HomeMy WebLinkAboutCathedral City SOI/Thousand Palms (Cat City Staff Report 2018) 2.A
Cathedral City
Staff Report
Cathedral City Item No. 2.A
Meeting Date: November 14, 2018
From: Leisa Lukes, Business Development Manager
Title: Findings of the Fiscal Impact Analysis and Annexation Study
for Cathedral City's Sphere of Influence in the Unincorporated
Community of Thousand Palms
City Council
411 CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
Cathedral City
Study Session
Wednesday, November 14, 2018
4:30 PM
City Council Chambers
68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234
MAYOR
Stan Henry
CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
Mayor Pro-Tern Councilmember
Gregory S. Pettis Shelley Kaplan
Councilmember Councilmember
Mark Carnevale John Aguilar
• CALL TO ORDER
• ROLL CALL
• AGENDA FINALIZATION
At this time the City Council may announce any items being pulled from the agenda
or continued to another date.
• STATEMENT OF PARTICIPATION BY THE DEPUTY CITY CLERK
1. PUBLIC COMMENT
Persons wishing to speak on an agenda item or during public comments are
requested to state the name and town of residence for the record. Speakers should
discuss topics related to City business on the agenda, or to matters within the
jurisdiction of the City. Speaker's comments should be addressed to the members of
the Council and not to persons in the audience. Speakers and any other member of
the public will not approach the dais during the meeting without prior consent from
the Mayor/Chair. Speakers should return to their seat after their comments and not
continue to stand at the podium. Any documents used by the speaker shall be given
to the City Clerk for distribution to the Council. Public comments are subject to a
three (3) minute limit.
Persons in the audience shall refrain from behavior that will disrupt the public
meeting. Shall not make or receive phone calls while the meeting is in session. All
persons using personal data devices including cell phones shall place them in silent
mode while meeting is in session. Persons in the audience shall also refrain from
making audible talking, loud noises, clapping, shouting, booing, hissing or engaging
in any other activity in a manner that disturbs, disrupts or impedes the orderly
conduct of the meeting; refrain from creating, provoking or participating in any type
of disturbance that disrupts the meeting. The Mayor and Council have the authority
to rule a person out of order and, if deemed appropriate by the Mayor or Council,
ordered to leave the meeting.
2. STUDY SESSION
Normally no action is taken on Study Session items, however, the City Council
reserves the right to give specific policy direction and take specific action as
necessary. Presentation will be limited to 10 minutes unless other provisions are
made in advance.
A. Findings of the Fiscal Impact Analysis and Annexation Study for Cathedral
City's Sphere of Influence in the Unincorporated Community of Thousand
Palms
Recommendation: This item is provided for information, discussion and
direction only.
B. Discussion on Hedge Height Requirements
Recommendation: This item is provided for information, discussion and
direction only.
C. Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District, Board of Trustee
Appointment representing Cathedral City
Recommendation: Staff Recommends that the City Council discuss how they
want to proceed with the appointment to the Coachella
Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District Board of
Trustee's, representing Cathedral City.
3. CLOSED SESSION
A. Conference with Real Property Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8.
Property Location: Approximately 13.5 acres south of East Palm Canyon Drive
at Date Palm Drive
Negotiating Parties: City of Cathedral City as the Successor Agency to the
former Redevelopment Agency and the City Urban Revitalization Corporation
Property Owner: City Urban Revitalization Corporation
Under Negotiations: Price and Terms for potential sale of real property
B. Conference with Real Property Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8
Cathedral City Page 2
2.A
it Cathedral City
Staff Report
Cathedral City Item No. 2.A
Meeting Date: November 14, 2018
From: Leisa Lukes, Business Development Manager
Title: Findings of the Fiscal Impact Analysis and Annexation Study
for Cathedral City's Sphere of Influence in the Unincorporated
Community of Thousand Palms
City Council
RECOMMENDATION:
This item is provided for information, discussion and direction only.
BACKGROUND:
The City's most recent Sphere of Influence (SOI) expansions occurred in 2011 with
approval by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to add
approximately 9,300 acres to the City's Sphere. SOls are used as a planning tool for
agencies to conduct service and facility planning for areas it intends to serve in the
future. According to LAFCO, a SOI is defined as "a plan for expansion of the probable
physical boundary and service area of a local agency, as determined by LAFCO."
Cathedral City's Sphere area is generally located within the unincorporated Riverside
County community of Thousand Palms. A fiscal review to determine the financial
feasibility of providing City services to this area occurred with preparation of a Fiscal
Analysis and Plan for Services by Ralph Anderson & Associates completed in March
2013 — nearly six years ago. Notwithstanding the outcome of that Study, the City did
not pursue annexation given the overall economic climate and general consensus within
the Thousand Palms community at that time. In January 2015, LAFCO approved a
privately-initiated annexation of the southern-most area of the Sphere, the Messenger
Annexation, that expanded the City's boundaries by 700 acres.
The City Council, at their Annual Goal Setting session held in January 2018, directed
Staff to proceed with an analysis to obtain an updated review of the physical and fiscal
feasibility of annexing the approximately 8,600 acres remaining within the City's SOI. In
July 2018, the City contracted with Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. to prepare
this analysis. The Fiscal Impact Analysis and the Constraints and Opportunities Report,
which have been completed as Phase 1, are attached to this report for presentation to
the City Council.
On September 27, 2018, Mayor Stan Henry and Terra Nova's Principal, Nicole Criste,
Cathedral City Page 1 of 6 Printed on 11/14/2018
Packet Pg.4
Property Location: Approximately 2 acres at the southeast corner of West
Buddy Rogers and East Palm Canyon Drive.
Negotiating Parties: City of Cathedral City as the Housing Successor Agency to
the former Redevelopment Agency, and CCD,LLC
Property Owner: City of Cathedral City as the Housing Successor Agency to the
Former Redevelopment Agency
Under Negotiations: Price and Terms for potential sale of real property.
C. Conference with Real Property Negotiator Pursuant to Government Code
Section 54956.8
Property Location: APN: 673-250-001
Negotiating Parties: City of Cathedral City
Property Owner: The Charles Company
Under Negotiations: Price and Terms for potential sale of real property.
D. Conference with Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation Pursuant to
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1):
Name of Case and Number: Mary H. Garcia V. County of Riverside, et al.
USDC Central District Court of California Case Number: 5:18-CV-00839-SJO-AS
ADJOURN
The next Study Session Meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 12, 2018 at 4:30
p.M.
NOTES TO THE PUBLIC:
The City of Cathedral City complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. If you
require special assistance to participate in this meeting, please call the City Clerk's Office
at (760) 770-0322 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.
If you desire to address the City Council during the meeting, please complete a Request to
Speak Form available at the entrance and present it to the Deputy City Clerk. Speakers will
be called upon by the Mayor at the appropriate time.
Any documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this
agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk's office at City Hall
located at 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero during normal business hours. In addition, such
documents will be posted on the City's website at www.cathedralcity gov.
Cathedral City Page 3
2.A
presented the process and schedule for completing the Constraints and Opportunities
Report and the Fiscal Impact Analysis to the Thousand Palms Community Council at
their regularly-scheduled meeting. Additional extensive public outreach would be
integral to any future annexation activities.
DISCUSSION:
Cathedral City ranks in the top three Coachella Valley cities in population and size with
a population of approximately 54,000 and a municipal boundary that encompasses 22.6
square miles in area. The most recent annexation, the Messenger Annexation, added
approximately 700 acres to the City's municipal boundary. There are approximately
8,600 acres within the City's SOI, which is generally located in Riverside County's
unincorporated community of Thousand Palms.
Spheres of Influence define the boundaries of an area in which an agency intends to
service in the future. The most recent comprehensive fiscal analysis of the of the SOI
was completed for the City nearly 6 years ago in March 2013. In July 2018, the City
Council approved an agreement with the consulting firm of Terra Nova Planning &
Research, Inc. (Consultant) to prepare an updated economic analysis to determine the
fiscal feasibility of servicing the entire SOI area upon annexation to the City. The
Consultant has completed that Study with the findings presented herein. The complete
Constraints and Opportunities Report and Fiscal Impact Analysis are included as
Attachments 6 and 7, respectively.
CONSTRAINTS, OPPORTUNITIES AND LAND USES
The Constraints and Opportunities Report (Attachment 6) provides background
information on current physical conditions in the SOL It also provides potential future
service needs and demands while outlining the City's future responsibilities associated
with eventual incorporation into the City's municipal boundary.
Build out assumptions used to calculate the costs and revenues associated with the
Sphere area are based on existing City land use designations equivalent to Riverside
County land use designations. Density was calculated based on a realistic
development pattern consistent with existing development in the City and region.
No specific projects in the Sphere have requested annexation, nor are any major
projects currently under construction in the Sphere. Recent press coverage of a
proposed Coachella Sports and Entertainment Stadium Authority complex at Cook
Street and Varner Road indicates that a potential project could be developed at this
location. The fiscal analysis is therefore based on general assumptions regarding build
out of the lands consistent with Cathedral City's General Plan land use designations.
Existing and projected development scenarios are shown in Attachment 1, Cathedral
City SOI Land Use and Build Out Projections. Of note, the County Board of Supervisors
has recently authorized cannabis operations in unincorporated Riverside County.
The current population within the Sphere is 7,875. Given the identified land uses and
applying the City's average household size of 3.11 persons per household to the
projected 17,244 dwelling units at build out, an estimated build out population of 61,504
residents has been assumed in the analysis.
Cathedral City Page 2 of 6 Printed on 11/14/2018
Packet Pg. 5
2.A
As shown in Attachment 1, approximately 74.1%, or approximately 5,557 acres, of the
Sphere's total acreage is vacant, and approximately 1,870 acres are developed.
Approximately 2,413 acres are in Open Space and offer limited development potential.
The majority of developed lands (947 acres) are for residential land uses. Based on the
analysis completed by Terra Nova, the Sphere has the potential to generate 24,418
potential residential units, including the existing 7,174 residential units. The area also
has the potential to generate 2.8 million square feet of commercial space and 22.7
million square feet of industrial space at build out.
FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
To complete the Analysis, the Consultant examined a number of financial and policy
documents from the City, the County, LAFCO, and several special districts that currently
serve the Thousand Palms community. The Consultant also reviewed the prior fiscal
analyses for the City's Sphere area since 2013, focusing on the report by John Goss of
Ralph Andersen & Associates.
The Constraints and Opportunities Report (Attachment 6) assumes that there will be no
change in most non-governmental providers that supply local services to Thousand
Palms. Utility services such as water (Coachella Valley Water District [CVWD]),
wastewater (CVWD), flood control (CVWD), electricity (Southern California Edison and
Imperial Irrigation District), natural gas (The Gas Company), and solid waste (Burrtec)
would continue to provide their respective services if annexation occurs. Riverside
County would continue to provide library services. Desert Recreation District would
continue to provide recreation services, as well as lighting and landscaping services,
through a special assessment district. The area would also remain within the Palm
Springs Unified School District.
Animal control services would continue to be provided by Riverside County through a
contract with the City with costs paid by the City's General Fund. Street sweeping could
either remain under the existing Burrtec contract or be provided through CVAG's street
sweeping program.
The fiscal analysis considered "General Government" costs to include administration,
planning, building and similar departments that would be transferred to City
responsibility. Roadway maintenance, including upgrading the area's current sub-
standard streets, would also be the City's responsibility. Public works costs were
considered separately because they are funded through a combination of General
Fund, Measure A, and Gas Tax revenues. In all cases, Capital Improvement Costs
were excluded from operational assumptions as they are targeted expenditures that are
not annually recurring.
The provision of law enforcement services would be transferred from the Riverside
County Sheriff's Department to the Cathedral City Police Department. The Chief of
Police estimates that immediately upon annexation, the Department will require 7
additional patrol officers, 3 sergeants, 2 dispatchers and 1 records specialist to operate
in the Sphere. In addition, 4 patrol-ready vehicles and 10 radios would be required.
Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) currently provides fire protection to the SOI
from a single fire station located on Roberts Road. The City currently contracts with
Cathedral City Page 3 of 6 Printed on 11/14/2018
Packet Pg. 6
2.A
RCFD to provide fire protection services to the approximately 700 acres of recently-
annexed area (Messenger Annexation). Upon incorporation, ambulance services,
emergency management, emergency medical services, fire prevention and fire
protection would be provided by the Cathedral City Fire Department to both the
annexed Sphere area and the Messenger Annexation area.
The Fire Chief estimates that the cost of purchasing and equipping the Robert Road
Fire Station would be approximately $9.5 million. Operational costs for a fully-staffed
station is estimated to be $3.9 million upon annexation. The Fire Chief projects that a
second fire station would be needed in the eastern portion of the Sphere area
(estimated in the analysis to be open when 50 percent of development has occurred —
Phase 3 of the analysis). The costs to construct and equip the second fire station is
estimated at $14.6 million and the operational costs would be equivalent to those of the
Robert Road Station, or $3.9 million annually.
FISCAL SUMMARY
The Fiscal Impact Analysis (Attachment 7) provides fiscal implications of a potential
annexation of the City's SOI at four stages: immediately upon annexation (Phase 1); at
the time 10 percent of the currently vacant land is developed (Phase 2); at the time 50
percent of the currently vacant land has been developed (Phase 3); and at build out
(Phase 4). It also describes how the demand for local services will be met when the
annexed area is developed.
All revenues and expenses are identified in current dollars, exclusive of inflation.
Anticipated annual costs needed to serve the future annexation area at the four phases
of development and projected annual revenues are shown in Attachment 2, Cost and
Revenue Summary Table (with Cannabis Tax), and Attachment 3, Cost and Revenue
Summary Table (without Cannabis Tax). The only difference in the two tables is the
inclusion/exclusion of the cannabis tax revenue.
The cannabis tax calculation is highly speculative. As a result, Attachment 3 was
prepared to show what the costs and revenues would be for the City should that
revenue not be available. Unlike other revenue categories that have had many years of
proven generation in the City's budget, the anticipated revenues associated with the
cannabis industry cannot be assured. The threshold of demand versus supply is not
known and, should the cannabis industry not generate revenue resulting from the
projected 1 million square feet of space within the Sphere area as shown in Attachment
2, the annual deficit to the City is projected to range from $6.3 million immediately upon
annexation to $22.0 million at build out as shown in Attachment 3.
Attachment 2 shows the high costs associated with providing service immediately upon
annexation, particularly relating to police and fire services, resulting in an initial deficit of
$6.3 million. Due to the considerable revenue generated by the anticipated cannabis
cultivation tax, that deficit is expected to remain relatively constant through build out as
development of cannabis facilities expands during the last two phases of development
of the Sphere. The increased deficit shown in Phase 3 of Attachment 2 is due to the
doubling of the Fire Department operation costs associated with a second fire station.
Cathedral City Page 4 of 6 Printed on 11/14/2018
Packet Pg. 7
2.A
Annual revenues include General Fund revenues, such as property, local sales tax, and
transient occupancy tax; Restricted Funds, such as gas tax and Measure A funds; and
Interest Earnings, such as interest earned on revenues. These revenues range from
$3.1 million upon annexation to $43.4 million at the end of the build out period when
projected cannabis tax is included in the projected revenues to the City as shown in
Attachment 2.
Projected expenditures, in current dollars, include estimates for general government,
public works, police protection, fire/EMS services, and roadway maintenance. These
costs range from $9.4 million upon annexation to $49.9 million at build out. The most
significant costs are those from Police protection ($19.7 million), closely followed by
general government operations ($18.7 million).
In addition to the annual operational costs and revenues associated with governing the
Sphere area, the City would also see one-time costs and revenues as summarized in
Attachment 4. These are not calculated as part of the annual costs and revenues
shown in Attachments 2 and 3 because they are tied to development impact fees
(revenue) and specific capital improvement projects (costs).
Development Impact Fee (DIF) revenues, a one-time revenue source, are projected
based on development within each phase (Attachment 4) and would vary considerably
based on the actual level of development. DIF revenues are projected to be significant
(as much as $50.2 million at build out) given the fact that the Sphere area is largely
undeveloped.
Significant one-time costs are associated with Fire Department facilities and roadway
improvements. The purchase and outfitting of two fire stations is estimated to cost
$24.1 million, while roadway improvement costs to bring currently substandard streets
to City standards are estimated at $44.4 million.
SUMMARY
Revenues are dependent on future development types and intensities in the annexation
area. Currently the Sphere area is largely undeveloped. Due to the residential nature
of land uses in the Sphere, build out will significantly increase residential units, while
generating a moderate increase in commercial and industrial development. The result
is a negative cash flow for the City throughout the build out period. Annexation is
projected to result in an annual deficit for the City that ranges from $6.3 million at
annexation to $8.1 million with projected cannabis tax revenues included in the analysis,
and between $6.3 million and $22.0 million at build out without cannabis tax revenues.
Alternative land use designations for future development would result in modified
projections. Land owners, environmental consideration and market demands ultimately
weigh in on any proposed changes to land use designations and zoning. It should be
noted that the pre-zoning designations in place at the time of annexation must remain
constant for two years from the date the annexation is approved.
A detailed comparison of the current fiscal analysis for the Sphere area and the Goss
analysis prepared in 2013 is provided in Attachment 5. Significant differences between
the City's current budget and that of 2013, as well as differences in economic growth
Cathedral City Page 5 of 6 Printed on 11/14/2018
Packet Pg. 8
2.A
assumptions contribute to the varied outcomes of the two analyses.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Should Council consider proceeding with an annexation application, staff would identify
at a future Council meeting the steps necessary for preparation of an annexation
application and associated costs.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Table 1 - Cathedral City SOI Land Use and Build Out Projections
2. Table 2 - Cost and Revenue Summary Table (with Cannabis Tax)
3. Table 3 - Cost and Revenue Summary Table (without Cannabis Tax)
4. Table 4 - One-Time Costs and Revenues
5. Fiscal Analysis Comparison Summary
6. Constraints and Opportunities Report - Cathedral City Sphere of Influence
7. Fiscal Impact Analysis of the Cathedral City Sphere of Influence Under Post-
Annexation Conditions
Cathedral City Page 6 of 6 Printed on 11/14/2018
Packet Pg. 9
2.A.a
ATTACHMENT 1
to
Table 1 M
Cathedral City SOI Land Use and Build Out Projections °'
a
%of %of %of =
Land Use Category' ROW Acres Total Vacant Total Developed Total Total Total Existing Potential Build out Build out N
Acres Acres Lands Lands Acres Acres SF/Units SF/Units SF/Units Population
O
Residential
High Density Residential(RH) 70.4% 59.3 29.7% 3%
11
(11-20 du/ac) 7.1 199.9 207.0 140.7 199.9
131 2,110 2,241
Medium Density Residential(RM) to
(4.540 du/ac) 8.6 210.6 219.2 128.7 61.1% 82.0 38.9% 210.6 3% C
3,233 965 4,198
c�
Low Density Residential(LR)(2- d
441
4.5 du/ac) .5 1,034.0 1,475.5 538.8 52.1% 495.1 47.9% 1,034.0 14% O
3,199 1,819 5,008 1 IL
r
Estate Residential(RE)(0-2 du/ac) 1,062.1 70.8% 310.7 29.3% 14% O
74.2 1,136.3 751.4 1,062.1 621 1,503 2124 0
_a
Total Residential Acreage 531.4 2,506.6 3,037.9 1,559.5 62.2% 947.0 37.8% 2,506.6 33%
7174 6 396 13,570 27 767 m
Commercial
General Commercial(CG) 28.1 97.1 125.2 63.7 65.6% 33.4 34.4% 97.1 1% 609,971 609,971
d
N
Resort Residential(3-6.5du/ac) - 15.8 15.8 - 0.0% 15.8 100.0% 15.8 0% - - .a
C
Total Commercial Acreage 28.1 112.9 141.0 63.7 56.4% 49.3 43.6% 112.9 2% 299,763 609,971 909,734 J
Mixed Use 0
Mixed Use-Urban(Residential 71.6% 112.4 28.4% N/A
Units 53.0 660.0 712.9 283.6 396.0 10,848 10,848 33,738 V
Mixed Use-Urban(Commercial 71.6% 74.9 28.4% N/A R
Square Footage) 53.0 660.0 712.9 189.1 264.0 82,156 1,811,896 1,894,052
d
Total Mixed Use Acreage 80.8% 187.3 19.2% ° - -
53.0 660.0 712.9 472.7 660.0 8/°
Industrial V
Industrial(1) 44•2 1,733.3 1,777.5 1,360.1 78.5% 373.2 21.5% 1,733.3 23% 20,144,069 20,144,069 d
Business Park(BP) 8.8 75.8 84.6 73.8 97.3% 2.0 2.7% 75.8 1% 1,092,267 1,092,267 Fcc
-
V-
Total Industrial Acreage 53.0 1,809.1 1,862.1 1,433.9 79.3% 375.2 20.7% 1,809.1 24% 1,431,431 21,236,336 22,667,767
Open Space E
t
t�
ev
Q
racket Pg. 10
2.A.a
ATTACHMEiv i 1
to
E
Table 1 R
CL
Cathedral City SOI Land Use and Build Out Projections
%of %of %of
ROW Total Total Existing Potential Build out Build out
Land Use Category Acres Vacant Total Developed Total Total
Acres Acres Lands Lands Acres Acres SF/Units SF/Units SF/Units Population 3
O
.0
Open Space-Other(OS-O) - 0.0% 0.0% - 0% N/A N/A N/A
T
Open Space-Public(OS-P) 3.8 100.0% 0.0% 27% N/A N/A N/A N
2,014.7 2,018.5 2,014.7 2,014.7 77
v
Hillside Reserve(1 du/20 ac) 1.9 398.5 400.4 12.3 3.1% 386.2 96.9% 398.5 5% 0 19 19 C
O
Total Open Space Acreage 5.7 84.0% 386.2 16.0% 32% N/A 19 19 v
2,413.1 2,418.8 2,026.9 2,413.1 d
ROW L-
128.1 0.0 128.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A O
Total ROW Acrea e O
Totals
799.2 79501.7 8,300.9 5,556.7 0.7 1,870.1 0.2 7,426.8 100% - 61,504'
7
'Existing residential units based on Riverside County Assessor's data.Existing square footage based on GIS analysis of aerial photographs-represents total square footage estimates of buildings m
within commercial,mixed use and industrial zones. Future conditions of mixed use,commercial,and industrial land uses are calculated using the following assumptions:mixed use residential a
development is assumed to occur at 75%of the maximum density permitted and 22%lot coverage for mixed use developing as commercial;22%lot coverage for commercial zones,and 34%lot
coverage for industrial zones.Future population calculated based on existing City household size of 3.11 persons. d
2 This total is based on existing population 7,875 persons plus the projected population of 24 418 X 3.11=53,629
.O
C
J
O
v
w
o
m
s
v
m
to
H
c
as
E
s
r
Q
Packet Pg. 11
2.A.b
ATTACHMENT 2
Table 2
Cost and Revenue Summary Table (with Cannabis Tax) a
Buildout Phase
.r
Phase 1 (At Phase 2(1096 of Phase 3(50% Phase 4 a
Annexation) Vacant Land of Vacant (Build Out) E
Developed) Land F0
Developed) vim,
ANNUAL REVENUES ii
General Fund: 0
U)
Property Tax $6,439 $358,099 $1,764,740 $3,523,042 E
Property Tax in Lieu of MVF $75 $32,126 $160,331 $320,588 a
Property Transfer Tax $54,053 $212,584 $688,179 $846,710
c
Cannabis Cultivation Tax $0 $1,208,644 $7,554,026 $15,108,052 y
3
Local Sales Tax&Transaction and Use Tax $1,407,769 $2,545,143 $7,094,640 $12,781,511 r
Utility Users Tax $416,824 $700,684 $1,836,123 $3,255,423
Franchise Fees $320,040 $537,988 $1,409,778 $2,499,516 N
Transient Occupancy Tax $474,737 $474,737 $990,756 $1,506,775
Subtotal x
�a
Annual General Fund Revenue at Phase Buildout $2,679,936 $6,070,0051 $21,498,573 $39,841,616 �-
Restricted Funds:
Highway Users Gas Tax $315,000 $529,515 $1,387,577 $2,460,154
Measure A $4,065 $7,349 $20,486 $36,907
Subtotal
Annual Restr.Fund Revenue at Phase Buildout 3
$319,065 $536,864 $1,408,063 $2,497,060 �
Total All Potential Revenues at Phase Buildout $2 999 001 $6,606 869 $22,906 636 $42 338 677 cQa
Interest Earnings: �
Historic Average Interest Rate on 90-Day Treasury E
Bills 2.43% 2.43% 2.43% 2.43%
Anticipated Interest Earned on Revenues $72,876 $160,547 $556 631 $1 028 830 a)
Total Potential c
Annual Revenues at Phase Buildout $3 071876 $6 767 416 $23 463 267 $43 367 506 ai
ANNUAL COSTS
General Fund. a
M
Costs of General Government $2,394,000 $4,024,331 $10 545 653 $18 697,307 c
Costs of Public Works $418,871 $704,123 $1,845,130 $3,271,389 v
Costs of Police Protection $2,518,732 $4,233,992 $11,095,029 $19,671,327
a�
Costs of Fire Protection $3,902,732 $3,902,732 $7,684,634 $7,684,634 Q
c�
Costs of RoadwayMaintenance $387 429 $601 856 ~
$173 001 $215 886
N
Total Potential Annual Costs at Phase Buildout $91407,336 $13,081,064 $31,557,876 $49,926,513
�
E
t
Potential Cashtlow at Phase Buildout -$6,335,460 -$6,313,648 -$8,094,609 -$6 559,006
t
PacketPg. 12
2.A.c
ATTACHMENT 3
Table 3
Cost and Revenue Summary Table (without Cannabis Tax) a
Buildout Phase m
Phase 1 (At Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 0
Annexation) (100/0 of (50%of (Build Out)
Vacant Vacant Land E
Land Developed) 0
Developed) U.
ANNUAL REVENUES 0
General Fund. (a
Property Tax $6,439 $358,099 $1,764,740 $3,523,042 E
Property Tax in Lieu of MVF $75 $32,126 $160,331 $320,588 a
a
Property Transfer Tax $54,053 $212,584 $688,179 $846,710
Cannabis Cultivation Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 a
Local Sales Tax&Transaction and Use Tax $1,407,769 $2,545,143 $7,094,640 $12,781,511 t
F-
Utility Users Tax $416,824 $700,684 $1,836,123 $3,255,423
14
Franchise Fees $320,040 $537,988 $1,409,778 $2,499,516 N
Transient Occupancy Tax $474,737 $474,737 $990,756 $1,506,775 x
Subtotal I
Annual General Fund Revenue at Phase Buildout $2,679,936 $4,861,361 $13,944,547 $24,733,564
Restricted Funds: c
c
Highway Users Gas Tax $315,000 $529,515 $1,387,577 $2,460,154
Measure A $4,065 $7,349 $20,486 $36,907 c
Subtotal r
Annual Restr. Fund Revenue at Phase Buildout $319,065 $536,864 $1,408,063 $2,497,060 3
d
Total All Potential Revenues at Phase Buildout $2,999,001 $5,398,225 $15,352,610 $27,230,625
c�
Interest Earnings:
Historic Average Interest Rate on 90-Day
Bills o 0 0 o E
Treasury 2.43/0 2.43/0 2.43/a 2.43/o E
Anticipated Interest Earned on Revenues $72,876 $131,177 $373,068 $661,704 N
as
Total Potential
c
Annual Revenues at Phase Buildout $3,071,876 $5,529,402 $15,725,678 $27,892,329
ANNUAL COSTS
General Fund.
c
Costs of General Government $2 394 000 $4 024 331
$10,545,653 $18,697,307 y
Costs of Public Works $418,871 $704,123 $1,845,130 $3,271,389
V
Costs of Police Protection $2,518,732 $4,233,992 $11,095,029 $19,671,327
Costs of Fire Protection $3,902,732 $3,902,732 $7,684,634 $7,684,634
Costs of Roadway Maintenance $173,001 $215,886 $387,429 $601,856
Total Potential
Annual Costs at Phase Buildout $9,407,336 $13,081,064 $31,557,876 $49,926,513
as
E
Potential Cashflow at Phase Buildout -$6,335,460 1 -$7,551,662 1 -$15,832,197 -$22,034,184
r
Q
Packet Pg. 13
2.A.d
ATTACHMENT 4
Table 4
One-Time Costs and Revenues
Police and Fire Department One-Time Costs
Police Department Start Up Capital Costs cars and radios $267,512
Roberts Road Fire Station $9,544,870
Second Fire Station $14,584,870
Total Police and Fire One-Time Costs $24,397,252 a
Sub-Standard
Roadway Improvement Costs n
Road's Total E
Estimated R
Current Length Description Cost y
Condition miles U_
These roads are currently fully paved.Sidewalks O
are not provided along some portions on these
roads.Approximately 6.69.miles of these roads E
Fully paved 34 along Ramon Road, 30'Avenue, Cook Street, $5,446,277 t°
a
and Rio Del Sol Road will need to be upgraded a
to Secondary Highway (4-lane undivided; 88
feet wide). y
Partially paved 2 These roads are generally substandard and will $11 937,577 s
need to be improved/widened to City local street ♦—
standards.
N
Of the total 13 miles of substandard roads,
Substandard 11 approximately 0.37 miles (along 31st Avenue) $1,456,697
will need to be upgraded and widened to '
Secondary Highway (4-lane undivided; 88 feet
wide).The balance will require widening to City
a:
local road standards.
Approximately 16 miles of roads in the SOI are M
unpaved and would require full improvements N
to Local Streets(2-lanes;60 feet wide). o
U
Unpaved 16 These unpaved roads also include portions of $25,594,238 E
28a' Avenue (0.65 miles), 301 Avenue (1.38 i
miles),and 31 st Avenue(0.14 miles),which will
need to be upgraded to Secondary Highway(4- O
lane undivided;88 feet wide). v
Grand Total Cost $44,434,790
Source:Appendix B Road way Existing Condition and Future Upgradation Cost).
City Developer Impact Fee Revenues (One time only) r
Phase 2(1096 Phase 3(50% E
of Vacant of Vacant _
Phase 1 (At Land Land Phase 4(Build
Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) Q
New Construction Tax $0 $7,690,659 $30,779,019 $38,535,214
Art in Public Places Fees $0 $2,228,674 $9,017,589 $11,657,842
Total Potential Developer Impact Fee
Revenues at Phase Buildout $0 $9,919,332r$39,796,609 $50,193,056
Packet Pg. 14
2.A.e
ATACHMENT 5
Fiscal Analyses Comparison Summary
Terra Nova has compared its results to those of the Ralph Anderson analysis completed
in 2013, as that study showed a much more positive result for the City than the current
analysis. It is important to note that the 2013 analysis included commercial land included
in the Messenger Annexation, which no longer applies to Sphere analysis as it has been
annexed. Therefore, those revenues and costs assumed for that land are not factored a
into the current analysis. The fact that these lands have high potential sales tax and 4)
transient occupancy tax revenues impacts the current analysis.
M
a
It must also be noted that the City does not have access to the model used in the 2013 E
study. Therefore, the comparison undertaken by Terra Nova is only based on the stated M
results in the 2013 study and cannot delve into differences in methodology to any greatLL
extent. The most significant differences in the analysis are briefly described below. o
N
Short Term Analysis (Upon Annexation) E
• A slight increase in the population of the Sphere, from 7,715 in 2013 to 7,875 a
currently, which would increase per capita costs calculated in the current analysis
for General Government, Fire and Police Services.
• The current analysis includes costs upon annexation for General Government
which the 2013 analysis did not. The 2013 analysis states that the increase in ..
population upon annexation would not impact daily government operations, such N
as administration, planning and building departments, etc. The current analysis
assigns a cost to this increase in population which is based on a per capita factor Z
of current City budget costs. Although the addition of the Thousand Palms E
community will not generate a greatly higher demand for General Government, it E
is unreasonable to expect that it would have no impact at all. W
• The 2013 analysis assumed an extremely high property tax revenue ($817,000),
provided by the County Auditor. The current analysis is based on the current M
CL
property values of all land within the Sphere, provided by the County Assessor's E
office, and excluding all lands identified as exempt from property tax (Xavier High 0
School, Berger Foundation, CVWD, IID and similar). The current property value N
was multiplied by 1%, which is the amount collected by the County, and that
amount multiplied by 8.12%, which is the net amount the City will receive upon Q
annexation. It is not known why the 2013 analysis included such a high revenue.
Because of this discrepancy, related revenues from Property Transfer Tax and A
Property Tax in Lieu of Motor Vehicle Fees are also lower in the current analysis.
• The 2013 analysis considered the generation of Sales Tax and Transient User Tax
on a per capita basis based on the total of these taxes collected by the City, divided d
by the City's population. That factor was then multiplied by the number of residents s
in Thousand Palms. The current analysis considered the currently-developed M
square footage of commercial uses in the Sphere, and assigned a per square foot Q
sales rate to that square footage, from which taxable sales and Transactions and
Use Tax was calculated. The current analysis shows a higher total in sales tax
revenue than the 2013 analysis ($1.4 million vs. $796,000).
• The 2013 analysis calculated Measure A revenue based on a per capita factor,
i
Packet Pg. 15
2.A.e
ATACHMENT 5
derived from the total Measure A revenues received at the time divided by the
City's population. That calculation is inaccurate based on how Measure A is
allocated to Valley cities. The current analysis calculated Measure A revenue
based on the percentage of sales tax assigned to Measure A allocated to the City.
As a result, the current analysis shows much lower revenues when compared to
the 2013 analysis ($6,439 versus $151,297).
• Other modest differences occur as it relates to other revenues and revenue a
sources calculated. In terms of the conclusion of each report, however, the 2013
analysis estimated total annual revenues of$4,284,378 while the current analysis
estimates $2,999,001 in total revenues upon annexation.
• The 2013 analysis assumed a limited police presence in the area, and calculated E
police service expenditures based on a much smaller personnel demand than the N
current analysis (2 officers, 1 sergeant, 0.75 detective and 0.5 dispatcher in the iL
2013 analysis versus 7 officers, 3 sergeants, 2 dispatchers and 1 records clerk in o
the current analysis). In addition, the 2013 analysis included the capital costs of
vehicles in its analysis. The total costs associated with police service expenses E
was estimated at $2,047,527, while the current analysis estimates $2,518,732. a
• The 2013 fire service costs were estimated based on three scenarios. Two of the
scenarios involved maintaining County Fire Department services, while one c
scenario (Scenario #1) assumed that the City would provide fire service. The
current analysis assumes the equivalent of Scenario #1, or that the City would
provide fire services immediately upon annexation. However, the 2013 analysis N
assumed 12 total fire and ambulance personnel, while the current analysis, based
on the Fire Chief's analysis, assumes 20 personnel to staff the station 2417. The R
2013 analysis estimated total expenditures of $2,019,384, while the current E
analysis estimates annual expenditures of$3,902,732.
As stated above, the 2013 analysis did not assign a per capita General =
Government cost to the Thousand Palms area. Instead, specific activities, such as
City Clerk (for elections only) and Animal Control were the only costs estimated. a
As a result, the 2013 analysis estimated General Government costs at $78,983, E
while the current analysis estimates General Government costs at$2,394,000, and 0
Public Works costs at $418,871. The 2013 analysis did not consider any costs AA
associated with road maintenance, traffic signal maintenance, planning and 21
building department costs, code compliance or other general expenditures as part a
of its calculation of costs.
• As a result of these differences, the short term impacts to the City's budget also
U.
vary. The 2013 analysis estimated a net loss of $219,807, while the current L6
analysis estimates a net loss of$6.3 million. The Table below summarizes the two
analyses. E
E
s
n
�v
.r
r
Q
l I
Packet Pg. 16
2.A.e
ATACHMENT 5
Comparison of Immediate Costs and Revenues
2013 Analysis Current Analysis
General Government Cost $78,983 $2,394,000
Public Works/Road Maintenance Costs $0 $591,872
Fire Protection Costs $2,019,384 $3,902,732
Police Protection Costs $2,047,527 $2,518,732
Total $4,145,894 $9,407,336 a
d
General Fund Revenues $3,926,089 $2,752,812
Restricted Fund Revenues $358,289 $319,065 CL
E
Total $4,284,378 $3,071,876 E
H
Difference $219,807 $6,335,460 LL
0
Long Term Analysis (Build Out)
• The 2013 analysis calculated incremental development scenarios differently, so a
the only other area of comparison is the build out analysis.
• The 2013 analysis estimated a much lower residential development potential, N
resulting in 10,090 new units and a population of 31,457 at build out, versus the 'o
17,244 new units and 61,504 build out population. The difference is primarily i=
associated with the assumption made in the current analysis that the Mixed Use
land use category will generate 10,898 units, none of which are accounted for in
the 2013 analysis. This has a direct impact on the annual costs, which in the
current analysis, are calculated on a per capita basis.
• The 2013 analysis assumes many more hotel rooms than the current analysis. In E
part, this is accounted for in the assumption that the Messenger project would N
generate 400 rooms. These potential rooms are now in the City, and not part of c
the current analysis. In addition, the 2013 analysis assumed 566 hotel and
timeshare rooms on the Berger Foundation property, and four additional hotels at
interchanges, for a total of approximately 1,366 hotel rooms. The current analysis o
assumes two new hotels, for a total of 250 rooms. The difference in revenue is
N
substantial: the 2013 analysis resulted in $3.2 million in annual revenues, while the W
current analysis estimates $1 million in revenues. c
• The 2013 analysis assumed a total of$7.8 million in sales tax revenue at build out, Q
while the current analysis estimates a total of $12.8 million. This difference is y
primarily due to the 2013 analysis assuming a lower total square footage for LL
commercial development than the current analysis, primarily in the Mixed Use
designation. The 2013 analysis also did not assume the continuation of the
Transient User Tax, which had a sunset date at the time, and has since been made E
permanent.
cc
• The 2013 analysis estimated total annual revenues of$24.7 million to the General a
Fund, and $1.5 million to restricted funds, for a total of $26.2 million. The current
analysis estimates $24.7 million in General Fund revenues, and $2.5 million in
restricted fund revenues, for a total of $27.9 million. The 2013 analysis included
no revenues from cannabis cultivation tax, which generates $15.1 at build out in
the current analysis, in addition to the $27.9 million.
iii
Packet Pg. 17
2.A.e
ATACHMENT 5
• The 2013 analysis estimated total annual costs of $16.9 million, while the current
analysis estimates $49.9 million in costs, including both General Fund and
restricted fund costs. Differences are across the board. The 2013 analysis
estimated General Government costs to be very limited, and to total $2.7 million
(for administration, community development, animal control and elections). Police
expenses were estimated at $8.7 million, and Fire expenses at $4.0 million. In
addition, $1.5 million was allocated to restricted funds for roadway maintenance. 0
CL
The current analysis estimates General Government costs at $18.7 million,
roadway maintenance at $3.9 million, police expenses at $19.7 million and Fire
expenses at $7.6 million, for total annual costs at build out of $49.9 million. The a
primary difference in the estimates is the difference in build out population. The E
2013 analysis assumed a much lower build out population, which would result in a
much lower costs. As a result, the 2013 analysis assumed minimal increases in U-
General Government costs, while the current analysis assumes, essentially, the p
doubling of the City's current size. The Table below shows the differences in total
costs and revenues. E
M
a
Comparison of Build Out Costs and Revenues
2013 Analysis Current Analysis
General Government Cost $2,716,000 $18,697,307
Public Works/Road Maintenance Costs $1,460,306 $3,872,745
Fire Protection Costs $3,986,400 $7,684,634 N
Police Protection Costs $8,731,286 $19,671,327
Total $16,893,992 $49,926,013
E
General Fund Revenues $24,744,721 $40,870,446 00 c
Restricted Fund Revenues $1,460,306 $2,497,060 )
Total $26,205,027 $43,367,506
Difference $9,311,035 $6,559,006 E
0
U
N
.N
C
Q
v
_y
U.
Ui
r.+
C
E
t
t�
l0
r+
Q
iv
Packet Pg. 18
2.A.f
O
a
Cathedral City
M
a
CONSTRAINTS AND OPPORTUNITIES REPORT E
H
U.
CATHEDRAL CITY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE o
E
a
M
N
7
O
t
H
tt
N
d
v
_
d
7
_
w
O
N
O
Prepared for: n
City of Cathedral City
68700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234
U
1=
O
0.
Prepared by:
d
I
L -A Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.® a
42635 Melanie Place, Suite 101 0
Palm Desert, CA 92211
H
r.+
_
r
N
_
O
November 2018
�o
_
a)
E
s
ea
Q
Packet Pg. 19
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report Q.
as
Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Constraints and Opportunities E
TABLE OF CONTENTS y
U-
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................4 O
0
II. COMMUNITY SETTING...................................................................................6 M
A. Location a
B. Sphere of Influence Land Uses =
C. Population Estimates................................................................................... 6 c
t
III. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CONSTRAINTS.......................... 13
A. Physical Characteristics N
........................................................................... 13 N
i. Biological Constraints....................................................................... 13
v
ii. Geotechnical Constraints....................... ..
iii. Flooding Constraints
IV. EXISTING AND FUTURE SERVICES...........................................................35 -
0
A. Administrative Services/General Government......................................... 35
B. Police Protection.....................................................
a
C. Fire Protection Services
D. Water Services
E. Wastewater Services U
F. Park and Recreation.................................. ....
0
G. Electricity
H. Library Services
I. Solid Waste Collection
J. Street Maintenance.................................................................................... 55 0
a
K. Lighting/Landscaping/Street Sweeping.................................................... 60 W
L. Animal Control
List of Exhibits
Exhibit I Regional Location Map 0
a
Exhibit2 Vicinity Map.................................................................................................. 10 O
Exhibit 3 Cathedral City— SOI Location Map.............................................................. I I
a
Exhibit 4 Cathedral City— SOI Boundary Map ............................................................ 12
Exhibit 5 Riverside County Lane Designations for the SOI =
Exhibit 6 Cathedral City Land Use Designations for the SOI....................................... 28 `
N
Exhibit 7 Biological Resources Map =
Exhibit 8 Natural Communities Map v
Exhibit 9 SOI Lands Inside Conservation Areas........................................................... 31 t°
Exhibit 10 Earthquake Fault Ma =
Exhibit I 1 Flood Map (Eastern SOI Area)...................................................................... 33 E
c
M
Q
2
Packet Pg. 20
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report p
a
d
Exhibit 12 Flood Map (Western SOI Area) .................................................................... 34
Exhibit 13 Fire Stations Within the Cathedral City/ SOI Area....................................... 45 a
Exhibit 14 Water Lines Within the Cathedral City/ SOI Area........................................ 46 E
Exhibit 15 Sewer Lines Within the Cathedral City/ SOI Area........................................ 47
Exhibit 16 SCE and III) Lines Within the Cathedral City/ SOI Area............................. 52 AA
Exhibit 17 Roads in the Cathedral City/ SOI Area.......................................................... 59 o
List of Tables E
Table 1 Cathedral City SOI Land Use and Build Out Projections 7 `4
Table 2 Sphere of Influence Land within the Conservation Areas................................... 14 =
Table 3 Total Recent and Projected Water Deliveries in CVWD Service Area by
LandUse.............................................................................................................. 41 O
s
Table 4 Current Estimated Water Demand.......................................................................42 F-
Table 5 Build Out Estimated Water Demand...................................................................42
Table 6 CVWD Wastewater Treatment Plants 43 N
Table 7 Projected Total Wastewater Flows in the CVWD Service Area......................... 43
c
d
List of Appendices '
Appendix A Soil map
w
Appendix B Roads Within the SOI O
d
d
s
a
U)
v
�v
a
m
s
cc
v
O
a
m
NJ
d
7
O
a
a
O
�o
c
cv
c
w
_
O
v
co
r
d
E
s
v
ca
Q
3
Packet Pg. 21
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report p
a
d
X
r
U
M
CL
I. INTRODUCTION E
The currently incorporated City limits consist of approximately22.6 square miles.' The w
City of Cathedral City completed amendments to its Sphere of Influence in 2011. The City iLO
processed two Sphere of Influence (Sphere or SOI) amendments at that time. SOI Area A N
is generally vacant and undeveloped, and consists of 4,100 acres of land. SOI Area B w
E
consists of approximately 5,200 acres of land which is partially developed. The lands a
included in the Sphere are within the boundaries of the community of Thousand Palms. _
�v
Thousand Palms is an unincorporated community currently under the jurisdiction of the 'o
County of Riverside. It consists of over approximately 9,700 acres of land. The 2010
Census reported a population of 7,715 in Thousand Palms, and population was estimated
to total 7,875 in 20171. Cathedral City's Sphere of Influence includes approximately 8,300
acres generally occurring within the Thousand Palms Community of Interest. 1
The City's Sphere is north and east of the City and adjacent to the U.S. Interstate10 (1-10) _
transportation corridor, in areas where urban development is expected to occur and
intensify in the future. c
2
This Constraints and Opportunities Report (COR) has been prepared to provide the City e.
with background information on current physical conditions in its Sphere of Influence, and
the potential future needs and demands associated with the Sphere's incorporation into the v
City's corporate limits. In tandem with the Fiscal Impact Analysis also being prepared as L
part of this effort, the documents provide the City's decision makers and staff with an
overview of future responsibilities associated with eventual incorporation of the Sphere. E
The COR identifies the following: c
a
d
• Physical constraints within the Sphere of Influence, including environmental H
features which could impact development potential. These include biological, '
geotechnical and flooding constraints.
• Public facilities and service providers that will be responsible for various facilities a
to serve the Sphere of Influence; G.
• Whether these services are currently available in the Sphere of Influence; '0
• Where applicable, extension of services has been considered, and costs that may be =
�a
associated with the provision of service;
• Existing conditions of the roads in the Sphere of Influence; and
• Cost associated with the construction of new roads and maintenance of all roads =
upon incorporation and at buildout. ti
cc
y
z Data USA Website;hltps:Hdatausa.io/profile/geo/thousand-palms-ca/.Accessed July 2018.
V
Q
4
Packet Pg. 22
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report p
a
0
The County currently provides general government and public safety services to the
Sphere. Should the Sphere be annexed to the City, the City would assume those a
responsibilities. In addition, regardless of the governmental jurisdiction in which it is E
located, the Sphere will be provided services by the following providers:
i-
1. Sanitary Sewer: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) O
2. Water: Coachella Valley Water District(CVWD) N
3. Electricity: Imperial Irrigation District(IID) and Southern California Edison(SCE) E
4. Gas: Southern California Gas Company a`..
5. Storm Drain: Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
c
cc
0
3
O
s
H
N
n
d
V
C
d
w
_G
w
O
2
d
t
a
N
w
U
d
s
.r
�a
V
O
a
M
a
N
d
i7
7
O
O.
O.
O
c
r
c
O
U
cc
c
d
E
s
0
M
V
Q
5
Packet Pg. 23
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report Q.
d
r
U
R
Q
E
II. COMMUNITY SETTING —
M
N
A. Location LL
O
co
The Sphere is composed of approximately 8,300± acres of land located within the 0
unincorporated Thousand Palms community, Riverside County, California (Exhibit 1, 2, M
and 3).The Sphere is generally bounded on the north by Coachella Valley Multiple Species
a
Habitat Conservation Areas and unincorporated Thousand Palms, on the south by I-10, on
the west by the City of Cathedral City, and on the east by unincorporated Thousand Palms, c
City of Palm Desert SOI, and Indio SOI. The location of the Sphere is shown on Exhibits
1 and 2. Exhibit 3 and 4 show the boundaries of the City's existing SOI.
N
B. Sphere of Influence Land Uses
m
Exhibit 5 shows the County's current General Plan land use designations for the area, and
Exhibit 6 shows the City's proposed General Plan land use for the Sphere upon
incorporation. Table 1 shows the Sphere land use buildout projections based on Cathedral -
City's General Plan land use designations.
as
c
As shown in the Table 1, approximately 5,556.68± acres of land are undeveloped and n
vacant in the Sphere, whereas approximately 1,870.10± acres of land are developed as
c.�
residential, commercial, and industrial uses.In the Sphere, approximately 649.67±acres of
land are owned by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, which are currently
undeveloped and vacant and designated for industrial land uses. A
C. Population Estimates c
a
Currently, the estimated population of the Sphere is 7,875. It is estimated that at build out
the estimated population will be 61,504505. This estimated build out population is based
on the current population plus an additional 53,629 new residents occupying the additional 3
17,244 new residential dwelling units anticipated at build out.
