Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLAFCO: SOI Bermuda Dunes File 3February 13, 2007 Mr. Steve Smith Acting Community Development Director City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RECEIVED FEB 16 2007 4MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CMY OF PALM DESERT SUBJECT: PALM DESERT SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ("SOI") Dear Mr. Smith: I would like to thank you for taking my call last week. I have enclosed the City Council staff report regarding the City's desire to annex approximately 12.42 acres of land. The subject property is located on the east side of Washington Street, just south of Hidden River Road. A portion of the property is developed with an affordable senior housing project and the adjacent property is vacant. The City initiated the annexation process on the premise that this area was not within the City of Palm Desert's SOL Subsequently, LAFCO staff advised the City that this property was, in fact, within Palm Desert's SOL Had we known this earlier the City would have contacted your offices prior to initiating annexation proceedings. LAFCO staff has suggested we meet with Palm Desert staff to discuss this proposal. After you have taken a look at the attached information, please call so we can schedule a meeting. Thank you again for your assistance. I look forward to meeting with you. Sincerely, Ae2c-r�� DOUGLAS R. EVANS Community Development Director DRE:bjs P.O. 11 15 0 -1 • I.n OIrIN I.\, CALIF0RN1 A 92247-1504 7 8 - 4 9 5 Cni.i.F. 1 vmi)<<;• L;v 0U1N FA, C-vi.0 Oiz�yi,v 92253 (760) 777-7000 -FA\ (7GO) 777-7101 COUNCIURDA MEETING DATE: November 21, 2006 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council Certifying a Negative Declaration for Environmental Assessment 2006-576, and Approving General Plan Amendment 2006-108, and Zone Change 2006-130 (Pre -Annexation Zoning) for the Property Located North of the Current City Limits, East of Washington Street. Applicant: City of La Quinta RECOMMENDATION: AGENDA CATEGORY: BUSINESS SESSION: CONSENT CALENDAR: STUDY SESSION: PUBLIC HEARING: L Adopt a Resolution of the City Council certifying a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2006-576; and Adopt a Resolution of the City Council approving General Plan Amendment 2006- 108; and Take up Ordinance Number , by title and number only and waive further reading. Introduce Ordinance No. on first reading establishing pre -annexation zoning for Assessor's Parcel Numbers 609-040-007 and 609-040-023, and a portion of Assessor's Parcel Number 609-040-005, as depicted in Exhibit A; and Adopt a Resolution of the City Council requesting that Riverside County Local Agency formation take proceedings for the annexation of 12.42 acres, and concurrent Amendment of the City's Sphere of Influence; and Direct the City Manager to sign the Plan of Services. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: The action will have no fiscal implications. The purchase of the property by the Redevelopment Agency will result in an expenditure of $8,800,000. In addition, there will be a cost of $9,000 for filing fees to the Local Agency Formation Commission. CHARTER CITY IMPLICATIONS: None. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW: The Redevelopment Agency has entered into agreements to purchase three parcels of land (Attachment 1) located north of the City's current Sphere of Influence to meet its Five Year Implementation Plan requirements for the provision of affordable housing. The parcels in question are (Attachment 2): 1. Assessor's Parcel No. 609-040-007 and 609-040-023 totaling 4.79 acres. 2. Assessor's Parcel No. 609-040-005 is 15 acres, of which the Agency would purchase the westerly 6.83 acres. The first two parcels consist of a total of 73 units, as well as ancillary facilities. All the units are occupied. The project is restricted to low-income senior and disabled residents. The third parcel is vacant. The next step in the acquisition process is to process a Sphere of Influence Amendment and Annexation request through the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The pre -zoning of the properties is a requirement of these requests. The existing County General Plan designation for the properties is Medium- Density Residential (2-5 units per acre), and the County Zoning designation is R-3-2000 for the existing apartments, and R-1-12,000 for the vacant parcel. Under the County General Plan, the existing apartment project is a legal non -conforming use. The County General Plan would allow up to 38 single-family homes on the vacant parcel. Surrounding Land Uses The annexation area is bordered by multi -family residential land uses on the north, vacant lands on the east, multi -family residential under construction on the south, and single-family residential and institutional uses on the west, across Washington Street. Land Use Compatibility The annexation area is located on the heavily traveled Washington Street corridor. The existing apartments are within walking distance of shopping and social activities, as well as public transit. Apartments are located immediately north and a new apartment project is under construction south of the site. Low -Density designations in the County occur for vacant and developed lands to the east of the annexation area. High -Density Residential designated lands at this location allow for the development of additional multi -family units on Washington Street, in an area which is impacted by traffic and noise. The sitting of apartment structures can provide an effective buffer from these impacts, by creating a physical barrier with structures which are oriented to the interior of the site. High -Density Residential at this location also provides for transition and buffering to the lands planned for single-family residential units to the east. 2 General Plan Consistency The proposed annexation, and associated pre -annexation General Plan and Zoning designations, are consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies: Land Use Element, General Land Use Goals and Policies Policy 8: The City shall carefully consider Sphere of Influence and subsequent annexations to accommodate growth. Land Use Element, Residential Land Use Goals and Policies GOAL 2: A broad range of housing types and choices for all residents of the City. Policy 2: Encourage compatible development adjacent to existing neighborhoods and infrastructure. Policy 6: The City will use development incentives to achieve a mix of housing, including affordable housing. Program 6.1: The City shall monitor the progress made to achieve its Housing Element mandated goals for the provision of housing, and shall consider amendments to the General Plan when necessary to help achieve those goals. Housing Element — Section 11.0 Adequate Housing Resources Goals, Policies and Programs: GOAL 1: Provision of a diversity of housing opportunities to satisfy the physical, social and economic needs of existing and future residents of La Quinta. GOAL 2: Maintain a sufficient inventory of developable land at varying densities to accommodate the existing and project needed housing supplies. Program 1.4: Direct new housing development to viable areas where essential public facilities can be provided and employment opportunities, educational facilities and commercial support are available. Policy 2: Develop and implement regulatory actions that will advance the production of units affordable to low- and moderate- income households. Other Actions In addition to the actions described above, the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) requires the submittal of a Resolution of the Council asking it to proceed with the annexation and sphere of amendment request. Such a Resolution, in a format acceptable to LAFCO, is attached for the City Council's consideration. Please note that the acreage shown in this resolution is slightly more (0.80 acre) than in the General Plan and Zoning actions, because the annexation area includes the area to the centerline of Washington Street, whereas the General Plan and Zoning designations apply only to the three parcels, and do not include Washington Street. 3 Finally, the annexation process requires the completion of a Plan of Services, which illustrates how the City will serve the property with such services as police and fire, water and sewer, educational facilities, etc. A Plan of Services has been prepared, and is attached for the City Council's consideration. If acceptable to the City Council, the Plan of Services must be signed by the City Manager prior to its submittal to LAFCO. Public Comments at the Planning Commission Hearing Two persons spoke to the annexation request at the Planning Commission hearing. Mr. Robert Farrow, member of the Bermuda Dunes Community Council, stated that the Council opposes the annexation because it keeps taking small pieces of the Bermuda Dunes community away, as has been done in the past, shrinking what was once a much larger area to a smaller and smaller one. Mr. John Brohas, who owns the property to the east of the proposed annexation area, stated that although he did not oppose the annexation, he did oppose the high -density Residential designation, because theirs is a low -density area, and they would like to develop their property into large estate lots. FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES: Findings necessary to approve the Environmental Assessment, General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone are included in the attached resolutions and ordinance. The alternatives available to the City Council include: 1. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council certifying a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2006-576; and Adopt a Resolution of the City Council approving General Plan Amendment 2006-108; and Take up Ordinance Number , by title and number only and waive further reading. Introduce Ordinance No. on first reading establishing pre -annexation zoning for Assessor's Parcel Numbers 609-040-007 and 609-040-023, and a portion of Assessor's Parcel Number 609-040-005, as depicted in Exhibit A; and Adopt a Resolution of the City Council requesting that the Riverside County Local Agency formation take proceedings for the annexation of 11.62 acres, and concurrent amendment of the City's Sphere of Influence; and Direct the City Manager to sign the Plan of Services; or 2. Do not approve the Resolutions and do no introduce the Ordinance; or I 4 3. Provide staff with alternative direction. Respectfully submitted, D uglas Evans Community Development Director Approved for submission by: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager Attachments: 1. Aerial photo 2. Assessor's Map 5 RESOLUTION NO. 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PREPARED FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2006-108 AND ZONE CHANGE 2006-130, ANNEXATION #18 CASE NO.: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 2006-576 APPLICANT: CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta did on the 21 s` day of November, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of the City of La Quinta for approval of Environmental Assessment 2006-576 for General Plan Amendment 2006-108, Zone Change 2006-130 and Annexation #18, referred to as the "Project" for the annexation of 11.62 acres of land located at the southeast corner of Hidden River Road and Washington Street, and more particularly described as: A.P.N: 609-040-005, 609-040-007, 609-040-023 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta did on the 17`h day of October, 2006, hold a duly noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution 2005-037 recommending certification of Environmental Assessment 2006-576; and, WHEREAS, the City has prepared the Initial Study and Negative Declaration in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et. seq., (CEQA Guidelines); and WHEREAS, the City mailed a Notice of Intent to adopt the Negative Declaration in compliance with Pubic Resources Code Section 21092 on the 1 1 `h day of October, 2006 to the Riverside County Clerk; and WHEREAS, the City published a Public Hearing Notice to adopt the Negative Declaration and associated Initial Study in the Desert Sun newspaper on 101h day of November, 2006, such notice was also mailed to all landowners within 500 feet of the Project Site, and all public entities entitled to such notice; and WHEREAS, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did make the following findings to certify said Environmental Assessment: 1. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared and processed in compliance with the State CEQA Guidelines and the City's implementation procedures. The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and considered the information City Council Resolution No. 2006- Environmental Assessment 2006-576 — Annexation 18 City of La Quinta Adopted: November 21, 2006 information contained in the Negative Declaration, and finds that it adequately describes and addresses the environmental effects of the Project, and based upon the Initial Study, the comments received thereon, and the entire record of proceeding for this Project, that there will not be a significant environmental effect resulting from this project. 2. The Project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of the community, either indirectly, or directly, in that no significant impacts were identified by Environmental Assessment 2006-576. 3. The Project will not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number, or restrict the range of, rare or endangered plants or animals or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history, or prehistory. 4. There is no evidence before the City that the Project will have the potential for an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat on which the wildlife depends. 5. The Project does not have the potential to achieve short-term environmental goals, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals, as no significant effects on environmental factors have been identified by the Environmental Assessment. 6. The Project will not result in impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable when considering planned or proposed development in the immediate vicinity, as development patterns in the area will not be significantly affected by the Project. 7. The Project will not have environmental effects that will adversely affect the human population, either directly or indirectly, as no significant unmitigated impacts have been identified which would affect human health, risk potential or public services. 8. The City Council has fully considered the proposed Negative Declaration and the comments, if any, received thereon. 9. The Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. City Council Resolution No. 2006- Environmental Assessment 2006-576 — Annexation 18 City of La Quinta Adopted: November 21, 2006 10. The location of the documents which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council decision is based upon is in the La Quinta City Hall, Community Development Department, 78-495 Calle Tampico, La Quinta, California 92253. 11. Based upon the Initial Study and the entire record of proceedings, the Project has no potential for adverse effects on wildlife as that term is defined in Fish and Game Code § 711.2. 12. The City Council has on the basis of substantial evidence, rebutted the presumption of adverse effect set forth in 14 California Code of Regulations 753.5(d). NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct, and constitute the findings of the City Council for this Environmental Assessment. 2. That it does hereby certify a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for Environmental Assessment 2006-576 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and as stated in the Environmental Assessment Checklist and Addendum, on file in the Community Development Department and attached hereto. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council held on this 21"day of November, 2006, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DON ADOLPH, Mayor City of La Quinta California City Council Resolution No. 2006- Environmental Assessment 2006-576 — Annexation 18 City of La Quinta Adopted: November 21, 2006 ATTEST: VERONICA J. MONTECINO, CMC, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California (City Seal) APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California Environmental Checklist Form 2 In Project title: General Plan Amendment #2006-108, Change of Zone 2006-130, and Annexation #18 into the City of La Quinta. A General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone to establish pre -annexation designations for 11.3 acres for lands to be added to the City's sphere of influence and corporate boundaries. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 Contact person and phone number: Doug Evans 760-777-7125 Project location: East side of Washington Street, south of Hidden River Road. Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 609-040-005 and -007 5. Project sponsor's name and address:: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 6. General plan designation: 7. Zoning: County: Medium Density Residential (2-5 du/ac) Proposed: High Density Residential (up to 16 units/acre) County: R-3-2,000 and R-1-12,000 Proposed: High Density Residential (up to 16 units/acre) 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone are required as part of a Sphere of Influence amendment and Annexation request to the Local Agency Formation Commission. The pre -annexation designation being sought is High Density Residential, allowing up to 16 units per acre. The City of La Quinta proposes the amendment of its sphere of influence, and concurrent annexation of two parcels of land currently located in unincorporated Riverside County. The northerly parcel, consisting of 3.79 acres, is fully developed with 72 existing apartments. The vacant land, 7.5 acres in size, is currently vacant. The vacant property could be developed with up to 120 additional multi -family residential units. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Hidden River Road, multi -family residential development South: Under construction, High Density Residential West: Washington Street, single family residential development East: Vacant desert lands -1- 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Systems Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been -made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the propos4project, nothing further is required. Signature -3- EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on -site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. into the checklist references to information sources 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance -4- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? (General Plan Exhibit 3.6) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, X including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph) c) Substantially degrade the existing visua X character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) d) Create a new source of substantial light X or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) I. a)-d) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on aesthetics. The eventual development of 120 multi -family residences on the southerly 7.5 acres will result in the construction of buildings which are likely to be 2 or 3 stories in height. This is consistent with the City's Zoning Ordinance standards for the High Density Residential designation. The site is located on a major arterial roadway, and development of 2 or 3 story buildings will be similar in nature to development in the area. Views in this area are primarily to the southwest. Properties to the east, developed as single family residential, will not be significantly impacted by development to the west, insofar as their viewsheds to the southwest will continue. In addition, the City's Zoning standards require additional setbacks, depending on building height, in the High Density Residential zone. Development standards and site plan review procedures will be required by the City when development occurs on the site. These processes will assure that potential impacts associated with the design of the project relating to aesthetics are reduced to a less than significant level. There are no rock outcroppings, significant trees or historic structures on the site. The eventual development of up to 120 multi -family residential units on the property will increase light on the site, which is currently vacant. The primary sources of light associated with this development will be landscaping and building lighting, and lighting associated parking and with vehicle traffic. The northerly 3.79 acres is currently developed, and impacts associated with light will not change from current conditions. The vacant land is located on a major arterial, which already is impacted by light sources, primarily vehicles. The City will enforce lighting standards contained in its Zoning Ordinance, which prohibit the spillage of lighting to adjacent properties. These standards will assure that impacts will assure that impacts associated with lighting will be kept at less than significant levels. -6- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would the r ject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff) X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map) II. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on agricultural resources. The northerly parcel is currently fully developed, and no change will occur on this parcel. The vacant lands is currently vacant desert lands, and no agricultural activity occurs on the parcel. The parcels are both designated and zoned for urban residential development on the County General Plan and Zoning maps. The City also proposes urban residential designations. The land is not appropriate for agricultural activities, given its location on a major arterial, with urban development surrounding it. There are no Williamson Act contracts on either property. Commercial nurseries are located several hundred feet to the east of the proposed annexation area. The annexation of the subject parcels will have no impact on these nurseries. No impacts associated with agricultural resources will result from the proposed project. -7- • Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable X net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo, site inspection) III. a)-e) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on air quality. The northerly 3.79 acre parcel is fully developed, and air emissions from this property will not change. The eventual development of the 7.5 acres will generate emissions during construction and operation of the up to 120 residential units which could occur on the site. Both parcels have been considered for development in the County General Plan. The County General Plan was part of the basis for the preparation of South Coast Air Quality Management District plans for the Coachella Valley. As a result, ultimate development of the vacant lands is expected to be consistent with the District's plans for the Coachella Valley. During construction, the vacant land has the potential to generate fugitive dust caused by grading activities. The Coachella Valley is a non -attainment area for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or less). Fugitive dust can be a source of PM10. Table 1, below, illustrates the potential dust generation from the vacant land, should it be mass graded. -8- Table 1 Fugitive Dust Potential (Dounds Der dav) Total Acres to be Factor Total Potential Dust Disturbed at Buildout* (lbs./day/acre) Generation (lbs./day) 7.5 26.4 198.0 Source: Table A9-9, "CEQA Air Quality Handbook," prepared by South Coast Air Quality Management District, April 1993 As demonstrated in the Table, fugitive dust will exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance, without mitigation. However, the City requires the preparation of PM10 Management Plans for all construction projects. These plans include best management practices required by the 2003 Coachella Valley PM10 Management Plan to reduce dust generation on construction sites. The Management Plan for the vacant lands will assure that impacts associated with grading of the site will result in less than significant impacts to air quality. The construction of up to 120 multi -family residential units has the potential to generate up to 791 trips per day'. These trips will impact regional air quality through exhaust emissions. The total emissions anticipated as a result of these trips are illustrated in Table 2, below. Table 2 Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Buildout (nounds Der dav) Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Ave. Trip Total Length (miles) miles/day 791 x 15 = 11,865 Pollutant CO NOX ROG SOX PM 10 Pounds 152.1 16.1 16.4 0.1 1.4 SCAQMD Thresholds of Significance 550 55 55 150 150 URBEBMIS Version 2.2 Scenario Year 2007 -- Model Years 1965 to 2007 Pollutant - Vehicle CO NOX ROG SOX PM 10 0.01282C 0.001361 0.001383 0.0000OS 0.000115 As shown in the Table, operation of the 120 units will not exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Impacts are therefore expected to be less than significant. 1 "Trip Generation, 7'' Edition," prepared by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, for category 221, Low -Rise Apartments. r. .r -9- 0 . I The annexation will not generate objectionable odors, and will not expose sensitive receptors to concentrations of pollutants. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either X directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan MEA p. 72 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on an X riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan MEA p. 72 ff.) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan MEA p. 72 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan MEA p. 72 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA p. 72 ff.) fj Conflict with the provisions of an X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, re 'onal, or state -11- habitat conservation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 72 ff.) IV. a)-f) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on biological resources. Future development on the site will be reviewed by the City under the provisions of CEQA. As the vacant land is not developed, this will include consideration of biological resources. However, the vacant land is not located near an area designated for special status species habitat, and is sparsely vegetated. It is likely that the parcel does not harbor sensitive species. The proposed project site is located within the mitigation fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard, and shall be required to pay the mitigation fee in place at the time development occurs, if that Plan is still in effect. If the City has adopted the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, that fee will apply. �x. -12- Potentially Significant Less Than Significant w/ Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of a historical resource as defined in'15064.5? ("A Phase I Archaeological Survey Report...," L&L Environmental, December 2003) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? ("A Phase I Archaeological Survey Report...," L&L Environmental, December 2003) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (MEA Exhibit 5.9) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ("A Phase I Archaeological Survey Report...," L&L Environmental, December 2003) V. a)-d) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on cultural resources. No further development will occur on the northerly parcel. On the vacant land, the City will conduct review under CEQA when development is proposed. This will include review of the project site by the Historic Preservation Committee, which has jurisdiction over recommendations on archaeological and historic resources. This requirement of the City will assure that potential impacts associated with archaeological and historic resources are less than significant. Both parcels are outside the historic lake bed of Lake Cahuilla, and no paleontologic resources are expected to occur on the site. Neither parcel is known to have been a burial ground or cemetery. California law requires that any remains unearthed during grading be reported to law enforcement authorities, who follow a strict protocol for their recovery. These requirements of law will assure that impacts to human remains are less than significant. Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as X delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of known fault? (MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (MEA X Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (MEA Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (MEA Exhibit 6.4) X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the X loss of topsoil? (MEA Exhibit 6.5) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined X in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Building Code) e) Have soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan EIR) VI. a)-e) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on geologic resources. Both parcels will be subject to significant ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. The northerly parcel is developed, and no further impacts are expected from that development. The vacant land could eventually see the development of up to 120 multi- family residential units. These units will be required to submit building plans prior to construction. The City reviews building plans using the latest provisions of the Uniform Building Code for seismically active areas. The plans will be required to conform to these standards, thereby reducing impacts to less than significant levels. Neither site is subject to liquefaction, due to the depth to groundwater. The area is flat, and no landslide potential occurs. Development on the vacant land will be required to comply with City standards to prevent erosion during construction. Soils in the City are not expansive. The vacant land, when developed, will be required to connect to sanitary sewer service provided by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). Overall impacts associated with soils and geology are expected to be insignificant. -15- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would theproject: a) Create a significant hazard to the public X or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the public X or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Applicatio materials) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application materials) d) Be located on a site which is included X on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Riverside County Hazardou Materials Listing) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has no been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) 0 For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically X interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) -16- > t'c by Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VII. a)-h) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact from hazards and hazardous materials. Any residential project proposed on the vacant land will be added to the City's waste franchisee's, Waste Management of the Desert, service area. Waste Management is responsible for the appropriate disposal of the small amounts of household hazardous waste generated in residential projects. Overall impacts are expected to be insignificant. The two parcels are not located in an area subject to wildland fires. -1 /- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER UALITY -- Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plar EIR p. III-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume o a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (General Plan EIR p.11I-187 ff c) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water which X would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff f) Place housing within a 100-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate -18- Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-87 ff.) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) VIII. a) & b) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on hydrology or water resources. The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) currently provides water to the northerly parcel. When development occurs on the vacant land, domestic water will supplied by CVWD also. CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service area. CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The City will require compliance with NPDES standards, requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters, and that storm flows be controlled within a project site. These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant. VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. When development occurs on the vacant land, the City Engineer will review and approve the drainage analysis for the project proposed prior to the issuance of any permits. These City standards will assure that impacts of build out of the land associated with hydrology will be less than significant. VIII. e)-g) Neither parcel is located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. -19- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X community? (Aerial photo) ' b) Conflict with any applicable land use X plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Land Use Element) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 74 ff.) IX. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on land use and planning. The County General Plan currently designates the parcels Medium Density Residential. As such, the existing apartment building is non -conforming. The balance of the property is vacant, and under the County General Plan, could develop into up to 38 residential units. The City proposes High Density Residential on all annexed properties, which will make the existing apartments on the northern parcel conforming with the General Plan, and will allow up to 120 residential units on the vacant lands. City General Plan designations immediately to the south of the proposed annexation area include High Density Residential, Commercial Office and Community Commercial. The proposed pre - annexation zoning will therefore be consistent with City designations in this area. Lands to the east, which will remain in the County, are generally designated for lower density residential development. The City's zoning development standards, including requirements for additional setbacks for multiple story buildings, will provide a buffer to these land uses. Impacts associated with land use compatibility are expected to b insignificant. Development on both sides of Washington Street in this area is a mix of single family residential, multi -family residential and institutional uses. Immediately to the south of the annexation area, apartments are currently under construction within the City limits. The development of additional multi -family dwellings on the vacant land, therefore, is consistent with both the City's proposed designation, and the character of the area in which the land is located. No impacts are expected. -20- The ultimate development of the vacant lands will not displace an existing community. No change is anticipated to the northerly parcel, which will continue to be an apartment project. Future development will be required to comply with habitat conservation planning adopted at the time that development occurs. -21- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would th project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a X known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff. ) b) Result in the loss of availability of a X locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) X. a) & b) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on mineral resources. Both parcels are within the MRZ-1 Zone, and are therefore not considered to have potential for mineral resources. -22- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of X noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards o other agencies? (General Plan EIR p. III-144 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of X excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan EIR p. III-144 ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan EIR p. III-144 ff.) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan EIR p. III- 144 ff.) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has no been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Pla land use map) XI. a)-0 The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on noise. The eventual development of the vacant land will be reviewed under CEQA at the time that development is proposed. The City will review potential noise impacts, and consider noise mitigation as necessary. Further, the Uniform Building Code requires the submittal of noise analyses for interior and exterior noise levels with the submittal of building plans. The site is not located in the vicinity of an air strip or airport. Existing City standards and ! -23- standards and requirements, therefore, will assure that impacts associated with noise will be less than significant. -24- No-1 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in X an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of X existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, X necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) XII. a)-c) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on population and housing. Development of the vacant land could generate up to 312 persons, based on the City's current household size. This does not represent a substantial increase in population, and would be absorbed as part of the City's normal growth patterns. The vacant land is currently vacant, and an existing apartment project occurs on the northerly parcel. The vacant land will eventually be developed for multi -family housing, having no impact on population, and a positive impact on housing. There is no anticipated change for the northerly parcel, which will continue to provide housing for senior citizens as it currently does. No impacts are expected. .J -25- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, p X 46 ff.) XIII. a) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on public services. The area is already served by Riverside County Sheriff and Fire Departments, on contract to the City. Under current conditions, impacts to public safety would remain the same. Upon build out of the vacant lands, impacts on public safety services will increase somewhat, however, the City will collect development impact fees to provide for additional facilities for police and fire, to offset the costs associated with these services, and the property tax and sales tax generated by the homes and their residents would also serve to offset these costs. Future development on the vacant land may be required to pay a public facilities fee, if such a fee is adopted by the City at that time. The vacant lands will, when developed, pay the mandated school fees to offset the impacts to schools. The City imposes both Quimby fees and development impact fees to offset the cost of purchase and maintenance of parks, respectively. These fees will be required for the development of the vacant lands, and will offset the costs associated with the provision of parks in the area. Overall impacts associated with public services are expected to be less than significant. -26- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application materials) b) Does the project include recreational X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which I I might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials) XIV. a) & b) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on recreational facilities. As stated under Public Services, above, the City will impos Quimby and development impact fees to offset the need for additional recreational facilities caused by the development of the vacant lands. Impacts are expected to be insignificant. -27- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns X including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Tentative Trac Map 31087) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X (Tentative Tract Map 31087) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Tentative Tract Map 31087) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, o X programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description) _ XV. a)-g) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on traffic and circulation. The General Plan EIR analyzed regional traffic not only within the City's limits, but also in surrounding jurisdictions which affect City streets. This analysis found that the area surrounding the proposed project will operate at acceptable levels of service at build out of the General Plan. Although the proposed density under the City's proposed designation -28- would result in a small increase in the number of trips generated, this increase is expected to be fractional. Further, the City will review the development proposal for the vacant lands under CEQA when it is submitted, and will study traffic impacts further at that time. The site is located adjacent to Washington Street, on which SunLine currently provides public transit. No impact is expected. -29- Potentially Less Than Less Than no Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of X new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of X new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) d) Have sufficient water supplies available X to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Result in a determination by the X wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project=s projected demand in addition to the provider=s existing commitments? (Genera Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) 0 Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project=s solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local X statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) -30- XVI. a)-g) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on utilities. The eventual development of the vacant lands will result in a need for utilities. All service providers will charge connection and service fees to the developers and residents of the vacant lands. These fees are designed to provide for the expansion of service as need arises. Water supplies have been found adequate in CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan (please see Hydrology and Water Resources, above). CVWD will also provide sanitary sewer services to the sites, and has sufficient capacity to serve both parcels. The City's solid waste franchisee will service the two parcels, and haul waste to the transfer station at Edom Hill. From this location, solid waste will be transferred to one of several regional landfills for disposal. Impacts associated with utilities are expected to be insignificant. J -31- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish o wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on biological or cultural resources. Further environmental review, or the standards imposed by the City, will assure that potential impacts associated with development of the vacant lands are reduced to less than significant levels. XVII. b) The annexation of the two parcels will further the City's goals of providing a wide range of housing of all types to current and future residents. XVII. c) Cumulative impacts analyzed in the City's General Plan EIR were associated with regional air quality. The City found that the ultimate development of the General Plan overrode the potential impacts associated with air quality. As shown under the air quality discussion -32- discussion above, the development of the vacant lands will not significantly impact air quality. XVII. d) The General Plan Amendment, Change of Zone, sphere of influence amendment and annexation will not, in and of themselves, have any impact on human beings. The eventual development of the vacant lands will be subject to environmental review, and will implement any mitigation measures necessary, if impacts to human beings are identified. -33- XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The La Quinta General Plan EIR was used in this analysis. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. RESOLUTION NO. 2006- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2006-108, AND PLACING A DESIGNATION OF HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ON 11.62 ACRES TO BE ANNEXED TO THE CITY AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIDDEN RIVER ROAD AND WASHINGTON STREET, AND IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 609-040- 005, 609-040-007 AND 609-040-023 CASE NO.: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 2006-108 CITY OF LA QUINTA WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 21 s day of November, 2006, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing to consider the request of the City of La Quinta for pre -annexation General Plan designation of High Density Residential on 1 1.62 acres located at the southeast corner of Hidden River Road and Washington Street, more particularly described as: ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 609-040-005, 609-040-007 AND 609-040-023 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of La Quinta, California, did on the 17`h day of October, 2006, hold a duly noticed Public Hearing and adopted Resolution 2006-038 recommending approval of this General Plan Amendment; and, WHEREAS, The La Quinta Community Development Department has completed Environmental Assessment 2006-576 in accordance with the requirements of "The Rules to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended (Resolution 83-63). ). Based upon this Assessment, there will not be a significant impact on the environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration is recommended for approval; and WHEREAS, at said Public Hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons wanting to be heard, said City Council did make the following Mandatory Findings of approval to justify approval of said General Plan Amendment: 1 . The General Plan Amendment, as proposed is consistent with the General Plan, insofar as it will provide for the development of housing for future residents. 2. Approval of the amendment will not create conditions materially detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, and will assure refurbishment and rehabilitation of existing senior apartment units. City Council Resolution No. 2006- General Plan Amendment 2006-108 Annexation 18 Adopted: November 21, 2006 3. The new designation is compatible with the designations on adjacent properties, insofar as High Density Residential land use designations occur to the south of the proposed General Plan Amendment, and multi -family residential development occurs to the north. 4. The land use designation is suitable and appropriate for the property, insofar as the apartments exist on the northern portion of the amendment area, and the City proposes to provide additional multi -family units on the flat, vacant portion of the area. 5. The continued development of the City requires the continued analysis of current conditions, and this General Plan amendment reflects these conditions and accommodates for future growth within the City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, Ca6ifornia, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That it does hereby approve General Plan Amendment 2006-108 for the reasons set forth in this Resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the La Quinta City Council, held on this the 21" day of November, 2006 by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DON ADOLPH, Mayor City of La Quinta California City Council Resolution No. 2006- General Plan Amendment 2006-108 Annexation 18 Adopted: November 21, 2006 ATTEST: VERONICA J. MONTECINO, CMC, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING PRE -ZONING DESIGNATIONS FOR CERTAIN LANDS PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION, AND CONSISTING OF 11.62 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HIDDEN RIVER ROAD AND WASHINGTON STREET, AND IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 609- 040-005, 609-040-007 AND 609-040-023 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at its regularly scheduled meeting of October 17, 2006, considered the request of the City of La Quinta for pre -annexation zoning of 11.62 acres of land at the southeast corner of Hidden River Road and Washington Street, and identified as assessor's parcel numbers 609-040-005, 609-040-007 and 609-040-023, to High Density Residential; and WHEREAS, after consideration of all written and oral testimony presented at the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended adoption of a pre -zoning ordinance by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council, at its regularly scheduled meeting of November 21, 2006, considered the Planning Commission's recommendation at a public hearing, including all written and oral testimony; and WHEREAS, after careful consideration, the City Council found that the High Density Residential zoning district is consistent with the zoning designations in place on surrounding lands, the goals and policies of the General Plan, and the character of the area; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared to consider the pre -zoning of the properties, and the City determined that the proposed pre -annexation zoning would not have a significant environmental impact as described in the California Environmental Quality Act, and a Negative Declaration was prepared. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta does as follows: SECTION 1. EFFECTIVE DATE: This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. SECTION 2. POSTING: The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be posted in at least three public places designated by resolution of the City Council, shall certify to the adoption and posting of this Ordinance, and shall cause this Ordinance and Ordinance No. Annexation 18� Adopted: November 21, 2006 its certification, together with proof of posting to be entered into the Book of Ordinances of the City of La Quinta. SECTION 3: Certain property located at the southeast corner of Hidden River Road and Washington Street, and identified as Annexation Number 18 is hereby zoned according to Exhibit A, attached to this Ordinance. PASSED APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21"day of November, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN DON ADOLPH, Mayor City of La Quinta California ATTEST: Veronica J. Montecino, CMC, City Clerk City of La Quanta, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California Na 44 lot Z, art ! • • •� � � O p _C O y �, Q ICI � i VµNA fiY,. N 0 m C1 0 7 C I O C I� a'7 CD O �. O t •� ' x N ELN I V ' w T i i 4f r 0 Of r r �.�� r +rr +}I ..��������yy fix' � •, t.si � �•r,♦ • r �.•� • + � � � is 't��+I�+ _Y,�r!!!�r Ft1 +r�y�, 'Sr 'a ► ;� fir,` ld NO>dA9 uj to IN NOl NIift POP M ml� RESOLUTION NO. 2006- A RESOLUTION OF APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF LA QUINTA REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF 12.42 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF WASHINGTON STREET AND CONCURRENT AMENDMENT OF THE CITY'S SPHERE OF INFLUENCE, AND IDENTIFIED AS ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 609-040- 005, 609-040-007, AND 609-040-023 ANNEXATION 18 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, that: WHEREAS, the property owners desire to initiate a proposal pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Act of 2000, commencing with Section 56000 of the California Government Code, for the annexation of 12.42 acres located on the east side of Washington Street, immediately south of Hidden River Road, and identified as assessor's parcel numbers 609-040-005, 609-040- 007 and 609-040-023; and WHEREAS, notice of intent to adopt this resolution of application has been given to the commission, each interested, and each subject agency at least 20 days prior to the adoption of this resolution; and WHEREAS, the territory proposed to be annexed is inhabited, and a description of the boundaries of the territory is set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and the City; and WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence of WHEREAS, the reasons for the proposed annexation are as follows: The existing senior apartment project will be refurbished for the residents, and the vacant portion of the annexation will be developed for additional affordable housing for the residents of the City of La Quinta; and WHEREAS, this Council certifies that an Initial Study was prepared to consider the pre -zoning of the properties, and the City determined that the proposed pre -annexation zoning would not have a significant environmental impact as described in the California Environmental Quality Act, and a Negative Declaration was prepared. City Council Resolution No. 2006- Annexation 18 Adopted: November 21, 2006 NOW, THEREFORE, this Resolution of Application is hereby adopted and approved by the City Council of the City of La Quinta, and the Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County is hereby requested to take proceedings for the annexation of territory as described in Exhibit A, according to the terms and conditions stated above and in the manner provided by the Cortese- Knox-Hetzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of La Quinta at a regular meeting thereof held on the 21" day of November, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: DON ADOLPH, Mayor City of La Quinta California ATTEST: VERONICA J. MONTECINO, CMC, City Clerk City of La Quinta, California (City Seal) APPROVED AS TO FORM: M. KATHERINE JENSON, City Attorney City of La Quinta, California EXHIBIT "A" REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION 18 TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAFCO 2006-XX-X A portion of the south half of the northwest one -quarter of Section 18, Township 5 South, Range 7 East, San Bernardino Base and Meridan, in the County of Riverside, State of California, described more particularly as follows: Beginning at the west one -quarter of said Section 18, said corner being on the existing boundary of the City of La Quinta and on the centerline of Washington Street the following courses: 1. Thence, North 0008'34" East along the westerly line of said Section 8 and centerline of Washington Avenue a distance of 664.02 feet to the northwest corner of the south half of the south half of government lot 2 said corner also being on the centerline of Hidden River Road as shown on Parcel Map No. 12323; 2. Thence North 89034'27" East along the northerly line of said south half of the south half of Section 8 and centerline of Hidden River Road a distance of 475.34 feet to the northeast corner of lot D of said Parcel Map No. 12323; 3. Thence South 0108'34 West along the easterly line of said Lot D and the easterly line of Parcel 2 of Parcel Map No. 12323 a distance of 400.31 feet to the southeast corner of said Parcel 2 said corner being on the northerly property line of that parcel of land described in deed to Testa Family Limited Partnership II; 4. Thence North 89034'28" east along the Northerly line of said Testa Family land a distance of 849.23 feet; 5. Thence South 0120'37"East 265.62 feet to the southerly line of said Testa Land, said point also being on the east -west centerline of said Section 18; to a point of centerline of said Section 18; 6. Thence South 89039'27 West along said east -west centerline of section 18 and southerly of said Testa Family land 1326.81 feet to the point of beginning. Area = 12.42 Acres, more of less PLAN FOR PROVISION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES ANNEXATION NO. 18 TO THE CITY OF LA QUINTA INTRODUCTION This plan of services addresses public utilities, infrastructure, and public services required to serve a proposed annexation of 1 1.62 ± acres of land into the City of La Quinta. Municipal services included in this Plan include water, wastewater, law enforcement, fire protection, parks and recreation, roadway maintenance, and libraries. The proposed annexation area is neither in the Sphere of Influence of the City of La Quinta or in the City itself. It is located on the east side of Washington Street, and south of Hidden River Road, between the major intersections of Fred Waring Drive and 42"d Avenue. The annexation area consists of three parcels totaling 11.62 acres. To the north of Hidden River Road there is multi -family residential development; to the south there is High Density Residential development under construction; to the west of Washington Street there is single family residential development; and to the east there is vacant desert land. MUNICIPAL SERVICES Water The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) provides water service to the City. There is currently a water line in Hidden River Road, which will service the proposed annexation area. CVWD provides domestic water through the extraction of groundwater by a system of wells drilled to depths approximately 700 to 1,300 feet. CVWD estimates water usage for residential development at 3.97 acre-feet per acre, per year. The proposed annexation area, at build out, would therefore consume 43.67 acre-feet of water annually. The District's Urban Water Management Plan indicates that it has sufficient supplies to serve the annexation area for the long term, including plans for recharge of the aquifer. Waste Water CVWD also provides sanitary sewer service to the area. A sewer line on Washington Street and Hidden River Road will serve the annexation area. w All wastewater collected north of Miles Avenue, including the proposed annexation area, is conveyed to CVWD's treatment plant at Madison Street and Avenue 38, north and east of the annexation area. The plant currently as a capacity of approximately five million gallons per day (MGD), and is treating approximately three mgd. Capacity is therefore sufficient to accommodate the annexation area. Solid Waste Burtec Waste Industries provides solid waste disposal services to the proposed annexation area, including solid waste collection, recycling programs, and household hazardous waste disposal for residential customers within La Quinta. Waste is taken to a transfer station located at Edom Hill, and from this location to one of several regional landfills, including the Lambs Canyon, Badlands, or El Sorbrante landfills, located west of the City. Roadways Washington Street is classified as a major arterial in the La Quinta General Plan and provides the only access to Hidden River Road. Washington Street is currently developed to its ultimate right of way of six lanes. Law Enforcement The Riverside County Sheriff's Department, under contract to the City, currently serves the proposed annexation area. The Sheriff's Department operates a station on Dr. Carreon Boulevard in Indio, as well a community policing office on Avenue Bermudas in La Quinta. The Sheriff's Department staffs 43 sworn officers and support personnel for the City. Services include street patrols, traffic enforcement, special enforcement teams, school resource officer, and gang and narcotics enforcement teams. Current response times within the City and the annexation area is approximately 5 minutes. Fire Protection Fire protection services are currently provided to the proposed annexation area by the Riverside County Fire Department, under contract with the City. The Department operates three fire stations in the City, including the newly completed Station #93, located approximately two miles southeast of the annexation area. Response time to the annexation area would be expected to be about 5 minutes. The City maintains mutual aid agreements with surrounding communities, to assure adequate service in an emergency. Parks and Recreation There are 104.48 acres of developed parkland in the City, which are owned and maintained by the City. In addition to parks, the City also operates a 10,000 square foot senior center, a 20,000 square foot library (see below), and a 6,000 square foot museum. In addition, two parks are planned for the future, totaling 37.3 acres. In proximity to the annexation area is Adams Park, located adjacent to Fire Station #93, approximately one mile from the annexation area. The General Plan encourages the development of 3 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. With an ultimate population of 458 persons, the annexation area would generate the need for 0.46 acre of park land. The City's Community Services Department provides recreational activities for the City, including programs for children and adults. The City funds additional park facilities through two mechanisms. The purchase of land for parks is provided for in the City's Quimby Ordinance, which requires the purchase of land, or payment of in lieu fees, for new projects. In the case of the annexation area, both parcels will be required to pay in lieu fees for the purchase of park land. The fee is based on appraised values at the time that tract maps are recorded, and therefore varies. In addition, the City charges a Development Impact Fee, payable at the issuance of building permits. Development on the southerly portion of the annexation area will be required to pay the required Quimby and Development Impact fees. In addition to City parks, the Coachella Valley Recreation and Parks District operates and maintains four parks in the City, including the La Quinta Community Park/Community Center, Fritz Burns Park, the Coral Mountain Regional Park, and the Lake Cahuilla County Park. These facilities total 1,479.2 acres. Schools The annexation area is within the boundary of the Desert Sands Unified School District. The District operates three elementary schools, three middle schools and one high school in the City. The District opened a new middle school adjacent to the annexation area for the 2006 school year, and also operates the Amelia Earhart Elementary School, the John Glenn Middle School, and the La Quinta High School within the City limits. Libraries The La Quinta Library is located in the Estado, approximately five miles south 20,000 square foot library, completer i Riverside Library System. PUBLIC UTILITIES Civic Center complex, at 78080 Calle of the proposed annexation area. The n 2004, is operated by the County of Electricity Electric service is provided in the proposed annexation area by Imperial Irrigation District. The District currently services the apartments north of Hidden River Road. It has facilities along Washington Street, which will be able service the ultimate development of the area. Natural f;ac The gas company, a Sempra Energy Corporation, currently provides natural gas in the development area. There is a 3" main in Washington Street and a 2" main running along the length of Hidden River Road. Telephone Service Telephone service in the area is currently provided by Verizon, which has existing facilities on Hidden River Road and will provide service to the development. Prepared by: Thomas P. Genovese, City Manager City of La Quinta Date: �� J .77 J. 717, low O j .. .+ S n Ok } ink l` 4M {, I d t J�' iA ��"r j� t Y � • _ 1' IS;uOl u!`ysuMR q.rr.-• _ JW do 1 41M L1M. J ir. .2 $ 4 4j �,.ei ` 1'i.r Y , , !° rid'. �yrU}- r • " ! •'.,. .c ...t,' r riir C�Jl..AdWe;lw 'No $ 1 rt i► .. � .. � awe'"" � �:.a+-�- c�i, � , i i "� � iR tom t� Y , • y' •� .t 1 �. Wal!4R a *A Jr,}o.uosAede its # 04 soul 0 .. a ATTACHMENT 2 o a- cn C) . (y cu Nf .01 --am" 71 r 44 �A 41 -k -AM. A ota -fin '.77; II New '*Aww I Y 0 r IP -10, 1, M 73-51 o FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL:760 346—o6ii FAX: 760 341-7o98 info@p;tlm-desert.org October 12, 2007 Sent Via Fax & U.S. Mail Mr. George J. Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507-4225 Dear Mr. Spiliotis: Thank you and your staff for your support in granting the City of Palm Desert adequate time to form the City's policy directive, relative to the retention of the Bermuda Dunes Sphere of Influence. On April 12, 2007, the Palm Desert City Council directed staff to conduct an updated fiscal impact feasibility study on the annexation of Bermuda Dunes into the City. This report was recently completed and the City Council considered this item on October 11, 2007. The Council's policy direction in this matter is as follows: 1. Inform the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission that the City of Palm Desert wishes to retain the Bermuda Dunes Sphere of Influence (SOI); 2. The City of Palm Desert does not currently wish to annex Bermuda Dunes; and 3. The City would consider annexing this SOI in the future if it is financially feasible Should you have any questions or comments on this matter, please contact Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager, or me at (760) 346-0611. Again, thank you for your support and patience in obtaining this policy directive. Sincerely, Car os L. rtega City Ma ger cc: Mayor and the City Council Mr. Wayne Fowler, Sr. Local Government Analyst, LAFCO Homer L. Croy, Assistant City Manager for Development Services Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Mark Greenwood, P.E., Director of Public Works Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager mmom uffleau *Awe Monroe, Tonya From: Aryan, Steve Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 10:00 AM To: info@govlaw.com Cc: Ortega, Carlos; Croy, Homer; Greenwood, Mark; Aylaian, Lauri; Russo, Karen; Loredo, Monica; Lee, Debra; Monroe, Tonya; Michelson, Wilma Subject: LAFCO Agenda Report Attachments: LAFCO Agenda 10-25-2007.pdf; LAFCO Palm Desert Sol Agenda Report.pdf; LAFCO Staff Recommended Sol Map.pdf; Spiliotis Correspondence.pdf; Palm Desert Bermuda Dunes Annexation Report - Draft v9.pdf Councilmember Ferguson: Please find attached: 1. LAFCO's Agenda for 10125107 (Palm Desert is Item 4-E); 2. The LAFCO agenda report concerning Palm Desert's Bermuda Dunes Sphere of Influence (Staff recommendation is on last page); 3. The LAFCO Staff Recommended Map for Palm Desert's Spheres of Influence; 4. Correspondence sent to George Spiliotis from Carlos Ortega on October 12, 2007, informing LAFCO on the City Council's action concerning the Bermuda Dunes SOI I have also include a copy of the most recent fiscal feasibility study in case you wish to reference it. Please let us know if we can be of further assistance to you, thank you. ,Aepken V Atyan Assistant to the City Manager City of Palm Desert (760) 346-0611, Extension 448 sa[yan@ci.palm-desert.ca.us CM En Phone (760) 347-3629 Fax (760) 347-4995 The Honorable Carlos L. Ortega and Respected Council Members Palm Desert City Manager 73510 Fred Waring Palm Desert CA 92260 October 10, 2007 Dear Staff and Council: 46730 Clinton St, Indio, CA 92201 CSLB #r273088 My family owns six parcels of land in Bermuda Dunes totaling 11.2 acres. We are currently constructing a new industrial park building on 2 of those acres, to which we plan to move our business operations, Valley Plumbing Company. We are aware that there may be some consideration toward the annexation of the Bermuda Dunes area by either The City of La Quinta, The City of Indio, or The City of Pahn Desert. If, and when this subject is brought to the table in the City of Palm Desert, please sound our desire to be annexed by the City of Palm Desert. Please also express our opposition to being annexed by the City of La Quinta or the City of Indio. Though I write this letter on behalf of my family, my business, and myself, I believe that I am of the same mind set as the majority of the property owners of Bermuda Dunes. I base this statement on the fact that, a few years ago, there was a vote by the property owners of Bermuda Dunes as to whether to become a part of Indio, La Quinta, or Palm Desert. The vast majority of the property owners voted to be named to be in the sphere of influence of The City of Palm Desert. Below, are a few reasons I believe the City of Palm Desert would benefit from the annexation of Bermuda Dunes. With the recent general plan amendments by the County of Riverside, and the re -designation of many parcels from residential to commercial and industrial, the county has greatly increased the potential of commercial retail and industrial sales in the area. That being the case, the Bermuda Dunes area ought to be very desirable to a city that would be looking prospectively into annexation of other areas. The inevitable commercial and industrial growth in our area will surely result in revenue from a larger tax base, sales tax, and annual licenses for each new and existing business in Bermuda Dunes. New commercial and industrial developers would also foot the bill for infrastructure improvements such as road widening, sewer laterals, street lights, etc. We have also seen Riverside County, very recently, stepping up the level and frequency of improvements to the area. It is our understanding that there is a good possibility of further infrastructure installations and improvements that will be done in the near future, thereby relieving the eventual annexing body of those potential expenses. If you wish to discuss this, please feel free to contact me at any time on my cell phone at (760)399-6991. Sincerely, Rob Ferraud I 1%✓` 73-5io FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CAL1rORN1A 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346—o6> i FAX:760 340-0574 info@palm-desert.org OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER April 24, 2007 Mr, George J. Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507-4277 Dear Mr. Spiliotis: SUBJECT: LAFCO 2007-02-4 The City of Palm Desert was previously notified that the City of La Quinta recently submitted an application to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to annex a 13 acre parcel located within Palm Desert's Bermuda Dunes Sphere of Influence (SOI). LAFCO requested that the City of Palm Desert respond to this request and also make known its future plans for retaining or removing the Bermuda Dunes and Del Webb Spheres of Influence. On March 7, 2007, a City Council Ad -Hoc Annexation Committee met with Mr. Wayne Fowler, LAFCO Sr. Governmental Analyst, to discuss these two spheres of influence and La Quinta's LAFCO application. The Committee requested additional time to bring these matters before the City Council for formal action. We further discussed that this process may also include an updated fiscal feasibility study for the Bermuda Dunes SO]. Mr. Fowler indicated no reservations for permitting an abeyance in this matter until the City could further analyze these issues and provide a formal position to LAFCO. On March 15, 2007, the City's Community Development Department sent you correspondence indicating that the Annexation Committee had met and determined that the City should update the 1996 Bermuda Dunes Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report. Staff indicated that this matter would be brought before the City Council in April 2007, and that the City would make a determination on the matter within three months. Staff also requested LAFCO hold the La Quinta annexation application in abeyance until the City finalized its study. Unfortunately, this letter was apparently mailed to LAFCO's previous address and never reached you. Ga IRINIIp ON A((i(IEp/R/[x Spiliotis Correspondence April 24, 2007 Page 2 of 2 On April 12, 2007, the Palm Desert City Council provided direction relative to these two spheres. The City Council directed staff to 1) request LAFCO remove the Del Webb Sphere of Influence from Palm Desert; 2) conduct another fiscal impact feasibility study on the Bermuda Dunes Sphere of Influence (before providing direction on retaining or dismissing this sphere); and 3) meet with the City of La Quinta City Manager and return with a recommendation on the La Quinta annexation application. On April 13, 2007, Stephen Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager, submitted an e-mail to Mr. Fowler informing LAFCO of the Council's decision. The City Council made no decision at this meeting to support or oppose the La Quinta annexation application, based on the prior information staff had that the La Quinta request would not be considered until the completion of the fiscal feasibility study. On April 18, 2007, 1 met with Mr. Thomas Genovese, La Quinta City Manager, to discuss his agency's annexation proposal. Shortly thereafter, the City received notice that this item will be before LAFCO on April 26, 2007. The City respectfully requests that LAFCO continue this matter until staff can complete its fiscal feasibility study and obtain the Council's policy direction in this matter. l anticipate this task to take approximately two to three months and LAFCO should receive the City's response by August 2007. Please provide this letter to your Board to be included as part of the official record. If you have any questions or comments on this issue, please contact Lauri Aylaian, Community Development Director, or me at (760) 346-0611. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Carlos L. O ega City Manager Attachments: 1) City Correspondence (dated March 15, 2007) 2) City E-mail (dated April 13, 2007) cc: City Council Mr. Wayne Fowler, Sr. Local Government Analyst, LAFCO Homer Croy, Assistant City Manager, Development Services Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager E I I Y Of P R [ M 0 [ S [ R T ►*'i rum U. tiva it upa I I y o �'A 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TELS 760 346-o6n FAX: 76o 341-7098 info@palm-dmerr.org March 15, 2007 Mr. George Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission 1485 Spruce Street, Suite J Riverside, California 92507-2445 Re: LAFC6 2007-02-4 Dear Mr. Spiliotis: The City of Palm Desert is very interested in this proposed change to its sphere of influence. March 7, 2007 the Annexation Committee met and determined that the City should update the March 1996 Bermuda Dunes Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report and subsequently determine whether to annex the Bermuda Dunes area or not. Staff will take the matter before City Council at its first meeting in April and then let the contract for the work. We anticipate being able to make a determination on the matter within three months. We request that LAFCO hold this application in abeyance until the City completes its deliberations. Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or Lauri Aylaian. Yours truly, Stephen R. Smith, Acting Director Department of Community Development /tm cc: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager Doug Evans, Director of La Quinta Community Development Q1 term 04 uonn wn Im Page I of 1 Ortega, Carlos From: Aryan, Steve Sent: Friday, April 13, 2007 10:55 AM To: WFowler@lafco.org Cc: Ortega, Carlos; Aylaian, Lauri; Croy, Homer; Gibson, Paul Subject: Spheres of Influence Wayne: I wanted to inform you of the City Council's action concerning Palm Desert's Del Webb and Bermuda Dunes spheres of influence. The City Council last night voted to: 1. Request LAFCO remove the Del Webb Sphere of Influence from Palm Desert; and 2. Directed staff to conduct another fiscal impact feasibility study on the Bermuda Dunes Sphere of Influence, before providing direction on retaining or dismissing this sphere. Concerning the City of La Quinta's LAFCO application request to annex the 20 acre site, our City Manager was directed to meet with La Quinta's City Manager to discuss this proposal and return with a recommendation. The City will soon send Mr. Spiliotis correspondence outlining these policy directives, but I wanted to let you know this outcome today. I will be out of the office this afternoon, but can be reached at telephone no. (760) 333-3034 if you have any questions. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Stephen Y. Aryan Assistant to the City Manager City of Palm Desert (760) 346-0611, Extension 448 4/24/2007 M En Page 1 of I Monroe, Tonya From: Aryan, Steve Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 6:20 PM To: gspiliotis@lafco.org Cc: WFowler@lafco.org; Ortega, Carlos; Croy, Homer; Aylaian, Lauri; Russo, Karen; Loredo, Monica; Monroe, Tonya Subject: Correspondence Concerning LAFCO 2007-02-4 93M Please find attached correspondence concerning the City of La Quinta's LAFCO application to annex thirteen acres within the City of Palm Desert's Bermuda Dunes Sphere of Influence. Please include this correspondence as part of the public record when this item is before LAFCO at its April 26, 2007, meeting. A hard copy will also be sent to you via U.S. Postal service. Please contact me if you have any comments or questions and thank you for your assistance in this matter. Stephen Y. Aryan Assistant to the City Manager City of Palm Desert (760) 346-0611, Extension 448 saryan@cl.pal-m-d'esert.ca.us 4/25/2007 slaw, %"0001 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346—o611 FAX' 760 340-0574 info@palm-desert.org OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER April 24, 2007 Mr. George J. Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission 3850 Vine Street, Suite 110 Riverside, CA 92507-4225 Dear Mr. Spiliotis: SUBJECT: LAFCO 2007-02-4 The City of Palm Desert was previously notified that the City of La Quinta recently submitted an application to the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to annex a 13 acre parcel located within Palm Desert's Bermuda Dunes Sphere of Influence (SOI). LAFCO requested that the City of Palm Desert respond to this request and also make known its future plans for retaining or removing the Bermuda Dunes and Del Webb Spheres of Influence. On March 7, 2007, a City Council Ad -Hoc Annexation Committee met with Mr. Wayne Fowler, LAFCO Sr. Governmental Analyst, to discuss these two spheres of influence and La Quinta's LAFCO application. The Committee requested additional time to bring these matters before the City Council for formal action. We further discussed that this process may also include an updated fiscal feasibility study for the Bermuda Dunes SOI. Mr. Fowler indicated no reservations for permitting an abeyance in this matter until the City could further analyze these issues and provide a formal position to LAFCO. On March 15, 2007, the City's Community Development Department sent you correspondence indicating that the Annexation Committee had met and determined that the City should update the 1996 Bermuda Dunes Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report. Staff indicated that this matter would be brought before the City Council in April 2007, and that the City would make a determination on the matter within three months. Staff also requested LAFCO hold the La Quinta annexation application in abeyance until the City finalized its study. Unfortunately, this letter was apparently mailed to LAFCO's previous address and never reached you. QP R wtn ON Rtcyato RAln Sp►liods Correspondence April 24, 2007 Page 2 of 2 On April 12, 2007, the Palm Desert City Council provided direction relative to these two spheres. The City Council directed staff to 1) request LAFCO remove the Del Webb Sphere of Influence from Palm Desert; 2) conduct another fiscal impact feasibility study on the Bermuda Dunes Sphere of Influence (before providing direction on retaining or dismissing this sphere); and 3) meet with the City of La Quinta City Manager and return with a recommendation on the La Quinta annexation application. On April 13, 2007, Stephen Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager, submitted an e-mail to Mr. Fowler informing LAFCO of the Council's decision. The City Council made no decision at this meeting to support or oppose the La Quinta annexation application, based on the prior information staff had that the La Quinta request would not be consider until the completion of the fiscal feasibility study. On April 18, 2007, 1 met with Mr. Thomas Genovese, La Quinta City Manager, to discuss his agency's annexation proposal. Shortly thereafter, the City received notice that this item will be before LAFCO on April 26, 2007. The City respectfully requests that LAFCO continue this matter until staff can complete its fiscal feasibility study and obtain the Council's policy direction in this matter. I anticipate this task to take approximately two to three months and LAFCO should receive the City's response by August 2007. Please provide this letter to your Board to be included as part of the official record. If you have any questions or comments on this issue, please contact Lauri Aylaian, Community Development Director, or me at (760) 346-0611. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, d Carlos L. Oftega City Manager Attachments: 1) City Correspondence (dated March 15, 2007) 2) City E-mail (dated April 13, 2007) cc: City Council Mr. Wayne Fowler, Sr. Local Government Analyst, LAFCO Homer Croy, Assistant City Manager, Development Services Lauri Aylaian, Director of Community Development Stephen Y. Aryan, Assistant to the City Manager E I I Y Of P 0 1 M 0151RI 0 NNItl1Fo ON num. - F'd I M oESERr 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL:760 346--o6n FAX: 760 341-7098 inf0@pdm.desen.oes March 15, 2007 Mr. George Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission 1485, Spruce Street, Suite J Riverside, California 92507-2445 Re: LAFC6 2007-02-4 Dear Mr. Spiliotis: The City of Palm Desert is very interested in this proposed change to its sphere of influence. March 7, 2007 the Annexation Committee met and determined that the City should update the March 1996 Bermuda Dunes Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report and subsequently determine whether to annex the Bermuda Dunes area or not. Staff will take the matter before City Council at its first meeting in April and then let the contract for the work. We anticipate being able to make a determination on the matter within three months. We request that LAFCO hold this application in abeyance until the City completes its deliberations. Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or Lauri Aylaian. Yours truly,` Stephen R. Smith, Acting Director Department of Community Development AM cc: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager Doug Evans, Director of La Quinta Community Development 'r.* Rim Y m" INN LWA Page I of I Ortega, Carlos From: Aryan, Steve Sent- Friday, April 13, 2007 10:55 AM To: WFowler@lafco.org Cc: Ortega, Carlos; Aylaian, Lauri; Croy, Homer; Gibson, Paul Subject: Spheres of Influence kA,,',, I y I I 5,� , I kvanted to inform yola of trio City 0ounc;fl'!-,', action concerning Palm Deserts Dei Webb and Be,rr(Wei,'s Dune-s, spheres Of itlftlence. The, G ity Council, last oight voted to. 1, Reqt.est LAFCO remove the Del Webt), SpIlowe of influence from Palm Dw;.eijt)(i 2, Di r('Ictod staff to condAwt another f1scal iITOAO feasibility sorry on tho� Bermuda Dunes Sphorz, of Influonce, before providing oirecVoo on retaining o- dimtssinq this sphee. c t r ioe:rnin-i the City of La Quinta*s UANFC0 appi,-.ndon request to annex the 20 acre site our City directed to meet with La Qtiinta's City Manager to diSCUSS, this Proposal and a 7h(-, Cil,)1 ,%1! 4o, ": Mi 'C' I fv(- ori send, spili IJ"s corr- lth(-,�90 poliCy direct �, I bi, I % ut tc,, la'C you know IN's mutwmo today. I wfl- be out of lihe� otlfire afternoon, but can be t'eached ai telephone no. (760).333.-3034 if you have Any questions. Thank you foryour matter. S Stephen YAryan As,sistnjrit to the,! City M:aroage�r City rl)f P-9irri (760) 3,16-0611, Eytension 448 4/24/2007 RECEIVED MAN - 2 27 City of Palm DesertpMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF PALM DESERT Office of the City Manager MEMORANDUM To: Annexation Committee From: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager Date: February 28, 2007 Attached is a memorandum from Wayne Fowler, LAFCO, indicating that LAFCO has completed a municipal services review of the cities and some districts in the County. Also attached is a summary of the findings and specifically LAFCO's write-up on the City of Palm Desert. &W�; � - CARLOS L. 0 EGA City Manager CLO:kr Attachment Annexation Committee Members: Jim Ferguson Bob Spiegel Carlos Ortega Stephen Aryan Steve Smith M en 4AN 02/22/2007 TO: Local Agency Formation Commission FROM: Wayne M. Fowler, Sr. Local Government Analyst SUBJECT: LAFCO- 2005-89-4&5 WESTERN COACHELLA VALLEY MUNICIPAL SERVICES REVIEW. PRIOR AGENDAS/RELATED ACTIONS: None EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATION: As the Commission is aware, Assembly Bill 2838 established a new analytical tool for LAFCO's - Municipal Service - Reviews (MSRs). AB 2838 was a major rewrite of the Cortese/Knox Local Government Reorganization Act of 1985 and appeared as the Cortese/Knox/Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH LGRA 2000). Within the CKH LGRA 2000, code section 56430 is the sole statute establishing the requirement for Municipal Service Reviews. It begins as follows ... "In order to prepare and to update spheres of influence in accordance with Section 56425, the Commission shall conduct a service review of all municipal services provided in the county or other appropriate area designated by the Commission"... The Section goes on to require that service reviews must be conducted prior to or concurrent with consideration of any action to establish or update a sphere of influence (SOI). After conducting the MSR, the Commission must prepare a written statement of determinations addressing each of the following factors: 1. Infrastructure needs/deficiencies; 2. Growth and population projections for the affected area; 3. Financing constraints/opportunities; 4. Cost avoidance opportunities; 5. Opportunities for rate restructuring; 6. Opportunities for shared facilities; r�TRSIDE LOG'r� AGENCYFORAIiV ION COMMISSION • 3850 VII4E STREET, SUITE 110 + RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 . v,-ww1af'co.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 2005-89-4&5 W. �oachella Val. 3 Feruary 22, 2007 The MSR determinations show this, and many of the current deficiencies shown within this MSR, will continue to be addressed as development and revenue come to the agencies, allowing for the existing and sometimes aging infrastructure to be brought up to current service standards. • Several cities have deficiencies in their storm water drainage systems. These are mostly caused by older or incomplete systems and are being addressed in conjunction with the regional agency responsible for the regional planning of storm water drainage, Riverside County Flood Control District in western portions of this MSR or Coachella Valley Water District in the eastern portions of this MSR. The determinations within this MSR _point out that the agencies involved are planning projects to expand and improve existing storm water drainage systems. • The cities of Cathedral City existing roadways and intersections which are currently operating below the cities adopted LOS standards. Improvements are planned to address these deficiencies. Like many cities, heavy vehicular trip numbers resulting from the rapid growth have impacted circulation significantly. • A majority of agencies within this MSR which provide park and recreational services are currently providing parkland acreage at a ratio below the agency standards. Most of these agencies have planned or are planning new facilities, and are using their Quimby Act fees to fund future facilities. • Desert Hot Springs suffers from severe flooding from storm water runoff. The City has funded an effort to address the full range of circulation issues within the City. • Several of the agencies suffer deficiencies in Fire Protection services and are operating below the agencies set service provision standards. • The City of Palm Springs has completed a study identifying the need to expand the existing library facilities by 25,000SF in order to serve the needs of Rrv-ERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION - 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 - cwvw3alco.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 2005-89-4&5 W. Coachella Val. 5 February 22, 2007 Cost Avoidance Opportunities • Cathedral City appropriations for Police services due to overtime caused by low staffing levels has increased. • The City of Palm Desert contracts with the Coachella Valley Recreation & Parks District to operate and provide services within city owned facilities. The City is evaluating whether there would be economies and greater benefit by detaching from the District and delivering those services directly or through contract with a private entity. Opportunities for Rate Restructuring • No comments. Opportunities for Shared Facilities • Cathedral City and Desert Hot Springs in conjunction with County Fire are implementing a coordinated and comprehensive communications network for voice and data transmission. • Cathedral City and Palm Springs Fire Departments have an Automatic Aid agreement. • The Cove Community Services Commission, comprised of the cities of Palm Desert, Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage provides a means for the three cities to cooperate on services. • The City of Indian Wells has entered into an agreement with the City of Rancho Mirage to allow the residents of Indian Wells to use the Rancho Mirage library. Government Structure Options • No comments. Evaluation of Management Efficiencies • The City of Desert Hot Springs has had significant management issues in the past. The City Council has hired a new City Manager and City Attorney in 2006. Incremental changes are being implemented to improve RZI ERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION . 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • www.1afco.org • F2i (951) 369-8479 2005-89-4&5 W. Coachella Val. 7 February 22, 2007 Guidelines in the Municipal Service Reviews consist of basic data collection, research and resource evaluation activities which do not result in a serious or major disturbance to an environmental resource. 4. Adopt the required determinations included within the MSR. 5. Receive and file the Municipal Service Review - LAFCO 2005-89-4&5 Western Coachella Valley. 6. Authorize the Executive Officer to, as information is received to post that information as appendices or errata to the report. R spec ully submitted, Wayne M. Fowler Sr. Local Government Analyst RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY r ORNIATION Ct3M24ISSION v 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 - RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-427 r Phone (951) 369-0631 • ww-wlako.org' Fax (9511 369-8479 SECTION 7.0 CITY OF PALM DESERT 7.1 City Profile The City of Palm Desert (City) is located in the western Coachella Valley south of Interstate 10. It is bounded by Rancho Mirage to the west, Indian Wells to the southeast, the unincorporated community of Bermuda Dunes to the east, and unincorporated county lands to the north. The Santa Rosa Mountains lie to the south. The City encompasses 25 square miles and has a Sphere of Influence (SOI) that consists of 41.5 square miles (see Figure 7.1, City of Palen Desert). The City's northern SOI includes the community of Bermuda Dunes to the east and extends north of Interstate 10 to include Sun City and industrial and service -commercial uses west of Washington Street and north of Varner Road. The majority of the City's SOI is south of the city and includes Cahuilla Hills, Royal Carrizo and large areas of the Santa Rosa foothills and mountains. The Palm Desert General Plan Planning Area extends north to the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountainsand the boundary of Joshua Tree National Park. It is generally bounded on the west by Rio del Sol and on the east by Adams Street. This area encompasses an additional 68 acres, for a total Planning Area of approximately 134 square miles. The City contracts with the County of Riverside for some services, including: police and fire protection, animal control, and health services. The City directly provides services for public improvements; art and community promotion; planning, zoning, building and engineering; housing and community development; code enforcement and inspections; and economic and business development. Palm Desert contracts with the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District to provide recreation programs. The Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency has four project areas, encompassing approximately 68 percent of the city. Table 7.1 Palm Desert Profile General Information City Hall Address: 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 (760)346-0611 www.cityofpalmdesen.org Date of Incorporation: November 26,1973 Form of Government/Type of City: Council-Manager/Charter Area: 25 square miles Population: 49,539 (Year 2006) / 63,402 (Year 2030) Average Annual Growth Rate =1.3% General Fund and Fire Fund Operating Budget (FY 2006- Revenues: $56,387,000 2007): Expenditures: $56,598,013 GANN Appropriations Limitation / Percentage: $77,282,779 / 44% General Plan Update Adopted March 15, 2004 Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 — Final Draft 7-1 7.0 City of Palm Desert includedServices in this MSR Law Enforcement: Riverside County Sheriff , contract — 76 sworn officers Fire Protection: Riverside County Fire Department — 3 stations Solid Waste/Recycling: Burrtec Industries, Inc. (franchise agreement) Stormwater/Drainage: Public Works, Riverside County Flood Control, Coachella Valley Water District Roadways/Circulation: Public Works Recreation and Parks: 11 park sites, 1 municipal golf course Library Services: 1 branch library, Riverside County Library System Animal Control Services: Contract with Riverside County Code Enforcement: Building and Safety Department — 6 staff Water and Wastewater Services: The Coachella Valley Water District provides water and wastewater services within the city. These services are addressed in the Coachella Valley Water and Wastewater Municipal Service Review (2004). 7.2 Governance The City of Palm Desert was incorporated in 1973 under the General Laws of the State of California. In November 1997, the voters approved a charter for the City. The City has a Council -Manager form of government consisting of five council members. The Council selects the Mayor from its own members for a one year term. Council members are elected at large for four-year terms, staggered every two years, with general municipal elections conducted in November of even -numbered years. The City Council is charged with governing according to the City's Charter, enacting City ordinances, establishing policies, representing the public, maintaining intergovernmental relations, and exercising general oversight over the affairs of City government, the Redevelopment Agency, Financing Authority, Housing Authority, and Parking Authority. The Council appoints the City Manager and City Clerk (see Figure 7.2, City of Palm Desert Organization Chart). Regular Meetings of the City Council are held on the second and fourth Thursdays of each month at 4:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chamber. Council meeting agendas and minutes are available on the City's website (www.cityofpalmdesert.org). The City Council. has established a number of commissions and committees to serve in an advisory role for issues important to the City and its residents. These include: Architectural Review, Art in Public Places, Historic Preservation, Housing, Parks and Recreation, Library Promotion, Public Safety, Rent Review and Youth. Others which are focused on economic conditions or financial issues include: Audit, Investment and Finance; Marketing; Advisory Committee for Project Area No. 4; El Paseo Business Improvement District; and Entrada del Paseo. Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 — Final Draft 7-2 *411W ..S01 tih s m t J J U., > GERALD FORD DR i L ` .. FRANK SINATRA DR • ', P.5 > > T < O } • a 7 COUNTRY CLUB DR • '`'r Indio �-- o w 0 r r r N m z it 11 r 9 '•� Rancho Mirage 0 OI 0 17 a . I 0 _ .�.--.�FA 1415 ( .I 1D 3 __-2 ® FR D ARI LG DR 51 4 19Still,,_.. La Quirrta Im ------ -r•T--- 12 j /: 18 6j Legend — _ I © i' C7J Palm Desert - City Limits — Indian Wells r J Surrounding City Limits Sphere of Influence (SOI) Palm ! 1 I Springs I �� � Surrounding City Sphere of Influence rin • l , Unincorporated AreaSol — I County Service Area (CSA): !•! i 1 � � Pinyon Flats (60) ------------ Public Facilities • City Hall (D Community Center • Library A Police/Sheriff j • Fire Station ® Parks & Recreation j Palm i Springs', Sol i� I SOURCEI County of Riverside GIS Layers PALM DESERT PUBLIC FACILITIES 1 Palm Desert City Hall Park Facilities 2 IPalm Desert Library 10 CIAc Center Park 3 1PaIm Desert Community Center 11 Palm Desert Soccer Park 4 IPolice Department 12 Ironwood Park Fire Stations 13 Cahuilla Hills Park 5 Station 33 14 Portola Park 6 Station 67 15 Cook Street Sports Complex 7 Station 71 1 16 Washington Charter School Park 8 Station 81 Sun City 17 Joe Mann Park 9 Station 31 Bermuda Dunes 1 18 ICap Homme/Ralph Adams Park 19 IPalma Village Neighborhood Park _.._..J i I I _ � Feet e 0 5,000 10,000 Western Coachella Valley Municipal Services Review FIGURE City of Palm Desert 7.1 i M 7.0 City of Palm Desert Figure 7.2, City of Palm Desert Organization Chart 516 3 o f La €fill. 01 $5$ z N uaa�: f g$ a fit ° z M8 11111E aa151B . N q age s�77 $¢¢ y '11afi5 2�1 g��� o� r '� ���s $3n4g c�dzn� �����g�mu [+aB a.�'3� � �'w'���8��• � e� � n tlillllla 1111��o����a9 �������+�_1111111111� � u 1 ' ' rc l I 1 1 1 1 1LLLi m m-1 1 L1111 111111 1� 1 L$111 0 5 � g a ll °e • E gfrQ 0 e �E F#ISO 'a Q qqQBo o 6ay UaC2Ia¢W m 1a'd�2aa6gUE1 lilt 111Ill 11 = Il1 Mill u � a_ ¢ ja pp fi yyyy SAp ID8 g— a � u Jill, e e 8$a ag U•$$g g aus$fi$eg 001p IR 1 - ¢ 3 8 r s .I} 00 Ud V ym 2 t t — o m flail t 1®Os� 3y�UpJ� � $�fl"�� e o e illll.11l C 4 IIIIIIo IIIIIIIIIF IIIIIIIIIq III1111 g a I 1 I I 6 � a 9 a S fic $ T o��II11l11111111111 >' IIII1lllll 4 a° k a q¢s 7% u • olU��w �U �s a E?a M �� § ei py $ll qg Q�gad$°$,5 e a•8.1tiIIS�% i8£ �Q uu y.� e0 $ $'0.t.sit oam u c o UUAa g 6 b 3dt�a`aX9E 0 u �� � �r WHO o��a � ¢° I IIIIIIIIIIILL'�'L�w I�IE ��8tiut��zocE �c3 oa [t I I I e lI1o1111111111oaQ--LLII�m = aaa a> I I I I I xv Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 — Final Draft 7-4 %"OP 7.3 Financial Condition ZO City of Palm Desert The City of Palm Desert relies on three primary sources of revenue: 1) retail commercial; 2) tourist and resort development; and 3) educational institutions, including the College of the Desert, the California State University campus and the University of California Heckman School of Entrepreneurship. These institutions are expected to be a major source of employment in the future as well as provide sales tax revenue from increased daily population. Palm Desert is a no/low property tax city and therefore relies on sales tax, transient occupancy tax and a special fire tax to fund municipal services. In 1982 the voters approved Proposition A, imposing a special tax on real property to provide additional funding for fire services. The City's transient occupancy tax is nine percent, the lowest within the study area. The budgeted General Fund and Fire Fund revenues for FY 2007 are shown below in Figure 7.3, City of Palm Desert General Fund Revenues, FY 2007 Budget: Figure 7.3 — City of Palm Desert General and Fire Fund Revenues, FY 2007 Budget Transfers Licenses and Permits 2% 7% Interest & Rentals 4% Charges for Service: 4% State Subventions 7% Other Revenue: 11% Transient ucc. i ax 14% Property Taxes 0 les Tax 33% The City maintains a healthy financial condition, as shown in Table 7.2, Palm Desert General Fund and Fire Fund Summary. At FY 2005 the City had a General Fund balance of $63.3 million with $1.2 million in the Proposition A Fire Tax Special Revenue Fund. Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 — Final Draft 7-5 7 ® Citv of Palm Desert Table 7.2 Palm Desert General Fund and Fire Fund Revenues $45,260,000 $49,193,192 $56,837,000 Expenditures $39,679,581 $49,133,794 $56,598,013 TOTAL Surplus/(Deficit) $5,923,420 $59,398 $238,987 At FY 2005, the City had $122.9 million in restricted reserves. Long-term liabilities totaled $254 million, of which $250 million are tax allocation bonds and obligations of the Redevelopment Agency and the Financing Authority. The City has no general obligation bond debt. The City has a five-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) that includes $99.8 million in funding for FY 2007. Projects include $71.5 million for streets and medians, $480,000 for drainage, $1.2 million for parks and recreation and $25.5 million for housing projects. The City funds these improvements using a variety of sources, including a New Construction Tax, developer fees, Measure A revenues (a half -cent sales tax program for transportation improvements), and redevelopment funds. The City budgets annually to provide funding assistance to non-profit agencies or groups that provide charitable, public benefit, public welfare or educational services to Palm Desert Residents. The Outside Agency Funding Committee makes recommendations on the grants. The FY 2007 budget includes $947,000 for this purpose, a 20 percent increase from the prior year. 7.4 Projected Growth Palm Desert is the second largest city of the six cities within the study area, and has the lowest projected growth rate. Table 7.3, Projected Population Growth compares the population growth in the City, in the western Coachella Valley incorporated areas, and in the Coachella Valley. Table 7.3 Proiected Population Growth Palm Desert - 47,987 54,600 56,893 59,155 61,322 63,402 1.3% Western Coachella Valley 186,707 211,028 237,540 263,684 288,742 312,772 2.7% incorporated areas Unincorporated Coachella Vly 90,668 103,079 126,925 149,159 169,437 187,870 4.3% Coachella Valley 419,338 470,827 540,105 607,149 670,378 1 730,001 3.09/6 Source: SCAG 2004 Growth Forecast. 1 Cathedral City, Desert Hot Springs, Indian Wells, Palm Desert, Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 — Final Draft 7-6 *ftr 7.0 City of Palm Desert The California Department of Finance (DOF) estimates the City's 2006 population to be 49,539, slightly higher than the SCAG estimate. In addition, the DOF estimates that the City had 33,142 housing units, with 2.149 persons per household. Palm Desert has an estimated 15,000 seasonal residents; approximately 30 percent of the dwelling units are second or vacation homes for part time residents. Table 7.4, Land Use Acreage Summary, summarizes the land uses within the City per the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan: Table 7.4 Land Use Acreaae Summary Land Use Type Residential Developed Acres 8,722 Vacant Acres 1,078 % 57% Commercial 1,222 517 10% Industrial 231 293 3% Public/Quasi- Public 636 16 4% Open Space 2,572 0 15% Roads 1,955 0 11 % Total 15,339 1,904 100% The estimated permanent population at build -out ranges from 53,000 to 59,000. Lands north of the I-10 are subject to development constraints, including flooding and seismic conditions, a lack of infrastructure, and sensitive species habitat. This area contains the Coachella Valley Preserve. There are several hundred vacant acres between Varner Road and Avenue 38. Build -out in this northern SOI is expected to be at substantially lower overall densities with a smaller population. Development in the southern SOI area is limited to very low density residential on large lots with the vast majority of the area expected to remain undeveloped. Note: On January 29, 2007, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments adopted updated population projections for the SCAG Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Those projections are included in Section 2.0, Regional Population and Growth. 7.5 Law Enforcement Palm Desert contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department to provide law enforcement services within the city. The Palm Desert Sheriff's Station is located at 73-520 Fred Waring Drive. This station also serves as the Sheriff's Department base of operations for the contract cities of Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells, and the unincorporated area in the western half of the Coachella Valley. The also Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 — Final Draft 7-7 *r *4010, 7.0 City of Palm Desert operates two off -site Police Sub -Stations to provide easier access to police services to the residents on the east side of the city. The City added six new deputies to its contract in FY 2006 due to growth in the northern sphere. Currently, there are 78 sworn officers serving Palm Desert, including 36 deputies dedicated to the Patrol Division and the balance assigned to the Traffic Division, Special Enforcement Teams, School Resource Officer, and Narcotics Enforcement. Current staffing provides the City with 1.5 officers per 1000 residents (based on the 2006 population of 49,539). Of the six cities in the study area, in 2005 Palm Desert ranked third in the property crime rate (56.7 incidents per 1,000 residents) and the violent crime rate (3.1 incidents per 1,000 residents). The Department operates the T-400 Target Team as an adjunct to the Patrol Division. The team consists of one sergeant, three deputies, a dedicated gang suppression officer, and a dedicated community -oriented policing officer. The primary function of the Target Team is to provide enhanced patrol services to residents of the City of Palm Desert. The Target Team conducts the time -intensive follow-up investigations of burglaries, thefts, and various other localized crimes, in order to keep the patrol officers in the field and available for calls for service. In 2005, the Palm Desert station received 17,846 emergency calls within the Palm Desert city limits. The average response time for the highest priority calls was 4.6 minutes. 7.6 Fire Services The City of Palm Desert contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department for fire protection and emergency services. There are three stations within the city limits, two additional stations within the ' City's SOI, and two within the expanded General Plan Planning Area. The City has identified the need for a new station in the vicinity of Cook Street and I-10 to serve future growth in the northern portion of the City. Palm Desert has an ISO rating of 3. Table 7.5, Palm Desert Fire Stations provides a breakdown ' of staff and equipment available at the City's stations and those within its SOI. Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 — Final Draft 7-8 r M Table 7.5 Palm Desert Fire Stations 7.0 City of Palm Desert Station Location Staffing�Equipment Station 33 - Palm Desert 44400 Town Center Way Type 1 engine - 3 staff 1 ALS Medic Unit 1 truck - 4 staff 1 reserve truck 1 Heavy Rescue Unit 1 Rescue ALS Medic Unit Station 67 - Mesa View 73200 Mesa View Drive Type 1 engine /ALS medic unit 3 per engine / 2 per ambulance Station 71 - North Palm Desert 73995 Country Club Drive Type 1 engine / ALS medic unit / Type 1 Reserve engine 3 per engine / 2 per ambulance Station 81 - Sun City _ _ 37955 Washington Street 1 engine / 3 firefighters 1 HazMat Unit / 2 firefighters 1 HazMat Support Unit / 3 firefighters As noted above in Section 7.3, Financial Condition, a special fire tax is imposed on real property within Palm Desert to provide additional funding for fire services. The charge for residential property is $48 per year; commercial property charges are based on square footage. The fire department is staffed by 51 personnel with 15 volunteers, equating to approximately 1.3 fire fighters per 1,000 residents (based on the 2006 population of 49,539). The department's target response time is 1 minute during the day and 2 minutes during the night. Their average response time is 2 minutes. The firefighters and emergency medical technicians at the three Palm Desert stations responded to 941 fires, 5,090 medical emergencies, and 407 miscellaneous calls in 2005 for a total of 6,438. 7.7 Solid Waste Palm Desert has a franchise agreement with Burrtec Industries to provide solid waste collection and disposal services. Commercial pick-up is offered up to six days per week, and residential pick-up is generally once per week. Burrtec offers additional services to large waste generators including restaurants, hotels, retailers, and resorts. Burrtec uses a 3-Cart Automated Collection System, which provides customers with one bin for trash, one for recyclables, and one for green waste. Gated residential communities use their own trash bins and a manual collection system. Trash collected in the City is hauled to the Edom Hill Transfer Station. The trash is then diverted to the Badlands Landfill in Moreno Valley or the Lamb Canyon Landfill, located between the Cities of Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 — Final Draft 7-9 w 7.0 City of Palm Desert Beaumont and San Jacinto. The Badlands Landfill is permitted to accept 4,000 tons of waste per day and is scheduled to close in 2018. The Lamb Canyon Landfill is permitted to accept 3,000 tons of waste per day and is scheduled to close in 2023. The City's recycling program has proven beneficial in the preservation of landfill space for non - recyclable materials, and the preservation of energy and other finite resources used in materials production. Recyclable materials such as glass, plastic, and newspaper are hauled to a third party recycler in Los Angeles. Green waste is recycled by BioMass in Thermal. The City also has a program to help residents dispose of their electronic waste (e-waste). Residents may bring their a -waste to the Household Waste facility on Saturdays at no charge. The City hosted its first Tire Amnesty event in December 2006, where residents could dispose of unwanted tires free of charge. The City's reported waste diversion rate under AB 939 was 63 percent for 2004, exceeding the 50 percent requirement established by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. 