Indian Wells City Council
March 2, 2023

CITY COUNCIL
Meeting Agenda

Thursday, March 2, 2023
1:30 PM
City Hall Council Chamber
44950 Eldorado Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210

Welcome to a meeting of the Indian Wells City Council.

Public Comments: Members of the Public who wish to speak should fill out a blue slip and submit it to the City Clerk, comments are limited to 3 minutes. In accordance with State Law, remarks during public comment are to be limited to subjects within the City's jurisdiction.

Notification: If you are an individual with a disability and need a reasonable modification or accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) please contact the City Clerk at 760-346-2489, 48 hours prior to the meeting.

Please turn off all communication devices (phones) or put them on non-audible mode (vibrate) during Council proceedings. All documents for public review are available for public inspection at City Hall reception, 44-950 Eldorado Drive, Indian Wells during normal business hours.

Pages

A. CONVENE THE INDIAN WELLS CITY COUNCIL, PLEDGE OF

ALLEGIANCE AND ROLL CALL

MAYOR DONNA GRIFFITH

MAYOR PRO TEM GREG SANDERS

COUNCIL MEMBER TY PEABODY

COUNCIL MEMBER BRUCE WHITMAN

COUNCIL MEMBER DANA REED
B. APPROVAL OF THE FINAL AGENDA
C. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
C.1 CalCities Legislative Update by Regional Public Affairs Manager Erin Sasse
D. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Members of the Public who wish to speak on consent items or items not listed on the agenda may do so at this time. Public Comments are limited to 3 minutes. Speakers will be alerted when their time is up and are then to return to their seats and no further comments will be permitted.

Please note that while the City Council values your comments, the Council cannot respond nor take action on matters not listed on the agenda until the matter may appear on the forthcoming agenda.

E. CITY MANAGER'S REPORTS
The City Manager or Department Heads may make brief
announcements, informal comments, or brief the Council on items of interest.

F. CITY ATTORNEY REPORTS AND COMMENTS
G. CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and will be approved by one motion. Reading of text of Ordinances is waived and Ordinances are adopted as second reading, by title only. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless members of the Council request specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate discussion and action.

City Council Agenda March 2, 2023

G.1 Ordinance Amending Section 11.36.125 of the Municipal Code Regarding RV-Parking Permits; and Finding the Action to be Exempt from CEQA
9 RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Council ADOPTS Ordinance by title only and waives further reading, amending Ordinance Section 11.36.125 of the Municipal Code Regarding RV-Parking Permits; and
FINDS the Action to be Exempt from CEQA.

G.2 Ordinance Amending Chapter 21.85 of the Municipal Code Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units and Determining the Action to be Exempt from CEQA
16 RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Council ADOPTS Ordinance by title only and waives further reading, amending Ordinance Chapter 21.85 of the Municipal Code Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units and determining the action to be exempt from CEQA.

G.3 City’s 2023 Legislative Platform 33
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Council ADOPTS the City’s 2023 Legislative Platform.

G.4 Resolution Opposing Initiative No. 21-0042A1, The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act
70 RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Council ADOPTS Resolution opposing Initiative No. 21-0042A1, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.

G.5 Re-Adopts the City's Investment Policy 89
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Council RE-ADOPTS the City’s Investment Policy with no
amendments.

City Council Agenda March 2, 2023

H. PUBLIC HEARINGS
For each of the items listed under PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, the public will be provided an opportunity to speak. After a staff report is provided, the Mayor will open the public hearing. At that time the applicant will be allowed five (5) minutes to make a presentation on the case. Members of the public will then be allowed three (3) minutes each to speak, unless there are a number of person’s wishing to speak and then the Mayor will allow only two (2) minutes, to accommodate for more persons.

The City Council may ask the speakers questions relative to the case and the testimony provided. The question period will not count against your time limit. After all persons have spoken, the applicant will be allowed three minutes to summarize or rebut any public testimony. The Mayor will then close the public hearing portion of the hearing and deliberate the matter.

H.1 Resolution Approving Special Fire Tax Standby and Availability Charges Annual Levy
112
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

City Council OPENS the Public Hearing, takes any public testimony, CLOSES the Public Hearing; and
ADOPTS Resolution approving the annual levy of the Special Fire Tax Standby and Availability Charges for the Fiscal Year 2023-24; and
ORDERS the Special Fire Tax levy to be placed on the fiscal year 2023-24 Riverside County tax roll.

City Council Agenda March 2, 2023

H.2 Resolution Approving Fire Access Maintenance District No. 1 Annual Levy and Collection of Assessments
118
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Council OPENS the Public Hearing, takes any public testimony, CLOSES the Public Hearing; and
ADOPTS Resolution approving the annual levy of the Fire Access Maintenance District No. 1 for the Fiscal Year 2023-24; and ORDERS the Fire Access Maintenance District No. 1 levy on the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Riverside County tax roll.

I. GENERAL BUSINESS
The Mayor will call upon the members of the public to address the Council regarding the agenda item being considered. After the public has provided comment, the item is closed to further comment and brought to the Council for discussion and action.

City Council Agenda March 2, 2023

I.1 Approval of Passive Park Conceptual Design and Authorization to Develop Park Project at Corner of Eldorado and Fairway Drive 122
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Council FINDS that the proposed action is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15304 (minor public or private alterations in the condition of land), and, in the alternative, that it is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (new construction of small structures), and, further, determines that none of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply here because the proposed action does not include a sensitive mapped area, a scenic highway, a hazardous waste site, or a historic resource, and the development of a passive park does not present any unusual circumstances; and
|
APPROVES the passive park design and installation at the corner of Eldorado and Fairway Drive; and
AUTHORIZES Desert Recreation District to finalize the design, bid, and construct the passive park with oversight by the City; and DIRECTS staff on a process to name the park and appropriate monument signage to be brought back for City Council discussion and approval.

J. COUNCIL MEMBERS' REPORTS AND COMMENTS
On their own initiative, Council Members may make a brief announcement or a brief report on their own activities. Council Members may ask a question for clarification, make a referral to staff, or take action to have staff place a matter of business on a future agenda. The Council may take action on items listed on the Agenda.

J.1 COUNCIL MEMBER REED
California Joint Powers Insurance Authority
Riverside County Transportation Commission
CVAG Public Safety Committee
CVAG Transportation Committee
City Council Agenda March 2, 2023

J.2 COUNCIL MEMBER WHITMAN
Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy
Desert Sands Unified School District
Indian Wells Marketing Committee
Indian Wells Public Safety
Visit Greater Palm Springs
J.3 COUNCIL MEMBER PEABODY
Cove Communities Services Commission
Coachella Valley Animal Campus
Indian Wells Golf Resort Advisory Committee
Indian Wells Marketing Committee
Sunline Transit Agency
J.4 MAYOR PRO TEM SANDERS
Cove Communities Services Commission
Coachella Valley Economic Partnership
Desert Sand Unified School District
Indian Wells Finance & Legal Services Oversight Committee Indian Wells Personnel Committee
Indian Wells Public Safety Committee
Indian Wells Tee Committee
J.5 MAYOR GRIFFITH
CVAG Executive Committee
CVAG Conservation Commission
CVAG Energy & Environmental Resources
CVAG Homelessness Committee
Indian Wells Community Activities Committee
Indian Wells Golf Resort Advisory Committee
Indian Wells Grants In Aid Committee
Indian Wells Finance/Legal Services Oversight Committee Indian Wells Personnel Committee
Indian Wells Preservation Foundation
Indian Wells Tee Committee
City Council Agenda March 2, 2023

K. ADJOURNMENT
To a regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council to be held at 1:30 p.m. on April 6, 2023 in the City Hall Council Chamber.

Affidavit of Posting,
I, Angelica Avila, certify that on February 24 2023 I caused to be posted a notice of a City Council Meeting to be held on March 2, 2023 at 1:30 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chamber.

Notices were posted at Indian Wells Civic Center and City's Website [ www.cityofindianwells.org]
________________________
Angelica Avila, City Clerk
City Council Agenda March 2, 2023

Strengthening California Cities
through Advocacy and Education
Legislative Update
March 2, 2023
At dais: Presentation Item C.1

Strengthening California Cities through Advocacy and Education @calcities @calcities @calcities.org AB 799 (Rivas) Homelessness Accountability and Results
Act
Would create accountability requirements for local
governments accessing state funding through the
Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention (HHAP)
Grant Program. These accountability requirements will
include clear goals for program outcomes and
recategorizing the eligible uses of the funding, among
other changes. Cal Cities Position: Pending

Strengthening California Cities through Advocacy and Education @calcities @calcities @calcities.org AB 550 (Schiavo) Homelessness: public hearings.

Would require every city and county to hold an annual
public hearing about the work being accomplished to
address homelessness locally. Cal Cities Position:

Pending

Strengthening California Cities through Advocacy and Education @calcities @calcities @calcities.org AB 23 (Muratsuchi) Theft: shoplifting: amount.

Would amend Proposition 47 by reducing the threshold amount for petty theft and shoplifting from $950 to $400. This would require an approval by voters on the November 2024 General Election ballot. Cal Cities Position: Support AB 75 (Hoover) Shoplifting: increased penalties for prior crimes.

Would reinstate a provision of law repealed by Proposition 47 that if a person has been convicted three or more times of petty theft, grand theft, or other specified crimes and who is subsequently convicted of petty theft is subject to imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in a county jail for 18 months or 2 or 3 years. This would require an approval by voters on the November 2024 General Election ballot. Cal Cities Position: Pending

Strengthening California Cities through Advocacy and Education @calcities @calcities @calcities.org AB 329 (Ta) Crime: penalties for shoplifting and petty theft.

Would amend Proposition 47 to make petty theft or shoplifting by a person who is not a resident of this state, did not reside in this state in the six months prior to entering this state, and entered this state within 30 days prior to committing the offense, an offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment in a county jail for 16 months or 2 or 3 years. This would require an approval by voters on the November 2024 General Election ballot. Cal Cities Position: Pending AB 335 (Alanis) Proposition 47: repeal.

Would repeal the changes and additions made by Proposition 47, except those related to reducing the penalty for possession of concentrated cannabis. This would require an approval by voters on the November 2024 General Election ballot. Cal Cities Position:

Pending

Strengthening California Cities through Advocacy and Education @calcities @calcities @calcities.org SB 316 (Niello) Shoplifting: increased penalties for prior crimes.

This bill would reinstate a provision of law that was repealed by Proposition 47 that provides that a person who has been convicted 3 or more times of petty theft, grand theft, or other specified crimes and who is subsequently convicted of petty theft is subject to imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or in a county jail for 18 months or 2 or 3 years. The bill would also make this provision and the provision relating to a person with serious, violent, or sexual prior offenses applicable to a person whose prior or current 33 Agenda Item 8(c) conviction is for shoplifting. This would require an approval by voters on the November 2024 General Election ballot. Cal Cities Position: Pending AB 1708 (Muratsuchi D) Corrections: rehabilitative programing.

Would express the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would increase accountability for repeat offenders through participation in rehabilitative services.

Strengthening California Cities through Advocacy and Education @calcities @calcities @calcities.org AB 557 (Heart) – Open meetings: local agencies: teleconferences.

This bill would eliminate the sunset date of AB 361 and allow cities 45 days instead of 30 days to renew their local resolutions stating they are going to use AB 361.

Strengthening California Cities through Advocacy and Education @calcities @calcities @calcities.org SB 411 (Portantino) - Open meetings: teleconferences: bodies with appointed membership
SB 411 provides authority to entities whose members of the legislative body are appointed to those positions to use remote participation provisions similar to the previous emergency authority that was in effect during the pandemic.

As used in this section, “legislative body” means a board, commission, or advisory body of a local agency, the membership of which board, commission, or advisory body is appointed and which board, commission, or advisory body is otherwise subject to this chapter. As used in this subdivision, “advisory body” includes, but is not limited to, a neighborhood council that is an advisory body with the purpose to promote more citizen participation in government and make government more responsive to local needs that is established pursuant to the charter of a city with a population of more than 3,000,000 people that is subject to this chapter.

Urgency

Strengthening California Cities through Advocacy and Education @calcities @calcities @calcities.org AB 817 (Pacheco) Local Government: Open Meetings.

Summary:

AB 817 would provide a narrow exemption under the Ralph M. Brown Act for non- decision-making legislative bodies (Subsidiary bodies) governed by the Brown Act, such as advisory bodies and commissions, to participate in two-way virtual teleconferencing without posting physical location of members. “Subsidiary body” means:

A legislative body, as defined in section 54952(b), including a standing committee of a legislative body, that serves exclusively in an advisory capacity and is not authorized to take final action on legislation, regulations, contracts, licenses, permits, or other entitlements.

Strengthening California Cities through Advocacy and Education @calcities @calcities @calcities.org SB 423 (Wiener D) Land use: streamlined housing approvals: multifamily housing developments.

Eliminates the sunset provision from SB 35 making ministerial approvals to affordable housing projects proposed in areas that are out of compliance with the state’s housing planning process. It also eliminates discretionary local permitting and CEQA for these projects and sets timelines for granting approvals.

Strengthening California Cities through Advocacy and Education @calcities @calcities @calcities.org Taxpayer Protection and Government
Accountability Act
On Feb. 1, 2023, the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act,” or AG# 21-0042A1, qualified for the November 2024 ballot. This anti-local control measure will decimate vital local and state services to the benefit of wealthy corporations. The measure is sponsored by the California Business Roundtable (CBRT) — the lobbying arm of the largest and wealthiest corporations in California. Cal Cities, along with a broad coalition of local governments, labor, public safety, education, and infrastructure advocates, strongly oppose this initiative. SUMMARY The initiative limits voters’ authority, adopts new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and may make it more difficult to hold violators of state and local laws accountable.
•

Strengthening California Cities through Advocacy and Education @calcities @calcities @calcities.org Effective date
• All new or increased taxes or fees adopted by the Legislature, a city council, or the local voters after Jan. 1, 2022, must comply with the Act’s new rules. • All new or increased state taxes will require majority voter approval. Local taxes • New requirements for voter approval: o when an existing tax is applied to a newly annexed territory. o when an existing tax is applied to a new service or product, for example when a utility user tax is applied to a new service. • All new or increased taxes adopted after Jan. 1, 2022, must include a sunset date.

Strengthening California Cities through Advocacy and Education @calcities @calcities @calcities.org Fees and charges
• Requires that charges for access, use and rental of government property be “reasonable” such as fees charged for use of government facilities and public works infrastructure to oil companies, utilities, gas companies, cable companies, and other corporations. • Fees and charges for services and permits may not exceed the “actual cost” of providing the product or service for which the fee is charged. “Actual cost” is the “minimum amount necessary.” Examples include planning services, excavation and encroachment permits, preparation of candidate statement, and permit parking. • State and cities have burden of proving by “clear and convincing evidence” that a fee/charge is not a tax, that the amount is reasonable, and that it does not exceed the “actual cost.”
• No fee or charge or exaction regulating vehicle miles traveled can be imposed on new development.

Strengthening California Cities through Advocacy and Education @calcities @calcities @calcities.org Fines and penalties [administrative enforcement of state law and municipal codes] • May require voter approval of fines and penalties for corporations and property owners that violate state and local laws unless a new, undefined adjudicatory process is used to impose the fines and penalties. Examples include nuisance abatement, organic waste reduction requirements, and failure to maintain a vacant property.

Voters
• Local advisory measures are prohibited. No measure may appear on the ballot asking for approval of a general tax that would express the voters' preference for how the tax revenue should be used. • Overturns Upland decision so taxes proposed by initiative are subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the ballot by a city council.
• Voters may not amend a city charter to impose, extend, or increase a tax or fee.

Fiscal
• Puts approximately $2 billion from fees and charges at risk each year, subject to legal peril. • Puts approximately $2 billion of annual tax revenue at risk. Many tax measures approved between 2022-2024 will need to be resubmitted to voters to comply and be reapproved.

Strengthening California Cities
through Advocacy and Education @calcities @calcities @calcities.org QUESTIONS?

INDIAN WELLS CITY COUNCIL
March 2, 2023

To: City Council
From: City Attorney
Prepared by: Todd Leishman, City Attorney
Subject: Ordinance Amending Section 11.36.125 of the Municipal Code Regarding RV-Parking Permits; and Finding the Action to be Exempt from CEQA.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Council ADOPTS Ordinance by title only and waives further reading, amending Ordinance Section 11.36.125 of the Municipal Code Regarding RV-Parking Permits; and

FINDS the Action to be Exempt from CEQA.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Ordinance

26529.00000\41011603.2
ORDINANCE NO. 750

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
INDIAN WELLS AMENDING SECTION 11.36.125 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING RV-PARKING PERMITS;

AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE EXEMPT FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, the City of Indian Wells, California (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65800 et seq. authorizes the adoption and administration of zoning laws, ordinances, rules and regulations by cities as a means of implementing the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City has the authority under Article 11, Section 5 of the California Constitution and the City Charter to make, amend and enforce all ordinances and regulations with respect to municipal affairs; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to remove the parking-permit requirement for recreational vehicles in Section 11.36.125, Parking of Recreational Vehicles, and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the City Council of the City of Indian Wells to consider this Ordinance was given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on February 16, 2023, a public hearing on this Ordinance was held by the City Council; and
WHEREAS, after careful consideration of the staff report and all the information, evidence, and testimony presented at its public hearing, the City Council finds that this Ordinance is consistent with General Plan goals and policies pertaining to land development, city image, orderly growth, and economic development.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS, CALIFORNIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Recitals above are true and correct and are hereby adopted as findings as if fully set forth herein.

SECTION 2. CEQA. Adoption of the proposed ordinance is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because the amendment would not cause any direct physical change or any reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

The amendment does not allow or disallow any use or public or private property. Nor does it change any parking restriction regarding location, duration, or frequency. It merely dispenses with an administrative permit. Therefore, adoption of the ordinance is not a “project” subject to CEQA. (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21065; 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15378.) Adoption of the ordinance is exempt because the amendment has no potential for causing a significant impact on the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3).)
SECTION 3. Code Amendments. Section 11.36.125 of the Indian Wells Municipal Code are hereby amended to read in its entirety as set forth in Exhibit A hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

ATTACHMENT #1

26529.00000\41011603.2

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 750

SECTION 4. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which this Ordinance is based are located at the City Clerk’s office located at 44950 Eldorado Drive, Indian Wells, CA 92210. The custodian of these records is the City Clerk.

SECTION 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance or the application thereof to any entity, person or circumstance is held for any reason to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are severable. The City Council and the people of the City of Indian Wells hereby declare that they would have adopted this ordinance and each section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid or unconstitutional.

SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance takes effect 30 days following its adoption.

SECTION 7. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance.

Not later than 15 days following the passage of this ordinance, the ordinance, or a summary thereof, along with the names of the City Council members voting for and against the ordinance, shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Indian Wells.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Indian Wells, California, at a regular meeting held on the 2nd day of March 2023.

______________________________

DONNA GRIFFITH
MAYOR

26529.00000\41011603.2

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 750

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF INDIAN WELLS )

CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 750

I, Angelica Avila, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Indian Wells, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that Ordinance No. 750, having been regularly introduced at the regular meeting of February 16, 2023 was again introduced, the reading in full thereafter unanimously waived, and duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on March 2, 2023 and said Ordinance was passed and adopted by the following stated vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

and was thereafter on said day signed by the Mayor of the City of Indian Wells.

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_____________________________ ____________________________

ANGELICA AVILA TODD LEISHMAN

CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY

26529.00000\41011603.2

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 750

Exhibit “A”

11.36.125 Parking of recreational vehicles.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, the regulations of this Section govern parking of recreational vehicles.
(a) Purpose. The City’s recreational vehicle parking regulations help minimize the problems associated with parking recreational vehicles on public and private streets and property, while still affording owners of such vehicles temporary parking privileges for purposes of loading, unloading and undertaking interior maintenance and washing of such recreational vehicles. Problems associated with recreational vehicle parking include:
(1) Driving sight obstructions;
(2) Interference with mail delivery;
(3) Health and safety concerns associated with camping or habitation in vehicles; (4) Viewshed obstructions and neighborhood aesthetic concerns. (b) Application. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, this Section governs the parking of recreational vehicles in the City. If there is any conflict with any provision in any other part of this Code, the provisions in this Section govern. (c) Definition of Recreational Vehicle.
(1) Generally.
(A) “Recreational vehicle” or “RV” means a vehicle designed as a structure capable of human habitation; a boat; or a trailer used for the transport of other vehicles that are used for the purpose of recreation. “Trailer” is defined as a vehicle designed for carrying persons or property on its own structure and for being drawn by another motor vehicle. (B) Exception. A van or pickup truck that: (1) has an attached utility camper shell that is not designed for camping or human habitation; and (2) is used primarily for transportation is excluded from this definition. (2) Examples. For the purposes of this Chapter, the following vehicles, among others, are considered recreational vehicles:
(A) Camp trailer, per California Vehicle Code Section 242; (B) Fifth-wheel travel trailer, per California Vehicle Code Section 324; (C) House car, per California Vehicle Code Section 362; (D) Trailer coach, per California Vehicle Code Section 635;

26529.00000\41011603.2

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 750

(E) Mobile home, per California Vehicle Code Section 396; (F) Boat or boat trailer;
(G) Trailers used for the transport of equipment, vehicles, or animals that are used for the purpose of recreation.
(H) Recreational vehicle, per California Health and Safety Code Section 18010; (d) Restrictions. Parking, storage, and use of recreational vehicles is restricted. (1) Parking and Storage.
(A) Generally. The parking or storage of any RV on a public or private street or property is prohibited unless the vehicle is located entirely within a fully enclosed structure that is approved by the City’s Design Review Committee. (B) Exceptions. The general rule in subsection (d)(1)(A) above does not apply in the following three situations:
(i) HOA Allowance. Subsection (d)(1)(A) above does not apply to a residential property or private street that is part of a common interest development (“CID”) to the extent that each homeowners’ association with jurisdiction over the CID has an express statement in its CC&Rs that allows recreational vehicles to be parked within the CID.
(ii) Short-Term Parking. Short-term parking (two-hour maximum) in a public parking lot or in legal street parking space is permitted when patronizing a business or visiting a park in the City. After two hours have elapsed at any one location or combination of locations within the City, the vehicle must relocate outside City limits for a minimum of 48 consecutive hours.
(iii) Loading and Unloading; Twice a Week Max. An RV may be parked within the City for a maximum of 24 hours on public or private streets and a maximum of 48 hours on private lots for loading and unloading purposes. No more than two periods under this paragraph are allowed in any seven-day period for the same residence or RV.
(C) Regulations.
(i) Except as expressly provided in this Chapter, RV parking on public and private streets under this section (d) is only allowed abutting the RV-owner’s property. Nothing in this chapter authorizes parking a vehicle in a location or manner that is otherwise prohibited by this Code or by the California Vehicle Code.

26529.00000\41011603.2

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 750

(ii) RV parking on private lots is restricted to legal driveways or that portion of the lot area where a legal garage is or can be constructed.
(iii) No other activity except loading or unloading of an RV is allowed while the RV parked on a public or private street. Washing the RV or minor interior maintenance may only be performed in the area defined by subsection (d)(1)(C)(ii) above.
(iv) No person may route electrical cords, extension cords, hoses, cables, or other items on or across City sidewalks or parkways from any property to an RV parked on a public or private street at any time.
(v) No person may make a sewer connection with an RV or dump waste from an RV onto public or private streets or lots. Violation of this subsection is a misdemeanor and subject to the fine amount listed in Section 1.20.030(d)(2).
(2) Overnight Use.
(A) Generally. No person shall camp overnight within any recreational vehicle. (B) Exception. The prohibition in subparagraph (d)(2)(A) above does not apply to a resident who has been granted an Emergency Use Permit in response to an emergency situation. The City may issue an Emergency Use Permit under this paragraph for overnight camping within a recreational vehicle if the resident’s primary residential structure has been deemed unsafe for human habitation due to an emergency situation. Examples of emergency situations include, but are not limited to, mudslides, floods, fires, earthquakes, wind damage, long-term power outages, or as otherwise determined by the Director of Community Development. (e) Violations.
(1) One courtesy notice will be issued to the recreational vehicle owner for the first violation of this Code. All subsequent violations of the recreational vehicle parking requirements by the same owner or involving the same vehicle shall be citable infractions. The City may issue administrative citations in accordance with Section

1.20.030(d)(1).
(2) An owner who receives three administrative citations within a 12-month period, forfeits the privilege of parking a recreational vehicle on city streets for a one-year period, beginning on the date of the third citation.
(f) Procedures for contesting administrative citation. If a recreational vehicle owner is cited for violating this Chapter, the owner or person in control of the recreational vehicle may appeal the administrative citation in accordance with Section 1.20.070.

INDIAN WELLS CITY COUNCIL
March 2, 2023

To: City Council
From: City Attorney
Prepared by: Todd Leishman, City Attorney
Subject: Ordinance Amending Chapter 21.85 of the Municipal Code Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units and Determining the Action to be Exempt
from CEQA

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Council ADOPTS Ordinance by title only and waives further reading, amending Ordinance Chapter 21.85 of the Municipal Code Relating to Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units and determining the action to be exempt from CEQA.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Ordinance

26529.00000\41017064.2
ORDINANCE NO. 751

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
INDIAN WELLS AMENDING CHAPTER 21.85 OF THE CITY

OF INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSORY

DWELLING UNITS AND DETERMINING THE ACTION TO BE

EXEMPT FROM CEQA
WHEREAS, the City of Indian Wells, California (“City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, state law authorizes cities to act by ordinance to provide for the creation and regulation of accessory dwelling units (“ADUs”) and junior accessory dwelling units (“JADUs”); and
WHEREAS, in recent years, the California Legislature has approved, and the Governor has signed into law, a number of bills that, among other things, amended Government Code sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 to impose new limits on local authority to regulate ADUs and JADUs; and
WHEREAS, in 2022, the California Legislature approved, and the Governor signed into law, a new bill (SB 897) that further amends Government Code sections 65852.2 and 65852.22; and
WHEREAS, SB 897 took effect January 1, 2023, and if the City’s ADU regulations did does not comply with the requirements imposed by SB 897 by that date, all of the City’s ADU regulations would have become null and void as a matter of law; and WHEREAS, to ensure that its ADU regulations complied with SB 897, the City amended its ADU regulations by urgency ordinance on November 3, 2022; and WHEREAS, the City desires now to re-adopt the November 2022 amendments to its ADU regulations, with only a minor change to the timing of rental-income reporting.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS, CALIFORNIA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The recitals above are each incorporated by reference and adopted as findings by the City Council.