0
0.
a
O
c
M
c
c
0
U
co
r
v
M
a
6
Packet Pg.24
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report
04
Table 1
Cathedral City SOI Land Use and Build Out Projections
of %of %of v
ROW Total Total Existing Potential Build out Build out C
Land Use Category Acres Vacant Total Developed Total Total O
Acres Acres Lands Lands Acres Acres SF/Units SF/Units SF/Units Population 7
Residential
w
O
High Density Residential(RH) 41
(11-20 du/ac) 7.1 199.9 207.0 140.7 70.4% 59.3 29.7% 199.9 3% 131 2,110 2,241 d
t
a
Medium Density Residential(RM) N
(4.5-10 du/ac) 8.6 210.6 219.2 128.7 61.1% 82.0 38.9% 210.6 3% 3,233 965 4,198 >
U
Low Density Residential(LR)(2- O
4.5 du/ac) 441.5 1,034.0 1,475.5 538.8 52.1% 495.1 47.9% 1,034.0 14% 3,189 1,819 5,008
d
t
Estate Residential(RE)(0-2 du/ac) 74.2 1,062.1 1,136.3 751.4 70.8% 310.7 29.3% 1,062.1 14% 621 1,503 2,124 ea
V
Total Residential Acreage 531.4 2,506.6 3,037.9 1,559.5 62.2% 947.0 37.8% 2,506.6 33% 7,174 6,396 13,570 27,767
O
a
Commercial d
General Commercial(CG) 28.1 97.1 125.2 63.7 65.6% 33.4 34.4% 97.1 1% 609,971 609,971
Resort Residential(3-6.5du/ac) - 15.8 15.8 - 0.0% 15.8 100.0% 15.8 0% - -
O
Total Commercial Acreage 28.1 112.9 141.0 63.7 56.4% 49.3 43.6% 112.9 2% 299,763 609,971 909,734 a
O
Mixed Use
C
Mixed Use-Urban(Residential 53.0 660.0 712.9 283.6 71.6% 112.4 28.4% 396.0 N/A - 10,848 10,848 33,738 H
.+
Mixed Use-Urban(Commercial C
Square Footage 53.0 660.0 712.9 189.1 71.6% 74.9 28.4% 264.0 N/A 82,156 1,8119896 19894,052
to
Total Mixed Use Acreage 53.0 660.0 712.9 472.7 80.8% 187.3 19.2% 660.0 8% C
O
U
Industrial
tG
Industrial(I) 44.2 1,733.3 1,777.5 1,360.1 78.5% 373.2 21.5% 1,733.3 23% 20,144,069 20,144,069 Z.;
C
Business Park(BP) 8.8 75.8 84.6 73.8 97.3% 2.0 2.7% 75.8 1% 1,092,267 1,092,267 tv
.0
V
lC
Q
Packet Pg. 25
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report
N
Table 1
v
Cathedral City SOI Land Use and Build Out Projections
%of %of %of C
ROW Total Total Existing Potential Build out Build out y
Land Use Category' Acres Acres Acres Vacant Total Developed Total Total
Lands Lands Acres Acres SF/Units SF/Units SF/Units Population
Total Industrial Acreage 53.0 1,809.1 1,862.1 1,433.9 79.3% 375.2 20.7% 1,809.1 24% 1,4319431 21,236,336 22,667,767 p
d
L
N
Open Space
a
Open Space-Other(OS-O) - - - - 0.0% 0.0% - 0% N/A N/A N/A N
r
U
Open Space-Public(OS-P) 3.8 2,014.7 2,018.5 2,014.7 100.0% 0.0% 2,014.7 27% N/A N/A N/A
L
Hillside Reserve(1 du/20 ac) 1.9 398.5 400.4 12.3 3.1% 386.2 96.9% 398.5 5% 0 1 1
r+
eo
Total Open Space Acreage 5.7 2,413.1 2,418.8 2,026.9 84.0% 386.2 16.0% 2,413.1 32% N/A 1 1 U
ROW O
a
m
128.1 0.0 128.1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Total ROW Acreage to
Totals 799.2 7,501.7 8,300.9 5,556.7 74.1% 1,870.1 24.9% 7,426.8 100% - - - 61,504' w
'Existing residential units based on Riverside County Assessor's data.Existing square footage based on GIS analysis of aerial photographs-represents total square footage estimates of buildings j
within commercial,mixed use and industrial zones. Future conditions of mixed use,commercial,and industrial land uses are calculated using the following assumptions:mixed use residential
development is assumed to occur at 75%of the maximum density permitted and 22%lot coverage for mixed use developing as commercial;22%lot coverage for commercial zones,and 34%lot p,
coverage for industrial zones.Future population calculated based on existing City household size of 3.11 persons. C'
2 This total is based on existing population 7,875 persons plus the projected population of 24,418 X 3.11=53,629 O
'C
C
to
N
r+
C
L
N
C
O
U
cc
C
d
E
s
to
a
rPacket Pg. 26
2.A.f
r
O
- a
a)
c.
E
CALIFORNIA
r N
U.
O
E
M
a
v
tv
H
O
s
PACIFIC
OCEAN N
N
d
V
_
tv
7
C
O
h]1
s
a
Ito
MEXICO
a
m
s
c�
U
Ave'" Desert Hot Springs 0
CL
t..
mom:, Palm Springs, `ih U)
Cathedral City ry
Rancho Wraps
Palm Desert, India
Indian Wells Coachella 7
m LA Quints
O
\ a
{{C a
Temecula ll O
q
t valoveMe �
fn
RIVERSIDE COUNTY 4'
_
N O O
T V
In co
CO +-'
O =
d
Constraints & Opportunities Report - Exhibit s
1 ® Cathedral City Sphere of Influence
A TERRA NOVA Regional Location Map 1 a
PLANNING 8 RESEARCH.INC
Cathedral City, California
Packet Pg. 27
2.A.f
Legena`!
.r
�v^,
�a
Cathedral City City Limits
r
SOI Boundary
41
' _
Ali
V
t
n'
,
r N
� R
CL
R
I
w,
MR pR
p„_ r
"k
W
r x
_ ..t
µ
_T M
N '"
0 1.75 3.5
Source:Esri,2018 r
t�
IF, Constraints & Opportunities Report - Exhibit a
L j TERRA NOW Cathedral City Sphere of Influence
Vicinity Map 2
PLP"'"""'^&RESEARCH,INC. CathedrC ty, California
racket Pg. 28
2.A.f
Legend r
ED +^`
Palm :
- Cathedral City City Limits
Springs
.��— _ , = � S Boundary
A J "
Cathedral
city
- _ s C
FRANCIS DR, z R,O°ECOg Dp F
��r A ESCUE_A y R x ^
t OUIJO RD aMADRID RD BCVO
VISTACHINO v
7
u
ACLEVFH DR
ao P PNZ �t 30TNAVE p a _'1 y
M UM WAV & o m o p •T �- U
-•� Gam' 4 E �1+
5i: 00 'yn Z
RAMON RD p a
p i
GI DIMESRD S* CORRAI RD VABEL r' Q'
MESdNTE AVB 80NORAAD O 7EG RD C p0.G g- wFST�tieB �� CALLS StRRA
DINAH SHORE DR � Ca 'OSCA
Rancho �'' ' o
w
�„ CRp %TN AVE I S; COWSOV DR Q
-g
o
GERALD FORD DR � a
rc oR to
D coeB Ro 8 +-�
uw�aRD =_
�8NAlRA O DESERT GREENS ORN � 38TH AVE `
7BTNAVE 5: Palm Desert g
DR
�� NTRV CLUB DR Q n..t ESTgV T� ..
+ q Mile6 N
A NDVLEYW
-0 0.75 1.5 3 l p. RUNNING SPRING DR �wKMd(TgL
Source:Esri,2018 0
Constraints & Opportunities Report - Exhibit a
TERRA NOVA Cathedral City Sphere of Influence
Cathedral City - SOI Location Map 3
PLANNING&RESEARCH,INC
Cathedral City, California
Packet Pg. 29
•AL"CANYON DR CALLE MORA -� mr :� i'� �� �d' :m � o E °
A�. AVENIDA`XIMINO y� a o �T A 1
➢r e y. ♦ ,
yya A pi r Y b "� .,. w .DATE PALM DRY
rL
o
PLUML'EY RD SANTORO DR
VIA CAMPANILE
�"..
Q l rn
AQ m RA LER RD.
iNVERNF DR
n
s:
A o
IOSAL�AMOS RD f a h ! a I •n
0
,t r
ri F
"
BOB HOPE DR
RIO DEL SOL RD
m "j "�
ROBERT
e
MIRWM WAY
r f.
� �� ARBOL REAL y�
t
f
—MONTEREYAVE ��C rt.•_ SIERRA DEL SOL SA N M I UE.LITO DR
� n
" GATEW-Y,DR�,
'FRp.• a • DESE RT MOON DER >_
r
CWIRICA)WADR. VISTA DEL SOL C7
VE .. BF I L RD VISTA DE t)RO' i
<� r
> r.: r❑
rn
n x7
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report o
0.
d
M
0.
III. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS AND CONSTRAINTS E
LL
A. Physical Characteristics o
The Sphere is irregular in shape and is accessed from I-10,Varner Road,Rio Del Sol Road, E
Ramon Road, Monterey Avenue, Cook Street, Shadow Valley Drive, and Avenue 38. a
The topography of most of Sphere is relatively flat. The Sphere includes approximately y
1,500 acres of Edom Hill, whose elevation ranges from approximately 400 feet to 1,565 0
feet above mean sea level.
CN
This section defines existing conditions in the vicinity of the Sphere. This section also
provides essential information on the physical, environmental and regulatory constraints
and opportunities of the undeveloped portions within the Sphere which would affect future
land use decisions. 3
c
w
i. Biological Constraints 0
d
a�
Environmental Setting a
The Sphere is located in the Colorado Desert, a subdivision of the Sonoran Desert where
the average annual rainfall is approximately five inches. Most precipitation falls during U
winter and spring with occasional summer thundershowers that account for approximately
one-fourth of the annual total rainfall. Winter days are mild, averaging 70 degrees
Fahrenheit. Winter nights occasionally drop to near freezing. The month of July brings the a
hottest temperatures with daytime highs averaging 109 degrees Fahrenheit.
0
CL
The Sphere area is surrounded by relatively undisturbed desert mountain and canyon
habitat in the north and northeast. The Edom Hill Conservation and Thousand Palms y
Conservation areas constitute the north boundary of the Sphere area. r
Edom Hill constitutes the northwestern portion of the Sphere which gently slopes from the o
north to the south(Exhibit 4).Desert wash habitat consisting of channels and watercourses 0.
0
that drain the mountains from north of Edom Hill, the Indio Hills and San Bernardino -0
Mountain occurs along the northern boundary of the Sphere. As washes emerge from
canyon mouths, they form deep channels that cut through the alluvial plain. Farther from
the canyons, washes become shallower, broader and less defined, and the physical
differences between the washes and the alluvial plain diminish. There are no naturally
occurring springs or permanent aquatic habitats within the Sphere. L)
r
d
E
s
Q
13
Packet Pg. 31
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report c
a
a�
Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Y
The CVMSHCP was established to conserve and preserve habitat and species of concern a
in the Coachella Valley. The City is a party to the Plan, and participates in its E
implementation. The Plan established Conservation Areas,where lands are to be preserved E
and development restricted. In exchange for the preservation of these Conservation Areas,
the Plan allows development outside the Conservation Areas to be unrestricted as it applies o
to covered species and habitats with the payment of a development fee. The development N
fee is used to purchase land within Conservation Areas throughout the Plan. The Sphere E
includes lands within both the Thousand Palms and Edom Hill Conservation Areas.Exhibit a
7, 8, and 9 shows the SOI area overlain on the Edom Hill Conservation Area, Thousand
Palms Conservation Area, and Natural Communities for Covered Species. N
0
Approximately 1,369 acres of the Sphere is located within the Thousand Palms
Conservation Area, whereas approximately 911 acres is located in the Edom Hill
Conservation Area. Table 2 shows the Cathedral City Land Use designations for lands
within the conservation areas.
c
aD
0
Table 2
Sphere of Influence Land within the Conservation Areas o
Conservation Cathedral City Land Use Current CVMSHCP
Acres Development a
Area Designation Condition n
Restrictions
Edom Hill Applicable(only U
Conservation 911 Hillside Reserve(1 du/20 ac) Undeveloped 10%of land is
Area buildable
Thousand Palms Conservation Area r
892 Hillside reserve 1 du/20 ac Undeveloped
c�
393 Estate Residential(0-2 du/ac) Partially Applicable(only C
developed 10%of land is
68 Low densityres 2-4.5 du/ac Undeveloped °�
buildable)
15 Light Industrial Undeveloped
Total 1,369 d
Total(both 3
conservation 2,280 c
areas) a
a
O
V
As shown in the table above, of the 1,369 acres in the Thousand Palms Conservation Area, to
approximately 892 acres is designated as Hillside Reserve under the City's proposed 4
General Plan land use designations for the area. The land in the Edom Hill Conservation
Area (911 acres) is all designated as Hillside Reserve. 393 acres of these lands are
designated for Estate Residential,allowing up to 2 units per acre. Even with the restrictions 0
imposed by the Conservation Area requirements, these lands would still be expected to v 0
develop at the prescribed density. Limitations would be likely for the 68 acres of Low
Density Residential and the 15 acres of Light Industrial lands in these areas. However, E
these limitations would not significantly impact the buildout of the Sphere as a whole.
�v
a
14
Packet Pg. 32
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report o
a
W
Thousand Palms Conservation Area
The Thousand Palms Conservation Area contains a total of approximately 25,890 acres a
which includes the Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard (CVFTL) Preserve and the sand E
source/transport area to the west of it, emanating from the Indio Hills.3 This area includes
all of the sand source/transport Essential Ecological Process area that has not been blocked
by existing development. o
Cn
This Conservation Area provides Core Habitat for the Coachella Valley milkvetch, E
Coachella Valley giant sand-treader cricket,Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard,flat-tailed a
horned lizard, Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrel, and Palm Springs pocket =
mouse.This area contains Mecca aster Core Habitat,which in conjunction with contiguous y
habitat in the Indio Hills Palms Conservation Area is presumed to be suitable for a self- t
sustaining population. The Conservation Area's goals include:
v
• In total, 8,040 additional acres of the Thousand Palms Conservation Area shall be
conserved. This includes:
a) Conserve at least 985 acres of Core Habitat for the Coachella Valley milkvetch;
b) Conserve at least 2,676 acres of Core Habitat for the Mecca aster;
c) Conserve at least 819 acres of Core Habitat for the Coachella Valley giant sand-
treader cricket; °
d) Conserve at least 819 acres of Core Habitat for the Coachella Valley fringe-
toed lizard; a
e) Conserve at least 861 acres of Core Habitat for the flat-tailed homed lizard;
Conserve individual flat-tailed horned lizards as described in Section 4.4 L)
avoidance,minimization, and mitigation measures;
f) Conserve at least 2,935 acres of Core Habitat for the Coachella Valley round- s
tailed ground squirrel;
g) Conserve at least 3,533 acres of Core Habitat for the Palm Springs pocket ,
mouse; o
0.
h) Conserve at least 3,712 acres of the sand source area to maintain the natural
erosion processes that provide sediment for the blowsand ecosystem. This also (n
maintains Linkages for wildlife to the Edom Hill Conservation Area;
i) Conserve at least 4,086 acres in the fluvial and aeolian sand transport area to
maintain the sand transport system. Maintain the current capacity for fluvial a
sand transport in the washes emanating from the Indio Hills that provide sand 0
for the Thousand Palms Conservation Area. This also maintains Linkages for
wildlife to the Edom Hill Conservation Area;
j) Conserve at least 3,826 acres of Other Conserved Habitat for Le Conte s
thrasher;
k) Conserve at least 34 acres of the desert dry wash woodland natural community;
1) Conserve at least 14 acres of active desert dunes and at least 805 acres of active
desert sand;
s Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(MSHCP)and Natural Community E
Conservation Plan.
m
a
15
Packet Pg. 33
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report o
a
d
m) Maintain the hydrologic groundwater regime necessary to maintain the pupfish
refugium and the mesquite hummocks, Sonoran cottonwood-willow riparian a
woodland, desert dry wash woodland, and desert fan palm oasis woodland E
natural communities in this Conservation Area;
n) Maintain the ability of wildlife to cross Ramon Road, Washington Street, and
Thousand Palms Canyon Road by providing undercrossings for Coachella o
Valley fringe-toed lizard, flat-tailed horned lizard, Coachella Valley round- n
tailed ground squirrel, and Palm Springs pocket mouse if these roads are E
widened. These undercrossings should also provide for seed dispersal. a
c
Edom Hill Conservation Area N
The Edom Hill Conservation Area is located immediately north and west of the City. It is o
an important preserve for the Coachella Valley Fringe-toed Lizard and other sensitive
species.Its unique mix of habitats is dependent on a high groundwater table directed toward
the surface by diking associated with the San Andreas Fault. This conservation area is N
comprised of shifting sand dunes, mesquite thickets, palm oases, and sand fields. Exhibit
7 and 8, Habitat Management Areas, shows the location of the Edom Hill Conservation
Area.
c
The CVMSHCP conservation goals for this conservation area include: o
a�
a) Conserve at least 1,283 acres of Sonoran creosote bush scrub; a
b) Conserve at least 1,852 acres of mixed woody and succulent scrub; n
c) Approximately 69 acres of active desert sand fields shall be conserved;
d) Conserve at least 28 acres of stabilized and partially stabilized desert sand fields;
7i
and
e) Conserve at least 25 acres of Mecca Aster Habitat. w
U
Development Restrictions in Conservation Areas
The CVMSHCP does not preclude development entirely within any conservation area. 0
0
0.
Instead, CVMSHCP allows a certain limited amount of development(known as"Take"in
the context of the CVMSHCP) within conservation areas; such take is measured by the
acres of each habitat of each species protected by the CVMSHCP. Therefore, future r
development within the Edom Hill and Thousand Palms Conservation Areas will be
assessed Take for each species by mapping the undeveloped area against the CVMSHCP a
mapping of each covered species' habitat. Such Take Authorizations will be accumulated 0
for all undeveloped area within conservation areas and once the total amount of Take -o
allowed for a species within each conservation area will have been granted,no more Take
would be authorized unless the CVMSHCP is amended.
L
+d
CVMSHCP does limit the development to up to 10% of any parcel, with a mandatory
dedication of the balance of the parcel to conservation. Future developments within both
Edom Hill and Thousand Palms Conservation Areas will be subject to Coachella Valley
Conservation Commission(CVCC)Joint Project Review to allow a detailed analysis of the
impacts of a project, and whether the project will impact the conservation goals for a
Conservation Area.
Q
16
Packet Pg. 34
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report o
c.
a�
Development Outside Conservation Areas
The 6,020 acres of SOI land which are not included in any conservation areas will not be a
subject to CVMSHCP development restrictions, but will be required to pay the E
development fee at the time projects are constructed.However, small portions of the SOI's
northern area, adjacent to either the Edom Hill and Thousand Palms Conservation Areas LL
will be subject to the CVMSHCP's Land Use Adjacency Guidelines in addition to the o
payment of the development fee in effect at the time development occurs. N
E
The Land Use Adjacency Guidelines provide specific direction to minimize"edge effects" 0-
on Conservation Areas. They include:
• Drainage: Development adjacent to a Conservation Area must ensure that the 0
quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the adjacent Conservation Area is not
altered in an adverse way when compared with existing conditions. Stormwater
systems must be designed to prevent the release of toxins, chemicals, petroleum
products, exotic plant materials or other elements that might degrade or harm
biological resources or ecosystem processes within the adjacent Conservation Area.
• Toxics:Projects adjacent to a Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bio-
products such as manure that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife
and plant species,habitat,or water quality must incorporate measures to ensure that 0
application of such chemicals does not result in any discharge to the adjacent
Conservation Area. a
• Lighting: Lighting must be shielded and directed toward the project area.
Landscape shielding or other appropriate methods must be incorporated in project L)
designs to minimize the effects of lighting adjacent to the adjacent Conservation a
Area.
• Landscaping/Invasives: A specific list of invasive, non-native plant species is
prohibited from project landscaping adjacent to a Conservation Area. Landscape
treatments adjacent to a Conservation Area must incorporate native plant materials °o
to the maximum extent feasible. Table 4-112 of the Plan provides a list of
recommended native species, and Table 4-113 provides a list of prohibited plants.
It is important to note that a number of plants commonly used in Valley landscaping
plans are included in the prohibited plant list.
0
o.
Summary, of Biological Constraints Associated with the CVMSHCP o
As discussed above, approximately 2,280 acres of SOI land is located within the Thousand 0
Palms Area and Edom Hill Conservation Areas,where development is limited to up to 10% N
on each parcel. Approximately 6,020 acres of the SOI area are outside the conservation
areas. Areas adjacent to conservation areas will be subject to CVMSHCP Land Use y
Adjacency Guidelines to minimize"edge effects"on Conservation Areas. o
U
Jurisdictional Waters/Wetlands
Several small surface drainages south of Edom Hill and the Indio Hills foothills drain
towards the SOI area during flood events(Exhibit 11 and 12).Three unnamed small surface E
drainages on Edom Hill lie within the SOI boundaries, and may be subject to California
r
w
a
17
Packet Pg. 35
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report a
m
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) and/or Colorado Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) a
requirements under the Clean Water Act. Upon incorporation, these lands would be E
designated as Hillside Reserve which allows development of 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres.
Therefore, impacts to jurisdictional waters or wetlands would be expected to be minimal.
0
Summary of Constraints and Opportunities:
y
E
• Approximately 6,020 acres of the Sphere are outside Conservation Areas, and are a
fully developable from a biological resource perspective.Adherence to CVMSHCP c
adjacency guidelines and payment of mitigation fees will be required, but should
not pose a significant constraint. 0
• Small surface drainages on Edom Hill may be subject to the requirements of the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife,US Army Corps of Engineers,and the
RWQCB. Mitigation is routinely accomplished through payment of fees to in-lieu
funds,or purchase of credits in a Corps of Engineers,CDFW,or RWQCB approved
mitigation bank.
• Approximately 2,280 acres of Sphere land is located within the Thousand Palms
and Edom Hill Conservation Areas,where development is limited to up to 10%on
w
each parcel.
• Development on lands within conservation areas will be subject to the Joint Project r
Review process to determine consistency with the CVMSHCP for each individual n
project.
r
U
ii. Geotechnical Constraints
s
Environmental Setting
The Coachella Valley is located in the northwestern portion of the Salton Trough,a tectonic
depression roughly 130 miles long and 70 miles wide that extends from the San Gorgonio 0
Pass to the Gulf of Mexico. The valley is bounded by the San Bernardino Mountains on
the northwest, San Jacinto Mountains on the west,Santa Rosa Mountains on the south, and
Little San Bernardino Mountains and Indio Hills on the north. The Salton Sea is located to .
the southeast.
t=
0
The valley's geologic composition is directly related to its proximity to the San Andreas 0
Fault,which passes through the northeasterly portion of the valley, and other active faults.
The region is susceptible to a range of geologic hazards, including ground rupture, major
ground shaking, slope instability, and collapsible and expansive soils.
Episodic flooding of major regional drainages, including several major drainages north of =
the SOI area, results in the flooding and deposition of sand and gravel on the valley floor. U
Strong sustained winds emanating from the San Gorgonio Pass cause wind erosion and
transport and deposit dry, finely granulated, sandy soils on the central valley floor.
v
Q
18
Packet Pg. 36
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report o
a
m
Regional soils range from rocky outcrops within the mountains bordering the valley to
coarse gravels of mountain canyons and recently laid fine- and medium-grained alluvial a
(stream deposited) and aeolian(wind deposited) sediments on the central valley floor. E
U
Seismic Hazards
LL
The California Geological Survey (CGS) establishes regulatory zones around Alquist- o
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. These zones, which extend from 200 to 500 feet on each Cn
side of the known fault, identify areas where a potential surface fault rupture could prove E
hazardous for buildings used for human occupancy. a
Development projects located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone(A-P Zone) y
are required to prepare special geotechnical studies to characterize hazards from any s
potential surface ruptures.
v
The San Andreas Fault is one of the most active geologic structures in this region. The
most recent surface-rupturing earthquake on the Coachella segment of the San Andreas
Fault likely occurred in the late 1600's. According to the Earthquake Fault Zone maps for
the Cathedral City and Myoma Quadrangles by the California Geological Survey (CGS,
1974), a small portion of the Sphere of Influence lies within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone (Coachella segment of the San Andreas Fault) and County Fault Zone (Garnet o
Hill Fault) (Exhibit 10).
CL
Approximately 483 acres of land is located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone and County Fault Zone. These lands are designated as Open Space — Rural, Light U
Industrial, and Business Park in the County's General Plan Land Use Map (Exhibit 9 and
10).Upon incorporation,approximately 211 acres of land located within the Alquist-Priolo s
Earthquake Fault Zone will be designated as Estate Residential, and approximately 272
acres of land located within the County Fault Zone will be designated as Industrial(Exhibit
9 and 10). o
a
Based on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Seismicity Map, the Coachella segment of
the San Andreas Fault and Garnet Hill Fault have the potential to cause moderate to
extreme ground shaking and significant ground acceleration in the SOI area.' Seismic
activity of this magnitude has the potential to result in direct damage to structures,property, o
and infrastructure, and/or generate indirect hazards such as slope instability, liquefaction, o
settlement,and landslides, and can cause a variety of localized hazards such as urban fires,
dam failures, and toxic chemical releases.
CU
Damage to infrastructure and utility systems could exacerbate post-earthquake conditions.
There are several natural gas pipelines, SCE electricity transmission towers and III)power U
poles within the SOI area that could fail during an earthquake (Exhibit 19), which would
impede traffic and restrict access to and from the site by emergency response teams. In
d
E
a Forecast for Ground Shaking Intensity from Natural and Induced Earthquakes in 2017.
r
Q
19
Packet Pg. 37
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report 0
0.
addition, disruption to utilities, such as telephone, gas, energy, and water, could
substantially affect efforts to alleviate damage and provide support, including fire a
suppression, and access to heating and cooling, and potable water. E
�o
U
Approximately 5,557 acres of land are undeveloped in the Sphere area which would be
developed as residential, commercial, and industrial uses. All new buildings within the o
undeveloped area of the Sphere will be required to utilize reinforced masonry, as well as y
comply with the State's Uniform Building Code (UBC), which is expected to enable E
structures to resist major earthquakes without collapsing,although structural damage could a
occur. In order to limit impacts associated with surface ruptures within Alquist-Priolo =
Earthquake Fault and County Fault zones, the City of Cathedral City is mandated by law
to require that geological investigations, including but not limited to fault trenching, be 0
performed if development is proposed in proximity to these zones.
a
N
Soil
Based on the National Cooperative Soil Survey, the SOI area predominantly consists of
sand in the Carrizo, Chuckawalla, Coachella, and Gilman associations. These soils range
from fine sands to gravel and cobbles, depending on the area and soil association
(Appendix A).
0
m
Soil Erosion/Loss of Top-Soil
The Sphere of Influence lies within a recognized blow sand hazard area. Fine particulate n
matter can create an air quality hazard if dust is blowing. The CVMSHCP identifies the
majority of the SOI as either a sand source or sand transport area (Exhibit 7 and 8). Soil U
erosion as a result of sand transport from the Edom Hill Conservation Area and Thousand LZ
Palms Conservation Area to the north could be severe,and would occur in perpetuity,since
these lands are protected through the CVMSHCP. Wind erosion could damage structures
built in the SOI area, and cause build-ups of sand,particularly on the northern boundary of
the SOI area. 0
a�
o:
Settlement N
The soil in the SOI area predominantly consists of sands that have a moderate potential to
settle in the event of seismic shaking. Specifically,dry sands may settle and compact when
they are subjected to strong earthquakes.Therefore,additional structures constructed in the a
SOI area could be adversely impacted by differential soil settlement during a seismic event. 0
_
_
0
U
co
c
v
c3
ca
a
20
Packet Pg. 38
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report 0
a
0
Liquefaction
According to GEOTRACKER GAMA, currently, there is only one active well (Well ID M
a
04S06E18R00IS) within the SOI boundaries, located south of Arbol Real Avenue and La E
Canada Way.' The water depth is reported below 190 feet for that well. Because the depth
of groundwater beneath the SOI is greater than 50 feet, the potential for liquefaction in the A
SOI area is considered negligible. 0
0
Conversely, the SOI area lies within the Riverside County designated "moderate E
susceptibility" liquefaction hazard zone for intermediate historic high groundwater a
conditions (50 to 100 feet depth). As discussed above, soils on the project site are sandy, c
and under saturated conditions may be susceptible to liquefaction. Landscape irrigation
may result in shallow saturated sandy soils that may be adversely impacted by liquefaction. 0
Landsliding
The topography of most of Sphere of Influence is relatively flat, however, it includes
approximately 1,500 acres of Edom Hill whose elevation ranges from approximately 400 m
feet to 1,565 feet above mean sea level.
4-
Edom Hill constitutes the northwestern portion of the SOI area which is generally
w
undeveloped and would be designated as Hillside Reserve and Industrial upon 0
incorporation. In these areas, there is a high to moderate risk for rockfalls and landslides.
a
Expansive Soils to
Expansive soils are typically associated with fine-grained clayey soils that have the
potential to shrink and swell with repeated cycles of wetting and drying. As discussed
above, the site is predominantly sand which is not considered expansive soil, and no
expansive soils are present near the surface. cc
Summary of Constraints and Opportunities 0
a
m
• The Sphere of Influence does not have a potential for liquefaction or expansive y
soils.
• Groundwater levels are deep enough to accommodate most types of construction,
including pilings. 0
• Buildings proposed within the Sphere of Influence will be required to be oa
constructed in accordance with the most recent edition of the California Building c
Code (CBC) and Cathedral City Municipal Code Section 8.02.010 to provide cc
collapse-resistant design.' These standards are expected to preclude collapse, but c
could result in significant structural damage.
c
0
0
eo
5 GeoTracker GAMA(Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment Program)Online Database by y
State Water Resources Control Board;Accessed August 2018. E
6 Cathedral City Municipal Code Section 8.02.010-California codes adopted without amendment.
a
21
Packet Pg. 39
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report Q.
m
• About 50 undeveloped parcels totalling 483 acres lie within the Alquist-Priolo
cu
Earthquake Fault Zone and County Earthquake Fault Zone. Any development a
proposed on these parcels will require site-specific investigation,. including E
trenching, and recommendations on construction and setbacks during project
design. _
i
• As two known earthquake faults transect portions of the Sphere of Influence, o
significant impacts to structures would occur if an earthquake occurred, n
• The soils in the area are predominantly dry sand which may settle and compact E
when subjected to strong earthquake shaking. Therefore, structures constructed on a
undeveloped portions of the Sphere of Influence could be adversely impacted by
differential soil settlement during a seismic event, and will require remedial
measures during site grading.
iii. Flooding Constraints N
Environmental Setting
Regional drainage and flood control in the Sphere of Influence is managed primarily by
the Coachella Valley Water District(CVWD). The majority of the SOI area is located in a
FEMA flood zone (Exhibit 11 and 12). Since the SOI area is currently under Riverside
County jurisdiction,the lands that are already developed are built accordingly to Riverside 0
County's standards. Approximately 5,556.68 acres of land is still undeveloped which
would be developed accordingly to City's standards upon incorporation. n
Y
Flood Control/Drainage
Potential flooding problems in the Sphere are related to storm flooding on the alluvial fans
and to runoff associated with the foothills of Edom Hill, the Indio Hills, and Little San s
Bernardino Mountains. Exhibit 11 and 12 show the Federal Emergency Management
Agency(FEMA)mapped 100-year and 500-year flood hazard areas within the Sphere.
t=
0
a
The Coachella Valley area has experienced numerous flooding events during the historical
period. Significant flood events in the valley have accompanied general winter storms,
general summer storms, and localized thunderstorms. Hydraulic models generated for the
North Cathedral City and Thousand Palms area by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants in
2013 show flood hazards with peak flows from 360 cubic feet per second(cfs)to 28,900 0OL
CL
cfs for the Sphere of Influence.'Under current conditions,development which would occur o
c
M
Parcels within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone:659-260-009,659-260-023,659-200-002,659- w
260-027,659-200-001,659-260-0045 659-260-005,659-260-003,659-260-008,659-260-010,659-260-
014,649-440-010,647-220-008,659-260-015,647-440-011,647-440-007,647-440-008,647-440-009, N
647-440-003,648-040-002,647-220-003,647-440-002.Parcels within the Riverside County Earthquake =
Fault Zone: 670-040-009,670-090-005,670-070-009,670-070-009,670-070-003,648-110-012,648-030- U
016,648-030-018,648-030-021,648-030-003,648-030-002,648-030-007,648-030-012,648-030-010, ca
648-030-011,648-030-019,648-030-004,648-030-020,648-030-05,648-11-0006,648-10-001,648-110-
001,648-110-018,648-110-007,648-110-009,648-110-017,648-130-001,648-030-015. v
'North Cathedral City and Thousand Palms Stormwater Management Plan-Morongo Wash Watershed
Hydrology and Hydraulics,prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants in 2013.
Y
Y
Q
22
Packet Pg. 40
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report c
a
d
within the flood zones of the Sphere would be restricted by the limitations imposed by
these zones, which include elevated foundations and may include individual project or a
parcel flood protection. E
U)
O
ONE
'w.. L
(.
atalasb
0
t
N
(1 d
�s F
Legend # • ° v.: s
I.#fWw 0
Max GDIh(111) x..a� a 'z.
I.. io is »:w 7 C.
U)
M..
; 4 � >X
. RS
�Model 9pWldafy
n
°a
a I,f a UMON"(CP)
s
�a
V
According to the CVWD, the Thousand Palms area does not currently have flood
protection, although the District is working with federal agencies to expand flood d
protection to this area.' CVWD is working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) on constructing a series of flood control structures (e.g. levees, channels, d
culverts, and a sediment basin) in the northern and eastern margins of the community of
Thousand Palms to divert the flows as shown below.10
0
a
0.
O
V
c
�a
c
N
c
0
c�
co
9 CVWD Website-Stormwater Protection&Flood Control.
10 Thousand Palms Flood Control Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statemen s
Notice of Preparation&Notice of Intent(2016).
Q
23
Packet Pg. 41
2.a.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report 0
d
Y
v
VISTACHiNO M
Reach 1 a
O N
v>
" -' 0
' R-1
r�rz•,nqs ,�,�Reach 2
yy v X
t�
g I ^
RAMONRD "C
ir
O N
Reach J 1V O
0
H
'D:NAti SNJF<F[3R r ,
r
.a �•, Blow sw d e—
} Aporn" '` tV
e a ���R� •' Area
I `
�5TH AV V
a �� d
Project Location Map " P —��
Permanent Disturbance Area S
yy�� V—
Temporary Disturbance Area O
`i 4�. CC1S Reach d
Soil eat Area fl V
Concrete
e Batch Plant/Marshalling
Yard FRAN I AVF 3 Q
Q Coachella Valley Preserve n
1.
o CVMSHCP Thousand Palms
Conservation Area
t Concr h f"� V
lifill. t Plant/Marahalli Yard
a
tv
t
CVWD is planning to build four(4)levees(Reach 1,2, 3,and 4)in the northern and eastern U
margins of the community of Thousand Palms: o
a
Reach 1 (Levee 1): This levee will comprise of an approximately 12,700-foot-long (2.4- Of
mile) levee (Levee 1) whose height would vary from about 5 to 14 feet depending on
topography and ground slope. This levee would initiate roughly 0.1 mile east of the
intersection of Vista Chino(Avenue 28)and Rio del Sol, on the south side of Vista Chino, o
and extend in an east-southeasterly direction. The levee would generally run parallel and a
north of Southern California Edison's utility corridor and would cross over Sierra del Sol, o
Desert Moon Drive, and Via Las Palmas. Culverts and road crossings of the levee would C
be constructed at Desert Moon Drive and Via Las Palmas.Water and sediment which flows w
from the Indio Hills would flow naturally toward Reach 1 and be diverted to the 550-acre
floodway located along the levees and in the active wind corridor between Reach 1 and
Reach 3. A sediment basin would be installed at the downstream end of this levee in order o
to trap sediment, slow the velocity of stormwater flow across the Preserve, and avoid U
adverse effects associated with erosion or channel migration. tO
w
y
r
a
24
Packet Pg. 42
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report o
a
a�
Reach 2 (Levee 2): This levee will comprise of an approximately 1,700-foot-long (0.32- a
mile) levee with a height of approximately 5 feet. This levee is aligned in the direction of E
the prevailing wind to avoid interference with aeolian transport in this area. It will be
positioned in the mid-alluvial fan area just northeast of an existing electrical substation,to LL
further protect the substation,protect adjacent development, and facilitate the diversion of o
water in a southeasterly direction. This levee 2 would capture large storm events from
Levee 1 and direct flow towards south to levee 3. E
M
a
Reach 3 (Levee 3): This levee will comprise of an approximately 6,500-foot-long (1.2- _
mile) levee, a minimum 12-foot-wide access road on top of the levee, an unpaved
embankment access road on the downstream(west side)of the levee,and an approximately 0
5,300-foot-long(1.0-mile)incised(cut) channel. Levee 3 would vary in height from about
5 feet to 14 feet, depending upon topography and ground slope. Levee 3 would initiate
approximately 2,000 feet southwest of the downstream end of Levee 2,roughly 1,000 feet
south of east Ramon Road. The Channel would be lined with soil cement and would divert
flows from Levee 3 towards the Classic Club Golf Course. The Classic Club Golf Course
is equipped with an existing stormwater conveyance system that is sufficient to transport
storm flows diverted by the levees through the golf course.
0
Reach 4 (Levee 4): This levee will comprise of an approximately 10,300-foot-long (2.0-
mile) incised trapezoidal channel (Reach 4 Channel) which would convey stormwater n
flows from the southeast end of the Classic Club Golf Course and continue south then east, r
adjacent to the south of the existing alignment of Avenue 38. The Channel would terminate 0
at Washington Street,with construction of a conveyance system to direct stormwater flows
under Washington Street and into existing stormwater conveyance facilities in the Del s
Webb/Sun City development.
The flooding hazards would be reduced significantly once these flood control structures o
are built. d
N
Regardless of incorporation of the Sphere into the City, developments proposed in the
future will be required to contain on- and off-site storm flows. Under existing conditions,
small unnamed surface drainages flow downhill during storm events without any 0
0.
interruption as they are not channelized. During storm events, flows may flow south then C
divert to the east direction due to existing topography and physical barriers. Historically,
the flows from the adjacent mountains were conveyed to the alluvial plains either by sheet
flow or by dissected alluvial channel transport. The construction of the railroad
embankment and I-10 to the south interrupted and altered historic flows, which were
diverted in a more west to east direction.
0
U
Surface Water
Primary surface waterways in the Coachella valley include the Whitewater River and
several streams,including Snow Creek,Falls Creek, and Chino Creek,as well as a number E
of smaller creeks and washes. The majority of local surface water in the vicinity of SOI is
r
Q
25
Packet Pg. 43
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report Q.
d
derived from runoff from the Edom Hill, Indio Hills, and San Bernardino Mountains. This
runoff either percolates in the streambeds or is captured in mountain-front debris basins a
where it recharges the groundwater basin.t 1 E
�o
u
Stormwater Impacts U_
The majority of lands (approximately 74%) in the Sphere of Influence are currently
undeveloped.Development of these lands will result in substantial increases in the amounts y
of impermeable surface and landscape areas, which would increase urban runoff. Urban E
runoff tends to include substances used in landscaping, such as fertilizer and pesticides a
associated with maintenance, and other pollutants such as oils from roads. High =
concentrations of these urban pollutants could occur, particularly in the first-flush storm
runoff after a period of no rain, so development on the SOI potentially could adversely t
impact water quality in watercourses receiving runoff.
Construction activities within the Sphere of Influence may result in adverse water quality
impacts to receiving waters as a result on the increased potential for erosion and transport
of sediment to surrounding drainages until the regional flood control structures are in place.
3
Summary of Constraints and Opportunities =
0
m
• Until the planned regional flood control infrastructure is in place, the majority of
the Sphere of Influence is located within the 100-year and 500-year flood hazard n
areas.
• Upon incorporation, development in the annexed area will be required to meet all
Cathedral City's standards for storm flow retention and for the protection of surface
waters under the City's NPDES requirements. r
• Regardless of incorporation, development in the SOI area located within the M
Thousand Palms Conservation Area are significantly limited by the CVMSHCP
development restrictions and may not divert or redirect storm flows, in order to 0
0
preserve natural processes.
N
a=.
3
t=
O
Q
Q
O
C
R
Vl
a�
C
M
a.
Vl
C
O
U
cc
c
y
Coachella Valley Water Management Plan Update—Final Report—2012.
M
a
26
Packet Pg. 44
2.A.f
24TH AVE
.1'
g t'
_. _
r
All
at- Unincorpored V�STACHINO :"-^- -- VISTACH�NO - - side Cou )..._.. River my
`Cathedral N
`' .
City q�RR18ARD U
;1 ■1Ir
30TH AVE � �M0 w#to__ _ G)
/.70 W y��
ft g Z
MCCALLUM WAY 101,I;
G
' IX CL 4)
r
- / - RAMON RD �. VIMSHINGTON ST
9ANDERSRO
�
CALLESERRA
Legend c
CL
N � SOI Boundary Cathedral City City Limits CALLE TOSCA
2il Riverside County Land Use '0
0 BP Business Park LI Light Industrial > R M
CO Commercial Office I IND Heavy Industrial Rp
Z Ra n C hRO t Y, S CDY DR
y CR Commercial Retail HI Heavy Industrial 0
Mirage
®CT Commercial Tourist �,� MUA Mixed Use Area »,�
c -FWY Freeway OS-C Open Space Conservation > r�0 V Palm �eSert
oD < G
-VIOR Very Low Density Res+denhal OS-CH Open Space Conservation Habitat " � q �FF
N -MDR Medium Density Residential OS.R Open Space Recreation O3 g.a+rj11�a
-N MHOR Medium High Density Residential OS-RUR Open Space Rural C - Q Q
S N ..
ll.l HDR High Density Residential PF Public Facilities y y r r-
y N
-VHDR Very High Density Residential RM Rural Mountainous 0 0.5 1 2 -8 IN
HHDR Highest DensityDensity Residential RR Rural Residential A 38THAVE Q
60)
Constraints & Opportunities Report - Exhibit a
o Cathedral City Sphere of Influence
L / TERRA NOVA Riverside County Land Use Designations for the SOI 5
PLANNING&RESEARCH,INC.
Cathedral City, California
Packet Pg. 45
2.A.f
4,"°, 7lalfa4s�4 AVE 24THAVE r�.i 1, I III,
24TH'
se
N
r
z�
Y Unincorporated
Riverside County" If'
V151A CHINO VISTA CHIN,
-
"
VC
�Cat�hedr�a#I W
.w
as F
r
3WOTH
1whe
MCCALLUM V101Y � /.1p � � z
> tri>.near O
w k x
m z C,
RAMON 01
MON RD 4V4SHINGTON
Rancho 4)
DARLA DR ¢ � �. ! .■ SANDERS.RD d
VIA 19E
M:lirage 11F x �CALLESERRA T'
O STCyy , .
N �' FSrF J, O
U Legend R� ' �,x. � , ��"' a
arm}ice} -CALLETOSCAri y r�
n, a SOI_Boundary ..,Cathedral City Cay Lanus k,, M-I I. 0
Cathedral City Land Use a . ` ✓ NFR
.t- BP Business Park
l6 -P/C PUbIIC-Cemetery "T inrSR ._ -..��- ,•.� - •F. t0
�J °~
(.) —CG General Commercial Pit. Public-Library Z I C C
O CN Neighborhood Commercial PIS Public Palm Desert-Schools � "`
DTC Downtown Commercial Prr Public-Transportation
U I Industrial y
66
ow Density Residential(2-4-5 du/ac) Q- a OF
RL L
MU-N Mixed Use-Neighborhood(25 d&ac) RM Medium _Density Residential(4,5.10 dulac) O �'P�' O
N ®MU-U Mixed Use-Urban(45 du/ac) RMH Med-High Density Residential(11-20 du/ac) 3 g a V
" a
.N OS-0 Open Space-Other RH High Density Residential(20-24 du/ac) Q O
LU OS-P Open Space-PubliciPark RR Resort Residential(3-6.5 du/ac) CIO
V OS-PV Open Space-Private x g r
i- RE Estate Residential(0-2 du/ac) .. o / N N
`#OS-W Open Space-Water HR Hillside Reserve(1 du120 ac) 0 0.5 1 2 o N C
Miles 238THAVE A Cd
O Z
V
Constraints & Opportunities Report - Exhibit a
® Cathedral City Sphere of Influence
L / TERRA NOVA Cathedral City Land Use Designations for the SOI 6
PU"`" —3 RESEARCH,INC. Cathedra ty, California
. --ket Pg.46
24TH AVE 24TH AVE
/ _� ,: •,c �piSER
Oy
. C
VISTA CHINO
<CS0
t� gTQS RD �� [ 0 b 4�
.f p ARRIBA Rb �•' w
W
.`r•_�30TH AVE/f- "/.- ° \ _p °•*
•t.0
MCCALLUM.WAY1._�- 0".
it tt n W
Cf
w „� �RA%10N�RO_<� ,HASKELLR.•.'
'I Legend
B
ROADbR DR CALLE SER
SOI BoundaryRA
r•—• ~
Cathedral City-City Limits � BOCA C�wIC�A—TO
DINA HOREDR 4W��;, %. ' -CALLE-TOSCA CALLE'TOSCA
CVMSHCP Conservation Areaslu
+ �j
Edom Hill Conservation Area - W o Iry .r
+ Thousand Palms Conservation Area 357H A;€A - + ' %fcowsov DR
% J ,,1 /
® Giant Sand Treader Cricket
6 V/�
Jerusalem Cricket ORD/'DR`��'f
Fringe Toed Lizard
p qa0� r
Flat Tailed Horned Lizard a
Yellow Warbler,Yellow Breasted o C ,
Chat,Least Bell's Vireo,Summer N o
Miles
j Tanager 0 0.75 1.5 3 V
24TH AVE 4TWAVE-
IT
j
- R
I
s
• 'o `��� �,. � - tit
j
h. Vls, HINO
s .
RD A J
4_ ' �%17416A RD
CL
LU
� r `
u.r0 In.rnu.
)
s'.
�4
A C UMEISERRA
m wy, 4�"► C I 'ass
+�G WE' OA CALLE TOSCA
Legend
d '
q������SOI Boundary ' \ OWBOY DR
r....5 ,.
�__ ._:Cathedral City-City Limits
CVMSHCP Conservation Areas
Edom Hill Conservation Area
t�N z
QThousand Palms Conservation Area
Sand Source and Transport o
Sand Source m
Sand Transport m FRANK SINATRA D `
-24TH AVE •24TH A
R S
dSHCP, 2008
C. 4 III
p Z
< A
C 1'Y
O
iE DRAL•CANVON DR v O
o ^
PLUMLEY�RD FlCUS DR = 0/'' fti. F
''•4 �„ "xis' i� ��o� � �^� O / � �' t c
� r
Z
DA VAII�DR - p CALLS ODLINA y+� zrwt��as rr cif eR�r rr✓4 r�`r U A.
f - ,�*fin: ':. iR"a+Ran rsre ira�rr�r rx�rn O
C
O
O r ,
5 ;RATTLER RD r'�
WVERAESS DR 60.I °
4 to
.. LOS ALAMOS RD
d �r
m + t
00
>rYro �:
A = `
fn
BO B NDPE DR mom` Rp DEISOL
ROBERT RD y =�v" 1 !"}... r„•.' 1
t
O L-1"9 ' i tp-� �w' 'r i
ARBOL REAL '�•.. r tO `�.►+gyp,
MONTEREY AVE SIERRA DEL SOL, ,�q,,)♦M? � - y,�,
SOY � .'� ♦ s«1' ,t � 1+'�`t
m � DESERT MOON DR
1■ \ '.