7.8 Stormwater Drainage The Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and the Riverside County Flood Control District are responsible for the management of regional drainage within and in the vicinity of Palm Desert, including rivers, major streams and their tributaries, and areas of significant sheet flooding. Both Districts are empowered with broad management functions, including flood control planning and construction of drainage improvements for regional flood control facilities, as well as watershed and watercourse protection related to those facilities. To carry out their mandates, the Districts also have powers of taxation, bonded indebtedness, land and water rights acquisition, and cooperative partnerships with local, state, and federal agencies. An elected Board acts as the official decision -making body of CVWD, while the Riverside County Board of Supervisors is the official decision -making body of that District. While CVWD and the County have the primary responsibility of regional flood control, the City is directly responsible for the management of local drainage. The preservation of lands constrained by topography or drainage, including steep slopes, areas rich in vegetation and cover, alluvial plains and drainage channels greatly reduces runoff and preserves the capacity of downstream facilities. The planned integration of on -site storm water detention facilities, where possible and appropriate, significantly reduces the needed size of downstream facilities, while creating opportunities for groundwater recharge, and enhanced open space and recreation areas. The City has a Land Development and Capital Improvement Projects Division which provides project review and permitting for land development projects (subdivisions, commercial and single family homes) focusing on the areas of grading, roadway construction and drainage improvements. The division also includes the development, design and construction of the City's Capital Improvement Program. Projects such as new roadway construction and roadway widening, flood control and storm drain systems and major street rehabilitation are all included in the division activities. The division also monitors Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 — Final Draft 7 10 I W I 7.0 City of Palm Desert compliance with federal regulatory requirements in the areas of water and air quality. The City has budgeted for $480,000 in drainage capital improvement projects for FY 2007. 7.9 Roads and Circulation The Palm Desert Traffic Division oversees the development, operation and maintenance of the City's transportation infrastructure. The division also oversees the design, installation and maintenance of traffic control devices, reviews and resolves of traffic related problems and prepares traffic -engineering studies. The City has budgeted for $71.6 million in capital improvement projects for FY 2007. The CIP includes $250,000 annually for the major street and sidewalks program and $250,000 annually for the major street landscape program. Public Transit. The provider of public transit service within the City and the Coachella Valley is the SunLine Transit Agency. SunLine carries nearly 4 million passengers per year in a service area of more than 360 square miles and provides five bus routes within the City. 7.10 Parks and Recreation The City's Parks and Recreation Department oversees parks and recreation services within the City. The City has 205 acres of park land consisting of eleven parks with a variety of amenities and open natural land conservation areas. The City currently provides 4.1 acres of park land per 1,000 residents, with a General Plan goal of 5 acres per 1,000 residents. Table 7.6 summarizes park facilities within the City: Table 7.6 Palm uesert ParK racinves Park Name Acreage Civic Center Park 70 4 Baseball Fields with Concession/Restroom Building, 6 Tennis Courts, 4 Volleyball Courts, 3 Basketball Courts, 5 Picnic Pavilions, Amphitheater, Skate Park, Tot Lot, Dog Park, Public art displays Palm Desert Soccer Park 21 5 Full Size Soccer Fields with Concession/Restroom Bldg, Picnic Pavilions, 3 Horseshoe Pits, 3 Shuffleboard Courts, 1 Basketball Court, Tot Lot Ironwood Park 14.5 Picnic Pavilions, Tot Lot, Open Grass Area, Restroom Cahuilla Hills Park 27.5 2 Tennis Courts, Picnic Area, Trails; The park serves as a trail head for the Cahuilla Hills Trails System. Portola Park 2 Tot Lot, Picnic Area, Restroom, Baseball Field available after school and on weekends Cook Street Sports Complex 10 3 Baseball Fields, Open Turf Area, Restroom/Concession Building (owned by School District) Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 — Final Draft 7-11 Z o City of Palm Desert Park Name Acre ,.. Amenities Washington Charter School 2.5 Tot Lot, Open Turf Area available after school and on weekends (owned Park by School District) Joe Mann Park 2.5 Basketball Court, Volleyball Court, Water Feature, Rose Garden, Dog Park, Picnic Pavilion, Tot Lot, Open Turf Area, Restroom Cap Homme/Ralph Adams 27 Multi -use Trails, Picnic Areas; this site serves primarily as a trailhead for Park the Cahuilla Hills Trails System Palma Village Neighborhood 2 Shaded Playground, Basketball Court, Sand Volleyball Court, Walking Park Paths, Covered Picnic Areas, Restrooms Freedom Park 26 3 Ball Fields, Tennis Courts, Basketball Courts, Sand Volleyball Courts, Tot Lot, Trails, Picnic Shelters, Dog Park, Community Garden, Skate Features, 2 Multiuse Fields, Restroom/Concession Building Total Acreage 205 In addition to the parks shown above, the City owns and operates Desert Willows Golf Course, which has two 18-hole championship courses. In the future the City plans to construct a regional park, to be located on the north side of Country Club Drive west of Washington Street. The 34 acre site would include facilities such as baseball fields, a multi -use field, tennis courts, basketball courts, volleyball courts, picnic areas, playground and other amenities. A portion of the site is owned by the Desert Sands Unified School District and includes the District's new Ronald Reagan Elementary School. Palm Desert maintains a number open space hiking trails. The majority of trails are located in the outlying areas in the hills and mountains that surround the Valley. Open space areas within the City with hiking trails and facilities include the Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains and the Living Desert. In 1990 the Cities of Palm Desert, Indian Wells and Rancho Mirage entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to fund park and recreation facilities that serve the Cove Communities. The cost of recreation facilities are shared based upon a formula of population and assessed value. Through this MOU, the three cities contributed toward the construction of the sports complex located in the Palm Desert Civic Center Park; the facilities are available to Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, and Indian Wells residents through the joint funding agreement. The City has also adopted the Quimby Act as part of its municipal code which requires new subdivisions to dedicate land or pay fees for parks and recreational purposes. Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 — Final Draft 7-12 7.0 City of Palm Desert It is noted in the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan that the City needs to prepare a Master Parks and Recreation Plan that will fully assess the adequacy of existing facilities and evaluate the need for additional land and facilities. Palm Desert contracts with the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District to operate and schedule some of its facilities, including the Palm Desert Community Center and Civic Center Park. The District is proposing the formation of a new assessment district for the entire district. The City's Parks and Recreation Commission has expressed concerns over this issue; the Commission is also evaluating the benefit the District provides to Palm Desert residents. If these concerns cannot be resolved satisfactorily, the Commission may consider recommending that the City detach from the District. 7.11 Library Facilities The Palm Desert Public Library, located at 73-300 Fred Waring Drive, is a branch of the Riverside County Library System. The library encompasses approximately 20,000 square feet of a 40,000 square foot facility, which is shared with the College of the Desert Library. Although their books and resources are physically separated, the two libraries have a reciprocity agreement and also share an online research database and checkout desk. The Palm Desert Public Library contains approximately 75,000 volumes and is staffed by five full-time employees, 15 part-time employees, and approximately 35 volunteers. Hours of operation are Monday through Wednesday 10am-8pm, Thursday through Saturday 10am-5pm, and Sunday 1pm-5pm. A special events coordinator arranges musical events and guest speaker lectures and presentations. The library operates a youth story -time program and adult computer classes and supports the County -wide Literacy Program, which is managed from the Indio Public Library. The City allocates General Fund revenues to pay for additional library services, which are above and beyond those provided under the County contract. Specifically, these funds cover expenses for three additional hours of operation on Thursdays, a volunteer program and coordinator, special events programs, and a special events coordinator. 7.12 Animal Control The City contracts with the Riverside County Department of Animal Services for the control of dogs, cats and other domestic animals. Services that are provided include spaying and neutering of pets, sheltering of lost or abandoned pets at various shelters throughout the County, and nuisance issues such as animal care questions, dog licensing, barking dog problems, and loose dogs in public places. Riverside LAFCO: Western Coachella Valley Municipal Service Review 4918 February 2007 — Final Draft 7-13 n November 20, 2006 Carlos Ortega City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 RE: LAFCO 2006-89-4 - SPHERE OF INFLUENCE REVIEW AND POTENTIAL AMENDMENTS FOR THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. Dear Mr. Ortega: Riverside LAFCO is preparing to review your City's Sphere of Influence. As I am sure you are aware, LAFCO is now mandated to review each agency's Sphere of Influence not less then once every five years, as outlined in Government Code Section 56425. A Sphere of Influence is defined by Government Code Section 56076, "as a plan for the probable physical boundaries and service area of a local agency, as determined by the Commission". All annexations into your city must be within your Sphere of Influence. As part of the process of Sphere of Influence reviews, Riverside LAFCO is in the process of scheduling and conducting the required Municipal Service Reviews (MSR). These MSR's when completed will allow LAFCO to then review the Sphere of Influence of the City. I am writing to ask that you review your city's current Sphere of Influence. Please review your sphere for conformance with your City's General Plan, projected growth and possible future annexations. If an area where the City may anticipate future growth is outside of your current sphere and outside of your current General Plan, please consider amending your General Plan to include those areas which you feel are appropriate to include in your revised Sphere of Influence. You should prepare exhibits of any amendments to your Sphere you feel appropriate to your City's Sphere of Influence and forward them to this office. If you feel that no changes are necessary to your City's Sphere of Influence please let us know in writing to that effect. , i-'at w-Ei':'SI .iL Luf.—'-.i .{.._ L.N0Mli+.il'+! 8 }_il:c�IV I �-,d�_a` � ,_,'„ i�.�fi' ,TsS;}_�� _:.i_if.I..:L i. It B RIVEF,,�?W)F a `?�� �?f�F.�.`�E�„_ ' Pltul les }5 1 Should there be any revisions to your Sphere please provide answers to the questions on the sheet titled: STATEMENT OF DETERMINATIONS (attached), and return them to our office with the materials mentioned above. I am including a map of your City's current Sphere of Influence boundaries and copies of the relevant Government Code sections. I am available to meet with you and your staff to discuss your Sphere of Influence and any potential amendments. My e-mail is: WFowler@LAFCO.or and my phone number is: 951-369-0631. Thank you for your co-operation and assistance in this review, l Wayne Fowler Sr.LGA Vj vLR, L ) E L Ls tfLi�Gi a'+J1�ibLAl1(ji'! k 0fvIIV1 � 3 1 sJ N 50 5 ai L a.kEE1 "SUiiE i I ( i is FT,ER-,1 )E i„ f? 0.` z�— iiioile ( 351.) JiJ'j 6S L ,,; ,iail,J. toil i i (�3id 36,_i Jar �w 1%0 AON R D rc I c Pal s o pr gS I W � a I o 0 ERALD FORD DR — Paim — , E&VA0 u1R I Palm Sprgs 301 FRANK) SINATRA DR N, W > , a C o 7 COUNTRY CLUB DR r a m � J O Iu w 00 z 11 Y o O ® o 14 115 10 3.. 2 ■ FR D AR1 wDR 13 ®16 12 183 ■ 6 ■ Indian Wells of Riverside ISIS Layers • 9 17 • ■ La Quinta Legend L. ._1 Palm Desert - City Limits L__—Surrounding City Limits Sphere of Influence (Sol) Surrounding City Sphere of Influence 0 Unincorporated Area County Service Area (CSA): ® Pinyon Flats (60) Public Facilities • City Hall • Community Center • Library Police/Sheriff • Fire Station ■ Parks & Recreation PALM DESERT PUBLIC FACILITIES 1 Palm Desert City Hal! Part: Facilities 2 Palm Desert Library 10 Ci Ac Center Park 3 Palm Desert Community Center 11 Palm Desert Soccer Park 4 Police Department 12 Ironwood Park Fire Stations 13 Cahuilla Hills Park 5 Station 33 14 Portola Park 6 Station 67 15 Cook Street Sports Complex 7 Station 71 16 Washington Charter School Park 8 Station 81 0 Sun City 17 Joe Mann Park 9 Station 31 0 Bermuda Dunes 18 Cap Homme/Ralph Adams Park 19 Palma Village Neighborhood Park � I I ' I 6 Feet 0 5,000 10,000 Western Coachella Valley Municipal Services Review FIGURE City of Palm Desert , 7.1 Statement of Determinations For any amendments to a Sphere of Influence, LAFCO must make the following four determinations. Please review these four statements and answer as appropriate: 1: The present and planned land uses inn the area, including agricultural and open -space lands. 2: The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. 3: The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. 4: The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. %W '"o M In PYrmcliwd _'a 88" it ary Drop os,al Involves a distrio e'4d b ie, I s t 1L1 l d �1r r1J � JJlL' L, 0r as a restft or a proposed change of organtzaton or 1 ganization would be, prated in more than ,oirie c"�x,-y, eq irerraynts exclusive jurisdiction for that proposal over the nnatte;,^s authorized and required by this part may be vested in the commission of a county, other than the ?principal county, which territory of the district is located or is proposed to be located if all of the following occur: (a) -he-commission-of-tl-h— principal county agrees to having the exclusive jurisdiction vested in the comnniss.ion of another county. (b) The commission of the principal county designates the commission of another county which shall assume exclusive jurisdiction. (c) The commission of the county so designated agrees to assume exclusive jurisdiction. CHAPTER 4. SPHERES OF INFL,UENCE Purpose and policies 56425. (a) In order to carry out its purposes and responsibilities for planning and shaping the logical and orderly development and coordination of local governmental agencies so as to advantageously provide for the present and future needs of the county and its communities, the commission shall develop and determine the sphere of influence of each local governmental agency within the county and enact policies designed to promote the logical and orderly development of areas within the sphere. City -county meeting and agreement (b) At least 30 days prior to submitting an application to the commission for a determination of a new sphere of influence, or to update an existing sphere of influence for a city, representatives from the city shall meet with county representatives to discuss the proposed sphere, and its boundaries, and explore methods to reach agreement on the boundaries, development standards, and zoning requirements within the sphere to ensure that development within the sphere occurs in a manner that reflects the concerns of the affected city and is accomplished in a manner that promotes the logical and orderly development of areas within the Time period and extension sphere. If no agreement is reached between the city and county within 30 days, then the parties may, by mutual agreement, extend discussions for an additional period of 30 days. If an agreement is reached between the city and county regarding the boundaries, development standards, and zoning requirements within the proposed sphere, the agreement shall be forwarded to the commission, and the commission shall consider anal adoni a sphere OF in_fl>> ,�r, FT C 0-mull_ission ptirsL?am to th;s Sectio 1, and they cornn"iiss`lo_"_ cJ,.w for diff r�_nt Fst�nbbsh the :aa.tuvY , 110c don, and Pe tent of lit-r ,fill fl(d kirj( tio-ns of (asls�s 19 Arvic s pr4 iced by districts. (i) Subdivisions (b), (r), and (d) and shall become inoperative as of January 1, 2007, unless a later enacfie-d statute, that becomes operative on or before January 1, 2007, deletes or extends that date, '(Amended by Mats. 2000,--Ch.-129;-effective July 14, 2000; Stats. 2000, Ch. 761; Stats, 2001, Ch. 667.) Application to redevelopment 56425.5. (a) A determination of a city's sphere of project area influence, in any case where that sphere of influence includes any portion of the redevelopment project area referenced in subdivision (e) of Section 33492.41 of the Health and Safety Code, shall not preclude any other local agency, as defined in Section 54951, including the redevelopment agency referenced in Section 33492.41 of the Health and Safety Code, in addition to that city, from providing facilities or services related to development, as defined in subdivision (e) of Section 56426, to or in that portion of the redevelopment project area that, as of January 1, 2000, meets all of the following requirements: (1) Is unincorporated territory. (2) Contains at least 100 acres. (3) Is surrounded or substantially surrounded by incorporated territory. (4) Contains at least 100 acres zoned for commercial or industrial uses or is designated on the applicable county general plan for commercial or industrial uses. (b) Facilities or services related to development may be provided by other local agencies to all or any portion of the area defined in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, of subdivision (a). Subdivision (a) shall apply regardless of whether the determination of the sphere of influence is made before or after January 1, 2000. (Added by Stats. 2000, Ch. 761.) Sphere of influence of proposed or newly 56426.5. (a) Beginning January 1, 1990, at the time a incorporated city; within one year commission approves a proposal for an incorporation or a reorganization which includes an incorporation; the commission may determine the sphere of influence for the proposed new city. Except as provided in subdivision (b), the commission shall determine the sphere of influence for any newly incorporated city within one year of the effective date of incorporation. (b) The co-m riissirin shall ,i(;termii7,e the sjpbe=e Of iilil7il il�,r ice, 1:�1 i ,:'l-�! 3_w;yt'J- i �,-" �a ci+Y, i1ie- rj-1-.�ijos d i_:+_:.. rN_hich y-,ias '?pprGved by tl7e conlinission iefore ,'`IUPJM_ %W *0 .',_'C't d ,,/0 days, 6op tll t11r' date-, peC. i a"9rd at7 t(!P tt7,.igg8 wa j_'i�, e� F 'Ii o'rsofi Car 2gr'. ('-w >-Aiicoh We'd dlle i .quL _,st may 9vlt:h6 aw it al �a y dir e p_-63)- Co ddhe collclusiodn o1 the rodjmlr r t`,o ie�armlnalIlolas and decislon (e) At the conclusion of its consideration, the comimission may approve or disapprove with or without amendir_�eh t wholly, partially, or conditionally, the request. The commission shall- follow the procedures in Section 56425 Fee ( The commission may require the person or agency making a request pursuant to this section to pay a fee to cover the commission's costs. The fee shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service and shall be set pursuant to Section 56383. The commission may waive the fee if it finds that the request can be considered and studied as part of the periodic review of spheres of influence required by Section 56425. In addition, the commission may waive the fee if it finds that payment would be detrimental to the public interest. (g) The commission and executive officer may review and act on any request to amend a sphere of influence or urban service area concurrently with their review and determination on any related change of organization or reorganization. In case of a conflict between the provisions of this section and any other provisions of this part, the other provisions shall prevail. Amended by Stats. 2001, Ch. 388.) Petition for removal from city sphere; 56429. (a) Notwithstanding Sections 56425, 56427, and hearing; fees 56428, a petition for removal of territory from a sphere of influence determination may be brought pursuant to this section by landowners within the redevelopment project area referenced in subdivision (e) of Section 33492.41 of the Health and Safety Code, if, at the time the petition is Requirements submitted, the area for which the petition is being requested meets all of the following requirements: (1) Is unincorporated territory. (2) Contains at least 100 acres. (3) Is surrounded or substantially surrounded by incorporated territory. (4) Contains at least 100 acres zoned for commercial or industrial uses or is designated on the applicable county general plan for commercial or industrial uses. (b) On receipt of a petition signed by landowners owning at least 25 percent of the assessed value of the land with -in the affected territory, the corninission shall hear and coil.sidcr or 11 or written fescir eii, (c) T p— jJFd6ori shl-ll b Aac:_'i e p,E1 �rl� , _ ✓? V _ coninissioin un "ccordaiicr '„/iiii iibdivlsion (b) of ,-:;r lo'"n *MW *0 *Ape Cost avoid1tve ri-p-paillIM0411s, - :Pportumid es for raLe 1,6 Opportunities for shared facilides, (7) Govermneat smicture options, including advarwi:OItS and disadvantages of consolidation or reorganization if In Service providers. (8) Evaluation of management efficiencies. (9) Local accountability and governance. Comprehensive service review -(b)-In conducting, a -service -review, -the commission shall comprehensively review all of the agencies that provide the identified service or services within the designated geographic area. Service review with sphere update (c) The commission shall conduct a service review before, or in conjunction with, but no later than the time it is considering an action to establish a sphere of influence in accordance with Section 56425 or Section 56426.5 or to update a sphere of influence pursuant to Section 56425. Office of Planning and Research (d) Not later than July 1, 2001, the Office of Planning guidelines and Research, in consultation with commissions, the California Association of Local Agency Formation Commissions, and other local governments, shall prepare guidelines for the service reviews to be conducted by commissions pursuant to this section. (Added by Stats. 2000, Ch. 761.) Services to previously unserved 56434. (a) The commission may review and approve a territory proposal that extends services into previously unserved territory within unincorporated areas and may review the creation of new service providers to extend urban type development into previously unserved territory within unincorporated areas to ensure that the proposed extension is consistent with the policies of Sections 56001, 56300, 56301, and the adopted policies of the commission implementing these sections, including promoting orderly development, discouraging urban sprawl, preserving open space and prime agricultural lands, providing housing, for persons and families of all incomes, and the efficient extension of governmental services. (b) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2007, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2007, deletes or extends that date. (Added by Stats. 2000, Ch. 761.) L"M In T»\ . \ \.. _ ,.1 \ } ƒ$ -T nwp", �^ \\\\ � \ 7«:��/~ ` ! � , ...j�^ ^ x�\?��{ \\\\'\! � �k� <\\ .? .\ � `� /� \. ��^ � v, � .{ � /� ~` ~ ( August 26, 2004 cm MISSION STATEMENT The broad mission of the Local Agency Formation Commission of Riverside County is to implement the legislative direction and policies embodied in the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 in a manner most appropriate to provide an orderly growth pattern that reconciles the varied needs of Riverside County. One of the fundamental principles of LAFCO is to ensure the establishment of an appropriate and logical municipal government structure for the distribution of efficient and appropriate public services. The Commission will encourage and promote communication among public agencies, property owners and residents of Riverside County. These policies shall be carried out in an efficient and courteous manner. GOAL NO. l: FACILITATE EFFICIENT URBAN FORM Objective No. 1: . Discourage Urban Sprawl. 1.1.1 Annexation proposals covering undeveloped or agricultural parcels to cities or districts providing urban services should demonstrate that: a. Urban development is likely to occur within the next ten years over a substantial portion of the proposal area, and; b. Urban development will be contiguous with existing or proposed development. Consistent with Objective No. 3 and legislative, intent expressed in Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg, this Strategy shall be implemented with due consideration for preserving open space lands within urban development patterns. 1.1.2 Applicants for annexations or reorganizations should demonstrate that the services furnished by the affected agency will be provided in a timely manner and at a cost that is reflective of, or comparable to, other similar types of development. 1.1.3 LAFCO will encourage in -fill development in urban areas and the annexation of areas inside existing city spheres of influence to avoid further urban sprawl. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION . 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 . RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 PHONE: (951) 369-0631 . www.lafco.org - FAX: (951) 369-8479 2 1.1.4 All proposals including annexation to a city shall have been prezoned by the annexing city. A certified copy of the city's prezoning ordinance shall accompany the application. 1.1.5 Each proposal must be consistent with the appropriate city or county general and specific plans. Objective No. 2: Preserve the physical and economic integrity of agricultural lands. 1.2.1 City SOIs shall be directed away from substantial areas of prime agricultural land, unless: a. The result would not facilitate an orderly development pattern; and, b. The city's general plan allows for the continued operation of agricultural uses and provides guidelines for the ultimate development of agricultural land at the time the use is terminated or development is proposed. 1.2.2 LAFCO shall deny the annexation of agricultural lands unless they meet the criteria specified below: a. The annexation of land located within an agricultural preserve may be approved only when: 1. A notice of non -renewal or cancellation has been filed on the affected property proposed for annexation, or, 2. The jurisdiction's General Plan contains appropriate language: a. To allow for the effective and continued operation of agricultural uses, and; b. To provide guidelines for the ultimate development of agricultural land at the time the preserve is terminated or development is proposed. b. The loss of non -prime agricultural lands should not be a central issue for annexation where city or county general plans provide for urban development and the proposal would not impact the integrity of surrounding prime agricultural lands. Objective No. 3: Preserve open space within urban development patterns. 1.3.1 The Commission shall consider the preservation of open space lands as a valid reason for the annexation of undeveloped land. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION . 3550 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 . RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 PHONE: (951) 369-0631 - www.lafcn.— • FAX• /9;1� gip^ 3 •.ems GOAL NO.2: ENHANCE SERVICE PROVISION THROUGH LOCAL GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE Objective No. 1: Encourage orderly formation and development of agencies by shaping local agency boundaries. 2.1.1 To achieve this goal, LAFCO shall encourage the reorganization of overlapping and competing agencies or illogical boundaries dividing agency service areas. In certain cases adjoining service agencies shall collaborate to ensure appropriate and adequate services are provided to the public even though it may be outside an agency's service area. In those unique instances where an adjoining agency has the best ability to serve a particular location outside of its service area and within another agency's service area, it must be demonstrated that the public need or benefit outweighs a particular jurisdictional authority. LAFCO shall encourage this type of interagency collaboration only on a limited geographical basis when appropriate and in the best interest of the public. This type of collaboration may take a variety of forms, including: a. The establishment of informal arrangements between agencies in which each understands the other's abilities and/or priorities and the action meets existing agency goals. b. The establishment of formal arrangements between agencies using agreements or Memorandums of Understanding that detail the administrative and operational relationship of each agency. 2.1.2 Where special district boundaries overlap city territory, LAFCO will support district detachments if the city provides similar services to the district and can demonstrate one of the following conditions is met: a. The subject city provides a higher level of service. b. The subject city provides equivalent service levels at a lower cost. LAFCO shall also consider the impact of detachment on the ability of the district to provide services to the remainder of its service area. 2.1.3 LAFCO shall support annexation of all islands of unincorporated territory and areas substantially surrounded by a city located within that city's sphere of influence, as the local provider of services and controls. If an annexation is proposed for only a portion of an island of unincorporated territory, the proponent shall provide adequate justification as to why the entire island should not be annexed. Cities are expected to solicit the opinions of landowners and residents in island and substantially surrounded areas. 2.1.4 Agency boundaries should not be drawn so as to create an island, corridor or strip either within the proposed territory or immediately adjacent to it. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION . 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 . RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 PHONE: (951) 369-0631 . www.1afco.or-® FAX: (951) 369-8479 low 140 4 Where such an island, corridor or strip is created, the proponent shall justify the reasons for non-conformance with this Strategy. Such reasons could include, but are not limited to: a) creation of the island, corridor or strip will not affect the provision of services to the area, b) service impacts can be mitigated by terms and conditions imposed on the annexing city to provide services to all or a portion of the island, corridor or strip, c) implementation of the strategy would be detrimental to the orderly development of the community. 2.1.5 LAFCO shall support agency boundaries that include rather than split existing identifiable communities, commercial districts, or other areas having social or economic homogeneity which are located within the applicable sphere of influence. Incorporation 2.1.6 The following local policies on incorporation supplement Incorporation Guidelines prepared by the Governor's Office of Planning & Research (OPR). 2.1.6.1 Preliminary Feasibility Assessment -A preliminary feasibility assessment should be completed at the earliest possible time and must be completed no later than the filing of a Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition. The value of this analysis is to let incorporation proponents and the community know whether additional effort and resources should be devoted to pursuing incorporation. Additionally, the preliminary assessment can identify revenue neutrality issues, allowing for early discussions between proponents and the County regarding mitigation. Failure to perform an early preliminary assessment could result in a community pursuing an incorporation that is subsequently shown to be fiscally infeasible. This could result in a tremendous waste of effort and set back future incorporation efforts (OPR Guidelines, p. 10). [This policy does not apply to incorporation proposals that filed a Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition prior to July 31, 2003.] 2.1.6.2 Additional Time To Complete Application Requirements -In consideration of the complex analyses required to be submitted with certain types of proposals, elements of a proposal that includes incorporation, disincorporation, city consolidation or district consolidation may be submitted up to 18 months after initiation. The date of initiation is the date of adoption of a resolution of application (for proposals initiated by a local agency) or the date of issuance of the Certificate of Sufficiency (for proposals initiated by petition). RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 . RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 1wr' 5 VA001 2.1.6.3 Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis (CFA)-LAFCO must prepare, or cause to be prepared, a Comprehensive Fiscal Analysis (OPR Guidelines, pp. 10, 17). Management and preparation of the legally mandated CFA occurs in one of two ways: a. Incorporation proponents directly hire and manage a consultant to prepare the draft CFA. Proponents are directly responsible for consultant selection, payment, and the timing of the analysis. b. LAFCO retains a consultant to prepare the draft CFA with funds deposited by the proponents. LAFCO manages the consultants work as long as funds are on deposit. The first model has traditionally been used in Riverside County. It demonstrates the existence of independence and leadership in the community. In both cases, the CFA is not considered final until all changes requested by the Commission or the Executive Officer have been completed. In either case, proponents are financially responsible for preparation of the CFA and all changes required. In either case, the consultant shall identify all past incorporation analyses performed within the affected area. CFA Requirements -In order to minimize the likelihood of forming a city that cannot sustain itself, the following principles shall govern the preparation of the CFA: a. All assumptions shall be clearly identified at the beginning of the analysis. b. Costs of services should be based upon existing levels of service. c. All revenue estimates/projections shall be conservative. d. Extreme care shall be taken to ensure that all costs are accounted for. e. Costs for functions that are not being directly assumed from another agency (e.g. the County) should use similarly sized cities as a basis for estimates. This is especially applicable to administrative functions. f. Proposition 13 allows for a maximum increase in assessed value of 2 percent annually for individual properties in the absence of a change in ownership. When the general rate of inflation is higher than 2 percent, the effect is a loss in real dollars from the existing tax base (unless the rate of turnover and property value increases are sufficiently high). Property tax projection methodology must take into account the potential deflation of property tax dollars. g. While State law only requires an analysis of the city's first three years, the Riverside LAFCO requires an analysis projecting out a minimum of eight years. Many State subventions for new cities are based on a calculated population of three times the number of registered voters for the first seven years after incorporation. This formula, which typically greatly exceeds actual population, provides a RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION - 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE I10 - RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 PHONE! (9511 369-0631 - ­1afo — - PAY- (Q51) 46Q_R,17Q En CM 0 temporary source of eiflianced revenue -a "bonus" to help new cities get started. The purpose of the increased time frame is to capture the fiscal status of the city at. the point when state subventions are based upon actual population. This analysis allows the Commission and the community to gauge the long-term viability of incorporation. (OPR Guidelines, p. 30) h. Section 56720 requires that the Commission, in approving an incorporation, find that the new city will have sufficient revenue to provide public services and facilities and a "reasonable reserve". Consistent with OPR Guidelines (p.34) the CFA should include an appropriation for contingency of at least 10 percent and an additional reserve of 10 percent. 2.1.6.4 Boundary Alternatives -Incorporation proponents should discuss potential boundaries with LAFCO staff at the earliest possible date. Proponents may be required to have a CFA conducted on more than one boundary alternative. Failure to analyze boundary alternatives could result in denial of the incorporation proposal or lengthy delays if the Commission favors a boundary that has not been analyzed. Nothing herein precludes LAFCO from approving minor modifications to an incorporation proposal without additional analysis if it can be clearly seen that the changes will not have a significant impact upon feasibility or revenue neutrality. 