Section 2. Under California Public Resources Code section 21080.17, adoption of an ordinance implementing the provisions of section 65852.2 of the Government Code, which is California’s ADU law and which also regulates JADUs, as defined by section 65852.22the California, is statutorily exempt from review under the Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). This Ordinance implements Section 65852.2, so adoption of this Ordinance is statutorily exempt from CEQA.

ATTACHMENT #1

26529.00000\41017064.2
26529.00000\40946530.1

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 751

Section 3. Chapter 21.85 of the Indian Wells Municipal Code is hereby amended and restated to read in its entirety as provided in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Section 4. This ordinance takes effect 30 days after its adoption.

Section 5. The City Clerk shall either: (a) have this ordinance published in a newspaper of general circulation within 15 days after its adoption or (b) have a summary of this ordinance published twice in a newspaper of general circulation, once five days before its adoption and again within 15 days after its adoption.

Section 6. The City Clerk shall submit a copy of this ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development within 60 days after adoption.

Section 7. The City Council hereby directs staff to prepare, execute and file with the County Clerk a Notice of Exemption within five working days of first reading of this ordinance.

Section 8. If any provision of this ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid, such invalidity has no effect on the other provisions or applications of the ordinance that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this extent, the provisions of this resolution are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this resolution irrespective of the invalidity of any portion thereof. (Continues on next page)

26529.00000\41017064.2
26529.00000\40946530.1

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 751

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Indian Wells, California, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of March 2023. ________________________

DONNA GRIFFITH
MAYOR

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF INDIAN WELLS)
CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. 751
I, Angelica Avila, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Indian Wells, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that Ordinance No. 751, having been introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on February 16 2023, was again introduced, the reading in full thereafter unanimously waived, and duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of March, 2023 and said Ordinance was passed and adopted by the following stated vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:
and was thereafter on said day signed by the Mayor of said City of Indian Wells.

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________________ ________________________________

ANGELICA AVILA TODD LEISHMAN

CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY

26529.00000\41017064.2
26529.00000\40946530.1

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 751

EXHIBIT A
Amended ADU Regulations
(follows this page)

26529.00000\41017064.2
26529.00000\40946530.1

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 751

CHAPTER 21.85 ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS

21.85.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this Chapter is to allow and regulate accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) in compliance with California Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22.

21.85.020 Effect of conforming.

An ADU or JADU that conforms to the standards in this Chapter will not be:
(a)Deemed to be inconsistent with the City’s General Plan and zoning designation for the lot on which the ADU or JADU is located.
(b)Deemed to exceed the allowable density for the lot on which the ADU or JADU is located.
(c)Considered in the application of any local ordinance, policy, or program to limit residential growth.
(d)Required to correct a nonconforming zoning condition, as defined in Section

21.85.030(g) below. This does not prevent the City from enforcing compliance with applicable building standards in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 17980.12.

21.85.030 Definitions.

As used in this Chapter, terms are defined as follows:
(a)“Accessory dwelling unit” or “ADU” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one (1) or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:
(1)An efficiency unit, as defined by Section 17958.1 of the California Health and Safety Code; and
(2)A manufactured home, as defined by Section 18007 of the California Health and Safety Code.
(b)“Accessory structure” means a structure that is accessory and incidental to a dwelling located on the same lot.
(c)“Complete independent living facilities” means permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.
(d)“Efficiency kitchen” means a kitchen that includes all of the following:

26529.00000\41017064.2
26529.00000\40946530.1

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 751

(1)A cooking facility with appliances.
(2)A food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of a reasonable size in relation to the size of the JADU.
(e)“Junior accessory dwelling unit” or “JADU” means a residential unit that satisfies all of the following:
(1)It is no more than 500 square feet in size.
(2)It is contained entirely within an existing or proposed single-family structure. An enclosed use within the residence, such as an attached garage, is considered to be a part of and contained within the single-family structure. (3)It includes its own separate sanitation facilities or shares sanitation facilities with the existing or proposed single-family structure.
(4)If the unit does not include its own separate bathroom, then it contains an interior entrance to the main living area of the existing or proposed single-family structure in addition to an exterior entrance that is separate from the main entrance to the primary dwelling.
(5)It includes an efficiency kitchen, as defined in Section 21.85.030(d) above. (f)“Living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. (g)“Nonconforming zoning condition” means a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.
(h)“Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the ADU or JADU.
(i)“Proposed dwelling” means a dwelling that is the subject of a permit application and that meets the requirements for permitting.
(j)“Public transit” means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public. (k)“Tandem parking” means that two (2) or more automobiles are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another.

21.85.040 Approvals.

The following approvals apply to ADUs and JADUs under this Chapter:

26529.00000\41017064.2
26529.00000\40946530.1

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 751

(a)Building-Permit Only. If an ADU or JADU complies with each of the general requirements in Section 21.85.050 below, it is allowed with only a building permit in the following scenarios:
(1)Converted on Single-Family Lot: One (1) ADU as described in this subsection (a)(1) and one (1) JADU on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling on it, where the ADU or JADU:
(i)Is either: within the space of a proposed single-family dwelling; within the existing space of an existing single-family dwelling; or (in the case of an ADU only) within the existing space of an accessory structure, plus up to 150 additional square feet if the expansion is limited to accommodating ingress and egress; and
(ii)Has exterior access that is independent of that for the single-family dwelling; and
(iii)Has side and rear setbacks sufficient for fire and safety, as dictated by applicable building and fire codes.
(iv)The JADU complies with the requirements of Government Code Section 65852.22.
(2)Limited Detached on Single-Family Lot: One (1) detached, new- construction ADU on a lot with a proposed or existing single-family dwelling (in addition to any JADU that might otherwise be established on the lot under subsection (a)(1) above), if the detached ADU satisfies each of the following limitations:
(i)The side- and rear-yard setbacks are at least four feet. (ii)The total floor area is 800 square feet or smaller. (iii)The peak height above grade does not exceed the applicable height limit in subsection 21.85.050(b) below.
(3)Converted on Multifamily Lot: One or more ADUs within portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures that are not used as livable space, including but not limited to storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each converted ADU complies with state building standards for dwellings. Under subsection (a)(3) of this Section, at least one converted ADU is allowed within an existing multifamily dwelling, up to a quantity equal to 25 percent of the existing multifamily dwelling units.
(4)Limited Detached on Multifamily Lot: No more than two detached ADUs on a lot that has an existing or proposed multifamily dwelling if each detached ADU satisfies both of the following limitations:

26529.00000\41017064.2
26529.00000\40946530.1

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 751

(i)The side- and rear-yard setbacks are at least four feet. If the existing multifamily dwelling has a rear or side yard setback of less than four feet, the City will not require any modification to the multifamily dwelling as a condition of approving the ADU.
(ii)The peak height above grade does not exceed the applicable height limit provided in Section 21.85.050(b) below.
(b)ADU Permit.
(1)Except as allowed under subsection (a) above, no ADU may be created without a building permit and an ADU permit in compliance with the standards set forth in Sections 21.85.050 and 21.85.060 below.
(2)The City may charge a fee to reimburse it for costs incurred in processing ADU permits, including the costs of adopting or amending the City’s ADU ordinance.

The ADU-permit processing fee is determined by the Community Development Director and approved by the City Council by resolution. (c)Process and Timing.
(1)An ADU permit is considered and approved ministerially, without discretionary review or a hearing.
(2)The City must approve or deny an application to create an ADU or JADU within 60 days from the date that the City receives a completed application. If the City has not approved or denied the completed application within 60 days, the application is deemed approved unless either:
(i)The applicant requests a delay, in which case the 60-day time period is tolled for the period of the requested delay, or
(ii)When an application to create an ADU or JADU is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot, the City may delay acting on the permit application for the ADU or JADU until the City acts on the permit application to create the new single-family or multifamily dwelling, but the application to create the ADU or JADU will still be considered ministerially without discretionary review or a hearing.
(3)If the City denies an application to create an ADU or JADU, the City must provide the applicant with comments that include, among other things, a list of all the defective or deficient items and a description of how the application may be remedied by the applicant. Notice of the denial and corresponding comments must be provided to the applicant within the 60-day time period established by subsection (c)(2) above.

26529.00000\41017064.2
26529.00000\40946530.1

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 751

(4) A demolition permit for a detached garage that is to be replaced with an ADU is reviewed with the application for the ADU and issued at the same time.

21.85.050 General ADU and JADU requirements.

The following requirements apply to all ADUs and JADUs that are approved under Sections

21.85.040(a) or (b) above:
(a)Zoning.
(1)An ADU or JADU subject only to a building permit under Section 21.85.040(a) above may be created on a lot in a residential or mixed-use zone. (2)An ADU or JADU subject to an ADU permit under Section 21.85.040(b) above may be created on a lot that is zoned to allow single-family dwelling residential use or multifamily dwelling residential use.
(b)Height.
(1)Except as otherwise provided by subsections (b)(2) and (3) below, a detached ADU created on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or multifamily dwelling unit may not exceed 16 feet in height.
(2)A detached ADU may be up to 18 feet in height if it is created on a lot with an existing or proposed single family or multifamily dwelling unit that is located within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, and the ADU may be up to two additional feet in height (for a maximum of 20 feet) if necessary to accommodate a roof pitch on the ADU that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit.
(3)A detached ADU created on a lot with an existing or proposed multifamily dwelling that has more than one story above grade may not exceed 18 feet in height.
(4)An ADU that is attached to the primary dwelling may not exceed 25 feet in height or the height limitation imposed by the underlying zone that applies to the primary dwelling, whichever is lower. Notwithstanding the foregoing, ADUs subject to this subsection 21.85.050(b)(4) may not exceed two stories. (5)For purposes of this subsection 21.85.050(b), height is measured above existing legal grade to the peak of the structure.
(c)Fire Sprinklers.
(1)Fire sprinklers are required in an ADU if sprinklers are required in the primary residence.

26529.00000\41017064.2
26529.00000\40946530.1

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 751

(2) The construction of an ADU does not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing primary dwelling.
(d) Rental Term. No ADU or JADU may be rented for a term that is shorter than 30 days.

This prohibition applies regardless of when the ADU or JADU was created. (e) No Separate Conveyance. An ADU or JADU may be rented, but, except as otherwise provided in Government Code Section 65852.26, no ADU or JADU may be sold or otherwise conveyed separately from the lot and the primary dwelling (in the case of a single-family lot) or from the lot and all of the dwellings (in the case of a multifamily lot).
(f) Septic System. If the ADU or JADU will connect to an on-site wastewater-treatment system, the owner must include with the application a percolation test completed within the last five years or, if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years.
(g) Owner Occupancy.
(1) An ADU that is permitted after January 1, 2020, but before January 1, 2025, is not subject to any owner-occupancy requirement.
(2) Unless applicable law requires otherwise, all ADUs that are permitted on or after January 1, 2025 are subject to an owner-occupancy requirement. A natural person with legal or equitable title to the property must reside on the property as the person’s legal domicile and permanent residence.
(3) As required by state law, all JADUs are subject to an owner-occupancy requirement. A natural person with legal or equitable title to the property must reside on the property, in either the primary dwelling or JADU, as the person’s legal domicile and permanent residence. However, the owner-occupancy requirement in this subsection (g)(3) does not apply if the property is entirely owned by another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization. (h) Deed Restriction. Prior to issuance of a building permit for an ADU or JADU, a deed restriction must be recorded against the title of the property in the County Recorder’s office and a copy filed with the Community Development Director. The deed restriction must run with the land and bind all future owners. The form of the deed restriction will be provided by the City and must provide that:
(1) Except as otherwise provided in Government Code Section 65852.26, the ADU or JADU may not be sold separately from the primary dwelling. (2) The ADU or JADU is restricted to the approved size and to other attributes allowed by this Section.
(3) The deed restriction runs with the land and may be enforced against future property owners.

26529.00000\41017064.2
26529.00000\40946530.1

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 751

(4) The deed restriction may be removed if the owner eliminates the ADU or JADU, as evidenced by, for example, removal of the kitchen facilities. To remove the deed restriction, an owner may make a written request of the Director, providing evidence that the ADU or JADU has in fact been eliminated. The Director may then determine whether the evidence supports the claim that the ADU or JADU has been eliminated. Appeal may be taken from the Director’s determination consistent with other provisions of this Code. If the ADU or JADU is not entirely physically removed, but is only eliminated by virtue of having a necessary component of an ADU or JADU removed, the remaining structure and improvements must otherwise comply with applicable provisions of this Code. (5) The deed restriction is enforceable by the Director or his or her designee for the benefit of the City. Failure of the property owner to comply with the deed restriction may result in legal action against the property owner, and the City is authorized to obtain any remedy available to it at law or equity, including, but not limited to, obtaining an injunction enjoining the use of the ADU or JADU in violation of the recorded restrictions or abatement of the illegal unit. (i) Income Reporting. In order to facilitate the City’s obligation to identify adequate sites for housing in accordance with Government Code Sections 65583.1 and 65852.2, the following requirements must be satisfied:
(1) With the building-permit application, the applicant must provide the City with an estimate of the projected annualized rent that will be charged for the ADU or JADU.
(2) Within 90 days after the end of each calendar year following issuance of the building permit, the owner must report the actual rent charged for the ADU or JADU during the prior year. If the City does not receive the report within the 90- day period, the owner is in violation of this Code, and the City may send the owner a notice of violation and allow the owner another 30 days to submit the report. If the owner fails to submit the report within the 30-day period, the City may enforce this provision in accordance with applicable law. (j) Building & Safety.
(1) Must comply with building code. Subject to subsection (j)(2) below, all ADUs and JADUs must comply with all local building code requirements. (2) No change of occupancy. Construction of an ADU does not constitute a Group R occupancy change under the local building code, as described in Section 310 of the California Building Code, unless the building official or Code Enforcement Division officer makes a written finding based on substantial evidence in the record that the construction of the ADU could have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety. Nothing in this subsection (j)(2) prevents the City from changing the occupancy code of a space that was uninhabitable space or that was only permitted for nonresidential use and was subsequently converted for residential use in accordance with this section.

26529.00000\41017064.2
26529.00000\40946530.1

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 751

21.85.060 Specific ADU requirements.

The following requirements apply only to ADUs that require an ADU permit under Section

21.85.040(b) above.
(a) Maximum Size.
(1) The maximum size of a detached or attached ADU subject to this Section

21.85.060 is 850 square feet for a studio or one-bedroom unit and 1,000 square feet for a unit with two or more bedrooms.
(2) An attached ADU that is created on a lot with an existing primary dwelling is further limited to 50 percent of the floor area of the existing primary dwelling. (3) Application of other development standards in this Section 21.85.060, such as FAR or lot coverage, might further limit the size of the ADU, but no application of the percent-based size limit in subsection (a)(2) above or of an FAR, front setback, lot coverage limit, or open-space requirement may require the ADU to be less than 800 square feet.
(b) Floor Area Ratio (FAR). No ADU subject to this Section 21.85.060 may cause the total FAR of the lot to exceed 45 percent, subject to subsection (a)(3) above. (c) Setbacks.
(1) An ADU that is subject to this Section 21.85.060 must conform to a 25-foot front-yard setback, subject to subsection (a)(3) above. (2) An ADU that is subject to this Section 21.85.060 must conform to 4-foot side- and rear-yard setbacks.
(3) No setback is required for an ADU that is subject to this Section 21.85.060 if the ADU is constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.
(d) Lot Coverage. No ADU subject to this Section 21.85.060 may cause the total lot coverage of the lot to exceed 50 percent, subject to subsection (a)(3) above. (e) Minimum Open Space. No ADU subject to this Section 21.85.060 may cause the total percentage of open space of the lot to fall below 50 percent, subject to subsection (a)(3) above.
(f) Passageway. No passageway, as defined by Section 21.85.030(h) above, is required for an ADU.
(g) Parking.

26529.00000\41017064.2
26529.00000\40946530.1

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 751

(1) Generally. One off-street parking space is required for each ADU. The parking space may be provided in setback areas or as tandem parking, as defined by Section 21.85.030(k) above.
(2) Exceptions. No parking under subsection (g)(1) is required in the following situations:
(i) The ADU is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit, as defined in Section 21.85.030(j) above.
(ii) The ADU is located within an architecturally and historically significant historic district.
(iii) The ADU is part of the proposed or existing primary residence or an accessory structure under Section 21.85.040(a)(1) above. (iv) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the ADU.
(v) When there is an established car share vehicle stop located within one block of the ADU.
(vi) When the permit application to create an ADU is submitted with an application to create a new single-family or new multifamily dwelling on the same lot, provided that the ADU or the lot satisfies any other criteria listed in subsections (g)(2)(i) through (v) above.
(3) No Replacement. When a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU or converted to an ADU, those off-street parking spaces are not required to be replaced. (h) Architectural Requirements.
(1) The materials and colors of the exterior walls, roof, and windows and doors must match the appearance and architectural design of those of the primary dwelling. (2) The roof slope must match that of the dominant roof slope of the primary dwelling. The dominant roof slope is the slope shared by the largest portion of the roof.
(3) The exterior lighting must be limited to down-lights or as otherwise required by the building or fire code.
(4) The ADU must have an independent exterior entrance, apart from that of the primary dwelling.
(5) The interior horizontal dimensions of an ADU must be at least 10 feet wide in every direction, with a minimum interior wall height of seven feet.

26529.00000\41017064.2
26529.00000\40946530.1

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 751

(6) Windows and doors of the ADU may not have a direct line of sight to an adjoining residential property. Fencing, landscaping, or privacy glass may be used to provide screening and prevent a direct line of sight. (7) All windows and doors in an ADU are less than 30 feet from a property line that is not a public right-of-way line must either be (for windows) clerestory with the bottom of the glass at least six feet above the finished floor, or (for windows and for doors) utilize frosted or obscure glass.
(i) Landscape Requirements. Evergreen landscape screening must be planted and maintained between the ADU and adjacent parcels as follows:
(1) At least one 15-gallon size plant shall be provided for every five linear feet of exterior wall. Alternatively, at least one 24-inch-box sized plant shall be provided for every ten linear feet of exterior wall.
(2) Plant specimens must be at least six feet tall when installed. As an alternative, a solid fence of at least 6 feet in height may be installed. (3) All landscaping must be drought-tolerant.
(4) All landscaping must be from the City’s approved plant list. (j) Historical Protections. An ADU that is on or within 600 feet of real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources must be located so as to not be visible from any public right-of-way.

21.85.070 Fees.

The following requirements apply to all ADUs that are approved under Section 21.85.040(a) or

21.85.040(b) above.
(a) Impact Fees.
(1) No impact fee is required for an ADU that is less than 750 square feet in size. For purposes of this subsection (a), “impact fee” means a “fee” under the Mitigation Fee Act (Gov. Code § 66000(b)) and a fee under the Quimby Act (Gov. Code § 66477). “Impact fee” here does not include any connection fee or capacity charge for water or sewer service.
(2) Any impact fee that is required for an ADU that is 750 square feet or larger in size must be charged proportionately in relation to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit. (E.g., the floor area of the ADU, divided by the floor area of the primary dwelling, times the typical fee amount charged for a new dwelling.)
(b) Utility Fees.

26529.00000\41017064.2
26529.00000\40946530.1

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 751

(1) If an ADU is constructed with a new single-family home, a separate utility connection directly between the ADU and the utility and payment of the normal connection fee and capacity charge for a new dwelling are required. (2) Except as described in subsection (b)(1) of this Section, converted ADUs on a single-family lot that are created under Section 21.85.040(a)(1) above are not required to have a new or separate utility connection directly between the ADU and the utility. Nor is a connection fee or capacity charge required. (3) Except as described in subsection (b)(1) of this Section, all ADUs that are not covered by subsection (b)(2) of this Section require a new, separate utility connection directly between the ADU and the utility.
(i) The connection is subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that is proportionate to the burden created by the ADU based on either the floor area or the number of drainage-fixture units (DFU) values, as defined by the Uniform Plumbing Code, upon the water or sewer system. (ii) The portion of the fee or charge that is charged by the City may not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.

21.85.080 Nonconforming Zoning Code Conditions, Building Code Violations, and Unpermitted Structures.
(a) Generally. The City will not deny an ADU or JADU application due to a nonconforming zoning condition, building code violation, or unpermitted structure on the lot that does not present a threat to the public health and safety and that is not affected by the construction of the ADU or JADU.
(b) Unpermitted ADUs constructed before 2018.
(1) Permit to Legalize. As required by state law, the City may not deny a permit to legalize an existing but unpermitted ADU that was constructed before January 1, 2018, if denial is based on either of the following grounds:
(i) The ADU violates applicable building standards, or
(ii) The ADU does not comply with the state ADU law (Gov. Code § 65852.2) or this ADU ordinance (Chapter 21.85).
(2) Exceptions:
(i) Notwithstanding subsection 21.85.080(b)(1) above, the City may deny a permit to legalize an existing but unpermitted ADU that was constructed before January 1, 2018, if the City makes a finding that correcting a violation is necessary to protect the health and safety of the public or of occupants of the structure.

26529.00000\41017064.2
26529.00000\40946530.1

City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. 751

(ii) Subsection 21.85.080(b)(1) above does not apply to a building that is deemed to be substandard in accordance with California Health and Safety Code section 17920.3.

21.85.090 Nonconforming ADUs and discretionary approval.

Any proposed ADU or JADU that does not conform to the objective standards set forth in Sections 21.85.010 through 21.85.080 of this Chapter may be allowed by the City with a conditional use permit, in accordance with the other provisions of this title.

INDIAN WELLS CITY COUNCIL
March 2, 2023

To: City Council
From: City Manager Department
Prepared by: Kristen Nelson, Senior Management Analyst
Subject: City’s 2023 Legislative Platform

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

Council ADOPTS the City’s 2023 Legislative Platform.

DISCUSSION:

The 2023 Legislative Platform for Indian Wells sets forth the City’s legislative positions and provides a framework for participation in the legislative process on a statewide level.

It is important for the City to be involved on the Sacramento political field, and to have an influence on the laws passed that effect cities or improve our State. This document allows staff to efficiently process letters of support or opposition without going to Council for direction on each legislative issue.

Staff reached out to our State legislative offices, the City’s lobbyist, the League of California Cities, the California Contract Cities Association, and the Greater Coachella Valley Chamber of Commerce for input on the top issues for the 2023 legislative session.

Top issues anticipated to affect the City are local control, housing and land use development, public safety, and homelessness.

The City continues its partnership with the League of California Cities in coordinating efforts and campaigns to protect local government interests. The City supports the League of California Cities’ four strategic priorities for 2023 outlined below:

1. Protect and expand investments to prevent and reduce homelessness;

2. Increase the supply and affordability of housing while retaining local decision-making;

3. Improve public safety in California communities; and

4. Safeguard essential local revenues and support fiscal sustainability.

The City’s professional legislative representative is the firm of Joe A. Gonsalves & Son.

Staff and Gonsalves communicate frequently as to positions on issues, proposed legislation affecting the City, issues the City has taken a position on, and assistance with various state departments or the Governor’s Office.

ATTACHMENT:

1. 2023 Legislative Platform

CITY OF INDIAN WELLS

LEGISLATIVE PLATFORM
2023
COUNCIL ADOPTED—MARCH 2, 2023
ATTACHMENT #1

CITY LEGISLATIVE CONTACTS
Christopher J. Freeland
City Manager
City of Indian Wells
44-950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210
(760) 346-2489
[email protected]
Kristen Nelson
Senior Management Analyst
City of Indian Wells
44-950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210
(760) 346-2489
[email protected]
Joe A. Gonsalves & Son
Professional State Legislative Representation
925 L Street, Suite 250
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 441-0597
www.gonsalvi.com

INDIAN WELLS

UNSURPASSED QUALITY

Located in the heart of Southern California’s Desert Resort communities, the City of Indian Wells is recognized worldwide for its tranquil and luxurious resort environment.

Then and now, astute planning and city leadership have helped Indian Wells achieve status as one of the premier residential resorts and vacation destinations in the United States. Guests and residents alike are continually drawn to the many amenities that Indian Wells offers including four world-class resorts, Indian Wells Golf Resort and Indian Wells Tennis Garden, a variety of cultural programs, impressive resident benefits, and much more. Indian Wells offers a peerless experience that truly elicits a state of overall well-being.

As a contract City, Indian Wells recognizes the need for active legislative engagement at the Local, State, and Federal levels to protect and enhance the interests of its residents and businesses. Accordingly, City officials maintain close relationships with Indian Wells’ State and Federal representatives to advocate, influence, and monitor pertinent legislation.

The 2020 Legislative Platform provides a framework for the City of Indian Wells’ core legislative principles for the purpose of advocacy efforts at the regional, state and federal level. The legislative platform sets forth the City’s position on a variety of topics and provides direction for the City’s legislative advocates, City Council, and City staff as they work to secure clear and strategic initiatives in Sacramento and Washington, D.C.

The Legislative Platform is developed and updated using the goals and objectives of the City Council, a review of Legislative Platforms from the League of California Cities, League’s Riverside County Division, California Contract Cities Association, input from City Council and Staff, research of current law and pending legislation, as well as discussions with local legislative staff and the City’s legislative advocates.

Approval of the Legislative Platform streamlines the City’s process and allows the City to effectively respond and take immediate action on pressing legislation. For proposed legislation, either consistent with the City’s Legislative Platform or consistent with past City legislative positions; City staff shall be authorized to prepare position letters for signature. Items not addressed in the City’s Legislative Platform may require further Council direction. The Legislative Platform may only address issues directly relevant to or impacting the provision of municipal services.

City departments are encouraged to monitor and be knowledgeable of any legislative issues related to their discipline. However, any requests for the City to take positions on a legislative matter must be directed to the City Manager’s Office.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

I. Local Control
Support legislation to preserve the city’s local authority as a charter city to enact policy pertaining to local affairs. Oppose legislation preempting local control without the concurrence of the City.

II. Fiscal Responsibility
Support legislation promoting fiscal stability, predictability, and financial independence at the local level. Support efforts to preserve and promote the City’s ability to maintain and grow its revenue base. Oppose legislation to diminish the City’s revenue sources required to maintain critical city services.

III. Economic Development
Support legislative efforts designed to provide local governments with the tools necessary to bolster economic development. Support legislation and regulatory streamlining initiatives to enhance the City’s ability to attract and retain businesses as well as encourage business expansion and job retention.

IV. Public Safety
Support legislation for local governments to access resources to provide quality police, fire, emergency management, emergency medical services, violence prevention initiatives, and community efforts.

V. Funding Opportunities
Support legislation allowing the City to compete for its fair share of regional, state, and federal funding. Support efforts promoting dedicated funding streams to cities for critical service areas.