.
AVE �O SELLRD
lr L�
4CIFIC AVE BERRY R!
ti
a
all
"a
y u �
AVE�
t S'
t � t
a
u
9e
<
w
rN 4L{9C A'TS E,}
L'o },
— — — 7 VISTA CHINO Garnet Hill Fault
VIBTA CHINO
» �
ARRIBA RD
• ' t:F Y,i t •-,.- '.•.. V ND[AN H83 ERV ATION J •. `-'-
a
O
`—. `a,"i., � �O✓ -. Nj ply � � �+.,,AVE
a
�` nn��■.����. ___30THAVE
30T ... 30TH VE
'N ^°< __
', x
q n':.• 5•.1tS,Nre r+m WOBURNCT O .::�
-- LU
CMCCALLUM WAY < ` ` /1p w 3.. w 1:0 p 3 p ➢ #
a
m K O O ¢ 4 ....
F n:ns s r.u�wrlgN ( .: eGN O - ` + t U)
VIA FIRENZA -> ,9Toisa:�i Yalrns ;• O
p< '•:w
A T?
w
.. e ❑
RAMON RD � --- ��"�.Fe w,... _� •, y , Q�i
;p
DARLADR ❑ _ `=U,- SANDER
VIA BELLA AQUA C A L I F K 1 � ,�-�7 S_� ' V<.._.1 a6
2
Q.._ O'� ,_ FCILLE�SERRA-\�^'�w'
_ C
t-{t v A T 1 0 N U) 1ND1 A N R6SE P.YA T11)N fl ni -Cy�iS -,yam p
ORTEGA RD Op1D RD - 3ROR= _ "p <
K
CN OM > -
-�_ —DINAH SHORE DR ,-._-----..� `-'.- m
W J L 4 _ w
<, "CALLE TOSCA -(
-.VIA VAIL
c ❑
s 35TH AVE i,t? a, i'n c < t T
o .J z
-- ❑ MUIRFIELD DR 35THAVE �. --�w-..-. ¢ """�^24 -- "^'8 x '1j
U) ❑ t t Y
t a:�3<n.s48s6 ztw•riox F E-2 _..y �`L,1,A,0 -_ Op -
CONVERSE RD ' ' •U
w
> a i
.. _
o
._. .-'' -'•' PARTS WAY
00 — ^I . t
N
GERALD FORD DR I—
IA,2008
p L LOS ALAMOS RD
.o cx m
c
0
ait
€p
BOB HOPE DR RIO DEL SOL RD
a ra
ar «
ROBERT RD114 i
o
�x
ARBOLREAL
MONTEREY AVE
T.
�FRDp,» ,, DESERTMOON DR— " r
V-1
a
tCG 5
� m
DIE ORO
^»PORTOLAAVE
, ro
/VF)Y
R =
VISTA DEL ESTE
rlippi
. j
n O
r
z
v
IA,2008
VT LN
j O
ij
c�yr
�r
6�
t
0
S
" 11
�F O
oloz
rn
yr a
fir, ?' L•, A
rr
r
�r
} g .e - a { >•r p �P�b
BRIO DEL SOL RD
ti
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report o
0.
m
a
IV. EXISTING AND FUTURE SERVICES E
A. Administrative Services/General Government LL
0
The Sphere of Influence is currently under the jurisdiction of Riverside County. General
government services include the County Supervisor's office, Clerk of the Board of E
Supervisors, County Administrative Offices, and County Counsel. The Board of a.
Supervisors is the governing body of the County government and Board-governed special
districts.
0
t
County administrative offices establish and administer policy, manage various County
departments, and coordinate the County budget. The County Counsel's office oversees all
legal aspects of County government.
Currently, the Sphere of Influence is administered by Riverside County's Planning
Department, Building and Safety Department, Transportation Department, Code
Enforcement Department, and Department of Animal Services. Upon incorporation,
administration of the Sphere of Influence would transfer to equivalent departments within 0
the City, as described below. d
t
a
B. Police Protection ;,
U
Current Service Provider
The Riverside County Sheriff's Department(RCSD) currently provides police protection
to the incorporated community of Thousand Palms, including the Sphere of Influence, 5
through the Palm Desert Police Station located at 73705 Gerald Ford Drive.
The current officer to population ratio for the Thousand Palms area is less than one deputy
for every 1,000 residents with 35 patrol hours per day. The current average response time
by priority is as follows: 2
Priority 1' calls< 5 minutes o
Priority 2 calls< 19 minutes a
Priority 3 calls<35 minutes
c
The community does not have a dedicated specialized team i.e. Special Enforcement Team
(SET), but is serviced by various teams associated with the Sheriff's Department such as
the Gang Task Force and Narcotics Task Force." y
0
U
ca
_
d
E
2 Provided by Lieutenant Robert Castro at Riverside County Sheriff's Department,August 2018. U
r
Q
35
Packet Pg. 53
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report a
a�
Cathedral City Service Provider
Upon incorporation, police services will be provided by the Cathedral City Police a
Department.The Cathedral City Police Station is located at 68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero. E
Its staff includes 52 sworn officers, 35 non-sworn officers/support and administrative 76
personnel, and 8 reserve officers. Reserve officers are required to serve a minimum of 24
hours per month and are usually assigned as the second officer in a patrol car, although o
they may also transport prisoners or perform other assigned duties. Police vehicles include )
38 marked and approximately 22 unmarked cars.13 E
M
a
The specialized units within the City include the following: _
• Detective Bureau—General and specialized investigations, including homicide s
• Auto Theft Task Force
• Narcotic Task Force
N
• Real Estate Fraud Investigator
• Traffic Enforcement/Investigations
• Homeless Engagement Officers
• Gang Investigations Unit c
• K-9 Unit o
• Dispatch
• SWAT(Special Weapons and Tactics) a
n
The City currently provides approximately 0.90 officers for every 1,000 residents with the
following response time goals by priority type.14
as
Priority 1' calls<6 minutes
Priority 2 calls<6.4 minutes
Priority 3 calls < 11.3 minutes o
a
a�
In Cathedral City,all emergency and non-emergency calls for Police and Fire departments
are received by the City's Emergency Communication Center.The Cathedral City Dispatch
Center is staffed 24 hours a day and 7 days a week to answer emergency and non-
emergency phone calls. Currently, the City's Dispatch Center has 14 full time dispatchers o
who answer approximately 13,700 emergency and non-emergency phone calls a month." a
In 2017, approximately 212,077 calls were received by the Emergency Communication O
Center, which was 5%higher than the previous year(Figure 1).16
'3 Provided by Chief of Police Travis Walker,July 2018. o
1°Priority 1—Emergency Calls(e.g. Shooting,Cutting,Disturbance Active Shooter Foot,Kidnapping in U
Progress),Priority 2—Prompt Calls(e.g.Robbery,Fire,Criminal Assault),and Priority 3—General ca
Services Calls(e.g.Missing Person,Intoxicated Person,Drug House,Burglary).
c
v
"Cathedral city Police Department Website.
16 Provided by Chief of Police Travis Walker,July 2018.
�a
Z
a
36
Packet Pg. 54
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report o
a
m
tr
U
5o a
Increase E
215,000 ._..
N
LL
210,000
C�C
C
-_.._.___._.. 02017 (9
205,000 d
■2o16
C
■2015
N
O
200,000 O
t
H
f45,000 04
N
olt Calls
190,000
Cathedral City Police Department 3
Figure 1:Number of Calls Received by the Emergency Communication Center in 2017 and Previous c
Years.
O
d
Based on the current 0.90 officers per 1,000 population ratio, City's Police Department a
would require 7 additional patrol officers, 3 sergeants, 2 dispatchers and one records
specialist immediately upon incorporation. The personnel requirements would increase y
proportionally through build out of the area, and would require 68 patrol officers at built
out to maintain the current ratio. a
d
t
The City expends approximately 39% of its General Fund toward Police services. Based U
on the 2018-2019 budget and the current officer to population ratio, the City will expend
$2,518,732 immediately upon incorporation to cover existing population in the Sphere a
area, and$19,671,327 at build out, should the Sphere be incorporated. W
0
d)
The City has established Development Impact Fees to fund additional law enforcement
facilities.These are assessed per dwelling unit and per square foot of commercial/industrial t
development. a
0
The City maintains a Police and Fire Facilities Fund to account for activity related to c
providing sites, facilities and equipment required by the demand for services from new N
developments. At build out of the SOI, the Fund is projected to receive $7,816317 to fund =
new equipment and facilities for police and fire facilities, including a Police Community ti
Center and a Public Safety training site. o
U
co
c
m
E
t
U
<0
r
Q
37
Packet Pg. 55
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report p
a
0
C. Fire Protection Services
CL
Current Service Provider E
The Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) currently provides fire protection to the a
Sphere of Influence. RCFD is one of the largest regional fire service organizations in
California. The RCFD operates 96 fire stations,in 15 battalions.l' Services provided by the iLO
RCFD include fire suppression, emergency medical, rescue, and fire prevention services.
N
E
The Thousand Palms Station(Roy Wilson Fire Station 35)is located at 31920 Robert Road a
within the Sphere of Influence. That fire station has up to 4 uniformed personnel (full-
time). Response time is typically up to 5 minutes." y
O
The nearest four fire stations to the Sphere of Influence (SOI) are;
• Riverside County Fire Station No. 69 at 71751 Gerald Ford Dr. in Rancho Mirage
= 5 mins.
m
• Cathedral City Fire Station No. 412 at 32100 Desert Vista Rd. in Cathedral City
= 6 mins.
• Cathedral City Fire Station No. 413 at 27610 Landau Boulevard in Cathedral City
w
= 7.5 mins. and,
a!
• Cathedral City Fire Station No. 411 at 36913 Date Palm Drive in Cathedral City
= 8 mins. Q-
n
Response times from the above fire stations are typically 5 to 8 minutes, to the v
benchmarked Sphere location of Ramon Road and Robert Road.
a�
t
Cathedral City Service Provider v
Upon incorporation, ambulance services, emergency management, emergency medical
services (EMS), fire prevention and fire protection will be provided by the Cathedral City a
Fire Department. The City's Fire Department staff currently includes 43 sworn fire
personnel (42 firefighters and 1 Fire Chief), including 14 firefighters on-duty 24/7/365, 2
administrative personnel and 1 full-time fire inspector.
Current firefighter staffing levels represent a ratio of about 0.77 firefighters to every 1,000 a
residents.19 Q-
0
a
c
is
L
r
H
_
O
0
tG
"Riverside County Fire Department Annual Report 2016.
18 Provided by Roy Wilson Fire Station 35 representative(Jared add last name),July 2018. y
19 Provided by Fire Chief Paul Wilson,July 2018 from U.S.Census Bureau-Cathedral City,CA.July 2017
estimated population 54,596.
a
38
Packet Pg. 56
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report a
c.
d
The Cathedral City Fire Department currently has three fire stations: a
E
Fire Station Location Distance to the Sphere
Number of Influence LL
Station No. 412 32100 Desert Visa Road 3.7 miles o
Station No. 413 27610 Landau Boulevard 5.8 miles M
N
Station No. 411 36913 Date Palm Drive 7 5.9 miles E
a
As shown in the table above, the closest Cathedral City fire station to the Sphere of
Influence is Station No. 412 at 32100 Desert Vista Road, 3.7 miles to the west of Ramon
Road and Robert Road. Response times are typically within 6 minutes. s
Based on the City's current staffing ratio of 0.77 firefighters per 1,000 residents,the City's
Fire Department would require 20 additional full-time fire department personnel
immediately upon incorporation. 19 additional fire department personnel would be
required in the Sphere area at build out.
The City's Fire Department will need to hire personnel, acquire apparatus (fire engine,
ambulance and fire inspector vehicle)initially and an aerial ladder truck,second ambulance a°,
and second fire inspector vehicle mid-way through Sphere development, purchase new
equipment to outfit apparatus/fire stations and obtainibuild facilities (one fire station cn
initially and a second fire station mid-way through Sphere development)to serve the future r
development in the Sphere.
The existing Riverside County Fire Station at 31920 Robert Road has been assumed to be
acquired for a Cathedral City Fire Station in this analysis. M
The City expends approximately 24% of its General Fund toward Fire services. The Fire a
Department estimates that two fire stations will be required within the Sphere area. The
first would involve the purchase and equipping of the existing fire station on Robert Road, a
and would include a Police sub-station. The cost estimate for this purchase is $9,544,870.
The second fire station,which would likely occur in the eastern portion of the Sphere area,
is estimated to require a capital expenditure of$14,584,870. o
a
a
O
In addition,the Fire Department estimates $3,902,732. in annual recurring personnel costs M
immediately upon incorporation to cover the existing development in the Sphere. M
At build-out the City will expend a total of$7,684,634 in annual recurring personnel costs. y
The total Capital Outlay costs would be $24,129,740 for both fire stations. A detailed
breakdown of the Fire Department calculations can be found in the accompanying Fiscal U
Impact Analysis.
r
E
U
a+
Q
39
Packet Pg. 57
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report a
d
D. Code Compliance
M
a.
Code Compliance activities are managed by the Building and Safety Division in the City. E
According to the City's adopted budget for fiscal year 2018-2019,approximately$896,666
is allocated for Code Compliance. Currently, the City has 4 code compliances officers, or
a ratio of 0.07 Code Compliance officers per 1,000 population. At incorporation, Code 0
Compliance would require 2 additional officers,and 5 additional Code Compliance officers n
at build out of the Sphere area. The associated costs are anticipated to total $1,120,833 at E
build out, and$448,333 at incorporation. a.
o
E. Water Services y
3
O
t
Service Provider
The Sphere of Influence is located within the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD)
service boundary for domestic water. CVWD is an independent District, and as a result,
the SOI will remain under CVWD jurisdiction regardless of the governmental jurisdiction
assigned to the area. According to the CVWD 2015 Urban Water Management Plan,
CVWD has enough groundwater resources to serve areas within its jurisdiction including
both the City and SOI area. There would not be any change to water services. `
0
a�
CVWD's primary source of water is groundwater extracted by deep wells from the
Whitewater River sub-basin. The water resource consists of a combination of natural n
runoff, recycled water, imported water, inflows from adjacent basins, and an interlinked Y
system of sub-basins.The Whitewater River sub-basin is also artificially recharged through
imported State Water Project Exchange and Colorado River water. The total storage
capacity of the Whitewater River Subbasin is approximately 28.8 million-acre feet and it s
currently contains approximately 25 million-acre feet 20�'
U
CVWD completed and adopted its latest Urban Water Management Plans (UWMP) in Q
2015. CVWD also prepared the Coachella Valley Water Management Plan (CVWMP)
Update in December 2010. The 2010 CVWMP serves as a blueprint for ensuring a
sufficient and sustainable water supply to meet the needs of projected growth throughout .
the Coachella Valley, including the community of Thousand Palms and the Sphere of
Influence,through 2045. a
a
0
_
N
w
_
a+
N
_
O
U
co
20 CVWD Engineer's Report on Water Supply and Replenishment Assessment 2016-2017. u
21 Coachella General Plan Update(2035)Draft EIR. v
12 CVWD 2010 Urban Water Management Plan-Final Report July 2011.
http://www.cvwd.org/ArchiveCenterNiewFile/item/325.
M
a
40
Packet Pg. 58
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report a
a
a
Table 3 below shows the recent and project water deliveries in the CVWD service area by
land use.
a
E
U
Table 3 N
i-
Total Recent and Projected Water Deliveries in CVWD Service Area o
by Cn
Land Use E
acre-feet per ear f°
a
Potable Water Use Non- _
Potable TotalWater
y
Year Residential Commercial Institutional Recycled 0 Delivered
Water
2015 55,033 27,507 868 8,749 101,723
2020 67,800 33,900 1,100 14,300 128,900
2025 80,500 40,300 1,300 27,700 163,800
2030 93,300 46,700 1,500 30,800 188,500
2035 105,900 52,900 1,700 33,900 212,800
2040 1 115,000 157,500 1 1,800 36,300 230,600
Source: CVWD 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. °
a
aD
t
According to the CVWD domestic water plan, the District operates a system of pipelines cn
throughout its jurisdictions. In the area of the SOI,water lines are located along the central
portion of the SOI area, in Ramon Road, 301h Avenue, Rio Del Sol Road, Robert Road,
Arbol Real,Desert Moon Road,and I-10(Exhibit 14).No water lines occur in areas which
are currently undeveloped.
U
Currently, approximately 949 acres of land is developed in the SOI boundary with
approximately 7,174 residential dwelling units served by CVWD. In addition, a
approximately 537 acres of land in the SOI is currently developed as commercial, mixed
use, and industrial use. Exhibit 14 shows the existing water lines within the Sphere of
Influence. Currently, 18 inch water lines are installed along Varner Road(between Ramon
Road and Cook Street), Ramon Road (between Varner Road and Monterey Avenue),
Robert Road, 30th Avenue (between Las Flores Way and Vista De Oro), and Via Las a
Palmas. These water lines are further connected to an 8-12 inch network of water lines o
throughout the SOI to serve existing and future development.In future,CVWD will extend
water lines into the areas where not installed currently based on demand and new y
development proposals. c
L
Build out of the Sphere will facilitate the development of approximately 24,418 total
dwelling units, 376.91 acres of commercial and commercial mixed use development, and
1,809.01 acres of industrial development with a total build out population of 61,504
residents.
E
s
U
a
r
Q
41 - -
Packet Pg. 59
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report o
0.
a�
Table 4 estimates current water demand in the Sphere, while Table 5 demonstrates build Y
out water demand. M
a
E
Table 4 N
Current Estimated Water Demand
0
Land Use Unit of Measure Demand Factor' Total CO
Current Water Demand of SOI Area E
No. of persons ac-ft/ac/ ear ac-ftlyra
Residential 7,875 2.31** 18,191
No. of acres ac-ft/ac/ ear ac-ft/ r
0
Commercial 124.18 1.92 238
Industrial 375.21 0.51 191
TOTAL: 18,620 N
Source:
* Supplemental Water Supply Program and Fee Study,Coachella.
**For conservative analysis purposes,single-family water demand factor is used for residential land use. c=,
Table 5 0
0
Build Out Estimated Water Demand
Land Use Unit of Measure T Demand Factor` Total n
Water Demand at SOI Area Buildout Y
U
No. of persons ac-ft/ac/ ear ac-ft/ r
Residential 61,504 2.31** 142,074
No. of acres ac-ft/ac/ ear ac-ft/ r
Commercial 379.91 1.92 729
Industrial 1,809 0.51 923
0
TOTAL: 143,726CL
Source:
N
* Supplemental Water Supply Program and Fee Study,Coachella.
**For conservative analysis purposes,single-family water demand factor is used for residential land use. c
3
As shown in Table 4 and 5,development in the Sphere of Influence is projected to consume a
approximately 18,620 acre-feet of water per year currently, and 143,726 acre-feet at build o
out. Future demand .will depend on actual development levels and types. Major
development projects will be required to prepare Water Supply Assessments (WSAs) in
compliance with Senate Bills 610 and/or 221. WSAs will quantify a project's estimated R
water usage within the context of background demand. N
0
U
co
_
v
v
r
Q
42
Packet Pg. 60
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report p
a
(D
F. Wastewater Services
�a
a
Service Provider E
The Sphere of Influence is located within the CVWD's jurisdiction for wastewater services.
As is the case with water service, the Sphere will remain under CVWD jurisdiction for y
iL
wastewater treatment regardless of the governmental entity for the area. Currently, CVWD 0
is operating six (6) wastewater treatment plants: U)
E
Table 6 a
CVWD Wastewater Treatment Plants a
Recycled Water U)
Location Treatment Plant Plant Capacity (mgd) Production t
Bombay Beach WRP-1 0.15 No
North Shore WRP-2 0.03 No N
Thermal WRP-4 7 No
Indio Hills WRP-7 5 Yes u
c
Palm Desert
Country Club WRP-9 0.40 Yes
City of Palm c
Desert WRP-10 18-24 Yes
d
Source:
a
CVWD receives a combined average of 18 million gallons of wastewater per day. The v
CVWD provides wastewater service to more than 272,982 residences and 93,969
wastewater connections in the Coachella Valley. Nearly 6.3 billion gallons of wastewater
are treated yearly. The district also has the capacity to increase its wastewater treatment as L
0
the Coachella Valley's population grows23. v
Table 7
a
m
Projected Total Wastewater Flows in the CVWD Service Area
H
Treatment 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 ='
Plant =
CVWD
WRP-4 11,800 16,800 20,600 25,200 29,900 34,500 a
CVWD
WRP-7 5,400 5,900 6,800 7,600 8,400 9,200
CVWD 300 300 300 300 300 300
WRP-9
CVWD 15,000 15,900 16,500 16,900 17,300 17,400 =
WRP-10
�u
d
23 CVWD Website-Wastewater Treatment,http://www.cvwd.org/163/Wastewater-Treatment,Accessed L
October 2017.
Q
43
Packet Pg. 61
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report 0
0.
In the vicinity of the SOI area,the main trunk sewer starts at Bob Hope Drive and flows to
CVWD's Wastewater Treatment Plant#7 in Indio. This plant is located at Avenue 38 and a
Madison Street in Indio and has a capacity of 5,000,000 gallons24,but its capacity could be E
upgraded when demand warrants, as shown in Table 7. Also, as growth occurs, there may
be a need to upgrade the main trunk sewer line. In the future, there will be a need to
construct a new main trunk sewer from Desert Hot Springs to Rio del Sol. o
Exhibit 15 shows the existing sewer lines within the Sphere of Influence. Currently, a 15 E
to 24 inch sewer line is installed along Varner Road between Rio Del Sol Road and 181 a
Avenue. This sewer line is connected to a network of sewer lines throughout the SOI whose
width ranges from 8 to 24 inches. According to CVWD, a 15-inch sewer line is also
installed along Ramon Road, east of Robert Road, which serves the developments along 00
Ramon Road. However,the sewer line exhibit provided by CVWD does not show detailed
information on sewer lines in the SOI central and eastern portions, so the actual size of
sewer lines in those areas are currently unknown. A limited number of areas are currently
not connected to the CVWD sewer network which will need to be connected in future. The
District has the ability to create assessment districts to help fund the extension of sewer
lines in existing neighborhoods, and could implement such a funding mechanism in the 4-
future.
0
d
Development within the SOI area, with or without the incorporation, will result in
substantial increases in wastewater flows generated on the site. These anticipated flows n
will be accommodated through a wastewater collection/sewer system via on-site collection
pipes.
As development increases in CVWD's service area, the District expands its wastewater
treatments facilities.Table below shows the projected total wastewater flows in the CVWD
service area.
t:
0
a
0
y
d
r
O
a
a
O
c
m
N
C
a+
N
C
0
U
c
u
za City of Indio General Plan Update Draft EIR(2016).
a
44
Packet Pg. 62
Ithedral City, 2018
a` {
-}.. b P • ]. '' ,.r� % •d.: £ f.kf� 4�"}F �, J.. `IF
,lc LI 11P0-
• rn' of "}:� m�fi.bs 1 l�iV I V1A1
b j o
, .. ' r r
Lr {r
Is �ai.wt "' e fl Ult 1=w ♦ a....♦...., „� �,��S t
I
k
a • i t
., „r ,�1,.♦ f 49, '"' •, f �... /« � o GENE AUTRY„TRL
♦ q br
M
y. F
Zi
e`
LANDAU BLVD AVENIDA
O
o
rA,
T.
d AVENIDAAm
E PALM DRIV
r
I
3
yg o 4
+ PLUMLEYIRD.
M +yam
m100 . i
pC
KENWOODDR
ou
I DAVALL'DR O
O Z
O
w
x �p 5
. .Y y
A a W
RATTLER RD <_
0 t
o 's
7 LOSALAMOSRD ,
uq1 10
6
09 F . >
+ Y
1. Q s
.i
P10 uFi col Ro
t
t
s
�/i
1' Ro IhF r o • 4 }
r x y
„ d
}
y Nt,01 tzF�t
u ttR- W,
' r
)18
i m o ,.N
CANYON DR m
as
•p m i
PLUMLEY;RD FOCUS DR ' ,., SANTORO
4> ..
VIA CAMPANILE Or
4LL DR r� FALLE C.OLINA
Alp �4•"' _ RATTLER RD
Rf S 3t
Y+ a]
LOSALAMOS
do 1VIN010J
x- �f
BOB HOPF DR .��a� •�;� _ y�.. ' �.. i.,,,� ''i R''°
a
RIO DEL SOL RD61
yc
a -
�!
• ROBERT RD ! e y
TM ��
a ARBOL REAL = f V All fwl'
MONTEREYAVE
SIERRA DEL SOL
4TEWAYDR y°' � `;p,Z4
,DESERT MOON DR �al L
oil-
VISTA DE ORO mr "L m 7i
z
o
m .'
)18
• Y:'''� i #r m�� ��yy ,.'r�-."��ri�T°i'Vli nlgf aY z,,. t•r�,r.���,T� ��� rt�t A �.i Xa'�Y
y gt '`.te�1
t-
''M'''
F�,` "., t ..A a -t;,}}�•,K �,,� .._ti`"� a �,r s-yk,u 2r�+�= �r t� r�3" -�`"�";y ,�,`,�
t. ,�� { ,f x
Tt wT.xq S.:101
J y
k� 'S� r.r4l UMI�F Y,RD �FICUS DR � t1KC� k r a;�
CAMPANILE
{ 1
4LL•( --�-^^- <- CAL LE COUhA
RATTLER
� V
gp "Z
BDB FIOPE DR m " RIO DEL SOL RD
fn
t•"•�", � ROBERTRD �? �,,,, �� � ' � A
ir, RBOL REAL
MDNTEREYf !^ SIERRA DEL SOL 1
.A
iATEWAYDR
�D• r e
'- �lvN
fry t
CORK VISTA DEL PA.LARO t'
`i
x•
m
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report a
W
G. Park and Recreation Y
U
a
Current Service Provider E
Parks and recreation services in the Sphere of Influence are provided by Desert Recreation
District(DRD). The purpose of DRD is to administer park facilities and provide recreation
program services.DRD operates community recreation centers,parks and open spaces with o
a variety of rentable spaces including multi-purpose rooms, classrooms, gymnasiums, )
kitchens,athletic fields,picnic pavilions, stages and sports courts within its jurisdictions.25 E
M
CL
Thousand Palms Community Center and Park is located just north of I-10 in the Sphere of
Influence.The size of the community building and park area are 13,690 and 215,700 square
feet, respectively. The 6f acre Thousand Palms Community Park is owned jointly by the o
Palm Springs Unified School District (PSUSD) and DRD and offers a wide variety of
active recreation opportunities. The park is adjacent to the community center, library, and
school. Immediately north of this park is undeveloped land planned for additional park
T
amenities.26 '-
Future Service Provider
Currently, park maintenance within the City of Cathedral City is handled by the City's c
Public Works Department. Recreation Services are not directly provided by the City; o
however, the City sponsors after school programs offered by the Cathedral City Boys & L
Girls Club, senior programs offered by the Cathedral City Senior Center and a local dance a
program. >,
r
The City does not have an established standard for parks facilities, but instead relies on
individual development agreements with developers as projects are proposed in the City.
Based on General Plan and Quimby Act ratios,approximately 225 acres of parkland would r
be required in the Sphere of Influence at buildout.
The nearest parks to the Sphere of Influence are Dennis Keat Soccer and Century parks 0
0
c.
which are described below: 0)
y
Size r
Nearest Parks (square Amenities
feet) o
Dennis Keat Soccer Soccer Field,Free Parking,Public Art,Restrooms a
Park 17 acre 554,589 Shade Structures, Walking Path, WiFi 0
Century Park(5 acre) 216,163 Soccer Field, Free Parking, Restrooms, Shade
Structures, Tennis Court, Tot Lot, WiFi
DRD is working with the City to evaluate the feasibility of adding Cathedral City to the y
DRD service area. If this change were to be implemented, DRD would continue serving o
the Sphere of Influence, regardless of the governmental entity in the area. If the City does
not enter DRD's service area, Parks and Recreation services would become the t°
c
v
zs AP 012 Fees and Charges Policy and Manual by Desert Recreation District(2017).
26 Desert Recreation District Master Plan(2013).
ca
r
Q
48
Packet Pg. 66
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report 0
a
0
responsibility of the City for the annexed area.
a
H. Electricity E
eo
Service Provider
iL
The Sphere of Influence is located within the Imperial Irrigation District(IID)and Southern o
California Edison (SCE)boundaries. M
N!
E
IID provides electrical services to the SOI east of Rio del Sol. IID customers are charged n
based on the type of the land use and energy consumption as follows:
N
Type of Land Use Monthly Charges for the Service 0
A. Customer Charge - $9.60
B. Energy Charge - 11.69¢ per kWh
Residential C. Energy Cost Adjustment(The amount computed in accordance
with Schedule Energy Cost Adjustment (ECA) and Energy Cost
Adjustment Renewable ECA-R
A. Customer Charge - $12.00
B. Energy Charge
w
First 1,000 kWh - 12.3 1¢ per kWh 0
d
General Service Next 6,000 kWh - 12.05¢ per kWh
All Over 7,000 kWh - 11.690 per kWh
co
C. Energy Cost Adjustment (The amount computed in accordance Z.
with Schedule ECA and ECA-R) v
A. Customer Charge - $140.00 L
Large General B. Demand Charge - $6.75 per kW of Billing Demand r
C. Energy Charge - 9.300 per kWh
Service D. Energy Cost Adjustment (The amount computed in accordance v
with Schedule ECA and ECA-R) o.
Source: Energy rates-Imperial Irrigation District Website.
H
SCE provides electrical service to the northwestern portion of the SOI. SCE customers are
charged based on the type of the land use and energy consumption as follows:
0
a
a
O
a
�a
N
r..
_
Type of Land Use Monthly Charges for the Service
A. Energy Charge- $/kWh/Meter/Day c
Baseline Service 0
Delivery Service Generation' V
Residential Total' uG** DWREC3
Summer 0.03231 0.08589 0.00000
Winter 0.03231 0.08589 0.00000 =
d
E
Non-Baseline Service* v
a
49
Packet Pg. 67
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report a
a�
Type of Land Use onthly Charges for the Service
Delivery Service Generation
Total' UG** I DWREC' E
Summer 0.08026 0.08589 1 0.00000
Winter 0.08026 0.08589 1 0.00000 v
Hi h Usa a Charge LL
Delivery Service Generation 5
Total' UG** DWREC U)
Summer 1 0.14790 0.08589 0.00000
Winter 1 0.14790 0.08589 0.00000
is
0-
B. Basic Charge-$/Meter/Day
N
Delivery Service Total'
Single-Family Accommodation-0.024
t
Multi-Family Accommodation—0.018
C. Minimum Charge***-$/Meter/Day N
Delivery Service Total' v
Single-Family Accommodation-0.169
Multi-Family Accommodation—0.169
C
D. California Climate Credit4 c
36.00 d
Z
O.
*Nonbaseline Service includes all kWh in excess of applicable Baseline allocations as described in
Preliminary Statement,Part H,Baseline Service. '
**The ongoing Competition Transition Charge(CTC)of$(0.00075)per kWh is recovered in the (�
UG component of Generation.
1 Total=Total Delivery Service rates are applicable to Bundled Service,Direct Access(DA)and
Community Choice Aggregation Service(CCA Service)Customers,except DA and CCA Service d
Customers are not subject to the DWRBC rate component of this Schedule but instead pay ties,
DWRBC as provided by Schedule DA-CRS or Schedule CCA-CRS. to
2 Generation=The Generation rates are applicable only to Bundled Service Customers. U
3 DWREC=Department of Water Resources(DWR)Energy Credit—For more information on the
DWR Energy Credit,see the Billing Calculation Special Condition of this Schedule. G.
4 Applied on an equal basis,per household,semi-annually. See the Special Conditions of this m
Schedule for more information.
N
d
7
O
a
a
O
C
ea
H
C
H
C
O
V
eo
i3
C
E
ea
a
50
Packet Pg. 68
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence �.
Constraints and Opportunities Report c
a
4)
Type of Land Use Monthly Charges for the Service
A. Energy Charge- $/kWh/Meter/Month a
E
Delivery Service a
U
Trans'—0.00 172 L
I.L
Distribution—0.00254
New System Generation Charge N
Nuclear Decommissioning Charge—0.00005 N
Public Purpose Programs Charge—0.01075 E
Department of Water Resources(DWR)Bond Charge—0.00549 M
The PUC Reimbursement Fee is described in Schedule RF-E.—0.00046 d
Total2—0.02270
C
eo
Generation to
UG**-0.06029 3
O
Department of Water Resources(DWR)Energy Credit—0.00000 t
H
B. Customer Charge - $/Meter/Month V-
N
r..
General C. Facilities Related Demand Charge - $/kW u
Service/Industrial m
D. Summer Time Related Demand Charge - $/kW Single Phase 4-
Rates Service - $/Month
O
O
E. Voltage Discount, Demand - $/kW 4)
a
F. Voltage Discount, Energy - $/kWh
i�
H. California Alternate Rates for Energy Discount - %
m
s
I. California Climate Credit - $/kWh v
1 Trans=Transmission and the Transmission Owners Tariff Charge Adjustments(TOTCA)which
are FERC approved. The TOTCA represents the Transmission Revenue Balancing Account O
Adjustment(TRBAA)of$(0.00144)per kWh,Reliability Services Balancing Account Adjustment 0.
d
(RSBAA)of$0.00005 per kWh,and Transmission Access Charge Balancing Account Adjustment
(TACBAA)of$(0.00033)per kWh.
JR
**The ongoing Competition Transition Charge(CTC)of$(0.00063)per kWh is recovered in the
UG component of Generation.
Source:Regulatory Information—rates Pricing-SCE Website. O
a
a
Both IID and SCE are independent utility companies which provide electrical service to a
the Coachella Valley including the City of Cathedral City and SOI. IID and SCE a
transmission lines run through the SOI (Exhibit 16). Those parcels are owned by IID and
SCE. Upon incorporation, there would not be any change in IID and SCE jurisdictions. i
NJ
C
O
U
so
c
d
E
t
t�
ea
V
Q
51
Packet Pg. 69
County Open Data,2018
•
,* +
h1ED"RAL CAANYON DRtvw
.� ty� } 'd -¢ }AVENIDA MARAVI LLAM'ir
ov
NIDA JUAREZ + s iy,, =>'` .t`•,;.' '
i�`o Ir y I ��� h+y ti..• xa. � �4It" � �i $� �,� ti.
i r1,o ✓ .m'*G�;;'4�. �^ ' .U ''f +a ti ap i AT
At M Iww
DD
' .
VAAQQUERO.RD zj�
� � m y,s" o z m f. P
PLUMI E CU
FIS DR e } ,;Cki
r. '
OD
1
DA VALL-DR S Z OYl A7,4
�..0 s T P91f�x`5 MMt ice'� , •,
7} s�. -F
coos
,.
m RATTLER RD
INVERNESS
'K�
n
vbl 4'k
w
mk.
R! A t
BOB HOPE OR RIODEI SOLRD.. . s '
s
r
ROBERTRD
MONTEREYAVE �- �.. .' a
+* SIERRA DEL SOL }
SAN.M IGUELITO DR> �. r+ r s .,'.,A a.- 1y�yC� tv �a,,: 1._
GATEWAY,DR;
F Ri n;cx0N
ly
4d
& 4-
AVE - } �t,El�I.0 V19lAllf w(l -'
•Ps-S k' 041 !1M
IFIC AVER D
h r ! "O.
�D. * a
M
+� yg VIS�TA DEL MESTO � . ' # �^ ',
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report 0
a
as
I. Library Services a
�o
E
Service Provider
Library services to Cathedral City and the Sphere of Influence are provided by the
Riverside County Library System. 0
ti
Size of the E
No. of �
Hours of library Programs a
Library Location Volumes
Operation (square Available -o
feet) (books)
N
Monday,
O
Tuesday, r
Thursday,
Saturday
10:00 AM to 04
6:00 PM
33520 Date Wednesdays U
Cathedral City 20,000 81,000 c
Palm Drive 12:00 PM to
8:00 PM .�
Sundays =
1:00 PM to c
5:00 PM
Fridays RCLS Adult n.
Closed Literacy U)
Monday, ,
Tuesday, Program V
Thursday
10:00 AM to
d
6:00 PM s
Wednesdays C)
Sphere of 31189 Robert = 10:00 PM Z, '
Influence Road to 8:00 PM 4,500 20,000 0
CL
Saturdays=
10:00 PM to
4:00 PM d
Fridays&
Sundays=
Closed n.
a
O
Upon incorporation of SOI into Cathedral City, the Thousand Palms Public Library would
continue as a County library, unless the City opted for other options. �+
U)
r
c
w
H
C
O
V
it
C
Z' Roxanna Garcia (Thousand Palms Public Library Representative); Contacted on E
August 2018 21 at 760-343-1556.
a
53
Packet Pg.71
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report 0
CL
D:
J. Solid Waste Collection
M
a
Service Provider E
Burrtec Corporation provides solid waste collection services to the City and Sphere of
Influence. Burrtec collects solid waste from its service area and transfers it to the Edom A
Hill Transfer Station which is located in Cathedral City. Edom Hill is permitted to receive o
2,600 tons of waste per day as a transfer station.From Edom Hill,waste is trucked to Lamb n
Canyon Sanitary Landfill in Beaumont or Badlands Landfill in Moreno Valley. These E
cc
landfills are owned and operated by Riverside County. These landfills have a combined a.
capacity of up to 66,601,993 cubic yards. C
a,
Average Charges Fre uenc
Land Use Services Provided Cathedral Sphere of Cathedral Sphere of �
city Influence city Influence
• Curbside Automated
Service
a�
• Curbside Manual Service U
• Bulky Item Service $230/year =
(included in Pick up once Pick up once 2
Residential • E-Waste Recycling property tax $17/month week week -
• Used Motor Oil bill) o
Recycling m
• Christmas Tree a�
Recyclinga
• Commercial Waste
w
Containers
• Commercial Recycling v
Containers Pick up once Pick up once -0`a
Commercial • Cardboard Baler $155/month $130/month week week
s
• Storage Containers U
• Compactor Services
• Roll Off Containers
0
• Commercial Waste Q-
a�
Containers
• Commercial Recycling
Industrial Containers $80/ton $47/ton On call On call
• Cardboard Baler
• Storage Containers 0
CL
• Compactor Services a
• O
Roll Off Containers
Source:Burrtec
0
w
The City and Sphere of Influence have the same franchised solid waste provider.Therefore,
should the Sphere of Influence be incorporated, solid waste service is likely to remain the N
responsibility of Burrtec. There would be a change in billing for residential customers, 0
however, insofar as the customers in the City are billed through their property tax bills.
r
u
�a
Q
54
Packet Pg. 72
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report o
a
a�
K. Street Maintenance
U
ca
a
There is currently a small network of paved and unpaved roadways in the Sphere of E
Influence (Exhibit 17). The main roads in the Sphere of Influence are:
North South Orientation East West Orientation
0
• Rio Del Sol Road • 301 Avenue Cn
• Monterey Avenue • 31 It
Avenue E
• Vista De Oro • Ramon Road a
• Cook Street • Varner Road c
The Sphere of Influence was not included in the Circulation Element of the City's General o
Plan.For analysis purposes,the City's General Plan roadway classifications were extended
to the Sphere of Influence to classify the roads and are discussed below.
N
Rio Del Sol Road: Rio Del Sol Road is the extension of Bob Hope Drive north of I-10 and
runs through the western portion of the Sphere of Influence. Currently, it is a 2-lane
divided,north-south trending roadway that enters the Sphere of Influence at its interchange ,
with I-10 and extends north to 281 Avenue. According to the City's General Plan,it would
be designated as an"Arterial Highway"upon incorporation.In the future,Rio Del Sol Road a
will need to be upgraded to a 6-lane divided roadway.
a
U)
Currently,curbs,gutters,and sidewalks are present in small segments of Rio Del Sol Road. Y
In the future, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks should be built while expanding the roadway
from 2 to 6-lanes.
d
s
Monterey Avenue: Monterey Avenue is a 4-lane undivided,north-south trending roadway,
which runs through central part of the Sphere of Influence. It is designated as a "City
Collector" in the City's General Plan. Currently, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks are present a
in small segments of the Monterey Avenue. Lands southwest of Monterey Avenue and
Haskell Road are currently undeveloped where only sidewalks are in place. In the future,
as development occurs, curbs and gutters should be built.
c
Vista De Oro: Vista De Oro is a 2-lane undivided, north-south trending unpaved roadway, c.
which will run through the western portion of the Sphere of Influence. It is designated as a o
"City Local Street" in the City's General Plan.
Currently, no curbs, gutters, and sidewalks are present along Vista De Oro. In the future,
this road will need to be paved and supplemented with curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
c
Cook Street: Cook Street is a 2-lane undivided, north-south trending partially paved U
roadway,which runs through the eastern portion of the Sphere of Influence.It is designated
as a"Secondary Highway"in the City's General Plan. In the future, Cook Street will need
to be upgraded to a 4-lane divided roadway. Within the Sphere on Cook Street, curbs, E
gutters, and sidewalks are not currently present.
Q
55
Packet Pg. 73
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report Q.
a�
30th Avenue:30tb Avenue is a 2-lane undivided,east-west trending partially paved roadway,
which runs through the northern portion of the Sphere of Influence. It is designated as a a
"Secondary Highway" in the City's General Plan. In the future, 30t1 Avenue needs to be E
upgraded to a 4-lane divided roadway.
_N
U_
For most of 301 Avenue within the Sphere,curbs, gutters, and sidewalks are not currently o
present. As development occurs, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks will need to be constructed. y
E
31"Avenue: 31"Avenue is a 2-lane undivided,east-west trending partially paved roadway, a
which runs through the central part of the Sphere of Influence. It is designated as a
"Secondary Highway" in the City's General Plan. In the future, 311 Avenue needs to be
upgraded to a 4-lane divided roadway. Curbs, gutters, and sidewalks are currently present r
along parts of the 31It Avenue. In the future, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks need to build
where it's not built yet.
N
r
Ramon Road: Ramon Road is a 2-lane undivided,east-west trending fully paved roadway, a)
which runs through the central part of the Sphere of Influence.It is designated as a"Arterial
Highway" in the City's General Plan. In future,Ramon Road needs to be upgraded to a 6-
lane divided roadway. Currently, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks are currently not present
along majority parts of the Ramon Road, east of Vista De Oro, due to undeveloped lands. a
In the future, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks need to build where it's not built yet along
Ramon Road, east of Vista De Oro. a
Varner Road: Varner Road is a 4 to 6-lane undivided, northeast-southeast trending fully
paved roadway, which runs through the southern portion of the Sphere of Influence. It is
designated as a"City Local Street"in the City's General Plan. t
Varner Road runs parallel to I-10. Currently, the eastern portion of Varner Road is
generally undeveloped; however, curbs, gutters, and sidewalks are currently built for the 0
0
a
majority of its length.
y
In Cathedral City, the Public Works Division is responsible for maintaining the City's '
parks, streets, general fleet and facilities. The City allocates General Fund,Measure A and
Gas Tax revenues to fund Public Works activities. Immediately upon annexation, Public a
Works activities would result in annual expenditures of $173,001 for existing streets C
maintenance, including traffic control devices, striping, etc. At build out, annual Public
Works road maintenance costs are estimated to be $601,856 annually. In addition, Public M
Works expenditures for other activities, including signal maintenance, fleet maintenance
and parks activities would require an additional$418,871 at incorporation,and$3,271,389
at build out. o
U
Existing streets in the Sphere of Influence are private or public streets. Currently,
approximately 63 miles of roads exist in the SOI area. Of these 63 miles,approximately 60
miles are public roads, as shown in the table below.
U
�6
a+
Q
56
Packet Pg. 74
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report c
a
d
Road's Total
v
Estimated
Current Length Description Cost E
Condition miles
These roads are currently fully paved. M
Sidewalks are not provided along some o
portions on these roads. Approximately in
Fully paved 34 6.69. miles of these roads along Ramon $5,446,277 E
Road, 30 Avenue, Cook Street, and a
Rio Del Sol Road will need to be
upgraded to Secondary Highway(4-lane N
undivided; 88 feet wide). 0
Partially paved 2 These roads are generally substandard $11,937,577
and will need to be improved/widened
to City local street standards.
Of the total 13 miles of substandard =
roads, approximately 0.37 miles (along ,
Substandard 11 31 st Avenue) will need to be upgraded $1,456,697 =
and widened to Secondary Highway (4-
lane undivided; 88 feet wide). The
balance will require widening to City
Cn
local road standards. w
Approximately 16 miles of roads in the
SOI are unpaved and would require full
improvements to Local Streets(2-lanes;
60 feet wide).
Unpaved 16 These unpaved roads also include $25,594,238 0
portions of 281 Avenue (0.65 miles),
30d' Avenue (1.38 miles), and 31 st y
Avenue(0.14 miles),which will need to
be upgraded to Secondary Highway (4-
lane undivided; 88 feet wide). a
Grand Total Cost $449434,790 0
Source: Appendix B Road way Existing Condition and Future Upgradation Cost).
o
As shown in the Table above and in Appendix B, approximately 16 miles of roads are
currently unpaved. Upon incorporation, the City would be responsible for constructing
these roads which would cost the City up to $25,594,238. In addition,the City would also
be responsible for maintaining and upgrading 47 miles of paved roads which would cost 0
the City an additional $18,840,552. Upon incorporation, the total cost would reach up to 6
$44,434,790 for constructing new roads and maintaining and widening existing roads.
E
a
57
Packet Pg. 75
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report 0
CL
As shown in Appendix B, the majority of the unpaved roads are surrounded by
undeveloped lands where future development will be responsible for its share of roadway a
improvements. Therefore, the City would recover some of the widening expenses from E
future developments. However, the rebuilding of existing streets, the build out of sub-
standard streets where development occurs, and the on-going maintenance of streets willLL
be the responsibility of the City. a
N
The City has established transportation impact fees through its Developer Impact Fee E
schedule. These are assessed on a per unit basis for single and multi-family residential a
development, and per square foot for commercial and industrial development. These fees =
would be applied to new development within the Sphere of Influence after incorporation.
Because of the added territory involved in the Sphere of Influence, the Development 0
Impact Fee study would need to be updated to encompass the added territory, should
incorporation occur. N
Gas taxes and Local Transportation Funds are also used for the construction and
maintenance of streets and highways.These revenues would increase proportionally should
the Sphere of Influence be incorporated.
_
0
a�
L
a�
a
n
r
U
is
L
U
t=
0
G.
d
0!
N
m
:r
3
O
Q
Q
0
_
ca
N
_E
L
a-.
N
C
0
U
to
_
u
co
r
r
Q
58
Packet Pg. 76
arth; City of Cathedral City, 2018
' eetLihit.urs� e eau ...,»a, .,. �': AUBL
LAND' 'VD
��- Y"� �,SHIFTINGJ�S�DSpTRL• � : a.� �� �* _p; r�, -..K�
70t �, � {��~�.".. �• DMA � s8£ �O''+. a �'y {� f
�f ':• ,�r .. 'iY� � ��m� -'�'� :•d �,q �i1� O 7 Via- p �
` CALCEI R •Ar w k �t0� O O o o
)RALi1 C�ANtYON DR p n JJ
R71.0�s�}
tip" r J - Aap _ 'i+-fif'L`- � Z F:•"t777^^^ �i0 j�
!� _ ,...A..� +-a+ D�< + , o n!• .=•3 ATE,PALM,DR:--o
rCORREGIDOR DR:�' v c j ' ✓ rC �
�LJAY AVE- ", •`w'��.x^ - �� � R t'_
0 NEUMA?DR ^^d w '�
ROM R .. �.:v !' '" "f '^ •g
o '_SlTKENWOOD DR
i
..Mr..MafY.......�
1'wen}it'Iiir I ea m raaawsaa tst i
� � .✓ s/�Z O < ' RAiTLERRD <�.s -..' `c
w
'� 'u .�'Sid. f :" •�� .� °"{ "w� 1
D
r '0.
T A
x z
BOB-HOPE DR. .� ,� �,.'44010 DEL.SOL RD
�- tea,
r. k:< m �� 7•aj
c
t.}Ore•« "n�-t
�.., n ,i' r ' ,"i rz m ♦ 'D` TT ,,rayb,�yq TOE a
D' r j .' ,_ ROBERT RD,,.