2.1.6.5 Boundary Description -The Petition for Incorporation and the submitted application must include a map and text description that clearly identifies the proposed boundaries. A legal description and associated map, prepared in accordance with LAFCO standards by a licensed land surveyor or qualified civil engineer, must be submitted and approved at least 60 days prior to the hearing before the Commission and prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Filing. 2.1.6.6 Loan for Incorporation Fees -Section 56383(g) provides that Incorporation proponents may seek a loan from the State Controller to cover processing fees. The request must be made through LAFCO after certification of a successful petition initiating the proposal. The submitted request must certify that the proponents are unable to raise sufficient funds to cover processing fees. Certification should include current bank statements of all accounts available to fund the incorporation effort, a list of expenditures and revenue sources to date, a list of all fund raising efforts, and any other information that would demonstrate that the proponents are unable to raise sufficient funds. The request shall be presented to the Commission, which may request additional information. The Commission may also request that the incorporation accounts be audited. The Commission may, but is not required to forward the loan request to the State Controller. (OPR Guidelines, p. 20) RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION ° 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 ^ RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 2.1.6.7 In the event of a conflict between the OPR Guidelines and local guidelines and policies, local guidelines and policies shall prevail. LAFCO Participation in Funding of Special Studies 2.1.7 a. Requests for Commission fimding of special studies must meet the following criteria in order to receive Commission approval: 1. Objectives of the study must meet the needs of a broad public interest, beyond the interests of a single public agency or landowner. 2. At least two public agencies (other than LAFCO) must be committed to participate in funding the analysis. 3. The request must specifically state the level of funding sought, however, the Commission's share shall not exceed one-third of the total study cost. 4. The analysis must address significant issues that have been discussed by the Commission over a period of several months. b. Upon receipt of a request, the Executive Officer shall place the matter on the earliest agenda practical. The Executive Officer will report on how the request complies with the above criteria and on potential budget impacts of the request. c. The Commission may, but is not compelled to, approve the request for participatory funding, wholly, partially or conditionally. d. The Commission may indicate a commitment in terms of a dollar amount, a percentage of the study cost, or a combination of both. Objective No. 2: In recognition of legislative policy expressed in Cortese Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (Section 56000 et seq.), the Commission shall endeavor to minimize the number of agencies providing services to a given area. 2.2.1 In order to minimize the number of agencies providing services within a given area, LAFCO will evaluate proposals for changes of organization with the following hierarchy in mind (in descending order of preference). That is, prior to proposing a specific organizational change, proponents must provide justification for rejection of each preceding change in the hierarchy: a. Annexation to an existing city. b. Annexation to an existing multiple purpose special district. c. Annexation to an existing single purpose special district. d. Formation of a County Service Area. e. Formation of a new district. f. Incorporation of a new City. g. Unincorporated Community. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION . 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 ® RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 PHONE: (951) 369-0631 • www.lafco.org . FAX: (951) 369-8479 b 2.2.2 Commission actions will recognize that certain services are best provided on a sub -regional basis over a geographic area spanning the boundaries of more than one general-purpose agency. Provision of services on a sub - regional basis is often appropriate due to the following factors: a. The cost of providing services is lower due to economies of scale. b. A sub -regional agency may have a greater ability to obtain favorable financing for public works. 2.2.3 In order to reduce and minimize the number of agencies providing services, LAFCO shall only approve proposals for the formation of new agencies when all of the following conditions are met: a. There is evidenced a clear need for the new agency's services from the affected landowners and/or residents. b. There are no other existing agencies that are able to annex and provide similar services in a cost-effective manner. c. There is a demonstrated ability of the new agency to provide for and finance the needed new services. d. The Commission shall establish a sphere of influence pursuant to Objective No. 3 at the time of formation. 2.2.4 The Commission encourages implementation of changes of organization, such as consolidations, mergers, dissolutions, where the result will be better services, reduced cost, and/or efficient administration of services to the citizens. 2.2.5 Commission initiated proposals for consolidation, dissolution, merger, or establishment of subsidiary districts shall not be considered until reasonable efforts are made to encourage initiation of such proposals by petition or resolution of one or more affected agencies. Objective No. 3: Utilize Spheres of Influence to Guide Future Development of Agency Boundaries. 2.3.1 A sphere of influence (SOD is the Commission's plan for the probable boundary and service area of a local agency. The establishment or amendment of a sphere of influence is a policy declaration of the Commission based upon existing facts and circumstances which, although not easily changed, may be subject to review and change in the event that a future significant change of circumstances so warrants. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION . 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 . RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 2.3.2 The establishment or amendment of a sphere of influence by the Commission may take several forms as follows: a. A SOI encompassing territory beyond the existing boundaries of an agency indicates the expectation of future growth of the agency's service area. b. A SOI that is coterminous with the existing boundaries of an agency indicates the expectation that the agency is currently in its ultimate configuration. No growth in its service area is anticipated. c. A SOI that is smaller than the existing boundaries of an agency indicates the expectation that future detachments from the agency would be appropriate. d. A "zero sphere of influence" indicates the agency should be dissolved. 2.3.3 By its March meeting of each year, the Commission shall identify municipal spheres of influence to receive comprehensive reviews over the following twelve-month period. Such reviews shall be coordinated with the affected city(ies), adjacent cities, and affected residents via the appropriate Supervisorial office(s). In any given year, the Commission may decide to review any number of spheres it believes are appropriate for the resources it has or it may decide not to review any. 2.3.4 One of the factors the Commission shall use in determining a SOI shall be a city's general plan. Prior to any expansion of a city's SOI, the affected city's general plan must contain provisions to adequately demonstrate that the city has planned for the increased needs associated with a larger geographic boundary. 2.3.5 In preparation for a Commission initiated review of a SOI, or in the course of preparation of an application for a SOI amendment, the subject agency shall prepare an analysis addressing the following four factors delineated in Government Code Section 56425. a. The present and planned land uses in the area, including agricultural and open space lands. b. The present and probable need for public facilities and services in the area. c. The present capacity of public facilities and adequacy of public services that the agency provides or is authorized to provide. If current facility capacity and service resources can not accommodate growth in the area, the agency must provide a general plan for extension of services, including an indication of how extended services will be financed. d. The existence of any social or economic communities of interest in the area, if the Commission determines that they are relevant to the agency. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION . 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 PHONE: (951) 369-0631 . www.tafco.org • FAX: (9511 369-8479 �We 10 2.3.6 LAFCO shall encourage districts with significant territory within a city's sphere of influence to develop plans, in conjunction with the city, for the orderly detachment of territory from the district or merger/dissolution of the district as district territory is annexed to the city. This strategy is applicable only where the subject city provides similar services to the district and can demonstrate one of the following conditions is met: 1) The subject city provides higher levels of service; 2) The subject city provides equivalent service levels at a lower cost. Any plans anticipating detachment shall consider the impact of detachment on the ability of the district to provide services to the remainder of its service area. 2.3.7 Where a special district is entirely within a city's sphere of influence, the city will be encouraged to develop annexation policies which will anticipate the total inclusion of the district's territory rather than a portion. The purpose of this strategy is to avoid imposition of an unbearable burden upon the district and citizens within the balance of the district's territory. 2.3.8 LAFCO shall encourage all developed urban land inside a city's sphere of influence to annex to the city. The burden of proof as to why any such areas should not be annexed shall rest with the residents and owners of the property being annexed. 2.3.9 When establishing or updating an SOI for an agency, the Commission may augment the geographic designation of territory included within the SOI with a policy text appropriate to the agency under review. Policies established for a particular SOI could implement general Commission policies within the geographic area under consideration. Such agency - specific policies could address issues such as, but not limited to, future priorities for annexation of specific areas within the SOI, island issues, consolidation/reorganization, fiscal considerations, impacts on other service providers, facility issues, etc. 2.3.10 For the purposes of reviewing a city's sphere of influence, the planning horizon for the sphere shall be the planning horizon used for the affected city's general plan. Minor SOI Amendments 2.3.11 An amendment to the SOI of any agency may be processed and acted upon by the Commission, in advance of the preparation of a municipal service review, if the following criteria are met: a. The requested amendment is either less than 40 acres or less than 3 percent of the combined acreage of the subject agency's existing boundaries and sphere of influence, and; RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 . RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 %W 11 1601W There are no objections fiom other agencies that are authorized to provide the services the subject agency provides and whose SOI underlies or is adjacent to the subject territory; or; b. A public agency has acquired the subject territory for the purpose of using the property to provide one or more authorized public services. 2.3.12 An amendment to a retail water district sphere of influence may be processed and acted upon by the Commission, in advance of the preparation of a municipal service review, if all the following are met: a. The area is currently within the sphere of influence of the appropriate wholesale purveyor. b. The request is made by affected landowners or residents in conjunction with a concurrent annexation. c. No objection is received from any other agency that provides water service and whose SOI underlies or is adjacent to the subject territory. Policies Affecting Unincorporated Areas 2.3.13 Unincorporated Community Designation -General a. In order to achieve consistency between Commission policies and designations, an Unincorporated Community (UC) designation and a city sphere of influence shall not occupy the same territory. b. Areas receiving the UC designations shall be reviewed at least every five years. An application for amendment to an Unincorporated Community designation may be submitted by any person or local agency. The procedure shall generally follow that required for an amendment to a sphere of influence. It is the intent of the Commission, subject to final determination after a duly noticed public hearing, that the fee for such an amendment shall be the same as that for an amendment to a sphere of influence, provided that if amendments to a UC and a Sphere of Influence (SOI) are requested concurrently, the fee shall be collected only once. 2.3.14 Report Preparation for Five -Year Reviews 2.3.14.1 Prior to the conclusion of each five-year period following long-term designation as an "Unincorporated Community", a written report from the designated UC representatives to LAFCO must be submitted for review. 2.3.14.2 Designated UC representatives must demonstrate that one or more of the following conditions exist in order to be considered for the long-term designation of "Unincorporated Community": No need foreseen for city - provided municipal services for the next five years; it is unlikely that any significant, inhabited, portion of the UC will pursue a municipal service change of organization over the next five years; due to specified reasons, it RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY" FORMATION COMMISSION . 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 . RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 PHONE: (951) 369-0631 . www.lafco.org o FAX: (951) 369-8479 M 12 is in the best interest of the community to remain unincorporated for the foreseeable future; any other reason satisfactory to the Commission. 2.3.14.3 The five-year report should consider the following questions: a. Will any services of the type normally provided by a city be required within the next five years? Why will no additional services of this type be required? b. Why is designation as an Unincorporated Community preferable to any of the other options submitted with the original application? c. Do residents of the UC desire designation of an Unincorporated Community? What measures were taken to make this determination? - For example: Town meetings, mass mailings and responses, mailed ballots, etc. d. Is it currently planned to evaluate incorporation after the expiration of the five-year designation as an Unincorporated Community? If not after five years, when, if ever? e. Are any major housing or business/industrial developments being planned within the boundaries of the UC? If the answer is yes, describe them and the planned dates for development. f. Do the County and other existing service agencies have the ability to provide an adequate level of services, as defined by the community, over the next five years? g. Has there been any evaluation by the County or the community as to whether the area currently generates revenue sufficient to support existing County services? h. Has the possible continued designation of the area as an Unincorporated Community received publicity within the area? If the answer is yes, what and when? Have owners of vacant land been apprised of this intention? i. A LAFCO hearing will be held for any five-year review for which there is a prior written request submitted by an affected party. Objective No. 4: Meet the Municipal Service Review mandate in the most practical, cost- effective manner. 2.4.1 Municipal services subject to review will be limited to those public services typically required by and associated with urban development, such as water, wastewater, police, fire protection, library, roads, electricity, parks and recreation, animal control, and flood control. 2.4.2 Only local agencies that have SOIs subject to LAFCO review will require preparation of service reviews. 2.4.3 The following agencies will not be subject to service reviews: • Resource Conservation Districts • Cemetery Districts RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 %W 1, *Mae ® Citrous Pest Control District ® Healthcare Districts ® Mosquito and Vector Control Districts ® The County of Riverside ® Mutual Water Companies ® Public Utilities Commission (PUC) regulated utilities Services provided by some of the above entities might be included anecdotally in service reviews of other agencies. 2.4.4 The scope and schedule of MSRs and SOI reviews should remain flexible enough to accommodate legislative changes and changes in local conditions_ 2.4.5 Staff and consultants should utilize the best information that is currently available from public agencies rather than initiate new analyses. 2.4.6 Participation from representative agencies will be solicited for all service reviews. 2.4.7 The Commission's policy allowing minor SOI amendments without conducting a MSR will remain in place. GOAL NO.3: 1MAXIMIZE INTERAGENCY AND PUBLIC COMMUNICATION Objective No. 1: Increase Communication and Cooperation Between Governments. 3.1.1 Anytime a proposal is contemplated by one agency that is inconsistent with another agency's sphere of influence, the agency considering the change must notify the affected agency at the earliest possible stage_ Documentation of notification and communication between the agencies must be provided with application materials. 3.1.2 Cities are expected to coordinate with adjoining jurisdictions in advance of submittal of any annexation application that includes existing or future regionally significant transportation facilities as identified in adopted regional transportation plans. The purpose of early communication and coordination is to maintain the integrity of the regional transportation system and continuance of any regional funding mechanisms. 3.1.3 For any proposal that will potentially cause a significant negative fiscal impact upon another jurisdiction, the annexing agency shall contact the affected jurisdiction prior to submittal of the application to discuss potential mitigation. 3.1.4 When special district detachments can be anticipated pursuant to Strategy 2.1.2 or Strategy 2.3.7, in addition to developing annexation and RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION ^ 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 . RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 PHONE: (951) 369-0631 ® www.lafco.ort e FAX: (951) 369-8479 14 detachment policies, the affected city and district should jointly plan and coordinate capital improvements. The purpose of this Strategy is to achieve an orderly transition of services, to maximize the effective use of public funds, and to avoid unnecessary duplication of services and facilities. 3.1.5 Cities must coordinate all sphere of influence and annexation proposals that include Indian Reservation Lands with the appropriate Tribal Government in advance of application submittal. 3.1.6 All applications for municipal sphere of influence amendments or annexations that include Indian Reservation Lands shall be referred to the appropriate Tribal Government for review and comment prior to hearing by the Commission. The Commission shall consider the existence of a Tribal land use agreement with the subject city an important factor when reviewing such proposals. 3.1.7 The Commission shall not approve any municipal annexation of Indian Reservation Lands without the consent of the Tribal Council. 3.1.8 In support of this objective, LAFCO is committed to providing available staff resources and meeting space, if necessary, to facilitate communication. Objective No. 2: Increase communication between local agencies and citizens. 3.2.1 Cities are expected to take a proactive role in providing information related to annexation to residents within the city's sphere of influence. 3.2.2 Encourage the County to work with cities and unincorporated residents to provide information to the public regarding the advantages and disadvantages of annexation. 3.2.3 When preparing application materials for annexation of uninhabited areas, cities are expected to solicit the participation of adjacent inhabited areas, if applicable, in order to create logical service boundaries and improved levels of service. Potential expanded boundaries should be determined in consultation with the Executive Officer. 3.2.4 In support of this objective, LAFCO is committed to providing staff resources, when available, to attend community meetings and provide information relevant to the annexation process. 3.2.5 LAFCO shall maintain a web site. Information shall include current and past minutes and agendas, as well as current staff reports for non -consent agenda items. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION . 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 . RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 f 3.2.6 All proposals that include annexation to a city shall be referred to the affected Municipal Advisory Council (MAC) or Community Council for review and comment. If no MAC or Community Council exists in the area, the proposal shall be referred to the applicable County Supervisor. Public Notice 3.2.7 Unless otherwise determined by Commission policy, notices of public hearing for all proposals shall be provided in a manner as specified by law. 3.2.8 The following shall apply to any proposal that includes annexation to a city that meets both of the following criteria: a) greater than ten acres, b) would substantially alter existing land uses or intensities. For such proposals, mailed notice shall be provided to all registered voters and property owners within the boundaries of the proposal and within 500 feet of the exterior boundaries of the proposal, except that notice need only be provided within 300 feet of the exterior boundary adjacent to the subject city. 3.2.9 The alternative to publish a display ad in lieu of mailed notice, as provided in state law, may be used if notice requirements would otherwise require mailing of more than 2,000 notices. Conducting Authority Proceedings 3.2.10 Delegate responsibility for all conducting authority functions to the Executive Officer. Resolutions may be approved by the Executive Officer, but signed by the Chair. 3.2.11 The Executive Officer shall provide 21 days notice of protest hearings to all registered voters and landowners within the boundaries of the proposal. Such notice shall be in addition to any other legally required notice. 3.2.12 Allow for publication of a display ad in lieu of individual mailed notice for specified types of proposals, consistent with Commission policy on public hearing notice. 3.2.13 Mailed notice of protest hearings provided to landowners and registered voters within the affected territory shall. include the protest form adopted by the Commission. Procedure Regarding Late Receipt of Information 3.2.14 Information received prior to the assembly of agenda packets will be copied and distributed to Commissioners with the packets. 3.2.15 Information received subsequent to packet assembly, but at least 72 hours prior to the meeting, will be faxed (bulky items will be mailed) to Commissioners on the Monday prior to a Thursday meeting. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION . 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 PHONE: (951) 369-0631 . www.lafco.org . FAX: (951) 369-8479 16 3.2.16 Parties submitting documents after the faxing deadline will be notified, if possible, that a minimum of 12 copies will be required in order to distribute the documents to the full Commission. If sufficient copies are provided, they will be placed in Commissioners' folders on the morning of the hearing. 3.2.17 Documents received after the fax deadline that have not been copied will be placed in a folder for the Chair. At the Chair's discretion, the Chair may verbally acknowledge the receipt of the additional information or pass it to Commissioners for review. The Chair will ensure that the documents are placed back in the folder for retrieval by the Clerk. 3.2.18 Documents received at the hearing will be submitted to the Clerk who will hand the information to the Chair. At the Chair's discretion, the Chair may verbally acknowledge the receipt of the additional information or pass it to Commissioners for review. The Chair will ensure that the documents are placed in the "Late Documents" folder for retrieval by the Clerk. GOAL NO.4: PARTICIPATE IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS Objective No. 1: Create a Legislative Review Committee. 4.1.1 The Commission, through the actions of their Legislative Subcommittee, will be made aware of significant legislative proposals impacting the role and responsibilities of LAFCOs. 4.1.2 The Legislative Subcommittee shall prepare materials and present them to the Commission supporting CALAFCO legislative positions that are not inconsistent with local concerns. GOAL NO.5: SUPPORT CALAFCO Objective No. 1: Support and Utilize CALAFCO Resources. 5.1.1 Commissioners and staff members shall be encouraged to take advantage of CALAFCO sponsored professional development opportunities. 5.1.2 Commissioners shall be encouraged to seek positions on the CALAFCO Executive Board in order to give Riverside LAFCO a voice in statewide matters. 5.1.3 It shall be the policy of this Commission to continue its status as a CALAFCO member in good standing. 5.1.4 Staff shall be encouraged to contribute to and support CALAFCO activities as resources allow. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION ^ 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 - RIVERSIDE, CA 92507 PF4()T1TP- ln51\ 2f Q_116;1 . 1'r-- --- o re-V. 10CIN acn OA— '411111100" CITY OF r"HIM DESERT 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260-2578 TEL: 760 346—o6ii FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-desert.org March 15, 2007 Mr. George Spiliotis, Executive Officer Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission 1485 Spruce Street, Suite J Riverside, California 92507-2445 Re: LAFCO 2007-02-4 Dear Mr. Spiliotis: The City of Palm Desert is very interested in this proposed change to its sphere of influence. March 7, 2007 the Annexation Committee met and determined that the City should update the March 1996 Bermuda Dunes Annexation Fiscal Feasibility Report and subsequently determine whether to annex the Bermuda Dunes area or not. Staff will take the matter before City Council at its first meeting in April and then let the contract for the work. We anticipate being able to make a determination on the matter within three months. We request that LAFCO hold this application in abeyance until the City completes its deliberations. Thank you for your consideration of this request. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned or Lauri Aylaian. Yours truly, Stephen R. Smith, Acting Director Department of Community Development AM cc: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager Doug Evans, Director of La Quinta Community Development t,' PAINtt00N AE(YCIFO PAPER *mow err NOTICE The following proposal has been submitted to LAFCO, and is being routed to you for comment. Please provide your comments on the other side of this form or on a separate form if necessary. Please sign and date. If appropriate, include suggested terms and conditions and/or recommendations. Please coordinate your response with the County Executive Office if you are a County department. If you would like additional information regarding this proposal, please contact this office immediately. Your comments are due back by the date shown at the top of the page on the opposite side of this page. LAFCO 2007-02-4 Sphere of Influence Amendments to the City of Palm Desert (removal) and La Quinta (addition) and Reorganization to Include Annexation 18 to the City of La Quinta and the La Quinta Lighting & Landscaping District 89-01 and Detachment from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District APPLICANT: Van Buren Investments, 2437 Monaco Drive, Laguna Beach, CA. 92651 PROPOSAL: To annex for provision of municipal levels of services. GENERAL LOCATION: Generally described as being south of Hidden River Road, east of Washington Street, west of Lima Hall Road and north of Darby Road. See Thomas Bros. 2007 Riverside County map book page 819, grid F-6. ACREAGE: Approximately 12.5 acres. ESTIMATED BY APPLICANT: 0 Population/ 0 Registered Voters MAP 44 01 RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION SURVEYOR - BRIAN HESS INFO ONLY LAFCO NO.: 2007-02-4 t�f L_I �f LJ COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICE - INA GRANDE ! MAC / COMMUNITY COUNCIL - Bermuda Dunes CC SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT - 4"' CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL (CHE- Riverside office CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL - San Bernardino office CALTRANS -DISTRICT DIRECTOR REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD PROPOSAL: Sphere of Influence Amendments to the Cities of Palm Desert removal & La Quinta addition & Reor ahization to Include Annexation 18 to the City Of La Quinta and the La Quinta Lighting & Landscaping District 89-01 and Detachment from the Riverside Coun Waste Resources Management District ❑ Colorado Rlver Basin Region a ' FORWARDEMON t March}12 r2001l r ® San Die o Re ion gY y k'"*RETURNTO'IAFCOL NO LATER THAN**" r r f ❑ Santa Ana Region SPECIAL DISTRICTS : Q AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Citrous Pest Control No. 2 ❑ Mojave Desert for Blythe / Palo Verde Valle Area Coachella Valley County Water ® South Coast RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOC. OF GOVERNMENTS, U TLMA REGIONAL OFFICE MANAGER, INDIO (4'" District Only) Q COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOC. OF GOVERNMENTS Coachella Valley Mos uito.& Vector Control Coachella Valley Public Cemetery Coachella Valley Recreation & Park Coachella Valley Resource Conservation Desert Healthcare WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Imperial Irrigation nn❑(( IJ BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS Palm Springs Cemetery L1 BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION Valley Sanitary ® Palm Desert ❑ Riverside ❑ DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION -DIRECTOR of LJ COUNTY COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL DISTRICT ORG.: PATTI CRAWFORD COORDINATOR ADMIN. SERVICES OTHER: SCHOOL DISTRICTS: C= v- Desert Community College per" �n= r~-'s Desert Sands Unified ��R �. rn;* rij Palm Springs Unified COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL - STUART MCKIBBIN '� [9 COUNTY REGIONAL PARK & OPEN SPACE Q CITY IES : W D COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT City of Indian Wells EDA/CSA- AMBER JACOBSON CSA PROJECT MANAGER City of Indio City of la Quinta ❑ RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES - (GARY NOLFF) - Riv. Only. uvLUU L RUENC;Y FORMATON COMMISSION • 385o VINE STREET, SUrrE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • www.lafco.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 Val* APPLICATION TO THE RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION Sphere of Influence Amendments to the Cities of Palm Desert (removal) and La Quinta (addition) and Reorganization to Include Annexation 18 to the City of La Quinta and the La Quinta Lighting & Landscaping District 89-01 and Detachment from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District LAFCO 2007-02-4 4--- NOTICES: List below the names and addresses of persons to whom notices and 'Mdff(606rissff&UTCT[J67 ,directed (3 maxlcrlvrn). .. ...... . -------- 'Name: Douglas Evans. City n .Telephone1Fax76()_777_ 71751760- 777-1211 Address:78-495-..Ga'-I..lA.--.T.amip. La -Name: Nico-l-e--,q4i:uvl'Zit:-zdr tii777-"-'-'--'---'.—'---TelaphonelFax:760-320=9 646 ii AddressTarra Nova -P-I:anuft&-*--Research- ;--,I-nc7 .'City, State, 400 Name. Telephone/Fa)c Address: City, State, Zip: Provide, six sets of-mailing-labels-for-persons.ta whom-noticas and reports are to -be, sent-1--' Does this prdoioiil-ffiVi-the Fc—dr-ii-i-nT6fTOFO-pe—r-ce--nif'o-f'ffie--affected property owfi4iiT­Yiii 96.17 ---- ?�: If yes, Include written statements of consent and proof of ownership (assessor roll printout, -grant deed, etc). Also, attach all corrpsoon,denc,&.to/fr.om,-e?ctst!ilg.Tes.i,dents and/or property owners. E5 RIVERSIDECOCAL.-A0b1.CQMMW101*U 3850 VINE STREETSUETE-. E.-tO.2,RLVERSEDECk-9=7-427.7. G R&-EdELM�iI www.lafco.org • FAX (95 [),169-_8479.­ '777 I h1GiW Southeast corner of Hidden River Road & Washington Street APN 609-040-007 & 023 are developed. APN 609-040-005 is vacant, flat desert land. rYV t Rppikation Form Page 2 Describe the proximity of the subject area to currently developed areas. The parcels are immediately north of the City of La Quinta's City limits. Apartments are under construction to the South•of the proposed annexation. LAND USE APPROVALS COUNTY CITY General Plan Djji naBons Medium Density Residential High Density Residential Zoning or Pre-ZoMn R--3-2000 & R-1-12000 High Density Residential Subdivisions None None Is any portion of the subject territory within a redevelopment area? Yes No X is any portion of the subject territory subject to a Williamson Act Contract (Agricultural Preserve)? Yes No X if yes, ContractlPreserve Number. List all amendments by date: Date Notice of Non -Renewal filed: Date established: Has the city filed a protest pursuant to government code section 51243.5? Yes __Ao Provide an official map of the Agricultural Preserve. The City ❑ will succeed Ci will not succeed to the contract Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), its officers, agents and employees from any claim, action or proceeding, and for any damages, penalties, fines or other costs imposed on or incurred by LAFCO wherein LAFCO, its officers, agents or employees should be named as a party in any litigation or administrative proceeding in connection with this application. Applicant agrees that LAFCO has the right to appoint its own counsel for its defense and conduct its own defense In the manner it deems in its best interest and taking such action shall not limit Applicant's obligation to Indemnify and reimburse LAFCO, its officers, agents and employees. Furthermore, I hereby certify that the statements and information presented within this application and associated attachments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. 1 acknowledge that anyone who is involved with any annexation to be considered by the Commission and who has made a contribution of more than $250 in the past twelve months to any member of the Commission must disclose the Commission member to whom the contribution was made and the matter of consideration with which they are involved. Furthermore, the Agent designated herein is hereby authorized to act on behalf of the Applicant for the rpose cessing this application until such time as written notice to the contrary is provided by the Appi' nt tZ r the Riverside LAFCO. 