VI. Regional Partnerships
Support opportunities to work collaboratively with local and regional partners on areas of mutual interest. Maintain strong relationships with other municipalities, local transportation agencies, special districts, regional government agencies, local elected officials, college boards, and school districts.

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

GENERAL AREA OF REVIEW:

Elections, Ralph M. Brown Act, Public Records Act, Political Reform Act, conflicts of interest, insurance tort reform, and open and transparent government.

WE SUPPORT:
o Efforts consistent with the doctrine of local control especially in the areas of city revenues, police powers, land use planning, housing, community development, telecommunications, public safety, local public meeting procedures, and other municipal activities.
o Applying the Ralph M. Brown Act to the state legislature to the same extent that it applies to local government.
o Preserving the integrity and fundamentals of the Ralph M. Brown Act while opposing legislation constraining communication among staff, local officials and the public.
o Amending rules limiting and restricting local government’s ability to achieve greater transparency of governmental business by improving the platform in which agencies can publish and advertise notices, ordinances, or other matters required by law.
o Measures to lower the voter approval threshold for local special taxes to either 55% (same as school districts) or to a simple majority, especially for the purposes of economic and local development, and public safety needs. o Reducing and providing for recovery of costs, maintaining privacy, and eliminating attorney’s fees for public records laws.
o Efforts to recognize or broaden immunities for public agencies and oppose any attempts to limit or restrict existing immunities.
o Limitations on the joint and separate liability of governmental agencies to a liability equal to their percentage of their wrongdoing. Require plaintiffs to make a good faith showing of liability prior to filing a lawsuit against a public entity. o Reforming California’s tort system to curtail unreasonable liability exposure for public agencies, including tort immunities for public entities for unauthorized use of public property, and restore the ability of public agencies to obtain affordable insurance.

WE OPPOSE:
o Efforts to prohibit or limit the ability of local government to conduct closed session consistent with the Ralph M. Brown Act.
o Mandated district-based elections without analyzing the specific needs of a community.
o Legislative efforts to impose binding arbitration that would remove local government authority on matters of local interest. Specifically, support all legislative and legal efforts to overturn any legislation that implements binding arbitration on local government.
o Creating or granting powers to sub-regional or regional bodies, which may result in infringement on clearly local concerns, unless all affected local entities agree to do so.
o Efforts to limit local government’s ability to hold contractors accountable for their work product.
o Efforts to retroactively and prospectively hold Joint Powers Authority (JPA) agencies jointly and severally liable for economic damages.

CITY-SPECIFIC POLICY STATEMENTS:

RESOLUTION NO 1990-91 - STATING OPPOSITION TO STATE LEGISLATION

CONCERNING THE CREATION OR EXPANSION OF REGIONAL GOVERNING BODIES

EMPLOYEE RELATIONS

GENERAL AREA OF REVIEW:

Labor relations, employee relations, worker’s compensation, retirement system, medical insurance, and risk management.

WE SUPPORT:
o Reforming workers’ compensation formulas to rely on more evidence of work- related causation to determine compensability, to reduce employers’ costs through the reduction of system abuse, while still protecting workers. o Limiting the ability of employees to receive workers’ compensation benefits for occupational injuries/illnesses resulting from stress, disciplinary action, or performance evaluations/consultations.
o Efforts to achieve and/or maintain sustainable California Public Employee’s Retirement System employer rates, lessen the impact of CalPERS investment losses on employer rates, and provide local control flexibility in defining current employee benefits.
o Improving access to and reducing the cost of healthcare, and expands ability to offer health, welfare and wellness services for public employees.

WE OPPOSE:
o Mandates upon local governments for any additional employee benefits as such benefits impose financial costs and administrative burdens on local governments. o Increases to employee benefits without system reforms to offset increased employer costs.
o Unreasonable increases to employer medical costs for workers’ compensation. o Efforts to increase employer liability for unemployment compensation, or reduction of local discretion to manage this risk.
o Federal or state mandates on the collective bargaining process. o Undermining good faith negotiations between employee organizations and local agencies.
o Reducing local control over public employee disputes and/or imposed regulations from an outside agency.

COMMUNITY & HUMAN SERVICES

GENERAL AREA OF REVIEW:

Parks, recreation, cultural arts, senior programs, community and human services programs.

WE SUPPORT:
o Federal and state funding opportunities for senior citizen nutrition programs, prescription drug benefits, transportation, adult care, technology improvements, education, and emergency education for seniors.
o Efforts to protect society against identity theft, senior citizens from criminal exploitation, and juveniles from sexual predators on the internet. o Federal and state funding opportunities that promote the ability to provide public access to technology at community facilities.
o Federal and state funding opportunities for cultural arts programs, parks, and recreation and human services in the community.
o Funding for transportation services, especially for those homebound and elderly. o Funding and resources for local governments to implement Healthy Cities programs and policies aimed at reducing obesity, high rates of diabetes, heart disease, and other health conditions.
o Reinstatement of funding for community-based programs serving seniors. o Increasing opportunities for community‐wide citizen volunteer programs. o Supportive services for special populations such as people with health and mental health conditions, impairments, and/or disabilities. o Efforts to promote and fund programs to combat pet overpopulation, increase pet adoptions and spay/neuter programs and educate citizens on the dangers and nuisance of roaming, uncontrolled animals and other animal control issues that risk public health and safety and quality of life.

CITY-SPECIFIC POLICY STATEMENTS:

RESOLUTION NO 1986-84 - SEEKING THE SUPPORT OF THE LEAGUE OF

CALIFORNIA CITIES FOR LEGISLATION LIMITING LIABILITY EXPOSURE FOR PARK

AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

RESOLUTION NO 1974-09 – ADOPTING OPEN SPACE AND CONSERVATION

ELEMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN

RESOLUTION NO 2009-05 – UPDATEING THE CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE

ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN

ENVIRONMENT & SUSTAINABILITY

GENERAL AREA OF REVIEW:

Air and water quality, energy and water efficiency, sustainability, CEQA, integrated waste management, hazardous materials.

WE SUPPORT:
o Encouraging legislation and federal and state funding to address the revitalization and restoration of the Salton Sea, including the North Lake and Perimeter Lake concepts.
o Salton Sea Authority requests for more accurate accounting of costs for producing energy eligible for consideration in the state Renewable Energy Portfolio.
o Resources and funding to local governments for the implementation of climate action plan for the reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning with the goal of more sustainable communities.
o Streamlining environmental processing for state and federal regulatory permits issued by various agencies for the purpose of expediting public infrastructure developments.
o Reforming the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to streamline the approval of development and infrastructure projects, reduce the prevalence of frivolous lawsuits resulting from inadequate safeguards written into CEQA regulations while ensuring the environment is adequately protected, and promote affordable housing and job creation.
o Flexibility for local government in determining how best to notify the public of projects requiring CEQA review to take advantage of technology and social media trends.
o Continuation of California Integrated Waste Management Act (AB 939) waste diversion requirement, the state goal of 75% diversion by 2020 (AB 341), organic waste regulations (SB 1383) and programs assisting cities to go beyond the 75% diversion goal. This includes diversion measurement and reporting improvements that do not adversely impact the assessment of compliance efforts made by cities.
o Efforts for the safe and cost-effective disposal of solid, hazardous and medical waste.
o Financial incentives for water reuse and legislation that encourages the treatment of municipal wastewater for non‐potable reuse and promote the development of reasonable regulations to encourage and maximize the responsible use of reclaimed water as an alternative to California’s fresh water supply.
o Encouraging legislation for critical water infrastructure maintenance and construction projects and local financing tools.
o Energy and water efficiency programs such as California’s Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) which provides incentives including tax deduction for

installation of solar systems, equipment such as energy storage systems, and efficiency programs that reduce demand and improve water efficiency. o Funding and resources for retrofitting municipal buildings to increase energy efficiency.
o Resources and funding to expand the use of purple pipe for the distribution and use of recycled water and prevention of cross connection between water and recycled water.
o The use of drought-tolerant plant material and wastewater conservation techniques.
o Maintaining and enhancing local decision-making authority in the development and implementation of air quality attainment strategies. o Local government discretion on adopting a Green Building policy that offers property tax relief for certified green homes or buildings. o Funding and resources for alternative fuel vehicles for replacement of municipal fleet equipment, adequate charging station infrastructure for emerging electric vehicle technology, and retrofitting municipal buildings to increase energy efficiency.
o Requiring Department of Transportation and CALTRANS to increase the use of rubberized asphalt and crumb rubber made from recycled tires. o Resources and funding to local governments for implementation of SB 375 – California’s Sustainable Communities Strategy and Climate Protection Act.

WE OPPOSE:
o Actions to weaken local government’s ability to enforce environmental impact report (EIR) mitigation measures now defined as “takings.” o Imposing of undue hardship on local agencies to implement environmental regulations.
o Air quality and water use legislation that restricts the land use authority of cities. o Efforts to circumvent local government’s ability to regulate, approve and/or deny “green technology” projects.
o Expansion of the state listing of endangered or threatened species without economic impact analyses and valid scientific data.
o Preemption of local planning decisions regarding solid waste facility sites, and local solid waste and AB 939 fee setting authority or imposes taxes or fees on local solid waste programs to fund State programs not directly related to solid waste management.
o Actions by Regional Water Quality Control Boards to impose mandates on local government that exceeds state or federal regulations and/or are outside the Boards jurisdictional authority to impose or enforce.

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM

GENERAL AREA OF REVIEW:

Economic development, tourism, transient occupancy tax, vacation rentals, business retention and attraction.

WE SUPPORT:
o Protecting cities’ right to levy and collect full share of Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) from hotels, vacation rentals, including any online hotel intermediaries, short-term housing rental agencies, and home sharing platforms such as Airbnb.

This includes opposing any federal or state legislation providing immunity to online hotel intermediaries and/or prohibiting cities from collecting (retroactively or otherwise) their fair share of TOT.
o Efforts to require online home sharing platforms to provide information to local governments, including property address, length of stay, emergency contact, and other pertinent information regarding properties used as vacation rentals within the cities’ boundaries.
o Preserving funding mechanisms to promote continued economic development, including initiatives to provide financing for infrastructure and affordable housing. o Efforts to expand economic development tools and reduce regulation, including advocating for meaningful and useful tax increment financing, economic finance improvement districts, and other economic development tools and supporting reductions in burdensome state regulations.
o Federal and state efforts to fund economic stimulus programs and jobs. o Enhancing the City’s efforts to retain existing businesses and attract new businesses.
o Extending sales tax to e-commerce as a means of fairness to “main street” retailers.
o Incentives (tax benefits, grants, loans, credits for affordable units) to local government to rehabilitate residential and commercial properties. o Exemptions to the application of Labor Code Section 1720 for economic development projects.
o Restoring “safe harbor” for affordable housing projects exempting them from state prevailing wages.

WE OPPOSE:
o Legislative or administrative efforts by online travel companies to circumvent remittance of transient occupancy taxes to local government from hotel reservations purchased using the internet or short-term housing rental platforms. o Attempts to eliminate or limit the traditional tax exemption for municipal bonds, and to cap the investor tax deduction on municipal securities investments. o Erosion of the ability of cities to condition and deny projects with inadequately mitigated impacts to the community.
o Imposition of unwarranted restrictions on local businesses.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

GENERAL AREA OF REVIEW:

Land use, development, building standards, affordable housing, medical and recreational marijuana, homelessness, and massage establishments.

WE SUPPORT:
o Housing Element reform providing flexibility for local government to achieve realistic goals and support funding of mandated General Plan Housing Element updates and flexibility in meeting the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements including partnerships with neighboring jurisdictions. o A smart housing solution consistent with state law.
o New financing tools for local government to support, build and preserve affordable housing, and the creation of a long-term funding source dedicated to financing affordable housing. Tax incentives to promote investment in the production of multi-family rental housing including expansion of Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program to create mixed-income developments. o Legislation and grants increasing funding for housing programs within the City, including incentives from private sector investment in housing projects. o Consolidating and streamlining the administration and reporting requirements for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.
o Efforts to repeal or modify the Davis-Bacon Wage Act, as it relates to charter cities, that set a prevailing wage scale for public projects, substantially increasing the cost of publicly assisted housing developments.
o Maintaining or strengthening local control over medical marijuana dispensaries and uphold cities’ ability to regulate and ban dispensaries. o Preserving and protecting local regulatory authority over medical and recreational marijuana.
o Strengthening the concept of local control/local home rule for local decision making on land use and zoning matters.
o Preserving municipal authority over the public right‐of‐way including fair and reasonable compensation for use of the right‐of‐way and streamline the acquisition process.
o Local control over the establishment and placement of group, sober living, sex offender, and parolee homes within the city limits.
o Increasing the City’s ability to reasonably oversee the location of community care facilities.
o Funding for the identification, acquisition, maintenance and restoration of historic sites and structures.
o Funding for community-based local efforts to address the homelessness problem.

WE OPPOSE:
o Restrictions of California cities use of eminent domain for public purpose projects.
o Efforts to erode the ability of local government to condition and deny projects that inadequately mitigate impacts to the community.
o Weakening local government’s ability to regulate massage establishments through zoning code provisions.
o Legislative and regulatory efforts to weaken the authority of cities to zone and plan for the development of telecommunications infrastructure, including the siting of cellular communications towers, antenna or transmission sites. o Mandatory caps on local parking standards in transit intensive areas. o Efforts by any regulatory commission from promulgating rules and regulations that infringe on local land use decisions and management of the public right‐of‐ way.
o Additional affordable housing production mandates without necessary funding to support said housing mandate.
o Efforts that prohibit local government’s ability to prohibit and/or regulate the act of sleeping in an unlawful location (i.e. vehicle).
o Limiting local government’s ability to address homelessness issues.

CITY-SPECIFIC POLICY STATEMENTS:

RESOLUTION NO. 2011-07 - DESIGNATING THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS AS THE

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE INDIAN WELLS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PURSUANT

TO PROPOSED STATE LEGISLATION TERMINATING REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES

PUBLIC SAFETY

GENERAL AREA OF REVIEW:

Law enforcement, fire safety, emergency services, disaster preparedness, nuisance abatement.

WE SUPPORT:
o Legislation and funding for the Urban Area Security Initiative and other funding initiatives administered by the Department of Homeland Security to enhance the City’s ability to respond to regional or national threats. o Requiring the transfer of information to local officials regarding threats to local safety as threats occur.
o Efforts to secure Federal funding sources for Dignitary (Presidential) visits o Increased frontline funding for police services associated with the early release of prisoners as a result of state-mandated criminal justice realignment provisions. o Funding and integration of video recording system between police officers (body cameras) and in-vehicle (dash cams), and the development of policies related to public records, discovery, privacy, and storage.
o Efforts to equally allocate State Local Assistance Funding approved by voters with Proposition 30 to all city police departments, including cities that contract for police services.
o Funding support for disaster preparedness, earthquake preparedness, Homeland Security, hazardous material response, State COPS program, booking fee reimbursement and other local law enforcement activities. o Statewide efforts to coordinate disaster preparedness programs in local jurisdictions and support guidelines to identify the strengths and weaknesses of local preparedness efforts.
o Efforts to strengthen local law enforcement’s ability to prevent and reduce crimes, and specifically relating to illicit drugs, burglary, assault, domestic violence, and sobriety.
o Programs that enhance the benefits of mutual aid agreements between local governments.
o Funding for interoperability initiatives to better facilitate coordinated and effective emergency response by police, fire, EMS, and non-public safety departments in cities and across regional jurisdictions. o Increases home rule in adopting Fire and Life Safety Codes. o Efforts which strengthen and provide additional funding for local fire and life safety services. Resource and funding opportunities related to wildfire prevention and wildfire response.
o Reimbursement of local government for overtime costs, training, and equipment, paid to and for fire suppression personnel who are fighting statewide wildland fires, attending regional trainings, and promoting interoperability through the upgrade and replacement of outdated equipment.

o Legislation that provides local law enforcement agencies authority to recover costs associated with complying with any federal, state or court‐ordered licensing, registration and testing requirements.

WE OPPOSE:
o Limiting or restricting local government’s ability to collect fees for the expense of an emergency response (e.g., non-resident medical aid fee) o Attempts to expand “early release” for low-risk, serious and violent offenders without an increase in sustained funding to ensure responsible supervision by parole agents.
o Legislation that alters distribution of revenues from traffic and parking violations, resulting in lower revenue for local governments.
o Legislation impeding local law enforcement from addressing crime problems and recovering costs resulting from a crime committed by the guilty party. o Legislation that restricts local authority jurisdiction over the enforcement of fire and life safety regulations.
o Legislation or other administrative actions seeking to limit the police departments’ ability to collect and utilize asset forfeiture funds for a wide variety of police services.

REVENUE & TAXATION

GENERAL AREA OF REVIEW:

Finance administration, taxation reform, general and special revenue.

WE SUPPORT:
o Efforts to allow states and cities to require remote sellers to collect state and local sales and use taxes already owned from online sales. o Efforts to maintain and expand the types of municipal investment-grade revenue bonds.
o Facilitating and enabling the timely collection of delinquent assessments and strengthens or maintains the lien position of those assessments. o Efforts to protect local government revenue sources and the provisions of Proposition 1A.
o Legislation and initiatives that ensure that all local funding sources remain a dedicated revenue source for local governments.
o Full cost reimbursement to the City for all federal, state and county‐mandated programs.

WE OPPOSE:
o Decreasing, restricting or eliminating local government revenue sources, any efforts by the state to retain additional revenues currently dedicated to local government for state purposes, and shifting of revenues from local government to the state for any purpose.
o Any effort by federal or state government to preempt cities’ right to levy and collect taxes, fees, and assessments.
o Change in revenue allocations (current or future) that negatively affect local government, including the redistribution of sales tax, property tax, COPS grants, Proposition 172 funds, gas tax (HUTA), transient occupancy tax (TOT), and vehicle in-lieu fee (VLF).
o Legislation to make local government more dependent on the State for financial stability and policy direction.
o Imposition of State mandated costs for which there is no guarantee of local reimbursement or offsetting benefits.

CITY-SPECIFIC POLICY STATEMENTS:

RESOLUTION NO. 1998-19 - SUPPORTING STATE LEGISLATION TO EXPAND

LAWFUL FUND-RAISING ACTIVITIES FOR NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS

RESOLUTION NO. 1999-61 - IN SUPPORT OF “THE FAIR COMPETITION AND TAXPAYER SAVINGS ACT” INITIATIVE AND LEGISLATION

PUBLIC WORKS

GENERAL AREA OF REVIEW:

Transportation, construction, and general public works related areas.

WE SUPPORT:
o Funding directly to cities for the preservation, maintenance, rehabilitation, and development of local street and road systems.
o Long-term federal and state transportation authorization providing a stable and reliable funding stream for critical roads, bridges, freight, and transit. Federal, state, and local partnerships to fund regional transportation projects. o Streamlining environmental processing for federal regulatory permits issued by Caltrans and various other State and Federal agencies for the purpose of expediting public infrastructure development
o Enhancing the ability of local government to finance local transportation and other infrastructure and provide greater flexibility in the use of transportation and other infrastructure-related funds.
o Efforts to lift the minimum requirement of payment of prevailing wages on municipal Public Works projects.
o Funding to local governments for local transportation, water, sewer, and storm sewer system projects.
o Legislation that provides clarification and improvements to Enhanced Infrastructure Financing District (EIFD) Law that will enable local agencies to use this tool for a variety of infrastructure financing needs. o Legislation from the PUC that increases the access and reliability of the service and reduces overall cost to the end users.
o Efforts to provide passenger rail service between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley.
o State involvement in ensuring effective utility infrastructure that supports regional development.

WE OPPOSE:
o Efforts to repeal SB1 (2017) funding for transportation and roadways. o Efforts to redirect, eliminate, or reduce amount of Highway User Tax Account (HUTA) that cities receive for street maintenance and improvements. o Any legislation that diminishes or does not assure local franchise fees for all utilities’ use of City right‐of‐way.
o Efforts to lessen the City’s ability to enforce contractual language agreed to and contained within existing franchise documents.
o Efforts to place the burden and liability of replacing all sidewalks solely on cities.

FEDERAL

WE SUPPORT:
o Legislation to address the revitalization and restoration of the Salton Sea. o The continued reauthorization of MAP‐21 surface transportation bill in order to provide ongoing critical funding for highways, highway safety and public transportation.
o Funding from Department of Justice for resources critical to enable local law enforcement to adequately provide public safety services, including updating safety equipment, training and education, and fully funding the Byrne/JAG and COPS programs.
o Streamlined environmental processing for federal regulatory permits issued by the US Army Corp of Engineers, US Fish & Wildlife Service, Federal Highway Administration and various other state and federal agencies for the purpose of expediting public infrastructure projects.
o Continued funding for the Energy Efficiency Block Grant Program in order to provide resources directly to local governments for programs that improve energy efficiency, develop and implement energy conservation programs, and promote and develop alternative and renewable energy sources. o Efforts to streamline or eliminate the Medicare Secondary Payer process. o Legislation to include consideration of the economic impacts of proposed species listings, as well as, support the delisting of species no longer threatened or endangered.
o Collecting and remitting state and local sales taxes to the state and city in which the purchaser is residing, (e.g., purchases made over the Internet; by mail order; by catalog, etc.).
o Local/regional control and administration of federal programs and strategic placement of federal personnel to ensure expedited decision‐making. o Legislation to modify inappropriate sections of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as it relates to regulating public sector employment. o Efforts to ensure protection of sufficient radio spectrum to meet public safety’s current and future needs. Public safety needs should have priority over private, or for-profit communication systems.

WE OPPOSE:
o Efforts to erode local control over installation of telecommunication infrastructure including environmental and design review and the ability to negotiate reasonable leases or public benefits.
o Legislative or administrative actions that prohibit or hinder local government’s ability to implement Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) programs. o Legislation and the promulgation of rules and regulations that allow any regulatory agency to encroach on, or supersede, local authority, including, but not limited to, the City’s right to franchise for the right to operate in the public right‐of‐way.
o Funding cuts to Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), HOME program and Section 8 Housing funds. Advocate for a more streamlined application process and for greater flexibility of local appropriation and use of monies.

CITY-SPECIFIC POLICY STATEMENTS:

RESOLTION NO. 1977-19 - REQUESTING THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION OF

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO AMEND LEGISLATION ENACTED UNDER ASSEMBLY BILL 167, MILLER-WARREN ENERGY LIFE-LINE ACT

RESOLUTION NO. 1981-16 - IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION REMOVING THE

RESTRICTIONS AND PROHIBITIONS ON THE ON THE USE OF NATURAL GAS IN

UTILITY POWERPLANTS

RESOLUTION NO 1987-21 - SUPPORTING LEGISLATION TO PROVIDE SMALL CITIES EXEMPTION TO THE ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 3, OF THE

PUBLIC UTILITIES CONTRACT CODE

EXHIBIT A:

LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 2023 STRATEGIC PRIORITIES

1. Protect and expand investments to prevent and reduce homelessness.

Secure sustainable state funding that bolsters cities’ efforts to support individuals experiencing, or at risk of, homelessness. While protecting existing resources, strengthen state and local partnerships to connect individuals with the care they need through coordinated care systems that provide access to wraparound services, including mental health and substance use treatment.

2. Increase the supply and affordability of housing while retaining local decision-making. Secure long-term, sustainable funding tools for cities to jumpstart the construction of housing at all income levels and ensure cities retain flexibility to achieve local and state housing goals.

3. Improve public safety in California communities. Pursue strategies and resources to address crime and its underlying causes. Partner with all levels of government and diverse organizations to improve community safety through prevention and early intervention programming, workforce recruitment and retention, and improved re-entry services.

4. Safeguard essential local revenues and support fiscal sustainability.

Protect, increase, and modernize revenue streams for local priorities. Oppose efforts that would reduce or eliminate funding for cities, including unfunded mandates.

UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Hon. Joe Biden
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Vice President Kamala Harris
UNITED STATES SENATORS—CALIFORNIA
Hon. Dianne Feinstein
DC Office
331 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
P: (202) 224-3841
F: (202) 228-3954

Local Office
11111 Santa Monica Blvd.

Suite 915
Los Angeles, CA 90025
P: (310) 914-7300
F: (310) 914-7318
Hon. Alex Padilla
DC Office
112 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
P: (202) 224 - 3553
F: (202) 224 - 2200

Local Office
225 E. Temple Street
Suite 1860
Los Angeles, CA 90012
P: (310) 231 - 4494
F: (202) 224 - 0357
UNITED STATES CONGRESS—CALIFORNIA
Hon. Ken Calvert—41st District
DC Office
2205 Rayburn HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
P: (202) 225-1986
F: (202) 225-2004

District Office
400 S. Vicentia Street
Suite 125
Corona, CA 92882
P: (951) 277-0042
F: (951) 277-0420

LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES

GOVERNOR—STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Hon. Gavin Newsom
1021 O Street
Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
P: (916) 445-2841

Lt. Governor Eleni Kounalakis

CALIFORNIA STATE SENATOR
Hon. Steve Padilla—18th District
Capitol Office
1021 O Street
Suite 6640
Sacramento, CA 95814
P: (916) 651-4018

District Office
45125 Smurr Street
Suite B
Indio, CA 92201
P: (760) 398-6442

CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY
Hon. Greg Wallis—47th District
Capitol Office
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249
P: (916) 319-2047

District Office
41608 Indian Trail Road
Suite D-1
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
P: (760) 346-6342
F: (760) 346-6506
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS—RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Hon. V. Manuel Perez—4th District
County Office
4080 Lemon Street - 5th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
P: (951) 955-1040

District Office
73710 Fred Waring Drive
Suite 222
Palm Desert, CA 92260
P: (760) 863-8211

LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVES

@INDIANWELLS @INDIANWELLSCA CITYOFINDIANWELLS
CITY OF INDIAN WELLS | 44-950 ELDORADO DRIVE | INDIAN WELLS, CA 92210 WWW.CITYOFINDIANWELLS.ORG

INDIAN WELLS CITY COUNCIL
March 2, 2023

To: City Council
From: City Manager Department
Prepared by: Kristen Nelson, Senior Management Analyst
Subject: Resolution Opposing Initiative No. 21-0042A1, The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act

RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:

Council ADOPTS Resolution opposing Initiative No. 21-0042A1, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.

DISCUSSION:

On Feb. 1, 2023, the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act,” or AG# 21-0042A1, qualified for the November 2024 ballot. This anti-local control measure will decimate vital local and state services to the benefit of wealthy corporations. The measure is sponsored by the California Business Roundtable (CBRT) — the lobbying arm of the largest and wealthiest corporations in California.