KD� * ARBOL REAL ., oD *. zO
" .:. ,MONTEREYAVE• .--- S0�: " t 'a-i r�.- "m ,•Ril��" SIERRA DEL SOL
I: g3M ,{
S'xt�OV
`Y
GATEWAY DR
,... t ,r 4
"-7EDESERT MOON DR _ p
03
VISTA DEL SOL
BELL RD VISTA DE ORO _
D
D p{
* m R
n A
.o
.'o Chia.v VISTA DEL.ESTE
.COOKST
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence
Constraints and Opportunities Report 0
a�
Y
L. Lighting/Landscaping/Street Sweeping
a
Service Provider E
Desert Recreation District (DRD) provides lighting and landscaping to the community of
the Thousand Palms. The existing street lighting facilities within this community areU.
limited in numbers, but are widespread across the entire community. o
DRD provides and ensures the continued maintenance, servicing, administration and E
operation of the landscaping and lighting improvements, community recreation facilities a.
and programs, and associated appurtenances located within the public right-of-way and =
dedicated easements that provide special benefits to areas within the jurisdiction of the
DRD. r
DRD annually levies and collects special assessments in order to provide and maintain the
facilities, improvements and services within Assessment District No. 93-1 which was
formed in 1993 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division
15 of the Streets and Highways Code ("1972 Act"). Streetlights and the landscaped median
on Ramon Road are funded by a local assessment district which is administered by the
DRD along with their maintenance of the community park. _
0
m
Street Sweeping: Street Sweeping on County maintained roads in the SOI area is provided
by Burrtec, and administered through the Environmental Health Department. n
r
Burrtec's street sweepers remove debris from SOI streets and prevent it from entering local c�
storm drains.Burrtec's street sweepers do not pick up large pieces,piles or wet debris from
the streets in the SOI. so
w
The majority of the major streets in Cathedral City are part of the Regional PMIo Street v
Sweeping Program, which is managed by the Coachella Valley Association of 0
0
CL
Governments(CVAG).Regional PMio Street Sweeping Program is part of the area's Clean
Streets Management Program. Using alternative fuel sweepers,these sweepers and related
equipment mitigate PM-10 blowsand issues throughout the Coachella Valley. r
c
Currently, the City is divided into eight (9) zones. Streets in each zone are swept once a 0
CL
month. °"
0
CVAG administers the arterial street sweeping through funds the City receives from the
Air Quality Fund. Burrtec provides residential street sweeping through their contract with
the City.Both Burrtec and CVAG contract with Clean Streets to sweep streets in Cathedral
City. _
0
v
Upon incorporation, either the Burrtec contract would extend the service or the City could
obtain additional grant funds for arterial sweeping, or funding through CVAG will be used
CD
for this service. E
C
t)
a
60
Packet Pg.78
2.A.f
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence �.
Constraints and Opportunities Report p
a
m
M. Animal Control
M
a
Service Provider E
The Riverside County Animal Shelter provides complete animal services for the
unincorporated areas of Riverside County. It also provides shelter and adoption services
for Cathedral City, Coachella, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Indio, La Quinta, Palm 0
Desert and Rancho Mirage.
E
The Coachella Valley Animal Campus is located in the SOI Thousand Palms community a
at 72050 Pet Land Place. a
_
M
NJ
Animal Control Services are currently contracted by the City through the Riverside County t
Health Department Animal Services Division. The City pays for these services through the
General Fund. The City has allocated $329,189 for police/animal control for year
2018/2019. Based on its current population,the cost of providing animal control in the City
is currently $6.00 per person. On this basis, animal control services would cost the City
$47,250 immediately upon incorporation, and $369,024 at build out of the Sphere area.
w
c
w
O
as
L
m
t
a
v
L
d
s
r
cc
V
O
a
d
m
r
O
a
a
O
c
eo
N
c
L
H
c
O
V
eC
a:
c
d
E
L
t�
Q
61
Packet Pg. 79
OZ
CD
00
O
d
rt
� N
O D
Attacnment: 6. Constraints and Opportunities Report -Cathedral City spnere of Influence (1241 : Thousand Palms SOI Fiscal Impact keport)
2.A.f
USDA United States A product of the National Custom Soil Resource
Department of Cooperative Soil Survey,
Agriculture a joint effort of the United Report for
States Department of a
NRCS Agriculture and other Riverside County,
Federal agencies, State
Natural agencies including the Coachella Va I I ey Area �-
Resources Agricultural Experiment E
Conservation Stations, and local California E
Service participants w
ii
CONSTRAINTS AND o
Cn
OPPORTUNITIES REPORT CC 0
SOI 2018 a
O
s
H
N
d
V
_
d
7
w
_
w
O
d
t! .1
CL
O
o-
j- a
e. +
y H
fie« I E
a
Packet Pg. 81
2.A.f
0
c.
01
u
�o
a
E
R
H
Preface U-
0
CO
0
E
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas. M
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information a
about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for
many different users, including farmers, ranchers,foresters, agronomists, urban N
planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers. 0
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste �-
disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,
protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil
properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of
soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for c
identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
m
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area a
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some n
cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/ w
portal/nres/main/soils/health/)and certain conservation and engineering v
applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center
(https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres)or your NRCS State Soil s
Scientist(http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nres142p2_053951). v
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are 0
0
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
m
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as
septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to d
basements or underground installations. c
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States c
Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the a
Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources O
Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National
�a
Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information. «`
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 0
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status,familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a y
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
R
Q
2
Packet Pg. 82
2.A.f
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, o
CL
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice
and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or Q
call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or(202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity E
provider and employer.
�a
ii
O
fA
E
M
a
N
O
t
H
d'
N
V
c
7
C
O
G7
L
Q
t
Q
N
Y
U
L
m
t
Y
�a
U
O
a
m
d
O
O_
Q.
O
v
c
ca
N
Y
C
L
Y
c
O
U
ca
t:
c
m
E
t
Y
Y
Q
3
Packet Pg. 83
2.A.f
0
a
a�
Y
.r
v
ea
Q.
E
eo
H
Contents U.
0
U)
Preface......................................................................... 0...........................................2 E
How Soil Surveys Are Made..................................................................................5 M
Soil Ma a
p.................................................................................................................. 8 a
SoilMap................................................................................................................9
Legend................................................................................................................10
MapUnit Legend................................................................................................ 11 0
H
Map Unit Descriptions........................................................................................ 12 ..
Riverside County, Coachella Valley Area, California.......................................14
BA—Badland...............................................................................................14
CaD—Cajon loamy sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes....................................... 14
CdC—Carsitas gravelly sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes...................................16
_
CdE—Carsitas gravelly sand, 9 to 30 percent slopes.................................17 m
ChC—Carsitas cobbly sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes.....................................18
CkB—Carsitas fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes..........................................20 4-0
CmE—Carsitas variant, 5 to 30 percent slopes.......................................... 21
COB—Chuckawalla very gravelly sandy clay loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes..22 m
CoD—Chuckawalla very gravelly sandy clay loam, 5 to 15 percent n
slopes....................................................................................................23 T
CpA—Coachella fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes.......................................25 v
CpB—Coachella fine sand, hummocky, 2 to 5 percent slopes....................26
CsA—Coachella fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes............................ 27
GP—Gravel pits and dumps........................................................................28
s
LR—Lithic Torripsamments-Rock outcrop complex.................................... 29 v
MaB—Myoma fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes...........................................31
MaD—Myoma fine sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes........................................ 32
0
NaB—Niland sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes................................................... 33 n.
m
W—Water....................................................................................................35 Y
References............................................................................................................36 U)
w
.E
0
a
0.
O
a
c�
c
0
r
v
t�
Q
4
Packet Pg.84
2.A.f
F
0
a
a�
ea
a
E
U
How Soil Surveys Are Made U-
0
H
Soil surveys are made to provide information about the soils and miscellaneous M
areas in a specific area. They include a description of the soils and miscellaneous a
areas and their location on the landscape and tables that show soil properties and
limitations affecting various uses. Soil scientists observed the steepness, length,
and shape of the slopes; the general pattern of drainage; the kinds of crops and 0
native plants; and the kinds of bedrock. They observed and described many soil
profiles. A soil profile is the sequence of natural layers, or horizons, in a soil. The
profile extends from the surface down into the unconsolidated material in which the N
soil formed or from the surface down to bedrock. The unconsolidated material is
devoid of roots and other living organisms and has not been changed by other
biological activity.
0
Currently, soils are mapped according to the boundaries of major land resource
areas (MLRAs). MLRAs are geographically associated land resource units that share common characteristics related to physiography, geology, climate, water c 0
resources, soils, biological resources, and land uses (USDA, 2006). Soil survey r
areas typically consist of parts of one or more MLRA. �c.
The soils and miscellaneous areas in a survey area occur in an orderly pattern that
is related to the geology, landforms, relief, climate, and natural vegetation of the v
area. Each kind of soil and miscellaneous area is associated with a particular kind
of landform or with a segment of the landform. By observing the soils and m
miscellaneous areas in the survey area and relating their position to specific
tv
segments of the landform, a soil scientist develops a concept, or model, of how they v
were formed. Thus, during mapping, this model enables the soil scientist to predict
with a considerable degree of accuracy the kind of soil or miscellaneous area at a 0
0.
specific location on the landscape. 4)
Commonly, individual soils on the landscape merge into one another as their
characteristics gradually change. To construct an accurate soil map, however, soil
scientists must determine the boundaries between the soils. They can observe only 3
a limited number of soil profiles. Nevertheless, these observations, supplemented 0
CL
by an understanding of the soil-vegetation-landscape relationship, are sufficient to C
verify predictions of the kinds of soil in an area and to determine the boundaries. a
Soil scientists recorded the characteristics of the soil profiles that they studied. They M
noted soil color, texture, size and shape of soil aggregates, kind and amount of rock
fragments, distribution of plant roots, reaction, and other features that enable them L
to identify soils. After describing the soils in the survey area and determining their
properties, the soil scientists assigned the soils to taxonomic classes (units). 0
Taxonomic classes are concepts. Each taxonomic class has a set of soil
characteristics with precisely defined limits. The classes are used as a basis for
comparison to classify soils systematically. Soil taxonomy, the system of taxonomic c
classification used in the United States, is based mainly on the kind and character E
of soil properties and the arrangement of horizons within the profile. After the soil
M
Q
5
Packet Pg. 85
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
scientists classified and named the soils in the survey area, they compared the c
individual soils with similar soils in the same taxonomic class in other areas so that Q'
m
they could confirm data and assemble additional data based on experience and X
research.
a
The objective of soil mapping is not to delineate pure map unit components; the _E
objective is to separate the landscape into landforms or landform segments that �a
have similar use and management requirements. Each map unit is defined by a
unique combination of soil components and/or miscellaneous areas in predictable LL
proportions. Some components may be highly contrasting to the other components 0
of the map unit. The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way H
diminishes the usefulness or accuracy of the data. The delineation of such E
landforms and landform segments on the map provides sufficient information for the a
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, onsite
c
investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous areas.
N
7
Soil scientists make many field observations in the process of producing a soil map.
s
The frequency of observation is dependent upon several factors, including scale of ~-
mapping, intensity of mapping, design of map units, complexity of the landscape,
and experience of the soil scientist. Observations are made to test and refine the N
soil-landscape model and predictions and to verify the classification of the soils at
specific locations. Once the soil-landscape model is refined, a significantly smaller c°'i
number of measurements of individual soil properties are made and recorded. m
These measurements may include field measurements, such as those for color,
depth to bedrock, and texture, and laboratory measurements, such as those for
content of sand, silt, clay, salt, and other components. Properties of each soil c
typically vary from one point to another across the landscape. �
c
Observations for map unit components are aggregated to develop ranges of Q-
characteristics for the components. The aggregated values are presented. Direct
measurements do not exist for every property presented for every map unit v
component. Values for some properties are estimated from combinations of other
properties. a
m
s
While a soil survey is in progress, samples of some of the soils in the area generally
are collected for laboratory analyses and for engineering tests. Soil scientists v
interpret the data from these analyses and tests as well as the field-observed C
characteristics and the soil properties to determine the expected behavior of the c.
soils under different uses. Interpretations for all of the soils are field tested through
observation of the soils in different uses and under different levels of management. w
m
Some interpretations are modified to fit local conditions, and some new
interpretations are developed to meet local needs. Data are assembled from other
sources, such as research information, production records, and field experience of c
specialists. For example, data on crop yields under defined levels of management a
are assembled from farm records and from field or plot experiments on the same O
kinds of soil.
c
ea
Predictions about soil behavior are based not only on soil properties but also on c
such variables as climate and biological activity. Soil conditions are predictable over
long periods of time, but they are not predictable from year to year. For example, w
soil scientists can predict with a fairly high degree of accuracy that a given soil will =
have a high water table within certain depths in most years, but they cannot predict v
that a high water table will always be at a specific level in the soil on a specific date. co
After soil scientists located and identified the significant natural bodies of soil in the =
u
survey area, they drew the boundaries of these bodies on aerial photographs and
�a
Q
6
Packet Pg. 86
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
identified each as a specific map unit. Aerial photographs show trees, buildings, o
CL
fields, roads, and rivers, all of which help in locating boundaries accurately.
M
a
E
U
N
LL
5
U)
N
E
<0
a
v
O
s
H
N
d
V
_
d
3
_
O
d
L
d
L
Q
N
A
r
U
iv
L
Z
r
U
O
Q
d
N
d
7
O
a
a
O
c
M
W
c
L
N
_
O
U
ca
_
d
E
s
v
r
Q
7
Packet Pg. 87
2.A.f
F
O
a
as
r
R
a
E
�a
Soil Map U.
0
U)
w
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of E
soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols a
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit. H
0
O
z
N
t�
_
d
7
_C
w
O
d
L
d
C
a
'n
U
is
L
d
L
ca
U
O
a
m
IX
H
d
i+
O
a
a
O
C
Vl
r+
C
L
NN
C
O
U
c
y
ci
�a
V
a
8
Packet Pg.88
Z Z
3739000 3740000 3741000 3742000 3743000 3744000 374500D 374600D 37470U 374M 374M 3750000 3751000
Ij
� �+r� ram__•.
� K
v
r-
C
E —
CD
Cnn
2'r k,8 - - m
,_.
z - m
Z*M
_ a
s + ar
v
9 !
a i
116°21.25"W ii!" - .._''i^ ., . �- -, «�:- = 116'21'25"W
n 3739000 3740000 3741000 3742000 3743000 3744000 3745000 3746300 3747000 3748000 3749000 375000D 3751000
X
lD
.rt
� z z Lh
Attachment: 6. Constraints and Opportunities Report -Cathedral City Sphere of Influence (1241 : Thousand Palms SOI Fiscal Impact Report)
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION N
v
Area of Interest(AOI) Spoil Area The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at as
Area of Interest(AOI) Q 1:24,000.
Stony Spot
Soils Very Stony Spot Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map =
1 Soil Map Unit Polygons measurements.
Wet Spot C
Soil Map Unit Lines
�j Other Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service 2!
® Soil Map Unit Points Web Soil Survey URL: t
.� Special Line Features Coordinate System: Web Mercator EPSG:3857 a.
Special Point Features Y ( ) CO)
V Blowout Water Features
Streams and Canals Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator V
Borrow Pit
projection,which preserves direction and shape but distorts
Transportation 10
Clay Spot distance and area.A projection that preserves area,such as the �-
+-f+ Rails Albers equal-area conic projection,should be used if more y
�} Closed Depression Interstate Highways accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
r✓
Gravel Pit US Routes This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as 0
Gravelly Spot Major Roads of the version dates)listed below. C
0 Landfill a
Local Roads Soil Survey Area: Riverside County,Coachella Valley Area, w
A. Lava Flow California
Background �
Survey Area Data: Version 9,Sep 11,2017
Marsh or swamp . Aerial Photography
C
c�s Mine or quarry Soil map units are labeled(as space allows)for map scales 3
1:50,000 or larger. p
O Miscellaneous Water a
CL
a Perennial Water Date(s)aerial images were photographed: May 2,2010—Sep 0
Rock Outcrop 24,2017 C
t0
+ Saline Spot The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background =
Sandy Spot
imagery displayed on these maps.As a result,some minor
4& Severely Eroded Spot shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. to
C
Sinkhole V
;y Slide or Slip tp
Sodic Spot C
d
E
t
V
L
Q
racket Pg. 90
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
O
0.
Map Unit Legend
CL
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI v
N
BA Badland 5,936.2 25.7% u_
CaD Cajon loamy sand,5 to 15 2.5 0.0% O
to
percent slopes N
CdC Carsitas gravelly sand,0 to 9 1,927.6 8.3% E
percent slopes a
CdE Carsitas gravelly sand,9 to 30 493.0 2.1% c
percent slopes N
ChC Carsitas cobbly sand,2 to 9 984.5 4.3% 0
percent slopes F.
CkB Carsitas fine sand,0 to 5 1,485.4 6.4%
Iq
percent slopes N
CmE Carsitas variant,5 to 30 percent 1,395.2 6.0%
slopes a)
c
CoB Chuckawalla very gravelly 67.7 0.3% a)
sandy clay loam,2 to 5 .F.
percent slopes =
CoD Chuckawalla very gravelly 249.6 1.1% O
sandy clay loam,5 to 15
percent slopes t
a
CpA Coachella fine sand,0 to 2 784.8 3.4% to
percent slopes
U
CpB Coachella fine sand, 902.3 3.9%
hummocky,2 to 5 percent
slopes y
s
CsA Coachella fine sandy loam,0 to 17.6 0.1%
2 percent slopes U
GP Gravel pits and dumps 163.4 0.7%
0
LR Lithic Torripsamments-Rock 497.8 2.2% cal
outcrop complex
MaB Myoma fine sand,0 to 5 4,431.0 19.2% d
r
percent slopes _
0
MaD Myoma fine sand,5 to 15 3,710.5 16.0%
percent slopes a
O.
NaB Niland sand,2 to 5 percent 7.7 0.0% O
slopes -0
c
W Water 64.7 0.3% y
Totals for Area of Interest 23,121.4 100.0%
N
c
O
U
cc
t:
c
m
E
s
v
R
.r
Q
11
Packet Pg. 91
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
0
a
Map Unit Descriptions
a
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the E
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit. w
iL
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more p
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named y
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic E
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the M
a
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the -a
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without .°c
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made F
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils. N
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the m
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
m
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different 0
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas V)
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a r
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit t�
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not d
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it s
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and ti
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the C
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or 4)
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The c
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the 0
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however, 0
CL
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous 0.
areas. O
c
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
r
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for c
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major U
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
�a
w
r
a
12
Packet Pg.92
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase o
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha W
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas. c.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups. E
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate H
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps. LL
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar 0
in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example. N
0
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or E
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present cam.
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The w
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat c
similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made 3
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil W.
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example. `
as
s
a
U)
U
�a
L
a
m
s
cc
U
O
a
d
H
d
7
O
a
a
O
-o
c
M
V!
r+
C
M
L
H
C
O
U
ec
d
E
s
v
M
V
Q
13
Packet Pg.93
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
Riverside County, Coachella Valley Area, California a
BA—Badland
�a
a
Map Unit Composition E
Badland: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent w
ii
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. O
N
Description of Badland E
Setting a
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Parent material: Consolidated sandy alluvium
0
r
Typical profile F.
H1 -0 to 60 inches: weathered bedrock
Properties and qualities N
Slope: 50 to 75 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 0 to 3 inches to paralithic bedrock
c
Natural drainage class: Excessively drained a)
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 to 0.57 in/hr) c 0
L.
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 r
Hydric soil rating: No t�
L
Minor Components
s
Carsitas a
v
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Hydric soil rating: No c
CL
Riverwash oW
Percent of map unit: 5 percent H
Hydric soil rating: No
0
0.
a
O
a
CaD—Cajon loamy sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes
N!
r.+
C
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol. hktx H
Elevation: 400 to 4,000 feet 0
0
Mean annual precipitation: 3 to 9 inches V
Mean annual air temperature: 63 to 70 degrees F
Frost-free period: 200 to 300 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland v
�a
V
Q
14
Packet Pg. 94
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
0
CL
Map Unit Composition
Cajon and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
CL
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. E
E
Description of Cajon N
Setting U.
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope E
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread �v
Down-slope shape: Linear a
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium
N
7
Typical profile 0
H1 -0 to 6 inches: loamy sand
H2- 6 to 12 inches: sand
H3- 12 to 32 inches: loamy sand
H4-32 to 43 inches: loamy sand
H5-43 to 60 inches: coarse sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 5 to 15 percent c
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches c
Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained L
Runoff class: Very low t
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High to very high (5.95 °-
Cn
to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches t�
Frequency of flooding: None L
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent r
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 v
mmhos/cm) '
Available water storage in profile: Low(about 4.6 inches) 0
Interpretive groups W
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No 0
a
a
Minor Components 0
a
Unnamed, under granite coo
Percent of map unit: 10 percent N
Hydric soil rating: No c
w
Riverwash N
c
Percent of map unit: 5 percent 0
Landform: Channels v
Hydric soil rating: Yes `D
c
m
E
s
u
�o
Q
15
Packet Pg. 95
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
0
a
as
�o
a
E
CdC—Carsitas gravelly sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes H
i_
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hkv0 y
Elevation: 800 feet E
Mean annual precipitation: 4 inches cc
IL
Mean annual air temperature: 72 to 73 degrees F a
Frost-free period. 275 to 325 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
0
t
Map Unit Composition F'
Carsitas and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent N
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Carsitas
Setting c
Landform: Alluvial fans c
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear °
n
Across-slope shape: Linear �+
Parent material. Gravelly alluvium derived from granite Ci
L
Typical profile �
H1 -0 to 10 inches: gravelly sand s
H2- 10 to 60 inches: gravelly sand a
U
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 9 percent 0
CL
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Excessively drained y
Runoff class: Very low 2
r
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High to very high (5.95 =
to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches a
a
Frequency of flooding: None O
Frequency of ponding: None 0
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 1 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 3.0 inches)
Interpretive groups =
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s 0
v
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A +;
Hydric soil rating: No u
ev
V
a
16
Packet Pg. 96
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
0
0.
Minor Components
Riverwash u
Percent of map unit: 4 percent CL
E
Landform: Channels
Hydric soil rating: Yes
H
Carsitas U.
Percent of map unit: 4 percent p
Hydric soil rating: No y
0
Myoma E
W
Percent of map unit. 4 percent a
Hydric soil rating: No c
M
Unnamed, stony or gravelly
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
N
e-
d
t�
C
d
7
w
CdE—Carsitas gravelly sand, 9 to 30 percent slopes c
Map Unit Setting m`
National map unit symbol: hkv1 C
Elevation: 800 feet O
Mean annual precipitation: 4 inches v
Mean annual air temperature: 72 to 73 degrees F
Frost-free period: 275 to 325 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland s
ca
Map Unit Composition v
Carsitas and similar soils: 85 percent
0
Minor components: 15 percent m
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
N
4)
Description of Carsitas
Setting c
Landform: Alluvial fans a
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope O
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
c
Down-slope shape: Linear ea
Across-slope shape: Linear =
Parent material: Gravelly alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile c
H1 -0 to 10 inches: gravelly sand V
H2- 10 to 60 inches: gravelly sand
Properties and qualities =
Slope: 9 to 30 percent E
E
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches r
ea
a
17
Packet Pg.97
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
Natural drainage class: Excessively drained
O
Runoff class: Low a
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High to very high (5.95 w,
to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches a
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None U
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 1 percent 0
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) LL
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 3.0 inches) U)
0
Interpretive groups E
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified a
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e 0
Hydrologic Soil Group: A y
Hydric soil rating: No 'o
s
H
Minor Components ..
Badland
N
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Carrizo
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Hydric soil rating: No c
iverwash
as
Percent of map unit. 1 percent =
Landform: Channels 0.
Hydric soil rating: Yes
U
Myoma
Percent of map unit. 1 percent a
Hydric soil rating: No �0.
ca
Unnamed, cobbles or stones v
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Hydric soil rating: No 0
a
m
fA
d
O
CL
a
ChC—Carsitas cobbly sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes O
_
Map Unit Setting H
National map unit symbol: hkv3 c
Elevation: 800 feet L
Mean annual precipitation: 4 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 72 to 73 degrees F 0
Frost-free period. U 300 days U
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
u
Map Unit Composition
Carsitas and similar soils: 85 percent
Q
18
Packet Pg. 98
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor components: 15 percent 0
CL
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Carsitas
a
Setting E
Landform: Alluvial fans �a
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit N_
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve U.
Down-slope shape: Linear 0
W
Across-slope shape: Linear 0
Parent material. Gravelly alluvium derived from granite E
Ta
Typical profile
H1 -0 to 10 inches: cobbly sand
H2- 10 to 60 inches: gravelly sand
0
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 9 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches N
Natural drainage class: Excessively drained
Runoff class: Very low as
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High to very high (5.95 m
to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches c
Frequency of flooding: None o
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 1 percent r
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) Q-
Available water storage in profile: Very low(about 3.0 inches) r
Interpretive groups v
Land capability classification (irrigated): 6s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e m
s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No v
Minor Components a
m
Riverwash
Percent of map unit. 4 percent
Landform: Channels c
Hydric soil rating: Yes
0
Carrizo a
a
Percent of map unit: 4 percent 0
Hydric soil rating: No c
ca
Chuckawalla
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No H
Unnamed 0
Percent of map unit: 3 percent v
Hydric soil rating: No `6
.;j
c
m
E
s
U
�a
Q
19
Packet Pg. 99
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
1=
0
a
m
X
ca
a
E
�a
CkB—Carsitas fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes H
U.
Map Unit Setting y
National map unit symbol: hkv4 v,
Elevation: 800 feet E
Mean annual precipitation: 4 inchesIL
Mean annual air temperature: 72 to 73 degrees F -a
Frost-free period: 275 to 325 days
y
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
0
r
Map Unit Composition
Carsitas and similar soils: 85 percent N
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. m
c
Description of Carsitas
w
Setting —
Landform: Alluvial fans 0
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope 2
m
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread =
a
Down-slope shape: Linear n
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Sandy alluvium derived from granite V
To
L
Typical profile
H1 -0 to 10 inches: fine sand
r
H2- 10 to 60 inches: gravelly sand �j
Properties and qualities c
Slope: 0 to 5 percent 0.
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Excessively drained
Runoff class: Negligible '
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High to very high (5.95
to 19.98 in/hr) 0
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches 0-
a
Frequency of flooding: None O
Frequency of ponding: None °
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 1 percent
a
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) _
Available water storage in profile: Low(about 3.1 inches) L
V!
Interpretive groups =
0
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4e v
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e cc
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
zi
�o
a
20
Packet Pg. 100
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
0
CL
Minor Components
Myoma
Percent of map unit: 10 percent a
Hydric soil rating: No E
Coachella
Percent of map unit: 3 percent LL
Hydric soil rating: No p
Unnamed, gravel surface
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Hydric soil rating: No a
ea
N
0
t
H
N
CmE—Carsitas variant, 5 to 30 percent slopes
d
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hkv6
Elevation: -270 to 1,390 feet 5
Mean annual precipitation: 4 inches o
Mean annual air temperature: 72 to 75 degrees F L
Frost-free period: 275 to 325 daysCL
t
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland U)
Map Unit Composition v
Carsitas variant and similar soils: 85 percent L
Minor components: 15 percent d
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. s
0
Description of Carsitas Variant
0
Setting 0.
a)
Landform: Hills Ix
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope U)
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear 0
CL
Parent material: Alluvium derived from sandstone c.
O
Typical profile '0
c
H1 -0 to 6 inches: fine sand
N!
H2- 6 to 18 inches: sand c
H3- 18 to 22 inches: weathered bedrock �a
.r
Properties and qualities c
Slope: 5 to 30 percent U
Depth to restrictive feature: 18 to 22 inches to paralithic bedrock m
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High 0
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 E
s
to 0.57 in/hr)
�v
V
a
21
Packet Pg. 101
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches 0
0
Frequency of flooding: None d
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 1 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 Q'
mmhos/cm)
E
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 1.1 inches)
Interpretive groups U_
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified 0
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e N
Hydrologic Soil Group: D E
Hydric soil rating: No a
Minor Components w
Myoma 0
Percent of map unit. 10 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Carsitas
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
m
Rock outcrop
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Hydric soil rating: No 0
d
L
m
a
L
CoB—Chuckawalla very gravelly sandy clay loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes s
�a
Map Unit Setting v
National map unit symbol. hkv9 c
Elevation: 400 to 1,000 feet a
Mean annual precipitation: 4 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 72 degrees F m
Frost-free period: 270 to 320 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
0
Map Unit Composition a
Chuckawalla and similar soils: 85 percent 0
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Chuckawalla
N
Setting 0
Landform: Alluvial fans V
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
ea
Q
22
Packet Pg. 102
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
Parent material: Gravelly alluvium c
a
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 12 inches: very gravelly sandy clay loam
H2- 12 to 25 inches: very gravelly fine sandy loam c.
H3-25 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand E
Properties and qualities N
Slope: 2 to 5 percent iL
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches p
Natural drainage class: Well drained N
Runoff class: Low E
E
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to a
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) .o
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches r-
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None s
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Very low(about 2.1 inches) N
Interpretive groups m
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B c
Hydric soil rating: No c
d
Minor Components
a
Alluvium or colluvium CO
Percent of map unit. 10 percent
Hydric soil rating: No v
M
Carsitas
m
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No �j
Riverwash 1`
Percent of map unit: 2 percent m
Hydric soil rating: No M
y
4)
C
7
O
a
a
O
CoD—Chuckawalla very gravelly sandy clay loam, 5 to 15 percent r-
slopes
c
M
Map Unit Setting H
National map unit symbol: hkvb c
Elevation: 400 to 1,000 feet U
Mean annual precipitation: 4 inches m
Mean annual air temperature: 72 degrees F c
Frost-free period. 270 to 320 days E
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland s
�v
a
23
Packet Pg. 103
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
0
Map Unit Composition m
Chuckawalla and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
E
Description of Chuckawalla 0
H
Setting U_
Landform: Alluvial fans O
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope N
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope E
Down-slope shape: Linear a
Across-slope shape: Linear =
Parent material: Gravelly alluvium N
Typical profile 0
H1 -0 to 12 inches: very gravelly sandy clay loam
H2- 12 to 25 inches: very gravelly fine sandy loam
H3-25 to 60 inches: very gravelly sand c�
Properties and qualities
Slope: 5 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained c
Runoff class: Medium c
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to m
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr) _
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches a
n
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.1 inches) w
�v
Interpretive groups v
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s 0.
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Unnamed, sand 0
a
Percent of map unit. 10 percent °-
O
Hydric soil rating: No
c
Carrizo `0
Percent of map unit: 3 percent c
Hydric soil rating: No
H
Carsitas c
Percent of map unit: 2 percent 0
Hydric soil rating: No (d
c
y
�o
Q
24
Packet Pg. 104
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
0
a
0
Q:
ea
a
E
CpA—Coachella fine sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes y
U.
Map Unit Setting p
National map unit symbol. hkvc y
N
Elevation: 40 feet E
Mean annual precipitation: 2 to 4 inches 1°
a
Mean annual air temperature: 72 degrees F
Frost-free period: 270 to 320 days e=v
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated c
s
Map Unit Composition
Coachella and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent N
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. m
_
Description of Coachella m
Setting 5
Landform: Alluvial fans o
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope ly
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread t
Down-slope shape: Linear U)
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from igneous rock v
�a
Typical profile
H1 -0 to 11 inches: fine sand m
r
H2- 11 to 60 inches: sand v
Properties and qualities C
Slope: 0 to 2 percent 0
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches m
Natural drainage class: Well drained H
Runoff class: Very low
r
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 =
in/hr) C
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches a
Frequency of flooding: None 0
Frequency of ponding: None 3
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 1 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) _
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.6 inches) 0-
Interpretive groups c
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e 0
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
E
t
ea
a
25
Packet Pg. 105
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
O
Minor Components m
Y
Myoma
Percent of map unit: 5 percent a
Hydric soil rating: No E
Indio `0
Percent of map unit: 5 percent A
Hydric soil rating: No O
Gilman 0
N
Percent of map unit: 5 percent E
Hydric soil rating: No CL
a
c
ea
N
7
O
s
H
CpB—Coachella fine sand, hummocky, 2 to 5 percent slopes
d
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hkvd 3
Elevation: 40 feet c
Mean annual precipitation: 2 to 4 inches c
Mean annual air temperature: 72 degrees F L
Frost-free period: 270 to 320 days
CL
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition C)
Coachella and similar soils: 85 percent L
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. s
R
L)
Description of Coachella
Setting m
Landform: Alluvial fans Y
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear a
Parent material: Alluvium derived from igneous rock 0a
Typical profile =
H1 -0 to 11 inches: fine sand
H2- 11 to 60 inches: sand
c
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 5 percent =
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches �j
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 u
i n/h r)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Q
26
Packet Pg. 106
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
Frequency of flooding: None 0
CL
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 1 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) a
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.6 inches) E
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e N
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e U.
Hydrologic Soil Group: A 5
Hydric soil rating: No E
Minor Components a
v
Myoma C
Percent of map unit. 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No t
H
Gilman
Percent of map unit: 5 percent N
Hydric soil rating: No
Indio
Percent of map unit: 5 percent 4)
Hydric soil rating: No
w
0
d
16.
L
Q
N
A
r+
CsA—Coachella fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
�a
a
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hkvg
Elevation: 40 feet v
Mean annual precipitation: 2 to 4 inches c
Mean annual air temperature: 72 degrees F m
Frost-free period: 270 to 320 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated d
Map Unit Composition
1=
Coachella and similar soils: 85 percent °n.
Minor components: 15 percent OCL
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. .0
c
M
Description of Coachella
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans H
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope o
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread V
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from igneous rock d
E
s
M
a
27
Packet Pg. 107
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
Typical profile a
H1 -0 to 10 inches: fine sandy loam Y
H2- 10 to 40 inches: sand
H3-40 to 60 inches: loamy sand a
Properties and qualities
E
Slope: 0 to 2 percent 0
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches LA
ii
Natural drainage class: Well drained O
Runoff class: Very low CO
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95 0
in/hr) M
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches a
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None w
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 1 percent O
s
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm) E'
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.6 inches)
Interpretive groups .ter..
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e c
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components 0`
m
Gilman o.
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Indio
�a
Percent of map unit: 5 percent a
Hydric soil rating: No r
ea
Myoma v
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No n,
m
H
d
C
7
t
O
a
a
GP—Gravel pits and dumps 0
a
c
�a
Map Unit Composition H
Gravel pits: 50 percent
Dumps: 50 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. c
v
Description of Gravel Pits cc
Setting
Parent material: Sandy and gravelly alluvium u
ea
Q
28
Packet Pg. 108
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
Typical profile c.
H1 -0 to 6 inches: extremely gravelly coarse sand
H2- 6 to 60 inches: extremely gravelly sand
eo
Interpretive groups E
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 y
Hydric soil rating: No U.
O
Description of Dumps
H
Setting E
Down-slope shape: Linear a
Across-slope shape: Linear =
�v
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 60 inches: variable °
t
F
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified N
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8
Hydric soil rating: No 4)
c
m
°
c
w
0
2
LR—Lithic Torripsamments-Rock outcrop complex =
a
CO
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hkw2 v
Elevation: 650 to 9,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 2 to 15 inches a
a�
Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 72 degrees F
Frost-free period: 110 to 320 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
0
CL
Map Unit Composition
Lithic torripsamment and similar soils: 60 percent y
Rock outcrop: 20 percent
Minor components: 20 percent c
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
0
a
Description of Lithic Torripsamment 0
Setting
Landform: Hills w
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope S
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Concave =
Across-slope shape: Concave °
Parent material: Sandy alluvium derived from sandstone
Typical profile
H1 -0 to 4 inches: sand
H2-4 to 14 inches: bedrock r
a
29
Packet Pg. 109
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
t
Properties and qualities 0
c.
Slope: 15 to 75 percent 0
r
Depth to restrictive feature: 4 inches to lithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Excessively drained ea
a
Runoff class: Very high E
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high to Z
very high (1.42 to 14.17 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches ii
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
E
Interpretive groups R
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified a
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
a
Hydrologic Soil Group: D
ea
Hydric soil rating: No 0
H
Description of Rock Outcrop
Typical profile
v
H1 -0 to 60 inches: unweathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 75 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 0 inches to lithic bedrock
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately high (0.20 0
to 0.57 i n/h r) v
Interpretive groups 3.
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8 v
Hydric soil rating: No
a
Minor Components r
�a
Chuckawalla c)
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Hydric soil rating: No 0
CL
Carsitas
Percent of map unit: 4 percent m
Hydric soil rating: No
0
Riverwash
0
Percent of map unit: 3 percent a
Landform: Channels O
Hydric soil rating: Yes
0
Rubble land
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No y
c
0
v
cc
ci
Q
30
Packet Pg. 110
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
0
c.
a)
r
u
�o
a
E
�a
N
MaB—Myoma fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes iL
0
Map Unit Setting N
National map unit symbol: hkw3 E
Elevation: -200 to 1,800 feet a
Mean annual precipitation: 2 to 4 inches c
Mean annual air temperature: 72 to 75 degrees F
N
Frost-free period: 270 to 320 days 3
0
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition N
Myoma and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. c
m
Description of Myoma =
w
Setting 0
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope r
c.
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread N
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear v
Parent material: Wind blown sandy alluvium
Typical profile r
H1 - 0 to 18 inches: fine sand 1°
v
H2- 18 to 60 inches: sand
1=
Properties and qualities Q,
Slope: 0 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained :-
Runoff class: Negligible
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High to very high (5.95 0
to 19.98 in/hr) a
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches O
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None 1°
N
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0
mmhos/cm)
Available water storage in profile: Low(about 4.8 inches) 0
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e E
Hydrologic Soil Group: A t
Hydric soil rating: No
a
31
Packet Pg. 111
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
1:
D
Minor Components
y
Coachella
Percent of map unit. 4 percent W
a
Hydric soil rating: No E
Carsitas
Percent of map unit: 4 percent A
iL
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, noncalcareous soils y
Percent of map unit: 4 percent E
Hydric soil rating: No a
Riverwash c
Percent of map unit: 3 percent 3
Landform: Channels 0
Hydric soil rating: Yes
er
N
d
V
C
d
7
w
MaD—Myoma fine sand, 5 to 15 percent slopes
0
L
Map Unit Setting d
National map unit symbol: hkw4 i
Elevation: -200 to 1,800 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 2 to 4 inches '
Mean annual air temperature: 72 to 75 degrees F U
R
Frost-free period: 270 to 320 days .o
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated s
ea
Map Unit Composition U
Myoma and similar soils: 85 percent 1=
Minor components: 15 percent a
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
y
d
Description of Myoma
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans 00.
a
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope p
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread '0
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Wind blown sandy alluvium
Typical profile
H1 -0 to 18 inches: fine sand 0
U
H2- 18 to 60 inches: sand
co
Properties and qualities
Slope: 5 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
�a
Q
32
Packet Pg. 112
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained o
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): High to very high (5.95
to 19.98 in/hr) m
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches °'
E
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None y
Salinity, maximum in profile: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 LL,
mmhos/cm) a
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 4.8 inches) y
0
Interpretive groups E
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e a
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A H
Hydric soil rating: No 0
t
H
Minor Components
Coachella
N
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, calcareous soils
Percent of map unit: 5 percent c
Hydric soil rating: No c
Riverwash
m
Percent of map unit: 3 percent a
Landform: Channels y
Hydric soil rating: Yes r
U
Carsitas �v
Percent of map unit: 2 percent "o
a�
Hydric soil rating: No
�a
v
0
a
m
H
4)
NaB—Niland sand, 2 to 5 percent slopes
r
Map Unit Setting a
National map unit symbol. hkw6 p
Elevation: 300 feet 'o
c
Mean annual precipitation: 4 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 72 degrees F =
Frost-free period: 270 to 320 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance v,
0
Map Unit Composition V
Niland and similar soils: 85 percent m
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. m
E
r
�a
a
33
Packet Pg. 113
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
0
Description of Niland C
>Y
Setting
Landform: Flood plains a
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope E
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread '@
Down-slope shape: Linear N
Across-slope shape: Linear U.
Parent material: Alluvium O
Typical profile
E
H1 - 0 to 21 inches: sand M
H2- 21 to 60 inches: silty clay a
a
Properties and qualities y
Slope: 2 to 5 percent c
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Medium
N
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water(Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr) m
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches =
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None =
Calcium carbonate, maximum in profile: 5 percent c
Salinity, maximum in profile: Very slightly saline to strongly saline (2.0 to 16.0 `
mmhos/cm) _
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.1 inches) C•
�n
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3s U
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s a
Hydrologic Soil Group: C s
Hydric soil rating: No
U
Minor Components
0
Carsitas
m
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Hydric soil rating: No U)
Imperial
'c
Percent of map unit: 3 percent c
Hydric soil rating: No a
Rositas
•a
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Hydric soil rating: No r
c
H
C
O
U
cc
c
as
E
c
�a
Q
34
Packet Pg. 114
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
O
a
m
�v
a
E
W—Water y
U.
Map Unit Composition p
Water: 100 percent N
U)
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. E
M
a
v
c
M
N
7
O
t
H
et
N
d
C�
c
G1
w
c
w
O
d
L
d
t
a
U)
t�
�a
L
d
t
M
U
1:
O
a
d
N
d
O
a
a
O
v
c
�a
H
c
M
L
H
c
O
U
co
c
d
E
t
v
Q
35
Packet Pg. 115
2.A.f
t
0
a
m
X
U
M
a
E
�o
2
References LL
0
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). E
M
2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling a
and testing. 24th edition.
�a
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of c
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00. r
H
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
N
Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
m
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
c
d
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
c
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric to.
soils in the United States. 0
m
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries. _
a
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
c)
nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http:// c�
www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres l42p2_053577
0
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of o.
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http:H
www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053580 m
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and _
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands c
Section. a
0.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of 0
'a
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical =
Report Y 87-1. H
c
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/ v,
home/?cid=nres142p2_053374 c
V
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdbl043084
E
c
u
M
V
Q
36
Packet Pg. 116
2.A.f
Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. c
CL
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/ 4)
nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. c.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States, E
the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook
296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/? y
cid=nres142p2_053624 a_
O
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http:// E
www.nres.usda.gov/lnternet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nresl42p2_O52290.pdf a
v
cv
H
O
O
t
F
N
e-
d
V
C
d
_C
O
d
L
d
.0
a
Cn
v
L
a
m
t
M
v
O
a
m
w
VJ
d
'a+
C
7
O
a
a
O
c
�a
N
C
L
.r
c
O
U
co
C
d
E
t
v
M
a
37
Packet Pg. 117
2.A.f
Unpaved Road Within the SOI Area
Condition Location/Street name Length Length No of Direction Width Width(per city Square Footage GP Designation* Due N
(miles) (feet) Lanes (feet) designations)
**Upgr a to 4 y
Northern area;Portion of lane undivided
Unpaved 1 28th Avenue** 0.65 3432 2 EW 18 88 302016 (Secondary
City Local Street Highway)
**Upgrade to
Unpaved 2 North of 30th Avenue** 1.38 7286.4 2 EW 20 88 641203.2 lane undivided p
(Secondary m
City Local Street Highway) a`)
Unpaved 3 Robert Road Extention 0.25 1320 2 NS 36 60 79200 City Local Street _
a
Unpaved 4 Taylors Rs Extention 0.81 4276.8 2 NS 20 60 256608 City Local Street
Unpaved 5 Vista Del Sol 0.74 3907.2 2 NS 24 60 234432 City Local Street
Unpaved 6 La Cita 0.24 1267.2 2 EW 18 60 76032 City Local Street U
**Upgrade to
Unpaved 7 Near 31th Avenue** 0.14 739.2 2 NS 18 88 65049.6 City Local Street lane undivided m
(Secondary s
Hi hwa )
Unpaved 8 Vista De Oro 1 5280 2 NS 24 60 316800 City Local Street U
Unpaved 9 Vista De Oro 1.19 6283.2 2 NS 24 60 376992 City Local Street
Unpaved 10 - 1.97 10401.6 2 EW&NS 18 60 624096 City Loc Street p
Unpaved 11 - 0.76 4012.8 2 EW&NS 18 60 240768 City Local trees Q
Unpaved 12 - 1 5280 2 EW&NS 18 60 316800 City Local Street
Unpaved 13 - 1 5280 2 EW&NS 24 60 316800 City Local Street
Unpaved 14 - 1.29 6811.2 2 EW&NS 24 60 408672 City Local Street
Unpaved 15 - 0.25 1320 2 NS 18 60 79200 City Local Street E
Unpaved 16 - 0.25 1320 2 NS 18 60 79200 Cit Local Street
Unpaved 17 - 0.5 2640 2 NS 18 60 158400 City Local Street Q.
Unpaved 18 - 0.25 1320 2 NS 18 60 79200 City Local Street Q.
Unpaved 19 - 0.51 2692.8 2 EW 24 60 161568 City Local Street 0
Unpaved 20 Conchita Road 0.35 1848 2 EW 24 60 110880 City Local Street
Unpaved 21 Paradise Road 0.35 1848 2 EW 24 60 110880 City Local Street M
Unpaved 22 Near Perras Avenue 0.15 792 2 EW 18 60 47520 City Local Street N
Unpaved 23 Perras Avenue 0.16 844.8 2 EW 18 60 50688 City Local Street =
Unpaved 24 0.19 1003.2 2 EW 24 60 60192 City Local Street w
Unpaved 25 Jack Ivey Drive Extension 0.58 3062.4 2 NS 36 60 183744
City Local Street C
U
Total 15.96 84268.8 5376940.8
Total Cost $25,594238.21 �O
CC GP Designations:Local Collector=60 feet;Secondary Highway=88 feet c
a�
E
r
u
ca
w
Q
Packet Pg. 119
2.A.f
Paved oads(including the Substandard Roads) t e SOI Area
Location/Street Length n t r city
Condition name (miles) (feet No of Lanes Direction Width(feet) Square Footage Division Notes Due
designations)
Paved Substandard 1 Northern area^ 2.7 14256 1 EW&NS 10 60 712800 ^Upgrade to 2 lane T-
Ci Collector undivided ..
