Original Message----- From: Tran, Minh C. [mailto:MCTran@co.riverside.ca.us] Sent: Monday, July 30, 2007 1:17 PM To: Aylaian, Lauri Cc: Lind, Katherine; Ortega, Carlos; Martinez, Dan; Gialdini, Michael Subject: RE: Riverside County's billboard regulations Laurie, *Board Policy A-53 is not applicable when no public land is involved. This Board policy was previously provided for sake of being complete in providing all billboard regulations. *County TLMA is still searching the archives for permits belonging to the existing four billboards. *The existing billboards are not located on County-owned land. *RCO No. 348 Subsection 19.3d(4) requires the County (as mandated by State and federal law) to pay just compensation for the removal of lawfully erected but nonconforming billboards. Please let me know if you have further questions or concerns. Thanks. Minh Tran Deputy County Counsel -----Original message----- From: laylaian@ci.palm-desert.ca.us [mailto:laylaian@ci.palm-desert.ca.us] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 9:40 AM To: Tran, Minh C. 1 Cc: Lind, Katherine; corteg, L.palm-desert.ca.us; Martinez, Gialdini, Michael Subject: RE: Riverside County's billboard regulations Minh, Thank you for this information. Unfortunately, we are still left with several questions: * Board Policy A-53 addresses public lands. The land on which the new billboards are proposed is, I believe, owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad. Is the board policy still applicable? * Can we get a copy of the permits under which the existing four billboards were constructed? * Are the existing four billboards on County-owned land? If so, and if they have to be removed as part of a project to widen Varner Road, isn't the cost of acquiring the billboards just part of the project acquisition costs? Why/how would the billboard company be entitled to move the boards to a new location, if doing so is inconsistent with the existing County General Plan? Thanks for looking into this issue. We are anxious to get enough information to be able to prepare a letter to the Board of Supervisors by tomorrow so that it can be included in their agenda packages. Lauri Aylaian Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 760.346.0611 X481 -----Original Message----- From: Tran, Minh C. [mailto:MCTran@co.riverside.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:29 AM To: Aylaian, Lauri Cc: Gialdini, Michael; Martinez, Dan; Lind, Katherine Subject: Riverside County's billboard regulations Ms. Aylaian: Per Mr. Carlos Ortega's request, attached please find the County's relevant billboard regulations: 1. Board Policy A-53 (See attachment) . 2 . General Plan Policies (See attachment) . 3 . Article XIX Advertising Regulations of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 2 • (Available at the County's rianning Website) . r 4. Proposed changes to General Plan Policies (See below in yellow highlight) . WCVAP 14.2 Prohibit the placement of billboards within the Western Coachella Valley except as provided in WCVAP 14.3. WCVAP14.3 Lawfully existing Outdoor Advertising Display, which is required to be displaced or removed as a condition of approval of a County approved development, may be relocated to another location zoned to permit Outdoor Advertising Displays, provided that the total number of Outdoor Advertising Displays in the County is not increased. Please let us know if Palm Desert has more questions or concerns. Thanks. Minh Tran Deputy County Counsel (951) 955-6316 3 Page 1 of 1 Aylaian, Lauri From: Tran, Minh C. [MCTran@co.riverside.ca.us] Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 10:29 AM To: Aylaian, Lauri Cc: Gialdini, Michael; Martinez, Dan; Lind, Katherine Subject: Riverside County's billboard regulations Ms. Aylaian: Per Mr. Carlos Ortega's request, attached please find the County's relevant billboard regulations: 1. Board Policy A-53(See attachment). 2. General Plan Policies (See attachment). 3. Article XIX Advertising Regulations of Riverside County Ordinance No. 348 (Available at the County's Planning Website). 4. Proposed changes to General Plan Policies (See below in yellow highlight). WCVAP_14 2 Prohibit the placement of billboards within the Western Coachella Valley except as provided in WCVAP 14.3. WCVAP 14.3 Lawfully existing Outdoor Advertising Display, which is required to be displaced or removed as a condition of approval of a County approved development,may be relocated to another location zoned to permit Outdoor Advertising Displays provided that the total number of Outdoor Advertising Displays in the County is not increased. Please let us know if Palm Desert has more questions or concerns. Thanks. Minh Tran Deputy County Counsel (951)955-6316 7/25/2007 D , 1. -General Plan will be zoned Light Industrial, which allows warehousing, distribution, assembly and light manufacturing,repair facilities, and supporting retail uses. The zoning would go from R-R to Manufacturing Service Commercial. -By doing a General Plan Amendment and Change of zone they would not be � � sun ent. Under the General Plan the site has no land use designation therefore if the applicant is requesting a change of zone the General Plan should be the same. 2. -In the General Plan under signage,policy WCVAP 14.2 states Prohibit the placement of billboards within the Western Coachella Valley. 3. Under justification for the purposed General Plan states the proposed General Plan Amendment falls into the Entitlements/Policy Amendment category which involves change in land use designations or policies that involve land located entirely within a General Plan Foundation Component. -In the General Plan under Incorporated Cities states land use and development within each city are governed by their respective general plan. If the billboard signs are in located within Palm Desert we govern them. -The County has sphere of influence in areas outside the cities,but has to protect community character within the cities. 4. -Under the General Plan Land Use Plan and Land Use Concept states areas adjacent to the I-10 corridor,the area plan purposes a mix of lower density residential land uses ranging from Rural Residential(what the area is zoned now)to Medium Density Residential except along Washington Street and Avenue 42 which will continue to provide High Density Residential. The applicant wants to change zone from RR to M-SC, General Plan wants this area Residential. Under Finding (A)the purposed zone would effect and or conflict with any General Plan Principle. Under finding B how would the proposed amendment contribute to the achievement of the I jeneral Plan if the General Plan states Residential, and if the purposed Billboards are located within Palm Desert or adjacent what scenic value has been implemented? Under Finding C what special circumstances have occurred that were unanticipated in preparing the General Plan? 5. In the General Plan under Scenic Highways under policies WCVAP 18.1 protect the scenic highways in the Western Coachella Valley from change that would diminish the aesthetic value of the adjacent properties in accordance I , with policies in Scenic Corridors sections of Land Use, Multipurpose Open Space, and Circulation Elements. The purposed billboard signs would diminish the adjacent properties. Zoning Code: Make sure the Billboards meet the zoning requirements. Setbacks: No outdoor advertising display shall be erected within established setback or building line, or within road right of way lines or future road right of way lines. Need a state Outdoor Advertising Permit up to 660 feet from edge of the right of way. Height maximum of 25 feet,no more than 300 square feet. VAtV V ,'A �l `� oL✓� � � �U r�tM�J �Lr�� � �N7? 760 413-7,517