The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act would amend the California Constitution with provisions that limit voters’ authority and input, adopt new and stricter rules for raising taxes and fees, and may make it more difficult to impose fines and penalties for violation of state and local laws.

The measure puts billions of local government tax and fee revenues at risk statewide with related core public service impacts and would have significant negative impacts on the City of Indian Wells’ operations and core service delivery.

MAJOR PROVISIONS
Fees and Charges1:

 Except for licensing and other regulatory fees, fees and charges may not exceed the “actual cost” of providing the product or service for which the fee is charged. “Actual cost” is the “minimum amount necessary.” The burden to prove the fee or

1 Initiative No. 21-0042A1 (pgs.4-6; Section 1 (a)-(j)

charge does not exceed “actual cost” is changed to “clear and convincing” evidence.
 Requires fees and charges paid for the use of local and state government property and the amount paid to purchase or rent government property to be “reasonable.” These fees and charges are currently allowed to be market-based. Whether the amount is “reasonable” (introducing a new legal standard aiming to force below market fee and charge amounts) must be proved by “clear and convincing evidence.”2 The standard may significantly reduce the amount large companies (e.g., oil, utilities, gas, railroads, garbage/refuse, cable, and other corporations) will pay for the use of local public property.
 Prohibits fees on new development based on vehicle miles traveled.

Taxes3:

 Taxes and fees adopted after Jan. 1, 2022, that do not comply with the new rules, are void unless reenacted4.
 Invalidates Upland decision that allows a majority of local voters to pass special taxes. The measure specifies that taxes proposed by the initiative are subject to the same rules as taxes placed on the ballot by a city council.  Expressly prohibits local advisory measures which allow local voters to express a preference for how local general tax dollars should be spent.5  Requires voter approval to expand existing taxes (e.g., Utility, Transient Occupancy) to new territory (e.g., annexations) or to expand the tax base (e.g., new utility service)
 New taxes can only be imposed for a specific time period.  City charters may not be amended to include a tax or fee.  All state taxes require majority voter approval.

Fines and Penalties6:

 May require voter approval of fines, penalties, and levies for corporations and property owners that violate state and local laws unless a new, undefined adjudicatory process is used to impose the fines and penalties.

2 Initiative No. 21-0042A1 (pg.5; (3))
3 Initiative No. 21-0042A1 (pgs.4-6; Section 1 (a)-(j)
4 Initiative No. 21-0042A1 (pg.7; Section 6 (Sec. 2)(g) 5 Initiative No. 21-0042A1 (pg.6 (3))
6 Initiative No. 21-0042A1 (pg. 5 (4))

DISCUSSION/ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND
On Jan. 4, 2022, the California Business Roundtable filed the “Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act” or AG# 21-0042A1. On Feb. 1, 2023, the measure qualified for the November 2024 ballot.

Local government revenue-raising authority is currently substantially restricted by state statute and constitutional provisions, including the voter approved provisions of Proposition 13 of 1978, Proposition 218 of 1996, and Proposition 26 of 2010. The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act adds and expands restrictions on voters and local government tax and fee authority.

Fees and Taxes

Local governments levy a variety of fees and other charges to provide core public services.

Major examples of affected fees and charges are:

 Nuisance abatement charges, such as for weed, rubbish, and general nuisance abatement to fund community safety, code enforcement, and neighborhood cleanup programs.
 Commercial franchise fees.
 Emergency response fees, such as in connection with DUI.  Advanced Life Support (ALS) transport charges.
 Document processing and duplication fees.
 Transit fees, tolls, parking fees, and public airport and harbor use fees.  Facility use charges, fees for parks and recreation services, garbage disposal tipping fees.

Virtually every city, county, and special district must regularly (e.g., annually) adopt increases to fee rates and charges and revise rate schedules to accommodate new users and activities. Most of these would be subject to new standards and limitations under threat of legal challenge. Based on the current volume of fees and charges imposed by local agencies, including council-adopted increases to simply accommodate inflation, Cal Cities estimates the amount of local government fee and charge revenue at risk is approximately $2 billion per year including those adopted since Jan. 1, 2022.

Over ten years, $20 billion of local government fee and charge revenues will be at heightened legal peril.

Hundreds of local tax measures were approved in 20227 that likely do not comply with the provisions of the initiative. Nearly $2 billion of annual revenues from these voter-

7 http://www.californiacityfinance.com/Votes2211final.pdf

approved measures will cease a year after the effective date of the measure, reducing the local public services funded by these measures, unless the tax is re-submitted for voter approval.

Reductions on local government tax revenues have impacts on core services and infrastructure including fire and emergency response, law enforcement, streets and roads, drinking water, sewer sanitation, parks, libraries, public schools, affordable housing, homelessness prevention, and mental health services.

Fines and Penalties

Under existing law, cities are required to provide due process before imposing a penalty or fine for violation of its municipal code:

1. A local agency must adopt administrative procedures that govern imposing fines and penalties, including providing a reasonable period of time for a person responsible for a continuing violation to correct or remedy the violation [Gov't Code 53069.4].

2. Notice must be given to the violating party before imposing the penalty; and give the party an opportunity to be heard and present any facts or arguments [Merco Construction Engineers v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1969) 274 CA 2d 154, 166].

3. The fine may not be "excessive" [U.S. Constitution amendments VIII and XIV].

The initiative converts administratively imposed fines and penalties into taxes unless a new, undefined, and ambiguous “adjudicatory due process” is followed. This provision may put at risk authority to impose fines and penalties for violations of state and local law.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act will take billions of dollars away from local government services statewide.

The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act will take billions of dollars away from local government services statewide, and Indian Wells is no exception. Indian Wells receives revenues in categories discussed in the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act. These categories include (1) fees and charges, (2) Taxes, and (3) fines and penalties. Collectively, these revenues comprise 94% of all General and Special Revenue Funds. Voter limitations, sunset provisions, and actual cost limitations not only serve to limit revenues in Indian Wells, but they also limit voter needs.

Furthermore, the Act creates unnecessary administrative and financial burdens to maintain compliance.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Full Text of Ballot Initiative

2. February 21 Opposition Letter

3. Resolution

BELL, McANDREWS & HILTACHK, LLP
Anabel Renteria
Initiative Coordinator
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSEL-ORS AT I.AW
455 C APITO L MALL , S UITE 600
SACRAMENT O, CALIFOE=INIA 95 014
(916) 44;a-7757
FA X [916) 44-;a-77 59
www.bmhlaw.c om
January 4, 2022
2 1 -0 0 4 2

RECEI VED
JAN O 4 2022
Office of the Attorney General
State of California

INITIATIVE COORDINATOR

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
PO Box 994255
Sacramento, CA 94244-25550
Re: Initiative 21-0042 -Amendment Number One
Dear Initiative Coordinator:

Pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 9002 of the Elections Code, enclosed please find Amendment #1 to Initiative No. 21-0042 "The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act." The amendments are reasonably germane to the theme, purpose or subject of the initiative measure as originally proposed .

I am the proponent of the measure and request that the Attorney General prepare a circulating title and summary of the measure as provided by law, using the amended language.

Thank you for your time and attention processing my request.

Sincerely,
~~
Thomas W. Hiltachk
ATTACHMENT #1

2 1 -0 0 4 2 Arndt. # /
The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act [Deleted codified text is denoted in strikeout. Added codified text is denoted by italics and underline.] Section 1. Title
This Act shall be known, and may be cited as, the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act.

Section 2. Findings and Declarations
(a) Californians are overtaxed. We pay the nation's highest state income tax, sales tax, and gasoline tax. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, California's combined state and local tax burden is the highest in the nation. Despite this, and despite two consecutive years of obscene revenue surpluses, state politicians in 2021 alone introduced legislation to raise more than $234 billion in new and higher taxes and fees.
(b) Taxes are only part of the reason for California's rising cost-of-living crisis. Californians pay billions more in hidden "fees" passed through to consumers in the price they pay for products, services, food, fuel, utilities and housing. Since 2010, government revenue from state and local "fees" has more than doubled.
(c) California's high cost of living not only contributes to the state's skyrocketing rates of poverty and homelessness, they are the pushing working families and job-providing businesses out of the state. The most recent Census showed that California's population dropped for the first time in history, costing us a seat in Congress. In the past four years, nearly 300 major corporations relocated to other states, not counting thousands more small businesses that were forced to move, sell or close. (d) California voters have tried repeatedly, at great expense, to assert control over whether and how taxes and fees are raised. We have enacted a series of measures to make taxes more predictable, to limit what passes as a "fee," to require voter approval, and to guarantee transparency and accountability. These measures include Proposition 13 (1978), Proposition 62 (1986), Proposition 218 (1996), and Proposition 26 (2010).
(e) Contrary to the voters' intent, these measures that were designed to control taxes, spending and accountability, have been weakened and hamstrung by the Legislature, government lawyers, and the courts, making it necessary to pass yet another initiative to close loopholes and reverse hostile court decisions.

Section 3. Statement of Purpose
(a) In enacting this measure, the voters reassert their r ight to a voice and a vote on new and higher taxes by requiring any new or higher tax to be put before voters for approval. Voters also intend that all fees and other charges are passed or rejected by the voters themselves or a governing body elected by voters and not unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.
(b) Furthermore, the purpose and intent of the voters in enacting this measure is to increase transparency and accountability over higher taxes and charges by requiring any tax measure placed on the ballot- 1

either at the state or local level-to clearly state the type and rate of any tax, how long it will be in effect, and the use of the revenue generated by the tax.
(c) Furthermore, the purpose and intent of the voters in enacting this measure is to clarify that any new or increased form of state government revenue, by any name or manner of extraction paid directly or indirectly by Californians, shall be authorized only by a vote of the Legislature and signature of the Governor to ensure that the purposes for such charges are broadly supported and transparently debated. (d) Furthermore, the purpose and intent of the voters in enacting this measure is also to ensure that taxpayers have the right and ability to effectively balance new or increased taxes and other charges with the rapidly increasing costs Californians are already paying for housing, food, childca re, gasoline, energy, healthcare, education, and other basic costs of living, and to further protect the existing constitutional limit on property taxes and ensure that the revenue from such taxes remains local, without changing or superseding existing constitutional provisions contained in Section 1{c) of Article XIII A. (e) In enacting this measure, the voters also additionally intend to reverse loopholes in the legislative two­ thirds vote and voter approval requirements for government revenue increases created by the courts including, but not limited to, Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, Chamber of Commerce v. Air Resources Board, Schmeer v. Los Angeles County, Johnson v. County of Mendocino, Citizens Assn. of Sunset Beach v.

Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission, and Wilde v. City of Dunsmuir.

Section 4. Section 3 of Article XIII A of the California Constitution is amended to read:

Sec. 3(a} Every levy, charge. or exaction of any kind imposed by state law is either a tax or an exempt charge.
illlJ1l ~ Any change in state statute Jaw which results in any taxpayer paying a new or higher tax must be imposed by an act passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature, and submitted to the electorate and approved by a maiority vote, except that no new ad valorem taxes on real property, or sales or transaction taxes on the sales of real property, may be imposed. Each Act shall include:
(A) A specific duration of time that the tax will be imposed and an estimate of the annual amount expected to be derived from the tax.
(BJ A specific and legally binding and enforceable limitation on how the revenue from the tax can be spent.

If the revenue from the tax can be spent for unrestricted general revenue purposes. then a statement that the tax revenue can be spent for "unrestricted general revenue purposes " shall be included in a separate, stand-alone section . Any proposed change to the use of the revenue from the tax shall be adopted by a separate act t hat is passed by not less than two-thirds of all members elected to each of the two houses of the Legislature and submitted to the electorate and approved by a maiority vote. (2) The title and summary and ballot label or question required for a measure pursuant to the Elections Code shall. for each measure providing for the imposition of a tax, including a measure proposed by an elector pursuant to Article II, include:
{A) The type and amount or rate of the tax;
(BJ The duration of the tax: and
2

(CJ The use of the revenue derived from the tax.
(c} Any change in state law which results in any taxpayer paying a new or higher exempt charge must be imposed by an act passed by each of the two houses of the Legislature. Each act shall specify the type of exempt charge as provided in subdivision (e ), and the amount or rate of the exempt charge to be imposed.

Ml._fbt As used in this section and in Section 9 of Article II, "tax" means every aA1f levy, charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by the State state law that is not an exempt charge. e1 viaeEl to tl:iose not et:iargeEI, anEI whiel:i aoes not e1 ,• ane 3

that the manner in •Nhiel.:i these cests are allecated ts a pa·1er bear a fair er reasenable relatienshi13 ts the 13a·1or's b1:1relens on, or benefits reeei11eel from, the go•.ieFRmental actit.iit'( (2) The retention ofrevenue by, or the payment to. a non-governmental entity ofa levv. charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by state law, shall not be a factor in determining whether the levy. charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge.
(3) The characterization of a levy, charge, or exaction of any kind as being voluntary, or paid in exchange for a benefit, privilege, allowance, authorization, or asset, shall not be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or an exempt charge. /4} The use of revenue derived from the levy, charge or exaction shall be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge. (h) As used in this section:
(1) "Actual cost" of providing a service or product means: (i) the minimum amount necessary to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service or product to the payor, and {ii) where the amount charged is not used by the government for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In computing "actual cost" the maximum amount that may be imposed is the actual cost less all other sources of revenue including, but not limited to taxes, other exempt charges, grants, and state or federal funds received to provide such service or product.
(2) "Extend" includes, but is not limited to, doing any of the following with respect to a tax or exempt charge: lengthening its duration. delaying or eliminating its expiration, expanding its application to a new territory or class ofpayor, or expanding the base to which its rate is applied. (3) "Impose" means adopt, enact, reenact, create, establish, collect, increase or extend. (4) "State law" includes, but is not limited to. any state statute, state regulation, state executive order. state resolution, state ruling, state opinion Jetter, or other legal authority or interpretation adopted, enacted. enforced, issued, or implemented by the legislative or executive branches of state government. "State law" does not include actions taken by the Regents of the University of California, Trustees of the California State University, or the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges.

Section 5. Section 1 of Article XIII C of the California Constitution is amended, to read:

Sec. 1. Definitions. As used in this article:
{a) "Actual cost" of providing a service or product means: (i) the minimum amount necessary to reimburse the government for the cost of providing the service or product to the payor. and {ii) where the amount charged is not used by the government for any purpose other than reimbursing that cost. In computing "actual cost" the maximum amount that may be imposed is the actual cost less all other sources of revenue including, but not limited to taxes. other exempt charges, grants, and state or federal funds received to provide such service or product.
(b) "Extend" includes, but is not limited to. doing any of the following with respect to a tax. exempt charge, or Article XIII D assessment. fee, or charge: lengthening its duration, delaying or eliminating its expiration. expanding its application to a new territory or class of payor, or expanding the base to which its rate is applied.
4

.lfl..W 11General tax" means any tax imposed for general governmental purposes. (d} "Impose" means adopt, enact, reenact, create, establish, collect, increase, or extend. {clJb} "Local government" means any county, city, city and county, including a charter city or county, any special district, or any other local or regional governmental entity, or an elector pursuant to Article fl or the initiative power provided by a charter or statute.
(f) "Local law" includes. but is not limited to, any ordinance, resolution, regulation. ruling, opinion letter, or other legal authority or interpretation adopted, enacted, enforced, issued, or implemented by a local government.
{gl_{t} "Special district" means an agency of the State, formed pursuant to general law or a special act, for the local performance of governmental or proprietary functions with limited geographic boundaries including, but not limited to, school districts and redevelopment agencies. f11L{d} "Special tax" means any tax imposed for specific purposes, including a tax imposed for specific purposes, which is placed into a general fund.
111 i@} As used in this article, and in Section 9 of Article II, "tax" means every aRV-levy, charge, or exaction of any kind, imposed by a local go,;ernmeRt law that is not an exempt charge., exeept tl=le fellowiRg:
(i) As used in this section, "exempt charge" means only the following:
(1) A cl=large imposeel fer a speeifie beAefit eoAferreel or pri,;ilege graAteel eliFeetl')' to tl=le pa1,ior tl=lat is Rot pre1,•ieleel to these Rot ehargea, aA£l which £lees Rot exeeeel tl=le reaseAable costs to tl=le loeal gm,·ernFAeAt of conferriAg the beAefit or graAting tl:1e pri¥ilege.
ill R} A reasonable charge imposes for a specific local government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasoAable actual costs to the local government of providing the service or product. fl1 WA charge im13ose£l for the reasonable regulatory costs to a local government for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders, and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof.

W {4t A reasonable charge imposeel for entrance to or use of local government property, or the purchase, rental, or lease of local government property.

Ml. fSt A fine, or penalty, or other FAOA@tar,· eharge including any applicable interest for nonpayment thereat imposed by the judicial branch of government or a local government administrative enforcement agency pursuant to adiudicatorv due process, as a res1,1lt of to punish a violation of law. ill -f6t A charge imposed as a condition of property development. No levv, charge, or exaction regulating or related to vehicle miles traveled may be imposed as a condition of property development or occupanc y. f.i1 f7t An AssessFAeRts a Rel property relate el fees assessment. fee. or charge imJ;1oseel iA aeeoraanee witl=l the pro¥isio A5 of subject to Article XI 11 D, or an assessment imposed upon a business in a tourism marketing district, a parking and business improvement area, or a property and business improvement district. 5

(7) A charge imposed for a specific health care service provided directly to the payor and that is not provided to those not charged. and which does not exceed the reasonable costs to the local government of providing the health care service. As used in this paragraph, a "health care service" means a service licensed or exempt from licensure by the state pursuant to Chapters 1. 1.3, or 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code.

The local government bears the b1:1rden of proving by a preponderance of the e .. ·ielence that a lew, charge, or other exaction is not a ta1<, that the amo1:1nt is no more than necessaPJ' to cover the reasonable costs of the go•,ernfflental acti•.«ity anel that tJ:ie manner in which those costs are allocateel to a pa•ror bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the pa•ror's blslrdens on, or bene:fits receiveel from, the go1a1ernmental acfa•ity.

Section 6. Section 2 of Article XIII C of the California Constitution is amended to read :

Sec. 2. Local Government Tax Limitation. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution:
(a) Every levy. charge. or exaction of any kind imposed by local law is either a tax or an exempt charge. All taxes imposed by any local government shall be deemed to be either general taxes or special taxes. Special purpose districts or agencies, including school districts, shall have no power to levy general taxes. (b) No local Jaw go,.·ernment whether proposed by the governing body or by an elector, may impose, extend, or increase any general tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a majority vote. A general tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved. The election required by this subdivision shall be consolidated with a regularly scheduled general election for members of the governing body of the local government, except in cases of emergency declared by a unanimous vote of the governing body. (c) An•r general tax imposed, el<tended, or increaseel, •.-.iitho1:1t •.·oter approval, lay any local go,.·ernment on or after Janlslary 1, 1995, ana prior ta the effecti,.·e date of this article, shall contin1:1e to be imposed only if appro,.·ea b1• a majority vote of the voters voting in an election OR the issye of the in:iposition, whicl::i election sl::iall be l::ield witl::iin t•Ne 1•ears ef the effectii.ie date of this article and in com13liance with slslbdi\·isien (b}. {El) No local law government. whether proposed by the governing body or by an elector. may impose, eMteRd, er increase any special tax unless and until that tax is submitted to the electorate and approved by a two-thirds vote. A special tax shall not be deemed to have been increased if it is imposed at a rate not higher than the maximum rate so approved. {d) The title and summary and ballot label or question required for a measure pursuant to th e Elections Code shall. for each measure providing for the imposition of a tax, include:
(1) The type and amount or rate of the tax;
(2) the duration of the tax; and
(3) The use of the revenue derived from the tax. If the proposed tax is a general tax. the phrase "for general government use" shall be required, and no advisory measure may appear on the same ballot that would indicate that the revenue from the general tax will. could. or should be used for a specific purpose. (e) Only the governing body of a local government. other than an elector pursuant to Article II or the initiative power provided by a charter or statute. shall have the authority to impose any exempt charge.

The governing body shall impose an exempt charge by an ordinance specifying the type of exempt charge 6

as provided in Section l(i) and the amount or rate of the exempt charge to be imposed. and passed by the governing body. This subdivision shall not apply to charges specified in paragraph (7) of subdivision (i) of Section 1.
ff) No amendment to a Charter which provides for the imposition, extension, or increase of a tax or exempt charge shall be submitted to or approved by the electors. nor shall any such amendment to a Charter hereafter submitted to or approved by the electors become effective for any purpose. (q) Any tax or exempt charge adopted after January 1, 2022, but prior to the effective date of this act, that was not adopted in compliance with the requirements of this section is void 12 months after the effective date of this act unless the tax or exempt charge is reenacted in compliance with the requirements of this section.
{h)(1) The focal government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that a levy, charge or exaction is an exempt charge and not a tax. The local government bears the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the amount of the exempt charge is reasonable and that the amount charged does not exceed the actual cost of providing the service or product to the payor. (2} The retention of revenue by, or the payment to, a non-governmental entity of a levy. charge, or exaction of any kind imposed by a local law, shall not be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge.
(3) The characterization of a levy. charge. or exaction of any kind imposed by a local law as being paid in exchange for a benefit. privilege, allowance, authorization, or asset, shall not be factors in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or an exempt charge. (4) The use of revenue derived from the levy, charge or exaction shall be a factor in determining whether the levy, charge, or exaction is a tax or exempt charge.

Section 7. Section 3 of Article XIII D of the California Constitution is amended, to read:

Sec. 3. Property Taxes, Assessments, Fees and Charges Limited (a) No tax, assessment, fee, 6f charge, or surcharge, including a surcharge based on the value ofpropertv, shall be assessed 13y a Ry ageRC'f upon any parcel of property or upon any person as an incident of property ownership except:
(1) The ad valorem property tax impeseEI p1::1rsYaRt te described in Section 1(a) of Article XIII and Section 1/a) of Article XIII A, and described and enacted pursuant to the voter approval requirement in Section 1/b) Q[Article XII I A.
(2) Any special non-ad valorem tax receiving a two-thirds vote of qualified electors pursuant to Section 4 of Article XIII A, or after receiving a two-thirds vote of those authorized to vote in a community facilities district by the Legislature pursuant to statute as it existed on December 31, 2021. (3) Assessments as provided by this article.
(4) Fees or charges for property related services as provided by this article. 7

(b) For purposes of this article, fees for the provision of electrical or gas service shall not be deemed charges or fees imposed as an incident of property ownership.

Section 8. Sections 1 and 14 of Article XIII are amended to read:

Sec. 1 Unless otherwise provided by this Constitution or the laws of the United States:
(a) All property is taxable and shall be assessed at the same percentage of fair market value. When a value standard other than fair market value is prescribed by this Constitution or by statute authorized by this Constitution, the same percentage shall be applied to determine the assessed value. The value to which the percentage is applied, whether it be the fair market value or not, shall be known for property tax purposes as the full value.
(b) All property so assessed shall be taxed in proportion to its full value. (c) All proceeds from the taxation of property shall be apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

Sec. 14. All property taxed by state or local government shall be assessed in the county, city, and district in which it is situated. Notwithstanding any other provision of/aw, such state or local property taxes shall be apportioned according to law to the districts within the counties.

Section 9. General Provisions
A. This Act shall be liberally construed in order to effectuate its purposes.

B. (1) In the event that this initiative measure and another initiative measure or measures relating to state or local requirements for the imposition, adoption, creation, or establishment of taxes, charges, and other revenue measures shall appear on the same statewide election ballot, the other i ni tiative measure or measures shall be deemed to be in conflict with this measure. In the event that this initiative measure receives a greater number of affirmative votes, the provisions of this measure shall prevail in their entirety, and the provisions ofthe other initiative measure or measures shall be null and void. (2) In furtherance of this provision, the voters hereby declare that this measure conflicts with the provisions of the "Housing Affordabili t y and Tax Cut Act of 2022" and "The Tax Cut and Housing Affordability Act," both of which would impose a new state property tax (called a "surcharge") on certain real property, and where the revenue derived from the tax is provided to the State, rather than retained in the county in which the property is situated and for the use of the county and cities and districts within the county, in direct violation of the provisions of this initiative. (3) If this initiative measure is approved by the voters, but superseded in whole or in part by any other conflicting initiative measure approved by the voters at the same election, and such conflicting initiative is later held invalid, this measure shall be self-executing and given full force and effect.

C. The provisions of this Act are severable. If any portion, section, subdivision, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word, or application of this Act is for any reason held to be invalid by a decis ion of any court of competent jurisdiction, that decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Act. The People of the State of California hereby declare that they would have adopted this Act and each and every portion, section, subdivision, paragraph, clause, sentence, phrase, word, and application not 8

declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of this Act or application thereof would be subsequently declared invalid.

D. If this Act is approved by the voters of the State of California and thereafter subjected to a legal challenge alleging a violation of state or federal law, and both the Governor and Attorney General refuse to defend this Act, then the following actions shall be taken:
(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Chapter 6 of Part 2 of Division 3 ofTitle 2 of the Government Code or any other law, the Attorney General shall appoint independent counsel to faithfully and vigorously defend this Act on behalf of the State of California. (2) Before appointing or thereafter substituting independent counsel, the Attorney General shall exercise due diligence in determining the qualifications of independent counsel and shall obtain written affirmation from independent counsel that independent counsel will faithfully and vigorously defend this Act. The written affirmation shall be made publicly available upon request. (3) A continu ous appropriation is hereby made from the General Fund to the Controller, without regard to fiscal years, in an amount necessary to cover the costs of retaining independent counsel to faithfully and vigorously defend this Act on behalf of the State of California. (4 ) Nothing in this section shall prohibit the proponents of this Act, or a bona fide taxpayers association, from intervening to defend this Act.
9

44-950 Eldorado Drive ~ Indian Wells, California 92210-7497 ~ V (760) 346-2489 F (760) 346-0407 www.IndianWells.com
February 21, 2023
Bismarck Obando
Director of Public Affairs, League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Letter Opposing Initiative 21-0042A1
On March 2, the City of Indian Wells will be voting to oppose Initiative 21-0042A1, a deceptive, developer-sponsored proposition aimed for the November 2024 statewide ballot that would significantly jeopardize cities’ ability to provide essential services and infrastructure for our residents.

The measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and projects and would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures where voters can express a preference on how they want their local tax dollars spent.

This measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including impacts on local infrastructure and our environment.

This measure also may make it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods.

Unless defeated, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to local services at risk, and could force cuts to fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more.

The Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act will take billions of dollars away from local government services statewide, and Indian Wells is no exception. Indian Wells receives revenues in categories discussed in the Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act. These categories include (1) fees and charges, (2) taxes, and (3) fines and penalties. Collectively, these revenues comprise 94% of all Indian Wells’ General and Special Revenue Funds. Voter limitations, sunset provisions, and actual cost limitations not only serve to limit revenues in Indian Wells, but they also limit voter needs.

ATTACHMENT #2

44-950 Eldorado Drive ~ Indian Wells, California 92210-7497 ~ V (760) 346-2489 F (760) 346-0407 www.IndianWells.com
Furthermore, the Act creates unnecessary administrative and financial burdens to maintain compliance.

The measure benefits wealthy corporations and real estate developers while decimating our local communities and neighborhoods.

You may list the City of Indian Wells in formal opposition to Initiative #21-0042A1 and include our city as part of the growing coalition of public safety, labor, local government, infrastructure advocates, and other organizations throughout the state opposed to this deceptive proposition.

Sincerely,

Donna Griffith, Mayor
City of Indian Wells

cc: Assembly Member Greg Wallis
Senator Steve Padilla
Congressman Ken Calvert
Joe A. Gonsalves & Sons
Erin Sasse, League Regional Manager
League of California Cities, [email protected]

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-02

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS, CALIFORNIA, OPPOSING INITIATIVE 21-0042A1 AND JOINGING THE NO ON INITIATIVE 21-0042A1 COALITION
WHEREAS, an association representing California’s wealthiest corporations and developers is spending millions to push a deceptive proposition aimed for the November 2024 statewide ballot; and
WHEREAS, the measure includes undemocratic provisions that would make it more difficult for local voters to pass measures needed to fund local services and infrastructure, and would limit voter input by prohibiting local advisory measures where voters provide direction on how they want their local tax dollars spent; and
WHEREAS, the measure creates new constitutional loopholes that allow corporations to pay far less than their fair share for the impacts they have on our communities, including local infrastructure and our environment; and
WHEREAS, the measure may make it much more difficult for state and local regulators to issue fines and levies on corporations that violate laws intended to protect our environment, public health and safety, and our neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the measure puts billions of dollars currently dedicated to local services at risk and could force cuts to fire and emergency response, law enforcement, public health, parks, libraries, affordable housing, services to support homeless residents, mental health services, and more.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY OPPOSES INITIATIVE 21-0042A1;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Indian Wells will join the No on Initiative 21-0042A1 coalition, a growing coalition of public safety, education, labor, local government, and infrastructure groups throughout the state.

We direct staff to email a copy of this adopted resolution to the League of California Cities at [email protected].

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Indian Wells, California, at a regular meeting held on this 2nd day of March 2023. _________________________________

DONNA GRIFFITH
MAYOR
ATTACHMENT #3

City of Indian Wells
Resolution No. 2023-02

CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 2023-02

I, Angelica Avila, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Indian Wells, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that City Council is comprised of five (5) members; that the above and foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Indian Wells on the 2nd day of March 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

___________________________________ _________________________________

ANGELICA AVILA TODD LEISHMAN

CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY

INDIAN WELLS CITY COUNCIL
March 2, 2023

To: City Council
From: Finance Department
Prepared by: Kevin McCarthy, City Finance Director
Subject: Re-Adopts the City's Investment Policy

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Council RE-ADOPTS the City’s Investment Policy with no amendments.

SUMMARY:

The Finance Committee held a public meeting on February 21, 2023, to review and discuss the investment policy. After seeking public input and discussion, the Finance Committee recommends that the City Council adopt the investment policy as presented.

This annual requirement provides for public transparency of qualified investments. In addition, it ensures the City invests its funds by State law and with policies and standards established by the City Council.

The City Treasurer is responsible for investing all City Funds in accordance with the California Government Code, Sections 53600 et seq. and 53635 et seq. In addition, investment practices shall conform to the prudent person rule (Civil Code Sect. 2261, et seq.).

To demonstrate due diligence and “best” practices, the City’s investment policy is certified by California Municipal Treasurer’s Association (CMTA). The CMTA Certification Program provides professional guidance to improve investment policies in California’s public-sector agencies and districts.

To protect against fraud or embezzlement, or losses caused by the collapse of an individual securities dealer, all securities owned by the City are held in safekeeping by a third-party bank trust department, acting as agent for the City under the terms of a custody agreement. All trades executed by a dealer settle delivery vs. payment (DVP) through the City’s safekeeping agent. Securities held in the custody of the City are independently audited annually to verify investment holdings.

Under the Policy, the City Treasurer provides monthly Treasurer’s Reports for Council consideration during a public meeting. The securities held by the City must comply with Authorized and Suitable Investments at the time of purchase.

Background:

The Government Code requires the Council to review and readopt the City investment policy annually. In addition, the City Treasurer reviews each section of the policy verifies compliance with the State code, and makes recommendations that enhance investment policy standards and procedures. The City Treasurer confirmed compliance with Government Code and the California Municipal Treasurer’s Association.

The City Treasurer is charged with the responsibility for maintaining custody of all public funds and securities belonging to or under the control of the City; and for the deposit and investment of those funds following the principles of sound treasury management, applicable laws, and ordinances, and with this investment policy.

The City Treasurer prepares monthly Treasurer Reports to demonstrate compliance with the investment policy subject to City Council approval and public review. In addition, the City investment policy and investments are subject to external auditor review and inspection during the audit. The investment policy and Treasurer Reports are available online at http://www.cityofindianwells.org/cityhall/depts/finance .

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

This action has been reviewed per the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State and local CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental regulations. The City, acting as the Lead Agency, determined that the ordinance is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment as there is no possibility that the action would result in a significant environmental impact, and because it does not constitute a “project” as defined in Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Indian Wells Statement of Investment Policy

City of Indian Wells
Statement of
Investment Policy
Readopted March 2, 2023
ATTACHMENT #1

City of Indian Wells
Statement of Investment Policy

Page | 1
Table of Contents

Investment Policy Certification ....................................................................................................... 2

Policy 1.0 ............................................................................................................................... 3

Scope 2.0 ............................................................................................................................... 3

Fiscal Prudence 3.0 .......................................................................................................................... 4

Objective 4.0 ............................................................................................................................... 5

Delegation of Authority 5.0 ............................................................................................................. 6

Ethics and Conflicts of Interests 6.0 ................................................................................................. 6

Authorized Financial Dealers and Institutions 7.0 ........................................................................... 7

Safekeeping and Custody 8.0 ........................................................................................................... 7

Investment Diversification and Percentage Limitations 9.0 ............................................................ 8

Authorized and Suitable Investments 10.0 ...................................................................................... 9

Prohibited Investments 11.0 .......................................................................................................... 10

Review of Investment Portfolio 12.0 ............................................................................................. 10

Investment Pools/ Money Market Funds 13.0 .............................................................................. 10

Collateralization 14.0 .................................................................................................................... 11

Maximum Maturities 15.0 ............................................................................................................. 11

Internal Control 16.0 ...................................................................................................................... 12

Maturity Structure 17.0 ................................................................................................................. 12

Performance Standards 18.0 ......................................................................................................... 12

Reporting 19.0 ............................................................................................................................. 12

Investment Policy Adoption 20.0 ................................................................................................... 13

Glossary of Investment Terms ....................................................................................................... 14

City of Indian Wells
Statement of Investment Policy

Page | 2
Investment Policy Certification

City of Indian Wells
Statement of Investment Policy

Page | 3

1.0 Policy

It is the policy of the City of Indian Wells to invest public funds in a manner that will provide the maximum security of the City’s capital while meeting the daily cash flow demands of the City.

The policy conforms to all state and local statutes governing the investment of public funds; and beyond that to maximize return within an acceptable and defined level of risk. The City’s policy is to deposit and invest public funds in a manner that shall provide the following:

• Safety of principal
• Liquidity to meet all City obligations and requirements that may be reasonably anticipated
• A risk-based market rate of return

This policy intends to provide guidelines for the prudent investment of the City's cash in all Funds and outline the policies for maximizing the efficiency of the City's cash management system.

2.0 Scope

This Investment policy applies to all financial assets of the City of Indian Wells. These funds are accounted for in the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and include the following:

• The General Fund
• Special Revenue Funds
• Debt Service Funds
• Capital Project Funds
• Agency Funds

Included in these funds are the following Component Units of the City of Indian Wells; and, accordingly, are encompassed by this investment policy:

• The City of Indian Wells Successor Agency
• The City of Indian Wells Housing Authority
• The City of Indian Wells’ Fire Access Maintenance District • The City of Indian Wells Lighting and Landscaping District(s) • The City of Indian Wells Assessment District(s)

City of Indian Wells
Statement of Investment Policy

Page | 4

The City’s Investment Policy does not apply to the following:

• Funds held in trust in the City’s name in pension or other post-retirement benefit programs;
• Cash and Investments held instead of retention by banks or other financial institutions for construction projects;
• Short or long-term loans made to other entities by the City; and Short term (Due to/from) or long-term (Advances from/to) obligations made between the City and its funds.

Investment of Bond Proceeds

California Code Section 5922 (d) governs the investment of bond proceeds and reserve funds in accordance with bond indenture provisions.

• Arbitrage Requirement - The US Tax Reform Act of 1986 requires the City to perform arbitrage calculations as required and return excess earnings to the US Treasury from investments of proceeds of bond issues sold after the effective date of this law. These arbitrage calculations may be contracted with an outside source to provide the necessary technical assistance to comply with this regulation. Investable funds subject to the 1986 Tax Reform Act will be kept segregated from other funds, and records will be held to facilitate the calculations.

The City’s investment position relative to the new arbitrage restrictions is to continue pursuing the maximum yield on applicable investments while ensuring the safety of capital and liquidity.

It is the City's position to continue maximization of yield and to rebate excess earnings, if necessary.

3.0 Fiscal Prudence

When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the City, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the City.

Investments shall be made with judgment and care, under the circumstances then prevailing, which persons of prudence, direction, and intelligence exercise in the management of their affairs, not for speculation, but for investment, considering the probable safety of their capital as well as the probable income to be derived.

City of Indian Wells
Statement of Investment Policy

Page | 5
At the time of purchase, the City intends to hold all investments until maturity to ensure the return of all invested principal. However, staff anticipates that market prices of securities purchased will vary depending on economic conditions, interest rate fluctuations, or individual security credit factors. Such temporary variations in market value will inevitably result in measurable gains or losses at any specific time.

The City Treasurer is assigned to manage the investment portfolio, acting within the intent and scope of the investment policy and exercising due diligence. The City Treasurer shall be relieved of personal responsibility and liability for an individual security’s credit risk or market price changes, provided deviations from expectations are reported promptly, and appropriate action is taken to control adverse developments.

4.0 Objective

The principal factors of Safety, Credit Risk, Market Rate Risk, Liquidity, and Return on Investment shall be considered, in the specific order listed, when making investment decisions.

1. Safety of Principal – The principal's safety is the investment program's foremost objective. Accordingly, investments in the City of Indian Wells seek to ensure capital preservation in the overall portfolio. Thus, the City will mitigate credit and interest rate risks to obtain this objective.

2. Credit Risk - Credit risk is the risk of loss due to the security issue’s failure. Credit risk will be mitigated by:

a. Limiting investments to the safest types of securities. b. By pre-qualifying the financial institutions with which it will do business. c. By diversifying the investment portfolio so that potential losses on individual securities do not unduly harm the City’s capital base and cash flow.

3. Market Rate Risk - Market Risk, defined as market value fluctuations due to overall changes in interest rates, shall be mitigated by limiting the average maturity of the investment portfolio to less than five years, with a maximum maturity of any one security of 10 years. In addition, the portfolio shall be structured based on liquidity needs to avoid the need to sell securities before maturity.

4. Liquidity - The investment portfolio will remain liquid to meet all operating requirements, which might be reasonably anticipated. This is accomplished by striving to have securities mature while cash is needed to meet anticipated demands (static liquidity). Additionally, since all possible cash demands cannot be anticipated, the portfolio should consist mainly of securities with active secondary or resale markets (dynamic liquidity).

City of Indian Wells
Statement of Investment Policy

Page | 6

5. Return on Investment - The investment portfolio shall be designed to attain a market rate of return throughout budgetary and economic cycles, considering the City’s investment risk constraints and the cash flow characteristics of the portfolio. Return on Investment is of secondary importance compared to the safety and liquidity objectives described above. Accordingly, investments are limited to relatively minimal risk securities, as herein defined, in anticipation of earning a fair return relative to the risk assumed. While it occasionally may be necessary or strategically prudent of the City to sell a security before maturity to meet unanticipated cash needs or to restructure the portfolio, this policy prohibits explicitly trading securities for the sole purpose of speculating on the future direction of interest rates.

5.0 Delegation of Authority

Authority to manage the investment program is derived from California Government Code Section 53600, et seq.; the City’s Municipal Code; and City Council’s Policy Manual.

Responsibilities of the Finance Department

The Finance Department is responsible for maintaining custody of all public funds and securities belonging to or under the control of the City and for the deposit and investment of those funds in accordance with the principles of sound treasury management, applicable laws and ordinances, and this investment policy.

Responsibilities of the City Treasurer

The City Treasurer is responsible for investing all City Funds in accordance with the California Government Code, Sections 53600 et seq. and 53635 et seq. In addition, investment practices shall conform to the prudent man rule (Civil Code Sect. 2261, et seq.).

The City Treasurer shall establish procedures for the operation of the investment program consistent with this investment policy. Procedures should include reference to safekeeping, repurchase agreements, wire transfer agreements, collateral/depository agreements, and banking service contracts. Such procedures shall include explicit delegation of authority to persons responsible for investment transactions. The City Treasurer shall be responsible for all transactions undertaken and shall establish a system of controls to regulate the activities of subordinate officials. No person may engage in an investment transaction except as provided under the terms of this policy and the procedures established by the City Treasurer.

6.0 Ethics and Conflicts of Interests

Elected officials and employees involved in the investment process shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with the proper execution of the investment program or impair their ability to make impartial decisions.

City of Indian Wells
Statement of Investment Policy

Page | 7
Employees and Elected officials shall disclose to the City Manager any material interests in financial institutions that conduct business with the City of Indian Wells. They shall further disclose any prominent personal financial/investment positions that could be related to the performance of the City’s portfolio. Employees and Elected officials shall subordinate their investment transactions to those of the City of Indian Wells, particularly about the time of purchases and sales.

7.0 Authorized Financial Dealers and Institutions

Authorized Financial Dealers and Institutions defined under California Government Code Section 53601.5 shall be allowed to conduct business with the City. Authorized Financial Dealers and Institutions defined under California Government Code Section 53601.5 shall be defined as an institution licensed by the State of California as a broker-dealer, as defined in Section 25004 of the California Corporations Code, or a member of a federally regulated securities exchange, a national or state-chartered bank, a savings association or federal association or a brokerage firm designated as a primary government dealer by the Federal Reserve Bank.

The City Treasurer will maintain a list of financial institutions authorized to provide investment services conforming to the California Government Code Section 53601.5. These may include “primary” dealers or regional dealers that qualify under Securities & Exchange Commission Rule 15C3-1 (uniform net Capital rule). No public deposit shall be made except in a qualified public depository established by state laws.

All financial institutions and broker/dealers who desire to become qualified bidders for investment transactions must supply the City Treasurer with the following: audited financial statements, proof of National Association of Security Dealers certification, proof of State of California registration, and certification of having read the City’s investment policy. In addition, a current (for the fiscal year most recently ended) audited financial statement must be on file for each financial institution and broker/dealer in which the City invests.

8.0 Safekeeping and Custody

To protect against fraud, embezzlement, or losses caused by the collapse of an individual securities dealer, all securities owned by the City shall be held in safekeeping by a third-party bank trust department acting as an agent for the City under the terms of a custody agreement.

All trades executed by a dealer will settle delivery vs. payment (DVP) through the City’s safekeeping agent. Securities held in custody for the City shall be independently audited annually to verify investment holdings. The only exception to the preceding shall be depository accounts and securities purchases made with LAIF, time certificates of deposit, and money market mutual funds since the purchased securities are not deliverable.

City of Indian Wells
Statement of Investment Policy

Page | 8

9.0 Investment Diversification and Percentage Limitations

Investments shall be diversified among institutions, types of securities, and maturities to maximizing safety and yield with changing market conditions. The City Treasurer will diversify investments by investment type and institution in accordance with the limitations of the authorized investments.

Diversification
• No more than 70% of the City’s total investment portfolio will be invested in a single security type or with a single financial institution, quantified at the time of purchase. • The City Treasurer shall take great care not to exceed the maximum 70% diversification limit; however, due to normal fluctuations in the amount of cash held in Local Agency Investment Funds (LAIF) or other short-term investments, the City may at times temporarily exceed the maximum 70% diversification limit.

Percentage Limitations
• The City Treasurer shall not exceed the maximum investment percentage of the portfolio by investment type at the time of purchase of the security. Due to frequent fluctuations in the amount of cash held in LAIF or other short-term investments, the City may sometimes temporally exceed the portfolio's maximum investment percentage by investment type. The City Treasurer shall not be required to sell any investment type to maintain the maximum investment percentage of the portfolio by investment type limit.

City of Indian Wells
Statement of Investment Policy

Page | 9

10. Authorized and Suitable Investments

Investments of City funds are governed by the California Government Code Sections 53600 et seq, as amended from time to time.

Investment Type Maximum Maturity

Maximum
Percentage
of Portfolio
Maximum par
value per name
Credit/Minimum Quality Requirements
US Treasury Bills,
Bonds, and Notes
Five years – See
Maximum Maturity
requirements
0-70% None Full faith and credit of the United States
Government

Federal Agency
Securities
Five years – See
Maximum Maturity
requirements
0-70% None Implied guarantee of the US Government.

Federal Agency Securities have an AA+
rating.

Local Agency Bonds Five years – See
Maximum Maturity
requirements
0-30% $5,000,000 Shall be rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by a nationally
recognized rating service such as S&P or
Moodys.

State of California
Obligations
Five years – See
Maximum Maturity
requirements
0-30% $5,000,000 Shall be rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by a nationally
recognized rating service such as S&P or
Moodys.

CA Local Agency
Obligations
Five years – See
Maximum Maturity
requirements
0-30% $5,000,000 Shall be rated in a rating category of “A” or its equivalent or better by a nationally
recognized rating service such as S&P or
Moodys.

Money Market Funds N/A 0-20% 10% per single
issue
Multiple requirements, including the
highest ranking by two nationally
recognized rating agencies, must have a
fund advisor registered with the SEC, have
more than $500 million under
management, etc.

Certificates of Deposit
– Private Placement
Certificate of Deposit
Account Registry
Service (CDARS),
Negotiable Certificates
of Deposit, Non-
negotiable Certificates
of Deposit
Five years 0-30% $250,000 per
Issuer
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
(FDIC) Insured limited to $250,000 per
issuer.

Repurchase
Agreements
30 days 0-10% $2,000,000 Signed Security Loan Agreement in the file. Reverse Repurchase Agreements are
specifically not authorized under this
investment policy.

Local Agency
Investment Fund
N/A 0-70% $30,000,000
(per entity)
Investment of funds in the California LAIF,
which allows the State Treasurer to invest
through the Pooled Money Investment
Account

Medium-term
Corporate Bonds

Five years 0-30% 3,000,000 up to
5% per Issuer
Shall be rated in a rating category of “A”
or its equivalent or better by a nationally
recognized rating service such as S&P or
Moodys.

City of Indian Wells
Statement of Investment Policy

Page | 10

11.0 Prohibited Investments

Under California Government Code Section 53601.6, as amended from time to time, the City shall not invest any funds in inverse floaters, range notes, or interest-only strips derived from a pool of mortgages. In addition, the City shall not invest funds in any security that could result in zero interest accrual if held to maturity.

12.0 Review of Investment Portfolio
The City’s securities must comply with Authorized and Suitable Investments at the time of purchase. In addition, the City Treasurer shall establish procedures to report to the City Council major and critical noncompliance incidents identified through the portfolio review.

13.0 Investment Pools/ Money Market Funds

The City may invest in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), a special fund in the California State Treasury created and governed pursuant to Government Code Sections 16429.1 et seq.

LAIF limits investments to $75 million per account from anyone public agency by State law; however, the City’s investment policy limits investments to $30 million per account.

The California Government Code states that money placed for deposit in LAIF is in trust in the custody of the State Treasurer and cannot be borrowed or withheld from the City. Further, the right to withdraw deposited money from the LAIF upon demand may not be altered, impaired, or denied by any state official or agency based upon the State’s failure to adopt a budget by July 1 of each new fiscal year.

A thorough investigation of a pool/fund is required before investing, and continually. This investigation aims to determine the suitability of a pool or fund and evaluate the risk of placing funds with that pool or fund.

The investigation will, at a minimum, obtain the following:

• A description of eligible investment securities and a written statement of investment policy and objectives.
• A description of interest calculations, how they are distributed, and how gains and losses are treated.
• A description of how the securities are safeguarded (including the settlement processes), how often the securities are priced, and the program is audited. • A description of who may invest in the program, how often, and what size deposit and withdrawal are allowed.
• A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings. • A description of how the pool/fund maintains reserves, retained earnings, etc., or is all income after expenses distributed to participants.

City of Indian Wells
Statement of Investment Policy

Page | 11
• A fee schedule that discloses when and how fees are assessed. • The eligibility of the pool/fund to invest in bond proceeds and a description of its practices.

Money market mutual funds must be registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and comply with rule 2a7 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. In addition, the dollar- weighted average maturity of the portfolio shall be less than ninety (90) days, and the portfolio is managed to maintain a one-dollar ($1.00) share price.

The fund shall meet either of the following criteria:

• Attained the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two Nationally Recognized Statistical-Rating Organizations • Retained an investment adviser registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years of experience managing money market mutual funds with assets under management of more than five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000).

14.0 Collateralization

Collateralization will be required on Repurchase Agreements.

• Repurchase Agreements - To anticipate market changes and provide security for all funds, the collateralization level for repurchase agreements will be 102% of the market value of principal and accrued interest. The collateral cannot be mortgage-backed securities.

15.0 Maximum Maturities

The City of Indian Wells will attempt to match its investments with anticipated cash flow requirements. Therefore, to the extent possible, the City Treasurer shall maintain investments in the portfolio equal to two years of current General Fund operating reserves maturing at no more than five (5) years from the date of purchase.

Once this requirement is met, a maximum of 30% of the portfolio may be invested for more than five (5) years but not to exceed ten (10) years consisting of those investments listed in Government Code Section 53601 where there is no limitation specified therein regarding the term or remaining maturity of the instrument. Investments more significant than five (5) years from the date of purchase shall be brought to the City Council for review and approval before purchase. In addition, reserve funds from Bond proceeds may be invested in securities exceeding five (5) years if the maturity of such investments is made to coincide as practicable with the expected use of funds.

City of Indian Wells
Statement of Investment Policy

Page | 12

16.0 Internal Control

The City Treasurer is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the City are protected from loss, theft, or misuse. The internal control structure is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that (1) the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived, and (2) the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management. Accordingly, the City Treasurer shall establish an annual independent review process by an external auditor. This review will provide internal control by assuring compliance with policies and procedures.

17.0 Maturity Structure

The weighted average maturity of the pooled portfolio shall be, at most, four years. In addition to the four-year maturity average, the portfolio shall be structured for liquidity purposes to maintain $5,000,000 of invested funds maturing within 360 days.

18.0 Performance Standards
The investment portfolio shall be managed in accordance with the parameters specified within this policy and always within consistently safe and prudent treasury management procedures.

Market Yield (Benchmark)
The City’s overall investment strategy is passive: Investments are generally held to maturity.

The City portfolio shall be compared to a benchmark to determine whether market yields are being achieved. The LAIF apportionment rate and the two-year U.S. Treasury Note shall be considered useful benchmarks of the City’s portfolio performance.

Marking to Market
The market value of the portfolio shall be calculated monthly. This will ensure that a review of the investment portfolio, in terms of value and price volatility, is performed. In defining market value, consideration shall be given to pronouncements from the Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) that address the reporting of investment assets and investment income for all investment portfolios held by governmental entities. The fair value of all securities reported in the City’s portfolio is based on currently quoted market prices.

19.0 Reporting

The City Treasurer shall prepare a monthly Treasurer’s Report that provides a clear picture of the status of the current investments. The Treasurer’s Report allows the City Manager and Council to ascertain whether investment activities have deviated from the City’s investment

City of Indian Wells
Statement of Investment Policy

Page | 13
policy during the reporting period. The monthly Treasurer’s Report will include the City portfolio, Fiscal Agent portfolio, and Bond Proceeds portfolio(s).

In Section 53646 of the State Government Code, the City Treasurer may submit a Treasurer’s Report to the City Council at least quarterly, within 30 days following quarter-end. However, due to the City’s limited summer public meeting schedule and the annual financial audit preparation, the 30-day reporting requirement may be challenging for the June and September quarters. Therefore, the City Treasurer shall submit an initial report of the Treasurer’s Report to the City Council for review within the 30-day limit, followed by a final report submitted to the City Council when finalized.

The following information shall be required in each monthly investment portfolio report:

• A listing of individual securities held at the end of the reporting period. • Percentage of Portfolio by Investment Type
• Investments Stated Rate and Book Value
• Unrealized gains or losses resulting from appreciation depreciation by listing securities’ cost and market value over one year in duration.
• Average rate of return on City’s investments
• Maturity aging by type of investment
• Market value of securities
• A statement of compliance with the investment policy or an explanation for non- compliance
• A statement of the City’s ability to meet its pool’s expenditure requirements for the next six months and explain why sufficient money will not be available if that is the case.

20.0 Investment Policy Adoption

The City of Indian Wells Investment Policy shall be adopted by minute order of the City Council of the City of Indian Wells. The Policy shall be reviewed annually by the City Council, and the City Council must approve any modifications made to it.

City of Indian Wells
Statement of Investment Policy

Page | 14
APPENDIX “A”

GLOSSARY OF INVESTMENT TERMS

AGENCY: A debt security issued by a federal or federally sponsored agency. Federal agencies are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. Government (i.e., Government National Mortgage Association). Federally sponsored agencies (FSA) are backed by each agency with a market perception that there is an implicit government guarantee (i.e., Federal National Mortgage Association).

ASKED PRICE: The price at which securities are offered for sale, also known as the offering price.

BENCHMARK: A comparative base for measuring the performance or risk tolerance of the investment portfolio. A model should represent a close correlation between the level of risk and the average duration of the portfolio’s investments.