Paved Substandard 2 Northern area^ 0.32 1689.6 1 EW&NS 10 60 84480 ^Upgrade to 2 lane d
City Collector undivided C
Paved Substandard 3 Northern area 0.51 2692.8 2 EW&NS 24 60 96940.8 City Collector O
Paved Substandard 4 Northern area^ 0.13 686.4 1 NS 10 60 34320 ^Upgra a to 2 lane
City Collector undivided
Paved Substandard 5 0.13 686.4 2 NS 18 60 28828.8 City Collector
C
Paved Substandard 6 0.27 1425.6 2 NS 18 60 59875.2 City Collector '~
O
Paved Substandard 7 1.3 6864 2 EW&NS 18 60 288288 Ci Collector d
Paved Substandard 8 0.19 1003.2 2 NS 18 60 42134.4 City Collector
Paved Substandard 9 0.5 2640 2 NS 20 60 105600 City Collector =
"Upgrade to 4 lane Portion of 31th N
Paved Substandard 10 Avenue** 0.37 1953.E 2 EW 18 88 136752 undivided(Secondary '
Secondary Highway Highway) V
Paved Substandard 11 Vista Del Sol 0.51 2692.8 2 NS 20 60 107712 City Collector
Paved Substandard 12 El Portal 0.12 1 633.E 2 EW 10 60 31680 City Collector
Paved Substandard 13 Chuckawalla Road 0.48 2534.4 2 EW 18 60 106444.8 City Collector
Paved Substandard 14 Conchita Road 0.12 633.6 2 EW 18 60 26611.2 City Collector d
t
Paved Substandard IS 0.12 633.E 2 EW 18 60 26611.2 City Collector
ltf
Paved Substandard 16 Tchou itoulas Ln 0.87 4593.E 2 NS 18 60 192931.2 city Collector (,)
Paved Substandard 17 Chima o Road 0.49 2587.2 2 NS 18 60 108662.4 City Collector
Paved Substandard 18 0.34 1795.2 2 EW&NS 18 60 75398.4 City Collector
Paved Substandard 19 Chase School Road 0.87 4593.6 2 EW&NS 20 60 183744 Cit Collector O
Paved Substandard 20 0.55 2904 EW&NS 40 60 58080 City Collector Q'
Total 10.0 57499.2 2507894.4
Total Cost $11,937,577.34 y
d
Paved oads(including the Substandard Roads) t e SOI Area
r
2 th Avenue&Rio
Paved Partially 1 0.4 2112 2 EW&NS 24 60 76032 0
Del Sol Road City Collector -
Paved Partially 2 date Garden Drive 0.22 1161.6 2 NS 18 60 48787.2 City Collector Q
**Upgrade to 4 lane Q,
Paved Partially 3 30th Avenue** 0.24 1267.2 2 EW 20 88 86169.6 undivided 0
(Secondary
Secondary Highway Highway)
Paved Partially 4 el Centro Way 0.24 1267.2 2 EW 1 20 1 60 1 50688 City Collector R
Paved Partially 5 0.42 2217.6 NS 1 40 1 60 1 44352 City Collector w
To 1.52 8025.6 30W28.8
Total Cost 1,456,697.09 `
0 N
Paved Full 1 Watt Ct 0.23 1214.4 2 EW 48 60 Sidewalk on two
Ci Collector sides O
Paved Full 2 Petland PI 1.1 5808 2 EW&NS 38 60 Sidewalk on two
V
City Collector sides <D
Paved Full 3 Front Street 0.1 528 2 NS 38 60 Sidewalk on two
City Collector sides C
d
Paved Full Hill Street 0.1 528 2 NS 38 60 Sidewalk on t-
City Collector sides
t
V
to
Q
r r atAet Pg. 120
2.A.f
Industrial area;
Paved Full 5 Metroplex Drive OS 2640 2 EW&NS 58 60 Sidewalk on two V—
City Collector sides 'e
Sidewalk on two 04
Paved Full 6 Manufacturing Road 0.57 3009.6 2 EW&NS 52 60
City Collector sides
*Upgrade to 6 lane
Paved Full 7 Ramon Road* 4.26 22492.8 2 EW 48 88 899712 City Collector Sidewalk on two divided(Arterial
sides Highway)
Mostly sidewalk on
Paved Full 8 Shelter Drive 0.16 844.8 2 NS 18 60 two sides;
City Collector Residential C
Mostly sidewalk on
two sides; 4)
Paved Full 9 Robert Road 0.76 4012.8 2 48 60 Residential& d
City Collector Commercial
a
Mostly sidewalk on N
Paved Full 10 Via Pared 1.25 6600 2 EW&NS 48 60 two sides;
City Collector Residential V
Mostly sidewalk on
Paved Full 11 Via Ventena 0.44 2323.2 2 NS 48 60 two sides;
City Collector Residential -p
Mostly sidewalk on d
Paved Full 12 Roseview Ln 0.25 1320 2 40 60 two sides;
City Collector Residential V
Partially sidewalk
Paved Full 13 Thelma Avenue 0.25 1320 2 40 60 on two sides;
City Collector Residential p
Partially sidewalk CL
d
Paved Full 14 Lynn Street 0.26 1372.8 2 EW&NS 38 60 on two sides; W
Residential& to
City Collector Commercial y
Partially sidewalk ++
Paved Full 15 Monte Vista Way 0.91 4804.8 2 NS 28 60 on two sides;
City Collector Residential
Partially sidewalk p
Paved Full 16 Cll Jessica 0.92 4857.6 2 NS 28 60 on two sides; a
City Collector Residential O
Partially sidewalk
Paved Full 17 Arbol Real Avenue 0.98 5174.4 2 NS 28 60 on two sides;
City Collector Residential M
Partially sidewalkN
Paved Full 18 Las Flores Way 0.91 4804.8 2 NS 28 60 on two sides; C
City Collector Residential
Partially sidewalk
Paved Full 19 Sierra Del Sol 1 5280 2 NS 28 60 on two sides; to
City Collector Residential p
Partially sidewalk V
Paved Full 20 Cll Helene 0.66 3484.8 2 NS 32 60 on two sides;
City Collector Residential
Partially sidewalk
Paved Full 21 El Centro Way 1.31 6916.8 2 EW&NS 32 60 on two sides; y
City Collector IResidential I E
t
t�
lC
Q
Packet Pg. 121
2.A.f
Partially sidewalk
Paved Full 22 Del Norte Way 0.61 3220.8 2 EW 32 60 on two sides;
Residential&
City Collector Vacant N
**Upgrade to 4 lane
Paved Full 23 30th Avenue" 0.26 1372.8 2 EW 32 88 76876.8 No proper undivided
sidewalks; (Secondary O
City Collector Residential Highway) y
Partially sidewalk
Paved Full 24 La Canada Way 0.74 3907.2 2 EW 32 60 on two sides;Residential& _
City Collector Commercial
O
o proper y
Paved Full 25 Del Norte Way 0.12 633.6 2 EW 32 60 sidewalks;
d
City Collector Residential t
No proper C
Paved Full 26 Callita Bell 229 feet 229 feet 2 EW 32 60 sidewalks;
City Collector Residential
No proper (�
Paved Full 27 Callita Barbara 225 feet 225 feet 2 EW 32 60 sidewalks;
City Collector Residential
o proper
Paved Full 28 callita Bonnie 260 feet 260 feet 2 EW 32 60 d
sidewalks; t
City Collector Residential +'
t0
C�
No proper
Paved Full 29 Via Palmsas 1 5280 2 NS 32 60 sidewalks;
Residential, O
a
City Collector Commercial,Vacant d
o proper si
Paved Full 30 Desert Moon Drive 1 5280 2 NS 32 60 walks;Residential to
City Collector &Vacant 2
No proper �+
Paved Full 31 Desert palm Drive 0.8 4224 2 NS 32 60 sidewalks;
C
Residential&
City Collector Vacant O
CL
No proper a
Paved Full 32 Arabian Ct 0.1 528 2 EW 28 60 sidewalks; Q
Residential& -p
City Collector Vacant C
o proper
Paved Full 33 Jack Clark Ct 0.1 528 2 EW 28 60 sidewalks; .N.
Residential& _
City Collector Vacant `
r+
N
No proper OC
Paved Full 34 Taylors Rs 0.11 580.8 2 NS 28 60 sidewalks; U
Residential,
City Collector Commercial,Vacant �p
Paved Full 35 Vamer Road 5.18 27350.4 1 4 to 6 EW&NS 1 24 60 ICitv Collector No sidewalk
Sidewalks on two �+
Paved Full 36 Haskell Road 1 5280 2 to 4 EW&NS 75 60 d
sides,Residential&
City Collector Vacant =
V
ld
Q
racket Pg. 122
2.A.f
Sidewalk on one
Paved Full 37 Harry Oliver Trail 0.38 2006.4 2 NS 32 60 side,Commercial&
City Collector Vacant
Partially sidewalk N
Paved Full 38 Rosemary Ln 0.1 528 2 NS 34 60 on two sides;
Residential & d
City Collector Vacant V
Partially sidewalk 4)
Paved Full 39 Arbol Real Avenue 0.1 528 2 NS 38 60 on two sides;
Residential & '~
C
City Collector Vacant Sidewalks on two 0
O
Paved Full 40 Monterey Avenue 0.1 528 4 NS 75 60 sides,Commercial y
City Collector &Vacant L.
4)
Partial y one L
sidewalk; CL
Paved Full 41 Boca Chica Trail 0.68 3590.4 2 EW 34 60 Residential U)
City Collector &Vacant r
Partia y-one '**Upgrade to 4 lane (j
Paved Full 42 Cook Street** 0.69 3643.2 2 NS 42 88 167587.2 sidewalk; undivided M
Residential (Secondary I-
City Collector &Vacant Hi hwa ) 'Q
4)Patna y one
sidewalks; `.
Shadow Valley M
Paved Full 43 Drive 0.72 3801.6 2 EW&NS 24 60 Residential, V
Commercial&
City Collector Vacant
Paved Full 44 1.58 8342.4 2 24 60 City Collector No sidewalk O
C
d
Paved Full 45 Classic Club Blvd 0.34 1795.2 4 EW&NS 54 60 Mostly sidewalks
on two sides;
City Collector Residential;Private A,
Paved Full 46 0.1 528 2 EW 54 60 City Collector No sidewalk _
Paved Full 47 Armand Way 0.18 950.4 2 EW 38 60 City Collector No sidewalk
Partially sidewalk
on one side; *Upgrade to 6 lane O
Paved Full 48 Rio Del Sol Road* 1.48 7814.4 2 NS 24 60 Commercial divided(Arterial pa,
City Collector &Vacant Highway) O
Total 34.39 831071 1144176 'p
Total Cost $5,446,277.76
N
Grand ota 1 .1 =
M
L-
a+
y
C
O
L)
cC
C
d
E
t
V
M
Q
Packet Pg. 123
2.A.g
to
E
10
1
Cathedral City
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS OF THE 0
CATHEDRAL CITY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
UNDER POST-ANNEXATION CONDITIONS N
H
C
O
C
O
V
C
O
r
ca
x
Prepared for =
a
City of Cathedral City a
68-700 Avenida Lalo Guerrero
Cathedral City, CA 92234
d
d
c
O
m
m
t
a
W
Prepared by
I \
a
L I Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc.®
42635 Melanie Place, Suite #101
Palm Desert, California 92211
O
V!
N
l�
C
a
November 2018 C
N
U.
a.+
C
y
J
Q
Packet Pg. 124
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis N
E
M
a
-o
c
c�
H
0
O
t
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
for the
CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY
SPHERE OF INFLUENCE c
0
:r
=a
c
Table of Contents °
U
c
O
I. INTRODUCTION, PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DEMOGRAPHICS...................... 3 X
d
c
a
II. BUILDOUT ASSUMPTIONS 8
0
a
A. Buildout Assumptions................................................................................................... 8 0
Residential 8 =
2. Commercial...................................................................................................... 10 m
3. Industrial........................................................................................................... II =
d
w
III. POTENTIAL REVENUES............................................................................................... 13 =
w
O
m
A. Potential Revenue Sources to the City of Cathedral City........................................... 13
1. Annual Revenues.............................................................................................. 13 a
U)
2. One-Time Revenues......................................................................................... 23 Z'
i�
IV. POTENTIAL COSTS....................................................................................................... 25
a
m
t
A. Potential Costs to the City of Cathedral City 25
1. Annual Costs .................................................................................................... 25 m
2. One-Time Costs................................................................................................ 29
r
0
H
V. COST/REVENUE ANALYSIS........................................................................................ 32 0
A. Cost/Revenue Summaries 32 w
_
B. Conclusion 32CL
a
�a
LIST OF TABLES E
�a
Table 1 Cathedral City SOI Land Use and Build Out Projections............................................. 6 A
Table 2 Property Tax Revenue Summary Table 15 LL
Table 3 Property Tax in Lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fee Revenue Summary Table ........ 16
Table 4 Property Transfer Tax Revenue Summary Table 17 c
Table 5 Components of the 8.75% Sales Tax.......................................................................... 18 E
�v
Q
1
Packet Pg. 125
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis w
E
Table 6 Sales Tax & Transient Users Tax Revenue Summary Table...................................... 19 i
Table 7 Measure A Revenue Summary Table
Table 8 Cannabis Tax Revenue Summary Table..................................................................... 20 y
Table 9 Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue Summary Table.................................................. 21 0
t
Table 10 Highway User Gas Tax Revenue Summary Table
Table I I Utility Users Tax Revenue Summary Table
Table 12 Franchise Fees Revenue Summary Table................................................................... 23
Table 13 Development Fees Revenue Summary Table............................................................. 24
Table 14 Art in Public Places Fees Revenue Summary Table................................................... 24 O
Table 15 Costs of General Government Summary Table.......................................................... 26
c
Table 16 Public Works Costs (Per Capita) v
Table 17 Police Protection Costs............................................................................................... 27 =
Table 18 Costs of Fire Protection .............................................................................................. 28
Table 19 Costs of Roadway Maintenance.................................................................................. 29 m
Table 20 Roadway Improvement Costs..................................................................................... 30 a
Table 21 Cost and Revenue Summary Table (with Cannabis Tax)
Table 22 Cost and Revenue Summary Table (without Cannabis Tax)..................................... 34 c
a
Table 23 City Developer Impact Fee Revenues (One time only)
v
_
APPENDICES
_
d
3
Appendix A Detailed Cost and Revenue Tables
Appendix B Fire Department Analysis of Capital Outlay and Personnel Costs for the Sphere of c
Influence
as
r
a
U
Ta
.a
d
t
M
V
m
t
O
H
.y
M
_
Q
V
R
a
E
�a
_H
U-
ai
_
y
J
r-.
Q
2
Packet Pg. 126
a.x;=
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis 0
E
m
a
a
ca
3
0
z
v
N
I. INTRODUCTION,PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DEMOGRAPHICS
0
Background
_
0
The City of Cathedral City extended its Sphere of Influence north of the I-10 freeway was r_
expanded through two separate approvals by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation •
Commission (LAFCO). The first occurred in January of 2011, and the second in September of d
that year. In addition, the most recent annexations occurred in the City's North City area in =_
December 2007, and in January 2015, when approximately 680 acres between Da Vall and Rio Q
del Sol, immediately north of the City limits were annexed(the Messenger Annexation). 0
L
d
The City's current Sphere encompasses 8,600f acres, generally located within the Thousand =
Palms community of interest. The purpose of this analysis is to consider the potential revenues
and costs associated with future annexation of the Sphere into the City of Cathedral City. For
purposes of this analysis, the entire 8,300f acres of the Sphere area have been considered, net of
acreage within the Interstate 10 right-of-way.
0
This document evaluates the potential fiscal impacts associated with initial annexation and
eventual buildout of the Sphere. The analysis includes both annual costs and revenues at four a
time periods, based on the level of development occurring at that time, and one-time costs and n
revenues. Methodologies and assumptions are discussed below, using the most recently available
fiscal and demographic data, tax rates, city fees, and other information to reflect current
conditions in the Sphere.
Introduction
The County of Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) is responsible for o
approving annexations proposed by cities in Riverside County. This fiscal impact analysis stems y
from the Riverside County Guide to Preparing Fiscal Impact Reports (1995), but has been
updated based on current factors for a variety of revenue and cost categories, State and County Q
distributions, recently completed analysis for other jurisdictions, and City-specific costs and t5
revenues. It addresses the costs and revenues which are projected to be generated through build C
out of the annexation area. For purposes of this analysis, build out is presumed to occur in four
phases: N
LL
ti
w
C
d
E
t
V
10
a..
Q
3
Packet Pg. 127
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis
E
Phase 1 i
The first phase analyzes conditions immediate upon annexation with no additional
development. This condition presents costs and revenues as they would be
immediately upon city annexation. o
t
Phase 2
The second phase analyzes conditions at ten percent (10%) build out.
Development projections were calculated utilizing assumptions that are further
explained in the Build Out Assumptions methodology section. 2
Phase 3 0
The third phase analyzes conditions at fifty percent (50%) build out. The o
projections were obtained utilizing assumptions that are further explained in the 2
Build Out Assumptions methodology section. d
a
Phase 4
The final phase analyzes conditions at one hundred percent (100%) buildout. The a
projections were obtained utilizing assumptions that are further explained in the
Build Out Assumptions methodology section.
a�
The analysis applies the appropriate revenue and cost factors to the proposed land use c
designations assigned in the Cathedral City General Plan Land Use Map to the Sphere area.
These designations were applied to the Sphere at the time it was designated by LAFCO, and are
expected to be the designations the City would apply to Sphere lands, should annexation o
proceed'. The revenue and cost categories used to develop this fiscal analysis are described in
Sections III and IV of this document, respectively, and include both annual and one-time a
revenues and costs. Assumptions associated with each land use category are described in Section ;,
II. The cost/revenue analysis is shown in Section V.
�a
Both costs and revenues throughout this analysis are calculated in current dollars. It is important
to note that no inflation adjustment has been made. Although costs and revenues will rise over
the build out period after annexation, the ratio of costs to revenues is not expected to
significantly change. As a result, the analysis in constant dollars is representative of the w
framework of costs and revenues likely to be experienced by the city throughout the time period
analyzed. 0
21
c
Q
a
E
m
U_
' The zoning designations of the Sphere are anticipated to be further refined as part of the pre-zoning required prior v
to annexation.The cost of this additional refinement is factored into the fiscal analysis in the Government Costs
section.
�a
r
Y
Q
4
Packet Pg. 128
2.A.g
Tema Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis
E
Project Description a
c
The purpose of this fiscal analysis is to consider the potential financial impacts to the City of
Cathedral City associated with annexation of its Sphere, an area that is currently under the
jurisdiction of Riverside County. The Sphere is located immediately east and north of the
Interstate 10 (I-10) transportation corridor in areas where urban development is expected to
occur and intensify in the future. The Sphere area is bounded by the city's corporate limits on the
west and south. The unincoporated area in which the Sphere occurs is known as the community
of Thousand Palms. g
C
The lands considered in this analysis are a majority of the 9,700 acres total acres that are within O
U
the Thousand Palms community of interest boundary. The area not within the Sphere is primarily o
land within the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(CVMSHCP). 2
x
m
Table 1 shows the proposed land use designations in the Sphere area, which include lands a
designated for residential, commercial, mixed use, industrial, and open space uses. N
0
a
Population Estimates
The 2010 Census reported a population of 7,715 in Thousand Palms, and population is estimated c
to total 7,875 in 20171. It is estimated that, at build out, the population will be 61,504. This
estimated build out population is based on the current population living in the existing 7,174 c
residential units in the area and the construction of an additional 17,244 new residential dwelling
w
units. It has also been assumed that future housing units would have a household size of 3.11
persons, consistent with the City's current household size. o
s
o_
Cn
r
U
iv
a�
t
m
• U
m
t
0
y
.y
T
ca
C
Q
a+
V
M
a
E
75
V
N_
LL
C
d
E
L
z Data USA Website;https://datausa.io/profile/Jzeo/thousand-palms-ca/.Accessed July 2018. U
Q
5
Packet Pg. 129
2.A-9
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis c
0
Table 1 d
Cathedral City SOI Land Use and Build Out Projections
Total %of %of Total %of Existing Potential Build out Build out Q
Land Use Category' ROW Acres Acres Vacant Total Developed Total Total y
Lands Lands Acres Acres SF/Units SF/Units SF/Units Population O
Residential d
O
High Density Residential(RII)(11-20 du/ac) 7.1 199.9 207.0 140.7 70.4% 59.3 29.7% 199.9 3% 131 2,110 2,241
a>
t�
C
Medium Density Residential(RM) 8.6 210.6 219.2 128.7 61.1% 82.0 38.9% 210.6 3% 3,233 965 4,198 7
C
Low Density Residential(LR)(2- 441.5 1,034.0 1,475.5 538.8 52.1% 495.1 47.9% 1,034.0 14% 3,189 1,819 5,008 O
4.5 du/ac) d
m
Estate Residential(RE)(0-2 du/ac) 74.2 1,062.1 1,136.3 751.4 70.8% 310.7 29.3% 1,062.1 14% 621 1,503 2,124 C-
tn
Total Residential Acreage 531.4 2,506.E 3,037.9 1,559.5 621% 947.0 37.8% 2,506.E 33% 7,174 6,39E 13,570 27,767 U
Commercial
General Commercial(CG) 28.1 97.1 125.2 63.7 65.6% 33.4 34.4% 97.1 1% 609,971 609,971 d
t
Resort Residential(3 6.Sdu/ac) - 15.8 15.8 - 0.0% 15.8 100.0% 15.8 0% - - U
d
t
Total Commercial Acreage 28.1 112.9 141.0 63.7 56.4% 49.3 43.6% 112.9 2% 299,763 609,971 909,734 �
O
Mixed Use y
N
Mixed Use-Urban(Residential �,
Units 53.0 660.0 712.9 283.6 71.6% 112.4 28.4% 396.0 N/A 10,848 10,848 33,738
C
Mixed Use-Urban(Commercial 53.0 660.0 712.9 189.1 71.6% 74.9 28.4% 264.0 N/A 82,156 1 811 896 1,894,052 Q
Square Footage)
c.�
O
Total Mixed Use Acreage 53.0 660.0 712.9 472.7 80.8% 187.3 19.2% 660.0 8% - - - O-
E
Industrial
Industrial(1) 44.2 1,733.3 1,777.5 1,360.1 78.5% 373.2 21.5% 1,733.3 23% 20,144,069 20,144,069 N
ii
Business Park(BP) 8.8 75.8 84.6 73.8 97.3% 2.0 2.7% 75.8 1% 1,092,267 1,092,267
w
Total Industrial Acreage 53.0 1,809.1 1,862.1 1,433.9 79.3% 375.2 20.7% 1,809.1 24% 1,431,431 21,236,336 22,667,767 a0i
E
t
Q
racket Pg. 130
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis o
ca
Table 1 X
Cathedral City SOI Land Use and Build Out Projections c
of %of %of Qi
Land Use Category' ROW Acres Total Vacant Total Developed Total Total Total Existing Potential Build out Build out N
Acres Acres Lands Lands Acres Acres SF/Units SF/Units SF/Units Population O
a
Open Space
m
M
Open Space-Other(OS-O) - 0.0% - 0.0% - 0% N/A N/A N/A
d
Open Space-Public(OS-P) 3.8 2,014.7 2,018.5 2,014.7 100.0% - 0.0% 2,014.7 27% N/A N/A N/A
d
Hillside Reserve(1 du/20 ac) 1.9 398.5 400.4 12.3 3.1% 386.2 96.9% 398.5 5% 0 1 1 C
Total Open Space Acreage 5.7 2,413.1 2,418.8 2,026.9 84.0% 386.2 16.0% 2,413.1 32% N/A 1 1 O
d
ROW d
L
C.
Total ROW Acrea a
128.1 0.0 128.1 1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Totals 799.2 7,501.7 8,300.9 5,556.7 74.1% 1,870.1 24.9% 7,426.8 100% - - - 61,5042 V
'Existing residential units based on Riverside County Assessor's data.Existing square footage based on GIs analysis of aerial photographs-represents total square footage estimates of buildings within
commercial,mixed use and industrial zones. Future conditions of mixed use,commercial,and industrial land uses are calculated using the following assumptions:mixed use residential development is C
assumed to occur at 75%of the maximum density permitted and 22%lot coverage for mixed use developing as commercial;22%lot coverage for commercial zones,and 34%lot coverage for industrial
zones.Future population calculated based on existing City household size of 3.11 persons. M
2 This total is based on existing population 7,875 persons plus the projected population of 24,418 X 3.11=53,629 1J
d
t
O
N
.y
O
C
Q
r+
t)
M
a
E
ev
N
r
C
G1
E
t
V
M
fr'
a
Packet Pg. 131
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis
E
c�
i
0
s
H
I1. BUILDOUT ASSUMPTIONS N
Introduction c
0
The buildout assumptions used to calculate the costs and revenues associated with the Sphere o
area are presented in this section. They are based on existing City land use designations that are
equivalent to Riverside County land use designations. There are no specific projects proposed in .o
the Sphere which have requested annexation, nor are major projects under construction in the x
Sphere. Recent press coverage of a proposed Coachella Sports and Entertainment Stadium c
Authority complex at Cook Street and Varner Road indicates that a potential project could be a
developed at this location. Therefore, the analysis is based on general assumptions regarding o
build out of the lands, consistent with the City of Cathedral City General Plan land use a
designations.
c
A. Buildout Assumptions
c
a�
1. Residential
c
Density a°,
Build out density was calculated based on a realistic development pattern, consistent with t
existing development in the City and region. Cn
• In the Mixed Use — Urban category, the residential component's acreage was estimated 0
on the basis that 60% of the total MU-Urban acreage is developed as residential, and that v
of that acreage 85% of the maximum density is constructed. This allows for landscaping y
and parking areas, but assumes the most intense development pattern, given the intent of ci
the designation as an urban, high intensity land use.
• The Low, Medium and High Density residential designations assume that 75% of the o
maximum permitted density is constructed, with the remainder to be utilized for M
landscaping, open space,parking and circulation areas. 21
• In the Estate Residential and Hillside Reserve category, projected development assumes a
that 100% of the allowed density is constructed, since these designations require large
lots, and full development is achievable, even with the City's parking and storm water
retention requirements. —
Population U-
Adding the existing Sphere population of 7,875, and applying the City's average household size ,:
of 3.11 persons per household to 17,244 future dwelling units (53,629 residents), yields an
estimated buildout population of 61,504 residents. Where per capita factors have been applied in
this report,they are based on this population estimate.
a
8
Packet Pg. 132
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis
E
Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP) Conservation Lands a.
The Sphere area contains two Conservation Areas, as defined by the CVMSHCP. These lands
have development restrictions which potentially limit site disturbance to 10% of a parcel. The
land in the Edom Hill Conservation Area (911 acres) is all designated as Hillside Reserve. 393
acres in the Thousand Palms Conservation Area are designated for Estate Residential, allowing
up to 2 units per acre. Both these designations are restrictive, and allow limited development.
Even with the restrictions imposed by the Conservation Area requirements, these lands would
still be expected to develop at the prescribed density. _
0
Limitations would be likely for the 68 acres of Low Density Residential and the 15 acres of
Industrial lands in the Thousand Palms Conservation Area. However, these limitations would not 0
significantly impact the buildout of the Sphere as a whole. A number of strategies are available c
to the City to preserve Conservation Area lands, including using other Open Space designated
lands. As a result, development on these Conservation lands has been included in the analysis. a
c
High Density Residential Q
This designation allows for the greatest diversity and highest density of residential development, o
providing for a full range of multi-family dwellings, including apartments and condominiums. It a
is also suitable for planned communities and affordable and senior housing, where smaller units
and higher densities may be appropriate. Multi-family development provides for Planned Unit
Development could be comprised of a varying range of residential types and on-site amenities. c
These lands are typically located in close proximity to neighborhood commercial uses, thereby
maximizing pedestrian access to these essential services. Mobile home parks or subdivisions c
with PUD-type development may also be allowed. o
The maximum permitted density is 20 dwelling units per acre. As described above, build out in r
this designation is assumed at 15 units per acre. This analysis assumes the development of 2,110 cn
high density residential units on 140.7 vacant acres.
U
Medium Density Residential
This designation provides for moderately low to medium density subdivisions and Planned Unit Y
Developments (PUDs). It serves to transition between lower and more moderate (medium) v
residential densities. Product types typically range from single-family to multi-family
development, with much of existing development being duplex units on 8,000 square foot lots. o
The maximum permitted density is 10 units per acre. As described above, the build out in this 24
cu
designation is assumed at 7.5 units per acre. There are 128.7 acres of vacant Medium Density Q
Residential land in the study area,which would result in 965 new residential units.
a
Resort Residential E
This low-density designation is intended to accommodate single-family and attached residential
development in a master planned resort setting. On-site amenities typically include golf courses, LL
tennis and swimming facilities, as well as tourist/resort-serving commercial uses. This
designation also allows hotels/motels and ancillary visitor and tourist-serving commercial uses.
Lands designated Resort Residential total 15.8 acres, and are currently built out. No additional
development is anticipated.
r
Q
9
Packet Pg. 133
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis
E
�v
i
Low Density Residential =
This designation provides for single-family residential development on individual lots typically
ranging from about 7,500 to 20,000 square feet. These lands serve to buffer more dense 0
residential development from estate residential uses and may be appropriate in areas with some
site constraints.
N
The maximum permitted density is 4.5 units per acre. As described above, the build out in this
designation is assumed at 3.4 units per acre. This analysis assumes 1,819 future residential units o
on the 538.8 vacant acres of Low Density Residential land in the Sphere.
0
Estate Residential
This designation provides for larger lot subdivisions with single-family residential development.
This designation is envisioned for rural areas, as well as lands which may also be constrained by a
topography or other natural restrictions. This type of development may also incorporate a
"greenbelt"buffer to help define the city's urban boundary. a
0
There are 751.4 vacant acres of Estate Residential land in the Sphere. This will result in an
additional 1,503 residential units at build out. o
Hillside Reserve
This designation provides for development densities of one dwelling unit per 20 acres. 3
Development could be precluded on these lands due to topographic, hydrologic, aesthetic or
other constraints. In such cases, development rights could be preserved by density transfer or o
similar mechanism. The 12 acres of vacant land in this land use designation results in 1 L
additional potential unit.
a
2. Commercial Y_
U
Development Intensity
The General Commercial designation assumes a twenty-two percent (22%) building coverage,
based on typical commercial development in the City and region. This accounts for driveways, 0
parking lots, stormwater retention/detention facilities, and similar ancillary facilities. t
w
General Commercial y
This designation provides for the development of a wide variety of commercial center, ranging 2,
from general merchandising and strip commercial centers, to community and regional scale Q
centers, including supermarket anchors and big box retailers. Community-scale development
should take advantage of regional transportation networks and be designed to accommodate a
transit facilities. Such centers may also host ancillary office components, as well as regional E
institutions and services.
LL
The Sphere contains 63.65 acres of vacant General Commercial land. These lands are assumed to
generate 609,971 square feet of new commercial development.
v
J
a+
Q
10
Packet Pg. 134
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis
E
3. Industrial a1°.
a
Development Intensity
The Industrial and Business Park designations assume athirty-four percent (34%) building r
coverage. This accounts for driveways, parking lots, stormwater retention/detention facilities,
and similar ancillary facilities.
N
Industrial y
This designation provides for the development of any and all industrial uses operating entirely in
_
Y
enclosed buildings, and those requiring limited and screenable outdoor storage. Examples
include clean manufacturing operations, warehousing and distribution facilities, mini warehouse c0
storage, and a variety of light manufacturing businesses. This designation also allows conditional o
and/or discretionary development of more intense industrial uses with the potential to generate
substantial levels of noise, smoke, dust, glare, traffic,vibration, or other nuisances.
There are 1,360.13 acres of vacant Industrial land in the Sphere, which have the potential to y
generate 20,144,069 square feet of space. Development in this designation is assumed to include 0
5% of total square footage in cannabis cultivation, or a total of approximately 1 million square
feet. The balance is expected to develop in uses typical of light industrial development, including
warehousing, distribution, and similar uses.
c
Business Park
w
This designation is intended for light industrial and related uses which are compatible with one
another, as well as with neighboring residential and commercial uses. Other potentially o
appropriate uses include professional offices, including administrative, corporate, institutional,
legal, medical, financial, insurance, real estate, and government offices. n
Y
There are 73.75 acres of vacant Business Park lands in the Sphere, with a potential to generate up L)
to 1,092,267 square feet of space. This land use is expected to develop in small
warehouse/office/showroom uses, auto-related services, and similar facilities.
Y
U
a�
EY
w
0
y
21
_
Q
Y
V
Q
E
fC
V
y
U.
C
E
t
U
Y
Y
Q
1�
Packet Pg. 135
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis u,
E
R
4. Mixed Use—Urban a
a
The Mixed Use—Urban designation will facilitate both commercial and residential development. 3
This analysis assumes, consistent with the requirements of the designation, that 60% of the
currently vacant lands will develop as high density residential development, and 40% will
develop as commercial development. This fiscal analysis assumes twenty-two percent (22%) N
building coverage for commercial acreage, and assumes residential acreage will develop at
eighty-five(85%)of the maximum density permitted.
0
This designation includes a mix of residential (up to 45 dwelling units per acre), commercial
retail, office and public gathering spaces. Uses may be mixed either horizontally or vertically c0
with an emphasis on allowing major commercial businesses and"big box" development. o
.2
M
For purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that of the 472.69 acres of vacant Mixed Use
land, 283.61 acres would develop into 10,848 high density residential units and 189.07 acres a
would develop into 1,811,896 square feet of commercial space. N
0
a
L
d
_
D
V
_
d
_
4-
0
d
L
G7
L
Q.
a+
U
m
L
U
a�
t
r
v-
O
,
M
_
Q
r
O.
E
u
li
_
u
J
r+
Q
Packet Pg. 136
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis
E
�a
a
v
c
3
0
s
H
v
N
III. Potential Revenues
c
0
Buildout of the Sphere area has the potential to generate revenues to the City of Cathedral City.
The following discussion describes potential revenue sources to the City. The discussion first o
addresses on-going annual revenues generated as development occurs, based on the Phases
described in Section I of this document. Each revenue source is described, the assumptions used o
in the analysis detailed where appropriate, and a summary table provided for each revenue x
source. This discussion is followed by a discussion of one-time revenues, which include
Development Impact Fees and Art in Public Places fees. Q
0
A. Potential Revenue Sources to the City of Cathedral City a.
a�
1. Annual Revenues D
a�
U
Property Tax
A property tax of 1% is imposed on the value of real property (land and permanently attached —
improvements, such as buildings) and tangible personal property (movable property) located —
within the state. In 1986, California voters passed a constitutional amendment (Article XIIIA of i
the State Constitution)which provided an exception to the 1% limitation. Local governments and
school districts may increase the percentage above 1% to finance the issuance of general cn
obligation bonds.3 The City participates in the Teeter Plan, an alternative method for property tax Y
apportionment without regard for delinquencies. With the Teeter program, the city's current U
secured property tax apportionment is increased by the taxes that were typically delinquent.
d
It is important to note that property tax revenues will be reduced due to the City's mandated 0
contributions to Education Revenue Augmentation Funds (ERAF). In fiscal year 1992, the State
of California required cities and towns to shift a percentage of their property tax revenues to a o
countywide ERAF account to fund public schools. Based on prior annexations into the City of N
Cathedral City, the City receives approximately half(3.5%) of the property tax revenue collected 21
by the County, and the remaining 3.5% is contributed to ERAF.' a
U
M
a
E
U
_N
LL
r-%
C
d
s Cathedral City Adopted Budget Fiscal Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 E
t
a Tami Scott,Director of Administrative Services,personal communication,August 10,2018.
Q
13
Packet Pg. 137
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis
E
In this analysis, properties flagged as "exempt" in Riverside County Assessor's parcel records a
are not included in property tax revenue calculations. In the Sphere, these properties are largely c
owned by CVWD, California Department of Transportation (CalTrans), the County of Riverside,
and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Additional properties owned by non-profit 0
organizations receive tax exemptions and/or reductions. These include 90.4 acres owned by
Xavier High School and parcels owned by the Berger Foundation.' Property tax revenue
calculations have been adjusted to account for these cases. 77
The fiscal analysis assumes that all taxable properties within the Sphere are taxed at a rate of 1% g
of valuation, and the collection rate is 100%. Future development in the potential annexation area
will include residential, commercial and quasi-industrial development. In order to determine 0
property value, and associated property tax generation for this development, a number of sources r_
were utilized. The primary source is the City's current average value of building permits, based M
on land use type. a
_
_
For existing development, the County provided existing property valuations for all parcels in the N
Sphere. This valuation was used to calculate existing property tax collected by the County, and a
anticipated property tax to the City upon annexation for existing development and vacant
property. Land value is included in the Existing Development category. Therefore, property tax c
revenue for future development is calculated on the value of new construction only.
_
The following table summarizes these assumptions.
}
O
d
L
Q�
Q.
U
m
L
a�
t
�v
U
m
t
r
w
O
.y
21
M
_
Q
ca
a
E
�a
ii
u
' Based on property tax information provided by County of Riverside GIS database
co
Q
14
Packet Pg. 138
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis
E
Table 2 a
Property Tax Revenue Sununary Table
_
co
Buildout Phase
0
Phase 2 Phase 3 s
Phase 1 (10%of (50% of
(At Vacant Vacant
Annexa Land Land Phase 4
tion) Developed) Developed) (Build Out) N
Potential annual property tax revenue to 0
City from existing development $6,439 $6,439 $6,439 $6,439
Potential annual property tax revenue to 0
City from future High Density U
Residential development $0 $14,537 $72,683 $145,367 0
Potential annual property tax revenue to
City from future Medium Density
Residential development $0 $6,649 $33,244 $66,487 c
Potential annual property tax revenue to Q
City from future Low Density o
Residential development $0 $20,958 $104,790 $209,581 a
Potential annual property tax revenue to
City from future Estate Residential
development $0 $17,319 $86,593 $173,186
Potential annual property tax revenue to
City from future General Commercial
development $0 $4,310 $21,552 $43,104
Potential annual property tax revenue to 0
City from future Industrial development $0 $142,348 $711,740 $1,423,481
Potential annual property tax revenue to
City from future Business Park °-
development $0 $7,719 $38,593 $77,185 >,
Potential annual property tax revenue to U
City from future Mixed Use-Urban 7E
development(commercial component) $0 $12,804 $64,019 $128,038 0
Potential annual property tax revenue to
City from future Mixed Use-Urban 0
development(residential component) $0 $125,017 $625,087 $1,250,175
Total Property Tax Revenue at Phase
Buildout $6,439 $358,099 $1,764,740 $3,523,042 0
Property Tax in Lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fees
Prior to 2004, the City received revenues from State Vehicle License Fees which were directly Q
tied to population. In cities where population growth rose steadily, including Cathedral City,
these fees represented considerable annual revenues. In 2004, however, the State substantially
reduced the fee calculation, and instead assured local jurisdictions that the revenue loss would be
offset by an increase in property tax based on valuation. The fiscal impact analysis assumes that N
the City will continue to receive property tax in lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fees at a rate of LL
0.96%, as shown in Table 3.
r
_
a�
E
u
a
15
Packet Pg. 139
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis
Table 3
Property Tax in Lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fee Revenue c
Summary Table N
0
Buildout Phase
Phase 2 Phase 3
(10% of (50% of
N
Vacant Vacant
Phase 1(At Land Land Phase 4
Annexation) Developed) Developed) (Build Out) o
Potential annual MVL in-lieu property
tax revenue to City from existing =
development $75 $75 $75 $75 °
U
Potential annual property tax revenue to c
City from future High Density °
Residential development $0 $2,074 $10 368 $20,736 X
Potential annual MVL in-lieu property c
tax revenue to City from future Medium Q
Density Residential development $0 $948 $4 742 $9,484 (n
Potential annual property tax revenue to 0
City from future Low Density a
Residential development $0 $2,990 $14 948 $29 896
Potential annual MVL in-lieu.property D
tax revenue to City from future Estate m
U
Residential development $0 $2,470 $12,352 $24,704 a°i
Potential annual MVL in-lieu property 2
tax revenue to City from future General C
Commercial development $0 $168 $842 $1,684 0
Potential annual MVL in-lieu property
tax revenue to City from future s
Industrial development $0 $20,305 $101,526 $203 052 (n
Potential annual MVL in-lieu property Y
tax revenue to City from future v
Business Park development $0 $1 101 $5,505 $11,010
Potential annual MVL in-lieu property
tax revenue to City from future Mixed s
Use-Urban development(commercial ca
U
component) $0 $1,826 $9132 $18,264
Potential annual MVL in-lieu property
tax revenue to City from future Mixed 0
Use-Urban development(residential
component) $0 $168 $842 $1,684
Total MVL in-lieu Property Tax Q
Revenue at Phase Buildout 1 $75 $32126 $160 331 $320 588
�a
a
Property Transfer Tax
E
Property Transfer Tax is generated from changes in real property ownership. For analysis N
purposes, estimated Property Transfer Tax revenues are calculated based on a tax rate of$1.10 U_
per $1,000 (or 0.11%) of the unencumbered property value. This analysis further assumes that
for a transfer within an incorporated jurisdiction, the revenue is divided evenly between the
County (50%) and the jurisdiction (50%). Upon the sale of a new unit, the unencumbered value E
(average 80%)of the property is subject to the property transfer tax.
a
16
Packet Pg.T407
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis
E
a
Table 4 c
Property Transfer Tax Revenue Summary Table
Buildout Phase
Phase 3
Phase 2 (50% of
(10% of Vacant
Phase 1(At Vacant Land Land Phase 4 c
Annexation) Developed) Developed) (Build Out) 2
Total tax revenue from existing residential
development at phase buildout $54,053 $54,053 $54,053 $54,053 U
Total tax revenue from future High Density dev. _
at phase buildout $0 $12 830 $51 321 $64 151 0
Total tax revenue from future Medium Density x
dev. at phase buildout $0 $5 868 $23 473 $29 341 d
Total tax revenue from future Low Density dev. _
at phase buildout $0 $17 947 $71 788 $89 735 a
Total tax revenue from future Estate Res.dev.(at o
base buildout) $0 $14,830 $59,321 $74,152 a
Total tax revenue from future Mixed Use-Urban
dev. at phase buildout $0 $107,056 $428,222 $535 278 =
Total property transfer tax revenue at phase d
buildout $54,053 $212,584 $688,179 $846,710
w
Property values are stated in year 2018 dollars, and the same property values used in the property
w
tax revenue evaluation, above, are used in this analysis. A resale rate of one percent (1%) is 0
assumed for single-family attached development. This analysis assumes no resales for s
commercial and industrial development, as such sales are infrequent and sporadic. As a result, CCL
the analysis is conservative, and revenues to the city from property transfer tax are likely to be
higher than represented herein. L)
Sales Tax and Transient Users Tax
In accordance with California law, taxes are paid on in-state purchases and items purchased out
of state for use in California. Retailers are responsible for reporting and paying sales tax to the L)„
state via the State Board of Equalization. When an out-of-state or online retailer does not collect w
the tax for an item delivered to California, the purchaser may owe "use tax," which is a tax on N
the use, storage, or consumption of personal property in California. Taxpayers can report and pay 0
their use tax on their California income tax returns; registered sellers report their use tax on their
sales and use tax returns. The current sales and use tax rate collected in Cathedral City is 8.75%, Q
which is allocated as shown below.
a
E
U
i_
ti
c
a�
E
s
U
a+
Q
17 --
Packet Pg. 141
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis y
E
�a
i
Table 5
Com onents of the 8.75% Sales Tax
Rate Jurisdiction
3.6875% State of California General Fund
0.2500% State of California General Fund N
0.5000% State Local Revenue Fund 1991
0.5000% State Local Public Safety Fund 1993 c
1.0625% State Local Revenue Fund 2011 2
1.2500% City/County Local Tax (0.25% County o
Transportation Funds/ 1%City/County U
Operations) o
0.5000% District Rate -Riverside County Measure A x
transit
1.0000% District Rate—Cathedral CityQ
8.75% TOTAL RATE o
Source:City of Cathedral City Finance Department—Kevin Biersack,August 2018. n
L
Q�
The City receives 1% of the sales tax generated in its jurisdiction. In addition, with the passage D
of Measure H (2010) and Measure B (2014), the City imposes a 1% transaction and use tax on
all retailers. This revenue is in addition to the 1% sales tax, and has represented about 60% of the
1% sales tax collected in the City. The fiscal analysis estimates total taxable sales that could be
generated for each build out phase, then calculates 1.60% of taxable sales to determine how o
much sales tax revenue would be generated to the City.
L
The fiscal impact model projects potential sales tax revenue that could be generated on currently Cn
vacant commercial lands in the Sphere. It assumes that future development of commercial lands L)
will result in twenty-two (22%) lot coverage. The average annual sales estimators from the
Urban Land Institute's (ULI) 2008 "Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers" are applied to the
number of square feet dedicated to taxable sales. The fiscal analysis calculates sales tax
generation from commercial development, based on the following ULI definition.
"General Commercial" development: includes neighborhood scale shopping centers o
conveniently located near residential areas, and a variety of smaller commercial centers, N
specialty retail shops and personal service businesses. This type of development
generates an annual average of$326.13 per square foot in taxable sales. Q
U
Although limited sales tax revenue may be generated by the industrial development which will
occur in the Sphere, the amount is expected to be negligible. As a result, industrial development
is assumed to generate no taxable sales in this analysis. N
U_
w
v
r
r
Q
18
Packet Pg. 142
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis
E
Table 6 a
Sales Tax&Transient Users Tax Revenue Summary Table
c
Buildout Phase
Phase 2 Phase 3
(10% of (50% of F-
F-
Vacant Vacant
Phase 1(At Land Land Phase 4 i ri
Annexation) Developed) Developed) (Build Out)
Total sales tax revenue from existing commercial =
development $1,407,769 $1,407,769 $1,407,769 $1,407,769
Total sales tax revenue from future commercial
development $0 $286,459 $1,432 294 $2 864 588 0
Total sales tax revenue from future mixed use-urban v
development $0 $850 915 $4,254 577 $8,509 155 0
:r
Total sales tax revenue from all development $1,407,769 $2 545143 $7 094 640 r$12,781,511 x
m
Measure A Revenue a
Of the 8.75% sales tax collected in Riverside County, 0.50% is contributed to the Measure A o
Fund for regional and local transportation projects. Of Measure A funds available countywide, a
approximately 24% is distributed to the Coachella Valley region.' These funds are further
allocated for specific purposes: 50% for State highways and regional road improvements, 35%
for local streets and roads, and 15% for transit (Sunline Transit Agency). Of the 35% for local
streets and roads, about 11% goes to the City. This percentage is based on a formula that
accounts for Cathedral City's total number of dwelling units and total taxable sales.
0
Table 7
Measure A Revenue Summary Table
0_
Buildout Phase Cn
Phase 2 Phase 3
(10% of (50% of U
m
Vacant Vacant
Phase 1(At Land Land Phase 4 s
Annexation) Developed) Develo ed) (Build Out) a
Total Measure A revenue from existing commercial U
m
development $4,065 $4,065 $4,065 $4,065
Total Measure A revenue from future commercial o
development $0 $827 $4 136 $8,271 �+
Total Measure A revenue from future mixed use- >,
urban development $0 $2 457 $12,285 $24,570 c
Total Measure A revenue from all development $4,065 $7 349 $20 486 $36 907 Q
v
m
a
Cannabis Tax E
On November 4, 2014, the Cathedral City voters approved Measure N, a new tax on Cannabis
businesses operating under California's medical cannabis laws. The new tax allows for collection
of up to 15% tax on each dollar of gross receipts received by a dispensary. On November 8,
2016, Measure P was approved allowing the City to impose up to $25 per square foot on y
_
E
s
'Andrea Zureick,Riverside County Transportation Commission,personal communication,November 1,2011.
Q
19
Packet Pg. 143
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis
E
cannabis cultivation space and up to a$1 per gram/unit of cannabis concentrate and for cannabis- a
infused products. On April 26, 2017, City Council approved a cultivation tax at $15 per square
foot and manufacturing tax at for cannabis oil to crude: $0.05, distillate: $0.10, and for exotic or 3
boutique concentrate $0.40 per gram/unit. s
Fiscal Year 2015-16 revenues were $46,881 and are projected to be $394,388 at the end of 2016-
17. Currently, there are 11 dispensaries, 10 cultivators and 6 cannabis manufacturers in
operation, with additional cultivation and manufacturing facilities anticipated to open in 2017- _
18. o
For purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that 5% of Industrial lands would develop for 0
cannabis cultivation. This would result in just over 1 million square feet of space for this use. It =
also assumes that the Industrial land currently under Tribal control would not develop for this
use,based on the federal prohibitions currently in place. d
c
Because of the current focus on cultivation facilities, this analysis assumes that the land Q
developed is entirely developed for cultivation purposes. The likely reality is that some a
manufacturing facilities will develop, but they are expected to be smaller, and their production
levels cannot be estimated. Therefore, only cultivation has been assumed, and the associated
cultivation tax calculated.
aD
c
Table 8
Cannabis Tax Revenue Summary Table
Buildout Phase o
Phase 2 Phase 3 d
(10% of (50% of Q.
Vacant Vacant U)
Phase 1(At Land Land Phase 4
Annexation) Developed) Developed) (Build Out) c�
Total cannabis tax revenue from future Industrial
development $0 $1,208 644 $7,554,026 $15,108 052
t
Total cannabis tax revenue from all development $0 t$1,208,644 $7,554 026 $15108 052
U
It must be noted that these estimates are highly speculative. No substantive research exists on the
total potential demand associated with combined recreational and medicinal use of cannabis in o
the City, region or State. It is possible that the market will continue to grow, but equally possible y
that it will plateau, or even recede, depending on societal forces that cannot be predicted.
c
Transient Occupancy Tax(TOT)
Q
Transient Occupancy Tax is collected from individuals when they occupy a hotel or motel room. o.