111 1 I /o1 Si nature Date Si nature Applicant Date Nicole Sauvi t Cri�.e, Douglas Evans, City of La Quinta Printed Name of Ag9ent and Firm (if applicable) Printed Name of Applicant Terra N6va Planning & Research, Inc. REVISED 1012004 RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 PHONE (951) 369-0631 • www.lafco ors: - FAX (95 t) 369-8479 RIVER!4WE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION C6,oMISSION 4 SURVEYOR - BRIAN HESS INFO ONLY LAFCO NO.: 2006-61-4 �LI( L� COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICE — KATHY GIFFORD PROPOSAL: Sphere of Influence Review and ❑ MAC / COMMUNITY COUNCIL Potential Amendments — Imperial Irrigation District SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT — 4th CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL (CHP) — Riverside office L"J CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL — San Bernardino office FORWARDED ON: CALTRANS —DISTRICT DIRECTOR January 5, 2007 �( ***RETURN TO LAFCO NO LATER THAN*** LI REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD February 2, 2007 0 Colorado River Basin Region SPECIAL DISTRICT(S): 0 San Diego Region Chiriaco Summit County Water ❑ Santa Ana Region Citrous Pest Control No. 2 �( LJ AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Coachella Valley County Water 0 Mojave Desert for Blythe / Palo Verde Valle Area Coachella Valley Mosquito & Vector Control ❑ South Coast Coachella Valley Public Cemetery �( L�l( RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley Recreation & Park l�J( SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOC. OF GOVERNMENTS Coachella Valley Resource Conservation LI TLMA REGIONAL OFFICE MANAGER, INDIO (4`" District Only) Desert Health Care COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOC. OF GOVERNMENTS Desert Water Agency ❑ WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS Imp erial Irrigation District BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS Metropolitan Water District of Southern California LJ BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION Mission Springs County Water 0 Palm Desert Palm Springs Cemetery ❑ Riverside Southern Coachella Valley Community Service ❑ DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION - DIRECTOR Valley Sanitary COUNTY COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL DISTRICT ORG.: SCHOOL DISTRICTS: PATTI CRAWFORD, COORDINATOR ADMIN. SERVICES Coachella Valley Unified < OTHER: Desert Center Unified COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL — STUART MCKIBBIN Desert Community College `YN zn ° ! COUNTY REGIONAL PARK & OPEN SPACE rn Desert Sands Unified'"` COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Palm Springs Unified tV Ty EDA/CSA — AMBER JACOBSON, CSA PROJECT MANAGER CITY(IES): City of Cathedral City City of La Quinta ❑ RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES— (GARY NOLFF) — Riv. Only. City of Coachella Citv of Indian Wells I A. I City of Indio COMMENTS: COP JAN 18 2007 RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET. surrE 110 • RIvli9Y)d eAI92 4047 Phone (951) 369-0631 • wmv.laico.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 En Eon January 5, 2007 TO: Affected Agencies FROM: Elizabeth R. Solander LAFCO Secretary Riverside LAFCO RE: LAFCO 2006-61-4 Sphere of Influence Review and Potential Amendments — Imperial Irrigation District Affected Agencies: LAFCO is currently conducting reviews of the spheres of influence (SOI) for several cities and districts in the County. A map of the current SOI is attached. If you have any comments on this SOI Review please submit those comments to our office by February 2, 2007. If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to call our office. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 9 w,.vw.1afco.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 i x D z In m �v m O m Z C rn m Z _ rn D m r v� m n = C O � C g � C rn 920 O-a .p Z O o m —zi n� �> K m Z 0 m Z cn RIVERS LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION CC ISSION SURVEYOR - tPPIAN HESS INFO ONLY LAFCO NO.: 2006-136-4 COUNTY EXECUTIVE OFFICE — (KATHY GIFFORD) ❑ MAC /COMMUNITY COUNCIL SUPERVISORIAL DISTRICT - 4`h �LI( CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL CHP — Riverside office LJ CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL —San Bernardino office PROPOSAL: Reorganization to Include Annexation 17 to the Cityof La Quinta and the La Quinta Li htin & Landscape District #89-01 and Detachment from the Riverside Count Waste Resources Mana ement District Lr CALTRANS —DISTRICT DIRECTOR FORWARDED ON: January 5, 2007 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD ***RETURN TO, LAFCO NO LATER THAN*** Februa 14, 2007 0 Colorado River Basin Region ❑ San Diann Re ion SPECIAL DISTRICTS): ❑ Santa Ana Region Citrous Pest Control No. 2 LJ AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Coachella Valley County Water ❑ Mojave Desert for Blythe / Palo Verde Valle Area Coachella.Valley Mos uito & Vector Control 0 South Coast Coachella Valley Public Cemetery RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Coachella Valley Recreation & Park District LJ SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ASSOC. OF GOVERNMENTS TLMA REGIONAL OFFICE MANAGER, INDIO (41h District OnIY) Coachella Valley Resource Conservation Desert Healthcare COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOC. OF GOVERNMENTS Imperial Irrigation district ❑ WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS �Q BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS LJ BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATIONS Palm Springs Cemetery v� Valle Sanitary d ... r 0 Palm Desert ❑ Riverside ❑ DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION -DIRECTOR LI COUNTY COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL DISTRICT ORG.: _fir SCHOOL DISTRICTS: � > Coachella Valley Unified PATTI CRAWFORD, COORDINATOR ADMIN. SERVICES Desert Community College OTHER: Desert Sands Unified COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL — STUART MCKIBBIN Palm Springs Unified COUNTY REGIONAL PARK & OPEN SPACE 2 CITY(IES): COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT Citv of Indian Wells EDA/CSA — AMBER JACOBSON, CSA PROJECT MANAGER City of Indio City of La Quinta ❑ RIVERSIDE PUBLIC UTILITIES- (GARY NOLFF) - Riv. Ong. Vie COMMENTS: COPYTO DATE WO ©` RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 • www.latco.org • Fax (951) 369-8479 NOTICE The following proposal has been submitted to LAFCO, and is being routed to you for comment. Please provide your comments on the other side of this form or on a separate form if necessary. Please sign and date. If appropriate, include suggested terms and conditions and/or recommendations. Please coordinate your response with the County Executive Office if you are a County department. If you would like additional information regarding this proposal, please contact this office immediately. Your comments are due back by the date shown at the top of the page on the opposite side of this page. LAFCO 2006-136-4 Tract 31087 Reorganization to Include Annexation 17 to the City of La Quinta and the La Quinta Lighting & Landscape Maintenance District 89-01 and Detachment from the Riverside County Waste Resources Management District APPLICANT: Trans West Housing, 47-120 Dune Palms Rd, Ste C, La Quinta, CA. 92253 PROPOSAL: To annex for provision of municipal levels of services. GENERAL LOCATION: Generally described as being south of Avenue 42, east of Washington Street, west of Sheehan Drive and north of Fred Waring Drive. See Thomas Bros. 2005 Riverside County map book page 819, grid F-6. ACREAGE: Approximately 10 acres. ESTIMATED BY APPLICANT: 0 Population/ 0 Registered Voters ►/ Mo Avenue, Bermuda Dunes J' Palm 2006-136-4 Desert Darby Road Feed Wrrr�q. ve.'; , Indian Wells <, APPLICATION TO THE/ERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMN COMMISSION REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION 17 TO THE CI15� $;W' OF LA QUINTA & THE LA QUINTA LIGHTING & LANDSCAPE_i DISTRICT #89-01 AND DETACHMENT FROM THE RIVERSIDE - COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT LAFCO 2006-136-4 - sat.:� r� Jerry Herman, Trans West Housing, Inc. - s' ; 47-120 Dune Palms Rd., Ste. C Its, Zip. La Quinta, CA 92253 ;r 760-777-4308 E-mafljherman®mccomic com 760-777-4307 Fax: cps Nicole Sauviat Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. 1,400 S. Farrell Drive, Ste. B-205 ite, Zl : Palm Springs, CA 92262 ncriste®terranovaplanning. 760-320-9040 Fax:760-322-2760 E-mail: NOTICES: List below the names and addresses of persons to whom notices and staff reports should be directed (3 maximum). Jerr Herman, Trans West Housing, Inc. Telephone/Fax: Ph: 760-777-4307, Fax: 760-777-4308 Name: y Palm Springs, CA 92262 Address: 47-120 Dune Palms Rd., Ste. C City, State, Zip: Name: Nicole Cri.ste, Terra Nova Planning &_ REsearCh Telephone/Fax: Ph: 760-320-9040, Fax: 760-322-2760 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Address: 400 S. Farrell Dr., Ste. B-205 City, State, Zip: Name: Telephone/Fax: Address: City, State, Zip: Provide six sets of mailing labels for persons to whom notices and reports are to be sent. Does this proposal have the consent of 100 percent of the affected property owners? Yes X No If yes, include written statements of consent and proof of ownership (assessor roll printout, grant deed, etc). Also, attach all correspondence to/from existing residents and/or property owners. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY PHONE FORMATION COMMISSION 3 OMMI1 SIO`N 9 3850 VINE FASTREET, SUITE79 0 • RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 M M AREA DATA Application Form Page 2 North and south of Darby Road, approximately 1200 ft. east of Washington Street, in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County. Properties are flat. 10 Vacant Describe the proximity of the subject area to currently developed areas. LAND USE APPROVALS or COUNTY MDR (2-5 du/ac) R-1 - 12,000 None CITY LDR (0-4 du/ac) ------------- LDR TTM 31087 Is any portion of the subject territory within a redevelopment area? Yes No x Is any portion of the subject territory subject to a Williamson Act Contract (Agricultural Preserve)? Yes No x If yes, ContractlPreserve Number: List all amendments by date: _ Date Notice of Non -Renewal filed: Date established: Has the city filed a protest pursuant to government code section 51243.5? Yes No Provide an official map of the Agricultural Preserve. The City ❑ will succeed ❑ will not succeed to the contract. Applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), its officers, agents and employees from any claim, action or proceeding, and for any damages, penalties, fines or other costs imposed on or incurred by LAFCO wherein LAFCO, its officers, agents or employees should be named as a party in any litigation or administrative proceeding in connection with this application. Applicant agrees that LAFCO has the right to appoint its own counsel for its defense and conduct its own defense in the manner it deems in its best interest and taking such action shall not limit Applicant's obligation to indemnify and reimburse LAFCO, its officers, agents and employees. Furthermore, I hereby certify that the statements and information presented within this application and associated attachments are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I acknowledge that anyone who is involved with any annexation to be considered by the Commission and who has made a contribution of more than $250 in the past twelve months to any member of the Commission must disclose the Commission member to whom the contribution was made and the matter of consideration with which they are involved. Furthermore, the Agent designated herein is hereby authorized to act on behalf of the Appliaforurpose of processing this application until such time as written notice to the contrary is provided by the App ' anttive Off erpf the Riverside LAFCO. 6/15/06 6/15/06Signature Date 1 nature of pp icant Date Nicole sauviat Criste, Terra Nova Planning & Research, Inc. Printed Name of Agent and Firm (if applicable) Y Herman, Trans west Housing, Inc. Printed Name of Applicant RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 • RIVERSIDE, CREVISED 10/2004 A 92507-4277 PHONE (951) 369-0631 0 www.lafco.org ore • FAX (951) 369-8479 Lon 3.d.,ej. 4/23/98 TO: Local Agency Formation Commission FROM: George J. Spiliotis, E::ecutive Officer SUBJECT: LAFCO 96-11-4--REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION 70 TO CITY OF INDIO AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT; LAFCO 97-05-4--SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT (REMOVAL)TO THE CITY OF INDIO; LAFCO 97-24-4--SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF INDIO (REMOVAL) AND THE CITY OF PALM DESERT PRIOR AGENDAS/RELATED .ACTIONS: Approval of adjacent .Aimexation 68 to Indio on 12i U94: Review of Sun City Patin Desert COI Final Report on December 4, 1997. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND GENERAL RECOMMENDATION: This report addresses three related proposals: a) an inhabited reorganization proposal submitted by the City of Indio which encompasses anne:,ation of 310 acres including a 28 acre auto mall; b) another proposal submitted by the City to remove appro::imately one square mile of Sun City Palm Desert from the City of Indio Sphere of Influence (SOI) ; and c) a proposal submitted by one of the Sun City Palm Desert(SCPD) COI Committee members which duplicates (b) above as well as places the entirety of the COI plus additional acreage north of I-10 within the City of Palm Desert SOI. The two SOI amendment proposals are logical and are supported by staff. The reorganization proposal has very poor boundaries as submitted and is not necessary for the development of the auto mall. However, there is no opposition and there are cooperative agreements between affected agencies regarding infrastructure financing and revenue sharing. The staff recommends approval of this proposal. GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: The City of Indio is the applicant for the reorganization and the SOI removal. Mr. Sy Kaplan of Sun City Palm Desert is the applicant for the proposal to e:;pand the City of Palm Desert SOI. LOCATION: The reorganization is generally bordered on the north by the 39th Avenue, on the south by the Southern Pacific Railroad RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-2445 PHONE (909) 369-0631 FAX (909) 369-8479 LAFCO 96-11-4 LAFCO 97-05-4 LAFCO 97-24-4 PAGE 2 APRIL 23, 1998 right of way, on the west by Adams Street and the Sun City Palm Desert community, and on the east by western boundary of the City. POPULATION: The population of the reorganization is estimated by the applicant to be appro:,,imately 50. The population of the SOI amendment area, which is the SCPD community, is estimated to be appro::imately 2, 500. REGISTERED VOTERS: The Registrar reports 16 registered voters within the reorganization area, making the proposal legally inhabited. The number of registered voters within the SOI proposals is 1,645. ACREAGE: The area of the reorganization is approximately 310 acres. The area proposed for addition to the Palm Desert SOI is approximately 2,370 acres, appro::imately 640 of which are being removed from the Indio SOI. CEQA DETERMINATION: The City of Indio, as lead agency, certified a Final EIR in conjunction with the approval of its General Plan. The EIR constitutes a Program EIR in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and State CEQA Guidelines. The proposed reorganization and its impacts are within the scope of the Program EIR. Staff recommends the Commission find both SOI proposals e::empt from CEQA. PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE: Master Property Tay: Resolutions govern the reorganization. EXISTING CONDITIONS: The area subject to the SOI amendments includes the developed and undeveloped portions of the SCPD community. The community is approximately 40 developed,and includes single family dwellings, a golf course and a clubhouse. An area west of SCPD is also proposed to be added to the Palm Desert SOI. This triangular shaped area is primarily vacant but does include a commercial area near Washington Street. Almost the entire area of the proposed reorganization is vacant. Three small pockets of residential dwellings, including a trailer park, are also included within the subject area. LAND USE PLANS: No changes in land use are associated with the two SOI applications. Within the reorganization area County zoning generally calls for commercial uses west of Adams, and agricultural and residential agricultural uses over the remainder of the site. The County has approved an Auto Mall for the area west of Adams and south of Avenue 40. The City intends to implement the Auto Mall plans approved by the County. Prezoning approved by the City RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-2445 PHONE (909) 369-0631 FAX (909) 369-8479 En rn LAFCO 96-11-4 PAGE 3 APRIL 23, 1998 LAFCO 97-05-4 LAFCO 97-24-4 includes designations for Business Park uses and Country Estates, consistent with the City's General Plan. SIGNIFICANT ISSUES: COMMISSION POLICIES: The following is a listing of Commission policies and applicable Government Code sections particularly relevant to the reorganization proposal. The subject proposal conflicts with many of these basic provisions as demonstrated in the paragraphs which follow. Agency boundaries should not be drawn so as to create an island, corridor or strip either within the proposed territory or immediately adjacent to it. where such an island, corridor or strip is created, the proponent shall justify the reasons for non-conformance with this standard.[56841(f)] Annexation proposals to cities or districts providing urban services of undeveloped or agricultural parcels should show that: 1) urban development is imminent for all or a substantial portion of the proposal area; 2) urban development will be contiguous with existing or proposed development; and 3) the proposal will not result in a leap frog, non-contiguous urban development pattern.[56301, 56377] In order to avoid further urban sprawl, LAFCO will encourage in -fill development in urban areas and annexations of areas inside existing city spheres of influence.[56841(d)] BOUNDARY ISSUES: The proposed boundaries are poor. The proposal skirts approximately two dozen rural residential lots south of Avenue 40. The annexation proposes to bring into the City an irregularly shaped expanse of primarily vacant land to reach the only proposed development, an Auto Mall, at the far western edge of the proposal. Between its point of contiguity with the City on the east and the Auto Mall site on the west, the annexation territory narrows to a width of approximately 100 feet, exclusive of rights - of -way. INEFFICIENT DEVELOPMENT PATTERN: During review of previous annexations to Indio, staff expressed concern regarding the inefficient development pattern which would likely occur as a result of annexation. The development proposed in conjunction with Annexation 68, for example, was at the furthest point from the City's core, miles away from existing police and fire services. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-2445 PHONE (909) 369-0631 FAX (909) 369-8479 CM CM -LAFCO 96-11-4 LAFCO 97-05-4 LAFCO 97-24-4 PAGE 4 APRIL 23, 1998 However, e::tension of water and sewer lines from the nearby Sun City Palm Desert area to the west made near term development of this outlying area a realistic possibility. Development of the Auto Mall is further evidence that 'development will proceed from the west back toward the core of the City. Typically, services most affected by such development patterns 'are police and fire protection services. Road maintenance responsibility patterns are also impacted. If the proposed boundaries are approved there will be a "hopscotch" jurisdictional pattern along Avenue 40. Such a pattern can result in inefficient road maintenance efforts by both the City and the County. In past proposals where such configurations occurred, conditions were applied requiring the city to enter into an agreement to maintain a continuous length of roadway. This was done to improve the efficiency and consistency of road maintenance. Such a condition is not being recommended in this case. The County and the City have entered into an agreement whereby the City will pay an amount to the County equivalent to a specified portion of the sales taxes generated within the Auto Mall. Additionally, the County and the City of Indio are parties to a settlement agreement concerning the Auto Mall project. This analysis assumes that those two agreements represent sufficient opportunity to mitigate impacts on the County. While there are similarities between the development patterns of this proposal and previous annexations, two factors mitigate the concern as it pertains to this annexation. First, since the last annexation approval the City has entered into a contract with the County of Riverside for the County/CDF to provide fire protection within the City. The County has long been in a better position to serve the areas on the north side of I-10. Therefore, the issue of over -extension of the City's fire protection system is no longer a concern. Second, since the Auto Mall is receiving its development approvals through the County, the same development pattern will occur regardless of which jurisdiction the subject territory is in. DETACHMENT FROM COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT (RCWRMD) : On March 24, 1994, the Commission approved the formation of the RCWRMD as a separate financial and legal entity to operate and finance solid waste facilities in Riverside County. The District became effective on May 2, 1994. As part of the Commission's action, it determined that future annexations to cities should detach from the RCWRMD unless those cities have annexed to the District. This is based on an understanding between the county and the COGS that anne::at.ion of cities to RCWRMD will be accomplished RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET, SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-2445 PHONE (909) 369-0631 FAX (909) 369-8479 In In LAFCO 96-11-4 LAFCO 97-05-4 LAFCO 97-24-4 PAGE 5 APRIL 23, 1998 in an organized fashion to ensure appropriate representation on the governing board of the District. Therefore, staff will recommend concurrent detachment from the RCWRMD. COMMENTS FROM AFFECTED AGENCIES: The Coachella Valley Water District indicates it is currently working with the Corps of Engineers to develop flood control facilities for this area. Until such facilities are in place, there is a risk of flooding on portions of the proposed anne::ation, specifically those areas east of Adams Street. WAIVER OF AUTOMATIC DETACHMENT FROM CSA 152: If the Commission approves the reorganization proposal, it should make specified findings in order to waive automatic detachment from the CSA, since the City has opted to annex: to CSA 152. CONCLUSIONS: The reorganization will add to the City's large inventory of vacant developable land and will lead to development away from the City's core. However, with the completion of several large annexations north of I-10 and the e:,,isting pockets of rural residential dwellings which were excluded from previous anne-ations, the additional service impacts of this anne:.ation are almost insignificant. As an inhabited anne::ation, the few registered voter residing on site will ultimately determine whether the anne:,ation is in ther best interest if the Commission sends the proposal on to the conducting authority proceedings. Therefore, with some reluctance, staff will make a recommendation for approval. The proposals to remove a portion of SCPD from the Indio SOI and place that territory and an additional 1700 acres within the Palm Desert SOI represents a logical, and perhaps minimal, extension of Palm Desert's future service area. Staff will recommend approval of these proposals. SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the factors outlined above, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the Commission make the following findings and determinations: A. Concerning the reorganization proposal: 1. Find and determine that a Final Environmental Impact Report entitled, "Indio General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report," was prepared and certified by the City of Indio. This Final EIR constitutes a Program EIR under Section 15168 RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-2445 PHONE (909) 369-0631 FAX (909) 369-8479 Cn en LAFCO 96-11-4 LAFCO 97-05-4 LAFCO 97-24-4 PAGE 6 APRIL 23, 1998 of the State California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines in that it is an EIR prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and which are related geographically, or as logical parts in a chain of contemplated actions. The proposed action by LAFCO is within the scope of the project covered by this Program EIR in that no new environmental effects will occur and no new mitigation measures will be required; 2. Find the proposed reorganization is consistent with the sphere of influence of the City of Indio and all other affected local agencies; 3. Find the proposed reorganization is legally inhabited; 4. Approve LAFCO 96-11-4--REORGANIZATION TO INCLUDE ANNEXATION 70 TO CITY OF INDIO AND CONCURRENT DETACHMENT FROM RIVERSIDE COUNTY WASTE RESOURCES MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, subject to the following terms and conditions: a. The City of Indio shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission ("LAFCO"), its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against LAFCO, its agents, officers, and employees to attach, set aside, void, or annul an approval of LAFCO concerning LAFCO 96- 11-4--Reorganization to Include Annexation 70 to City of Indio and Concurrent Detachment from Riverside County Waste Resources Management District. LAFCO will promptly notify the City of Indio of any such claim, action, or proceeding against LAFCO and will cooperate fully in the defense. If LAFCO fails to promptly notify the City of Indio of any such claim, action, or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, City of Indio shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless LAFCO. b. In accordance with Government Code Section 56844(t), authorize the e.-tension of any previously authorized charge, fee, assessment or to:: by the local agency or the successor local agency in the affected territory. C. In accordance with Government Code Section 56375(p), waive automatic detachment from County Service Area 152 based upon the following findings: i. County Service Area (CSA) 152 is a funding mechanism for the implementation of the National RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATIONC O 369 SI N • 1FAX P UCE 8 STREET. T. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-2445 PHONE LAFCO 96-11-4 LAFCO 97-05-4 LAFCO 97-24-4 ii. PAGE 7 APRIL 23, 1998 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) emanating from the Federal 1972 Clean Water Act, and re -authorized under the Federal 1987'Clean Water Act. The City annex,,ed into CSA 152 and is included within the CSA's service area. iii. Detachment would deprive the area residents services needed to ensure their health, safety or welfare. iv. Waiving detachment will not affect the ability of the City to provide any services; and, 5. Designate the City of Indio as conducting authority. B. Concerning the sphere of influence amendment proposals: 1. Find the proposals are exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) as it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the sphere of influence amendment proposals will have a significant effect on the environment and make the supporting findings included in Attachment A. 2. Adopt the Statement of Determinations (Attachment B) for each of the sphere of influence amendment proposals. 3. Approve LAFCO 97-05-4--SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT (REMOVAL)TO THE CITY OF INDIO and LAFCO 97-24-4--SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF INDIO (REMOVAL) AND THE CITY OF PALM DESERT as shown on the exhibit labelled STAFF RECOMMENDATION. Re pectfully su tted, Geor piliotis ExecuLi Officer RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-24.15 PHONE (909) 369-0631 FAX (909) 369-8479 A%W Attachment A 1. The proposed sphere of influence amendments do not involve any changes in land use, zoning, intensity of development, physical changes to land or specific development proposals, nor are they an essential part or step of any proposed development activity for the subject area. No changes are currently proposed or under consideration. Any potential change in future land use is purely speculative. (Kaufman & Broad -South Bay, Inc. v. Morgan Hill Unified School District. [1992] 9 Cal. Apo. 4th 464, 472-474.; Simi Valley Rec. & Park v. LAFCO [1975] 51 Cal. Apo. 3d 648, 666) 2. The establishment or amendment of a sphere of influence is a policy declaration of the Commission based on e:,,isting facts and circumstances which, although not readily changed, may be subject to review and change in the event a future significant change of circumstances so warrants. (City of Agoura Hills v. LAFCO [1988] 198 Cal. Apo. 3d 480,495.) 3. The territory subject to the sphere of influence amendments consists primarily of the Sun City Palm Desert Specific Plan (No. 281) for which EIR No. 367 was certified by the Board of Supervisors. Additional land to the west of SCPD is also proposed to be added to the Palm Desert SOI. This area contains both developed and undeveloped land. Pursuant to existing County plans, planned uses in this area include residential, commercial and industrial uses. Future development will be subject to separate entitlement and environmental review if and when the owners seek to develop their property at some currently unknown date. 4. These factual findings are based upon the files and records maintained by the Local Agency Formation Commission and the Riverside County Planning Department with respect to the subject land encompassed by the sphere amendment proposals. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION CONINIISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RIVERSIDE. CA 92507-2445 PHONE (909) 369-0631 FAX (909) 369-8479 VICINITY MAP LAFCO 96-11-4--Reorg. to Include Annex 70 to the City of Indio LAFCO 97-05-4--Sphere of Influence Amendment to the City of Indio (Removal) LAFCO 97-24-4--Sphere of Influence Amendments to the City of Palm Desert(Addition) and Indio(Removal) �•e L J % t NOS1AAA f v � R � t I) ii (It17g 1f Ef , 1S NOlON HSVMI Owd fyj �x. d� co w cq ci O% O O U U s£r y y�zir r ! r a� O O Ea O U O to ++ 4 GJ �..+ 71 ON Lz Attachment B STATEMENT OF DETERMINATIONS FOR LAFCO 95-16-1 SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT TO THE CITIES OF INDIO (REMOVAL) AND PALM DESERT (ADDITION) 1. THE PRESENT AND PLANNED LAND USES IN THE AREA, INCLUDING AGRICULTURAL AND OPEN -SPACE LANDS: The area to be removed from the Indio SOI includes a portion of the Sun City Palm Desert (SCPD) COI and includes residential dwellings, commercial establishments, a golf course and some vacant land zoned for residential and commercial uses. This area, as well as additional acreage to the west will be added to the Palm Desert SOI. This additional acreage includes some commercial establishments near Washington Street and Varner Road but is primarily vacant. No changes in land use are associated with the SOI amendments. 2. THE PRESENT AND PROBABLE NEED FOR PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES IN THE AREA: There is enough development in the area currently to require a fairly wide range of public services. Under currently approved land uses for the area, significant development is expected to continue in the area, thereby increasing the demand for the full range of municipal type services. 3. THE PRESENT CAPACITY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AND ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC SERVICES WHICH THE AGENCY PROVIDES OR IS AUTHORIZED TO PROVIDE: Police and fire services would not change significantly whether or not the area were to be ultimately annexed to the City of Palm Desert as the Citv currently contracts with the County for these services. 4. THE EXISTENCE OF ANY SOCIAL OR ECONOMIC COMMUNITIES OF INTEREST IN THE AREA: ?_s indicated in previous testimony before the Commission_, the COI Committee concluded residents are generally in favor of pursuing anne.-ation to the City of Palm Desert. Placing the territory within the City's sphere is a prerequisite. R14-ERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORNLATION CONIMISSION • 1485 SPRUCE STREET. SUITE J • RI`E.RSIDE. CA 92507-2445 PHONE (909) 369-0631 F�1X (909) 369-8479 o;1124i97 FRi ua:ss rAl 01a 3AZ 655K ("fx ur INviu 97-05-4 41uus s 3 -------- CITY OF INDIO'SPHERE OF INFLUENCE PROPOSED SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ADAMS RANCH srEcsnc FLAN -C�VTXT121T R U1/2.4/97 FRi U9:55 F.LL 6111 "4Z tsjod . err (Aix Ur Lt141)1U 97-05-4 Quuz i t , (o Jo 0 11 1 14,, pt, u 0 La cm cm I I -.,, rau ay I it SOI J Q ( J J w ITC,ERALD ai FORD DR ' Rancho Mirage i t Palm Springs j SOl I i Palm r Springs SOI Thousand Palms , FRANK SINATRA DR �d p > c 7 COUNTRY CLUB OR � f8 a J p w m � z � - rn I 11 xl s a p0 j 1 U �.o-........ �... 10 3 14 0115 FR D NAARIgG 2 50 1 13 4 IE 1� DR 16 12 �, .•r i Del .8' Webb Indio La Quinta 18 3 6 Legend — ,ids-tif -i ilr J �' l ! SOURCE: County of Riverside GIS Layers i ..� Palm Desert - City Limits Indian Wells i •� I —._ J Surrounding City Limits Sphere of Influence (Sol) Surrounding City Sphere of Influence J Unincorporated Area — I County Service Area (CSA): Pinyon Flats (60) —.--__—__—__—_. Public Facilities ( i n' F • City Hall Community Center ' • Library j I Police/Sheriff Fire Station Parks & Recreation Al PALM DESERT PUBLIC FACILITIES 1 Palm Desert City Hall Park Facilities 2 IPalm Desert Library 10 Civic Center Park 3 jPalm Desert Community Center 11 Palm Desert Soccer Park 4 jPolice Department 12 Ironwood Park Fire Stations 13 Cahuilla Hills Park 5 Station 33 14 Ponoia Park 6 Station 67 15 Cook Street Sports Complex 7 Station 71 16 Washington Charter School Park 8 Station 81 Sun City 17 Joe Mann Park 9 Station 31 Bermuda Dunes 18 ICap HommeiRalph Adams Park 99 1palma, ark i _ I Feet go 5,000 10,000 CM r -1 L i TERRA, NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH INC.' RECEIVED 1 ES 15 2007 TRANSMITTAL MEMORANDUM :OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF A CITY OF PALM DESERT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Date: February 13, 2007 To: Responsible Agencies and Interested Parties From: Nicole Criste, Consulting Planner Subject: Transmittal of Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Tentative Tract Map 33848, City of La Quinta, Riverside County Enclosed please find the above referenced Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Tentative Tract Map 33848 located in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The "Project", Tentative Tract Map 33848, proposes to subdivide a 4.8 acre parcel into 17 single family lots of 7,462 square feet or larger, as well as lots for streets and on - site storm water retention. The proposed project will be accessed by a single central entry roadway, terminating in a cul-de-sac at the southern boundary of the property. The project site is currently developed with a single-family home of adobe construction, built in the 1920s. The site also includes corrals and an un-maintained date and citrus orchard. Development of the proposed project would result in the elimination of existing development on the site, including the existing adobe dwelling. This NOP is your opportunity to provide comments in advance of completion of this EIR. The NOP comment period runs from February 14th through March 16, 2007. If you like, you may FAX your comments to Andrew Mogensen, La Quinta Planning Department, 760-777-1233 within this time frame. Please also send a hard copy via the mail to the address indicated below to assure a legible and reproducible original. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Nicole Criste at (760) 320-9040 or Andrew Mogensen at 760-777-7125. Andrew Mogensen La Quinta Planning Department 78495 Calle Tampico La Quinta, CA 92253 760-777-7125 THANK YOU! 400 SOUTH FARRELL, SUITE B-205 0 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 ❑ (760) 320-9040 ❑ FAX (760) 322-2760 Environmental Checklist Form RECEIVED 1. Project title: Tentative Tract Map 33848 FEB 15 2007 2. Lead agency name and address: City of La Quinta 78-495 Calle Tampico ;OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT La Quinta, CA 92253 CITY OF PALM DESERT 3. Contact person and phone number: Andrew Mogensen, Associate Planner 760-777-7125 4. Project location: South side of Avenue 58, approximately 510 feet west of Monroe Street; APN 764-180-003. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: David Maman Design 6541 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 203 Los Angeles, 90028 6. General plan designation: Low Density 7. Zoning: Low Density Residential Residential 8. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off -site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Tentative Tract Map to subdivide a 4.8 acre parcel into 17 single family lots of 7,462 square feet or larger, as well as lots for streets and on -site storm water retention. The proposed project will be accessed by a single central entry roadway, terminating in a cul-de-sac at the southern boundary of the property. The project site is currently developed with a single family home of adobe construction, built in the 1920s. The site also includes corrals and an un-maintained date and citrus orchard. Development of the proposed project would result in the elimination of existing development on the site, including the existing adobe dwelling. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North: Avenue 58, single family residential subdivision South: Vacant desert lands East: Lands in agriculture West: Lands in agriculture 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Coachella Valley Water District -1- ENVIRONMENTAL FACrrRS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: ,,„_ The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Biological Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Mineral Resources Public Services Utilities / Service Agriculture Resources Cultural Resources Hydrology / Water Quality Noise Recreation Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Geology /Soils Land Use / Planning Population / Housing Transportation/Traffic X X Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ;nificant effect on the red. ;nificant effect on the )ecause revisions in the anent. A MITIGATED 1 the environment, and significant impact" or nment, but at least one t pursuant to applicable .gyres based on the earlier 'AL IMPACT REPORT addressed. gnificant effect on the ) have been analyzed 1 pursuant to applicable to that earlier EIR or ition measures that are k1Ioc,-� Date -2- ' NV7d 39MIM JS its, I U� 2 O D asn bu : 7�tortuapitay lt7sue0 wD7 :614-WuDtd tD%auary >00-091-s9L :Ndw 'O MO �i,i _w!t _arr .tt I ~tlrY ~ic= Ci %( —M - D7- •„ er 13 l j31VAlNd z� 0 m r P I �a¢i � I NA3% �! h�fifi •t�fi9 I h��� I 1 eo�fifi `�., 4. 'N,., i �dr I „Se � , �•4 `t}I ��� � r �r'x } ���� � � �n.�a � m3i3 I f . .00"199 3.99..zaooN E' pmyJ/G :acn bwtsur7 /;Dpuaprsay .�;waQ wD7 :buruD7/UDId iD�awg MO-Gil•(->9L :NdY ILI s ;r i St t ��n ys63 vvv . aCtt. Q eN t, a �► ,a rj 00 00 CC 40- GC V v F A : it -hails uos)JOE a (P hails uosipew , aIV 9 X 1 v 1 1 _a p , a •^ O �a u i' t... ......... ........ Y 4 q 1 yl C 1 � 1 j 7 Y i p f l � !O 1,ZV-. f` u 00 rn r- - > inr LD G An / .0.. C a L j > a C o a m o a 00 0 0 Y U CD t Q' C a Q� a �(6, c U � r' ti r to a 0 U U ai ai C) E ° m a > m O co 0 z w r� LJ U rC. .c �a u v EVALUATION OF ENVI)iMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except " No Impact answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance -5- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact I. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a X scenic vista? (La Quinta General Plan Exhibit 3.6 "Image Corridors") b) Substantially damage scenic X resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Aerial photograph; Site Inspection) X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Application materials) X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Application materials) I. a)-c) Avenue 58 is designated an Agrarian Image Corridor in the General Plan. The applicant will therefore be required to conform to the setback and landscaping standards required, including enhanced setbacks and landscape materials. The proposed project will result in the development of 17 single family homes on a single cul-de-sac. The Low Density Residential zone allows one and two story home construction, and it is expected that the homes will conform to this standard. The proposed project will therefore be consistent with surrounding development, now and in the future, and will have no impact on the visual character of the area. There are no scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed project. There are no significant trees or rock outcroppings on the project site. Issues associated with the presence of historic buildings are addressed under cultural resources, below. The small nature of the proposed project, as well as its conformance with City standards are expected to result in no impacts associated with aesthetics. No further discussion of these issues is required. d) The construction of the proposed project will cause a limited increase in light generation, primarily from car headlights and landscape lighting. The City regulates lighting levels and does not allow lighting to spill over onto adjacent property. Further, residential lighting is generally limited, and of low intensity. Lighting from vehicles currently occurs on Avenue 58, and the addition of project trips from 17 homes will be imperceptible in the lighting environment in the area. Impacts associated with light and glare are expected to be negligible. No further discussion of this issue is required. -6- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique X Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (General Plan EIR p. III-21 ff.) X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Zoning Map) c) Involve other changes in the existing X environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (General Plan Land Use Map; Site Inspection) II. a)-c) The proposed project site is located in a rapidly urbanizing area of the City, and has been designated for low density residential development for a number of years. The lands were subdivided for residential purposes in the 1920s. Residential development occurs on the north side of Avenue 58. Vacant desert lands occur on the southern boundary of the project site. Date groves occurs on the east and west of the project site. These groves, however, are small in size, and do not represent substantial farming operations. They are isolated pockets of farming activity which are likely to convert to residential development in the near future. There are no Williamson Act contracts on the proposed project site. Its development as single family residential land will not impact the ability of existing date groves on the west and east to continue production. No impacts associated with agricultural resources are expected as a result of the proposed project, and no further discussion of this issue is required. -7- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct X implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) b) Violate any air quality standard or X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- X attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (SCAQMD CEQA Handbook, 2002 PM10 Plan for the Coachella Valley) d) Expose sensitive receptors to X substantial pollutant concentrations? (Project Description, Aerial Photo) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a X substantial number of people? (Project Description, Aerial Photo) III. a)- c) The proposed project occurs in the City of La Quinta, which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD has developed regional air quality management plans on the basis of city General Plan land use data. As a result, the proposed project is consistent with air quality plans for the region. No impact is expected, and no further discussion of this issue is required. The City and Valley are located in severe non -attainment areas for PM10 (particulate matter of 10 microns or less). In order to rectify this designation, the Coachella Valley modified its PM10 Plan in 2002 to implement more stringent mitigation of air quality impacts associated with fugitive dust. The City participates in this program, and requires the implementation of dust control plans for all construction projects. The proposed project will result in the development of 4.8 acres of land into 17 single family homes. The proposed project may also result in the demolition of an existing residential structure on the project site. The demolition, grading and construction on the property will generate fugitive dust, as well as emissions associated with vehicles used in grading and construction, and emissions from coating products used in construction. The residential structure on the -8- property wa`*odilt and modified well before 1980, at me when both lead paint and asbestos products were used in construction. Diesel equipment is also used in this process, and if operated at the same time as equipment used for grading or construction, could result in air emissions which could be significant. The demolition process therefore has the potential to impact local air quality as well. The potential impacts associated with these activities require further analysis to determine what mitigation measures will be required to lower the impacts to less than significant levels. Air emissions during the construction process must therefore be addressed in the EIR. The proposed project will also generate emissions during the lifetime of the project. The development of 17 homes has the potential to generate 163 average daily trips. These trips will generate the following emissions: Table 1 Moving Exhaust Emission Projections at Project Build Out (pounds per day) Total No. Vehicle Trips/Day Ave. Trip Total Length (miles) miles/day x ME 2, 445 Pollutant CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 Pounds 31.3 3.3 3.4 0.0 0.3 SCAQMD Thresholds 550.0 55.0 55.0 150.0 150.0 URBEBMIS Version 2.2 Ccenario Year 2007 -- Model Years 1965 to 2007 Pollutant - Vehicle CO NOX ROG SOX PM10 As demonstrated in the table, impacts associated with long term operational impacts are expected to be less than significant. The project will also generate air emissions associated with the production of natural gas and electricity, however, the small scale of the project will not exceed thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD. No additional discussion regarding long term impacts on air quality is required in the EIR. -9- PM Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either X directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any X riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on X federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) d) Interfere substantially with the X movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) e) Conflict with any local policies or X ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (General Plan MEA, p. 73 ff.) f) Conflict with the provisions of an X adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (General Plan MEA, p. 78 ff.) -10- IV. a)-f) The proposek,.Oeoject has been developed as a single wily home and a date orchard for a number of years. The site has the potential to harbor burrowing owl, a species of concern, due to the presence of ground squirrel burrows. Additional information is required to properly analyze the potential impacts and determine the proper mitigation for this species. The site does not contain any riparian habitat or wetland areas. The site is developed, and is surrounded by existing development on three sides, and therefore has no potential as a wildlife corridor. No further discussion of these issues is required in the EIR. There are no specific ordinances governing biological resources in the City. The project site is outside the fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. -11- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of a historical resource as defined in ' 15064.5? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in X the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' 15064.5? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (General Plan MEA p. 88 ff.) d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (General Plan MEA p. 123 ff.) V. a), b) & d) A phase I cultural resource analysis, and follow-up research and documentation, have been conducted on the project site. These analyses identified the main structure on the project site as an early adobe construction dating to 1928. The preliminaries analyses determined that the structure is potentially significant as a historic resource, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The precise identification of the builder was not made, and a detailed analysis to determine the significance of the structure is required to determine whether the structure is significant. The results of this analysis will also determine what mitigation measures, if any, are feasible for the structure. This analysis must be completed as part of the EIR. The project site is located in an area of potential significance for prehistoric archaeological resources. The EIR will review studies prepared for the project, and determine what mitigation measures may be necessary to assure that the impacts to these resources are reduced to less than significant levels. The project site is not known to have been the location of a burial ground. California law requires that contractors immediately notify law enforcement officials should human remains be identified when grading occurs on the project site. This requirement assures that there will be no impact to human remains. No further discussion of this issue is required in the EIR. V. c) The proposed project site lies within the General Plan's mapped boundary for ancient lake Cahuilla. In order to assure that resources which may occur on the site are properly identified and preserved, additional research is required. The findings of this research will be documented in the EIR. -12- rm M Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, X as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.2) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, X including liquefaction? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.3) iv) Landslides? (General Plan MEA Exhibit X 6.4) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or X the loss of topSoil? (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.5) c) Be located on expansive soil, as X defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property (General Plan MEA Exhibit 6.1) d) Have soils incapable of adequately X supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (General Plan Exhibit 8.1) VI. a)-d) The site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The site, and the City in general, are located in a seismically active area, and will experience strong groundshaking during an earthquake. The City implements the most stringent building code requirements through implementation of the Uniform Building Code provisions for seismically active zones. This requirement assures that impacts associated with groundshaking and construction on the site will be less than significant. -13- err The site is located in an area known to be subject to liquefaction, due to the shallowness of groundwater in the area. Further analysis is required to determine if the proposed project will be subject to liquefaction, and what mitigation measures are needed to assure that this potential hazard is mitigated to less than significant levels. This analysis will be conducted in the EIR. The project site is flat, and is surrounded by equally flat lands. No hazard of landslides occurs on the property. The area is not identified as having expansive soils, and no impact is expected from this hazard. The proposed project will be connected to sanitary sewer service occurring in the project vicinity, and will not install septic tanks. No further discussion of these issues is required in the EIR. -14- FM FM Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS --Would theproject: a) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Application materials) b) Create a significant hazard to the X public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (General Plan MEA, p. 95 ff.) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle X hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Application materials) d) Be located on a site which is included X on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Application materials) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (General Plan land use map) g) Impair implementation of or physically X interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (General Plan MEA p. 95 ff) h) Expose people or structures to a X significant risk of loss, injury or death -15- involving wildland fires, irding where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (General Plan land use map) VII. a)-h) As previously described, the proposed project has the potential to result in the demolition of an existing home built in the 1920's. When constructed, and modified subsequently, lead based products and asbestos were still in use. The potential demolition of the structure could release these materials, if not properly mitigated. These potential impacts require further analysis and mitigation measures must be developed to assure that no such release occurs. The development of the site is likely to result in the storage of cleaning materials for household use. These materials, however, are not expected to be hazardous, and are not expected in large quantities. Burrtec, the City's solid waste franchisee, implements special programs for the proper disposal of household hazardous waste and chemicals. These programs will be available to the future residents of the proposed project. Impacts associated with long term operation of the project are expected to be less than significant. The site is not within the boundaries of the airport land use plan. There are no identified hazardous materials sites within the project area. The project site has been integrated into the City's emergency preparedness planning for some years. There are no wildlands located adjacent or near the project site. No further discussion of these issues is required in the EIR. 1 "Results of Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Griffin Saddle Club Addition," prepared by Proterra Consulting, February 2006. -16- PR Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or X waste discharge requirements? (General Plan EIR p. 11I-187 ff.) b) Substantially deplete groundwater X supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been ranted)? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on - or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage X pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) e) Create or contribute runoff water which X would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?(General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) f) Place housing within a 100-year flood X hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (General Plan EIR p. III-187 ff.) g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard X area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Master Environmental Assessment Exhibit 6.6) -17- VW VIII. a) & b) Domestic water is supplied to the project site by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD). The development of the site will result in the need for domestic water service use for 17 homes, and for landscaping irrigation. The CVWD has prepared a Water Management Plan which indicates that it has sufficient water sources to accommodate growth in its service area, based on the City's General Plan land uses. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation assigned to it. Therefore, the project has been considered in the CVWD's assessment of domestic water demand, and will not impact water resources. The CVWD has implemented or is implementing water conservation, purchase and replenishment measures which will result in a surplus of water in the long term. The project proponent will be required to implement the City's water efficient landscaping and construction provisions, including requirements for water efficient fixtures, which will ensure that the least amount of water is utilized within the homes. The applicant will also be required to comply with the City's NPDES standards, requiring that potential pollutants not be allowed to enter surface waters. These City standards will assure that impacts to water quality and quantity will be less than significant. VIII. c) & d) The City requires that all projects retain the 100 year storm on site. The applicant must demonstrate, through the preparation of a hydrology study, that the proposed project is designed to provide this retention. Further analysis to assure that the project will effectively retain storm water flows, and not impact downstream properties, will be provided in the EIR, and mitigation measures will be required if necessary. VIII. e)-g) The site is not located in a flood zone as designated by FEMA. The project will not discharge storm flows into an off -site drainage system. No further discussion of these issues is required in the EIR. -18- em 15 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established X community? (Aerial photo) b) Conflict with any applicable land use X plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (General Plan Exhibit 2.1) c) Conflict with any applicable habitat X conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? General Plan MEA p. 74 ff.) IX. a)-c) The proposed project site is currently unoccupied, and implementation of the project will not impact an established community. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation assigned to it, and is expected to comply with zoning ordinance requirements. No further discussion of this issue is required in the EIR. The proposed project alternatives include the potential for the conservation of the existing adobe structure, and the development of single family lots surrounding it. This will be further studied in the Environmental Impact Report. The project site is outside the fee area for the Coachella Valley Fringe -toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan. No further discussion of this issue is required in the EIR. -19- M M Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a X known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) b) Result in the loss of availability of a X locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Master Environmental Assessment p. 71 ff.) X. a) & b) The site is located in an area of the City designated Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-1, which indicates that no resources occur. There will be no impact to mineral resources as a result of the proposed project, and no further discussion of this issue is required in the EIR. -20- 0 M Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XI. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation X of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards Of other agencies? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) b) Exposure of persons to or generation X of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) c) A substantial permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) d) A substantial temporary or periodic X increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (General Plan MEA p. 111 ff.) e) For a project located within an airport X land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) f) For a project within the vicinity of a X private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (General Plan land use map) XI. a)-f) The proposed project will generate noise during the construction process, and also will increase noise levels in the area during its lifetime. The proposed project is located in an area which is developing, but currently has orchards on both its east and west boundaries, vacant desert lands on its southern boundary, and Avenue 58 on its northern boundary. There are therefore no sensitive receptors adjacent to the project site who could be affected by construction noise. Residents further distant from the property have the potential to hear construction -21- noise, but it ifbt expected to be at levels which willceed the City's standards for such noise, and impacts are expected to be less than significant. The construction of the project and its long term operation also have the potential to place the residents, considered sensitive receptors, in a noisy environment, adjacent to Avenue 58. Further analysis is required to determine the potential noise levels in the future at the project site, and whether mitigation measures will be required to assure that noise levels in the residences adjacent to Avenue 58 have noise levels below the City's standard of 65 dBA CNEL. This analysis will be provided in the EIR. The development of the 17 residences will increase noise levels in the area, due to noise generated by household activities. These activities, however, are not generally in excess of the City's standards, and the small size of the proposed project will assure that these impacts are less than significant. The site is not located adjacent to an airport or air strip. The proposed project will not generate ground borne noise or vibration. No further discussion of these issues is required in the EIR. -22- 0 CM Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth X in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) b) Displace substantial numbers of X existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) c) Displace substantial numbers of X people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (General Plan, p. 9 ff., application materials) XII. a)-c) Development of 17 single family homes will result in up to 45 persons residing in the area. This is consistent with the land use designation for the property, and will not generate substantial population growth, but will rather be absorbed by existing growth rates in the area. The residence on the project site is currently unoccupied, and the implementation of the proposed project will not displace anyone. No impacts are anticipated, and no further discussion of these issues is required in the EIR. -23- Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Police protection? (General Plan MEA, p. 57) X Schools? (General Plan MEA, p. 52 ff.) X Parks? (General Plan; Recreation and Parks X Master Plan) Other public facilities? (General Plan MEA, X p. 46 ff.) XIII. a) Build out of the 17 single family homes will have a less than significant impact on public services. The project will be served by the County Sheriff and Fire Department, under City contract. Build out of the project will generate property tax and sales tax which will offset the costs of added police and fire services, as well as the costs of general government. The project will contribute to the construction of future public safety facilities through the City's Developer Impact Fee program. The project will be required to pay the mandated school fees in place at the time of issuance of building permits to reduce the impacts to those services. The proposed project will be required to contribute in lieu fees for the development of parks, consistent with the Municipal Code requirements. Impacts associated with public services are expected to be negligible, and no further discussion of these issues are required in the EIR. -24- M M Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XIV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of X existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Application materials; General Plan Exhibit 5.1) b) Does the project include recreational X facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Application materials) XIV. a) & b) The proposed project will contribute park fees for off site park development. The project will not increase use of existing recreational facilities in the City. No impacts are expected, and no further discussion of this issue is required in the EIR. -25- MR M Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is X substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) b) Exceed, either individually or X cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (General Plan EIR, p. III-29 ff.) c) Result in a change in air traffic X patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (No air traffic involved in project) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a X design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Application materials) e) Result in inadequate emergency X access? (Application materials) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? X (Application materials) g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, X or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Project description; MEA Exhibit 3.10) XV. a)-g) As previously stated, the proposed project has the potential to generate approximately 163 daily trips on area roadways. Avenue 58 is projected to operate at acceptable levels of service at General Plan build out, as analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project is consistent with the land use designation assigned to the property, and has therefore been included in the traffic analysis in that document. The proposed project will be required to contribute to the Development Impact Fees established by -26- the City for ional roadways, to offset any impa6+o the City-wide circulation system. Therefore, no impacts to area roadways are expected. The proposed project is expected to conform to City standards for the provision of parking and emergency access. The project includes a single cul-de-sac with one access point on Avenue 58, and will not have hazardous design features. The project is not located in the vicinity of an airport or airstrip. The project will not conflict with alternative transportation programs. No impacts associated with transportation are expected, therefore, no further discussion of these issues is required in the EIR. -27- M LWA Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment X requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) b) Require or result in the construction of X new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) c) Require or result in the construction of X new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) d) Have sufficient water supplies X available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) e) Result in a determination by the X wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient X permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) g) Comply with federal, state, and local X statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (General Plan MEA, p. 58 ff.) XVI. a)-g) The proposed project will be served by CVWD for sanitary sewer service. CVWD's treatment plant has sufficient capacity to serve the planned 17 homes, and has the ability to expand its capacity as demand rises. -28- \ybr CVWD's Urban Water Management Plan indicates that the District has sufficient water supplies to serve the proposed project and other projects in its service area in the long term (Please see Hydrology and Water Resources, above). Hydrology and storm drainage is discussed under Hydrology and Water Resources, above. Domestic waste will be collected by Burrtec, the City's solid waste franchisee. Burrtec currently hauls City solid waste to the Edom Hill transfer station. From there, waste is transported to one of several regional landfills, including the Lambs Canyon, Badlands and El Sobrante landfills. These landfills have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project. Burrtec is also required to comply with all City, regional, state and federal requirements for the disposal of solid waste. The development of 17 homes will have no impact on public utilities, and no further discussion of this issue is required in the EIR. -29- M 25 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- a) Does the project have the potential to X degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have the potential to X achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals? c) Does the project have impacts that are X individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? d) Does the project have environmental X effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. a) The site has the potential to harbor burrowing owl, a species of concern. Additional analysis is needed to establish mitigation measures to assure that impacts to this species are reduced to less than significant levels. The project site does not include riparian or wetland areas, and as a developed site does not contain significant native habitat. As discussed above, the proposed project includes the proposed demolition of a single family adobe residence which has been identified as having potential historic significance. Insufficient information is available to determine whether the site is significant, and additional research is necessary to determine whether such is the case, and whether mitigation measures are possible to lower the impacts to less than significant levels. This analysis will be conducted in the EIR. -30- XVII. b) The proposed`oject will add to the types of housii'lavailable for City residents, consistent with the General Plan's goals and policies. The land use designation assigned to the property supports the development of single family residential development. No impacts are expected. XVII. c) The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan vision for this area. Construction of the project will have no significant cumulative impacts, as the project proposes residential units within the allowable range for the Low Density Residential designation. XVII. d) The proposed project has the potential to adversely affect human beings, due to air quality, noise and hydrology impacts. Further analysis is required to determine the level of impact, and the mitigation measures required, if any, to assure that these impacts are reduced to less than significant levels. -31- M XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. General Plan EIR, 2003. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Not applicable. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions for the project. Not applicable. -32- M f'ES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 24, 2006 y. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF V40RK for Contract No. C24350 — Citywide Curb, Gutter, and Sidewalk Program (Project No. 753-06) (Contreras Construction Company, Indio, CA). RW. By Mirrute Motion, accept the work as complete arnd autt rtze the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for the subject project. Z. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL ofttte Arthr PublicPlaces Fee Reimbursement for the Desert Gateway Art Component (Rothbart Development Corporation, Applicant). This item was removert for separate considerafion under Section Vtt - Consent Items Held Over. Please see that portion of the Minutes for discussion and subsequent action. AA. CONStDERATRW of a Request to Stage the Desert Cities Track Club's Eighth Annual "Turkey Trot" on El Paseo. RW By frA mft Matlon, authorize the Desert Cities Track Club to stage their Eighth Annual "Turkey Trot" on Thursday, November 23, 2006 (Thanksgiving Day), from 7:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. SR. CONStDERAT of a Request to Close Et Paseo on Saturday, February 10, 2007, for the Palm Desert Senior Games. Rw By Mtrrute Mativrr, a trortze the Coachetta Valley Recreation & Park District to close El Paseo on Saturday, February 10, 2007, from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. for the subject event. CC. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Fire Prevention Review Follow-up 2. Risk Management Report This itemwas removed for supans Con ideratton under Section Vil - Consent Items Held Over. Please see that portion of the Minutes for discussion and subsequent action. 3. Report on Riverside County Tentative Tract Map No. 34305, Stone Haven at Cahuilla Hills This item was removed forseparat+e consideration urK erSectian Vtf - Consent Items Held Over. Please see that portion of the Minutes for discussino and subsequent action. 7 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 24, 2006 Mayor Pro Tern Kelly requested Items T and CC-2 be discussed separately, Councilman Spiegel requested Items T and Z, and Councilmember Benson requested Items R and CC-3. Mayor Ferguson noted for the record that he would be abstaining from Item CC-3. Upon a motion by Spiegel, second by Kelly, and 4-0 vote of the City Council, the remainder of the Consent Calendar was approved as presented. VII. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER R. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Amendment No. 2 to Contract No. C22870 — Design Engineering for the Portola Avenue Bridge Over the Whitewater Channel. Councilmember Benson said she and Mayor Pro Tern Kelly asked the City Manager about installing a railing along the sidewalk at the crossing of the Portola Bridge to avoid having children or pets fall into the traffic. She wondered what the status was or if the request could be added to this contract amendment. Engineering Manager John Garcia replied he was not aware of the request. Mayor Pro Tern Kelly said he had spoken to Mr. Greenwood, who felt it would be more practical to wait until the bridge was completed rather than add onto a change order. Councilmember Benson said she wanted to establish that everyone was in agreement with the request and that it get penciled in. Mayor Pro Tern Kelly reiterated that he spoke with Mr. Greenwood as agreed. He said Mr. Greenwood could provide a report about the discussion, and the City Council could still make a decision to have the railing done now. Councilmember Benson stated since the contract was being amended, it seemed appropriate to add it now, as she felt it was a safety issue. Mayor Pro Tern Kelly responded that he didn't want to hold up approval of the subject amendment in order to do so. Mayor Ferguson suggested the City Council follow up with Mr. Greenwood, because it was unacceptable to leave the sidewalk crossing as is. Mr. Garcia asked if the City Council was considering a permanent barrier or a temporary solution. A M M MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 24, 2006 Councilmember Benson commented that the sidewalk was already there. Mayor Pro Tern Kelly added a permanent railing was needed in order to assure no one would fall. Mayor Fergusm request while a penrarent solution was Ming sought, that an inexpensive temporary solution be installed, even if that meant orange pylons. He-feitif itwas unsafe, it needed to -be addressed now rather than waiting until it was convenient. Mr. Garcia agreed to follow up on both requests. Cocmcil1101, Bermonmovedto, byMirruteMofion, approve: I)AmendmentNo. 