BID PRICE: The price offered by a buyer of securities. (When you are selling securities, you ask for a bid.)
BOND PROCEEDS: The money paid to the issuer by the purchaser or underwriter of a new issue of municipal securities. This money is used to finance the project or purpose for which the securities were issued and to pay certain issuance costs as may be provided in the bond contract.

BOOK VALUE: The value at which debt security is shown on the holder's balance sheet. Book value is often acquisition cost plus/minus amortization and accretion, which may differ significantly from the security’s current value in the market.

BROKER: Someone who brings buyers and sellers together and is compensated for their service.

CERTIFICATE OF DEPOSIT (CD): A time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a certificate. Large-denomination CDs are typically negotiable.

COLLATERAL: Securities, evidence of a deposit, or other property that a borrower pledges to secure loan repayment. Also, it refers to securities pledged by a bank to secure deposits of public monies.

CREDIT QUALITY: The measurement of the financial strength of a bond issuer. This measurement helps an investor to understand an issuer's ability to make timely interest payments and repay the loan principal upon maturity. The higher the credit quality of a bond issuer, the lower the interest rate the issuer pays because the risk of default is lower. A Nationally Recognized Statistical-Rating Organization provides credit quality ratings.

CREDIT RISK: The risk to an investor that an issuer will default in the payment of interest and principal on security.

CUSTODIAN: A bank or other financial institution that keeps custody of stock certificates and other assets.

City of Indian Wells
Statement of Investment Policy

Page | 15
CURRENT YIELD (CURRENT RETURN): A yield calculation determined by dividing the annual interest received on a security by the current market price of that security.

DEALER: A dealer, as opposed to a broker, acts as a principal in all transactions by buying and selling for their account.

DELIVERY VERSUS PAYMENT: There are two methods of delivery of securities: delivery versus payment and delivery versus receipt. Delivery versus payment is the delivery of securities with an exchange of money for the securities. Delivery versus receipt is the delivery of security in exchange for a signed receipt.

DERIVATIVES: (1) financial instruments whose return profile is linked to, or derived from, the movement of one or more underlying indexes or security and may include a leveraging factor, or (2) financial contracts based upon notional amounts whose value is derived from an underlying index or security (interest rates, foreign exchange rates, equities, or commodities).

DIVERSIFICATION: Dividing investment funds among various security types by sector, maturity, and quality ratings to offer independent returns.

DURATION: A measure of the timing of the cash flows, such as the interest payments and the principal repayment, to be received from a given fixed-income security. This calculation is based on three variables: term to maturity, coupon rate, and yield to maturity. The duration of security is a valuable indicator of its price volatility for given changes in interest rates.

FAIR VALUE: The amount at which an investment could be exchanged in a current transaction between willing parties, other than in a forced or liquidation sale.

FEDERAL CREDIT AGENCIES: Federal government agencies are set up to supply credit to various institutions and individuals, e.g., S&Ls, small-business firms, students, farmers, farm co- operatives, and exporters.

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION (FDIC): A federal agency insures bank deposits up to $250,000 per deposit.

FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS (FHLB): Government-sponsored wholesale banks (currently 12 regional banks) that lend funds and provide correspondent bank services to member commercial banks, thrift institutions, credit unions, and insurance companies.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (FNMA): FNMA is a federal corporation working under the auspices of the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). It is the largest single provider of residential mortgage funds in the United States. Fannie Mae, as the corporation is called, is a private stockholder-owned corporation. The corporation’s purchases include a variety of adjustable mortgages and second loans, in addition to fixed-rate mortgages.

FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE (FOMC): Consists of seven members of the Federal Reserve Board and five of the twelve Federal Reserve Bank Presidents. The President of the New York Federal Reserve Bank is a permanent member, while the other Presidents serve on a rotating basis. The Committee periodically meets to set Federal Reserve guidelines regarding

City of Indian Wells
Statement of Investment Policy

Page | 16
purchases and sales of Government Securities in the open market to influence bank credit and money volume.

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM: The United States central bank was created by Congress, consisting of a seven-member Board of Governors in Washington, D.C., twelve Regional Banks, and about 5,700 commercial banks.

FINANCIAL INDUSTRY REGULATORY AUTHORITY (FINRA): A self-regulatory organization (SRO) responsible for governing business between brokers, dealers, and the investing public.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD (GASB): A standard-setting body associated with the Financial Accounting Foundation prescribes standard accounting practices for governmental units.

GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION (GNMA or Ginnie Mae): Securities influencing the volume of bank credit guaranteed by GNMA and issued by mortgage bankers, commercial banks, savings and loan associations, and other institutions. Security holder is protected by full faith and credit of the U.S. Government. Ginnie Mae securities are backed by the FHA, VA, or FMHA mortgages. The term “pass-throughs” is often used to describe Ginnie Maes.

GOVERNMENT SECURITIES: An obligation of the U.S. government, backed by the full faith and credit of the government. These securities are regarded as the highest quality investment securities available in the U.S. securities market. See "Treasury Bills, Notes, and Bonds." INTEREST RATE RISK: The risk associated with declines or rises in interest rates which cause an investment in fixed-income security to increase or decrease in value.

INTERNAL CONTROLS: An internal control structure designed to ensure that the entity’s assets are protected from loss, theft, or misuse. The internal control structure is designed to provide reasonable assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that 1) the cost of a control should not exceed the benefits likely to be derived and 2) the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management.

Internal controls should address the following points:
 Control of collusion - Collusion is a situation where two or more employees are working in conjunction to defraud their employer.
 Separation of transaction authority from accounting and record keeping - By separating the person who authorizes or performs the transaction from those who record or otherwise account for the transaction, a separation of duties is achieved.  Custodial safekeeping - Securities purchased from any bank or dealer, including appropriate collateral (as defined by state law), shall be placed with an independent third party for custodial safekeeping.
 Avoidance of physical delivery securities - Book-entry securities are much easier to transfer and account for since the actual delivery of a document never takes place.

Delivered securities must be adequately safeguarded against loss or destruction. The potential for fraud and loss increases with physically delivered securities.

City of Indian Wells
Statement of Investment Policy

Page | 17
 Clear delegation of authority to subordinate staff members - To avoid improper actions, they must clearly understand their authority and responsibilities. Clear delegation of authority also preserves the internal control structure contingent on the various staff positions and responsibilities.
 Written confirmation of transactions for investments and wire transfers - Due to the potential for error and improprieties arising from telephone and electronic transactions, all transactions should be supported by written communications and approved by the appropriate person. Written communications may be via fax if on letterhead and if the safekeeping institution has a list of authorized signatures.  Development of a wire transfer agreement with the lead bank and third-party custodian - The designated officer should ensure that an agreement will be entered into and address the following points: controls, security provisions, and responsibilities of each party making and receiving wire transfers.

LIQUIDITY: A liquid asset can be converted quickly and rapidly into cash without a substantial loss of value. In the money market, a security is said to be liquid if the spread between the bid and asked prices is narrow, and a reasonable size can be done at those quotes.

LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND (LAIF): Chapter 730, Statutes of 1976 of the State of California, established the Local Agency Investment Fund. This fund enables local governmental agencies to remit money not required for immediate needs to the State City Treasurer for investment. To derive the maximum rate of return possible, the State City Treasurer has elected to invest these monies with State monies as a part of the Pooled Money Investment Account. Each local governmental unit has the exclusive determination of the length of time its money will be on deposit with the State City Treasurer. At the end of each calendar quarter, all earnings derived from investments are distributed by the State Controller to the participating government agencies in proportion to each agency's respective amounts deposited in the Fund and the length of time such amounts remained therein. Before the distribution, the State's costs of administering the program are deducted from the earnings.

MARK-TO-MARKET: The process whereby a security's book value or collateral value is adjusted to reflect its current market value.

MARKET RISK: The risk that the value of a security will rise or decline because of changes in market conditions.

MARKET VALUE: The current price at which a security is trading could be purchased or sold at that point.

MASTER REPURCHASE AGREEMENT: A written contract covering all future transactions between the parties to repurchase-reverse repurchase agreements that establish each party’s rights in the transactions. A master agreement will often specify, among other things, the right of the buyer-lender to liquidate the underlying securities in the event of default by the seller- borrower.

MATURITY: The date upon which the principal or stated value of a financial obligation is due and payable.

City of Indian Wells
Statement of Investment Policy

Page | 18
MONEY MARKET MUTUAL FUND: Mutual funds that invest solely in money market instruments (short-term debt instruments, such as Treasury bills, commercial paper, bankers' acceptances, repos, and federal funds).

MUTUAL FUND: An investment company that pools money and can invest in various securities, including fixed-income securities and money market instruments. Mutual funds are regulated by the Investment Company Act of 1940 and must abide by Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosure guidelines.

NATIONALLY RECOGNIZED STATISTICAL-RATING ORGANIZATION (NRSRO): Standard and Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch Financial Services are examples of such organizations.

OFFER: An indicated price at which market participants are willing to sell a security or commodity. Also referred to as the "Ask price."
PAR VALUE: The amount of principal that must be paid at maturity. And also referred to as the face amount of a bond, typically quoted in $1,000 increments per bond.

PORTFOLIO: Combined holding of more than one stock, bond, commodity, real estate investment, cash equivalent, or asset. The purpose of a portfolio is to reduce risk by diversification.

PRINCIPAL: The face value or par value of a debt instrument or the amount of capital invested in a given security.

PRIMARY DEALER: A group of government securities dealers who submit daily market activity reports and monthly financial statements to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and are subject to its informal oversight. Primary dealers include Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) registered securities broker/dealers, banks, and a few unregulated firms.

PRINCIPAL: (1) The debt instrument's face amount or par value. (2) One who acts as a dealer buying and selling for his account.

RATE OF RETURN: The yield obtainable on a security based on its purchase price or current market price. This may be the amortized yield to maturity on a bond or the recent income return.

REINVESTMENT RISK: The risk that a fixed-income investor will be unable to reinvest income proceeds from a security holding at the same rate of return currently generated by that holding.

REPURCHASE AGREEMENT (RP OR REPO): A holder of securities sells these securities to an investor with an agreement to repurchase them at a fixed price on a specified date. The security "buyer," in effect, lends the "seller" money for the agreement period, and the terms of the agreement are structured to compensate the buyer for this. Dealers use RP extensively to finance their positions. Exception: When the Fed is said to be doing RP, lending money increases bank reserves.

REVERSE REPURCHASE AGREEMENT: An agreement of one party (for example, a financial institution) to purchase securities at a specified price from a second party (such as a public

City of Indian Wells
Statement of Investment Policy

Page | 19
agency) and a simultaneous agreement by the first party to resell the securities at a specified price to the second party on demand or at a specific date.

RISK: Degree of uncertainty of return on an asset.

RULE 2A-7 OF THE INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT: Applies to all money market mutual funds and mandates such funds to maintain specific standards, including a 13-month maturity limit and a 90-day average maturity on investments, to help maintain a constant net asset value of one dollar ($1.00).

SAFEKEEPING SERVICE: A service to customers rendered by banks for a fee whereby securities and valuables of all types and descriptions are held in the bank's vault for protection and security.

SECONDARY MARKET: A market is made to purchase and sell outstanding issues following the initial distribution.

SECURITIES LENDING: An agreement under which a local agency agrees to transfer securities to a borrower who, in turn, agrees to provide collateral to the local agency. During the term of the agreement, both the securities and the collateral are held by a third party. After the agreement, the securities are transferred back to the local agency in return for the collateral.

STRUCTURED NOTES: Notes issued by Government Sponsored Enterprises (FHLB, FNMA, FHLMC, etc.) and corporations with embedded options (e.g., call features, step-up coupons, floating rate coupons, derivative-based returns) into their debt structure. Their market performance is impacted by the fluctuation of interest rates, the volatility of the embedded options, and shifts in the shape of the yield curve.

SWAP: Trading one asset for another.

TOTAL RETURN: The sum of all investment income plus changes in the portfolio’s capital value.

TREASURY BILLS: Short-term U.S. government non-interest-bearing discounted debt securities with maturities of no more than one year are issued in minimum denominations of $10,000.

Auctions of three- and six-month bills are weekly, while auctions of one year are monthly. The yields on these bills are monitored closely in the money markets for signs of interest rate trends.

TREASURY BOND: A long-term coupon-bearing U.S. Treasury security issued as a direct obligation of the U.S. Government with an initial maturity of more than ten years and issued in minimum denominations of $1,000.

TREASURY NOTE: A medium-term coupon-bearing U.S. Treasury security issued as a direct obligation of the U.S. Government with an initial maturity of from one to ten years and issued in denominations ranging from $1,000 to $1 million or more.

UNIFORM NET CAPITAL RULE: Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 15C3-1 outlines requirements that member firms and nonmember broker-dealers in securities maintain a maximum ratio of indebtedness to liquid capital of 15 to 1, also called net capital rule and net capital ratio. Indebtedness covers all money owed to a firm, including margin and

City of Indian Wells
Statement of Investment Policy

Page | 20
commitments to purchase securities, one reason new public issues are spread among members of underwriting syndicates. Liquid capital includes cash and assets easily converted into cash.

VOLATILITY: A degree of fluctuation in the price and valuation of securities.

YIELD: The current rate of return-on-investment security is generally expressed as a percentage of the security’s current price. (a) INCOME YIELD is obtained by dividing the current dollar income by the current market price for the security. (b) NET YIELD or YIELD TO MATURITY is the current income yield minus any premium above par or plus any discount from par in the purchase price, with the adjustment spread over the period from the date of purchase to the date of maturity of the bond.

INDIAN WELLS CITY COUNCIL
March 2, 2023

To: City Council
From: Finance Department
Prepared by: Kevin McCarthy, Finance Director
Subject: Resolution Approving Special Fire Tax Standby and Availability Charges Annual Levy

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

City Council OPENS the Public Hearing, takes any public testimony, CLOSES the Public Hearing; and

ADOPTS Resolution approving the annual levy of the Special Fire Tax Standby and Availability Charges for the Fiscal Year 2023-24; and

ORDERS the Special Fire Tax levy to be placed on the fiscal year 2023-24 Riverside County tax roll.

SUMMARY:

Annually, the City Council is required to hold a Public Hearing, take comments from the public, and adopt a Resolution for the annual collection of levies for the Special Fire Tax Stand By and Availability charges for each new fiscal year. The levy collections upgrade Fire Safety services within the City. The Fiscal Year 2023-24 Special Fire Tax Assessment remains the same.

The City contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department for fire services. The Fire Station is staffed 24 hours a day, 365 days per year, with five full-time personnel, including two firefighter paramedics trained in advanced life support. Indian Wells has access to specialized fire services teams and rescue equipment for vehicle accidents, hazardous materials services, confined space rescues, and swift water/flood rescues.

Background

In 1980, Indian Wells voters approved a special tax of $120 per home per year. The special tax is used for fire suppression, paramedic services and equipment, and ladder truck services. Special Fire Tax revenues are vital to the City’s emergency services program contributing approximately $600,000 of the $5.2 million annual fire services budget.

Calculations of the Special Fire Tax Standby and Availability charges

For parcels classified for residential use with structure value (improved with a structure such as a single home), the charge will be $120.00 per year per dwelling unit. For example, a parcel with a single house would pay $120.00 per year, while a parcel with a duplex unit would pay $240.00 per year.

For parcels classified for residential use without structure value (subdivided improved without a structure), the charge will be $60.00 per year per dwelling unit. A parcel of land subdivided for residential use but has yet to have any development will be charged $60.00 per year for each home that could be built on that parcel.

For parcels classified as vacant land and not subdivided, the charge will be a minimum of $39.00 for the first acre or portion thereof per year. For vacant parcels not subdivided with over 1 acre through and including 50 acres, the charge will be $39.00 for the first acre plus $6.50 per acre prorated for any portion of an acre over one acre per year.

For vacant parcels not subdivided with over 50 acres through and including 100 acres, the charge will be $39.00 for the first acre plus $6.50 per acre for acres 2 through 50 plus $2.60 per acre prorated for any portion of an acre, over 50 acres, per year. For vacant parcels not subdivided with over 100 acres will be $39.00 for the first acre plus $6.50 per acre for acres 2 through 50 plus $2.60 per acre for acres over 50 through 100 plus $0.65 per acre prorated for any portion of an acre, over 100 acres, per year.

Additionally, in accordance with City Ordinance No. 170, all non-residential land shall be levied upon the class of improvements to property and the use of property basis utilizing estimated fire flow requirements determined in accordance with the formula contained in the Insurance Services Office guidelines in the Fire Prevention and Control Master Planning Guide distributed by the United States Department of Commerce.

City Ordinance No. 170 references a document the United States Department of Commerce produced. This document is no longer in production and has been replaced by Riverside County Fire Flow regulations. The City of Indian Wells has adopted these County regulations through Ordinance Nos. 370 and 451 and are part of the City's Municipal Code. Fire Flow requirements are primarily consistent though the location of the authority has changed from National to Local.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no financial impact on the City. Since this special tax is not subject to a CPI index, the voter-approved annual levy rate will remain consistent. The levy collection in the fiscal year 2023/24 is $600,000.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

This action has been reviewed per the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State and local CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental regulations. The City, acting as the Lead Agency, determined that the ordinance is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment as there is no possibility that the action would result in a significant environmental impact, and because it does not constitute a “project” as defined in Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Resolution

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-03

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS,

CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF

ASSESSMENTS FOR THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS FIRE TAX STANDBY AND AVAILABILITY CHARGES PURSUANT TO CITY ORDINANCE NO. 170
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Indian Wells, California (the “City Council”) has prepared the annual assessment against parcels of land within the City of Indian Wells for the Fire Tax Standby and Availability Charges for the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, pursuant to City Ordinance No. 170 to pay for the described standby costs; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has retained Willdan Financial (the “Engineer”) for the purpose of assisting the City with the preparation of the annual assessment and collection of the Fire Tax Standby and Availability Charges; and
WHEREAS, the Engineer has prepared the proposed charge and collection upon eligible parcels of land within the City, and the City Council has approved such assessments; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to levy and collect assessments against parcels of land within the District for the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, to pay for the Fire Tax Standby and Availability Charges; and WHEREAS, A Public Hearing Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation once at least fifteen (15) days before the public hearing on annual levies; a copy of the Public Hearing Notice was posted in three (2) public places within the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. That the Special Fire Tax Standby and Availability charges be paid by the property owners to the City for the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, and shall be as follows:

Land Use Assessment
Residential Improved Lot $120.00 per dwelling unit per year Residential Subdivided Vacant Lot $ 60.00 per equivalent dwelling unit per year Vacant Acreage:

Up to and including 1 acre $ 36.00 per year
For sizes over 1 acre up to and
including 50 acres
$ 36.00 for the first acre plus $6.50 per each
additional acre or a prorated portion of an acre per
year
ATTACHMENT #1

City of Indian Wells
Resolution No. 2023-03

Land Use Assessment
For sizes over 50 acres up to and
including 100 acres
$ 36.00 for the first acre plus $6.50 per each
additional acre up to & including 50 acres plus
$2.60 per acre or prorated portion of an acre over
50 acres per year
For size over 100 acres $ 36.00 for the first acre plus $6.50 per each additional acre up to & including 50 acres plus
$2.60 per acre over 50 acres up to & including 100
acres plus $0.65 per acre or prorated portion of an
acre over 100 acres, per year
SECTION 2. In accordance with City Ordinance No. 170, non-residential land shall be levied upon the class of improvements to property and the use of property basis utilizing estimated fire flow requirements determined in accordance with the formula contained in the Insurance Services Office guidelines in the Fire Prevention and Control Master Planning Guide distributed by the United States Department of Commerce.

SECTION 3. The document referenced in Section 2 is no longer in production and has been replaced by County of Riverside regulations for fire flow requirements. The City of Indian Wells has adopted those County regulations through Ordinance Nos. 370 and 451. The rates for non-residential land will not exceed the maximum allowable charge.

SECTION 4. The above rates shall be effective July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Indian Wells, California, at a regular meeting held on this 2nd day of March 2023. ___________________________________

DONNA GRIFFITH
MAYOR

City of Indian Wells
Resolution No. 2023-03

CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 2023-03
I, Angelica Avila, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Indian Wells, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the whole number of the members of the City Council is five (5); that the above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Indian Wells the 2nd day of March 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________ ______________________________

ANGELICA AVILA TODD LEISHMAN

CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY

INDIAN WELLS CITY COUNCIL
March 2, 2023

To: City Council
From: Finance Department
Prepared by: Kevin McCarthy, City Finance Director
Subject: Resolution Approving Fire Access Maintenance District No. 1 Annual Levy and Collection of Assessments

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Council OPENS the Public Hearing, takes any public testimony, CLOSES the Public Hearing; and

ADOPTS Resolution approving the annual levy of the Fire Access Maintenance District No. 1 for the Fiscal Year 2023-24; and

ORDERS the Fire Access Maintenance District No. 1 levy on the Fiscal Year 2023-24 Riverside County tax roll.

SUMMARY:

The Fire Access Maintenance District (“FAMD”) was formed in 1973 when the public streets in the Indian Wells Country Club were converted to private roads. The FAMD is responsible for maintaining and operating access roadways, rights of way, easements for fire protection, security, and entrance landscape services.

The City Council has delegated operational control of the FAMD to the Board of Directors.

However, the Council retains oversight and final authority approval of the FAMD’s levy.

City Staff partners with the FAMD Board of Directors to ensure compliance with City policies. For example, the Public Works Director acts as the City’s liaison, the Finance Department assists in budget development and accounting management, and the FAMD legal counsel reviews all contracts for legal sufficiency.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The FAMD has two sources of annual revenues: (1) property taxes of approximately $365,000 and (2) a voter-approved special assessment approved by the voters in May 2005,

which generates approximately $1,200,000. These revenue sources generate the necessary funds to operate and maintain the district.

The City collects the FAMD levies in a special revenue fund, limiting expenditures to those associated with the purview of the district. This special assessment is not subject to any Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases. Any increase to the special assessment amount requires voter approval. Therefore, the Fiscal Year 2023-24 FAMD Special Assessment remains the same.

The FAMD special assessment is as follows:

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

This action has been reviewed per the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State and local CEQA Guidelines, and the City's environmental regulations. The City, acting as the Lead Agency, determined that the ordinance is not subject to CEQA pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines, because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment as there is no possibility that the action would result in a significant environmental impact, and because it does not constitute a “project” as defined in Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3.

ATTACHMENT:

1. Resolution

Approved
Land Use Annual Tax
Residential Improved 1,030$
Residential Vacant Lot 1 Acre or less 700
Vacant Land greater than 1 acre 550
Golf Club / Golf Course 190,000$

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-04

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS,

CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF A SPECIAL

TAX FOR THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS FIRE ACCESS MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Indian Wells, California (the “City Council”), by Ordinance No. 572 and previous Resolutions, has established procedures to replace in its entirety the parcel fee which has been levied annually against parcels of land within the Indian Wells Fire Access Maintenance District No. 1 (the “FAMD”) to finance security, street maintenance and repair, and entrance landscape services within the District; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by Resolution No. 2005-02 and pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California, held a Special Municipal Election on May 5, 2005, at which time the qualified electors of the District approved the rates stated in Ordinance No. 572 to finance security, street maintenance, and repair, and entrance landscape services within the FAMD; and WHEREAS, the City Council has retained Willdan Financial (the “Engineer”) to assist the City with the preparation of the annual levy and collection of special taxes by the FAMD; and WHEREAS, the Engineer has prepared the proposed levy and collection of special taxes upon eligible parcels of land within the FAMD, and the City Council has approved such special taxes; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to levy and collect special taxes against parcels of land within the FAMD for the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, to finance security, street maintenance and repair, and entrance landscape services within the FAMD; and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing Notice was published in a newspaper of general circulation once at least fifteen (15) days before the public hearing on annual levies; a copy of the Public Hearing Notice was posted in three (2) public places within the City.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE DISTRICT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The Fire Access Maintenance District No. 1 special taxes be paid by the property owners to the City for the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2023, and ending June 30, 2024, shall be placed on the tax rolls for the County of Riverside and shall be as follows:

Residential
Land Use Assessment
Residential Improved * $1,030 per unit per year
Residential Vacant Lot 1 acre or less $700 per unit per year Vacant Land greater than 1 acre $550 per acre per year
* Includes Indian Wells Country Club
ATTACHMENT #1

City of Indian Wells
Resolution No. 2023-04

Golf Club / Golf Course
The amount of the tax imposed each fiscal year for the Golf Club / Golf Course shall be $190,000.

SECTION 2. The above rates shall be effective July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024.

SECTION 3. The County Auditor of the County of Riverside shall enter on the County Assessment Roll opposite each eligible parcel of land the amount of levy set forth herein, and such levies shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as the County taxes are collected. After collection by the County, the net amount of the levy shall be paid to the City Treasurer.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Indian Wells, California, at a regular meeting held on this 2nd day of March 2023. ________________________________

DONNA GRIFFITH
MAYOR
CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 2023-04
I, Angelica Avila, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Indian Wells, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the whole number of the members of the City Council is five (5); that the above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Indian Wells the 2nd day of March 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________ ___________________________

ANGELICA AVILA TODD LEISHMAN

CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY

93939.00053\41052926.2

INDIAN WELLS CITY COUNCIL
March 2, 2023

To: City Council
From: City Manager Department
Prepared by: Chris Freeland, City Manager
Subject: Approval of Passive Park Conceptual Design and Authorization to Develop Park Project at Corner of
Eldorado and Fairway Drive

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

Council FINDS that the proposed action is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15304 (minor public or private alterations in the condition of land), and, in the alternative, that it is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (new construction of small structures), and, further, determines that none of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply here because the proposed action does not include a sensitive mapped area, a scenic highway, a hazardous waste site, or a historic resource, and the development of a passive park does not present any unusual circumstances; and

APPROVES the passive park design and installation at the corner of Eldorado and Fairway Drive; and

AUTHORIZES Desert Recreation District to finalize the design, bid, and construct the passive park with oversight by the City; and

DIRECTS staff on a process to name the park and appropriate monument signage to be brought back for City Council discussion and approval.

BACKGROUND:

The development of new park spaces in Indian Wells has been a topic of discussion by residents and Council members over the last several years. At the February 2, 2017, City Council Strategic Planning Session the City Council examined the possibility of acquiring the land between the Miramonte Hotel and Indian Wells Resort Hotel for the development of park space. Unfortunately, owners of the property were not interested in selling the property. At the February 3, 2021, City Council Strategic Planning Session the City Council

93939.00053\41052926.2

directed staff to identify opportunities for the development of park sites in the community.1

After some due diligence, the City identified two contiguous vacant residential lots (0.59- acres) at the northwest corner of Eldorado and Fairway (Attachment 1). The City acquired the property for $1,070,000. The City considered it to be a good strategic move to purchase these lots in light of new housing legislation, including Senate Bill 9 (SB 9), which allows urban lot splits and construction of up to eight dwelling units over the two lots by-right, without Council or PC approval or public hearings. Considering the highly visible location of the site at this prominent intersection, the City’s purchase will preserve the quality of the neighborhood and ultimately allow public input on what will be developed at the site. The City’s goal has been to engage the community in developing a first-class park site at the property for its residents with amenities to provide a safe and pleasant experience.