In Cathedral City, TOT is collected at a rate of twelve percent (12%). The City also receives E
limited TOT revenue from RV Parks, timeshares (non-owner stays), and vacation rentals. U
Potential TOT revenues are based on the number of hotel/motel rooms that could be constructed LL
on Sphere lands, the average nightly room rate charged, and the average occupancy rate. There is r,
currently one hotel with 115 hotel rooms in the Sphere. The room rates at this property are lower
than the current average room rate in the City. Therefore, room rates have been calculated at
$95.00 per night. In addition, annualized occupancy has been assumed to be 65%.
M
r
w
Q
20
Packet Pg. 144
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis 0
E
a
The number of hotel/motel rooms that could be constructed assumes that two new hotels will be c
constructed in the future. The first projected hotel would be built during Phase 3 and the second
hotel would be built during Phase 4.
Room rates for future development, particularly future development located on the I-10 corridor,
Cq
are expected to be consistent with a room rate of$145.00/night and an estimated occupancy rate
of 65%. This rate is an average that reflects more modest hotels/motels located throughout the
city. As tourism activity can be expected to fluctuate seasonally in the region on an annualized 0
basis, a 65%occupancy rate is conservative.
0
U
The following table summarizes assumptions made in the Fiscal Impact Analysis model for o
TOT.
x
d
Table 9 Q
Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue N
Summar Table a
Buildout Phase
Phase 2 Phase 3 D
(10% of (50% of
Vacant Vacant Phase 4 =
d
Phase 1(At Land Land (Build 3
w
Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out)
w
Annual TOT Revenue from Existing Hotels $311,035 $311,035 $311,035 $31 0
d
Annual TOT Revenue from Future Hotels $0 $0 $516019 $�1,035
a
Total Annual TOT Revenue from all development(at to
base buildout $311035 $311,035 $827 054 $1343 072
U
�a
Highway User Gas Tax y
The State of California imposes a per gallon tax on all gasoline purchases. This fiscal impact L)
analysis projects future highway users gas tax revenues by assuming a per capita ratio. The ratio =
was calculated by dividing the total revenue from the state gas tax fund that is allocated to the o
city7 by the current population. The following table summarizes these assumptions. 0
.y
T
lC
C
Q
U
f0
Q
E
f0
V
N
LL
ti
i+
C
d
E
t
'Page 137 of the Cathedral City Biennial Budget—State Gas Tax Fund U
V
Q
21
Packet Pg. 145
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis y
E
Table 10 a
Highway User Gas Tax Revenue
Summa Table 3
Buildout Phase °
t
Phase 2 Phase 3 ~
(10% of (50% of •-
Vacant Vacant Phase 4 N
Phase 1(At Land Land (Build 77
Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out)
0
Total Annual Gas Tax Revenue from Existing
Residential Development $315,000 $315,000 $315,000 $315,000 c
Total Annual Gas Tax Revenue from Future Residential V
Development $0 $214 515 $1,072 577 $2 145,154 C
0
Total Annual Gas Tax Revenue from all development $315,000 $529,515 $1,387 577 $2 460154
0
c
Utility Users Tax a
Cathedral City adopted its Utility Users' Tax (UUT) in 2008. The City imposes a UUT rate of
3% on the telecommunication, cable, electricity, gas, and solid waste. A per captia ratio was 0 a
utilized to calculated potential revenues from UUT by dividing the total UUT revenues collected
by the city in the fiscal year 2017-18 by the current population. Revenues were then projected by
each phase's projected population.
_
Table 11
Utility Users Tax Revenue }
Summa Table °
d
L
Buildout Phase s
Phase 2 Phase 3 (n
(10% of (50% of
Vacant Vacant Phase 4 t�
Phase 1(At Land Land (Build
Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) m
Total Annual Utility Users Tax Revenue from Existing L
Residential Development $416,824 $416,824 $416,824 1 $416,824 f°
U
m
Total Annual Utility Users Tax Revenue from Future
Residential Development $0 $283,860 $1,419,299 $2,838 599 0
Total Annual Utility Users Tax Revenue from all y
residential development $416 824 $700 684 $1,836123 $3 255 423
m
c
Q
Franchise Fees Revenue
Franchise fees represent approximately 5% of total General Fund revenues. The City grants a
franchises to utility companies for the use of City streets and rights-of-way. The Public Utility E
Commission(PUC) limits electric and gas franchise fees to 2% and cable franchise fees to 5% of
gross receipts. Currently, the City collects electric franchise fees from Southern California D
Edison and gas franchise fees from The Gas Company at the rate of 2% of gross receipts arising
from the use, operation or possession of the franchise, and cable franchise fees from Time
Warner Cable, Inc. at the rate of 5% of gross receipts. u
13
f6
a
22
Packet Pg. 146
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis
E
In addition to utilities, the City also charges a solid waste hauler's franchise fee. The current a
franchise agreement is with Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. The current franchise rate is 12% of c
gross receipts levied/paid semi-annually on property tax bills.
0
t
The City has granted Sunline Transit Agency use of public right-of-way for bus shelters within
the city. Franchise fees from transportation account for approximately 0.5 % of total franchise
N
fees.
_
The following methodology and assumptions were used in this fiscal impact analysis to project .o
potential future franchise fee revenues associated with Sphere annexation. Similar to the
Highway Gas Tax and Utility Users Tax revenue assumptions, a per captia ratio was utilized to 0
U
calculate potential revenues from franchise fees by dividing the total franchise fees revenues o
collected by the city in the fiscal year 2017-18 by the current population. Revenues were then
projected by each phase's projected population. The following table summarizes these
assumptions. Q
Table 12 0a
Franchise Fees Revenue
Summary Table c
Buildout Phase
Phase 2 Phase 3 =
(10% of (50% of
Vacant Vacant =
Phase 1(At Land Land Phase 4 0
Annexation) Developed) Developed) (Build Out) 4)
a�
s
Total Annual Franchise Fees Revenue from
Existing Residential Development $320,040 $320 040 $320,040 $320,040 ',
U
Total Annual Franchise Fees Revenue from Future
Residential Development $0 $217,948 $1 089 738 $2 179 476 a
m
s
Total Annual Franchise Fees Revenue from all cya
residential development $320,040 $537 988 $1409 778 $2 499 516 v
m
s
r
0
Vl
.N
2. One-Time Revenues
_
Q
Development Impact Fees
As the Sphere area develops, the City will collect Development Impact Fees (DIF) based on its C
adopted DIF fee schedule. Pursanant to Government Code 66001 and 66006, local agencies must
submit an annual report that details their DIF fees and make it available to the public. In N
conjuction with the Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2016/17, the Annual AB 1600 Development LL
Fee Report for the City of Cathedral City Fiscal Year 2016/17 (AB 1600 Report) provides rates
for current DIF fees. This fiscal impact analysis projects potential future DIF revenues using the
AB 1600 Report's rates. E
Q
23
Packet Pg. 147
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis y
E
�a
a_
v
Table 13 =
Development Fees Revenue o
Summary Table
Buildout Phase
Phase 2 Phase 3 v
(10% of (50% of
Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4 cn
Annexation) Developed) Developed) (Build Out) o
New Residenital Development(includes Mixed
Use-Urban residenital component) $0 $6,611,406 $26,445,625 $33,057,031 c
New Commercial Development(includes Mixed v
Use-Urban commercial component) $0 $277 361 $1 109 444 $1 386 805 =
0
New Industrial Development $0 $801 892 $3 223,951 $4,091,378 x
Total Development Impact Fee Revenue from =
all new development at phase buildout $0 $7,690 659 $30 779.019 $38,535,214 Q
0
Art in Public Places Fees a
This fund is reserved for maintaining public artwork throughout the City. For non-residential m
development, the fee is 1% of 90% valuation of the structure or the construction and installition C
of public art8.
a�
Table 14 °
Art in Public Places Fees Revenue
Summary Table °
a�
Buildout Phase
t
a
Phase 2(10% Phase 3(50% cn
of Vacant of Vacant
Phase 1(At Land Land Phase 4 v
76
Annexation) Developed) Developed) (Build Out)
L
New Commercial Development(includes
Mixed Use-Urban commercial com nent $0 $228 147 $912,588 $1,140,735
New Business Park Development $0 $102 895 $514,474 $1,028,948 v
d
New Industrial Development $0 $1,897,632 $7,590 527 1 9,488,159
Total Art in Public Places Revenue from all °
new development at phase buildout $0 $2,228,674 $9 017 589 $11 657,842
c
Q
u
c�
a
E
E
U
ii
c
v
a Per Ordinance No.538;AB1600 Report provided by Tami Scott,Director of Adminstrative Services.
�v
Q
24
Packet Pg. 148
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis y
E
�a
a
a
c
th
7
O
t
F-
IV. Potential Costs
N
A. Potential Costs to the City of Cathedral City =
O
1. Annual Costs
O
U
Future development of lands in the Sphere will not only generate additional revenues, but will o
also generate additional municipal costs. There will be expenditures for general government
services as well as the expansion and/or extension of infrastructure, utilities, roads and other
public services, particularly public safety. The fiscal model projects the City's costs of providing a
general government services, public safety, and transportation/roadway maintenance to new y
development on lands in the area. a°
Costs of General Government
Costs of General Government are funded through the City's General Fund. Costs to the city
associated with general government include city-wide services, such as employee salaries and
benefits, postage, printing, travel, equipment maintenance and repairs, contract services,
computers, vehicles and other items necessary for the day-to-day functioning of government. It =
includes public and community services, such as code compliance and animal control, as well as o
municipal and support services. These are further described in the Constraints and Opportunities
Analysis. a
Cn
For purposes of this analysis, a per capita factor has been applied to calculate government costs. U
In general, the population of a city generate the greatest demand for services, while the
commercial and industrial components of a City's development pattern generate a low demand
for general government services. This analysis uses information provided in the city's FY 2017-
2018 budget to translate costs into a per capita factor for General Fund expenditures. The per
capita factor is $304.00. It applies that amount to the anticipated buildout population. The result
is the estimated cost of providing general government services to future residents.
N
y
21
M
C
Q
r+
U
f0
Q
E
O
U
N_
LL
C
d
E
S
U
f4
Y
a
25
Packet Pg. 149
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis
E
Table 15 i
Costs of General Government =
Summ ry Table
Buildout Phase t
Phase 2 Phase 3
(10% of (50% of
Vacant Vacant
Phase 1(At Land Land Phase 4 N
Annexation) Developed) Developed) (Build Out) o
Residential development
Total Annual Cost from existing Residential =
development at phase buildout $21394 000 $2 394,000 $2,394 000 $2 394,000 °
U
c
Total Annual Cost from future High Density °
r
Residential Development at phase buildout $0 $199,464 $997,321 $1,994,642 x
Total Annual Cost from future Medium Density c
Residential Development at phase buildout $0 $91,230 $456 151 $912 302 =
Q
N
Total Annual Cost from future Low Density Residential °
a
Development at phase buildout $0 $171,936 $859 682 $1 7199363 L
Total Annual Cost from future Estate Residential v
Development at phase buildout $0 $142 079 $710,394 $1 420 788
Total Annual Cost from future Mixed Use-Urban m
U
Residential Development at phase buildout $0 $1,025 621 $5,128 106 $10,256,211
Total Annual Govt.Costs at Phase Buildout $2,394 000 $4 024 331 $10 545,653 $18 697 307
Public Works Costs d
L
In addition, the City expends funds for Public Works activities.9 These include street signage, a
traffic signal maintenance, drainage system maintenance, landscape maintenance, and minor Cn
improvement projects. Expenditures associated with Public Works activities are divided between
General, Measure A and State Gas Tax Fund. In order to calculate the per capita factor for Public
Works costs, the salaries and operational expenses associated with each of these funds was
combined. The resulting per capita factor applied for Public Works activities is $53.19. This
results in anticipated expenditures as shown in Table 16.
Table 16
Public Works Costs (Per Capita) o
T)
Buildout Phase U)
21
Phase 2(10% Phase 3(50%
of Vacant of Vacant
Q
Phase 1(At Land Land Phase 4
Annexation) Developed) Developed) (Build Out) ro
a.
Total Annual Public Works costs from E
Existing Residential Development $418,871 $418,871 $418,871 $418,871
Total Annual Public Works costs from
N
Future Residential Development $0 $285,252 $1 426 259 $2,852,518 ii
Total Annual Public Works costs
from all residential development 1 $418,871 1 $704,123 1 $1845130 $3 271 89
v
9 Page 97—Cathedral City Biennial Budget
�a
r
Q
26
Packet Pg. 150
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis
E
Costs of Police Protection a
The City currently provides approximately 0.90 officers for every 1,000 residents.10 On this
basis, an additional 7 police officers will be required immediately upon annexation, and a total of
68 additional officers will be required at build out of the Sphere.
Should the Sphere be annexed, the City will be responsible for providing law enforcement and
CN
fire protection services. To estimate future police service costs, this fiscal analysis developed a
per capita cost for police services. The costs associated with providing this level of service were
developed by dividing the total Police Department budget by the current City population. In 2
r
addition, the Chief of Police developed annual costs for personnel and equipment necessary to
serve the Sphere upon annexation. These costs totaled $2.51 million, and are consistent with the 0
per capita factor calculation. This approach assures that not only personnel, but also equipment o
and administration costs, are factored into future costs. The per capita cost associated with police M
services is $319.84. Table 17 summarizes the total anticipated costs associated with police
services. a
0
Table 17 a
Police Protection Costs
Buildout Phase
Phase 2 Phase 3
(10% of (50% of c
Vacant Vacant 0
Phase 1(At Land Land Phase 4
Annexation) Developed) Developed) (Build Out) o
d
Total Annual Police Protection costs from Existing `m
Residential Development $2 518,732 $2 518,732 $2 518,732 $2,518,732 a
Cn
Total Annual Police Protection costs from Future V
Residential Development $0 1 $1 715,259 1 $8 576 297 1 $17 152,595
�a
L
Total Annual Police Protection costs from all
r
residential development $2 518 732 $4 233,992 $11095 029 $19 671 27 a
U
d
Costs of Fire Protection w
The City currently operates three fire stations, and includes 43 sworn fire personnel, 2
administrative personnel and one fire inspector. This represents a ratio of 0.77 firefighters per
1,000 population. On this basis, the City would require an additional 18 firefighters, 1 fire
inspector and 1 administrative assistant immediately upon annexation, and 85 at build out of the Q
area. The Fire Department also would need to purchase and equip the existing fire station in
Thousand Palms, and would require a second fire station in the eastern portion of the Sphere in
the future. These costs are addressed under one-time costs in the next section.
U
N
LL
r
w
10 Priority 1—Emergency Calls(e.g.Shooting,Cutting,Disturbance Active Shooter Foot,Kidnapping in Progress),
Priority 2—Prompt Calls(e.g.Robbery,Fire,Criminal Assault),and Priority 3—General Services Calls(e.g. r
Missing Person,Intoxicated Person,Drug House,Burglary).
m
Q
27
Packet Pg. 151
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis v,
E
The Fire Department conducted an analysis of the costs associated with staffing the existing fire i
station on an annual basis. This resulted in an annual cost of $3.9 million immediately upon
annexation. For purposes of this analysis, it has been assumed that this annual operational cost
would be maintained through Year 10, as development is anticipated to be limited, and costs will
remain regardless of the amount of development occurring in the area. Beyond the Year 10
Scenario,when at least 50% of the area would have developed, it is assumed that the costs of the N
annual operation of the station would be related to the costs of providing fire services on a per
capita basis. For future development, a per capita factor was developed, in the same manner as
for police services, based on the total fire department budget. The per capita factor is $200.92. 2
On this based, Table 18 summarizes total annual costs associated with providing fire services to
the Sphere. C)
C
0
Table 18 M
Costs of Fire Protection
Buildout Phase Q
Phase 2 Phase 3
(10% of (50% of a
Vacant Vacant
Phase 1(At Land Land Phase 4
Annexation) Developed) Develo ) (Build Out) D
Annual Costs of Operating Fire Stations $3,902 732 $3 902,732 $7,684,634 $7,684,634
a�
Total Annual Costs of Fire Service at Phase
Buildout $3,902,732 $3,902 732 $7,684,634 $7 684,634 c
0
Costs of Roadway Maintenance
The costs associated with maintenance were calculated on the basis of existing road miles in the a
area, and anticipated road miles as development occurs. These future roadways, as well as Cn
existing roadways,will require annual maintenance. These costs are reflected in Table 19.
In addition, the City will be responsible for the reconstruction of currently sub-standard
roadways. Sixeen (16) miles of roads are currently unpaved, 13 miles of roadway are partially
improved, and 34 miles of roads will require some level of widening or improvement. Upon
incorporation, the City will be responsible for maintaining, constructing, and widening existing r
roadways. These costs are provided in the discussion of One-Time Costs and Table 20,below. o
A
N
On the basis of existing costs associated with roadway maintenance in the City,provided by City o
staff, Table 19 provides annual maintenance costs. a
U
R
Q.
E
f9
v
A
ii
c
m
m
Q
28
Packet Pg. 152
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis
E
Table 19 a
Costs of Roadway Maintenance c
M
Buildout Phase
0
Phase 2(10% Phase 3(50%
of Vacant of Vacant
Phase 1(At Land Land Phase 4
Annexation) Developed) Developed) (Build Out)
Existing Roadway Data N
No.of existing public paved road miles 34.39 34.39 34.39 34.39 0
w
Future Roadway Projections =
0
No.of future public paved road miles 0.00 8.53 34.10 42.63 U
Factor of public paved road miles per city o
acre 97.35 97.35 97.35 97.35 0
No.of future public paved road miles at axi
base buildout 0.00 8.53 42.63 85.25 c
Q
Cost of Road Maintenance-Existing and Future Roads N
Total public paved road miles 34.39 42.92 77.02 119.64 0
a
Annual Cost of Roadway Maintenance(per
road mile) $5,030.56 $5,030.56 $5,030.56 $5,030.56 a
c
Annual Costs of street maintenance&
resurfacing for all roads $173,001 $215,886 $387 429 $601 856 v
c
a�
Annual Cost of Roadway Maintenance at 0
Phase Buildout $173,001 $215 886 $387 429 $601856
0
2. One-Time Costs
a�
s
a
Fire Station Costs U)
The City's Fire Department will need to obtain new equipment and facilities to serve future
development in the Sphere. Phase 1 would require the purchase of the existing fire station on
Robert Road, and Phase 3 would require the construction of a second fire station, with their
respective equipment costs. The Fire Department prepared a cost estimate for both stations. The
costs for the existing fire station would be approximately $9,544,870 and the second fire station U
would result in an initial cost of$14,584,870. In total costs associated with the opening of two
additional fire stations would total $24,129,740." These costs represent capital outlays only, and o
do not include annual operating costs (provided above). y
21
Police Equipment Costs a
In addition to the costs associated with personnel, the Police Department will require additional t;
vehicles and radios to field officers in the Sphere upon annexation. The Police Department E
estimates that 4 Patrol Ready Police Interceptors and 10 radios will be required immediately —
upon annexation, at a total cost of$267,512. It can be expected that these capital expenses would N
be repeated as development increases in the Sphere, and additional officers are required. i_
c
E
"Appendix B-Fire Department Analysis of Capital Outlay and Personnel Costs for the Sphere of Influence
M
w
Q
29 -
Packet Pg. 153
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis U)
E
Road Construction Costs i
Within the Sphere of Influence there are approximately 16 miles of unpaved roads. In order to =
calculate the costs associated with these improvements, the City's current per square foot factor M
for road construction, provided by the Public Works Department, was utilized. Upon t
incorporation, the City will be responsible for constructing these roads which would cost the City
up to $25,594,238. In addition,the City would also be responsible for maintaining and upgrading
47 miles of paved roads which currently are substandard (ranging from missing sidewalks to
under-sized paved widths and roadway widening to comply with anticipated build out =
requirements) which would cost the City an additional $18,840,552. Although these costs would 0
not be incurred immediately upon annexation, a total of $44,434,790 in capital improvement
projects to improve and widening existing roads is anticipated. o
U
c
Table 20
M
Roadway Improvement Costs
Road's Total
Estimated Q
Current Length Description Cost N
Condition miles Q.
These roads are currently fully paved.
Sidewalks are not provided along some
portions on these roads. Approximately 6.69.
Fully paved 34 miles of these roads along Ramon Road, 30' $5,446,277 �
Avenue, Cook Street, and Rio Del Sol Road
will need to be upgraded to Secondary
Highway 4-lane undivided;88 feet wide). E
Partially paved 2 These roads are generally substandard and will $11,937,577 0
need to be improved/widened to City local aD
street standards.
r
a
N
Of the total 13 miles of substandard roads, Y
Substandard 11 approximately 0.37 miles (along 31st Avenue) $1,456,697 U
will need to be upgraded and widened to
Secondary Highway (4-lane undivided; 88 feet 0
wide). The balance will require widening to Y
City local road standards. @
Approximately 16 miles of roads in the SOI are
unpaved and would require full improvements w
to Local Streets(2-lanes;60 feet wide). o
LA
Unpaved 16 These unpaved roads also include portions of $25,594,238
28' Avenue (0.65 miles), 30" Avenue (1.38 M
miles), and 31st Avenue (0.14 miles), which Q
will need to be upgraded to Secondary
M
Highway 4-lane undivided;88 feet wide). a
Grand Total Cost $44 434 790 E
Source:Appendix B(Road Way Existing Condition and Future Upgradation Cost).
i10
ti
c
v
�a
Y
a
30
Packet Pg. 154
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis
E
The majority of the unpaved roads are surrounded by undeveloped lands where future a.
development will be responsible for its share of roadway improvements. Therefore, the City
would recover some of the widening expenses from future developments. However, the
rebuilding of existing streets, the build out of sub-standard streets where development occurs, s
and the on-going maintenance of streets will be the responsibility of the City.
v
The City has established transportation impact fees through its Development Impact Fee 77
schedule. These are assessed on a per unit basis for single and multi-family residential
development, and per square foot for commercial and industrial development. These fees would 0
be applied to new development within the Sphere of Influence after incorporation. Because of
the added territory involved in the Sphere of Influence, the Development Impact Fee study c0
would need to be updated to encompass the added territory, should incorporation occur. o
M
Gas taxes and Local Transportation Funds are also used for the construction and maintenance of
streets and highways. These revenues would increase proportionally should the Sphere of a
Influence be incorporated. N
O
a
a�
c
a�
U
C
d
7
C
O
N
d
t
Q
N
Y
U
is
m
t
Y
ca
U
m
s
Y
w
O
2A y
f4
C
Q
U
10
a
E
7M_
U
N
LL
a.+
C
d
E
L
U
l6
Y
Y
Q
31
Packet Pg. 155
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis N
E
�a
i
a
_
co
N
O
L
N
V. COST/REVENUE ANALYSIS
0
A. Cost/Revenue Summaries
0
The following conclusions are based on the assumptions described above. It should be noted that o
all values are in Year 2018 dollars and are subject to rounding.
x
m
_
B. Conclusion a
0
a.
The SOI currently contains 7,875 residents. Build out of vacant lands in the SOI in accordance
with the City's General Plan land use designations is projected to result in an additional 53,629
residents. Therefore, the total buildout population is projected to be 61,504. Annexation and
build out of the Sphere would increase the City population by 61,504. c
a�
The costs associated with serving the Sphere area and its population are projected to be $49.9
million at the end of the build out period. The most significant costs are those from Police o
Protection ($19.7 million annually at build out), closely followed by General Government
operations ($18.7 million annually at build out). �.
Build out of the area is expected to result in annual revenues of approximately $43.4 million at
the end of the build out period. Therefore, the Sphere is expected to result in an annual deficit for
the City ranging from$6.3 million at annexation to $6.6 million at build out.
L
r
Table 21
Cost and Revenue Summary Table with Cannabis Tax
Buildout Phase o
Phase 1(At Phase 2(10% Phase 3 Phase 4
Annexation) of Vacant (50% of (Build Out) 70
Land Vacant Land =
Q
Developed) Developed)
ANNUAL REVENUES a
General Fund:
E
Property Tax $6,439 $358,099 $1,764,740 $3,523,042 u
h
Property Tax in Lieu of MVF $75 $32,126 $160,331 $320,588 '-
Property Transfer Tax $54,053 $212,584 $688,179 $846,710 ~
Cannabis Cultivation Tax $0 $1,208,644 $7,554,026 $15,108,052 y
Local Sales Tax&Transaction and Use Tax $1,407,769 $2,545,143 $7,094,640 $12,781,511
R
Q
32
Packet Pg. 156
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis
E
Table 21 a
Cost and Revenue Summary Table (with Cannabis Tax)
Buildout Phase
Phase 1(At Phase 2(10% Phase 3 Phase 4 t
Annexation) of Vacant (50% of (Build Out) F
Land Vacant Land
Developed) Developed) N
ANNUAL REVENUES
N
Utility Users Tax $416,824 $700,684 $1,836,123 $3,255,423 0
.2
Franchise Fees $320,040 $537,988 $1,409,778 $2,499,516 :E
_
Transient Occupancy Tax $474,737 $474,737 $990,756 $1,506,775 °
U
Subtotal c
Annual General Fund Revenue at Phase
Buildout $2,679 936 $6,070,005 $21,498 573 $39,841 616 d
Restricted Funds: _
c
Highway Users Gas Tax $315,000 $529,515 $1 387 577 $2,460 154 Q
Measure A $4,065 $7,349 $20,486 $36,907 a
Subtotal
a�
Annual Restr.Fund Revenue at Phase
c
Buildout $319,065 $536 864 $1 408 063 $2,497,060
m
Total All Potential Revenues at Phase
c
Buildout $2,999,001 $6,606,869 $22,906,636 $42,338,677
Interest Earnings: c
Historic Average Interest Rate on 90-Day 0
a�
Treasury Bills 2.43% 2.43% 2.43% 2.43%
Anticipated Interest Earned on Revenues $72,876 $160,547 $556 631 $1,028,830
Total Potential �+
r
Annual Revenues at Phase Buildout $3 071876 $6 767,416 $23 463 267 $43,367,506 v
�a
a
ANNUAL COSTS
r
General Fund. 1°
U
Costs of General Government $2,394,000 $4,024,331 $10 545 653 $18,697 307 r
Costs of Public Works $418,871 $704,123 $1,845,130 $3,271,389 0
Costs of Police Protection $2,518,732 $4,233,992 $11,095,029 $19,671,327 a
a
Costs of Fire Protection $3,902,732 $3,902,732 $7,684,634 $7,684,634 ev
Costs of Roadway Maintenance $173,001 $215,886 $387,429 $601 856 a
Total Potential m
Annual Costs at Phase Buildout $9,407,336 $13,081,064 $31,557,876 $49,926,513 a
E
Potential Cashflow at Phase Buildout -$6,335,460 -$6,313,648 _$g 094 609 -$6 559 006
ii
The SOI includes the Thousand Palms community but is otherwise largely undeveloped. Due to
the residential nature of land uses in the Sphere, buildout will significantly increase residential E
units, while generating a moderate increase in commercial and industrial development. As a
M
a
33
Packet Pg. 157
S
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis
1_
result, it is projected that the annexation of the Sphere would result in negative cash flow for the i
City throughout the build out period. All revenues will be dependent upon future development
types and intensities in the annexation area. N
0
The Cannabis Cultivation Tax calculation is highly speculative. Unlike other revenue categories,
which have many years of proven generation in the City's budget, the anticipated revenues
associated with Cannabis Cultivation cannot be assured. The threshold of demand versus supply
is not known, and should cannabis cultivation not generate the projected 1 million square feet of
space, the deficit to the City would increase to $22 million annually, as shown in Table 22. 0
r
Table 22 0
Cost and Revenue Summary Table without Cannabis Tax v
Buildout Phase c
Phase 1(At Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 x
Annexation) (10% of (50% of (Build Out)
Vacant Vacant Q
Land Land N
Developed) Developed) 0
ANNUAL REVENUES
a
m
General Fund: 0
Property Tax $6,439 $358,099 $1,764,740 $3,523,042
Property Tax in Lieu of MVF $75 $32,126 $160,331 $320,588 a0i
Property Transfer Tax $54,053 $212,584 $688,179 $846,710 =
Cannabis Cultivation Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 0
Local Sales Tax&Transaction and Use Tax $1,407,769 $2,545,143 $7,094,640 $12,781,511
Utility Users Tax $416,824 $700,684 $1,836,123 $3,255,423 Q.
Franchise Fees $320,040 $537,988 $1,409,778 $2,499,516 >,
Transient Occupancy Tax $474,737 $474,737 $990,756 $1,506,775 cU
Subtotal
Annual General Fund Revenue at Phase Buildout d
$2,679,936 $4,861361 $13,944,547 $24,733,564
Restricted Funds.
U
Highway Users Gas Tax $315,000 $529,515 $1,387 577 $2,460,154 r
Measure A $4,065 $7,349 $20,486 $36,907 0
Subtotal y
Annual Restr.Fund Revenue at Phase Buildout 21
$319,065 $536 864 $1,408,063 $2 497,060 c
Q
Total All Potential Revenues at Phase Buildout $2,999,001 $5,398 225 $15,352 610 $27 230 625 f°
0.
Interest Earnings: E
Historic Average Interest Rate on 90-Day Treasury U
Bills y
2.43% 2.43% 2.43% 2.43% LL
Anticipated Interest Earned on Revenues $72,876 $131,177 $373 068 $661 704 ►`
Total Potential c
Annual Revenues at Phase Buildout $3,071,876 $5,529,402 $15,725,678 1 $27,892,329
Q
34
Packet Pg. 158
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis w
Table 22 a
Cost and Revenue Surnm ry Table without Cannabis Tax c
Buildout Phase in
Phase 1(At Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4
Annexation) (10% of (50% of (Build Out)
Vacant Vacant
Land Land N
Developed) Developed)
ANNUAL REVENUES
0
ANNUAL COSTS =
0
General Fund. U
Costs of General Government $2,394,000 $4,024,331 $10,545,653 $18 697 307
c�
Costs of Public Works $418,871 $704,123 $1,845,130 $3,271,389 x
a�
Costs of Police Protection $2,518,732 $4,233,992 $11,095,029 $19,671,327 Q
Costs of Fire Protection $3,902,732 $3,902,732 $7,684,634 $7,684,634 N
Costs of Roadway Maintenance $173,001 $215,886 $387 429 $601 856 a
L
Total Potential
Annual Costs at Phase Buildout $9,407,336 $13,081,064 $31,557,876 $49,926,513
m
U
C
Potential Cashflow at Phase Buildout -$6,335,460 -$7,551,662 -$15 832 197 -$22,034184
c
0
One-Time Revenues and Costs
s
a
Development Impact Fee (DIF) revenues are projected based on development within that phase, N
and would vary considerably based on that level of development. DIF revenues will be
significant given the fact that land in the Sphere area is largely undeveloped.
v
s
U
m
t
O
N
.N
%
_
Q
U
10
Q
E
V
LL
ti
i-%
C
d
E
t
V
N
r.+
rr
a
35
Packet Pg. 159
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis v,
E
o
2
Table 23
City Developer Im act Fee Revenues (One time only) o
Phase 2 Phase 3(50% �
(10% of of Vacant
Phase 1(At Vacant Land Land Phase 4(Build
Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) N
New Construction Tax $0 $7,690,659 $30,779,019 $38,535,214 =
Art in Public Places Fees $0 $2,228,674 $9,017,589 $11,657,842 0
Total Potential Developer Impact o
Fee
Revenues at Phase Buildout $0 $9,919,332 $39,796,609 $50,193,056 0
As described above, the City will also incur one-time costs associated with Fire Department c
facilities and roadway improvements. The purchase and outfitting of two fire stations is a
estimated to cost $24,129,740, while roadway improvement costs are estimated at $44,434,790. to
Although the cost of the purchase of the first fire station would occur immediately upon a°
annexation, and require an estimated $9,544,870, the balance of these capital outlays would be
expected to occur 10 years or more after incorporation, depending on how aggressively
development occurred, and how quickly the City determined that it wished to bring streets up to a)
City standards. 3
0
a
d
t
c.
Cn
U
io
.a
t
U
a
s
0
N_
N
fC
_
Q
r
u
cv
0_
E
u
ii
ti
_
y
J
Q
36
Packetpg. 160
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis H
E
m
IL
Appendix A c
�a
Detailed Cost and Revenue Tables O
m
a
N
H
c
O
c
O
V
c
O
r
A
x
m
c
c
Q
H
O
IL
L
d
v
c
m
c
d
c
O
a�
L
a�
s
a
U)
V
A
L
d
t
a+
U
m
t
w
O
H
.N
lQ
c
a
a
E
ev
An
U.
ti
c
d
E
L
V
A
Q
37
Packet Pg. 161
Potential Annexation Fiscal
City of Calhed
Poop.Tax
Property Tax Revenue to
E
From Existing Conditions
1_
Buildout Phase
Phase 3(50%of M
Existing Conditions(developed parcels are taxed on value ojland&structure; Phase 2(10%of Vacant Vacant Land 7
vacant parcels are taxed on value o land) Phase 1(At Annexation) Land Developed) Developed) Phase 4(Build Out) O
Calculation ofPro Tax Revenue L
Number of developed acres in annexation area 1870.10 1870.10 1870.10 1870.10
Total Property Value $9,567,291 $9,567,291 $9.567,291 $9,567,291
Property Tax Rate 1% 1% 1% 1% tV
Total Property Tax Collected by County at phase buildout $95,673 $95,673 $95,673 $95,673
Percent of Property Tax Allocated to C' s General Fund 8.12% &12% 8.12% 8,12% C
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout(prioTto ERAF) $7,769 $7,769 $7,769 $7,769 O
4F
Percentage deducted for Educational Au ument ERAF Contributions 1.39% l39% 139% 1,39%
Total Amount Allocated to ERAF at phase buildout 2 $1,330 $1,330 $1,3301 $1,330
O
Property Tax Revenue collected by City S6,439 S6.4391 S6,439 -1 -19 V
C
n From Riverside County Assessors records,August 2018.Includes value of land for vacant parcels,and value of land and O
structures for developed parcels with the exclusion of tax exempt petals. to
x
tv
2 Per avenge value of new development permits per A]Jimeaa,Building Offical.Cathode]City Build Department.
!r
Q
O
From Future Residential Development a
Buffdout Phase L
O
Land Use Designation:High Density Residential(RH)(11-20 dulac),Cathedral
City designation Phase 3(50%of
Total No.Acres:140AS Phase 2(10%of Vacant Vacant Land
No.o Potential Ruildout Units:2110 Phase 1(At Annexation) Land Developed) Developed) Phase 4(BuOd Out) U
Calculation of Property Tax Revenue f))
Number of acres developed during phase 0.00 14.07 5626 70.325
Maximum density (unitslase) 20.0 20.00 20.00 20.00 C
Maximum potential units constructed during this phase' 0.0 211 844 1055 ~
O
Number of total potential units constructed at buildout 0 211 1055 2110 4)
Averaizevalue per unit, $102,381 $102,381 $102381 $102,381 O
t
Total Value $0 $21,599,831 $107,999,157 $215,998,315 O'
U)
Property Tax Rate 1% 1% t% 1% ate+
Total Property Tax Collected byCounty at PhaseBuiidout $0 $215,998 $1,079,992 $2,159083 U
Percent of Property Tax Allocated to Ci 's General Fund 8.12% 8.12% 9.12% 8.12%
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout(prior to ERAF $0 $17,539 $87,695 $175,391 d
Percentage deducted for ERAF Contributions 1.39% 139% 139% 1.39%
U
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout $0 $3,002 $15,012 $30,024
Property Tax Revenue collected by City $0 $14,537 $72,683 $145,367 �,
n Assumes land will be developed at 75%of the maximum density permitted. O
s Per average value of new development permits per Al Jimma,Building Offical.Cathedral City Build Department. N
C
Q
r
t)
t13
Q
E
tC
V
N
LL
a.+
C
'J
t0
a..
a
Page 1 of 37 Packet Pg. 162
Potential Annexation Fiscal A 2.A.g
City of Calhed
P.p.Tax
Buildout Phase
Land Use Designation:Medium Density Residentud(RM)(45-10 du/ac),
Cathedral City designation Phase 3(50%of t4
Total No.Acres:128.66 Phase 2(10%of Vacant Vacant Land d
No.o Potendal Buildout Units:965 Phase 1(At Annexation) Land Devt4o eel) Deveb eel) Phase 4(Build Out)
C
Calculation of Property Tax Revenue tC
N
Number of acres developed during phase 0.00 12.87 51.464 64.33
O
Maximum density (units/acre) 10.0 10.0 10.0 10.0 t
H
Maximum potential units constructed during this phase' 0.0 96 386 482
Number of total potential units constructed at buildout 0 % 482 965
Average value perunit2 $102,381 $102,381 $102,381 $102,381 04
Total Value $0 $9,879,255 $49,396,273 $98,792,546
fA
Property Tax Rate 1% 1% 1% l% C
Total Property Tax Collated by County at Phase Buddout $0 $98,793 $493,%3 $987,925 2
Percent of Property Tax Allocated to C' 's General Fund 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% 8.12%
C
O
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout(prior to ERAF) $0 $8022 $40,110 $80,220 U
Percentage deducted for ERAF Contributions 1.39% 139% 139% 1.39% C
O
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout $0 $1,373 $6,866 $13,732 +'
M
Propertf Tax Revenue collated by City $0 $6,649 $33.244 $66A87 K
tv
t Assumes land will be developed at 75%of the maximum density,pamilled. C
Pa average value of new development pennits per Al limetim,Building Offical.Cathedral City Building Department.
N
O
a
Buildout Phase O
a
Land Use Designation:Low Density Residenaial(RL)(2-45 du/ac),Cathedral C
City designation Phase 3(50%of
Total No.Acres:538.84 Phase 2(10%of Vacant Vacant Land U
No.of Potential Buildout Units:1819 Phase 1(At Annexation) Land Developed) Developed) Phase 4(BuOd Out) r-
Calculation of Property Tax Revenue
y-'
Number of acres developed during phase 0.00 53.88 21554 269A2 C
Maximum density (units/acre) 4.5 45 45 45 4-
0
Maximum potential units constructed during this phase' 0 182 727 909 d
Number of total potential units constructed at buildout 0 182 909 1,819
t
Average value veffrunitz $171,239 $171,239 $171,239 $171,239 G
Total Value $0 $31,141,268 $155,706,338 $311,412,677
r.+
Property Tax Rate 1% 1% 1% 1% V
Total Property Tax Collated by County at Phase Buildout $0 $311,413 $1,557,063 $3,114,127
Percent of Property Tax Allocated to Ci 's General Fund 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% 8.12%
.D
tv
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout(prior to ERAF) $0 $25,287 $126,434 $252,867 r
Percentage deducted for ERAF Contributions 1.39% 139% 139% 139% U
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout $0 $4,329 $21,643 $43,286 _
Property Tax Revenue collated by City $0 $20,958 $104,790 $209,581
O
tAssuma lead will be developed at 75%of the maximum density permitted. to
x Per average value of new development pennits per AI Jimenez,Building Offical.Cathedral City Build Department. .N
fC
C
Q
U
M
a
E
'R
U
M
U.
C
E
t
U
R
Y
Y
Q
Page 2 of 37 Packet Pg. 163
Potential Annexation Fiscal
City of Calh
Prop.Tex
Buildout Phase
N
Land Use Designation:Estate Residential(ER)(0-2 du/ac),Cathedral City E
designation Phase 3(50%of M
TolalNo.Acres:75139 Phase 2(10%of Vacant Vacant Land L
No.o Poten ial Buildout Units:1503 Phase 1(At Annexation) Land Developed) Developed) Phase 4(Build Out) O
C
Calculation of Property Tax Revenue �
to
Number of acres developed during hale 0.00 75.14 300.556 375.695 O
O
Maximum density (units/acre) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 z
Maximum potential units constructed Burin H
this hose t 0.0 150 601 751 ..
Number of total potential units constructed at buildout 0 150 751 1,503
Average value Perunit2 $171,239 $171239 $171 9 $171.239 N
Total Value $0 $25,733,454 $128,667,272 $257,334,544
Property Tax Rate 1% 1% 1% 1% C
O
Total Property Tax Collected by County at Phase Buildout $0 $257,335 $1,286,673 $2,573,345 a
C
Percent of Property Tax Allocated to Ci 's General Fund 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% O
U
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout(prior to ERAF) $0 $20,896 $104,478 $208,956 C
Percentage deducted for ERAF Contributions 1.39% 139% 139% 1.39%
M
X
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout $0 $3,577 $17,885 $35,770 tv
Property Tax Revenue collectedb City $0 $17,319 $86,593 $173,186 C
t Assumes land will be developed at 100%of the maximum density permitted. Q
Per average value of new development permits per AI Jimenez,Building Offi cal.Cathedral City N
Build Depa unent. O
(L
ta)
,cl
From Future Commercial Development C
D
Buildout Phase 4)
U
Land Use Designation:General Commercial Phase 3(50%of C
Total No.Acres:63.65 Phase 2(10%of Vacant Vacant Land 0
No.o Potential Buildout S .Ft.:609,971 sf Phase 1 At Annexation) Land Developed) Developed) Phase 4 uild Oat) ~
Calculation of Property Tax Revenue
C
Number of acres developed during phase 0.00 6.37 25A6 31.825 O
Percentage of lot covered by structure 22% 22% 22% 22% d
lv
Square footage constructed during this phase 60,997 243A8 304,985 z
t2
Totalsquare footage constructed at phase buildout 0 60,997 304,985 609,971 N
Average value persquare foo? $105 $105 $105 $105 +_�+
Total Value $0 $6,404,692 $32,023,461 $64,046,921 U
Property Tax Rate 1% 1% t% 1% i
Total Property Talc Collected by County at Phase Buildout $0 $64,047 $320,235 $640,469
tv
Percent of Property Tax Allocated to Ci s General Fund 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% +z+
t0
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout r to ERA $0 $5,201 $26,003 $52,006
Percentage deducted for ERAF Contributions 1.39% 1.39% 139% 1.39% z
rr
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout $0 $890 $4,451 $8,903
Pro Tax Revenue collected b City $0 $4 310 $21�52 $43,104 to
r Assumes stmciure will account for 22%lot coverage.Remainder of lot will include access roads,packing facilities,landscaping, On
and other ancillary uses. >4
2 Per average value of new development permits per Al Jimmm.Building Offical.Cathedral City Build Department. tC
Q
a+
t1
M
a
E
U
N
LL
r-�
C
y
rr
a
Page 3 of 37 Packet Pg. 164
Potential Annexation Fiscal
City of Cath
Pmp.Tax
From Future Business Park Development N
Buildout Phase E
to
Land Use Designation:Business Park Phase 3(50%of a
Total No.Acres:73.75 Phase 2(10%of Vacant Vacant Land
No.o PotentialBuildoutS .Ft.:1,092,267s Phase I(At Annexation) Land Developed) Developed) Phase (Build Out) fC0
Calculation of Property Tax Revenue to
Number of acres developed during phase 0.(10 7.38 29S 36.875 3
O
Percentage of lot covered by structure 34% 34% 34% 34% C
Square footage constructed during this phase - 109227 436,907 546,134
Totalsquare footage.,constructed at hose buildout 0 109=7 546,134 1,092267
Averagevalue s uarefoot $105 $105 $105 $105
Total Value $0 $11,469,804 $57,344A18 $114,688,035 N
Pro Tax Rate 1% 1% 1% 1%
Total Property Tax Collected by County at Phase Buildout $0 $114,688 $573,440 $1,146,880 W
Percent of Property Tax Allocated to Ci 's General Fund 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% C
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout(prior to ERAF) $0 $9,313 $46563 $93,127
Percentage deducted for ERAF Contributions 1.39% 139% 139% 139%
Total Amount Allocated to C' General Fund at phase buildout $0 $1,594 $7,971 $15 942 C
C
Property Tax Revenue collected by City $0 $7,719 $38,593 $77,185 O
'Assumes structure will account for 34%lot coverage.Remainder of lot will include access roads,packing facilities,landscaping, V
z Pa average value of new development permits per Al Jimmm,Building Offical.Cathedral City Build Departmeml.
O
f9
From Future Industrial Development x
Buildout Phase 0)
C
Land Use Designation:Industrial Phase 3(50%of C
Total No.Acres:1360.13 Phase 2(10%of Vacant Vacant Land Q
No.o Potential Buildout S .Ft.:20,144,069 Phase 1(At Annexation) Land Develo eel) Developed) Phase 4 ur>d Out) H
Calculation of Property Tax Revenue O
a
Number of acres developed durm phase 0.00 136.01 544.052 680.065 >`
Percentage of lot covered b structure34% 34% 34% 34% d
Square footage constructed during this phase 2,014,407 8,057,628 10,072D35
C
Totalsquare footage constructed at phase buildout 2,014,407 10,072,035 20,144,069
Average value per s uare foot $105 $105 $105 $105 d
Total Value $0 $211,512,728 $1,057563,641 $2,115,127282
Property Tax Rate 1% 1% 1% 1% d
Total Property Tax Collectedb County at Phase Buildout $0 $2,115,127 $10s75,636 $21,151273 3
Percent of Property Tax Allocated to Citys General Fund 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% 8.12%
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout(prior to ERAF) $0 $171,748 $858,742 $1,717,493 C
Percentage deducted for ERAF Contributions 1.39% 139% 139% 1.39%
O
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout $0 $29,400 $147,001 $294,003 d
Property Tax Revenue collected byCity $0 $142,348 $711,740 $1,423,481
GJ
'Assumes structure will account for 34%lot coverage.Remainder of lot will include access mods,parking facilities,landscaping, �
and other ancillary uses. Q
r Per average value of new development permits per At Jimenez,Building Offical.Cathedral City Build Department. W
From Future Mixed Use Development U
Buildout Phase td
i
Land Use Designation:Mired Use-Urban (Residential Component) Phase 3(507 of W
t
Total No.Acres:283.61 Phase 2(10%of Vacant Vacant Land }
No.o Potential Buildout S .Ft.:10,848 du Phase 1(At Annexation) Land Develo ed) Develo ed) Phase 4(Build Out) V
Calculation of Property Tax Revenue a)
Number of acres developed during phase 0.00 2836 113.444 141.805 t
Maximum density (unitslacre) 45 45 45 45 w
Maximum potential units constructed during this phase 1 1,085 4,339 5,424 O
Number of total atential units constructed at buildout 1,085 5,424 10,848 N
Averagevalue erunit $171239 $171239 $171239 $171239 U+
Total Value $0 $185,761,480 $928,807,400 $1,857,614,799
Property Tax Rate 1% 1% 1% 1% C
Total Property Tax Collected by County at Phase Buildout $0 $1,857,615 $9288,074 $18,576,148 Q
Percent of Property Tax Allocated to Ci 's General Fund 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% V
Total Amount Allocated to C' General Fund at hase buildout r to ERAF) $0 $150 838 $754,192 S1 508 383 to
Percentage deducted for ERAF Contributions 1.39% 139% 139% 1.39% t1
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout $0 $25,821 $129,104 $258208 E
Pmperty Tax Revenue collected by City $0 $125,017 $625,097 $1250,175
'Assumes land will be developed at 85%of the maximum density permitted.
z Per average value of new development permits per AI Jimenez,Building Offical.Cathedral City Build Department. N
id
C
0
C
U
ld
Y
Y
Q
Page 4of37 Packet Pg. 165
Potential Annexation Fiscal
City of Cath
Prop.Tax
H
From Future Mixed Use Development E
Buildout Phase _
R
Land Use Designation:Mixed Use-Urban(Commercial Component) Phase 3(50%of 1L
Total No.Acres:189.07 Phase 2(10%of Vacant Vacant Land 70
No.o Potential Buildout S .Ft.:1,811,8%sf Phase 1(At Annexation) Land Develo ed) Developed) Phase 4(Build Out) _
t0
Calculation of Property Tax Revenue N
Number of acres developLd during phase 0.00 18.91 75.628 94535 00
Percentage of lot covered b structure 22% 22% 22% 22% 0
Square footage constructed during this phase 181,190 724,758 905 948
Totalsquare footage constructed at phase buildout 0 181,190 905,948 1,811,9%
Average value per s uare foot $105 $105 $105 $105
Total Value $0 $19,024,904 $95,124520 $190,249,041 N
Pmperty Tax Raze 1% 1% 1% 1%
Total Property Tax Collected by County at Phase Buildout $0 $190,249 $951,245 $1,902,490
Percent of Property Tax Allocated to C' 's General Fund 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% to
C
Total Amount Allocated to C' General Fund at phase buildout(prior to ERA $0 $15,448 $77,241 $154,482 O
Percentage deducted for ERAF Contributions 1.39% 1.39% 139% 1.39% ++
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout $0 $2,644 $13222 $26A45 C
Pro Tax Revenue collected b City $0 $12,804 $64,019 $128038 C
t Assumes 22%of lot coverage density permitted.Remainder of lot will include access wads,parking facilities,landscaping,and V
2 Per average value of new development permits per Al limenez,Building O(5cal.Cathedral City Build Department. C
C
K
4)
Q
to
0
IL
a�
C
D
w
U
C
tv
7
C
O
O
d
t
Q
U
m
L
a
tv
t
r
to
U
m
t
0
tll
.N
t9
C
Q
U
tt1
tZ
E
t0
V
fn
LL
C
'v
tti
Q
Page s�l 3� Packet Pg. 166
Potmtial Annuation Fiscal 11 2.A.g
City of Cached
Prop.rax
Property Tax Revenue Summary Table E
Buildout Phase 1C
a
Phase 3(50%of a
Phase 2(10%of Vacant Vacant Land C
Phase 1(Al Annexation) Land Developed) Develo ed) Phase 4(Build Oat) N
3
O
Potential annual property tax revenue to City from existing development $6,439 $6,439 $6,439 $6,439
Potential annual property tax revenue to City from future High Density Residential
development $0 $14,537 $72,683 $145,367
Potential annual property tax revenue to City from future Medium Density N
Residential development $0 $6,649 $33,244 $66,487
Potential annual property tax revenue to City from future Low Density Residential to
development $0 $20,958 $104,790 $209,581 C
O
Potential annual property tax revenue to City from future Estate Residential
development $0 $17,319 $86593 $173,196
C
O
Potential annual property tax revenue to City from future General Commercial U
development $0 $4,310 $21,552 $43,104 C
O
Potential annual property tax revenue to City from future Industrial development $0 $142,348 $711,740 $1,423,481 K
d
C
Potential annual property tax revenue to City from future Business Park C
development $0 $7,719 $38593 $77,185 Q
Potential annual property tax revenue to City from future Mixed Use-Urban NO
development cormnerical component) $0 $12,804 $64019 $128938 a
L
d
Potential annual property tax revenue to City from future Mixed Use-Urban O
development(residential co nent) $0 $125,017 $625,087 $1,250,175 C
D
Total Property Tax Revenue at Phase Buildout $6,439 $358 099 $1,764,740 $3 23 2 tv
U
C
d
7
C
w
O
N
d
L
a
Cl)
v
v
tv
U
m
t
w
O
to
.N
i0
C
Q
.r
U
t0
12
E
iv
U
to
ll_
n
r
C
d
t
U
tc
r.+
Q
P,qP 6°`37 Packet Pg. 167
2.A.g
Potential Annexation Fiscal Analysis
City of Cathedral City
Motor Veh.In Lim
U)
Property Tax In Lieu of Motor Vehicle License Fees E
M
From Existing Development CL
Buildout Phase
Land Use Designation:ALL RESIDENTIAL Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of tp
Total No.Acres:947.04 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land H
No.o Existin Unify:7,174 Annexation) Developed) Develo ed) Phase 4(Build Out) O
Land Use Buildout Data t
Number of acres developed at phase buildout' 947.041 947.04 947.041 947.04 ~
Number of total units developed at phase buildout 7,1741 7,1741 7,1741 7,17,
Calculation of Annual Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Revenue
Total Property Tax Collected by County $95,673 $95,673 $95,673 $95,673 N
Percent of'Property Tax Allocated to Ci 's General Fund 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% ..