2 to the subject contract with Moffatt & Nichol Engineers, Irvine, California, in the amount of W,500 for additivi ial constructiort design suppatservicesto conrptete the suboctproject 2) transfer of $5,595.70 from contingency to base for the project and appropriation of $42,904.30 from Unobhgatsd Fund400, with stafff ntwdirected to give serious desU, consideration for an immediate, efficient temporary barrier between the completed and in - progress poi hoi rs of the bridge structure and its retabon to the perrits, erit barrierhaiting. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 4-0 vote. T. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Professional Services Agr rt for Disaster Response Planning (Contract No. C25660). Mayer Pro Tani Kelly said he requested this itern be removed for separate consideration because he planned to deny it. Mayor Ferguson said he was planning to do the same. Councilman Spmget inquired about the City of La Quinta's underground shelter being built for their City Council. He commented that he was possibly voting no on this item as well. Rrsk Manager Gary Rosenblum replied that as part of the City of to Quirrta's renovation project, they were adding a custom-built Emergency Operations Center(EOC)that's speeifica"Jorthatpurpose. Upon f nth question, he stated he was not familiar with the details of the project but felt that it was a good ideato have a specialty buitt­EOG ff ratwoutd ble less subjectt o damage in an earthquake. However, it would not be a total solution for emergency prepanch mzb, there were other #*Yp that the City of Palm Desert was attempting to incorporate into the City's existing structures. Councilman Spiegel, asked about Palm Desert's existing structure. Mr. Rosenblum said the City's EOC is located near the Code Compliance Department, the room is outfitted with equipment and rein as best it can be, and can hold approximately 30 people comfortably. The EOC pieviously had perrrranenttabtes, which were changed to portable tables for flexibility. MI5 REGYLAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 24, 2006 Mayor Pro Tern Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, DENY the subject agrawiient. Motion was seconded by Mayor Ferguson and carried by a 4-0 vote. Z. RECUEST FOR APPROVAL ofthe Arttn Pt Plam Fee Rs eim' enrent for the Desert Gateway Art Component (Rothbart Development Corporation, Applicant). CourK*ffw Spiegel- stated this stern was related to the stulptrire at the entrance to the City of Palm Desert from the freeway. On one side of Monterey Avenue is and pied fortheCity ofRancho Mirage, and on the other side of the street is the entrance piece for Palm Desert. Based on the size of ft lettering, he could spot Rancho Mirage's easily, but he couldn't really see Palm Desert's. This issue was raised with Public Arts Manager Riaharct Twedtpreviorrsly, but he tact riot! redid from hint. Fie feltthe subject piece didn't do the City justice. Public' DeboiatrScttwartzrepkectshe was aware Mr: Twedt had looked into the matter and would bring it back to his attention. MayorPro Teml(eliy eStedtakin9ftnameoffbi sculpture and -having a larger "Palm Desert" sign placed there instead. Councilman Spiegel- said he didn't have a problem with the sculpture piece, only with the size of the lettering for "Palm Desert." Mrs. Gilligan said she and Mr. Twedt discus t the matter, arrcl she advised Councilman Spiegel that the issue needed to be brought before the entire City Council. She offered that this matter cad be added to the agenda as a signage concern. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Mutiorr: 't) Authorize the reimbursement of the Art In Public Places fee in the amount of $10,043 for the Gateway Project located at 34-220 and 34-500 Monterey Avenue — funds are available in Account No. 436-0000-312-2700; 2) direct staff to revisit the "Palm Desert' identification component at the site. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-0 vote. CC. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: 2. Risk Management Report Mayor Pro Tent Kelly c orrgratulated Risk Martag r Gary Rosenblum for an outstanding job of inspiring employees to accomplish a tremendous safety record. (The City of Palm Desert recemed the 2006 Risk Management Award for the "Lowest Five-year Average CostoftVorker's Compensation Cfarms" atthe Cahfurnra Jornt Powers Insurance Authority Annual Meeting.) 10 MINUTES REGULAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 24, 2006 Councilman Spiegel noted that Mr. Rosenblum saved the City $125,000 last year on insurance. Mayor Pro Tern Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the report as presented. Motion was seconded by Spiegel and carried by a 4-0 vote. 3. Report on Riverside County Tentative Tract Map No.34305, Stone Haven at Cahuilla Hills Mayor Ferguson noted for the record that he would be abstaining on this item. He stated it was a County matter and an informational item, but it involved an issue that affected one of his clients. Councilmember Benson said her concern was that the developer was requesting a letter from the City Council stating it would not oppose his ten lots on the hillside development. The City's Ordinance allowed six residential lots per acre, and she felt there was no need for ten. She commented that the Council had been holding firm on the ordinance that set a limit on drive-ins and felt the same should be done with mountain development. She said the letter from Mr. Peter Scheer says that the City Council had agreed to ten lots, but that is not the case. MR. PETER SCHEER stated he was present at this evening's meeting at the direction of Riverside County Supervisor Roy Wilson and at the suggestion of Mayor Ferguson. He said a meeting was called by then -Councilman Buford Crites. He also met with Mayor Ferguson on several occasions about the proposed project. He said the project was currently in the County and zoned one lot per acre but recognized the project was under the City's sphere of influence. He said the project was reduced from the original proposal presented to the County, which was tentatively approved last December. The number of lot sites was reduced from 15 to 10 at the suggestion of then -Councilman Crites. He pointed out that the surrounding area currently had multiple projects within the City, and the Council chose not to restrict those projects. He said this project was significantly below the density of what the City Council has already approved in the periphery of the Cahuilla Hills. He went on to say that they have been sensitive to the concerns of the City and have addressed everyone one of them as they were brought up by Mr. Crites. He said he would appreciate the help of the City Council to bring their project forward. He offered to answer any questions of concern. Councilman Spiegel asked Mr. Scheer if he was going to build whether or not he received a letter from the City. 11 MINUTES 1*01 REGI.)LAR PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 24, 2006 MR. SCHEER replied that a number of houses would be built, regardless. Mayor Pro Tern Kelly said the project was already in the process with the County, and the City's letter may have some effect on whether the County approved it or not. MR. SCHEER agreed and said that as a good neighbor and 23-year resident, he wanted to be up front and communicate with the City. Otherwise, it would have been just as well to push the project forward at a rate that was unacceptable even to him. He said a compromise had been reached, in which they significantly reduced their original proposal so that it could be approved by the County. The setbacks were increased, open -space area was maintained and dedicated at more than 40%, the pad size was reduced to only 17% of the total, and the remaining 83% was open space. He added that the rock formations in that unique environment would remain intact. Mr. Drell explained that part of the compromise was that both the City and Stone Eagle would continue to provide input in terms of grading, architecture, and landscaping of future developments. He said projects are subject to Stone Eagle's architectural review process. Although Stone Eagle has the easement to use their road, the road needs to be improved and would require a lot of cooperation; in exchange for that to happen, Stone Eagle will take that into account relative to architectural review. Responding to questions about the City's continued input, setbacks, etc., he affirmed that all the aforementioned issues would be included in the letter. Mayor Pro Tern Kelly and Councilman Spiegel agreed to send the letter with the stipulation that Stone Eagle's architectural review and the County Planning Department provide approval with the City's continued input on the project. Councilman Spiegel moved to, by Minute Motion, receive and file the report as presented, with direction that the requested letter to Riverside County emphasize that the City will have continuing input relative to future development through both its own review and Stone Eagle's architectural review process. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 2-1 vote, with Benson voting NO and Ferguson ABSENT. 12 cm M r� L ,j TERRA NOVA PLANNING & RESEARCH INC.0 December 3,. 2006 County Planning Commissioners and Mr. Paul Clark, AICP c/o Riverside County Planning Department 82-675 Highway 111, Room 209 Indio, CA 92201 RE: TPM 34305 & EA 40741 Peter Sheer Subdivision Proposal in Cahuilla Hills Area of Palm Desert - EnvironmentaI Concerns Dear Planning Commissioners and Mr. Clark: I represent Mr. and Mrs. Gerhard Befeld who are owners of properties in Cahuilla Hills, including Assessor's Parcel No. 62$-360-007. The Befelds are concerned about the intensity of the proposed subdivision and the potentially significant adverse effects it could have on. the Cahuilla 1-iills neighborhood and the environment. The proposed project encompasses approximately 20-acres and would result in grading for and the construction of ten (10) single family homes on lands that are significantly constrained by steep slopes, very rocky' conditions, sensitive habitat,. accessibility, and high visibility to other homes located to the south in Cahuilla Hills, including. that of the Befelds. The appropriateness of this proposed subdivision is further brought into question by the significant amount of fi11,.22,390 cubic yards that ffiz st be imported to the site to make it viable. A project design manual has been submitted but reinforces many of the Befelds' concerns. Each of the Befeld's concerns is further described below: Aesthetic Impacts ; The.proposed subdivision will significantly alter currently vacant and largely undisturbed rocky slopes and hillsides of the Santa Rosa Mountains, and will result in a significant impact to important physical features, including rocky outcroppings and native vegetation. Although the extent of grading for homes has been reduced in response to concerns already raised, these activities will result in a patchwork of,: disturbance and structures that will generally be lower in elevation and more highly visible than those,to the south in Cahuilla Hills. This development will significantly and potentially adversely alter the character of this area, which has traditionally developed at lower densities. While the staff report references required compliance with ".Countywide Design Standards and Guidelines", the conclusion that these requirements will mitigate potentially significant aesthetic impacts has not been demonstrated. Associated with these above -mentioned impacts are those associated 'with lighting and glare that is inevitably associated with residential development. Residents in Cahuilla Hills to whom the project will be most visible, currently view only natural rocky hillsides and the Stone Eagle golf course, neither of which create issues of light and glare. The inevitable installation of landscape and security lighting will significantly affect the very rural character of Cahuilla- Hills and especially t5his area. Yet the project CEQA Initial Study finds that the impacts would be less than significant. In the absence of mitigation measures, this conclusion is unfounded. 400 SOUTH FARRELL, SUITE B-205 0 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 ❑ (760) 320-9040 El FAX (760) 322-2760 Terra Nova/Befeld/RivCo planning Commission Concerns Regarding of TPM 34305 & EA 40741/Page 2 Biological Resources The entire project site is tributary to the important and highly sensitive Bruce Creek, which is already somewhat impacted by the illegal disturbance of the streambed and associated riparian habitat, by runoff associated with development in Cahuilla Hills, and to a lesser extent by subsurface breakouts from the Stone Eagle golf course. While direct dredge and fill of the Bruce Creek streambed is shown 'on the grading plans as being avoided, it is difficult to, see how this. can. be achieved. Furthermore, urban runoff in the form of siltation, household and landscape chemicals, and other potential contaminants may find their way into the stream, which currently supports a wide. range of birds, amphibian and reptile species, including at least three species of frog.. The CEQA Initial Study states that no special interest plant communities were found to be present, however, page 1 l of the biology report states• that six plant species "were identified as present and are subject to the California Desert Native Plants. Act (Section 90001, et seq. of the California Department of Food and Agriculture Code)." The report goes on to state, "Destruction or removal of .any- of the above -listed species on the proposed project site may require a permit from, or notification to, the County of Riverside Agricultural Commissioner or Sheriff." The subject property is designated as "Critical Habitat" for the Peninsular bighorn sheep; which -is designated as "endangered" by state and federal wildlife agencies: The species is also "fully protected" under- the California. Fish .and Game Code. Lands in the immediate vicinity were also found to have harbored desert tortoise, although no protocol -based tortoise survey was conducted on the subject property. It should be noted that Figure 3 in the project biology report shows an entirely different property located some distance to the south and outside the tributary area flowing into:Bruce Creek. It appears that the report attempts to essentially assess conditions at two totally different sites without adequately distinguishing between the two. Two- separate reports should be prepared inasmuch as the property shown on Figure 3 is not the subject of TTM 34305. The literature search cited in the project biology report also fails to reference the extensive biological resource surveys and analyses performed for the Stone Eagle golf course and residential development, which included analyses fora Section 1.602 Streambed Alteration Agreement and a Section 404 dredge and fill permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers. The project biologists should be directed to review these analyses, which were conducted on adjoining lands, and. to confer with state and federal wildlife agencies. The project biology report should be updated and revised accordingly. In summary, -the conclusions set forth in the CEQA Initial Study are not supported by the facts. The Initial Study should be rewritten, based upon a more thorough biological resources analysis, and re- circulated for comment before the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors considers the tract map for approval. Cultural Resources' The -cultural resources survey prepared for this project, and its conclusions, are in direct contradiction to resource surveys conducted on adjoining lands of the Stone Eagle project. While the cultural resources report cites the identification of forty-six cultural resource sites within one mile of the site, it goes on to state that, "none has been documented within or adjacent to the proposed project boundary. In fact, the following sites have been identified and documented immediately east of the subject property within the -2 Terra NovaBefeld/RivCo Planning Commission Concerns Regarding of TPM 34305 & EA 40741/Page 3 Stone Eagle project sites: CA-RIV-4233, CA-RIV-4239, CA-RIV-4240, CA-RIV-4242, CA-RIV-4243, CA-RIV-4244, CA-RIV-4245, and others have been found a short distance further east. The above cited resource sites included rock shelters, bedrock milling features, .rock cairns and trails, and ceramic concentrations and scatters. While the report cites such esources "within one mile of the project", to fail to mention the proximity of the resources found at the Stone Eagle site borders on misrepresentation and brings into question the veracity of -the entire cultural resources survey and report. The credibility of the cultural resources survey and report is further brought into question by the report's failure to mention that there is water year-round in Bruce Creek, which passes through the subject property. The subject property also harbors significant stands of honey mesquite, which were clearly taken advantage -of by Native Americans as evidenced by the numerous milling sites in the area, and yet' there is no mention. Of these important and adjacent resources in the cultural resources report.. The report concluded that there were no cultural resources on this property, significant or otherwise. And yet, there 'is no indication from the report as to. how the site was. -surveyed, what survey -protocol were used or what the relationship on on -site water and ethno-botanically significant resources' might have had on the site's use by Native Americans. As with the biology report prepared by the same consulting firm, it should be noted that report show an entirely different property located some distance to the south. It appears that the cultural resources report attempts to essentially assess conditions at two totally, different sites without adequately distinguishing between the two. Two separate reports should be prepared inasmuch as the property shown on the report Figure 1 is not the subject of TTM.34305, The cultural resources report prepared for this project is grossly inaccurate and misrepresents the site's potential to. .harbor sensitive cultural resources. The report should be considered inadequate and should not be relied upon to draw -the conclusion of no significant impact, as cited in the CEQA Initial Study. Slopes, Soils and Erosion The CEQA Initial Study states that the majority of subject property has slopes of over 25%, with intermittent slopes ranging from 16 to 20%. These conditions clearly call for either no development or at least development at densities that are substantially lower than those proposed. Even with the reduced pads proposed, the CEQA Initial Study finds that the proposed project results in a significant imbalance between cut and fill-(6,760 cy of cut vs, 22,390 cy of fill), and states that mitigation is .required; stating that the project must, "Reduce grading to provide for close to balance earth work volumes." This "mitigation". does not appear feasible without significant mass grading (or even blasting) -of the site, which flies in. the face of other measures to be take to limit site disturbance. The grading plan and CEQA Initial Study are at odds with and contradict one another. Mitigation measures must be specific and actually mitigate impacts, not create questionable future and probably infeasible actions that result in worse, not reduced, impacts. The subject property includes portions; of Bruce Creek, which is established as a stream under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game (Section 1600 of CA Fish and Game Code) and the US Army Corps of Engineers . (Section 404 of Clean Water Act). Both the state and federal ' "Historical and Archaeological Resources Survey Report for the Crest Project" (aka Stone Eagle), prepared by CRM Tech. April 22, 2002. .3 err►' �„ Terra Nova/BefeldMyCo Planning Commission Concems Regarding of TPM 34305 & EA 40741/Page 4 governments require delineation of streambeds that may be impacted by development. While the grading plan argues that site disturbance will be limited, it is unclear and undemonstrated how the 6,760 cubic yards of cut and. the 22;390 cubic yards. of fill will be managed in such a fashion as to preclude impacts to Bruce Creek. Until the County received' additional information regarding grading, placement of imported fill and controls to preclude erosion, either in the near, or .long-term) no action should be taken on this. proposed subdivision. Land Use/Planning Based upon statements in the CEQA Initial Study regarding land use/planning, the County does. not yet have enough information to determine whether and to what extent the project may have a significant adverse impact on surrounding lands or how it can conform to County. planning standards. The Initial Study states, "The County would like 'to explore methods of reducing the grading footprint. The applicant is encouraged to explore alternate grading techniques, such as split level pads, and post and beam style construction., and also to limit side casting of graded materials." The information provided by the applicant's engineer does not adequately resolve these issues and the County should defer its consideration of this proposed subdivision until such time as a complete picture of impacts and feasible mitigation have been presented. Neither are the -related findings set forth'in the staff report supported by the record as a whole. Although a "conditionally permitted use", single-family development of the intensity proposed for this site is not supported by the physical conditions found there or the record. Such land use. intensity is inconsistent with the RCIP and should be significantly reduced to be more closely consistent with the one dwelling unit per five acres (1 du/5 ac), as recently recognized by the Board of. Supervisors. The County is not and should not feel that it is constrained by the "exemption" cited in Finding No. 4 of.the staff report Sewer - As is clear from the on -site conditions as described in the project geotechnical report and the CEQA Initial Study, the on -site conditions do not support the use of on -site wastewater treatment systems (septic tanks and/or cesspools). The Initial Study does not adequately address this issue, simply stating that, "The proposed project, will be affected by the sewer services programs and land use standards of the kCIP." This does not constitute mitigation; this is especially the case when known on -site conditions are considered. No:viable alternative, i.e. connection to a community sewer system, has been proposed or its feasibility demonstrated. This is an especially important issue that should also have been addressed in the Biological Resources section of the CEQA Initial Study. Bruce Creek is already adversely impacted by on -lot septic - tanks within Cahuilla Hills, which are discharging effluent into this stream and that are* demonstrably higher in at least nitrates. Every effort should be made by the County to get existing homes in this area onto community sewer -systems and not encourage the development of more polluting septic tanks in the Brice Creek area. Utilities The CEQA Initial Study provides neither a description of how or from where such services as natural gas, electricity, telephone, street lighting, stormwater management or other utility services will be brought to this site. None of these currently exist at the site. Undergrounding of such facilities will be a significant challenge and the possible reliance on overhead lines and poles is not mentioned. There is no discussion of how the site will be serviced and reference to conformance to requirements of utility companies does not address the legitimate environmental concerns of the commumity. , Terra NovaBefeld/RivCo Planning Commission Concerns Regarding of TPM 34305 & EA 40741/Page 5 Summary The proposed subdivision is located within an area of Cahuilla Hills that has heretofore seen predominately very low -density rural development on large lots, the appropriateness of which has recently been recognized by the Board of Supervisors. As proposed, the subdivisions does not respect the natural landforms and habitat of Cahuilla Hills, nor the significant environmental constraints at the site. Consideration for sensitive environmental design, respect for the character of the neighborhood, and effective and demonstrable mitigation are essential for development of these lands to be compatible with surroundhig lands and the Cahuilla Hills neighborhood. The subject subdivision has not been adequately -analysed in accordance with CEQA and the County rules.to. implement same. It is recommended that additional environmental analysis be conducted, that a new and.expanded Initial Study be prepared and circulated, and that the proposed project be required to conform to sound land and environmental planning. Sin re " J hn D. Cri , AICP cc Gerhard Befeld James Ferguson, Esq. Robert Bernheimer, Esq. M en CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Francisco J. Urbina, Associate Planner DATE: August 24, 2006 SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map No. 34305, Stone Haven at Cahuilla Hills Tentative Tract Map No. 34305 is a proposal by Peter Scheer to subdivide 20 acres in the unincorporated area of Cahuilla Hills into 10 residential lots and one lot for a common recreation and swim facility. The residential lots range in size from 21,440 square feet to 1.5 acres. Approximately 21.4% (4.28 acres) of the 20-acre site will be graded for roads and pads. Riverside County zoning for site is R-1-1 (Single Family Residential, 1-acre minimum lot size). Under the County's zoning, the 20-acre site could be subdivided into a maximum of 20 one - acre lots. The City of Palm Desert's Hillside Planned Residential zone would allow a maximum of six parcels on the site. During the past three months, Councilman Buford Crites, Carlos Ortega, and Philip Drell met with Riverside County Supervisor Roy Wilson, County Deputy Administrative Officer Dan Martinez, and Mr. Scheer to discuss revising the map to achieve greater consistency with City's Hillside Planned Residential zone. The property owner agreed to reduce the number of residential lots proposed from 13 to 10. We think the revised map (copy attached) represents a reasonable compromise. The Riverside County Planning Department has requested a letter from the City of Palm Desert stating that the City does not oppose the proposed subdivision. Mr. Drell will prepare such a letter. In the letter we will request that the County place conditions of approval on the map that limit future grading on the subdivision to those areas shown on the tentative map and that the land divider renaturalize all cut and fill slopes and other areas temporarily disturbed by grading. The developer and the County have agreed that the City and Stone Eagle will continue to have site and architectural design input as the project proceeds. Submitted By: Francisco J., Urbina Associate Planner Approval: Department Head: Philip Drell Director of Community Development Homer Croy, Assistant City Manager for Development Services Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager I I y 0 r P R I 73-51 o FRED WARINc DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIMNIA 92z6o-2578 TEL:76o 346—o61I FAX: 760 341-7098 info@palm-deurc.org r. - I I R August 29, 2006 \ Riverside County Planning Department SEP 0 5 2006 Attn: Maurice Borrows RIVER$!►1E COUNTY 82-675 Highway 111, Room 209 PLANNING DEPARTMENT Indio, California 92201. Re: Tentative Tract Map No. 34305 Amendment No. 1, Stone Haven Dear Mr. Borrows: The City of Palm Desert does not object to the proposed tract map and hillside development provided the following conditions of approval are included. 1 . Provision to insure that grading and any other ground disturbance be limited to the designated pad areas, roads and driveways. 2. All cuts, fills or areas beyond the designated pad subject to over -excavation be renaturalized to blend with the character of the natural undisturbed terrain. 3. All utilities shall be installed underground. 4. The City shall continue to have the opportunity to review and comment on all future aspects of the project including grading, site planning, building and landscape architecture. 5. All project improvements shall be designed to blend with the natural terrain to the greatest extent possible. Thank you providing us with the opportunity to comment on this proposed map. Si I , Philip Drell Director of Community Development Arn r. April 1 1, ZU06 AF'K 14 ZU95 RIVRiverside County Planning Department PLANNINGDEPARTMer T Attn: Maurice Borrows INOIO OFFICE 82-675 Highway 111, Room 209 Indio, CA 92201 Re: Tentative Tract Map No. 34305, Stone Haven at Cahuilla Hills Dear Mr. Borrows: City of Palm Desert planning staff has reviewed the proposed tentative tract map and we recommend that the County of Riverside either deny the map or require the applicant to redesign the map to reduce the number of residential lots from thirteen to four with a minimum parcel size of five acres and a maximum building pad of 10,000 square feet. The tentative tract map, which proposes to subdivide a 20-acre site comprised of six R- 1-1 zoned parcels into 13 residential lots and one recreation center lot, is within Palm Desert's Sphere of Influence. The City's goal is to have projects within our Sphere of Influence meet City of Palm Desert development standards. In 2003, the Palm Desert City Council pre -zoned this tentative tract map site Hillside Planned Residential (NPR) as part of an annexation application. The Hillside Planned Residential zone (copy attached) specifies a five -acre minimum parcel size, a maximum building pad area of 10,000 square feet, and a 3,000 square foot maximum area for -grading of an access road to an approved building pad. The tentative map site is designated Hillside Reserve (R-HR, 1 du/5 acres) on Palm Desert's General Plan Land Use Map (copy attached). The City of Palm Desert requests that the County of Riverside either deny the proposed tentative tract map or require the applicant to redesign the map to reduce the number of residential lots from thirteen to four for the following reasons: The proposed map's 13 residential lots exceed the one unit per five acres maximum density allowed under the City's Hillside Planned Reserve General Plan Land Use Map designation. 2. All of the tentative map's proposed 13 residential lots are smaller than the five -acre minimum parcel size required by the City's Hillside Planned Residential zone. .: uaenut-•en7r Maurice Borrows Page 2 3. Some of the proposed building pads are larger than the 10,000 square foot maximum allowed by the City's Hillside Planned Residential zone. The tentative map shows that two of the residential parcels (Lots 2 and 5) would each have two building pads instead of one. To reduce grading impacts on the natural terrain and minimize degradation of natural hillside aesthetics, we request that the County not allow more than one building pad (.10,000 square foot maximum size) per parcel and that each new parcel have a minimum area of five acres. Thank you for allowing City of Palm Desert planning staff the opportunity to comment on the proposed tentative tract map. If you have any questions, please contact me at (760) 346-0611 ext 485. Sincerely, Francisco Urbina Associate Planner cc: Philip Drell, Director of Community Development Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager City Of fum OESERi C 1ry of nib►? AST i. 46-000 ,nis" -aA .:j�:_._.T�.�+•.:.._-a'.=.r._`_' � �."��'i� �'���i::t'r..e"�.. �:'s."3�=:i��;�:nc `c'r �':'i:•c �-T.q.�'r'� _ " c�[ee-- -.an � il; O.S. kPA,D P WF,b PR T' ;47 ' DS. HP.R. D 7 vs �! OS HPR,D 0_1 as as as.0 as,D PR-7 a5 O.S. D ff. 47_000 aS Y.P.P., D O ' a: f <T _. fnas.__ z y ._.: /_.._ PAW !: M.P.R. D R•1, SP. :I ta. i O ..�Pown 4t £ f OSR-1 low i'ei Iyepn� Al Wa R-1 low f Y iJ —OV ® ' _ _ � 4� .. i o R•1 -1i<1 �1D�i�-.—ser. .._......,-_":...e-„_.......,.: ..,.-.......�......_..�_.. ._ -. _ ;7 - ._. .,ems Ps�c TAPR, D / 1F1 TDaia- a R-11 HPR H.F.R,D Pp �y'y �C�P+2.8 -f? w'Pro*rs.w:n g8 QG au<rrp,Ni/f%%1/ TiY7+cr MAP PR•a r .a ; t�ia .uo k An M3aS 'Ojre w P R-fi+Z000^�Rf�R.t: Erer<w w<, ��t� w•�: °�w:r (`°°�. own r° �0<3 n',�'.� R-112M r 4�- :� °°„E.� 1dPA., D HPA,D c«4�y �p e f f?R7 n�6 PR•i .: _ 3a o° eawe«<xwuw<r -;_ __.._._.. .. _. _ _ �.,. -- .-o _ 4�O. x...—_ _--.• PP..7 ayO« on �eM e~ i one b n'f M.PR.. D P•S SP[lNCS PP..-i IR.-A .� ■pp■er�'' � .�,, K_� r c�PR-6 c rr `` AR.S P.R.S .,f,��/ a 4' S . W i. y PA R 4 Fy CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT �. STAFF REPORT LIVED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council WN 23 1995 FROM: Phil Drell Senior Planner COMMOMTTYDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEMT CITY OF PALM DESERT DATE: June 22, 1995 SUBJECT: Criteria for Staff Approval of Large Advertising Balloons RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Director of Community Development to approve balloon requests which meet the criteria discussed below. I. BACKGROUND: Due to the growing frequency of requests to use large inflatable balloons to advertise special events, staff was directed by council to develop a criteria for staff approval if certain conditions are met. The following criteria was developed to be consistent with past decisions and discussions by council involving these requests. A. The balloon must advertise either a special event of significant public interest such as a one time grand opening, civic event or holiday (i.e. major local sporting event, 4th of July, etc.) B. A particular business could use a balloon for only one event per year for a maximum duration of two consecutive days. C. The predominant advertising on the balloon must relate to the special event. D. In reviewing balloon requests the Director shall consider appropriateness of the location, color and design. Requests determined to not meet the basic criteria or whose design was found to be unacceptable. could be appealed to the city council. We have received a request by the Newman Center for a KLCX Balloon in their parking lot as part of their 4th of July activities. The balloon would communicate a patriotic message. This request would meet the proposedvH+tern-IndA®I,�Wroved by the Director. APPZOV:D DENIED _ C R£C=Z:VED 0TA HER uvJ P I L DRELL �: DrE y i ti r L' Z SENIOR PLANNER ntm The California Environment ality Act (CEQA) IWAW and Historic Resources Worksop The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is one of this state's most important environmental laws for protecting historic resources. CEQA establishes a series of procedures to ensure that agencies accomplish the la- ,es. The state has adopted CEQA guidelines to assist agencies in implementing the law. This workshop addresses practical i, California's historic preservation requirements under CEQA. Who should Attend? City attorneys, developers, planning staff, commission memlW X-1 neighborhood groups, redevelopment agencies, architects and design professionals, community develop - makers. Friday, March 30, 2007 at the Palm Springs Art Museum, in P, 8: 30 am - 9: 00 am registration, 9 am - 5 pm workshop REGISTER ONLL'VE Speakers: Ken Bernstein, City of Los Angeles Mike Buhler, Esq., LA Conservancy Amy Minteer, Esq., Chatten-Brown Associates More TBA Co -Sponsors: Palm Springs Preservation Foundation Palm Springs Art Museum Registration Fees: CPF Members - $115 Non -Members - $150 �-- cm Emn December 29, 2006 TO: Affected Agencies FROM: Elizabeth R. Solander LAFCO Secretary Riverside LAFCO RE: LAFCO 2006-90-4 Sphere of Influence Review and Potential Amendments —City of Rancho Mirage Affected Agencies: LAFCO is currently conducting reviews of the spheres of influence (SOI) for several cities and districts in the County. A map of the current SOI is attached. If you have any comments on this SOI Review please submit those comments to our office by February n9, 2007. If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to call our office. RIVERSIDE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION - 3850 VINE STREET, SUITE 110 - RIVERSIDE, CA 92507-4277 Phone (951) 369-0631 - ww%v.1ako.org - Fax (951) 369-8479