On November 10, 2021, the City Council unanimously approved a partnership with Desert Recreation District (“DRD”) for the development, operation, and maintenance of a community park at the subject property. The partnership with DRD includes a shared cost of 50 percent for the park's acquisition, design, and development, up to $2 million.

In addition, DRD will be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the new park.

Cooperative Park and Recreation Agreement Summary:
 City and DRD agree to share 50 percent of all costs associated with the park's acquisition, design, and development up to $2 million.
 Any cost over $2 million will be the City’s responsibility and paid for through the City’s dedicated park fees (Quimby Fees and grant funds).  Following park completion, DRD will provide all ongoing maintenance and any capital improvement up to $5,000 per improvement. City will be responsible for any capital improvement costs over $5,000.
 Park will be operated and maintained by the DRD in accordance with City’s regulations (e.g., hours of operation, permitted uses, etc.). This includes ongoing cost of utilities.
 Insurance language to be provided by DRD and City’s insurance provider (California Joint Powers Insurance Authority).
 City to retain ownership of the land.

1 Staff reports, PowerPoints, and minutes of the 2017 and 2021 Strategic Planning Sessions, City Council and Planning Commission meetings are available on the City’s website. https://www.cityofindianwells.org/city-hall/departments/city-clerk

93939.00053\41052926.2

 DRD to select a park-design consultant to conduct community-engagement meetings on park amenities, operating guidelines, and hours of operations, maintenance standards, parking, and much more.
 City may construct the park or may, at its discretion, elect to have DRD construct the park. DRD will construct the park if City so chooses.  Term of the agreement is for 20 years, which automatically renews for an additional year, in perpetuity, unless either party gives a one-year notice to terminate.

After the initial 20 years, all improvements become the property of the City. If the City repurposes or sells the property prior to the initial 20 years, City is to reimburse DRD for its initial investment. A copy of the agreement is attached (Attachment 2).

Community Outreach

DRD hosted four community meetings at the Indian Wells Golf Resort to solicit community and stakeholder input on the proposed park development. These meetings provided the first of several opportunities for members of the public to express support or concern for the project and provide valued input on which amenities should or should not be included at the park. These meetings were held on:

 Monday, February 28, 2022
 Tuesday, March 1, 2022
 Wednesday, March 2, 2022 (zoom meeting)
 Tuesday, May 3, 2022

Based on the community’s feedback, DRD developed three conceptual layouts (Attachment 3) for a passive-park design on the subject property. These design concepts were used as a platform to further refine and develop a final park design endorsed by a majority of the affected community and stakeholders.

 Concept #1: This concept includes formal landscaping, sculptures, benches, pavers at the entry, a decomposed-granite pathway, trash bins, gardens (such as a butterfly and a fragrance garden), and an Indian Wells-themed fountain.

 Concept #2: This concept includes formal plantings, desert lush plantings, a concrete walkway, benches, trash bins, golf-cart parking and bike rack, an Indian Wells-themed water feature, and pavers at the entry and around the water feature.

 Concept #3: This concept includes desert lush and accent plantings, accent rocks, a lawn, decomposed-granite walking path, benches, pavers at the park entrances, trash bins, and golf-cart parking and bike rack.

93939.00053\41052926.2

In addition to the DRD meetings, the Planning Commission held a Study Session on November 7, 2022. The meeting was scheduled to seek additional resident and stakeholders input on the three designs and what amenities should be included with the proposed park. Most of the comments suggested that the park be landscaped only, without benches or parking, security lighting, hedges along the wall to deter people from jumping into backyards, with no tall trees or shrubs that block the views of the mountains or shade solar panels, and with safe pedestrian access. A potential partnership with the Indian Wells Historical Preservation Foundation on a park name and a small monument celebrating architect William Cody was also discussed. Based on community input, Concept #3 had the most support from residents and stakeholders.

To continue the momentum of the project and receive additional community input, staff brought the item to City Council’s Strategic Planning Session on February 1, 2023. There was additional feedback received by the community, which reaffirmed moving forward with slight modifications to Design Concept #3 to include reorientation of some of the open-space elements and landscaped areas to improve the street appeal and provide buffers to adjacent homes. Ultimately, City Council directed staff to work with the DRD to incorporate the resident comments into a fourth Design Concept (Attachments 4 and 5) and hold another community meeting to provide the public with a final opportunity to review and provide input before the final concept goes before City Council.

Planning Commission Design Review

On February 23, 2023, DRD presented Concept #4 to the Planning Commission to obtain further community input on the proposed design. After several community members provide comments and concerns on the proposed design, the Planning Commission unanimously approved (5-0) to forward Concept #4 with the following recommended changes.
 Remove mid-block access to the park from Fairway and Eldorado Drive.  Tree species along north wall of the park to be low profile trees that will not block resident view corridors or solar-energy systems.2
 Additional traffic signage on both Fairway and Eldorado to improve public safety around the park.
 Request the Council determine if a drinking fountain is necessary or not for the overall park design.

Public Safety Initiatives

Discussions at the community meetings included concerns over illegal loitering and camping at the park and increased traffic and speeding along Fairway and Eldorado. At the February 1, 2023, Public Safety Committee, Riverside County Sheriff Lt. David Wright

2 City’s Public Works staff will approve the final plant and tree palette for the park.

93939.00053\41052926.2

addressed loitering and camping in the community and felt confident that the passive park would not be attractive for these activities. In addition, staff provided a briefing on other public-safety initiatives being discussed along Eldorado and Fairway.

The City Council has approved moving forward with community meetings and design for complete streets to improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, golf carts, and vehicles.

Another advantage of complete streets is incorporating design features to help reduce speeds along the streets. The City recently received a federal grant to do a citywide study to help offset these costs.

The park location also benefits from being located at a controlled intersection allowing for safer pedestrian access than a park located mid-block of a street. Adding the park to this corner may also provide an opportunity to reduce speed limits along both Eldorado and Fairway. Additional signage will be added on both streets to educate drivers of the park and pedestrians.

California law dictates how speed limits are established in communities based upon speed studies along the streets. With the addition of a park and future complete streets improvements, speeds may decline on their own, or the City may qualify for an exemption under state law (AB43) to allow the City to reduce speed limits by 5 MPH along Eldorado and Fairway due to higher pedestrian and bicycle use in an area.

Compliance with the City’s General Plan and Zoning

The City’s General Plan and Municipal Code encourage the City to provide additional public park areas to meet future needs. General Plan Policy IIIA2.3 encourages the City to consider linkages of open space and recreational areas adjacent to developments where appropriate. The development of the proposed passive park immediately adjacent to the surrounding residential development would serve to implement this General Plan Policy by linking the existing residential development with open space and passive recreational opportunities. Park use is allowable in a residentially zoned area. No zoning change is required.

DISCUSSION:

City Council previously instructed City staff and DRD to conduct community meetings to seek resident input on the design of the passive park at the corner of Eldorado and Fairway. With the completion of the community design efforts, staff is seeking Council’s direction on the passive park project. Staff is seeking Council’s approval to accept Concept #4 as presented, with any additions or removal of design elements discussed during the City Council meeting or provide alternative direction.

During the City Council’s February 1, 2023, Strategic Planning Session, Council received a briefing on a possible partnership with the Indian Wells Preservation Foundation to

93939.00053\41052926.2

possibly name the park after a prominent local architect (e.g., William F. Cody) or other historically significant individuals, and to include a dedication plaque(s) to recognize their achievements. In addition, Staff and DRD have included comments received at the February 23, 2023, Planning Commission Meeting to be incorporated into Concept #5 (Attachment 6) for Council discussion and direction.

OPTIONS:

The City Council has the following options available:

1. Accept design Concept #4, with or without any additional design comments, and authorize the City staff to move forward with the design and construction of the passive park at the corner of Eldorado and Fairway, not to exceed the City’s shared cost of $1 million; or
a. Staff will bring back certain design elements for approval at a later date:
selection of park name, park monument sign, and historical display monuments.

2. Determine not to move forward with the passive park project and instruct staff on an alternative use, including the possible resale of the property. a. Any resale of the property is subject to the Surplus Land Act. In addition, any shared costs on acquisition and design that have been expended on the project would become the sole financial responsibility of the City. Staff would also need to examine if the Proposition 68 Grant Funds could be reprogrammed to an alternative site.

3. Provide alternative direction.

FISCAL IMPACT:

In 2021, DRD agreed to share the 50 percent cost of the first $2.0 million for the park's acquisition, design, and development. DRD also agreed to be responsible for ongoing maintenance.

The City will fund up to $1.0 million through a variety of funding sources. First, the City has received a $177,952 Prop. 68 Per Capita Grant and a $3,328 California Urban Per Capita Grant, totaling $181,280. The remaining $818,720 is to be paid from the Park-In- Lieu Fund (Fund 314) that are generated developer fees (Quimby fees) that can only be utilized for park projects.

In addition, there remains the possibility that some of the park amenities may be designed by artists and paid out of the Art in Public Places Fund (Fund 319) at a not to exceed level of $200,000, thus reducing the contribution from the Park-In-Lieu Fund. If the

93939.00053\41052926.2

project costs exceed the Park-In-Lieu Fund balance, the General Fund will establish an interfund loan until the Park-In-Lieu Fund can reimburse the General Fund.

To date, the City of Indian Wells and DRD have expended $1,091,926 on the park project.

 Park Acquisition $1,070,000 ($535,000 per parcel)3
 Escrow Costs $3,726
 Park Design $18,200
 Final Design and
Construction Costs $To Be Determined

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)

This action has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), state and local CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The City, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed project is categorically exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), in accordance with CEQA Guidelines section 15304 (minor public or private alterations in the condition of land ), and, in the alternative, that it is categorically exempt from CEQA under CEQA Guidelines section 15303 (new construction of small structures), and, further, determines that none of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2 apply here because the proposed action does not include a sensitive mapped area, a scenic highway, a hazardous waste site, or a historic resource, and the development of a passive park does not present any unusual circumstances (it is similarly situated to other passive-park-type spaces adjacent to City Hall and at the corner of Cook and Highway 111; and there are no unique resources on the property).

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Vicinity Map

2. Cooperative Agreement between DRD and the City

3. Park Design Concept #1-#3

4. Park Design Concept #4

5. Rendering of Park Concept #4

6. Park Design Concept #5

3 Appraisal of both lots was conducted on October 18, 2021. Appraised value was $545,000 for each parcel (Total of $1,090,000 for both lots). City paid $20,000 under the appraised value.

Public Comment:

March 2, 2023 Council
Member Ty Peabody

o This location could present a danger to pedestrians — no crosswalks.

Almost all of the houses on Fairway within 300 y of theparkdo not want this park located at this location — only five residents on Fairway want the park. Should the City have consulted the residents prior to purchasing this land? Apparently the Council didn't think so.

The City stated that they had to buy this property because of a new state law SB9. This was an excuse, but is not realistic from the standpoint that there are five double lots within the area and also ten single vacant lots.

If this reasoning was true, why wouldn't the City purchase all of the lots? At the previous Planning Commission meeting, the commissioners did not want to move forward on this issue until the local residents were surveyed whether they did or didn't want a park at this location. The City did not do the survey as requested by the Commission, yet the park is back on the City Council's agenda this week (March 2, Thursday, 1:30, City Hall). The agenda concerns approving a conceptual design plan versus dealing with the residents' concerns and disapproval. What happened to respecting the majority opinion of residents? Why did the City not do a survey? For the last three weeks I have_been out soliciting the residents' opinion regarding this park. The survey was simple:

SURVEY REGARDING PROPOSED PASSIVE PARK AT FAIRWAY

AND ELDDORADO

WE INVITE YOU TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION REGARDING

THE CITY'S INTENT TO PLACE A PARK (NOT A DOG PARK) AT THE CORNER OF FAIRWAY AND ELDORADO. IF YOU ARE IN FAVOR,
VOTE YES; IF OPPOSED, VOTE NO.

The residents will tell you that I did not express my opinion regarding this survey until they completed the survey. A total of 167 residents located

from Indian Wells Lane to Rancho Palmeras along Fairway signed the survey. Five residents wanted the park built while 162 did not. That equates to 97% of the survey respondents not wanting the park at this location.

The questions at this point are:
• Why don't the three Council members who were part of buying this property admitting they made a mistake?
• Why didn't the City complete the survey regarding the park with the local residents as requested by the Planning Commission? • Why wasn't the "park" located adjacent to City Hall?
• Why is the City spending over $1.0 million on this project when there are more important issues to fund:
o Sidewalk on Vintage side of Fairway.
o Additional funds to Turf Rebate Program.
• Why is the City Council not respecting the local residents' objections?
This property has been on the market for years. Why would the City pay top price? Why was it more important to buy this particular property when there are ten vacant single lots and five double lots that could full under the SB9 law? Finally, why is the City ignoring the residents? At this point, why doesn't the City consider placing this property on the balance sheet, sod the lot, and place it back on the market for sale? Indian Wells residents pay over $1 million dollars annually to Desert Recreation District. If the District wants a park in Indian Wells, why are they not paying the total cost.?
One last point, there is no public policy regarding parks in Indian Wells.

As part of this, there is no Council adopted policy regarding parks.

I hope to see at least those residents that would be effected by the park decision at the City Council meeting.

Ty Peabody
City Council Member
Paid for by Ty Peabody, Indian Wells City Council Member. Per FPPC, these are my opinions and not necessarily the opinion of other Council Members.

Copyright O 2023 IW VIEWS, All rights reserved.

You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website.

Our mailing address is:

IW VIEWS
76471 Pala Palms Dr.

Indian Wells, Ca 92210
Want to change how you receive these emails?
You can update your preferenced'or unsubscribe from this list.

Grow your business with
mallchimp

Results of Planning Commission Hearing
Listed below is an outline of what occurred at the Planning Commission hearing on February 23:
• A fourth design plan was submitted to the Commission — no one had the plan in advance to thoroughly review the
changes from the previous plan.
• The Commission in formulating their decision regarding this new plan ignored any discussion related to the fact that 95% of residents within a quarter of a mile who signed the survey didn't want this proposed park at Fairway and
Eldorado.
• Two commissioners already made up their mind to ignore the issues presented and go along with aplan that was
submitted that day. They barely participated in any of the discussions — no real questions asked by them.
• There was no discussion on why the City didn't buy the other fifteen vacant lots within the same geographic area - with these other lots available, what convinced them to buy this lot. There was no urgency since the property had been on the market for years with no buyers.
4 The serious issues related to the new design plan and location included the following:
o New plan added a sidewalk on Eldorado.
o Issues of where cars and golf carts can park.
o Issues of bicycles and cars not stopping at
intersection.
o No pedestrian crosswalk at the location.
o Why wasn't survey completed as requested by
Commission at previous meeting?
Listed below are some of the responses by the City to these questions: •
• Bicycles and cars not stopping at stop sign — answer is a public safety issue not a design issue. What??
• Do the police have concems about safety at this location — Lt. Wright said, "I am very concerned." No commissioner asked a follow-up question related to his concerns.
• Whv wasn't a survey completed as requested by

Commissioners — City response, "this meeting is a survey." What??
• Issues raised about sidewalk water fountain, and types of trees or vegetation to be planted — City answer was, "we will deal with these questions later."
So, what was the Commission's decision in spite of these unanswered questions, failure to deal with safety issues, and ignoring residents' objections? The commissioners voted to move forward with the plan to the City Council for further discussion and a vote.

Cecile McBride, a very long-term resident and the resident most affected by the proposed park, expressed her concerns, including safety and the potential effect on her residence. At one point, she was unnecessarily interrupted by a commissioner. Another resident, who lives in Indian Wells Country Club (a long ways from the proposed park) spoke in favor of the park. Another speaker in favor of, talked about the park and its historical value. ??
Also, there was no discussion related to the fact that the City has r no public policy related to parks in general within the City. The City brushed aside the fact that this property is zoned residential.

Finally, I think it is very important to understand the potential risk of City liability if there is an,accident at this location. The issues were not fully addressed other than to say it's a public safety issue not a design issue. Lt. Wright said he was concerned. Approximately 5-6 years ago the City was held partially liable for the death of a bicyclist on Fred Waring even though the death was caused by a drunk driver. The City's liability was the result of the white line associated with the bicycle lane being inches too short. The liability related to this death for the City was in excess of $5.0 million.

Ty Peabody
Paid for by Ty Peabody, City Council member — per FPPC. These are my opinions and not necessarily the opinions of other Council members. .

February 28, 2023
From: Larry "Bear" Bonafide
To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Indian Wells City Council Subject: All of the residents should make the decision what kind of parks are appropriate in Indian Wells and where they should be located!
In view of the current controversy as to whether or not the City should develop a public park of any type at the comer of Eldorado and Fairway, I respectfully submit the City Council should table and pause any further decisions on this or any other parks and focus on what is in the best interest of all of the residents in all areas of the community, not just one small enclave.

In as much as there is no urgent need to do anything immediately to the subject property parcel, no further action one way or another should be taken until the City Council adopts and approves a comprehensive Resident Amenities and Public Parks Policy that considers and evaluates the following:
➢ What types of parks are appropriate for the City and where should they be located.

Determine what types of parks would be in the best interest of all of the residents of Indian Wells and satisfy what residents are most interested in. E.g.: Dog Park, Par Course, Passive Park, etc.

Decide how the City should appropriate the budgeted funds for Resident Amenities and Perks so that those funds reach the maximum number of residents.

It has been publicly stated that the City acquired the Eldorado and Fairway property to control how it would be developed and for what purpose. In as much as the only investment so far has been the acquisition of the property, that makes it a liquid asset on the City's books. Time will tell whether or not this was a good investment on way or another, but for right now there has been no negative impact on the City's balance sheet..

There are good arguments both for and against a park at this location:
+ Neighborhood beautification
'i' Increase or decrease on surrounding property values 4' Public safety and noise issues
4' Traffic, parking and noise concerns
Park maintenance and costs
One of the major original concepts for the property was a for dog park with Desert Rec as a partner.

Subsequently multiple layout and cost options for a dog park were developed. After much discussion, the dog park concept was set aside due to some of the previously stated concerns. About one year ago a alternate dog park location was proposed and submitted to the City Manager and members of the council.

I suggest it is time to put this idea back on the table and evaluate the pros and cons of both locations side by side. The details of the proposed dog park location proposals and conversations follow below and speak for themselves.

This is a big decision that will affect City's finances, policy and quality of living issues now and in the future. That said, the residents should be the ones to decide on a ballot referendum just like we did for Highway 111. The questions on the ballot could be as follows:

Develop and build a passive park on the City owned residential parcel located at the corner of Eldorado and Fairway
Develop and build a dog park on City owned property adjacent to City Hall
It is my hope that the Council in its wisdom will put any further action on this agenda item on hold and first develop a
comprehensive Resident Amenities and Public Parks Policy that will serve the entire community.

Respectfully submitted,
Larry "Bear" Bonafide

From:

Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 12:54 PM
To: 'Donna Griffith' ;
; 'Sanders, Greg'
Subject: Indian Wells Pass On The Passive Park Proposal Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council;
Since 3.31.22 when I first sent you my recommendations for what is now known as the "PASSIVE PARK",1 have had extensive conversations with my "Indian Wells Residents Network" and unanimously we have concluded that it would be appropriate to change the name of this project to" PASS ON THE PASSIVE PARK"!.

Following is a summary of the input and opinions of the 1 W Residents I have had discussions with:

The City Council should once and for all publicly acknowledge:

O The acquisition of the subject property at the intersection of Fairway and Eldorado was originally intended to gain control of what should or would be developed on that site.

O Before the purchase, several options were "on the table" with no final pre -purchase decisions locked in.

O After extensive public discourse and debate, it has become apparent that this not an appropriate location for a park of any type, dog, passive or otherwise.

For the next 12 months the City will reevaluate what development would be best for this location being guided by public sentiment and market conditions. ›' While the re-evaluation is under way, the City will do no more to the property than install irrigation and pant grass.

O No improvements of significant value will be made to the property that will eventually just need to be demolished.
);' Fully disclose that even without the financial support from Desert Recreation for acquisition and improvement of this property, it will become a fully paid for wholly owned asset of the City with no negative financial impact.

S' Propose and seek public support for the construction of a "Dog Park" behind the Indian Wells Public Gardens in all or part of the City's wholly owned 1 acre service yard.

O The Desert Recreation money that was committed to the Fairway & Eldorado park can be redirected to the new location.
i Following is a list of PROS & CONS for the proposed new dog park location..

The PROS win hands down!
PROS
• Perfect space • New space
for a dog needed
park on for
approx. 1 service
acre of City yard.
owned land.
• No additional
property
acquisition
costs
required.

Fri 02/24/2023
California Focus
Tom Elias
Columnist
and d
h:ttng g.spas
z
non
9 bJt
Page: A17
More than a year after it took effect, the landmark housing density law known as SB 9 has drawn many derogatory labels: a usurper of local powers, a neighborhood wrecker, a destroyer of dreams, and more. But the most accurate epithet for it today is something much simpler. So far, it's a flop.

SB 9, sponsored by San Diego's Democratic state Sen. Toni Atkins, was intended to help solve the California housing shortage by encouraging owners of current single-family homes to divide their lots in two, with each half eligible for a duplex and an additional dwelling unit, often known as an ADU.

So six housing units are now authorized almost automatically on most single-family properties in this state. The SB 9 sponsors believed when it passed in the fall of 2020 that this would create enormous financial incentives for current
homeowners to sell to developers.

After all, a new cottage industry had arisen since permitting of ADUs, also known as 'granny units,' became virtually automatic in January 2020, with almost all new homes featuring them and many existing homeowners buying and renting out
prefabricated units. But enthusiasm for the kind of density SB 9

intended to create has not come close to matching the
homeowner and developer interest in building ADUs. A report early this year from UC Berkeley's consistently pro -density Terner Center for Housing Innovation described the law's impact as 'limited or nonexistent.'
The failure so far of this law may comfort some homeowners interested in maintaining their roomy lifestyles and the character of their neighborhoods, but the conditions causing it may not be permanent.

For one thing, nothing in SB 9 compels anyone to build as much as a single affordable unit, or any units designated for low- income residents.

With both median home prices and the cost of building a single one -bedroom unit in California both hovering above $800,000, it's difficult to see how creating bunches of duplexes will be much help to families who currently don't own homes and thus have not built up many tens of thousands of dollars in equity.

The contrast with building large apartment or condominium complexes is sharp: They must include at least some affordable units. They also can get a 'density bonus' allowing them to create more units if they provide more than the required percentage of affordable or low-income ones.

So the market for new duplexes is not hot today, especially in a time of dropping population. Then there's the matter of financing: Interest on home and construction loans is higher today than almost any time in the last 20 years, as the Federal

Reserve keeps upping interest rates to stem inflation. That depresses both home prices and sales everywhere in the
nation, and makes it difficult for developers to fund new projects.

There's also a shortage of construction workers, similar to the dearth of workers that has seen 'help wanted' signs appear in thousands of restaurant and store windows.

There's also the matter of reluctance by current homeowners to carve up their properties or sell out and move elsewhere. The steady rise of California property values over the 14 years since the Great Recession has left huge numbers of longtime home owners flush with equity, If they access some of that resource via refinancing or reverse mortgages, a lot of the financial incentive for creating six homes out of one can disappear. ® 2016 Desert Sun
Powered by

TECNAVIA

other than reelection and chew gum at the same time!
Sherry Barkas Palm Springs Desert Sun 3.17.22
Indian Wells pivots on dog park after residents say they don't want one at designated site. Here's what's next
Indian Wells residents have spoken: They do not want a dog park on northwest corner of Eldorado and Fairway drives.

Council members and city staff said on Thursday they heard what residents were saying and would move toward a passive park at that location, which means a landscaped and maintained area neighborhood residents could walk to, visit with others and relax. "The City Council is listening to what the people in that area are saying ... and pivoting," Mayor Pro Tem Donna Griffith said.

Whatever is built - it will be the city's first community park.

About 110 people attended three community meetings the city and Desert Recreation District held last month to get resident input on the proposed dog park, including what amenities they might like.
"There was very little community support for a dog park, with more community support of a passive park use," City Manager Chris Freeland told council members Thursday.

Attendees were asked to complete surveys, checking boxes for amenities they would like to have included in the park.

Most were neutral for shade structures, benches and public art, he said. "The summary showed an overwhelming response for no parking, no fencing, no exercise equipment," Freeland said.

Residents also asked for more opportunities for engagement to be a part of the design process, he said.

Indian Wells purchased the land in November in partnership with Desert Recreation District. Total cost for park development is not to exceed $2 million, which includes the land purchase. Desert Recreation District is sharing half the cost, up to $1 million.

Anything over $2 million, the city will cover, Freeland said.

Desert Recreation District also will take care of future maintenance once a park is built.

For its share of the cost, the city is using more than $180,000 in park grants and about $800,000 from in -lieu fees that are generated from new developments, Freeland said Park plans not communicated well.

While no one opposed the proposed park when approved by the council in November, some residents spoke out against it at the Feb. 17 council meeting and turned in a petition with nearly 200 signatures, then also participated in the three community meetings.

Residents said the area, which totals just over a half -acre, is not big enough for a dog park, and cited concerns for public safety, noise and lighting, and said there wasn't enough room to include a parking lot and other amenities.

They also said the land was too close to homes where clog parks in neighboring cities are in spacious community parks with other amenities and ample room for parking.

Many also said they felt the city hadn't been transparent in deciding to build a dog park

and they found out after the land was already bought.
"I feel really hurt and insulted and I feel disrespected," 27 -year resident Martin Lax told council members Thursday.

While the special November council meeting to purchase the property was properly announced by the city, Lux didn't hear of the plans for a dog park until much later. "We don't want it," Lax said and suggested the city resell the land and find another place for a park.
"I ask the city to void the purchase, unwind it, sell it, perhaps build homes on it ... just don't do anything for the time being and figure it out," Lax said.

If the city is going to move forward with a park, Lax said an environmental impact report needs to be done.

City Attorney Todd Leishman said it is too early for an environmental study when the city hasn't outline a definitive project.