Total Amount Allocated to Ci General Fund at phase buildout $7,769 $7,769 $7,769 $7,769 N
C
In Lieu Property Tax Percentage 2 0.96% 0.96% 0.96%_ 0.96% O
rr
Annual Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Revenue at phase buildout $75 $75 $75 $75
I Ntuve Bolin{buildnol omen nt]5%of Me oxiwm dmriry pemiOM. _
2 BUM on Fin VIF Adjuonamt A®uet(port SB 150 nppnv 5.12-17 by Gov.B..)pm idM Cuhe C. Fi...op-,Tn Soon-Adndnfmlive Servi<n Ilirslor. I 1
C
O
�d
Mu
w^
W
_
_
Q
WI
In
O
a
a)
v
d
d
O
m
as
t
CL
In
r
V
�a
L
s
tv
V
d
t
O
N
.N
la
C
Q
r
t)
CL
E
m
ii
c
v
�v
Q
Page 7 of 37
Packet Pg. 168
2.A.g
Potmtial Annexation Fiscal Analysis
City of Cathedral City
Motor Veh.In Lim
to
E
rom Future Development
and Use Designation:High Density Residential(RH)(11-20 Buldoul Phase d
au/ac),Cathedral City designation Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of 'C
Total No.Acres:140.65 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land M
No.o Potentm/Buildout Uni[s:2,110 Annexation) Developed) Developed) Phase (Build Out) fn
Land Use Buildout Data
Number of acres developed during phase 0.00 14.0 56.26 70.33 O
L
Maximum densitypermitted units/acre 20 2 20 20 H
Maximum termal units constructed duringthis phase' 0 21 844 1,055
Number of total potential units constructed at hose buildout 0 2111 1,055 2.110 �
Calculation of Annual Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax Revenue N
Total Property Tax Collected by County $ $ 215,998.00 $ 1,079,991.57 $ 2,159,983.15 r.r.
Percent ofProperty Tax Allocated to Ci 's General Fund 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% to
C
O
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout $0 $17,539 $87,695 $175,391
In Lieu Property Tax Percentage 2 0.96% 0.96% 0.96% 0.96% C
O
Annual Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Revenue at phase buildout $0 $2,0741 $10,3681 $20,736 V
1 A....-id..,o....,7ss anh.m..ie..amen p�aed. _
O.
2 a.W..Fili—,M VIF Adj...rm1 A—,(po.1 Sa I H.ppmvd 1.12.17 by Gov.R—)p—idW C,,ih—City Rii—D.p.n.m1,T.ni S..,-Ad..--S—.Diix- iI
M
X
I)
C
C
Q
�I
H
O
a
L
m
c
ro
r,
c
ry
c
O
d
L
m
s
CL
U)
U
Ta
L
M
Ill
s
r
Iv
U
Ia
t
O
IA
.y
. C
Q
v
M
CL
E
�a
u
to
LL
ti
i+
C
t11
E
t
V
a+
Q
Page 8 of 37
Packet Pg. 169
2.A.g
Potential Annexation Fiscal Analysis
City of Cathedral City
Motor Veh.In Lieu
From Future Development W
Land Use Desggnadon:Medium Density Residential Buildout Phase E
(RM)(4.5-10 dulac),Cathedral City designation Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of n.
Total No.Acres:118.66 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land
No.o Potential Baildout Units:965 Annexation) Developed) Developed) Phase 4(Build Out) _
tD
Land Use Buildout Data H
Number of acres developed during phase 0.00 12.87 51.461 64.33
Maximum density ennitted units/acre 10 10 10 10 0
Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 0 96 3861 482
Number of total potenfial units constructed at phase buildout 0 96 4821 965
r
Calculation of Annual Motor Vehicle to-Lieu Tax Revenue �
Total Property Tax Collected by County $ $ 98,793.00 $ 493,962.73 $ 987,925.46
Percent of Property Tax Allocated to Ci 's General Fund 8.12% 8.l2% 8.12% 8.12%
N
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout $0 $8,022 $40,110 $80220 O=
In Lieu Property Tax Percentage z ,0.96% 0.96% 0.96% 0.96% +_+
Annual Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Revenue at phase buildout $0 $948 $4,742 $9,484
I Anu®buildou.—75%0rlhe.1—d—ty pme—
O
2 Bued ou FilmedV Adj.,—A —(pan SB 130 rpp—v 5.12-17 by Gov.B..)pmvided CA—Ciq Fi.—Gep—,Tm S—-Advinem—Servim cinlar. v
_
_O
�d
M
wX
W
C
_
Q
�d
O
a
6.
v
d
al
c
O
al
L.
d
t
CL
U)
t�
a
m
s
ea
v
m
t
w
O
N
.N
lfl
C
a
w
CL
E
H
M
a+
C
J
R
Q
Page 9 of 37
Packet Pg. 170
2.A.g
Potential Annexation Fiscal Analysis
City of Cathedral City
Motor Veh.In Lieu
fA
From Future Development E
and Use Designation:Low Density Residential(RL)(2-4.5 BuOdout Phase M
a/ac),Cathedral City designation Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of (L
_oral No.Acres:538.84 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land -0
No.o Potential Buddoat Units:1819 Annexation) Developed) Developed) Phase 4(Build Out)
Land Use Buildout Data N
Number of acres developed during phase 0.00 53.88 215.54 269.42 7
Maximum density permitted units/acre 5 5 5 5 O
t
Maximum potenfial units constructed during thisphase' 0 182 727 909
Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 0 182 909 1,819 '
Calculation of Annual Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Tax Revenue 14
14
Total Property Tax Collected by County $ $ 311,413.00 $ 1,557,063.38 $ 3,114,126.77 N
T
Percent of Property Tax Allocated to Ci 's General Fund 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% 8.12
to
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout $0 $25,287 $126,434 $252,867 =
O
In Lieu Property Tax Percentage 2 0.96% 0.96% 0.96% 0.96
Annual Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Revenue at phase buildout $0 $2,990 $14,948 $29,896
I—build..,—a 7554.r,bn—m,m dm.i,y p.ed. O
2 Bud on 46—VlF Adj.—A.—(p-SB1d0Rp-5-12-17 by G—B..)p—.—Cebm,J Ciry Fi—nWv T.m S--Adm—fi,,Seim Dirtc, e1
VL'
O
�p
x
as
c
c
Q
a
O
IL
L
d
d
1.1
C
d
W
O
d
L
t1l
t
IZ
CO)
C)
To
L
'a
as
t
..d
to
V
al
t
w
O
to
.N
10
C
Q
a.d
V
t17
a
E
7v
In
M
r;
c
d
E
r
M
Q
Page 10 of 37
Packet Pg. 171
2.A.g
Patauial Amm tim Fiscal Anal ysi,
City ofCatheatal City
Motor Yeh.In Lim
N
From Future Development E
Land Use Designation:Estate Residential(ER)(0-2 du/ac), Buildout Phase M
Cathedral City designation Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of i1
Total No.Acres:751.39 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land =
No.o Potential Buildout Unity:1,503 Annexation) Develo ed) Develo ed Phase 4(Build Out)
Land Use Buildout Data N
Number of acres developed during phase 0.00 75.14 300.56 375.70 O
O
Maximum dens' tied unrs/ame 2 2 2 2 z
Maximum potential units constructed durvig thisphase' 0 150 601 751
Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 0 150 751 1 503
Calculation of Annual Motor V ehkle In-Lien Revenue
N
Total Property Tax Collected by County $ S 257,335.00 $ 1,286 672.72 S 2,573 345.44
Percent of Property Tax Allocated to C' 's General Fund 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% 8.12%
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout $0 $20,996 S104,478 $208156 to
C
In lieu Property Tax Percen e' 0.96% 0.96% 0.96% 0.96% O
Annual Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Revenue at phase buildout $0 $2,470 $12,352 $24,704
IAe buildouto 1e175%of the..—dmsiry petodmd.
2 Bu on W—W V Adpe Atmunt(poet SB 13o ypmvd 5-12-17 by Gev.Bm )ptevidal CobWW Ciy Fieen[kpennml Tem Scen.Md fiv Savior Uinaor.
O
From Future Commercial Development ()
Buildout Phase
Land Use Designation:General Commercial Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of O
+
Toot No.Acres:63.65 Phase 1(At Vacant Land iVacant Land M
No.o Potential Buildout S .Ft.:609,971-f Annexation) I Developed) Developed) Phase 4(Build Out) d
Land Use Buildout Data =
Number of acres developed during phase 1 0.001 6.371 25.461 31.83 Q
S uare footaRe constructed at Phase buildout 0 60,9971 304,9851 609,971 ,
rr
Calculation of Annual Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Revenue N
Total Property Tax Collected by County $ $ 64 047 S 320,235 $ 640,469 O
Percent ofProperty Tax Allocated to C' s General Fund 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% fL
tv
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout $o $5,201 $26,003 $52,006
C
In lieu Propeety Tax ercentage' 0.96% 0.96% 0.96% 0.96% D
Annual Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Revenue at phase buildout $0 $615 $3,074 $6 149 tv
V
I Aeeumabuildoutaavanl2%lot mvere,e pawned.
2 Bled on P raped V Adjuetamt Aeount(pan SB 130 epptevd 3-12.17 by Gev.Rm )pnvided Cbcdm Ciy Fin—Gepet Teed Seon-Adednmdve Saviea Dimctor. 0)
M
F
From Future Business Park Development S=
Bufldout Phase
d—
Land Use Designation:Business Park Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of 0
Total No.Acres:73.75 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land i
No,o Potential Bur7dout S .Ft.:1,092 67 sf Annexation) Developed) Developed) Phase 4 Build Out) d
t
Land Use Bulldout Data >Z
Number of acres developed during phase 1 0.001 7.381 29.50 36.88 fn
Square footage constructed at Phase buildout 0 109,227 546,1341 1,092,267 >y
ar
Calculation of Annual Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Revenue
Total Property Tax Collected by County $ $ 114,688 S 573,440 $ 1,146,880 U
Percent ofFroperty Tax Allocated to C' s General Fund 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% `
a
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout $0 $9,313 S46,563 $93,127 tl)
r
In Lieu Pro Tax Percentage' 0.96% 0.96% 0.96% 0.96% M
Aonual Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Revenue at hase buildout SO $1,101 SS OS $I1010 U
I Neu®buildout Dave et 3,%bt coveter.pawned, tU
2 B.W on Nvn Y1r AdjuehemeA.munl(pan SB 130 eppteved 5.1241by Gov.B 1p.4 cWb..Clry Finvn«Degenmmt,Tem Sc -Admnetative Savior.Dirstor.
4--
0
N
.N
tS3
C
Q
U
tt3
CL
E
t9
U
to
r
C
y
J
w
a.+
Q
Page 11 of 37
Packet Pg. 172
2.A.g
Potential Annotation Fiscal Analysis
City ofcathethal City
Motor Veh.In Lieu
N
--rom Future Industrial Development E
Buidout Phase t6
a
—and Use Designation:Industrial Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of _0
Total No.Acres:1360.13 Phase I(At Vacant Land Vacant Land
No.o PotentiW But7dout S .Ff.:20,144,069 Annexation) Develo ed) Developed) Phase 4(Build Out) y
Land Use Buildout Data
Number of acres developed during phase 0.00 136.01 544.05 680.07 Q
t
Square footage constructed at Phase buildout 1 01 2,014,4071 10,072,0351 20,144,069 H
Calculation of Annual Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Revenue
Total Property Tax Collected by County $ $ 2,115,127 S 10 575,636 S 21 151,273
Percent ofProperty Tax Alocated to C' s General Fund 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% CV
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout $0 $171,748 $858,742 $1,717,483 to
In Lieu Pro rn Tax Pere e 2 0.96% 0.96% 0.96% 0.96% 0
Annual Motor Vehicle In-lieu Revenue at phase buildout $0 $20,305 $101,526 $203,052 —
1brvvvbuildompavnn34%Incm1 pa aId. -�
2 B..d —.1(Fon SB I3a1W 5.12.17 by GOY.B—)I,--CUM1Nd Ciry Fin Depumml,Tun Sro -Adnneatnave Sevioa chrs ..
From Future Mixed Use Development O
U
BuBdout Phase O
Land Use Designation:Mixed Use-Urban(Commercial O
Component) Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of
f9
Total No.Acres:189.07 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land X
No.o Potential Buildout S .Ft.:1,811 96 sf Annexation) Developed) Developed) Phase 4 uild fast N
C
Land Use Buildout Data
Number of acres developed during phase 0.001 18.911 75.63 94.54 Qi
�+
Square footage constructed at Phase buildout 01 181,190 905,948 1 811 896 NO
Calculation of Annual Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Revenue fl
Total Property Tax Collected by County S $ 190,249 $ 951 245 $ 1 902 490
_ 07
Percent off'roperty Tax Allocated to C' s General Fund 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% 8.12%
C
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout $0 $15,448 $77 241 $154,482
In Lieu Property Tax Percentage 2 0.96% 0.96% 0.96% 0.96% V
Annual Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Revenue at phase buildout $0 $1,8261 $9,1321 $18,264 O
d
I A,.unv bmlaom oo.,c�.c 3d%me m....an vend. Q
iud on F�d�d VIP Adj.,m A-1(pon SB 13-pp—Id 5-12.17 by Gov.Bmw)pm idd CAWW Ciry FwnR DWr mm4 Tnn SwB AdminnmdveS.im tin. d�
i=
rom Future Development
nand Use Designation:Mixed Use-Urban (Residential Buildout Phase O
Component) Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of N
Total No.Acres:283.61 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land N
No.o Potential BuildoutS.Ft:10,848 du Annexation) Developed) Developed)
Phase 4 uild Out)
Land Use Buildout Data CL
N
Number of acres developedBurin hose 0.00 28.36 113.44 141.81 �
Maximum density erruitted units/acre 45 45 45 45 +'
Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 0 1,085 4,339 5,424 V
Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 0 1,085 5,424 10,948 t9
Caculation of Annual Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Revenue
.a
Total Property Tax Collected by County Is $ 1,857,615.00 $ 9,288,074.00 $ 18,576 147.99 d
Percent ofProperty Tax Allocated to C' s General Fund 8.12% 8.12% 8.12% 8.12%
Total Amount Allocated to City General Fund at phase buildout $0 $17,539 $87,695 S 175,391 U
In Lieu Property Tax Percentage 2 0.96% 0.96% 0.96% 0.96% O
Annual Motor Vehicle In-Lieu Revenue at phase buildout $0 $168 $842 $1,684 t
.r
1 A.rvms bwmom oa,In.c 34%111 porandn pwniNed. Q
2 Bud oe Gdmntd VIP Adj—i Avount(post SB 13D Vp—5.12.17 by G.I.B..)p—dd CMbndni Ciry Fi.—Dcp—,Tun Sc -Adidnun Servicm Di.- (�
.N
C
Q
V
t9
CL
E
�0
to
ii
ti
c
tv
E
t
ca
Q
Page 12 of 37
Packet Pg. 173
2.A.g
Potential Annexation Fiscal Analysis
City of Cathedral City
Motor Veh.In Lieu
Moor Vehicle In-Lieu Revenue
N
Summary Table
Buildout Phase 1
Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of •i7
Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land C
Annexation) Developed) Develo ed) Phase 4(Build Out)
Potential annual MVL in-lieu property tax revenue to City from O
existingdevelopment $75 $75 S75 $75 =
Potential annual property tax revenue to City from future High F•
Density Residential development SO $2,074 $10,368 $20,736
Potential annual MVL in-lieu property tax revenue to City from
future Medium Density Residential development $0 $948 $4,742 $9,484 04
Potential annual property tax revenue to City from future Low
Density Residential development $0 $2,990 $14,948 $29,896 ....
Potential annual MVL in-lieu.property tax revenue to City from H
C
future Estate Residential development $O $2,47D $I2,352 $24,704 O
Potential annual MVL in-lieu property tax revenue to City from 'ar
future General Commercial development SO $169 E842 E1,684 •�
Potential annual MVL in-lieu property tax revenue to City from C
O
future Industrial development $0 S20,305 $101,526 S203,052 V
Potential annual MVL in-lieu property tax revenue to City from =
future Business Park development $0 $1,101 $5,505 $11,010 O
�+
Potential annual MVL in-lieu property tax revenue to City from M
future Mixed Use-Urban development(commerical d
component) $0 $1,826 $9,132 $18,264 =
Potential annual MVL in-lieu property tax revenue to City from ai
future Mixed Use-Urban development residential component) $0 $168 $842 $1,684 O
Total MVL in-lieu Property Tax Revenue at Phase a
BuOdout $75 $32,126 $160,331 $320,588 L
d
D
4)
fl
d
H
H
O
d
L
t'B
s
a
v
�a
a
4)
t
to
m
O
to
.N
!0
C
a
CL
E
ev
rn
E
c
v
M
Q
Page 13 of 37
Packet Pg. 174
Potential Annexation Fiscal A
City of Cathed
Property Transfer Tax Rev.
Property Transfer Tax Revenue
rn
From Existing Residential Development E
Buildout Phase t9
d
Existing Residential Units
No.ojAcres:947.04
Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of tts
No.ojDwelling Units:7,174 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land
Annexation) Developed) Developed) Phase 4(Build Out) O
t
Existing Units 80%of market value is subject to tax H
Number of[ants existing in 1 at year of this phase 7174 7174 7174 7174
Number of existing units changing ownership annually 717 717 717 717
Property Value perdwellin unit $171,239 $171,239 $171,239 $171,239 04
Unencumbered Value perunit 80%of value $136,991 $136,991 $136,991 $136,991
Amount subject to Property Transfer Tax $98,277,487 $98,277,487 $98,277,487 $98,277,487 N
PropertyTransfer Tax Rate 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% _
O
Total Property Transfer Tax Collected $108,1051 $108,1051 $109,1051 $108,105
Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to City 50% 50% 50% 50% 'D
Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to Cathedral City General Fund 1 $54,0531 $54,0531 $54,0531 $54,053 O
O
U
c
O
From Future Residential Development K
d
Buildout Phase C
C
Land Use Designation:High Density Residential(RM(II-20 dulac), Q
Cathedral City designation Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of j
Total No.Acres:140.65 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land O
No.of Potential Buildout Units:2,110 du Annexation) Developed) Developed) Phase 4(Build Out) d
New Units 100%of market value is subject to tax d
Number of acres developed 0 14.07 56.26 70.33
C
Maximum Density permitted units/aore 20 20.00 20.00 20.00 =11
Number of new units during thisphase' 0 211 844 1055 d
Market Value peruni $102,381 $102,381 $102,381 $102,381 U
C
Amount Subject to Property Transfer Tax for all new units sold 7
$0 $21,599,831 $86,399,326 $107,999,157
Property Transfer Tax Rate 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% C
Total Property Transfer Tax Collected at Phase Buildout $0 $23,760 $95,039 $118,799 .�
Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to Cathedral City 50% 50% 50% 50% O
d
Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to Cathedral City General Fund
$0 $11,880 $47,520 $59,400
Existing Units(80%of market value is subject to tax) fl
Number of Units changing ownership 0 21 84 105 to
Property Value perdwellin unit $102,381 $102,381 $102,381 $102,381 y
Unencumbered Value perunit 80%of value $81,905 $81,905 $81,905 $81,905 U
Amount subject to Property Transfer Tax $0 $1,727,987 $6,911,946 $8,639,933
Property Transfer Tax Rate 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% D
Total Property Transfer Tax Collected $0 $1,901 $7,603 $9,504 tU
Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to City 50% 50% 50% 50%
Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to Cathedral City General Fund $0 $950 $3,802 $4,752 U
d
Total Property Transfer Tax(New and Existing Units $0 $12,8301 $51,3211 $64,151 t
rr
r Assumes future development will occur at 75%of the maximum density permitted. O
MA
r Per average value of new development permits per AI Jimenez,Building Offical.Cathedral City Build Department. In
21
lt7
C
Q
t1
It3
a
E
�v
rn
ii
r
c
a�
E
t
U
ca
r
Q
Page 14 of 37 Packet Pg. 175
Potential Annexation Fiscal A
City of Cathed
Property Transfer Tax Rev.
From Future Residential Development
y
Land Use Designation:Medium DensityResidendal(RM)(4.5--10 deac), Buildout Phase E
Cathedral City designation Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of p.
Total No.Acres:128.66 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land
No.o Poiendal Buildout Units:965 du Annexation) Develo ed) Develo ed) Phase 4(Build Out)
New Units 100%of market value is subject to tax rn
Number of acres developed during phase 0.00 12.87 51.46 64.33 3
Maximum Density permitted units/acre 10 10 10 10 s
Number of new units during thisphase' 0 96 386 482 ~
Market Value perunit $102,381 $102,381 $102,381 $102,381
Amount Subject to Property Transfer Tax for all new units sold
$0 $9,879,255 $39,517,018 $49,396,273 N
r
Property Transfer Tax Rate 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11%
Total Property Transfer Tax Collected at Phase Buildout $0 $10,867 $43,469 $54,336
Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to Cathedral City 50% 50% 50% 50% O
Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to Cathedral City General Fund $0 $5,434 $21,734 $27,168 v
Existing Units(80%of market value is subject to tax) -
O
Number of Units changing ownership 0 10 39 48 U
-Property Value perdwellin unit $102,381 $102,381 $102,381 $102,381 C
Unencumbered Value perunit(80%of value $81,905 $81,905 $81,905 $81,905 2
Amount subject to Property Transfer Tax $0 $790,340 $3,161,361 $3,951,702 M
x
Pro Transfer Tax Rate 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% tv
Total Property Transfer Tax Collected $0 $869 $3,477 $4,347 C
C
Percent ofProperty Transfer Tax allocated to City 50% 50% 50% Q
Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to Cathedral City General Fund $0 $435 $1,739 $2,173
Total Property Transfer Tax(New and Existing Units $0 $5,868 $23,473 $29,341 d
d
x Assumes future development will occur at 75%of the maximum density permitted
C
Z 2 Per average value of new development permits per Al Jimenez,Building Offical.
Cathedral City Building Department. d
V
C
From Future Residential Development O
Buildout Phase
Land Use Designation:Low Density Residential(RL)(2-4.5 du/ac),
C
Cathedral City designation 0
r0 g Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of O
Total No.Acres:538.84 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land N
No.o Potential Buildout Units:1,819 du Annexation) Develo eel) Developed) Phase 4(Build Out) y
New Units 100%of market value is subject to tax L
a
Number of acres developed during phase 0.00 53.88 215.54 269.42 N
Maximum Density permitted units/acre 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 A
Number of new units during thisphase' 0 182 727 909 U
Market Value perunit $171,239 $171,239 $171,239 $171,239
Amount Subject to Property Transfer Tax for all new units sold $0 $31,141,268 $124,565,071 $155,706,338 �p
Property Transfer Tax Rate 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% d
Total Property Transfer Tax Collected at Phase Buildout $0 $34,255 $137,022 $171,277
Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to Cathedral City 50% 50% 50% 50% L)
Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to Cathedral City General Fund 0
$0 $17,128 $68,511 $85,638 is
Existing Units(80%of market value is subject to tax) O
Number of Units changing ownership 0 18 73 91 y
Property Value perdwellin unit $102,381 $102,381 $102,381 $102,381 y
Unencumbered Value per unit 80%of value $81,905 $81,905 $81,905 $81,905 2`
Amount subject to Property Transfer Tax $0 $1,489,508 $5,958,034 $7,447,542
C
Property Transfer Tax Rate 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% Q
Total Property Transfer Tax Collected $0 $1,638 $6,554 $8,192 j
Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to City 50% 50% 50% °50/o O.
Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to Cathedral City General Fund $0 $819 $3,277 $4,096 E
Total Property Transfer Tax(New and Existing Units) $0 $17 947 $71 788 $89 735 jp
v
h
�Assumes forum development will occur at 75%of the maximum density permitted. LL
Z Per average value of new development permits per AI Jimenez,Building Offical.
Cathedral City Building Department.
i-i
C
v
to
w
Q
Page 15 of 37 Packet Pg. 176
Potential Annexation Fiscal 2.A.g
City of Cathed
Property Transfer Tax Rev.
From Future Residential Development to
Buildout Phase E
Land UseDesignadon:Estate Residential(ER)(0-1 dulac),Cathedral City d
designation Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of O
Total No.Acres:751.39 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land C
No.o Potential Buildout Units:1503 Annexation) Developed) Developed) Phase 4(Build Out) y
New Units 100%of market value is subject to tax
Number of acres developed during phase 0.00 75.14 300.56 375.70 M
Maximum Density permitted units/acre 2 2 2 2 H
Number of new units duriniz thisphase' 0 150 601 751
Market Value perunit $171,239 $171,239 $171,239 $171,239
tV
Amount Subject to Property Transfer Tax for all new units sold $0 $25,733,454 $102,933,818 $128,667,272
Property Transfer Tax Rate 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% to
Total Property Transfer Tax Collected at Phase Buildout $0 $28,307 $113,227 $141,534 =
O
Percent of'Property Transfer Tax allocated to Cathedral City 50% 50% 50% 50% .
Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to Cathedral City General Fund C
$0 $14,153 $56,614 $70,767 O
Existing Units(80%of market value is subject to tax) ()
Number of Units changing ownership 0 15 60 75 C
Property Value perdwellin unit $102,381 $102,381 $102,381 $102,381 O
Unencumbered Value perunit(80%of value $81,905 $81,905 $81,905 $81,905 K
Amount subject to Property Transfer Tax $0 $1,230,849 $4,923,396 $6,154,245 y
Property Transfer Tax Rate 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% _
Total Property Transfer Tax Collected $0 $1,354 $5,416 $6,770 Q
Percent ofProperty Transfer Tax allocated to City 50% 50% 50a/o 50% ++
to
Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to Cathedral City General Fund $0 $677 $2,708 $3,385 O
a
Total Property Transfer Tax(New and Existing Unite $0 $14,8301 $59,321 $74,152
M
C
r Assumes future development will omu at 75%of the maximum density permitted.
2 Per average value of new development permits per Al Jimenez,Building Offical.
Cathedral City Building Department. C
4)
7
From Future Residential Development
Buildout Phase 4"
O
Land Use Design adon:Mixed Use-Urban(Residential Coesponeno Phase 2(10%of Phase (50%of `
Total No.Acres:283.61 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land (D
No.o Potential Buildout S.Ft:10,848 du Annexation) Developed) Developed) Phase 4(Build Out)
>a.
New Units 100%of market value is subject to tax to
Number of acres developed during phase 0.00 28.36 113.44 141.81 >.
Maximum Density ermitted units/acre 45 45 45 45 U
Number of new units during thisphase' 0 1085 4339 5424
Market Value perunit $171,239 $171,239 $171,239 $171,239
Amount Subject to Property Transfer Tax for all new units sold $0 $185,761,480 $743,045,920 $928,807,400 d
r
Property Transfer Tax Rate 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11%
Total Property Transfer Tax Collected at Phase Buildout $0 $204,338 $817,351 $1,021,688 ()
Percent ofProperty Transfer Tax allocated to Cathedral City 50% 50% 50% 50% ry
t
Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to Cathedral City General Fund $0 $102,169 $408,675 $510,844 .r
w
Existing Units(80%of market value is subject to tax) O
N
Number of Units changing ownership 0 108 434 542 N
Property Value perdwellin unit $102,381 $102,381 $102,381 $102,381
Unencumbered Value perunit(80%of value $81,905 $81,905 $81,905 $81,905 =
Amount subject to Property Transfer Tax $0 $8,885,100 $35,540,401 $44,425,501 Q
Property Transfer Tax Rate 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% 0.11% U
U
Total Property Transfer Tax Collected $0 $9,774 $39,094 $48,868
Percent of Property Transfer Tax allocated to City 50% 50% 50% 50%
E
Total Property Transfer Tax Allocated to Cathedral City General Fund $0 $4,887 $19,547 $24,434
fC
Total Property Transfer Tax(New and Existing Units $0 $107,056 $428,222 $535,278 U
N
lJ_
Assumes future development will ocmr at 75%of the maximum density permitted.
r Based on average building permit valuation of multi-farnily apartment units.Bldg.
permit data provided by Cathedral Bldg.&Safety Dept.,August 2018.
C
d
E
L
U
t0
r
Q
Page 16 of 37 Packet Pg. 177
Potential Annexation Fiscal
City of Cathed
Property Transfer Tax Rev.
Property Transfer Tax Revenue Summary Table N
BuildoutPhase E
t9
1
Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of
Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land
O
Annexation) Developed) Developed) Phase 4(Build Out) N
Total tax revenue from existing resid.development at phase buildout $54,053 $54,053 $54,053 $54,053 O
Total tax revenue from ffitureffigh Density dev. at phase buildout $0 $12,830 =S428,222
$64,151
Total tax revenue from future Medium Densitydev. at phase buildout $0 $5,868 $29,341
Total tax revenue from future Low Densitydev. at phase buildout $0 $17,947 $89,735
Total tax revenue from future Estate Res.dev. at phase buildout $0 $14,830 $74,152 N
Total tax revenue from future Mixed Use-Urban dev. at phase buildout $0 $107,056 $535,278 04
Total prope transfer tax revenue at phase buildout $54,053 $212,594 S846,710
N
c
O
c
O
U
c
O
c0
k
d
c
c
Q
N
O
a
a�
c
a�
U
c
tv
c
O
to
6.
s
a.
U)
U
io
at
t
U
at
s
w
O
N
.y
fC
C
a
U
fS7
tl
E
19
V
N
U.
c
v
Q
Page 17 of 37 Packet Pg. 178
Potential Annexation Fiscal Ana 2 A g
City of Cathedral City
SalesTax Rev.
Sales Tax Revenue
Measure A Revenue E
n.
—....i Existing Commercial Development a
Buildout Phase
Land Use Designation:Commercial(does not include hotel) Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50% of
No.of Acres:49.7 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build
Square Feet of Bldg,Space.299,763 sf Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out)
Land Use Data
Number of acres developed 49.27 49.271 49.271 49.2
Number of square feet constructed' 299,7631 299,7631 299,7631 299,76 0
Calculation of Total Leasable Square Feet
Percent leasable space 90% 90% 90% W c
No.of leasable square feet 269,7871 269,7871 269,7871 269,78 v
"General Commercial"Development O
r
Percent of leasable s .ft.considered"General Commercial' 100% 100% 100% 1000 k
No.of leasable s .ft.considered"General Commercial' 269,787 269,787 269,787 269,78 c
Ave.annual sales volume per s .ft.2 $326.13 $326.13 $326.13 $326.1 Q
Total annual sales from"General Commercial'development $87,985,536 $87,985,536 $87,985,536 $87,985,53
Calculation of Total Sales Tax Revenues a
Total annual sales at phase buildout $87,985,536 $87,985,536 $87,985,536 $87,985,53
City sales tax rate 1.60% 1.60% 1.60% 1.600 C
Annual sales tax revenue collected by City at phase buildout $1,407,769 $1,407,769 $1,407,769 $1,407,76 m
Calculation of Measure A Revenues c
m
County-wide Measure A tax rate 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.505 ¢
mt collected for County-wide Measure A fund $439,928 $439,928 $439,928 $439,92 5
Percent allocated to the Coachella Valley region 3 24% 24% 24% 24°
Amount allocated to the Coachella Valley region $105,583 $105,583 $105,583 $105,58 m
Percent allocated to local streets and roads 3 35% 35% 35% 350 CL
Cn
Amount allocated to local streets and roads $36,954 $36,954 $36,954 $36,95 w
Percent allocated to City of Cathedral City3 11% 11% 11% 110" U
Amount allocated to Cityof Cathedral City $4,065 $4,065 $4,065 $4,06 `L-
Assumes building covers 22%of lot.The remaining area is used for landscaping,parking,roadway access,and other ancillary uses. t
s Based on definitions and average sales volumes for U.S.Neighborhood Shopping Centers(Table 6-1),U.S. Super Community/Community Shopping Centers(Table 5-1), V
and U.S.Regional Shopping Centers(Table 4-1)provided in 'Dollars and Carts of Shopping Centers,"Urban Land Institute,2008. )
s Measure A distribution data provided by Riverside County Transportation Commission. w
4-
0
N
.N
T
r9
_
Q
a..
V
Q
E
(a
V
N
LL
_
d
E
L
U
cC
Q
Page 18 of 37 Packet Pg. 179
Potential Annexation Fiscal Ana
City of Cathedral City
SalesTax Rev.
rn
From Future Commercial Development E
A
Buildout Phase
•O
C
O
Land Use Designation:General Commercial Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50% of 3
Total No.Acres:63.65 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build -C
No.of Potential BuildoutSq. Ft.:609,971 sf Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out)
Land Use Data T—
Number of acres developed during this phase 0.0 6.4 25.5 31.
Number of acres developed at phase buildout 0.0 6.4 31.8 63.
Number of square feet developed during thisphase' 0 60,997 243,988 304,98 Cp
Number of square feet developed at phase buildout 0 60,997 304,985 609,97 a
Calculation of Total Leasable Square Feet c
Percent leasable space 90% 90% 90%1 905 tj
No.of leasable square feet 0 54,8971 274,4871 548,97 c
"General Commercial" Development C
Percent of leasable s .&considered"General Commercial' 100% 100% 100% 100° X,
No.of leasable s .&considered"General Commercial' 0 54,897 274,487 548,97• c
Ave.annual sales volume per s .fL $326.13 $326.13 $326.13 $326.1 Q
Total annual sales from"General Commercial'development $0 $17,903,676 $89,518,382 $179,036,76
Calculation of Total Sales Tax Revenues O
Total annual sales at phase buildout $0 $17,903,6761 $89.518.3821 $179,036,76 a
City sales tax rate 1.60%1 1.60%1 1.60%1 1.600/ •a
Annual sales tax revenue collected by City at phase buildout $0 $286,4591 $1,432,2941 $2,864,58 C
Calculation of Measure A Revenues m
County-wide Measure A tax rate 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.505 c
Amount collected for County-wide Measure A fund $0 $89,518 $447,592 $895,18•
Percent allocated to the Coachella Valley region 3 24% 24% 24% c
Amount allocated to the Coachella Vall region $0 $21,484 $107,422 $214,_. C
Percent allocated to local streets and roads 3 35% 35% 35% 355
Amount allocated to local streets and roads $0 $7,520 $37,598 $75,19 t
Percent allocated to Cityof Cathedral City3 11% 11% 11% 115 N
Amount allocated to City of Cathedral City $0 $827 $4,136 $8,27 Z'
r Assumes building covers 22%of lot.The remaining area is used for landscaping,parking,roadway access,and other ancillary uses. V
2 Based on definitions and average sales volumes for U.S.Neighborhood Shopping Centers(Table 6-1),U.S. Super Community/Community Shopping Centers(Table 5-1),
and U.S.Regional Shopping Centers(Table 4-1)provided in "Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers,"Urban Land Institute,2008. d
Measure A distribution data provided by Riverside County Transportation Commission. C
!0
V
m
.0
w
O
L
l0
C
Q
O
a
E
a
LL
r;
c
y
J
a+
Q
Page 19 of 37 Packet Pg. 180
Potential Annexation Fiscal Ana 2 A g
City of Cathedral City
SalesTax Rev.
rn
Buildout Phase
Use Designation:Mixed Use-Urban(Commercial a
E;omponent) Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50% of
Total No.Acres:189.07 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build y
No.o Potential Buildout S .Ft.:1,811,896 sf Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) o
Land Use Data
H
Number of acres developed during this phase 0.0 18.9 75.6 94.
Number of acres developed at phase buildout 0.0 18.9 94.5 189.
Number of square feet developed during thisphase' 0 181,190 724,758 905,94
Number of square feet developed at phase buildout 0 181,190 905,948 1,811,89
Calculation of Total Leasable Square Feet c
Percent leasable space 90% 90% 90% 90° =
No.of leasable square feet 1 01 163,0711 815,3531 1,630,70 c
"General Commercial" Development 0
Percent of leasable s .fL considered"General Commercial' 100% 100% 100% 1005 c
No.of leasable s .ft.considered"General Commercial' 0 163,071 815,353 1,630,70 0
Ave.annual sales volume per s .ft.Z $326.13 $326.13 $326.13 $326.1
Total annual sales from"General Commercial'development $0 $53,182,217 $265,911,084 $531,822,16 c
Calculation of Total Sales Tax Revenues c
Total annual sales at phase buildout $0 $53,182,217 $265,911,084 $531,822,16
City sales tax rate 1.60% 1.60% 1.60% 1.60° O
Annual sales tax revenue collected by City at phase buildout $0 $850,915 $4,254,577 $8,509,15 IL
Calculation of Measure A Revenues m
.p
County-wide Measure A tax rate 0.50% 0.50% 0.50% 0.505 c
Amount collected for County-wide Measure A fund $0 $265,911 $1,329,555 $2,659,11 d
Percent allocated to the Coachella Valley region 24% 24% 24% 245 c
Amount allocated to the Coachella Valley region $0 $63,819 $319,093 $638,18 20
at allocated to local streets and roads s 35% 35% 35% 355
mt allocated to local streets and roads $0 $22,3371 $111,683 $223,36 0
Percent allocated to Cityof Cathedral Citys 11% 11% 11% 110, m
Amount allocated to City of Cathedral City $0 $2,4571 $12,2851 $24,57 t
Assumes building covers 22%of lot.The remaining area is used for landscaping,packing,roadway access,and other ancillary uses. CL
fn
s Based on definitions and average sales volumes for U.S.Neighborhood Shopping Centers(Table 6-1),U.S. Super Community/Community Shopping Centers(Table 5-1), r
and U.S.Regional Shopping Centers(fable 4-1)provided in "Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers,"Urban Land Institute,2008. V
3 Measure A distribution data provided by Riverside County Transportation Commission.
d
t
rC
U
m
t
w
0
7a
c
Q
r
u
ra
a
E
�v
U
to
LL
r`
C
d
E
t
U
f0
r-.
a.+
Q
Page 20 of 37 Packet Pg. 181
Potential Annexation Fiscal Ana
City of Cathedral City
SalesTax Rev.
Sales Tax Revenue Summary Table N
E
Buddout Phase R
Phase 1 (At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Bt.--
Annexation) Develo ed) Developed) Out) c
�a
Total sales tax revenue from existing commercial development $1,407,769 $1,407,769 $1,407,769 $1,407,76 N
Total sales tax revenue from future commercial development $0 $286,459 $1,432,294 $2,864,58 0
Total sales tax revenue from future mixed use-urban development $0 $850,915 $4,254,577 $8,509,15
Total sales tax revenue from all development $1,407,7691 $2,545,1431 $7,094,6401 $12,781,51
N
N
c
Measure A Revenue Summary Table
r
Buddout Phase �a
Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build U
Annexation) Develo ed) Developed) Out) _
Total Measure A revenue from existing commercial development $4,065 $4,065 $4,065 $4,06 O
Total Measure A revenue from future commercial develo ment $0 $827 $4,136 $8,27 ca
K
Total Measure A revenue from future mixed use-urban development $0 $2,457 $12,2851 $24,57 c
Total Measure A revenue from all development $4,0651 $7,3491 $20,486 $36,90 Q
N
O
a
m
c
a�
c
m
c
0
d
d
t
a
V
�o
.a
d
t
ea
V
m
r
w
0
N
N
lQ
c
Q
r+
t,1
E
A
V
N
LL
ti
r
C
U
J
f0
r-.
r
Q
Page 21 of 37 Packet Pg. 182
2.A.g
Cannabis Tax Revenue TN PD Potential Annexation Fiscal Analysis
City of Palm Desen
Cannabis Tax
N
From Future Industrial Development E
A
Buildout Phase d
C
Land Use Designation:Industrial Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of tD
Total No.Acres:1360.13 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build N
No.o Potential BaildoutSq.Ft:20,144,069 Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) 0
O
Land Use Data c
Number of acres developed during this phase 0.0 I36.0 544.1 680.1 f
Number of acres developed at phase buildout 0.0 136.0 680.1 1,360.1
Number of square feet developed during thisphase' 01 2,014,4071 8,057,6281 10,072,035
Number of square feet developed at phase buildout 01 2,014,4071 10,072,0351 20,144,069
N
Calculation of Total Leasable Square Feet T—
Percent developed for cannabis cultivation 5% 5% 5% 5% ...
No.of leasable square feet 0 100,720 503,602 1,007,203 C
Cultivation Assumptions 0
Percent ofculitivation sq.ft 1 80% 80% 80% 80% :r✓
No.of cultivations .ft 0 80,576 503,602 1,007,203
Ave.annual cultivation tax per s .ft.' $15.00 $15.001 $15.001 $15.00 =
Total annual cultivation tax $0 $1,208,6441 $7,554,0261 $15,108,052 0
U
Assumes building covers 34%of lest The remaining area is used for landscaping,packing,roadway access,and other ancillary uses. _
r $15 per square foot of mlivation provided by Cathedral City Finance Department,Kevin Biersack. O
m
x
4)
c
c
Q
N
O
IL
d
-a
D
m
r,
c
d
c
0
d
d
s
a
V
�a
a
m
s
w
m
U
al
t
O
V1
R
c
Q
w
V
m
C.
E
l0
V
W
LL
ti
c
d
E
t
t�
lC
a
Page 22 of 37
Packet Pg. 183
2.A.g
TN PD Potmtial Annexation Fiscal Analysis
City of Palm Desert
Cannabis Tax Revenue Summary Table Cannabis Tax
Buildout Phase
Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build N
Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) E
Total cannabis tax revenue from future Industrial development s0 $1,208,644 57,554,026 S 15,108,052 M
Total sales tax revenue from all development s0 $1,208,644 $7,554,026 $15,108,052 IL
a
c
to
N
O
t
H
N
e-
N
C
O
�a
c
O
v
c
O
to
x
m
c
Q
N
O
a
m
v
d
c
m
c
O
tv
d
s
a
V
�a
t_
v
to
r
V
tv
.15
w
O
N
.y
!B
c
Q
V
N
a
E
�a
_N
ti
r+
C
71
J
M
f'+
Q
Page 23 of 37
Packet Pg. 184
2.A.g
Potential Annexation Fiscal Analysis
City of Cathedral City
TOT
(n
Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue E
m
a
From Existing Development
c
Land Use Designation:Hotel Buildout Phase N
Total No.Acres:3.0 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build o
Exdstin Rooms:115 Annexation) Developed) I Developed) Out) t
H
Land Use Buildout Data
Number of acres developed 3.00 3.001 3.001 3.00
Number of rooms developed 1151 1151 1151 115 N
Calculation of TOT Revenue .►
rn
Average room rate $per night) $145.00 $145.00 $145.00 $145.00 =
0
Average occupancy rate 65% 65% 65% 65%
Annual revenue from all rooms at phase buildout $3,956,144 $3,956,144 $3,956,144 $3,956,144 c
Ci 's Transient Occupancy Tax Rate 12% 12% 12% 12% 0
V
Ci 's annual TOT revenue at phase buildout $474,737 $474,737 $474,737 $474.737 =
0
m
From Future Development x
ar
Land Use Designation:Hotel Buildout Phase
Total No.Acres:6.0 Phase 1 (At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build Q
Projected No.o Rooms:250 Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) o
Land Use Buildout Data a
Number of acres developed during this phase 0.00 0.00 3.00 3.00
Number of acres developed at phase buildout 0.00 0.00 3.00 6.00
Number of rooms developed during this phase 0.0 0.0 125.0 125.0
Number of rooms developed at phase buildout 0.0 0.0 125.0 250.0 m
U
Calculation of TOT Revenue =
m
Average room rate $per night) $145.00 $145.00 $145.00 $145.00 0
�verage occupancy rate 65% 65% 65% 65% _
Annual revenue from all rooms at phase buildout $0 $0 $4,300,156 $8,600,313 0
Ci 's Transient Occupancy Tax Rate 12% 12% 12% 12% 0
Ci 's annual TOT revenue at phase buildout 1 $0 $0 $516,0191 $1,032,038 a
Cn
Transient Occupancy Tax Revenue
Summary Table U
Buildout Phase tom°
Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of t
Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build
U
Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) 0
Annual TOT Revenue from Existing Hotels at phase buildout $474,737 $474,737 $474,737 $474,737 w
w
Annual TOT Revenue from Future Hotels at phase buildout SO SO $516,019 $1,032,038
Total Annual TOT Revenue from all development(at phase
buildout) $474,737 $474,737 $990,756 $1.506,775
to
c
Q
a
E
�a
rn
U-
ti
_
d
t
V
r6
a
Page 24 of 37
Packet Pg. 185
Potential Annexation Fiscal An ZA.g
City of Cathedral City
Gas,UUT,Franch Tax
Highway Users Gas Tax Revenue
rn
E
From Exisiting Development M
Buildout Phase a
a
Land Use Designation:ALL Residential Phase 2(10% of Phase 3(50% of H
Total No.Acres:947.04 ac Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build 0
No.of Potential Buildout Units:7,174 du Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) t
N
Development Summary
Existing developed acres 947.04 947.04 947.04 947.04 V-
Existing developed units 7174 71741 71741 7174
Calculation of Annual Gas Tax Revenue
Existing population 7,875 7,8751 7,875 7,875 G
Estimated annual per capita gas tax revenue 1 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 4r
Annual gas tax revenue at phase buildout $315,000 $315,000 $315,000 $315,000
c
O
1 Based on the Cathedral City Adopted Budget for Fiscal Years 2017-I8 and 2018-19 total revenue collected from the State Gas Tax divided by total city population-pg 127 (�
O
a7
M
From Future Development K
Buildout Phase c
Land Use Designation:ALL Residential Phase 2(10% of Phase 3(50% of Q
Total No.Acres:1843.15 ac Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build O
No.of Potential Buildout Units:17,244 du Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) d
Development Summary d
Number of acres developed during phase 0.00 194.32 737.26 921.58
c
Numbers of acres developed at phase buildout 0.00 184.32 921.58 1843.15
m
Number of potential units constructed during this phase 0 1724 6898 8622 =
Number of potential units at phase buildout 0 1724 8622 17244 3
Calculation of Annual Gas Tax Revenue C
Average no.persons per households 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 —
Potential population at phase buildout 0 5,363 26,814 53,629 0
Estimated annual per ca ita as tax revenue 2 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00 $40.00
Annual gas tax revenue at hase buildout 0 $214.515 1,072,577 $2,145,154 s
Estimated population provided by Department of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,Counties,and the state,2011-2018 with 2010 Census U)
2 Based on the Cathedral City Adopted Budget for Fiscal Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 total revenue collected from the State Gas Tax divided by total city population-p
V
10
V
d
Highway User Gas Tax Revenue
Summary Table to
U
Buildout Phase y
t
Phase 2(10% of Phase 3(50% of
Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build O
Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) T
Total Annual Gas Tax Revenue from Existing Residential Tv
Development $315,000 $315,000 $315,000 $315,000 e
Q
Total Annual Gas Tax Revenue from Future Residential
Development $0 $214,515 $1,072,577 $2,145,154 O.
E
Total Annual Gas Tax Revenue from all development $315,000 $529,515 $1,387,577 $2,460,154 M
r,
_H
LL
ti
�.i
G
U
J
Q
Page 25 of 37 Packet Pg. 186
Potential Annexation Fiscal Am
City of Cathedral City
Gas,UUT,Franch Tax
UTILITY USERS TAX E
M
From Exisiting Development 0-
Buildout Phase =
�a
Land Use Designation:ALL Residential Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50% of o
Total No.Acres:947.04 ac Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build t
No.of Potential Buddout Units:7,174 du Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out)
Development Summary v
Existing developed acres 947.04 947.04 947.04 947.04 04
Existing developed units 71741 71741 71741 7174
rn
Calculation of Annual Utility Users Tax Revenue =
Existing population 7,875 7,875 7,875 7,875 y°
Estimated annual per capita Utility Users Tax revenue t $52.93 $52.93 $52.93 $52.93 c
Annual utility users tax revenue at phase buildout $416,824 $416,824 $416,824 $416,824 °
U
c
Based on the Cathedral City Adopted Budget for Fiscal Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 total revenue collected from theUtility Users Tax divided by total city population• °
r
tv
x
a�
From Future Development c
Q
Buildout Phase
0
Land Use Designation:ALL Residential Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of d
Total No.Acres:1,843.15 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build w
No.of Potential Buildout Units:17,244 du Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) _
Development Summary M
a�
Number of acres developed during phase 0.001 184.321 737.26 921.58
c
Numbers of acres developed at phase buildout 0.00 184.32 921.58 1843.15 m
Number of potential units constructed during this phase 1 0 1724 6898 8622
Number of potential units at phase buildout 0 1724 8622 17244
Calculation of Annual Utility Users Tax Revenue 0
d
Average no.persons per household' 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 m
Potential o u lion at phase utl out 0 5,363 26,8151 53,629 a
Estimated annual per Utility Users Tax revenue 52.93 $52.93 $52.931 $52.93
Annual utility users tax revenue at phase buildout 0 $283,860 $1,419.2991 $2.838-599
Estimated population provided by Department of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,Counties,and the state,2011-2018 with 2010 Census U
2 Based on the Cathedral City Adopted Budget for Fiscal Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 total revenue collected from theUtility Users Tax divided by total city population ip
d
t
rr
R
Utility Users Tax Revenue U
Summary Table d
t
Buildout Phase 4--
0
Phase 2(10% of Phase 3(50% of T
Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build >,
Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) ca
c
Total Annual Utility Users Tax Revenue from Existing Q
Residential Development $416,824 $416,824 $416,824 $416,824
to
Total Annual Utility Users Tax Revenue from Future M
Residential Development $0 $283,860 $1,419,299 $2,838,599
Total Annual Utility Users Tax Revenue from all U
residential development $416,824 $700,684 $1,836,123 $3,255,423 M
f;
c
m
t
U
a.+
Q
Page 26 of 37 Packet Pg. 187
Potential Annexation Fiscal 2Ag
City of Cathedral City
Gas,UUT,Franch Tax
Franchise Fees Revenue E
From Exisiting Development tl
Buildout Phase
Land Use Designation:ALL Residential Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50% of 3
Total No.Acres:947.04 ac Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build 0
No.o Potential Buildout Units:7,174 du Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out)
Development Summary
Existing developed acres 947.041 947.041 947.041 947.04 N
Existing developed units 71741 71741 71741 7174
Calculation of Annual Franchise Fees Revenue
Average no.persons per households 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 0
Existing population 7,875 7,875 7,875 7,875
Estimated annual per capita franchise fees revenue 2 $40.64 $40.64 $40.64 $40.64 0
O
Annual franchise fees revenue at phase buildout $320,040 $320,040 $320,040 $320,040 V
Estimated population provided by Department of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,Counties,and the state,2011-2018 with 2010 Census C
O
Renrhmark a+
2 Based on the Cathedral City Adopted Budget for Fiscal Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 total revenue collected from the Franchise Fee divided by total city population-
m
C
_
Q
From Future Development
Buildout Phase
0
a
Land Use Designation:ALL Residential Phase 2(10% of Phase 3 50%( of L
Total No.Acres:1843.15 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build
No.o Potential Buildout Units:17244du Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) _
Development Summary
Number of acres developed during phase 0.00 184.32 737.26 921.58
Numbers of acres developed at phase buildout 0.00 184.32 921.58 1843.15 0
Number of potential units constructed during this phase 0 1724 6898 8622 c
Number of potential units at phase buildout 0 1724 8622 17244 0
Calculation of Annual Franchise Fees Revenue
Avera a no. ersons per households 3.111 3.11 3.11 3.11
t
Potential o u lion at phase burIdout 0 14 5,363 26,8 53,629 a
Estimatedannualer capita c rse fees revenue $40.64 40.64 $40.64 $40.64 N
Ann c ise fees revenue at pbase buildout 0 217,948 1,0 ,738 2,179,476
Estimated population provided by Department of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,Counties,and the state,2011-2018 with 2010 Census _U
2 Based on the Cathedral City Adopted Budget for Fiscal Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 total revenue collected from the Franchise Fee divided by total city population-
a
a�
t
sa
U
Franchise Fees Revenue ar
Summar-v Table
Buildout Phase 0
Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of N
.N
Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build >+
Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) Q
Total Annual Franchise Fees Revenue from Existing Residential
Development $320,040 $320,040 $320,040 $320,040 M
0.
Total Annual Franchise Fees Revenue from Future Residential E
Development $0 $217,948 $1,089,738 $2,179,476
cs
Total Annual Franchise Fees Revenue from all residential rn
,development $320,040 $537,988 $1,409,778 $2,499,516 ii
_
v
J
Q
Page 27 of 37 Packet Pg. 188
2.A.g
Potential Annexation Fiscal Analysis
City of Cathedral City
City DIF Fees
in
E
M
Master Underground Plan Revenue d
C
Buildout Phase
N
Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of
O
Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build
exa Anntion) Develo ed) I Developed) Out) f-
New Residential Development includes Mixed Use-Urban residential component)
Number ofdwelling units constructed during this phase 1,7241 6,898 8,622 r
Average square footage of new dwelling units 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 N
New Master Under omd Plan rate square foot) 50.15 $0.15 $0.15 $0.15 r
Total Master Underground Plancollected on new residential development $0.00 $646 655.53 $2,586,622.13 $3,233,277.66 ..r
New Commercial Development includes Mixed Use-Urban commercial component) to
Number of square feet constructed during this phase 242,187 968,747 1,210 933 C
O
New Master Underground Plan rate(per square foot)2 $0.151 $0.151 $0.15 $0.15
Total Master Underground Plan collected on new commercial development 1 $0.00 $36,327.99 $145,311.98 $181,639.97
C
New Business Park Development O
Number of square feet constructed during this phase 109,2271 546,1341 1092 267 (�
New Master Underground Plan rate(per square foot)2 $0.151 $0.151 $0.151 $0.15 C
Total Master Underground Plan collected on new business park development 1 $0.001 $16,384.011 $81,920.031 S163,940.05 O
New Industrial Development M
Number of square feet constructed during this phase 2,014,4071 8,057,6281 10,07 035 X
New Master Underground Plan rate square foot)" SO.151 $0.151 $0.151 $0.15
C
C
Total New Construction Tax collected on new industrial development $0.00 $302,161.04 $1,208,644.16 $1,510,805.20 Q
Total Master Undenround Plan Revenue at phase buildout 1 $0.001 $1,001 528.57 $4,022,498.29 $5,089,562.88 r
to
'Per average value ofnew development permits per Al Jimenez,Building OfBcal.Cathedral City Building Department. d
r Per Resolution 90-94;ABI600 Report provided by Tami Seen,Director ofAdminstrative Services. `
d
City Facilities
Government Services Iv
c
City Yard(Vehicle Storage)Revenue d
7
BuNdout Phase
C
Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of
Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land I Phase 4(Build
O
Annexation) Developed Developed) 1 Out)
New Residential Development i
Number of dwelling units constructed during this phase1 01 17241 68981 8622
t
City Yard(Vehicle Storage)fee(per dwelling unit)' $95 $95 $951 S95 CL
fn
Total City Yard(Vehicle Storage)fees collected on new residential development at phase buildout $0 $163 819 $655,278 $819,097 >s
New Commercial Development
Number of acres constructed during this phase 251 1011 126 V
City Yard(Vehicle Storage)fee(per acre)' $587 $587 $587 $587 `
a
Total City Yard(Vehicle Storage)Funds collected on new commercial development at hase buildout $0 $14,835 $59,339 $74,173
New Industrial Development +�+
Number of acres developed during this hase 0 143 574 717 M
Ci Yard ehicle Stor a Fund fee acre $454 $454 $454 S454 V
Total C' Yard ehicle Sto a fees collected on new industrial development at hase buildout $0 S65,098 $260,393 $325,491 0)
Total City Yard(Vehicle Storage)Fund Revenues at phase buildout I SO $243,7521 $975,0091 $1,218,761 +�+
1 Information Provided by the City of Cathedral City Development Impact Fed Summary Table IX-I September 2018 4-
0
Public Safety Element to
Police Community CenterlPublic Safety Training Site(Public Safety Facilities N
BuBdout Phase
fC
Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of C
Phase l(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build Q
Annexation) Developed) Develo ed) Out)
New Residential Development M
Number ofdwelhng units constructed during this phase 1 01 17241 6898 8622 Q
Public Safety fee dwelling unit)' 1 $610 $610 $610 $610 E
Total Public Safety fees collected on new residential development at phase buildout $0 $1,051,8931 S4,207,572 $5 259 465
New Commercial Development V
Number ofacres constructed duringthis phase 251 loll 126 to
Public Safety fee acre)' 1 $3,7751 $3,7751 $3,7751 $3,775 IL
Total Public Safety Funds collected on new commercial development at phase buildout SO $95,4021 $381,6071 S477,009 P.:New Industrial Development
Number of acres developed Burin this phase 0 1431 5741 717 +'
Public Saf Fund fee acre $2,901 $2,901 S2,901 52,901 C
Nal Public Safetyfees collected on new industrial development at phase buildout $0 $415,9691 $1,663 874 $2 079 943 E
slat Public Safety Fund Revenues at phase buildout $8 $1,563,2631 $6,253,0541 $7,916,317 Z
V
t4
ar
Y
Q
Page 28 of 37
Packet Pg. 189
2.A.g
Potential Annexation Fiscal Analysis
City of Cathedral City
City DIF Fees
fnformation Provided by the City of Cathedral City Development Impact Fm Summary Table IX-1 Septeenber 2018 G
m
CL
Transportation Services Revenue
_
Buddout Phase
Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of 3
Phase I(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build O
Annexation) I Developed) Develo ed) out) _
New Residential Development
Number of dwelling units constructed during this phase 01 17241 68981 8622 r
Transportation Service fee(per dwelling units 1 $1,1771 $1,177 $1,1771 $1,177 N
Total Transportation Service fees collected on new residential develo ment at phase buddout $0 $2,029,636.161 S8,118,5451 $10,148,181 r
v
New Commercial Development N
Number of acres constructed during this phase 25 101 126 O
Transportation Service fee(per acre)' $34,i51 $34,Si1 $34,551 $34,551 �+
Total Transportation Service Funds collected on new commercial development at phase buildout $0 $8731 $3,4931 $4,366 %a
New Industrial Develo went =
Number of acres developed durin this hase 0 L43 �$8128',,587748
tit O
Transportation Service fee(per acre $11,927 $11,927 $11,927 V
Total Transportation Service fees collected on new industrial development at phase buildout $o $1,710 $8,551 =
Total Transportation Service Revenues at phase buddout s0 $2,032,220 510,161,098
m
K
_
_
Q
r+
U)
O
a
a�
a
a1
d
c
O
m
d
s
CL
CO
V
�a
M
m
L
a.
R
V
s
..r
O
IA
.y
l0
G
a
a
E
�v
ii
:s
v
ea
Q
Page 29 of 37
Packet Pg. 190
2.A.g
Potential Annexation Fiscal Analysis
City ofCathedtal City
Government/PW Costs
to
Costs of General Government E
O
ram Existing Residential Development E2
and Use Designation:ALL Residential Bugdout Phase .a
Total No.Awes:947.04 ac Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build C
No.o PotentialBuildoutUnits:7,174du Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) M
U)
Number of acres develo ed at phase buildout 947.0- 947.0 947.0 947.0 O
Number ofdweHing units existing at hasebuildout 7,174 7174 7,174 7,174 O
Existing Population' 7,875 7,875 7,875 7,875
Cost of General Government r capita a $304 $304 $304 $304 ..
Total annual cost of General Government at base buildout S2,394,000 $2,394,000 $2,394,0001 $2 394 000 r.
t Ebb-W WP 1-e,o.uw by Oat-n-ia-e,s PoruI-and H-..P•nmm,err Grim.C......and W..mq lot t Sot.-sot o ern..awd,da. N
r Total City budget divided by total city population pg 35 of the Bienneal Budget r
From Future Residential Development N
C
Land Use Designation:ugh Density Residential(PM(]]-20 dulac),Cathedral Bugdout Phase O
City designation Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of
Total No.Acres:140.65 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build =
No.o Potential Bugdout Units:2,110 Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) O
Land Use Bugdout Data
U
Number of acres developed during Phase 0.0 14.1 56.3 70.3 C
Maximum density permitted units/acre 20 20 20 20 O
Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 0 211 944 1,055
Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 0 211 1,055 2110
x
Average number of persons per househoW 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 0)
Total no.ofpotmtial residents at phase buildout 0 656 3281 6561 =
C
Calculating Annual Costs of General Government Q
Cost of General Governmentcapita)' $304 $304 $304 $304 y
Total annual cost of General Government at phase buldout $0 $199,4641 $997,3211 $1 994 642 to
O
IL
Assumes future residential development ocaus at 75%ofthe maximum density permitted. L
a Estimated population provided by Department of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,Counties,and the state,2011-2018 with 2010 Census Bmehmark. 0)
3 Total City budget divided by total city population pg 35 of the Bienneal Budget _0
1r
From Future Residential Development D
Land Use Designation:Medium Density Residential(R (4.5-10 d"e), Buldoul Phase
M) U
Cathedral City designation Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of C
Total No.Aaes:128.66 Phase I(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Bind 0)
No.o Potential iluildout Units:965 Annexation) Develop( Developed) Oat) 3
and Use Bugdout Data
dauber of acres developed during phase 01 131 51 64
aximtlm density permitted units/acre 101 101 10 10 t-
Maximtsm potential units constructed during thisphase' 0 96 386 482 d
Number of total potential units constructed at phase buildout 0 96 482 965 `
Average number of persons per household 3,111 3.111 3.11 3.11 d
Total no.ofpotmtial residents at phase buildout 01 3001 1500 3001 t
Calculating Annual Costs of General Government Cl.
Cost of General Government(per c ita $304 $304 $304 $304 N
Total annual cost of General Government at phase buldout s0 $91,230 S456,1511 $912,302 r
'Assume future midmtial dwelopmmt ocerus at 75%of the maximum density permitted. U
t Estimated population provided by Department of Firu m E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,Counties,and the state,2011-2018 with 2010 Census Bmdunmk.
3 Total City budget divided by total city population pg 35 of the Bimneal Budget INS
From Future Residential Development
tv
Bugdout Phase t
Land Use Designation:Low Density Residential(RL)(2-4.5 dulac),Cathedral �+
City designation Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of I4
Total No.Acres:538.84 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build U
Na.o Potential Buildout Units:1,919 du Annexation) Developed) I Developed) Out) d
Land Use Bugdout Data
aw
Number of saes developed during phase 0.0 53.9 215.5 269.4
Maximum density permitted traits/acre 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 O
Maximum potential units constructed during thisphase' 0 182 727 909 N
Number of total Potential wits constructed at phase buildout 0 182 909 1819 N
Average number of persons per household 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 .2�
Total no.of potential residents at phme buildout 0 566 2828 5656 M
Calculating Annual Costs of General Government
Cost of General Government r c ita $304 $304 $304 $39 Q
Total annual cost of General Government at phase buildout 1 $0 $171,9361 $859,6821 $1,719,363 V
'Assurnes future residential development o at 75%of the maximum density permitted. M
t Estimated population provided by Department of Firtmu E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,Counties,and the state,2011-2018 with 2010 Census Bmdunark. C
3 Total City budget divided by total city population pg 35 ofthe Bimneal Budget
U
N
11
ti
C
O
L
t1
R
r
Y
a
Page 30 of 37
Packet Pg. 191
2.A.g
Potential Annexation Fiscal Analysis
City ofCathedml City
Govemment/PW Costs
to
From Future Residential Development E
Land Use Designation:Estate Residential(ER)(0-2 dglac),Cathedral Cily Buildout Phase (d
dmignadon Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of 1e
Total No.Apes:7SL39 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build a
No.o PotendalBralldoutUnits:1503du Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out)
Land Use Buildout Data N
Numberofaaesdevel eddurin hale 0.0 75.1 300.E 375.7 O
Maximum densityennilted wits/acre 21 2 2 2 O
Maximum potential units concocted during thisphase' 0 150 601 751
Number of total potential units constructed at Phase buildout 01 150 751 1503 ~
Av a number of rsonsper household 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11
Total no.of trnGal residents at phase buildout 01 467 2337 4674
CalculatingAnnual Costs of General Government
N
Cost of General Government Fpff'capita)
$304 $304 $304 $304 �_
Total annual cost of General Government at phase buildout $0 $142,079 $710.394 $1,420 788 U)
C
Assumes future residential development occurs at the maximum density permitted. 0
2 Estimated population provided by Department of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,Counties,and the state,2011-2018 with 2010 Coasts Bmdlmuk.
3 Total City budget divided by total city population pat 35 of the Bienneal Budget" 'a
O
From Future Residential Development V
Buildout Phase O
land Use Designation:Mixed Use-Urban(Residential Component) Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of 0
TolalNo.Acres:283.61 Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Bold t11
No.o PolendalBuffdoutS .Fc:10,848 du Annexation) Deveb ed Deveb ed) Out) d
Land Use Buildout Data
Number of acres develo ed duringphase 0.0 28.4 113.4 141.8
C Maximum density Permitted(units/acre) 45 45 45 45 Q
Maximum paten omits constructed during this phase, 0 1,085 4,339 5,424 r
ar
Number of total otential units constructed at phase buildout 0 1,085 5,424 10 848 y
Av a number of rsons per household 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 O
Tobl no.of tendal residents at phase buildout 0 3,374 16869 33738 0.Calculatin Annual Costs of General Government L
Cost of General Government capita $304 $304 $304 $304
C
Total annual cost of General Government at phase buldout $0 $1,025,621 $5 128,106 $10,256,211
Assumes future residential development occurs at 85%of the maximum density permitted. V
3 Estimated population provided by Department ofFina ce E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,Counties,and the state,2011-2018 with 2010 Census Benchmark. _
3 Total City budget divided by total city population pg 35 ofthe Biemeat Budget
H
Public Works Costs(Per Capita) O
From Exisiting Development d
Buldout Phase G1
t
Land Use Designation:ALL Residential Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of M
Total No.Acres:947.04 ac Phase I(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase4(Bu11d
No.o PotenLialBuildout Units:7,174 du Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) 'rat
Number of acres developed at phase buildout +'
947.0 947.0 947.0 947.0
Number ofilwelling units existing at Phasebuldout 7,174 7,174 7,174 7,174 V
Fxistin Po ulationt 7,875 7,875 7,875 7,875.
tD
L
Cost of Public Works(percapita)' $53.19 $53.19 $53.19 $53.19
Total annual cost of Public Works at phase buildout I $418,871 $4l8 871 $418,8711 $418,871 d
t
1 Lli"wud popvlsiioe I--b,mepmmmt afFumee E-5 Popuuaon and Hvuru is
g Futinwtm br Citin,Couenr,and ue run,30111018 with 3010 Ceram,aeeubma (4
3 Total Public Works budget divided by total city population pg 97 ofthe Bietical Budget V
From Future Development O
BuldoutPhase
fn
Land Use Designation:ALL Residential Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of ey
Total No.Acres:1843.15 Phase I(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build >%
No.o Potential Buildout Units:17144du Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) (tl
Calculation of Total Population C
Number of acres developed during hase 0.001 184.321 73716 92158 Q
as
Number of Potential units constructed duringOrin phase 0 1724 6898 8622 („1
Number of potential units at phase buldout 0 1724 8622 17244 M
Calculation of Annual Public Works Cost CL
Ave ono. ons erhousehold 3.11 3.11 3.1 1
3.11 E
Potenti u on az ass w out 0 5,3631 26,8 3,
Cost of Public Works er ire 2 $53.19 $53.19 $53.19 $53.19 Al
ran u c Wor cost cat tta at phase badout MAI Estimated population provided by Department of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,Counties,and the state,2011-2018 with 2010 Census Benchmark. ly
3 Total Public Works budget divided by total city population pg 97 of the Biennial Budget
i.+
v
to
r
.r
Q
Page 31 of 37
Packet Pg. 192
2.A.g
Potential Annexation Fiscal Analysis
City of Cathedral City
Goventment/PW Costs
tco
PubBc Works Cos b er Ca ita C
Buildout Phase tD
a
Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of
Phase I(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build C
Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) y
Total Annual Public Works costs from Existing Residential Development $418 871 $418 871 $418 871 $418 871 3
Total Annual Public Works costs from Future Residential Develo meet $0 $285,252 $1,426,259 $2,852,519 t
Total Annual Public Works costs from a8 residential development $418 871 $704,1231 $1,845,1301 $3 271 89
N
N
Costs of General Government C
Buildout Phase C
is
F3
Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of C
Phase I(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build V
Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out)
Residential development =
O
Total Annual Cost from misting Residential development at phase buildout $2,394,000 $2,394,000 $2,394,000 $2,394,000 ',
Total Annual Cost from future High Density Residential Development at phase M
X
buildout $0 $199,464 $997,321 $1,994,642 0)
Total Annual Cost from future Medium Density Residential Development at phase $0 $91,230 $456,151 $912,302 C
Total Annual Cost from future Low Density Residential Development at phase O
buildout $0 $171,936 $859,682 $1,719363 Qi
y
Total Annual Cost from future Estate Residential Development at phase buildout $0 $142,079 $710,394 $1,420 788 N
Total Annual Cost from future Mixed Use-Urban Residential Develo ment at $0 $1025 621 $5 128 106 $10 256 211 O
Total Annual Govt.Costs at Phase Buildout $2,394,0001 $4,024,3311 $10,545,6531 $18,697 07 d
W
C
d
U
C
O
7
v=
C
w
O
0)
d
t
Q.
f,n
a.+
U
s_
d
t
M
U
a>
s
O
N
.N
R
c
Q
Y
(.1
M
M
E
�o
N
LL
a+
C
d
t
V
R
rr
r..
Q
Page 32 of 37
Packet Pg. 193
2.A.g
Potential Annexation Fiscal Analysis
City of Cathedral City
Police Protection Costs
Costs of Police Protection E
M
IL
From Exisiting Development to
Buildout Phase O
t
F-
Land Use Designation:ALL Residential Phase 2(10% of Phase 3(50% of
Total No.Acres:947.04 ac Phase 1 (At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build IV
04
No.of Potential Buildout Units:7,174 du Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out)
Number of acres developed at phase buildout 947.0 947.0 947.0 947.0 to
Number of dwelling units existing at phase buildout 7,174 7,174 7,174 7,174 0
Existing Population 1 7,875 7,875 7,875 7,875 a
Cost of Police Protection(per capita)2 $319.84 $319.84 $319.84 $319.84 0
Total annual cost of Police Protection at phase buildout $2,518,732 $2,518,732 $2,518,732 01518,732 a
c
0
Estimated population provided by Department of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,Counties,and the state,2011-2018 with 2010 Census
Benchmark.
z Total Police budget divided by total city population;pgs 102; 105; 107; of the Bienneal Budget
_
a
VJ
O
From Future Development a
Buildout Phase d
Land Use Designation:ALL Residential =
g Phase 2(10% of Phase 3(50% of �
Total No.Acres:1843.15 Phase 1 (At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build
v
No.of Potential Buildout Units:17244du Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) _
Calculation of Total Population
Number of acres developed during phase 10.00 184.32 737.26 921.5: c
Number of potential units constructed during this phase 01 1724 6898 8622 0
Number of potential units at phase buildout 0 1724 8622 17244 L.
Calculation of Annual Police Protection Cost s
CL
Average no.persons per household 3.11 3.11 3.11 3.11 N
Potential population at phase buildout 0 5,363 26,814 53,629 `
Cost of Police Protection(per capita)2 $319.84 $319.84 $319.84 $319.84 V
Annual Police Protection cost per capita at phase buildout $0 $1,715,259 $8,576,297 $17,152,595 L
a
1 Estimated population provided by Department of Finance E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,Counties, and the state,2011-2018 with 2010 Census d
L
Benchmark. +,
to
2 Total Police budget divided by total city population;pgs 102; 105; 107; of the Bienncal Budget (�
d
s
O
Police Protection Costs y.y
Buildout Phase �+
70
Phase 2(10% of Phase 3(50% of =
a
Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build
Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) a
Total Annual Police Protection costs from Existing Residential E
Development $2,518,732 $2,518,732 $2,518,732 $2,518,732 M
V
Total Annual Police Protection costs from Future Residential H
LL
Development $0 $1,715,259 $8,576,297 $17,152,595
r;
Total Annual Police Protection costs from all residential
development $2,518,732 $4,233,992 $11,095,029 $19,671, 227 u
J
L
Q
Page 33 of 37
Packet Pg. 194
Potential Anamation Fis Z.M.g
City of Ceth
Fire Ambulance Casts
Costs of Fire Protection
H
Buildout Phase E
Phase 2 Phase 3 cc
(10%of (50%of IL
Vacant Vacant
Phase I(At Land Land Phase =
Annexation) Developed) Develo Is
ed) (Build Out)
rn
7
Annual Costs of Opetating Fire Stations $3,902,732 $3,902,7321 $7,684,634 $7,684,634 0
s
H
Start-up vests for first Fire Station A one-time cost $9,544,870 $0 $0 $0
N
Start-up costs for second Fire Station B(one-time cost) $0 $0 $14,584,870 $0 v
Total Annual Costs of Fire Service at Phase Buddout $3,902,732 $3,902,732 $7,684,634 $7,694,634 (A
C
'Estimated populaion pmvided by Department ofFinsom E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities,Counties,and the star,2011-2018 with 0
2010 Census Benchmadc.
'Total dty population divided by Fire budget pg I I I j 13;121 of the Bienneal Budget 'a
_
0
V
_
0
lC
X
d
_
_
Q
0
IL
d
v
to
m
c
0
m
m
s
a
CO
U
R
d
t
to
V
d
t
r
0
N
.N
Te
_
Q
t�
tD
Q.
E
t�
H
LL
ti
_
tv
E
t
V
tC
Q
Packet Pg. 195
2.A.g
Potential Annexation Fiscal Analysis
City of Cathedral City
Roadway Maint.Costs
H
Costs of Roadway Maintenance E
M
a
Buildout Phase V
Phase 2(10%of Phase 3(50%of N
Phase 1(At Vacant Land Vacant Land Phase 4(Build
Annexation) Developed) Developed) Out) N
Existing Roadway Data
No.of existing public paved road miles 34.391 34.391 34.391 34.39
N
Future Roadway Projections r'
No.of future public paved road miles 0.001 8.531 34.101 42.63 H
Factor of public paved road miles per city acre 1 97.35 97.35 97.35 97.35
O
No.of future public paved road miles at phase buildout 0.00 8.53 42.63 85.25
Cost of Road Maintenance-Existing and Future Roads 0
O
Total public paved road miles 34.39 42.92 77.02 119.64 0
Annual Cost of Roadway Maintenance (per road mile)z $5,030.56 $5,030.56 $5,030.56 $5,030.56 O
Annual Costs of street maintenance&resurfacing for all roads $173,000.96 $215,886.48 $387,428.58 $601,856.20 K
O
Annual Cost of Roadway Maintenance at Phase Buildout 1 $173,0011 $215,8861 $387,429 1 $601,856 Q
(total city road miles,divided by total city acres)times SOI acres '
Vl
2 Based on the Cathedral City Adopted Budget for Fiscal Years 2017-18 and 2018-19 f1
total budget for Public Works Department divided by total road miles within city limits
L
Pg 97 d
'O
C
d
v
C
d
3
_C
O
L
d
s
to
V
ea
L
4)
t
V
d
Z
O
N
.N
C
Q
.r+
t�
tZ
E
l0
V
_N
U.
r+
C
y
Q
Page 35 of 37
Packet Pg. 196
2.A.g
Potential Annexation Fiscal Analysis
City of Cathedral City
Costs/Revenues Summary Table
to
Total Potential Costs/Revenues Summary Table E
M
IL
-a
c
Buildout Phase to
H
7
Phase 2(10%
of Vacant Phase 3(50% of
Phase 1(At Land Vacant Land
Annexation) Developed) Developed) Phase 4(Build Out) N
ANNUAL REVENUES
General Fund: c
Property Tax $6,439 $358,099 $1,764,740 $3,523,042
Property Tax in Lieu of MVF $75 $32,126 $160,331 $320,588
Property Transfer Tax $54,053 $212,584 $688,179 $846,710 O
Cannabis Cultivation Tax $0 $1,208,644 $7,554,026 $15,108,052 V
Local Sales Tax $1,407,769 $2,545,143 $7,094,640 $12,781,511 O
Utility Users Tax $416,824 $700,684 $1,836,123 $3,255,423 K
Franchise Fees $320,040 $537,988 $1,409,778 $2,499,516 c
Transient Occupancy Tax $474,737 $474,737 $990,756 $1,506,775 Q
Subtotal
r
Annual General Fund Revenue at Phase Buildoutl $2,679,9361 $6,070,0051 $21,498,5731 $39,841,616 as
O
Restricted Funds: d
Highway Users Gas Tax $315,000 $529,515 $1,387,577 $2,460,154 m
Measure A $4,065 $7,349 $20,486 $36,907
Subtotal
m
Annual Restr.Fund Revenue at Phase Buildout $319,065 $536,864 $1,408,063 $2,497,060 v
c
m
Total All Potential Revenues at Phase Buildout $2,999,001 $6,606,8691 $22,906,636 $42,338,677
nterest Earnings:
O
Historic Average Interest Rate on 90-Day Treasury Bills 2.43% 2.43% 2.43% 2.43% 4)
d
Anticipated Interest Earned on Revenues $72,876 $160,547 $556,631 $1,028,830 t
CL
Total Potential N
Annual Revenues at Phase Buildout $3,071,8761 $6,767,4161 $23,463,2671 $43,367,506
V
ANNUAL COSTS
General Fund: 'O
Costs of General Government $2,394,000 $4,024,331 $10,545,653 $18,697,307 r
Costs of Public Works $418,871 $704,123 $1,845,130 $3,271,389 M
V
Costs of Police Protection $2,518,732 $4,233,992 $11,095,029 $19,671,327 d
Costs of Fire Protection $3,902,732 $3,902,732 $7,684,634 $7,684,634 6
Costs of Roadway Maintenance $173,001 $215,886 $387,429 $601,856 0
Total Potential MA
$9,407,336 $13,081,064 $31,557,876 $49,926,513
Annual Costs at Phase Buildout >,
R
c
Potential Cashtlow at Phase Buildout -$6,335,460 -$6,313,648 -$8,094,609 -$6,559,006 Q
.r
v
CITYDEVELOPER IMPACT FEE REVENUES(One time only) M
Total Development Impact Fees $0 $7,690,659 $30,779,019 $38,535,214 E
Art in Public Places Fees $0 $2,228,674 $9,017,589 $11,657,842 v
Total Potential Developer Impact Fee H
Revenues at Phase Buildout $0 $9,919,332 $39,796,609 $50,193,056 LL
ti
c
d
E
s
c�
M
Q
Page 36 of 37
Packet Pg. 197
2.A.g
Potential Annexation Fiscal Analysis
City of Cathedral City
Costs/Revenues Summary Table
to
Total Potential Costs/Revenues Summary Table E
M
a
a
Buildout Phase
Phase 2(10% O
s
of Vacant Phase 3(50% of H
Phase 1(At Land Vacant Land
Annexation) Developed) Developed) Phase 4(Build Out) N
ANNUAL REVENUES
General Fund: rn
_
Property Tax $6,439 $358,099 $1,764,740 $3,523,042 O
Property Tax in Lieu of MVF $75 $32,126 $160,331 $320,588
Property Transfer Tax $54,053 $212,584 $688,179 $846,710 =
O
Cannabis Cultivation Tax $0 $0 $0 $0 V
Local Sales Tax $1,407,769 $2,545,143 $7,094,640 $12,781,511 =
O
Utility Users Tax $416,824 $700,684 $1,836,123 $3,255,423
Franchise Fees $320,040 $537,988 $1,409,778 $2,499,516 m
Transient Occupancy Tax $474,737 $474,737 $990,756 $1,506,775 =
_
Subtotal Q
Annual General Fund Revenue at Phase Buildoutl $2,679,9361 $4,861,3611 $13,944,5471 $24,733,564 H
Restricted Funds: 0
1
Highway Users Gas Tax $315,000 $529,515 $1,397,577 S2,460,154
Measure A $4,065 $7,349 $20,486 $36,907
Subtotal
Annual Restr.Fund Revenue at Phase Buildout $319,065 $536,864 $1,408,063 $2,497,060
d
Total All Potential Revenues at Phase Buildout $2,999,001 $5,398,2251 $15,352,610 $27,230,625
Interest Earnings: _
Historic Average Interest Rate on 90-Da Treas Bills O
g y 2.43% 2.43% 2.43% 2.43% L
Anticipated Interest Earned on Revenues $72,876 $131,177 $373,068 $661,704 d
t
Total Potential
Annual Revenues at Phase Buildoutl $3,071,8761 $5,529,4021 $15,725,6781 $27,892,329
V
ANNUAL COSTS
6.
General Fund: M
Costs of General Government $2,394,000 $4,024,331 $10,545,653 $18,697,307 d
Costs of Public Works $418,871 $704,123 $1,845,130 $3,271,389 V
Costs of Police Protection $2,518,732 $4,233,992 $11,095,029 $19,671,327
Costs of Fire Protection S3,902,732 $3,902,732 S7,684,634 $7,684,634
Costs of Roadway Maintenance $173,001 $215,886 $387,429 $601,856
Total Potential
$9,407,336 $13,081,064 $31,557,876 $49,926,513
Annual Costs at Phase Buildout y
Potential Cashflow at Phase Buildout -$65335,460 -$7,551,662 -$15,832,197 -$22,034,184 =
Q
v
CITYDEVELOPER IMPACT FEE REVENUES(One time only)
a
Total Development Impact Fees $0 $7,690,659 $30,779,019 $38,535,214 E
Art in Public Places Fees $0 $2,228,674 $9,017,589 $11,657,842
t�
Total Potential Developer Impact Fee
Revenues at Phase Buildout $0 $9,919,332 $39,796,609 $50,193,056 LL
r
_
v
J
Q
Page 37 of 37
Packet Pg. 198
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis y
E
R
IL
Appendix B c
U)
0
Fire Department Analysis of Capital Outlay and Personnel Costs for the Sphere of 0
Influence
N
H
_
O
a
_
0
_
0
ea
x
a�
c
Q
U)
0
IL
d
-o
c
as
c
m
w
0
m
d
L
Q
N
V
O
L
R
V
N
L
4-
0
Ag
.N
Te
C
Q
v
10
a
E
�v
H
ii
m
E
L
U
cc
V
Q
38
Packet Pg. 199
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis N
E
Fire Department Analysis of Capital Outlay and Personnel Costs a
for the Sphere of Influence
co
October 2, 2018 0
Fire Department
If the unincorporated area north of Interstate 10, from Rio Del Sol Rd. to the west and to one and
three-quarters of a mile west of Washington St. to the east, inside the City of Cathedral City
Spheres of Influence (including Thousand Palms, Tri-Palm Estates, Ivey Ranch, Xavier High 0
School, Pegasus Riding Academy, Classic Club and the commercial/residential properties north
of I-10) were annexed into the city limits of the City of Cathedral City, California, the delivery 0
of ambulance services, emergency medical services, emergency preparedness, fire prevention, c
and fire protection would require the following initial and future acquisitions of Cathedral City
Fire Department apparatus, equipment, facilities and personnel: a
c
c
If the unincorporated area north of Interstate 10, from Rio Del Sol Rd. to the west and to one and Q
three-quarters of a mile west of Washington St. to the east, inside the City of Cathedral City o
a
Spheres of Influence (including Thousand Palms, Tri-Palm Estates, Ivey Ranch, Xavier High
School, Pegasus Riding Academy, Classic Club and the commercial/residential properties north c
of I-10)were annexed into the city limits of the City of Cathedral City California, the delivery of
ambulance services, emergency medical services, emergency preparedness, fire prevention, and
fire protection would require the following initial and future acquisitions of Cathedral City Fire 0
Department apparatus, equipment, facilities and personnel:
0
Initial Apparatus
• One Type 1 Fire Engine= $650,500. a
• One Type 1 Modular Ambulance= $280,900.
• One Fire Prevention half-ton 4x4 pick-up= $47,300.
Apparatus SUBTOTAL$978,700.
d
Initial Equipment
• Ambulance Equip. Set-up/Medications= $7,500
• One Power Gurney w/Auto Load(Ambulance)= $41,000 w
• Engine Equip. Set-up/Medications=$7,500 y
• Two ePCR tablets @ $4,250 each(Engine, Ambulance)= $8,500 t,
• Two Cardiac Monitors/Defibrillators @ $33 K each (Engine and Ambulance) _$66,000 a
• One Auto Pulse Device (Engine)= $8,400
• One Stair Chair(Engine)=$3,250 0.
• One Extrication Set(Engine)= $25,000 E
• One Gas Detection Monitor(Engine)= $1,250 y
• One Thermal Imager(Engine)=$4,500 i_
• One S.C.B.A. Compressor/Fill Station=$75,000
• One Extractor for decontaminating turnouts=$12,000 v
• Seven Self-contained Breathing Apparatus (S.C.B.A.) @ $8,333 each = $58,333
5
r
r
Q
39
Packet Pg. 200
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis N
E
• Thirty-six sets of Personal Protective Equipment (Primary & Secondary) = $146,250 a
• Eighteen sets of Uniforms/Footwear= $23,150
• One Washer/Dryer set for decontaminating uniforms = $1,200
• Three iPads, Mounts, Covers & Cases for mapping @ 1,750 each (Engine, Ambulance
and Fire Inspector)= $5,250
• Communications Equipment - One VHF Radio Repeater/Programing, Seven Portable N
Radios, Four mobile radios, Three cell phones, Two Wi-Fi Devices= $83,747
• One Positive Pressure Fan (Engine)= $3,540. c
• Fire Hose,Nozzles and Adapters = $139,800.
Initial Equipment SUBTOTAL $721,170 c
c�
Initial Facility -Fire Station o
The Riverside County Fire Station#35 located at 31920 Robert Rd. Thousand Palms, CA. would x
be suitable as a Cathedral City fire station, to initially serve the entire annexed area. The existing c
facility would have to be purchased from the County of Riverside. a
H
0
Estimated cost $7.8 M a
Estimated fire station furnishings, fixtures and equipment (F.F.E.) $45,000 M
Initial Facility-Fire Station SUBTOTAL $7,845,000
m
Initial Fire Station - TOTAL F.D. Capital Outlay (Apparatus, Equip., Facility) Cost 3
$9,544,870 * w
c
w
Initial F.D. Personnel a0,
m
r
a
• Engine company: cn
Three Captains @ $225,990 each (Step 6 salary & .78 benefits) = Sub-total $677.970. '
Three Engineers @ $198,500 each (Step 6 salary & .83 benefits) = Sub-total $595,501.
Six F.F./Paramedics @ $158,009 each (Step 6 salary& .65 benefits) = Sub-total $948,053.
Engine Company Annual Personnel Cost $2,221,524.
�v
U
• Ambulance d
s
r
Six F.F./Paramedics @ $158,009 each (Step 6 salary& .65 benefits) = Sub-total $948,053. .-
Ambulance Annual Personnel Cost $948,053. N
V!
!O
• Fire Prevention
One Fire Inspector @ $112,325 (Step 6 salary & .69 benefits) Sub-total a
�
$112,325. a
One Admin. Assist. II @ $120,830 (Step 6 salary & .55 benefits) = Sub-total E
$120,830.
Fire Prevention Annual Personnel Cost $233,155. LL
• Operation & Maintenance
Annual expense of$500,000 for operations and maintenance, based on current annual expenses E
r
per fire station. �
a
40
Packet Pg. 201
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis ,a
E
�a
a
a
c
ce
Initial Fire Station-TOTAL Annual Recurring F.D.Personnel Cost$3,902,732
0
t
Future- Second Fire Station
In the future a second Cathedral City fire station would be required at the intersection of Cook N
Dr. and Varner Rd., as development of the annexed area occurs.
' N
_
The second Cathedral City fire station could be necessary within the first five years if the 0
announced Coachella Sports & Entertainment Stadium Authority complex, located on property
east of Cook St. and north of I-10 and labeled the NorthStar Specific Plan,was constructed.
0
Future Apparatus - Second Fire Station c
• One Aerial/Pumper Truck would need to be purchased=$975,500.
• One Type 1 Modular Ambulance=$280,900. a
• One Fire Prevention half-ton 4x4 pick-up= $37,300. c
Apparatus SUBTOTAL - Second Fire Station$1,293,700 a
a�
Future Equipment- Second Fire Station
• Ambulance Equip. Set-up/Medications= $7,500
• One Power Gurney w/Auto Load(Ambulance)= $41,000
• Engine Equip. Set-up/Medications=$7,500
• Two ePCR tablets @ $4,250 each(Truck, Ambulance)=$8,500 c
• Two Cardiac Monitors/Defibrillators @$33 K each(Truck and Ambulance)_$66,000 L
• One Auto Pulse Device (Truck)=$8,400 a
• One Stair Chair(Truck)= $3,250
• One Extrication Set(Truck)= $25,000
• One Gas Detection Monitor(Truck)= $1,250
• One Thermal Imager(Truck)=$4,500 s
• One S.C.B.A. Compressor/Fill Station=$75,000
• One Extractor for decontaminating turnouts=$12,000 d
• Seven Self-contained Breathing Apparatus (S.C.B.A.) @ $8,333 each=$58,333 y
• Thirty-six sets of Personal Protective Equipment(Primary& Secondary)=$146,250 y
• Eighteen sets of Uniforms/Footwear= $23,150
• One Washer/Dryer set for decontaminating uniforms=$1,200 Q
• Three iPads, Mounts, Covers & Cases for mapping @ 1,750 each(Truck, Ambulance and Y
Fire Inspector)=$5,250 f°
• Communications Equipment- Seven Portable Radios, Four mobile radios, Three cell E
phones, Two Wi-Fi Devices= $53,747
• One Positive Pressure Fan(Truck)= $3,540. ti
• Fire Hose,Nozzles and Adapters=$139,800. r
Future Equipment- Second Fire Station SUBTOTAL $691,170
U
J
Y
Y
Q
41
Packet Pg. 202
2.A.g
Terra Nova/City of Cathedral City
Sphere of Influence Fiscal Impact Analysis
Future Facility- Second Fire Station a
A second Cathedral City fire station would require the purchase of land, construction and c
furnishing of a new facility.
0
s
Estimated land cost(2 acres) $2.5 M
Estimated new fire station construction cost(10,000 sq. ft) $10 M
Estimated new fire station furnishings, fixtures and equipment(F.F.E.) cost$100 K
Future Facility-Fire Station SUBTOTAL$12,600,000
0
Second Fire Station-TOTAL F.D. Capital Outlay (Apparatus,Equip., Facility) Cost
$14,584,870 * 0
U
c
Future F.D. Personnel- Second Fire Station 20
x
d
• Aerial/Pumper company:
Three Captains @ $225,990 each(Step 6 salary& .78 benefits)= Sub-total $677.970. N
Three Engineers @ $198,500 each(Step 6 salary& .83 benefits)= Sub-total $595,501. a
Six F.F./Paramedics @ $158,009 each(Step 6 salary& .65 benefits)= Sub-total $948,053.
Engine Company Annual Personnel Cost$2,221,524. c
D
a�
• Ambulance
Six F.F./Paramedics @ $158,009 each(Step 6 salary& .65 benefits)= Sub-total $948,053.
Ambulance Annual Personnel Cost$948,053.
0
d
• Fire Prevention
One Fire Inspector @ $112,325 (Step 6 salary& .69 benefits) = Sub-total $112,325. �-
Cn
Fire Prevention Annual Personnel Cost$112,325. 76
U
• Operation & Maintenance
Annual expense of$500,000 for operations and maintenance,based on current annual expenses
per fire station.
U
m
Second Fire Station - TOTAL Annual Recurring F.D. Personnel Cost $3,781,902 * 4-
0
_0
(n
* Indexed to August 2018 Costs (Annual Operations and Maintenance Expenses not included) c
a
Prepared by Paul S. Wilson,Fire Chief a
E
_N
LL
C
d
E
t
V
f0
r-.
Q
42
Packet Pg. 203
2.B
411 Cathedral City
Staff Report
Cathedral City
Item No. 2.13
Meeting Date: November 14, 2018
From: Pat Milos, Community Development Director
Title: Discussion on Hedge Height Requirements
City Council
RECOMMENDATION:
This item is provided for information, discussion and direction only.
BACKGROUND:
Council Member Shelley Kaplan requested that an item be placed on the Study Session
Agenda to discuss whether the City Council would like to consider an Ordinance
regulating the heights of hedges
DISCUSSION:
Staff has provided several examples of related ordinances. If Council is interested in
establishing some type of regulations, an ordinance will need to be prepared and taken
to the Planning Commission prior to returning to a future Council agenda.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact with this item
ATTACHMENTS:
local examples of hedge hieght municipal codes
Cathedral City Page 1 of 1 Printed on 11/14/2018
Packet Pg. 204