Griffith said the city could have done better in communicating with residents its plans to purchase the land and build a dog park at that location. "Did we miss the mark on communicating? If one single person in the city of Indian Wells didn't know this was happening and they found out by reading an article in The Desert Sun, did we miss the mark on that? The answer is maybe. Probably," Griffith said.

The project isn't something that happened overnight, she said. About 15 months ago, the council told staff to look for some property for open green space parks, based on input from residents during general plan meeting focused on health and wellness, she said.
"They asked for more places to walk and bike. They asked for a lot of things in that health and wellness meeting, and the City Council listened to them and then we moved forward with that," Griffith said.

Former Councilmember Ty Peabody urged the council to hold off on spending money on a park for at least six months to see what happens with the economy and what's happening in Ukraine.

Councilmember Richard Balocco and Mayor Dana Reed said they could wait. "I don't think there's any hurry to do anything," Balocco said. "For me, I would suggest you land bank it for now."
Mayor Dana Reed says he lives in the area and has been driving by the land multiple times daily for several years. While he would like to see something done with it, he can wait.

The city has until the end of 2023 to use the grant money received to develop a park.

The council voted 3-2 to move forward with plans for a passive park on the land.

A charrette will be scheduled in April inviting the public to participate with Desert Recreation District in designing a park. The results from that workshop will be brought back to the council for more direction on moving forward with a park.

Public Comment: 02/23/2023
Planning Commission

The residents will tell you that I did not express my opinion regarding this survey until they completed the survey. A total of 167 residents located from Indian Wells Lane to Rancho Palmeras along Fairway signed the survey. Five residents wanted the park built while 162 did not. That equates to 97% of the survey respondents not wanting the park at this location.

The questions at this point are: -
■ Why didn't the City complete the survey regarding the park with the local residents as requested by the Planning Commission?
• Why wasn't the "park" located adjacent to Gty Hall?
• Why is the City spending over $1.0 million on this project when there are more important issues to fund:
o Sidewalk on Vintage side of Fairway.
o Additional funds to Turf Rebate Program.

This property has been on the market for years. Why would the City pay top price? Why was it more important to buy this particular property when there are ten vacant single lots and five double lots that could full under the SB9 law? Finally, why is the City ignoring the residents? At this point, why doesn't the City consider placing this property on the balance sheet, sod the lot, and place it back on the market for sale? -
One last point, there is no public policy regarding parks in Indian Wells. As part of this, there is no Council adopted policy regarding parks.

I hope to see at least those residents that would be effected by the park decision at the Planning Commission meeting.

Ty Peabody
City Council Member
Paid for by Ty Peabody, Indian Welts City Council Merrfber. Per FPPC, these are my opinions and not necessarily the opinion of other Council Members.

SURVEY REGARDING PROPOSED PASSIVE PARK AT FAIRWAY AND ELDORADO

WE INVITE YOU TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION REGARDILNG THE CITY'S INTENT TO PLACE A PARK (NOT A DOG PARK) AT THE CORNER OF FAIRWAY AND ELDORADO. IF YOU ARE IN FAVOR, VOTE YES; IF OPPOSED, VOTE NO.

NAME ADDRESS
YES
NO
•tl VVI-Cit/\, ) L,4 0
1 //
,......, 2.-..„.,,,:„.._-.
es
o V►d K -.-a,
aL/ 11
taco ✓ 14
, . .
ai
I
ME
MN
I
,A..Z.7L 0- L
/1 r,
g1/4-44 �JJ
rr rrf
mr:,, � /, .•{U 1 Li.(it,le +7..'
1)(i ,I 1).1,1----1 Le.ek <-.
/IV r 1 V' itINtijC Pt d 111
V `. •` ~4 -" "^�" `�
141
11,, r . ,
4/r. L
r
d .
g! r4P4 I•G
Pep Nk.
- D; . 4 wk v 5 . A%-‘4.\-•
5 c t.. c,-
as -
62,

SURVEY REGARDING PROPOSED PART . AT FAIRWAY AND

WE INVITE YOU TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION REGARDILNG THE CITY'S INTENT TO PLACE A PARK (NOT A DOG PARK) AT THE CORNER OF FAIRWAY AND ELDORADO. IF YOU ARE tN FAVOR, VOTE YES; IF OPPOSED, VOTE NO.

NAME

ADDRESS
YES
NO
Ps[rt
X
ere* Arvele.

X
x
(&, twRS •
'Dftvra 4 MNcY vx,9 2V
4144 i44, Mai
iiia

4. ,) 6 In. 4 - et n K. !"toile"/ -:
>
f;6. --;:vg- (tine

n
5 AfickVan I OS*
D.43..e. DumA4--.

Fri'.. i, .4- 7e- 4 --"Ai
fil" Eiji' Mal
L.. 1.4,1 DLECT.6 Fs]
)C
-5-re v E 44-01q,
,L. -srot.1.
cy-,A, k.,...).0.,e,
S-0 1414 /v44.11.2_13.
"Arkkfti , -P „moo ►.
‘1\i \\ - 4 4 - -
1 1
, -
-N ,_,,
1 SURVEY REGARDING PROPOSED. PASSIVE PAR;: FAIRWAY AND„JD,`' ;..•:0 WE INVITE YOU TO EXPRESS YOUR OPINION REGARDILNG THE CIT75 INTENT 7LACE A PARK (NOT A DOG PARK) ATTHE CORNER OF=11RWAY AND ELDORADO. `c'0L r:RE.. ' s FAVOR, VOTE YES; IF O°DOSED, VOTE NO.

NAME
ADDRESS -_ 1 '{ES.

NG
%'G7. I<'t4t .es/
5ve (e-CO,li(X r hie.

VA. 3. M,..,.._i't9sirl G
X l
Z.?'X A.Pii2
o-• L -L. --e-1-//,-,_
14/
/L ,.,4_ W
17 ULAk'r
X
PD v'{ kik dt.,10,4_.t. ,...-
I
r
x
OVf
frt 4:45- PIA Se
r
j
) 0 Q... +...7 2 V4K77✓ I'
4 / *Y- lei')
.
11o/6
I
\'-als-.-.Qc.,3 5- ,t-•
I
El
Jew \, ,,
iv.t.,.(octc 6p, pit 1 1
git 10412, i

6.f2
om
Mir +011s%dm 6,0(
iD 'A/ CSC A'D,4-
Jolla f °l
AssEr —at
cot

[email protected]
Mr. Ty Peabody Provided at Dais
Planning Commission Meeting
02-23-2023
Subject: FW: Planning Commision to meet on proposed Park From: Finance/Business
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 4:40 AM
To: Ty Peabody
Subject: Re: Planning Commision to meet on proposed Park Thank you so much Ty. I chatted with Bruce Whitman last night after he sent out his letter.

All of your points regarding the park expanded on my worry of Homeless, are so concise, I don't understand HOW they can go forward with it.

No parking, lights, 97% of Residents against it! Perhaps a tour through other passive parks so they can see who hangs out in parks. Homeless. And you can't get rid of them, Free Country and all. I assure you it WILL be a problem, as well as a huge upkeep expense. Electricity
Water
Maintenance
Repairs
Police patrol
All parks in wealthy Palm Springs areas have Homeless spending their days in the parks, making it uncomfortable. I see it every day. The drugs and stolen shopping carts and fecal human waste. Please stop the park! Sent from my iPhone
1 [email protected]
Subject: FW: Planning Commision to meet on proposed Park From: katherine jones
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 9:14 AM
To: Ty Peabody
Subject: RE: Planning Commision to meet on proposed Park 110111
No to a park; in that land likely should never have been purchased by the city, return the two lots to the market and hope to sell them at the inflated price the city paid for them. 1 [email protected]
Subject: FW: Planning Commision to meet on proposed Park From: Jebby
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2023 9:05 AM
To: Ty Peabody
Subject: Re: Planning Commision to meet on proposed Park Are you zooming? My caregiver for Tom leaves at 2;00
You can quote me and also qualify with don't shoot the messenger! "Who specifically pushed through the short sighted, stupid idea of spending or tax dollars on a dog park ? This just plain dumb for many reasons. And which idiots buy at the height of the market? Do we have money to burn? Perhaps if you're worried about what could happen there you might have changed the zoning? What ever happened to the building you bought off 111? Do we have fabulous income from it? At the height of the market, did you consider selling it?
You are operating like a dictatorship. We the people participate and vote when you spend our money! All meetings should be open a nd zoomed ... open and NOT COVERT!!! J B Potter
Sent from my iPhone
1 Indian Wells Planning Commission:

As I read the agenda for today's meeting it would appear your mission is to select one of four designs for a Park at the corner of Eldorado and Fairway, (that could be your mission impossible regardless of what you might select those on the council who are adamant about creating this park will have final say). It does not contemplate you determining if this is a good location for a park, it does not contemplate you determining if the property is zoned correctly, or if they are providing adequate parking, or are there any traffic concerns. (we would not want anyone to get killed congregating at that location). It does not allow you to determine if the residents actually want a park at this location. No survey of the residents was done other than the one conducted by Mr. Peabody and they tried to discredit that survey. Last year 254 people living between Rancho Palmeras and Indian Wells Lane said no to a dog park. The designation of the park was then changed to a passive park. As we all know, Gentlemen a park by any name is still a dog park.

You cannot fool mother nature.

So, I ask you, ignore what the city manager and mayor may want and Just no to a proposed park at the corner of Eldorado and Fairway.

Douglas Hanson
Former Mayor & Councilmember

[email protected]
Subject: FW: Planning Commision to meet on proposed Park From: Jay Wahlin
Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2023 8:42 AM
To: Ty Peabody
Subject: Re: Planning Commision to meet on proposed Park no
Jay D. Wahlin, CPA, MBA
President
1=7=
Wahlin Wealth Management
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Phone: I
Fax: i}

Public Comment: City Council
GB Item # I.1- Passive Park
Development

[email protected]
Subject: FW: City Council to Vote on Proposed Park Thursday at 1:30pm From: George Bohrnstedt
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2023 9:15 PM
To: Ty Peabody
Subject: Re: City Council to Vote on Proposed Park Thursday at 1:30pm Ty: Thanks again for keeping us in the loop. We are among those in the community who were excited when we thought there was going to be
a dog park in Indian Wells. I understand why owners near the proposed area for the dog park did not want it there. With that understanding, the first option
for the use of the $1 million should be to find an acceptable location for a dog park. That was the original intent for a park and it should continue to be the focus.

That's my two cents worth.

George Bohrnstedt
1 [email protected]
Subject: FW: City Council to Vote on Proposed Park Thursday at 1:30pm From: Jebby
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2023 7:46 PM
To: Ty Peabody
Subject: Re: City Council to Vote on Proposed Park Thursday at 1:30pm Hi Ty,
I am wondering, from whom did the city buy the park? I used to see and talk to the girl who owned and cared for the lot on my walks. She couldn't sell it.

Cecil met with the city council today. She wants a park of indigenous plants. There was mention of a statue... an Indian... corny . It's a mid century area and so... a mid century sculpture.

I, personally would like to get our money back, collect taxes and eliminate maintenance. We don't need more debt.

Jebby
Sent from my iPhone
1 From:

To:City Clerk
Subject:Indian Wells Park
Date:Tuesday, February 28, 2023 6:34:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside our organization. Be cautious with any links or attachments.

We have owned a home close by to this site for 13 years. We are thrilled to see a park being built on this vacant lot. I think it will be a tremendous benefit for the neighborhood. I like the idea of having a fountain in the middle and some seating to enjoy the surroundings.

I look forward to seeing the finished product.

Andrew Hasman
--
We appreciate all referrals. Please take a moment to review us on Google Selling your home in Vancouver doesn't get any better than this! sign up to our newsletter
connect with me on LinkedIn
follow me on Twitter
find me on Facebook
Public Comment:

Item I.1 -March 2, 2023

From:

To:City Clerk
Cc:Bruce Whitman (home)
Subject:Passive Park Plan
Date:Wednesday, March 1, 2023 5:28:17 PM
CAUTION: This email originated outside our organization. Be cautious with any links or attachments.

There are three things that any park in our climate needs: benches, trees that provide shade, and a water fountain. The design you are considering doesn't appear to have any of these necessities. I would very much enjoy having a park I could walk to with the expectation of sitting and reading, or sitting and chatting with neighbors.

Thanks for creating a park that will enhance community connection and comfort.

Susan Waterfall
Indian Wells, CA 92210
Susan Waterfall
Pianist
Associate Artistic Director, Mendocino Music Festival
Public Comment: City Council
GB Item # I.1- Passive Park Development

Public Comment: City Council
Council Member Bruce Whitman GB
Item # I.1- Passive Park Development

3/1/23, 10:32 AM
Gmail - Re: The Park vote is Thursday.

POI Gmail
Re: The Park vote is Thursday.
3 messages
Bruce Whitman
cabral!
To: [email protected]
Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 9:31 AM
Thank you for this thorough explanation, Bruce. The transparency you displayed during your campaign and maintained after the election is refreshing.

As a resident who lives off of Rancho Palmeras and walking distance from Fairway and Eldorado, 1 agree with your stance think a world -class park is a fantastic idea.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to attend the council meeting due to work but I wish you the best of luck today.

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 2:29 PM Bruce wrote:

View this email in your browser
Fellow Residents and Neighbors
On Thursday Council will vote on a plan for the Park at Fairway and Eldorado. I intend to ask my fellow Council Members to add some amenities to the bare bones 5th plan sent up by the Planning Commission. I understand that there are still some residents baps://mail.google.com/mailfa/0/?ik=6ca4d6d86e&view=pl&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1759187456703074181$&simpl=msg-f%3A1759187456... 116

3/1/23, 10:33 AM Gmail - New public park,
1401P Gmail
Bruce Whitman
New public park,
2 messages
George Palmer
Reply -To: George Palmer
To: "[email protected]"
Bruce„
I like the idea of a park but only with the "amenity" you describe. A park without the features that attract our residence is nothing but a vacant lot.

By the way, I lived in Newport Beach when an identical park situation like ours occurred. The City went ahead and created a lovely park which is well used today. Of interest, however, is the fact that many more non resident people use the park for picnics, birthday parties and children events than the local residence. Not a problem, but interesting.

Please continue to keep us informed.

George Palmer
Indian Wells Resident
Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 9:18 AM
Bruce Whitman
To: George Palmer
Bcc: bbwhitmanlaw gmat .com
Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 10:24 AM
George
I recently went to the Newport Park ( at the Fashion Mall entrance, right?) and it is spectacular.

Can I submit your email as a written public comment tomorrow? Thank you.

Bruce Whitman
Indian Wells City Council Member
Indian Wells, Ca.

On Mar 1, 2023, at 9:18 AM, George Palmer wrote:
[Quoted text hidden]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=6ca4d6d86e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A17591866143692198838isimpl=msg-P/03A1759186614 ... 1/1

3/1/23, 10:33 AM Gmail - Agree
Gmail
Bruce Whitman
Agree
2 messages
Valerie Jones
To: Bruce Whitman
Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 9:28 AM
I agree with your comments in yesterday's e-mail concerning the proposed park at Eldorado/Fairway and yes amenities should be as good as possible in keeping with the Indian Wells city "look".

We do live off of Fairway.

Again really appreciate that you take the time to communicate and detail the information.

Thank you very much
Valerie
Sent from my iPhone
Bruce Whitman Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 10:21 AM
To: Valerie Jones
Bcc: bbwhitmanlaw gmal .com
Thank you Valerie. Would you be willing to have me submit your email as a written public comment tomorrow? Bruce Whitman
Indian Wells City Council Member
Indian Wells, Ca.
> On Mar 1, 2023, at 9:28 AM, Valerie Jones wrote:
> I agree with your comments in yesterday's e-mail concerning the proposed park at Eldorado/Fairway and yes amenities should be as good as possible in keeping with the Indian Wells city "look". [Quoted text hidden]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=6ca4d6d86e&view=pt&search=a1Apermthid=thread-f%3A17591872519397784188,simpl=msg-f%3A1759187251 ... 1/1

3/1/23, 10:34 AM Gmail - Re: The Park vote is Thursday. � Gmail
Bruce Whitman
Re: The Park vote is Thursday.
3 messages
Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 3:05 PM
lo: otawnitman taw(ggmai .com
Cc:
excellent analysis and conclusions.
i live near fairway and palmeras, and am completely in favor of your approach. the other options for the lot, had the city not purchased it, would have diminished property values.
jim robinson
In a message dated 2/28/2023 2:29:57 PM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:

View this email in your browser
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=6ca4d6d86e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1759117896277788764&simpl=msg-f%3A17591178962 ... 1/7

3/1123, 10:35 AM Gmail - Re: The Park vote is Thursday.

Gmail
Re: The Park vote is Thursday.
3 messages
Bruce Whitman [email protected]>
Gordon Johnson
To: [email protected]
Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 4:48 PM
100%, I totally agree. A Park there is needed and with as many appropriate amenities as possible. Water/drink fountain, grass, bike racks.... others.

Thanks for all you have done with this.

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 2:29 PM Bruce Ebbwhitmanlaw cr gmail.com> wrote:

View this email in your browser
Fellow Residents and Neighbors
On Thursday Council will vote on a plan for the Park at Fairway and Eldorado. I intend to ask my fellow Council Members to add some amenities to the bare bones 5th plan sent up by the Planning Commission. I understand that there are still some residents who disagree with having a park at all, or any amenities, or who want the park in another location and who have made their feelings known loud and clear. But, after considering all aspects and arguments, I have to act to further the best interest of https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=6ca4d6d86e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1759124363011932374&simpt=msg-f%3A1759124363 ... 1/7

3/1/23, 10:37 AM Gmail - Re: The Park vote is Thursday.

N1 Gmail
Bruce Whitman
Re: The Park vote is Thursday.
1 message
Dan Hamilton
Love that you're representing all Indian Wells residents, not just the loudest voices critical of the park.

On Feb 28, 2023, at 2:29 PM, Bruce wrote:

View this email in your browser
Fellow Residents and Neighbors
On Thursday Council will vote on a plan for the Park at Fairway and Eldorado. I intend to ask my fellow Council Members to add some amenities to the bare bones 5th plan sent up by the Planning Commission. I understand that there are still some residents who disagree with having a park at all, or any amenities, or who want the park in another location and who have made their feelings known loud and clear. But, after considering all aspects and arguments, I have to act to further the best interest of residents of Indian Wells, and for the reasons further explained below, this park is in the best interest of Indian Wells. I invite you to comment at bbwhitmanlaw©gmail.com.
httpsalmail.gongle.com/maillul0l7ik=6ca4d6d86e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f%3A1759117462126618877&simpl=msg-f%3A17591174621... 1/5

3/1/23, 11:07 AM Gmail - Re: The Park vote is Thursday.

Gmail
Bruce Whitman
Re: The Park vote is Thursday.

Dan Hamilton
To: Bruce Whitman
Wed, Mar 1, 2023 at 10:48 AM
Yes, and you may use my name as well. Might want to mention that as a local realtor I recognize the positive impact of park/community spaces on home values.
(Quoted text hidden]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=6ca4d6d86e&view=pt&search=ail&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1759192343844178413&simpl=msg-f%3A1759192343 ... 1/1

3/1/23, 10:39 AM
Gmail - Re: The Park vote is Thursday.

Gmail
Bruce Whitman
Re: The Park vote is Thursday.
1 message
Karen Bjorn
To: "[email protected]"
Cc: Steve Christian
Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 2:58 PM
Hello Bruce,
I am an avid runner and walk my dog everyday...needless to say I pass by the subject barren corner many times a week.

It is ugly in its current state and the blueish green colored chemical to limit dust is all over the place. Long story short I am in agreement that something needs to be done.

So if we as a city are going to do this then it needs to be done right! Please make an appealing corner with shade, color, green belt, sitting areas, etc. All of this can be done with climate friendly landscaping to limit maintenance and ongoing cost. My fear is that we will just throw down some sod and then be done with it. A large grassy corner instead of a large dirt corner is not the answer.

I am in full support of your ideas and rationale behind the development of the corner.

Regards,
Karen Bjorn
Sent from my iPad
On Feb 28, 2023, at 2:29 PM, Bruce wrote:

View this email in your browser
https://mail.gongle.com/ma illu/0/7 i k=6ca4d6d86e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=th read-f%3A1759117458533595868&s i mpl=msg-f%3A17591174585... 117

3/1/23, 10:40 AM Gmail - Re: The Park vote is Thursday.

Gmail
Bruce Whitman
Re: The Park vote is Thursday.
1 message
Susan Waterfall
GREATJOB ON THIS, BRUCE and GJNNYi
Susan Waterfall
Pianist
Associate Artistic Director, Mendocino Music Festival
From: Bruce
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 2:29 PM
To:

Subject: The Park vote is Thursday.

View this email in your browser
Fellow Residents and Neighbors
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/O!?ik=6ca4d6d86e&view=pt&search=al!&permthid=thread-f%3A1759116755475583359&simpl=msg-f%3A17591167554 ... 1/6

Public Comment: City Council Council Member Bruce Whitman GB Item # I.1- Passive Park Development

From: Susan Waterfall
Subject: Passive Park PI
Date: Mar 1, 2023 at 5:28:01 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: Bruce Whitman [email protected]
There are three things that any park in our climate needs: benches, trees that provide shade, and a water fountain. The design you are considering doesn't appear to have any of these necessities. I would very much enjoy having a park could walk to with the expectation of sitting and reading, or sitting and chatting with neighbors.

Thanks for creating a park that will enhance community connection and comfort.

Susan Waterfall
Indian Wells, CA 92210
Susan Waterfall
Pianist
Associate Artistic Director, Mendocino Music Festival

Hello Bruce,
I am an avid runner and walk my dog everyday...needless to say I pass by the subject barren corner many times a week.

It is ugly in its current state and the blueish green colored chemical to limit dust is all over the place. Long story short am in agreement that something needs to be done.

So if we as a city are going to do this then it needs to be done right! Please make an appealing corner with shade, color, green belt, sitting areas, etc. All of this can be done with climate friendly landscaping to limit maintenance and ongoing cost. My fear is that we will just throw down some sod and then be done with it. A large grassy corner instead of a large dirt corner is not the answer.

I am in full support of your ideas and rationale behind the development of the corner.

Regards,
Karen Bjorn

From: Betsy Beaudin
Subject: Thank you
Date: Feb 28, 2023 at 5:44:33 PM
To: [email protected]
I was glad to read your informational comments, it is strange people are opposed to a park, and I may have inadvertently signed a petition, but I was happy it was a people park not a dog park. Thank you for caring. I live on Fairway and I love the bicyclist who ride by and know they will also enjoy the park.

Thanks again, Betsy Beaudin
Sent from my iPhone

From: Maggie Van Dyke
Subject: Re: The Park vote is Thursday.

Date: Feb 28, 2023 at 8:51:25 PM
To: [email protected]
Please approve this park! I am so tired of looking at a dirt field, when I travel in that direction. I can't, for the life of me, understand why somebody wouldn't want something, other
than dirt, on that corner.

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023, 2:29 PM Bruce
wrote:

View this email in your browser

From: Valerie Jones
Subject: Agree
Date: Mar 1, 2023 at 9:28:19 AM
To: Bruce Whitman [email protected]
I agree with your comments in yesterday's e-mail concerning the proposed park at Eldorado/Fairway and yes amenities should be as good as possible in keeping with the Indian Wells city "look".

We do live off of Fairway.

Again really appreciate that you take the time to
communicate and detail the information.

Thank you very much
Valerie
Sent from my 'Phone

February 28, 2023
From: Larry “Bear” Bonafide

Indian Wells, CA 92210
To: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Indian Wells City Council Subject: All of the residents should make the decision what kind of parks are appropriate in Indian Wells and where they should be located! In view of the current controversy as to whether or not the City should develop a public park of any type at the corner of Eldorado and Fairway, I respectfully submit the City Council should table and pause any further decisions on this or any other parks and focus on what is in the best interest of all of the residents in all areas of the community, not just one small enclave.

In as much as there is no urgent need to do anything immediately to the subject property parcel, no further action one way or another should be taken until the City Council adopts and approves a comprehensive Resident Amenities and Public Parks Policy that considers and evaluates the following:
What types of parks are appropriate for the City and where should they be located.
Determine what types of parks would be in the best interest of all of the residents of Indian Wells and satisfy what residents are most interested in. E.g.:

Dog Park, Par Course, Passive Park, etc.
Decide how the City should appropriate the budgeted funds for Resident Amenities and Perks so that those funds reach the maximum number of residents.

It has been publicly stated that the City acquired the Eldorado and Fairway property to control how it would be developed and for what purpose. In as much as the only investment so far has been the acquisition of the property, that makes it a liquid asset on the City’s books. Time will tell whether or not this was a good investment on way or another, but for right now there has been no negative impact on the City’s balance sheet..

There are good arguments both for and against a park at this location:
Neighborhood beautification
Increase or decrease on surrounding property values
Public safety and noise issues
Traffic, parking and noise concerns
Park maintenance and costs
One of the major original concepts for the property was a for dog park with Desert Rec as a partner. Subsequently multiple layout and cost options for a dog park were Public Comment: March 2, 2023
GB Item # I.1- Passive Park
Development

developed. After much discussion, the dog park concept was set aside due to some of the previously stated concerns. About one year ago a alternate dog park location was proposed and submitted to the City Manager and members of the council. I suggest it is time to put this idea back on the table and evaluate the pros and cons of both locations side by side. The details of the proposed dog park location proposals and conversations follow below and speak for themselves.

This is a big decision that will affect City’s finances, policy and quality of living issues now and in the future. That said, the residents should be the ones to decide on a ballot referendum just like we did for Highway 111. The questions on the ballot could be as follows:

Develop and build a passive park on the City owned residential parcel located at the corner of Eldorado and Fairway
Develop and build a dog park on City owned property adjacent to City Hall

It is my hope that the Council in its wisdom will put any further action on this agenda item on hold and first develop a comprehensive Resident Amenities and Public Parks Policy that will serve the entire community.

Respectfully submitted,
Larry “Bear” Bonafide
Mobile / Text: 510-918-2327
46-340 Manitou Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210

From:

Sent: Monday, May 2, 2022 12:54 PM
To: 'Donna Griffith' <>; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; 'Sanders, Greg' <
Subject: Indian Wells Pass On The Passive Park Proposal Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council;

Since 3.31.22 when I first sent you my recommendations for what is now known as the “PASSIVE PARK”, I have had extensive conversations with my “Indian Wells Residents Network” and unanimously we have concluded that it would be appropriate to change the name of this project to “ PASS ON THE PASSIVE PARK”!.

Following is a summary of the input and opinions of the I W Residents I have had discussions with:

 The City Council should once and for all publicly acknowledge: