26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
7)5) The following landscape projects shall also comply with Chapter 21.70 Water Efficient Landscaping of the City Municipal Code.
i. New construction and rehabilitated landscapes for public agency projects and private development projects requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review;
ii. New construction and rehabilitated landscapes which are developer-installed in single-family and multi-family projects requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review; and
iii. New construction and rehabilitated landscapes which are homeowner-provided and/or homeowner-hired in single-family and multi-family residential projects with a total project area equal to or greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review. 6) Administrative Landscape Exception. The provision of an administrative landscape exception facilitates regulatory flexibility when a standard is deemed inapplicable or unsuitable for a particular use or design.
i. Application. Applicants shall submit a written request for an administrative landscape exception to the Planning Department, accompanied by a comprehensive description and relevant drawings of the proposed project as outlined in Section
21.60.085(d). The Community Development Director may request additional information as necessary.
ii. Approval. The authority to grant or deny an administrative landscape exception resides with the Community Development Director. However, the Community Development Director may refer the application to the Design Review Committee (“DRC”) or the Planning Commission for decision-making. The following findings shall be made prior to approval of the administrative landscape exception:
a. The findings as set forth in Section 21.06.050(d);
b. That the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”);
c. Preservation of the intent of this Zoning Code and the specific regulation under consideration;
d. The circumstances make the strict application of the requirements of this division to the proposed project inappropriate;
iii. Appeal. The applicant may appeal the decision in accordance with the appeal procedures set forth in section 21.06.110.
d)e) Submittal of Landscape Plan.
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
A comprehensive and fully dimensioned landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department, including the following details:
1) Site plan with north arrow identifying the planting areas drawn to scale, along with the location and spacing of proposed plants, trees and any other vegetation. Plants having similar water use shall be grouped together in distinct hydrozones. 2) Show the location and type of irrigation system to be utilized within the different hydrozones, as appropriate.
3) Show all existing or proposed features on the site plan, including pools, spas, fountains, decks (concrete or wooden), planters, walkways, gates, low walls, etc. Also indicate proposed finishes for all flat work.
4) Provide a complete plant palette legend identifying size and species, both common and Latin names, and water usage per the Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS). Drought tolerant species are encouraged. e)f) Landscape Design Standards.
Landscape designs for residential lots, common areas, and commercial developments shall be required to meet the minimum design criteria:
1) Residential lots.
i. Plant density shall be three (3) plants per 100 square-feet of landscape area minimum.
ii. Live or artificial turf areas are permitted and discounted from overall landscape area.
iii. A variety of five (5) unique plant species shall be incorporated within the overall landscape area.
iv. 70% of plants shall be five (5) gallon; 30% of plants shall be fifteen (15) gallon.
Only seasonal plantings (flowers) may be less than five (5) gallon, but shall not be counted toward plant density.
v. A minimum of two (2) 24-inch box trees required in each front yard. Two (2) palm trees at least 8-feet in height may substitute for one (1) 24-inch box tree.
Corner lots shall meet this minimum tree requirement for each of their frontages. Tree root control barriers shall be used on trees installed within 5- feet of any hardscape element or structure.
2) Common areas.
i. Plant density shall be three (3) plants per 100 square-feet of landscape area minimum.
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
ii. Artificial turf areas permitted. Non-functional turf permitted only if irrigated by non-potable water source. Non-functional turf and/or artificial turf shall be discounted from overall landscape area.
iii. A variety of four (4) unique plant species shall be incorporated within the overall landscape area.
iv. 70% of plants shall be five (5) gallon; 30% of plants shall be fifteen (15) gallon.
Only seasonal plantings (flowers) may be less than five (5) gallon, but shall not be counted toward plant density.
v. One (1) 36-inch box tree or two (2) palm trees at least 8-feet in height required per 1,000 sqft of landscape area.
3) Commercial areas.
i. Plant density shall be four (4) plants per 100 square-feet of landscape area minimum.
ii. Artificial turf areas permitted. Non-functional turf permitted only if irrigated by non-potable water source. Non-functional turf and/or artificial turf shall be discounted from overall landscape area.
iii. A variety of five (5) unique plant species shall be incorporated within the overall landscape area.
iv. 70% of plants shall be five (5) gallon; 30% of plants shall be fifteen (15) gallon.
Only seasonal plantings (flowers) may be less than five (5) gallon, but shall not be counted toward plant density.
v. Trees shall be incorporated into the design of all off street parking areas in compliance with Section 21.100.030 of the City’s Municipal Code.
vi. Trees shall be planted along commercial street frontages at a rate of one (1) 36-inch box tree, or one (1) palm tree at least 10-feet in height, per 30-linear feet of street frontage or at the minimum distance between trees as recommended for the specific tree species.
4) Non-Inorganic ground covers and materials.
Open or voided areas within a defined landscape area shall be covered with non- inorganic ground covers, including but not limited to decomposed granite, crushed rock, cobbles, boulders, and mulch (is acceptable), and artificial turf. Bare earth shall not be permitted. A minimum of two (2) different textures of non-inorganic ground covers shall be required within defined landscape areas, including but not limited to:
i. Crushed Rock: 0.5-inch to 1-inch in size, installed at 2-inch minimum depth.
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
ii. Decomposed Granite: 2-inch minimum depth. Not permitted on slopes greater than 3:1
iii. Cobble: 8” or less diameter set on grade with 1” partially buried so that cobble is not sitting on grade.
iv. Pebbles: 1-inch to 2-inch in size, installed at 3-inch minimum depth. v. Mulch: 3-inch minimum depth.
vi. Boulders: Maximum 3-feet in height and must be buried 1/3 of height of boulder
vii. Artificial turf must be manufactured to meet the following quality standards:
1. Must be permeable to allow water infiltration.
2. Minimum face weight of 75oz per square yard.
3. Minimum pile height of 1.75-inch.
4. Blades shall be comprised of two (2) colors for a natural appearance.
5. Made in the USA.
viii. Mounding and the use of complementary colors are encouraged to enhance visual interest and topography within the landscape area. Mounding shall be maintained at a max slope ratio of 3:1 with a max height of three (3) feet. ix. Weed barriers are encouraged.
5) Aesthetic design.
The city’s landscape aesthetic design guidelines and concepts are encouraged to improve the overall landscape design consistent with the city’s quality of life standards. The Community Development Director may refer landscape designs, which do not meet the intent of the aesthetic design guidelines, to the city’s Design Review Committee (DRC) for further review. The following landscape aesthetic design guidelines shall be considered during Planning Department review of required landscape plans:
i. Use of Complimentary Colors: Colors that harmonize and enhance the overall landscape design and built environment are encouraged.
ii. Berming: The aesthetic use of berms and undulating topography is strongly encouraged to add visual interest to the overall landscape design. iii. Proportion and Scale: The design should consider the size relationship between plants, hardscape, and architectural elements, including the application of principles such as the “golden ratio” for spatial arrangements.
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
iv. Order and Balance: Symmetry is encouraged in formal or modern gardens, while asymmetrical planting designs are preferred for natural garden settings.
The architecture and setting should inspire the landscape design. For natural settings, shrubs should be planted in non-uniform masses to present a natural landscape appearance.
v. Repetition and Unity: Repetition fosters order, but variety is essential to prevent monotony. This can be achieved through the effective use of color, texture, and form.
vi. Focal Points: The overall landscape design should incorporate focal points, such as unique plants or features (e.g., boulders, water features, planters, hardscape designs) that contrast with their surroundings in terms of color, size, or texture.
vii. Interconnection: Dry river features and pathways are encouraged to connect different landscape areas, promoting unity and flow.
viii. Simplicity: The design should prioritize simplicity, focusing on primary and accent installations.
ix. Plant Placement: A hierarchy of plant placement is encouraged, with low plants in the foreground and taller plants against structures to create depth.
Consideration should be given to the mature size of plants to prevent overcrowding.
x. Seasonal Interest: A mix of perennial and seasonal plants is recommended to ensure year-round color and interest.
xi. Texture and Form: A variety of textures and forms should be incorporated for added interest. The combination of fine and coarse-textured materials, such as boulders, crushed rocks, cobbles, and decomposed granite, in complementary colors is encouraged.
xii. Landscape Lighting: Any outdoor lighting shall comply with Chapter 22.12 Lighting Standards of the City Municipal Code.
xiii. Landscape Water Features: Any water features included within the landscape area should complement the overall design, be proportionate in size, incorporate recirculating water system, and shall not exceed a maximum of 18-inches in depth measured from the highest possible water level as required by California Building Code Chapter 31 (Special construction), Section 3119. xiv. Project applicants shall reference the Lush and Efficient Landscape Gardening Manual prepared by the Coachella Valley Water District prior to submittal of any landscaping plan for review and approval by the city:
http://web.cvwd.org/conservation/lush_book/index.html . Applicants shall also consult the Invasive Plant Inventory prepared by the California Invasive Plant
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
Council prior to selection of any plant species for landscaping: https://www.cal- ipc.org/plants/
f)g) Irrigation and maintenance.
1) All landscaped areas within the City of Indian Wells shall be irrigated by an automatic irrigation system compliant with Chapter 21.70 Water Efficient Landscaping of the City Municipal Code.
2) All required landscaping and associated irrigation systems shall be appropriately installed and must receive approval from the Planning Department prior to the inauguration or occupancy of the property.
3) All installed landscaping and irrigation systems shall be consistently maintained in accordance with the following specifications or shall be subject to code enforcement penalties in accordance with Section 8.08.010 Maintenance of Property:
i. Landscape maintenance shall encompass regular watering, mowing, pruning, fertilizing, clearing of debris and weeds, the removal and replacement of deceased plants, and the repair and replacement of irrigation systems. ii. To the greatest extent feasible, landscape irrigation water shall not run off the property to create pooling of stagnant water in the street or gutter. iii. Water features, ponds, or any stagnant water bodies within landscaped areas must be equipped with appropriate mosquito prevention measures, such as circulation systems, mosquito fish, or other approved methods, to prevent the breeding of mosquitos. Circulation systems should run at least 8 hours per day.
If a feature has no pump or other approved mosquito control measure, water shall be drained and replaced every 96 hours. Regular inspections and maintenance of these measures are encouraged to ensure their effectiveness. iv. Property owners, homeowner’s associations, or other responsible entities shall ensure that no stagnant water accumulates in any landscaped areas, as such conditions can become breeding grounds for mosquitos. Neglected pools, fountains, or standing water shall be drained to prevent breeding of mosquitos.
Property owners shall notify the Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District if their water feature is drained or neglected. v. Prior to the approval of a final development plan permit or the recording of a subdivision map, a covenant ensuring the ongoing maintenance of all required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be established. This covenant, whether held by property owners, homeowners associations, or another responsible entity, must be approved by the Community Development Director, with the recommendation of the city attorney, and subsequently recorded in the county recorder’s office.
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
g)h) Public safety and protection of intersection visibility.
1) Landscape design plans for corner parcel development projects must ensure traffic safety sight areas are designed to uphold public safety, consistent with Section
21.50.040 Protection of intersection visibility regulations of city’s Municipal Code. 2) Trees and shrubs shall be planted so that at maturity they do not interfere with utility service lines, street lighting, street sweeping, traffic safety sight areas, on-site signs, and basic property rights of adjoining property owners. 3) Trees planted near public curbs, sidewalks, or utility vaults shall have a limited root structure and shall be installed to prevent physical damage to public improvements and shall comply with the following provisions:
i. Canopy trees shall be placed a minimum of ten feet from public street curb and a minimum of three feet from sidewalks.
ii. Palm trees with a trunk height of ten feet or more shall be placed a minimum of three feet from public street curb and sidewalks.
iii. A root barrier system shall be installed when trees are located near public curbs, sidewalks, or utility vaults.
iv. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be required for all public street parkways and median islands and shall conform to city standards and be submitted for review and approval to the city engineer and planning division. v. Right-of-way lines shall be shown on the final landscape plan.
Section 21.60.020 of Title 21 Zoning Code is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
21.60.020 Applicability and Review Authority.
(a) This Chapter applies to the following activities:
(1) Obtaining a permit to construct a building or structure in any zone; (2) Undertaking any external modification to a structure visible to any roadway or open space, public or private;
(3) Installationing of new or remodeled landscape projects in excess of 250 square- feet within all areas of the City except common interest development areas that are not
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
visible from public right-of-way.landscape projects in excess of 250 square-feet within all areas of the City adjacent to a roadway or open space, public or private; (4) Replacing or modifying existing hardscape or landscape in a yard which abuts a roadway or open space, public or private in excess of two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet;
(54) Installing new or modifying an existing antenna, outdoor lighting, landscape lighting, private tennis court, emergency generators greater than fifteen thousand (15,000) kilowatts; and
(65) Minor exterior remodel of or addition to a single-family residence, such as:
(i) A window or door change-out,
(ii) A change of exterior house color (desert tones are preferred),
(iii) A wall, fence, planter, fountain, or similar architectural amenity,
(iv) Re-roofing,
(v) A patio cover,
(vi) Solar panels,
(vii) An addition in the rear or side yard that is not visible to any roadway or open space area, public or private,
(viii) Front and side-yard landscape projects visible from the public right-of- waystreet with a landscaped area greater than 250 square feet and less than 2,500 square feet. improvements that affect less than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet unless exempt pursuant to Section 21.60.085(c)(4) below, and
(ix) Accessory Dwelling Units in compliance with the requirements in Section
21.85.040
(b) Before commencing any of the activities listed in subsection (a) above, the owner of the property must submit a design review application to the Planning Department, to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Chapter, as well as with the basic zoning and other design parameters that are specified in the Zoning Code. Submissions may be done electronically via the City’s website or in person with the Planning Department.
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
(1) For purposes of this Chapter, the Planning Department, DRC, or the Planning Commission is the “Review Authority” when making the initial decision about an application.
(2) If an application is consistent with all the requirements of the Zoning Code:
(i) Planning Department Review.
(A) The Planning Department is generally the Review Authority for the following:
1. An application under subsection (a)(65) above; or
2. An application for a property located in an area with an active Homeowner’s Association, and the complete design review application has been reviewed and approved by the Association.
(B) However, the Community Development Director may refer the application to the Design Review Committee (“DRC”) or directly to the Planning Commission as the Review Authority.
(ii) DRC Review. The DRC is generally the Review Authority for an application under any of subsections (a)(1) through (a)(54) above, including landscape projects larger than 2,500 square feet, but any member of the DRC may refer the application to the Planning Commission as the Review Authority.
(3) If an application is inconsistent with any requirement of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission is the Review Authority. unless an administrative landscape exception request is granted under section 21.60.085(d)(6) below. (Ord. 727 § 2, 2020)
Section 21.60.080 of Title 21 Zoning Code is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
21.60.080 Architecture Application Requirements.
A complete design review application shall include the items listed below.
Submissions that are incomplete will not be considered. The Planning Department or
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
Review Authority (as defined by Section 21.60.020(b)(1)) may require additional information for a particular application. Design guidelines established by the City, or if applicable, a Homeowners Association’s Architectural Guidelines should be consulted prior to submission of the application. A complete application must include each of the following:
(a) Application to Construct Form. A completed “Application to Construct” form which can be obtained in electronic or hard-copy format from the City. (b) Required Plans (electronic copies preferred). Two (2) sets of 24″ x 36″ or 30″ x 42″ bluelines or blacklines, along with one (1) rendered blackline each of the residence, elevations, landscape plans prepared in accordance with Section 21.60.085, and other data pertinent to the particular application. Rendered blacklines shall be rolled, not folded.
Defaced, incomplete, indefinite or faded plans will not be accepted. All residential plans and elevations shall be drawn at a minimum scale of 1/8″ = 1′0″. For single family residential submittals, a set of plans shall consist of the items listed below. Requirements for multi-family residential and non-residential projects shall include information necessary to evaluate the proposed project as determined by the Director of Community Development.
(1) General Information Block.
(i) Owner and designer’s names;
(ii) Address of owner;
(iii) Telephone number of owner;
(iv) Assessor parcel number and address of residence;
(v) North point, date of drawing and scale; and
(vi) Vicinity map showing location of project.
(2) Site Plan.
(i) Legal description (lot and tract);
(ii) Lot size (dimension along each property line);
(iii) Zone classification and type of development of subject property and of all adjacent property, including across any street. Show distance of structure(s) on adjacent properties that are within ten (10) feet of project property line;
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
(iv) Setback of existing and proposed buildings in relation to property lines per standards of the zone;
(v) Locations of swimming pools, spas, air conditioner equipment, pool and spa equipment (i.e., heater, pump), storage areas, utility installations, antenna, tennis courts, refuse storage areas and other auxiliary household equipment shall be noted on site plans;
(vi) Computed areas of building coverage, impervious surfaces, landscaping, and open space;
(vii) Dimension of property lines or boundary lines of project;
(viii) Location, names and widths of boundary streets; and recorded road, utility or drainage easements on property (where none exists, indicate by a note that no easement exists);
(ix) Elevation of existing curb and gutter where available or edge of pavement where no curb exists;
(x) Pad grade and finish-floor elevations; provide information on adjacent parcels if available;
(xi) Heights of existing or proposed walls and fences, as measured from exterior side of wall (side facing street or adjacent property);
(xii) A “line of sight” section for all in-fill construction;
(xiii) Clear delineation of all proposed driveways subject to the criteria outlined under Section 21.20.080; and
(xiv) For all large-scale development (ten (10) acres or larger), the inclusion of natural open space areas to provide habitat for native wildlife.
NOTE: All site plans must include sufficient information to demonstrate compliance with all applicable development standards in the Zoning Code. (3) Floor Plan. Square footage of living space and location, size, and use of all rooms.
Show all significant dimensions.
(4) Elevations.
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
(i) Provide all elevations identified as front, rear, right and left side; (ii) Show locations of doors, windows, chimneys, etc.; (iii) Show exterior finishes and roof material;
(iv) Dimension elevation from pad grade, indicate all significant vertical dimensions; and
(v) Show all proposed plant material (trees and shrubs) against elevations. Provide as separate set of elevations.
(5) Roof Plan. Only thirty (30) percent of the total roof area may exceed fifteen (15) feet in height, up to a maximum eighteen (18) feet. Identify that portion of the total roof area that exceeds fifteen (15) feet in height. Show percent calculation on plan. (6) Mailbox Design per United States Postal Service Requirements. Provide a minimum ½″ = 1′0″ scale mailbox design not to exceed four (4) feet in height and eighteen (18) inches in width or depth.
NOTE: Review of design packages containing landscape plans not prepared by a California licensed landscape architect will be subject to additional review fees incurred by the City for the review of such plans by professional design consultants. (7) Conceptual Lighting Plan. Plan shall be submitted delineating size, location, light spread, illuminating capacity (candle power) and hours of operation of proposed exterior lighting. Plan shall be in conformance with lighting standards found in Chapter 22.12 of the City Municipal Code.
(8) Materials Sample and Color Board. (Maximum size 8 ½″ x 14″): Sample of materials should be kept to a minimum size; include exterior finishes of residence including door and window trim colors, and garden walls, along with exterior colors. (Desert tone colors are preferred.)
(c) Fee. An application fee in an amount published by the Planning Department is required for review and processing of architectural design packages. (Ord. 727 § 2, 2020)
Section 21.90.030 of Title 21 Zoning Code is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
21.90.030 Non-conforming uses and structures.
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
(a) General. Unless otherwise required by the municipal code, any legally established, lawful use of land, building, structure, or improvement may be continued except as provided herein, even if such use does not conform with the applicable provisions of the current municipal code.
(b) Abandonment. Any legally established non-conforming use of land, building, structure, or improvement that becomes vacant and remains unoccupied for a continuous period of one (1) year shall be termed abandoned, and all future uses shall comply with the regulations of the area in which it is located.
(c) Alterations or Additions. An existing building, structure, or improvement conforming as to use but that does not conform to the general development standards may be altered, added to or enlarged, provided that any alteration, addition, or enlargement complies with the current regulations of this division. (d) Maintenance. A legal non-conforming building, structure, site, or improvement shall be maintained in sound and safe condition.
(e) Restoration of Damaged Structures. A legal non-conforming building, and/or structure which is damaged or partially destroyed by fire, explosion or man-induced or natural disaster to the extent of more than seventy-five (75) percent of the fair market value according to the assessment as listed by the Riverside County Assessor for the fiscal year during which the destruction occurs shall be subject to all the applicable regulations specified by this division. (Ord. 387 § 1, 1996)
26529.00000\41925654.2
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS AMENDING SECTIONS 21.60.020, 21.60.080, 21.90.030 AND ADDING SECTION 21.60.085 TO THE CITY ZONING CODE RELATING TO CITY LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS; AND FINDING THE ACTION TO BE
CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT
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, 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 and intends to amend Section(s) 21.60.020, 21.60.080,
21.90.030 and add Section 21.60.085 to the City’s Zoning Code to clarify existing regulations and adopt new regulations related to the City’s landscape requirements; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held three (3) separate study sessions with the community and the City’s professional landscape consultant to discuss potential revisions to the city’s landscape regulations at which time all persons wishing to be heard were afforded an opportunity to be heard; and
WHEREAS, on October 12, 2023, the City gave public notice of a Planning Commission public hearing to be held to consider this Ordinance by advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2023, the Planning Commission held its first public hearing to consider the staff report, recommendations by staff, and public testimony concerning this Ordinance.
Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to forward the Ordinance to the City Council with a recommendation in favor of its adoption; and WHEREAS, on November 21, 2023 the City gave public notice of a City Council public hearing to be held to consider this Ordinance by advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, on December 7, 2023, the City Council held its first public hearing to consider the Ordinance, including: (1) the public testimony and agenda reports prepared in connection with the Ordinance, (2) the policy considerations discussed therein, and (3) the consideration and recommendation by the City’s Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, after considering staff’s presentation and public testimony, City Council deliberated on the Planning Commission’s recommended amendment to enforce a timeline for properties recently found not to be in compliance with the current landscape code, and ATTACHMENT #5
26529.00000\41925654.2
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
WHEREAS, after much deliberation, City Council directed staff to rescind all recent Notices of Violation to property owners found not be in compliance with the current landscape code, and bring the ordinance back to Planning Commission for consideration of an optional enforcement policy provided by city staff; and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2023, the City noticed the Planning Commission’s second public hearing for the proposed ordinance in accordance with Government Code section 65090; and
WHEREAS, on December 28, 2023, the City’s Planning Commission conducted their second public hearing to reconsider the proposed ordinance with amendments and consider additional public testimony. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted to forward the Ordinance to the City Council with a recommendation in favor of its adoption; and
WHEREAS, on January 4, 2024 the City gave public notice of the second City Council public hearing to be held on the Ordinance by advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, on January 18, 2024, the City Council held its second public hearing to consider the Ordinance, including: (1) the public testimony and agenda reports prepared in connection with the Ordinance, (2) the policy considerations discussed therein, and (3) the consideration and recommendation by the City’s Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of the Ordinance have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. CEQA. This action has been reviewed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State and local CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The City, acting as the Lead Agency, has determined the ordinance amendment is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15304, where the proposed amendment consists of minor public or private alterations to the condition of land, water or vegetation as there is no possibility the activity in question will have a significant effect on the environment. Alternatively, it has determined the ordinance amendment is exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section(s) 15307 and 15308 as actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state law or local ordinance, to maintain, restore, or enhance a natural resource. The City shall file a notice of exemption within five business days of adoption.
Section 3. General Plan. Based on the entire record before the City Council, including the Planning Commission recommendation and all written and oral evidence presented, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed water efficient landscape amendments to the City’s Zoning Code are consistent with stated goals and policies in the City’s adopted General Plan, including General Plan
26529.00000\41925654.2
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
Policy(s) 11.A1.18(1) which aims to promote water efficient landscaping and other methods to support environmental conservation goals; Policy IIIA8.3 which aims to incorporate water-wise native landscaping or alternative water saving materials (i.e., artificial turf) whenever feasible within the City, and; Water Conservation Goal IIIA5 which aims to protect and maintain safe and adequate water supply to ensure that the City’s growing demand for water can be met in a sustainable manner.
Section 4. Code Amendments. Section(s) 21.60.020, 21.60.080, 21.90.030 and
21.60.085 of the Indian Wells Zoning Code are hereby amended and added, respectfully, to read in their entirety as set forth in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance takes effect 30 days following its adoption.
Section 6. 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 7. 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 which 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 8. Publication; Effective Date. 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 18th day of January 2024.
________________________
GREG SANDERS
MAYOR
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF INDIAN WELLS)
26529.00000\41925654.2
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
CERTIFICATION FOR ORDINANCE NO. ____
I, Angelica Avila, City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Indian Wells, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that Ordinance No.__ , having been regularly introduced at a regular meeting of January 18, 2024 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 January ___, 2024 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\41925654.2
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
EXHIBIT A
Amended Landscape Regulations
(follows this page)
26529.00000\41925654.2
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
Exhibit A: Code Amendments
Section 21.60.085 is hereby added to Title 21 Zoning Code to read in its entirety as follows:
21.60.085 Landscape Application Requirements
A complete landscape application shall include the items listed below. Submissions that are incomplete will not be considered. The Planning Department or Review Authority (as defined by Section 21.60.020(b)(1)) may require additional information for a particular application. Design guidelines established by the City should be consulted prior to submission of the application. a) Purpose and Intent.
This Section provides general standards establishing landscaping requirements that are intended to:
1) Protect and elevate the city’s unique desert setting, distinguishing itself as a prestigious resort community. The standards set forth aim to enhance the aesthetic appearance of all developments.
2) Ensure compatibility between adjoining land uses and public rights of way, ensuring a harmonious blend with the surrounding environment.
3) Conserve water through efficient irrigation and appropriate plant selection, and align the city’s standards with state water conservations acts aiming to reduce water consumption.
4) Prioritize the health and safety of the public, ensuring that landscaping practices in the City enhance pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety and maintain the integrity of neighborhoods.
5) Establish a unified City landscape theme, promote water conservation and enhance the physical and natural beauty of the environment.
b) Application
The landscaping requirements in this chapter apply to the following within all areas of the City except common interest development areas that are not visible from public right-of- way:
1) All new landscape or remodeled landscape projects on or after January 1, 2024 that affect more than 250 square feet;
26529.00000\41925654.2
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
2) All properties that, as of December 1, 2023, have within fewer than two plants per 100 square feet or that have less than 50 percent coverage with city-approved groundcover (organic or inorganic).
3) Fee. An application fee in an amount published by the Planning Department is required for review and processing of landscape design packages.
c) Definitions.
As used in this Section, terms are defined as follows:
1) “Artificial turf” means a surface made from synthetic fibers to look like natural grass. 2) “Berming” means the process of creating raised areas of soil, often for the purpose of enhancing landscape design or managing water flow.
3) “Box trees” means trees that are sold in large square containers. Size, such as 24- inch or 36-inch, refers to the diagonal measurement of the box. 4) “Compost” means decomposed organic matter used to enrich soil. 5) “Drought-tolerant plants” means plants that can survive with minimal water, often native to arid regions.
6) “Focal points” means elements in a landscape design that capture attention, such as a unique plant, water feature, statue, or other installations. 7) “Golden ratio” means a mathematical ratio found in nature and art, often used in design for its aesthetically pleasing properties. In landscaping, it refers to the proportional arrangement of plants and hardscape.
8) “Grandfathered landscapes” refers to properties that currently have legal nonconforming landscapes in place. These properties are classified as grandfathered and are therefore exempt from the regulations outlined in this section unless they are subject to paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Any modifications to these grandfathered landscapes will be regulated pursuant to section 21.90.030. 9) “Hardscape” means non-living elements of landscaping, such as concrete patios, walkways, and walls.
10) “Hydrozone” means a portion of the landscaped area having plants with similar water needs that are served by sprinkler heads, a valve or set of valves with the same schedule.
26529.00000\41925654.2
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
11) “Inorganic ground Cover” means inorganic materials used to cover the ground for decorative or functional purposes, such as decomposed granite, crushed rock, cobbles, and boulders.
12) “Irrigation system” means a system that delivers water to plants. Types include drip irrigation (where water drips slowly to the roots of plants) and sprinkler systems. 13) “Landscape area” means all non-turf areas such as parkways, planters, flower beds and undeveloped areas that require landscape, irrigation and weed control. 14) “Mulch” means an organic material spread around plants to retain moisture, suppress weeds, and improve soil health.
15) “Non-functional turf” means turf that is solely ornamental and not regularly used for human recreational purposes or for civic or community events. 16) “Non-potable water” means water not treated to drinking water standards and is not meant for human consumption. Includes raw (untreated) water from reservoirs, which is commonly used for irrigation and other purposes.
17) “Organic cover” means a natural material used to cover the soil and enhance its quality. Examples include mulch and compost.
18) “Plant density” means the number of plants within a defined landscape area calculated as an average of plants per 100 square-feet.
19) “Plant size” means the volume of the container in which a plant is sold, which gives an approximate idea of the size of the plant. Common sizes include one-gallon, five- gallon, and fifteen-gallon.
20) “Texture” means how fine or coarse the surface of a plant or inorganic material is.
For inorganic ground cover, texture refers to the size of the crushed rock, pebbles, stone, etc.
21) “Tree root barrier” means a root deflector, which can be made from various materials that help block or redirect roots to prevent damage to adjacent hardscape features or structures.
22) “Turf” means the upper layer of ground that is made up of live grass and plant roots. 23) “Weed barrier” means a permeable cloth material laid over the ground to prevent the growth of weeds.
d) Review and Permitting Authority.
1) All landscape projects with a landscaped area greater than 250 square feet and less than 2,500 square feet shall be reviewed and permitted by the Planning Department in compliance with this Section.
26529.00000\41925654.2
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
2) Landscape plans exceeding 2,500 square feet and not within an active homeowner’s association shall be reviewed by the City’s Design Review Committee (DRC). 3) Landscape plans for areas greater than 2,500 square feet shall require plans drawn by a professional landscape architect licensed in the state of California. 4) All properties that require the installation of landscaping in compliance with the development standards of this title shall provide and maintain landscaping in compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
5) The following landscape projects shall also comply with Chapter 21.70 Water Efficient Landscaping of the City Municipal Code.
i. New construction and rehabilitated landscapes for public agency projects and private development projects requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review;
ii. New construction and rehabilitated landscapes which are developer-installed in single-family and multi-family projects requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review; and
iii. New construction and rehabilitated landscapes which are homeowner-provided and/or homeowner-hired in single-family and multi-family residential projects with a total project area equal to or greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review. 6) Administrative Landscape Exception. The provision of an administrative landscape exception facilitates regulatory flexibility when a standard is deemed inapplicable or unsuitable for a particular use or design.
i. Application. Applicants shall submit a written request for an administrative landscape exception to the Planning Department, accompanied by a comprehensive description and relevant drawings of the proposed project as outlined in Section
21.60.085(d). The Community Development Director may request additional information as necessary.
ii. Approval. The authority to grant or deny an administrative landscape exception resides with the Community Development Director. However, the Community Development Director may refer the application to the Design Review Committee (“DRC”) or the Planning Commission for decision-making. The following findings shall be made prior to approval of the administrative landscape exception:
i. The findings as set forth in Section 21.06.050(d);
ii. That the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”);
iii. Preservation of the intent of this Zoning Code and the specific regulation under consideration;
26529.00000\41925654.2
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
iv. The circumstances make the strict application of the requirements of this division to the proposed project inappropriate;
iii. Appeal. The applicant may appeal the decision in accordance with the appeal procedures set forth in section 21.06.110.
e) Submittal of Landscape Plan.
A comprehensive and fully dimensioned landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department, including the following details:
1) Site plan with north arrow identifying the planting areas drawn to scale, along with the location and spacing of proposed plants, trees and any other vegetation. Plants having similar water use shall be grouped together in distinct hydrozones. 2) Show the location and type of irrigation system to be utilized within the different hydrozones, as appropriate.
3) Show all existing or proposed features on the site plan, including pools, spas, fountains, decks (concrete or wooden), planters, walkways, gates, low walls, etc. Also indicate proposed finishes for all flat work.
4) Provide a complete plant palette legend identifying size and species, both common and Latin names, and water usage per the Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS). Drought tolerant species are encouraged. f) Landscape Design Standards.
Landscape designs for residential lots, common areas, and commercial developments shall be required to meet the minimum design criteria:
1) Residential lots.
i. Plant density shall be three (3) plants per 100 square-feet of landscape area minimum.
ii. Live or artificial turf areas are permitted and discounted from overall landscape area.
iii. A variety of five (5) unique plant species shall be incorporated within the overall landscape area.
iv. 70% of plants shall be five (5) gallon; 30% of plants shall be fifteen (15) gallon.
Only seasonal plantings (flowers) may be less than five (5) gallon, but shall not be counted toward plant density.
v. A minimum of two (2) 24-inch box trees required in each front yard. Two (2) palm trees at least 8-feet in height may substitute for one (1) 24-inch box tree.
Corner lots shall meet this minimum tree requirement for each of their
26529.00000\41925654.2
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
frontages. Tree root control barriers shall be used on trees installed within 5- feet of any hardscape element or structure.
2) Common areas.
i. Plant density shall be three (3) plants per 100 square-feet of landscape area minimum.
ii. Artificial turf areas permitted. Non-functional turf permitted only if irrigated by non-potable water source. Non-functional turf and/or artificial turf shall be discounted from overall landscape area.
iii. A variety of four (4) unique plant species shall be incorporated within the overall landscape area.
iv. 70% of plants shall be five (5) gallon; 30% of plants shall be fifteen (15) gallon.
Only seasonal plantings (flowers) may be less than five (5) gallon, but shall not be counted toward plant density.
v. One (1) 36-inch box tree or two (2) palm trees at least 8-feet in height required per 1,000 sqft of landscape area.
3) Commercial areas.
i. Plant density shall be four (4) plants per 100 square-feet of landscape area minimum.
ii. Artificial turf areas permitted. Non-functional turf permitted only if irrigated by non-potable water source. Non-functional turf and/or artificial turf shall be discounted from overall landscape area.
iii. A variety of five (5) unique plant species shall be incorporated within the overall landscape area.
iv. 70% of plants shall be five (5) gallon; 30% of plants shall be fifteen (15) gallon.
Only seasonal plantings (flowers) may be less than five (5) gallon, but shall not be counted toward plant density.
v. Trees shall be incorporated into the design of all off street parking areas in compliance with Section 21.100.030 of the City’s Municipal Code.
vi. Trees shall be planted along commercial street frontages at a rate of one (1) 36-inch box tree, or one (1) palm tree at least 10-feet in height, per 30-linear feet of street frontage or at the minimum distance between trees as recommended for the specific tree species.
4) Inorganic ground covers and materials.
26529.00000\41925654.2
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
Open or voided areas within a defined landscape area shall be covered with inorganic ground covers, including but not limited to decomposed granite, crushed rock, cobbles, boulders, and mulch is acceptable. Bare earth shall not be permitted. A minimum of two (2) different textures of inorganic ground covers shall be required within defined landscape areas, including but not limited to:
i. Crushed Rock: 0.5-inch to 1-inch in size, installed at 2-inch minimum depth. ii. Decomposed Granite: 2-inch minimum depth. Not permitted on slopes greater than 3:1
iii. Cobble: 8” or less diameter set on grade with 1” partially buried so that cobble is not sitting on grade.
iv. Pebbles: 1-inch to 2-inch in size, installed at 3-inch minimum depth. v. Mulch: 3-inch minimum depth.
vi. Boulders: Maximum 3-feet in height and must be buried 1/3 of height of boulder
vii. Artificial turf must be manufactured to meet the following quality standards:
1. Must be permeable to allow water infiltration.
2. Minimum face weight of 75oz per square yard.
3. Minimum pile height of 1.75-inch.
4. Blades shall be comprised of two (2) colors for a natural appearance.
5. Made in the USA.
viii. Mounding and the use of complementary colors are encouraged to enhance visual interest and topography within the landscape area. Mounding shall be maintained at a max slope ratio of 3:1 with a max height of three (3) feet. ix. Weed barriers are encouraged.
5) Aesthetic design.
The city’s landscape aesthetic design guidelines and concepts are encouraged to improve the overall landscape design consistent with the city’s quality of life standards. The Community Development Director may refer landscape designs, which do not meet the intent of the aesthetic design guidelines, to the city’s Design Review Committee (DRC) for further review. The following landscape aesthetic design guidelines shall be considered during Planning Department review of required landscape plans:
26529.00000\41925654.2
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
i. Use of Complimentary Colors: Colors that harmonize and enhance the overall landscape design and built environment are encouraged.
ii. Berming: The aesthetic use of berms and undulating topography is strongly encouraged to add visual interest to the overall landscape design. iii. Proportion and Scale: The design should consider the size relationship between plants, hardscape, and architectural elements, including the application of principles such as the “golden ratio” for spatial arrangements. iv. Order and Balance: Symmetry is encouraged in formal or modern gardens, while asymmetrical planting designs are preferred for natural garden settings.
The architecture and setting should inspire the landscape design. For natural settings, shrubs should be planted in non-uniform masses to present a natural landscape appearance.
v. Repetition and Unity: Repetition fosters order, but variety is essential to prevent monotony. This can be achieved through the effective use of color, texture, and form.
vi. Focal Points: The overall landscape design should incorporate focal points, such as unique plants or features (e.g., boulders, water features, planters, hardscape designs) that contrast with their surroundings in terms of color, size, or texture.
vii. Interconnection: Dry river features and pathways are encouraged to connect different landscape areas, promoting unity and flow.
viii. Simplicity: The design should prioritize simplicity, focusing on primary and accent installations.
ix. Plant Placement: A hierarchy of plant placement is encouraged, with low plants in the foreground and taller plants against structures to create depth.
Consideration should be given to the mature size of plants to prevent overcrowding.
x. Seasonal Interest: A mix of perennial and seasonal plants is recommended to ensure year-round color and interest.
xi. Texture and Form: A variety of textures and forms should be incorporated for added interest. The combination of fine and coarse-textured materials, such as boulders, crushed rocks, cobbles, and decomposed granite, in complementary colors is encouraged.
xii. Landscape Lighting: Any outdoor lighting shall comply with Chapter 22.12 Lighting Standards of the City Municipal Code.
xiii. Landscape Water Features: Any water features included within the landscape area should complement the overall design, be proportionate in size,
26529.00000\41925654.2
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
incorporate recirculating water system, and shall not exceed a maximum of 18-inches in depth measured from the highest possible water level as required by California Building Code Chapter 31 (Special construction), Section 3119. xiv. Project applicants shall reference the Lush and Efficient Landscape Gardening Manual prepared by the Coachella Valley Water District prior to submittal of any landscaping plan for review and approval by the city:
http://web.cvwd.org/conservation/lush_book/index.html . Applicants shall also consult the Invasive Plant Inventory prepared by the California Invasive Plant Council prior to selection of any plant species for landscaping: https://www.cal- ipc.org/plants/
g) Irrigation and maintenance.
1) All landscaped areas within the City of Indian Wells shall be irrigated by an automatic irrigation system compliant with Chapter 21.70 Water Efficient Landscaping of the City Municipal Code.
2) All required landscaping and associated irrigation systems shall be appropriately installed and must receive approval from the Planning Department prior to the inauguration or occupancy of the property.
3) All installed landscaping and irrigation systems shall be consistently maintained in accordance with the following specifications or shall be subject to code enforcement penalties in accordance with Section 8.08.010 Maintenance of Property:
i. Landscape maintenance shall encompass regular watering, mowing, pruning, fertilizing, clearing of debris and weeds, the removal and replacement of deceased plants, and the repair and replacement of irrigation systems. ii. To the greatest extent feasible, landscape irrigation water shall not run off the property to create pooling of stagnant water in the street or gutter. iii. Water features, ponds, or any stagnant water bodies within landscaped areas must be equipped with appropriate mosquito prevention measures, such as circulation systems, mosquito fish, or other approved methods, to prevent the breeding of mosquitos. Circulation systems should run at least 8 hours per day.
If a feature has no pump or other approved mosquito control measure, water shall be drained and replaced every 96 hours. Regular inspections and maintenance of these measures are encouraged to ensure their effectiveness. iv. Property owners, homeowner’s associations, or other responsible entities shall ensure that no stagnant water accumulates in any landscaped areas, as such conditions can become breeding grounds for mosquitos. Neglected pools, fountains, or standing water shall be drained to prevent breeding of mosquitos.
Property owners shall notify the Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District if their water feature is drained or neglected.
26529.00000\41925654.2
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
v. Prior to the approval of a final development plan permit or the recording of a subdivision map, a covenant ensuring the ongoing maintenance of all required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be established. This covenant, whether held by property owners, homeowners associations, or another responsible entity, must be approved by the Community Development Director, with the recommendation of the city attorney, and subsequently recorded in the county recorder’s office.
h) Public safety and protection of intersection visibility.
1) Landscape design plans for corner parcel development projects must ensure traffic safety sight areas are designed to uphold public safety, consistent with Section
21.50.040 Protection of intersection visibility regulations of city’s Municipal Code. 2) Trees and shrubs shall be planted so that at maturity they do not interfere with utility service lines, street lighting, street sweeping, traffic safety sight areas, on-site signs, and basic property rights of adjoining property owners. 3) Trees planted near public curbs, sidewalks, or utility vaults shall have a limited root structure and shall be installed to prevent physical damage to public improvements and shall comply with the following provisions:
i. Canopy trees shall be placed a minimum of ten feet from public street curb and a minimum of three feet from sidewalks.
ii. Palm trees with a trunk height of ten feet or more shall be placed a minimum of three feet from public street curb and sidewalks.
iii. A root barrier system shall be installed when trees are located near public curbs, sidewalks, or utility vaults.
iv. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be required for all public street parkways and median islands and shall conform to city standards and be submitted for review and approval to the city engineer and planning division. v. Right-of-way lines shall be shown on the final landscape plan.
26529.00000\41925654.2
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
Section 21.60.020 of Title 21 Zoning Code is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
21.60.020 Applicability and Review Authority.
(a) This Chapter applies to the following activities:
(1) Obtaining a permit to construct a building or structure in any zone; (2) Undertaking any external modification to a structure visible to any roadway or open space, public or private;
(3) Installation of new or remodeled landscape projects in excess of 250 square-feet within all areas of the City except common interest development areas that are not visible from public right-of-way.
(4) Installing new or modifying an existing antenna, outdoor lighting, landscape lighting, private tennis court, emergency generators greater than fifteen thousand (15,000) kilowatts; and
(5) Minor exterior remodel of or addition to a single-family residence, such as:
(i) A window or door change-out,
(ii) A change of exterior house color (desert tones are preferred),
(iii) A wall, fence, planter, fountain, or similar architectural amenity,
(iv) Re-roofing,
(v) A patio cover,
(vi) Solar panels,
(vii) An addition in the rear or side yard that is not visible to any roadway or open space area, public or private,
(viii) Front-yard landscape projects visible from the street with a landscaped area greater than 250 square feet and less than 2,500 square feet.
26529.00000\41925654.2
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
(ix) Accessory Dwelling Units in compliance with the requirements in Section
21.85.040
(b) Before commencing any of the activities listed in subsection (a) above, the owner of the property must submit a design review application to the Planning Department, to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Chapter, as well as with the basic zoning and other design parameters that are specified in the Zoning Code. Submissions may be done electronically via the City’s website or in person with the Planning Department. (1) For purposes of this Chapter, the Planning Department, DRC, or the Planning Commission is the “Review Authority” when making the initial decision about an application.
(2) If an application is consistent with all the requirements of the Zoning Code:
(i) Planning Department Review.
(A) The Planning Department is generally the Review Authority for the following:
1. An application under subsection (a)(5) above; or
2. An application for a property located in an area with an active Homeowner’s Association, and the complete design review application has been reviewed and approved by the Association.
(B) However, the Community Development Director may refer the application to the Design Review Committee (“DRC”) or directly to the Planning Commission as the Review Authority.
(ii) DRC Review. The DRC is generally the Review Authority for an application under any of subsections (a)(1) through (a)(4) above, including landscape projects larger than 2,500 square feet, but any member of the DRC may refer the application to the Planning Commission as the Review Authority.
(3) If an application is inconsistent with any requirement of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission is the Review Authority unless an administrative landscape exception request is granted under section 21.60.085(d)(6) below. (Ord. 727 § 2, 2020)
26529.00000\41925654.2
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
Section 21.60.080 of Title 21 Zoning Code is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
21.60.080 Architecture Application Requirements.
A complete design review application shall include the items listed below.
Submissions that are incomplete will not be considered. The Planning Department or Review Authority (as defined by Section 21.60.020(b)(1)) may require additional information for a particular application. Design guidelines established by the City, or if applicable, a Homeowners Association’s Architectural Guidelines should be consulted prior to submission of the application. A complete application must include each of the following:
(a) Application to Construct Form. A completed “Application to Construct” form which can be obtained in electronic or hard-copy format from the City. (b) Required Plans (electronic copies preferred). Two (2) sets of 24″ x 36″ or 30″ x 42″ bluelines or blacklines, along with one (1) rendered blackline each of the residence, elevations, landscape plans prepared in accordance with Section 21.60.085, and other data pertinent to the particular application. Rendered blacklines shall be rolled, not folded.
Defaced, incomplete, indefinite or faded plans will not be accepted. All residential plans and elevations shall be drawn at a minimum scale of 1/8″ = 1′0″. For single family residential submittals, a set of plans shall consist of the items listed below. Requirements for multi-family residential and non-residential projects shall include information necessary to evaluate the proposed project as determined by the Community Development Director.
(1) General Information Block.
(i) Owner and designer’s names;
(ii) Address of owner;
(iii) Telephone number of owner;
(iv) Assessor parcel number and address of residence;
(v) North point, date of drawing and scale; and
(vi) Vicinity map showing location of project.
26529.00000\41925654.2
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
(2) Site Plan.
(i) Legal description (lot and tract);
(ii) Lot size (dimension along each property line);
(iii) Zone classification and type of development of subject property and of all adjacent property, including across any street. Show distance of structure(s) on adjacent properties that are within ten (10) feet of project property line;
(iv) Setback of existing and proposed buildings in relation to property lines per standards of the zone;
(v) Locations of swimming pools, spas, air conditioner equipment, pool and spa equipment (i.e., heater, pump), storage areas, utility installations, antenna, tennis courts, refuse storage areas and other auxiliary household equipment shall be noted on site plans;
(vi) Computed areas of building coverage, impervious surfaces, landscaping, and open space;
(vii) Dimension of property lines or boundary lines of project;
(viii) Location, names and widths of boundary streets; and recorded road, utility or drainage easements on property (where none exists, indicate by a note that no easement exists);
(ix) Elevation of existing curb and gutter where available or edge of pavement where no curb exists;
(x) Pad grade and finish-floor elevations; provide information on adjacent parcels if available;
(xi) Heights of existing or proposed walls and fences, as measured from exterior side of wall (side facing street or adjacent property);
(xii) A “line of sight” section for all in-fill construction;
(xiii) Clear delineation of all proposed driveways subject to the criteria outlined under Section 21.20.080; and
(xiv) For all large-scale development (ten (10) acres or larger), the inclusion of natural open space areas to provide habitat for native wildlife.
26529.00000\41925654.2
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
NOTE: All site plans must include sufficient information to demonstrate compliance with all applicable development standards in the Zoning Code. (3) Floor Plan. Square footage of living space and location, size, and use of all rooms.
Show all significant dimensions.
(4) Elevations.
(i) Provide all elevations identified as front, rear, right and left side; (ii) Show locations of doors, windows, chimneys, etc.; (iii) Show exterior finishes and roof material;
(iv) Dimension elevation from pad grade, indicate all significant vertical dimensions; and
(v) Show all proposed plant material (trees and shrubs) against elevations. Provide as separate set of elevations.
(5) Roof Plan. Only thirty (30) percent of the total roof area may exceed fifteen (15) feet in height, up to a maximum eighteen (18) feet. Identify that portion of the total roof area that exceeds fifteen (15) feet in height. Show percent calculation on plan. (6) Mailbox Design per United States Postal Service Requirements. Provide a minimum ½″ = 1′0″ scale mailbox design not to exceed four (4) feet in height and eighteen (18) inches in width or depth.
NOTE: Review of design packages containing landscape plans not prepared by a California licensed landscape architect will be subject to additional review fees incurred by the City for the review of such plans by professional design consultants. (7) Conceptual Lighting Plan. Plan shall be submitted delineating size, location, light spread, illuminating capacity (candle power) and hours of operation of proposed exterior lighting. Plan shall be in conformance with lighting standards found in Chapter 22.12 of the City Municipal Code.
(8) Materials Sample and Color Board. (Maximum size 8 ½″ x 14″): Sample of materials should be kept to a minimum size; include exterior finishes of residence including door and window trim colors, and garden walls, along with exterior colors. (Desert tone colors are preferred.)
26529.00000\41925654.2
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
(c) Fee. An application fee in an amount published by the Planning Department is required for review and processing of architectural design packages. (Ord. 727 § 2, 2020)
Section 21.90.030 of Title 21 Zoning Code is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
21.90.030 Non-conforming uses and structures.
(a) General. Unless otherwise required by the municipal code, any legally established, lawful use of land, building, structure, or improvement may be continued except as provided herein, even if such use does not conform with the applicable provisions of the current municipal code.
(b) Abandonment. Any legally established non-conforming use of land, building, structure, or improvement that becomes vacant and remains unoccupied for a continuous period of one (1) year shall be termed abandoned, and all future uses shall comply with the regulations of the area in which it is located.
(c) Alterations or Additions. An existing building, structure, or improvement conforming as to use but that does not conform to the general development standards may be altered, added to or enlarged, provided that any alteration, addition, or enlargement complies with the current regulations of this division. (d) Maintenance. A legal non-conforming building, structure, site, or improvement shall be maintained in sound and safe condition.
(e) Restoration of Damaged Structures. A legal non-conforming building, and/or structure which is damaged or partially destroyed by fire, explosion or man-induced or natural disaster to the extent of more than seventy-five (75) percent of the fair market value according to the assessment as listed by the Riverside County Assessor for the fiscal year during which the destruction occurs shall be subject to all the applicable regulations specified by this division. (Ord. 387 § 1, 1996)
26529.00000\41879226.3
ATTACHMENT #6
City Council Supported Code Amendments in Track Changes Added Text = Underlined Text
Deleted Text = Strikeout Text
Section 21.60.085 is hereby added to Title 21 Zoning Code to read in its entirety as follows:
21.60.085 Landscape Application Requirements
A complete landscape application shall include the items listed below. Submissions that are incomplete will not be considered. The Planning Department or Review Authority (as defined by Section 21.60.020(b)(1)) may require additional information for a particular application. Design guidelines established by the City, or if applicable, a Homeowners Association’s Landscape Guidelines should be consulted prior to submission of the application. a) Purpose and Intent.
This Section provides general standards establishing landscaping requirements that are intended to:
1) Protect and elevate the city’s unique desert setting, distinguishing itself as a prestigious resort community. The standards set forth aim to enhance the aesthetic appearance of all developments.
2) Ensure compatibility between adjoining land uses and public rights of way, ensuring a harmonious blend with the surrounding environment.
3) Conserve water through efficient irrigation and appropriate plant selection, and align the city’s standards with state water conservations acts aiming to reduce water consumption.
4) Prioritize the health and safety of the public, ensuring that landscaping practices in the City enhance pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety and maintain the integrity of neighborhoods.
5) Establish a unified City landscape theme, promote water conservation and enhance the physical and natural beauty of the environment.
b) Application
The landscaping requirements in this chapter apply to the following within all areas of the City except Common Interest Development Areasexcept common interest development areas that are not visible from public right-of-way:
1) All new landscape or remodeled landscape projects on or after January 1, 2024 that affect more than 250 square feet;
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
2) All properties that, as of December 1, 2023, have within fewer than two plants per 100 square feet or that have less than 50 percent coverage with city-approved groundcover (organic or inorganic).
3) Fee. An application fee in an amount published by the Planning Department is required for review and processing of landscape design packages.
b)c) Definitions.
As used in this Section, terms are defined as follows:
1) “Artificial turf” means a surface made from synthetic fibers to look like natural grass. 2) “Berming” means the process of creating raised areas of soil, often for the purpose of enhancing landscape design or managing water flow.
3) “Box trees” means trees that are sold in large square containers. Size, such as 24- inch or 36-inch, refers to the diagonal measurement of the box. 4) “Compost” means decomposed organic matter used to enrich soil. 4)5) “Drought-tolerant plants” means plants that can survive with minimal water, often native to arid regions.
5)6) “Focal points” means elements in a landscape design that capture attention, such as a unique plant, water feature, statue, or other installations. 7) “Golden ratio” means a mathematical ratio found in nature and art, often used in design for its aesthetically pleasing properties. In landscaping, it refers to the proportional arrangement of plants and hardscape.
6)8) “Grandfathered landscapes” refers to properties that currently have legal nonconforming landscapes in place. These properties are classified as grandfathered and are therefore exempt from the regulations outlined in this section unless they are subject to paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Any modifications to these grandfathered landscapes will be regulated pursuant to section 21.90.030. 7)9) “Hardscape” means non-living elements of landscaping, such as concrete patios, walkways, and walls.
10) “Hydrozone” means a portion of the landscaped area having plants with similar water needs that are served by sprinkler heads, a valve or set of valves with the same schedule.
8)11) “Inorganic ground Cover” means inorganic materials used to cover the ground for decorative or functional purposes, such as decomposed granite, crushed rock, cobbles, and boulders.
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
9)12) “Irrigation system” means a system that delivers water to plants. Types include drip irrigation (where water drips slowly to the roots of plants) and sprinkler systems. 10)13) “Landscape area” means all non-turf areas such as parkways, planters, flower beds and undeveloped areas that require landscape, irrigation and weed control. 11)14) “Mulch” means an organic material spread around plants to retain moisture, suppress weeds, and improve soil health.
12)15) “Non-functional turf” means turf that is solely ornamental and not regularly used for human recreational purposes or for civic or community events. 13) “Non-organic ground cover” means inorganic materials used to cover the ground for decorative or functional purposes, such as decomposed granite, crushed rock, cobbles, and boulders.
14)16) “Non-potable water” means water not treated to drinking water standards and is not meant for human consumption. Includes raw (untreated) water from reservoirs, which is commonly used for irrigation and other purposes. 15)17) “Organic cover” means a natural material used to cover the soil and enhance its quality. Examples include mulch and compost.
16)18) “Plant density” means the number of plants within a defined landscape area calculated as an average of plants per 100 square-feet. 17)19) “Plant size” means the volume of the container in which a plant is sold, which gives an approximate idea of the size of the plant. Common sizes include one-gallon, five- gallon, and fifteen-gallon.
18)20) “Texture” means how fine or coarse the surface of a plant or non-inorganic material is. For non-inorganic ground cover, texture refers to the size of the crushed rock, pebbles, stone, etc.
19)21) “Tree root barrier” means a root deflector, which can be made from various materials that help block or redirect roots to prevent damage to adjacent hardscape features or structures.
20)22) “Turf” means the upper layer of ground that is made up of live grass and plant roots.
21)23) “Weed barrier” means a permeable cloth material laid over the ground to prevent the growth of weeds.
c)d) Review and Permitting Authority.
1) All landscape projects with a landscaped area greater than 250 square feet and less than 2,500 square feet shall be reviewed and permitted by the Planning Department in compliance with this Section.
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
2) Landscape plans exceeding 2,500 square feet and not within an active homeowner’s association shall be reviewed by the City’s Design Review Committee (DRC). 3) Landscape plans for areas greater than 2,500 square feet shall require plans drawn by a professional landscape architect licensed in the state of California. 4) The following projects shall be exempt from review and approval by the Planning Department or the DRC:
i. Homeowner- installed and individually -maintained landscaping within private enclosed courtyards, sideyards, and backyards, not visible from public areas; and ii. Minor landscape modifications or changeouts of less than 250 square feet. iii. Properties with existing legal nonconforming landscape projects as allowed under Section 21.90.030 of the Municipal Code, including those with a density of 2 plants per 100 square-feet or at least 50% plat coverage as of December 1, 2023. Such properties are considered “grandfathered” and exempt from the regulations of this Section. Changes to existing legal nonconforming or “grandfathered” landscape projects are subject to regulations in Section 21.90.030 of the Municipal Code. By way of example only, if a homeowner legally established landscaping in their front yard prior to adoption of this Section, but the legally established landscaping does not comply with this Section, the landscaping is “grandfathered” and may remain in place. If at a later time the homeowner decides to alter or enlarge its landscaping, the homeowner would have to comply with this Section, as applicable.
In certain situations, like where the landscape modifications are less than 250 square feet, the modifications would not require review and permitting by the Planning Department.
5) Active homeowner association shall abide by the City's landscape standards unless they have either received formal approval for alternative standards through a City approved entitlement process or have Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (“CC&Rs”), allowing alternative landscape standards, filed with the City’s Planning Department.
6)4) All properties that require the installation of landscaping in compliance with the development standards of this title shall provide and maintain landscaping in compliance with the provisions of this chapter.
7)5) The following landscape projects shall also comply with Chapter 21.70 Water Efficient Landscaping of the City Municipal Code.
i. New construction and rehabilitated landscapes for public agency projects and private development projects requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review;
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
ii. New construction and rehabilitated landscapes which are developer-installed in single-family and multi-family projects requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review; and
iii. New construction and rehabilitated landscapes which are homeowner-provided and/or homeowner-hired in single-family and multi-family residential projects with a total project area equal to or greater than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet requiring a building or landscape permit, plan check or design review. 6) Administrative Landscape Exception. The provision of an administrative landscape exception facilitates regulatory flexibility when a standard is deemed inapplicable or unsuitable for a particular use or design.
i. Application. Applicants shall submit a written request for an administrative landscape exception to the Planning Department, accompanied by a comprehensive description and relevant drawings of the proposed project as outlined in Section
21.60.085(d). The Community Development Director may request additional information as necessary.
ii. Approval. The authority to grant or deny an administrative landscape exception resides with the Community Development Director. However, the Community Development Director may refer the application to the Design Review Committee (“DRC”) or the Planning Commission for decision-making. The following findings shall be made prior to approval of the administrative landscape exception:
a. The findings as set forth in Section 21.06.050(d);
b. That the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”);
c. Preservation of the intent of this Zoning Code and the specific regulation under consideration;
d. The circumstances make the strict application of the requirements of this division to the proposed project inappropriate;
iii. Appeal. The applicant may appeal the decision in accordance with the appeal procedures set forth in section 21.06.110.
d)e) Submittal of Landscape Plan.
A comprehensive and fully dimensioned landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department, including the following details:
1) Site plan with north arrow identifying the planting areas drawn to scale, along with the location and spacing of proposed plants, trees and any other vegetation. Plants having similar water use shall be grouped together in distinct hydrozones.
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
2) Show the location and type of irrigation system to be utilized within the different hydrozones, as appropriate.
3) Show all existing or proposed features on the site plan, including pools, spas, fountains, decks (concrete or wooden), planters, walkways, gates, low walls, etc. Also indicate proposed finishes for all flat work.
4) Provide a complete plant palette legend identifying size and species, both common and Latin names, and water usage per the Water Use Classification of Landscape Species (WUCOLS). Drought tolerant species are encouraged. e)f) Landscape Design Standards.
Landscape designs for residential lots, common areas, and commercial developments shall be required to meet the minimum design criteria:
1) Residential lots.
i. Plant density shall be three (3) plants per 100 square-feet of landscape area minimum.
ii. Live or artificial turf areas are permitted and discounted from overall landscape area.
iii. A variety of five (5) unique plant species shall be incorporated within the overall landscape area.
iv. 70% of plants shall be five (5) gallon; 30% of plants shall be fifteen (15) gallon.
Only seasonal plantings (flowers) may be less than five (5) gallon, but shall not be counted toward plant density.
v. A minimum of two (2) 24-inch box trees required in each front yard. Two (2) palm trees at least 8-feet in height may substitute for one (1) 24-inch box tree.
Corner lots shall meet this minimum tree requirement for each of their frontages. Tree root control barriers shall be used on trees installed within 5- feet of any hardscape element or structure.
2) Common areas.
i. Plant density shall be three (3) plants per 100 square-feet of landscape area minimum.
ii. Artificial turf areas permitted. Non-functional turf permitted only if irrigated by non-potable water source. Non-functional turf and/or artificial turf shall be discounted from overall landscape area.
iii. A variety of four (4) unique plant species shall be incorporated within the overall landscape area.
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
iv. 70% of plants shall be five (5) gallon; 30% of plants shall be fifteen (15) gallon.
Only seasonal plantings (flowers) may be less than five (5) gallon, but shall not be counted toward plant density.
v. One (1) 36-inch box tree or two (2) palm trees at least 8-feet in height required per 1,000 sqft of landscape area.
3) Commercial areas.
i. Plant density shall be four (4) plants per 100 square-feet of landscape area minimum.
ii. Artificial turf areas permitted. Non-functional turf permitted only if irrigated by non-potable water source. Non-functional turf and/or artificial turf shall be discounted from overall landscape area.
iii. A variety of five (5) unique plant species shall be incorporated within the overall landscape area.
iv. 70% of plants shall be five (5) gallon; 30% of plants shall be fifteen (15) gallon.
Only seasonal plantings (flowers) may be less than five (5) gallon, but shall not be counted toward plant density.
v. Trees shall be incorporated into the design of all off street parking areas in compliance with Section 21.100.030 of the City’s Municipal Code.
vi. Trees shall be planted along commercial street frontages at a rate of one (1) 36-inch box tree, or one (1) palm tree at least 10-feet in height, per 30-linear feet of street frontage or at the minimum distance between trees as recommended for the specific tree species.
4) Non-Inorganic ground covers and materials.
Open or voided areas within a defined landscape area shall be covered with non- inorganic ground covers, including but not limited to decomposed granite, crushed rock, cobbles, boulders, and mulch (is acceptable), and artificial turf. Bare earth shall not be permitted. A minimum of two (2) different textures of non-inorganic ground covers shall be required within defined landscape areas, including but not limited to:
i. Crushed Rock: 0.5-inch to 1-inch in size, installed at 2-inch minimum depth. ii. Decomposed Granite: 2-inch minimum depth. Not permitted on slopes greater than 3:1
iii. Cobble: 8” or less diameter set on grade with 1” partially buried so that cobble is not sitting on grade.
iv. Pebbles: 1-inch to 2-inch in size, installed at 3-inch minimum depth.
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
v. Mulch: 3-inch minimum depth.
vi. Boulders: Maximum 3-feet in height and must be buried 1/3 of height of boulder
vii. Artificial turf must be manufactured to meet the following quality standards:
1. Must be permeable to allow water infiltration.
2. Minimum face weight of 75oz per square yard.
3. Minimum pile height of 1.75-inch.
4. Blades shall be comprised of two (2) colors for a natural appearance.
5. Made in the USA.
viii. Mounding and the use of complementary colors are encouraged to enhance visual interest and topography within the landscape area. Mounding shall be maintained at a max slope ratio of 3:1 with a max height of three (3) feet. ix. Weed barriers are encouraged.
5) Aesthetic design.
The city’s landscape aesthetic design guidelines and concepts are encouraged to improve the overall landscape design consistent with the city’s quality of life standards. The Community Development Director may refer landscape designs, which do not meet the intent of the aesthetic design guidelines, to the city’s Design Review Committee (DRC) for further review. The following landscape aesthetic design guidelines shall be considered during Planning Department review of required landscape plans:
i. Use of Complimentary Colors: Colors that harmonize and enhance the overall landscape design and built environment are encouraged.
ii. Berming: The aesthetic use of berms and undulating topography is strongly encouraged to add visual interest to the overall landscape design. iii. Proportion and Scale: The design should consider the size relationship between plants, hardscape, and architectural elements, including the application of principles such as the “golden ratio” for spatial arrangements. iv. Order and Balance: Symmetry is encouraged in formal or modern gardens, while asymmetrical planting designs are preferred for natural garden settings.
The architecture and setting should inspire the landscape design. For natural settings, shrubs should be planted in non-uniform masses to present a natural landscape appearance.
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
v. Repetition and Unity: Repetition fosters order, but variety is essential to prevent monotony. This can be achieved through the effective use of color, texture, and form.
vi. Focal Points: The overall landscape design should incorporate focal points, such as unique plants or features (e.g., boulders, water features, planters, hardscape designs) that contrast with their surroundings in terms of color, size, or texture.
vii. Interconnection: Dry river features and pathways are encouraged to connect different landscape areas, promoting unity and flow.
viii. Simplicity: The design should prioritize simplicity, focusing on primary and accent installations.
ix. Plant Placement: A hierarchy of plant placement is encouraged, with low plants in the foreground and taller plants against structures to create depth.
Consideration should be given to the mature size of plants to prevent overcrowding.
x. Seasonal Interest: A mix of perennial and seasonal plants is recommended to ensure year-round color and interest.
xi. Texture and Form: A variety of textures and forms should be incorporated for added interest. The combination of fine and coarse-textured materials, such as boulders, crushed rocks, cobbles, and decomposed granite, in complementary colors is encouraged.
xii. Landscape Lighting: Any outdoor lighting shall comply with Chapter 22.12 Lighting Standards of the City Municipal Code.
xiii. Landscape Water Features: Any water features included within the landscape area should complement the overall design, be proportionate in size, incorporate recirculating water system, and shall not exceed a maximum of 18-inches in depth measured from the highest possible water level as required by California Building Code Chapter 31 (Special construction), Section 3119. xiv. Project applicants shall reference the Lush and Efficient Landscape Gardening Manual prepared by the Coachella Valley Water District prior to submittal of any landscaping plan for review and approval by the city:
http://web.cvwd.org/conservation/lush_book/index.html . Applicants shall also consult the Invasive Plant Inventory prepared by the California Invasive Plant Council prior to selection of any plant species for landscaping: https://www.cal- ipc.org/plants/
f)g) Irrigation and maintenance.
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
1) All landscaped areas within the City of Indian Wells shall be irrigated by an automatic irrigation system compliant with Chapter 21.70 Water Efficient Landscaping of the City Municipal Code.
2) All required landscaping and associated irrigation systems shall be appropriately installed and must receive approval from the Planning Department prior to the inauguration or occupancy of the property.
3) All installed landscaping and irrigation systems shall be consistently maintained in accordance with the following specifications or shall be subject to code enforcement penalties in accordance with Section 8.08.010 Maintenance of Property:
i. Landscape maintenance shall encompass regular watering, mowing, pruning, fertilizing, clearing of debris and weeds, the removal and replacement of deceased plants, and the repair and replacement of irrigation systems. ii. To the greatest extent feasible, landscape irrigation water shall not run off the property to create pooling of stagnant water in the street or gutter. iii. Water features, ponds, or any stagnant water bodies within landscaped areas must be equipped with appropriate mosquito prevention measures, such as circulation systems, mosquito fish, or other approved methods, to prevent the breeding of mosquitos. Circulation systems should run at least 8 hours per day.
If a feature has no pump or other approved mosquito control measure, water shall be drained and replaced every 96 hours. Regular inspections and maintenance of these measures are encouraged to ensure their effectiveness. iv. Property owners, homeowner’s associations, or other responsible entities shall ensure that no stagnant water accumulates in any landscaped areas, as such conditions can become breeding grounds for mosquitos. Neglected pools, fountains, or standing water shall be drained to prevent breeding of mosquitos.
Property owners shall notify the Coachella Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District if their water feature is drained or neglected. v. Prior to the approval of a final development plan permit or the recording of a subdivision map, a covenant ensuring the ongoing maintenance of all required landscaping and irrigation systems shall be established. This covenant, whether held by property owners, homeowners associations, or another responsible entity, must be approved by the Community Development Director, with the recommendation of the city attorney, and subsequently recorded in the county recorder’s office.
g)h) Public safety and protection of intersection visibility.
1) Landscape design plans for corner parcel development projects must ensure traffic safety sight areas are designed to uphold public safety, consistent with Section
21.50.040 Protection of intersection visibility regulations of city’s Municipal Code.
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
2) Trees and shrubs shall be planted so that at maturity they do not interfere with utility service lines, street lighting, street sweeping, traffic safety sight areas, on-site signs, and basic property rights of adjoining property owners. 3) Trees planted near public curbs, sidewalks, or utility vaults shall have a limited root structure and shall be installed to prevent physical damage to public improvements and shall comply with the following provisions:
i. Canopy trees shall be placed a minimum of ten feet from public street curb and a minimum of three feet from sidewalks.
ii. Palm trees with a trunk height of ten feet or more shall be placed a minimum of three feet from public street curb and sidewalks.
iii. A root barrier system shall be installed when trees are located near public curbs, sidewalks, or utility vaults.
iv. Landscape and irrigation plans shall be required for all public street parkways and median islands and shall conform to city standards and be submitted for review and approval to the city engineer and planning division. v. Right-of-way lines shall be shown on the final landscape plan.
Section 21.60.020 of Title 21 Zoning Code is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
21.60.020 Applicability and Review Authority.
(a) This Chapter applies to the following activities:
(1) Obtaining a permit to construct a building or structure in any zone; (2) Undertaking any external modification to a structure visible to any roadway or open space, public or private;
(3) Installationing of new or remodeled landscape projects in excess of 250 square- feet within all areas of the City except common interest development areas that are not visible from public right-of-way.visible from the public right-of-way. adjacent to a roadway or open space, public or private;
(4) Replacing or modifying existing hardscape or landscape in a yard which abuts a roadway or open space, public or private in excess of two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet;
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
(54) Installing new or modifying an existing antenna, outdoor lighting, landscape lighting, private tennis court, emergency generators greater than fifteen thousand (15,000) kilowatts; and
(65) Minor exterior remodel of or addition to a single-family residence, such as:
(i) A window or door change-out,
(ii) A change of exterior house color (desert tones are preferred),
(iii) A wall, fence, planter, fountain, or similar architectural amenity,
(iv) Re-roofing,
(v) A patio cover,
(vi) Solar panels,
(vii) An addition in the rear or side yard that is not visible to any roadway or open space area, public or private,
(viii) Front and side-yard landscape projects visible from the public right-of- waystreet with a landscaped area greater than 250 square feet and less than 2,500 square feet. improvements that affect less than two thousand five hundred (2,500) square feet unless exempt pursuant to Section 21.60.085(c)(4) below, and
(ix) Accessory Dwelling Units in compliance with the requirements in Section
21.85.040
(b) Before commencing any of the activities listed in subsection (a) above, the owner of the property must submit a design review application to the Planning Department, to ensure compliance with the provisions of this Chapter, as well as with the basic zoning and other design parameters that are specified in the Zoning Code. Submissions may be done electronically via the City’s website or in person with the Planning Department. (1) For purposes of this Chapter, the Planning Department, DRC, or the Planning Commission is the “Review Authority” when making the initial decision about an application.
(2) If an application is consistent with all the requirements of the Zoning Code:
(i) Planning Department Review.
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
(A) The Planning Department is generally the Review Authority for the following:
1. An application under subsection (a)(65) above; or
2. An application for a property located in an area with an active Homeowner’s Association, and the complete design review application has been reviewed and approved by the Association.
(B) However, the Community Development Director may refer the application to the Design Review Committee (“DRC”) or directly to the Planning Commission as the Review Authority.
(ii) DRC Review. The DRC is generally the Review Authority for an application under any of subsections (a)(1) through (a)(54) above, including landscape projects larger than 2,500 square feet, but any member of the DRC may refer the application to the Planning Commission as the Review Authority.
(3) If an application is inconsistent with any requirement of the Zoning Code, the Planning Commission is the Review Authority. unless an administrative landscape exception request is granted under section 21.60.085(d)(6) below. (Ord. 727 § 2, 2020)
Section 21.60.080 of Title 21 Zoning Code is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
21.60.080 Architecture Application Requirements.
A complete design review application shall include the items listed below.
Submissions that are incomplete will not be considered. The Planning Department or Review Authority (as defined by Section 21.60.020(b)(1)) may require additional information for a particular application. Design guidelines established by the City, or if applicable, a Homeowners Association’s Architectural Guidelines should be consulted prior to submission of the application. A complete application must include each of the following:
(a) Application to Construct Form. A completed “Application to Construct” form which can be obtained in electronic or hard-copy format from the City.
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
(b) Required Plans (electronic copies preferred). Two (2) sets of 24″ x 36″ or 30″ x 42″ bluelines or blacklines, along with one (1) rendered blackline each of the residence, elevations, landscape plans prepared in accordance with Section 21.60.085, and other data pertinent to the particular application. Rendered blacklines shall be rolled, not folded.
Defaced, incomplete, indefinite or faded plans will not be accepted. All residential plans and elevations shall be drawn at a minimum scale of 1/8″ = 1′0″. For single family residential submittals, a set of plans shall consist of the items listed below. Requirements for multi-family residential and non-residential projects shall include information necessary to evaluate the proposed project as determined by the Director of Community Development.
(1) General Information Block.
(i) Owner and designer’s names;
(ii) Address of owner;
(iii) Telephone number of owner;
(iv) Assessor parcel number and address of residence;
(v) North point, date of drawing and scale; and
(vi) Vicinity map showing location of project.
(2) Site Plan.
(i) Legal description (lot and tract);
(ii) Lot size (dimension along each property line);
(iii) Zone classification and type of development of subject property and of all adjacent property, including across any street. Show distance of structure(s) on adjacent properties that are within ten (10) feet of project property line;
(iv) Setback of existing and proposed buildings in relation to property lines per standards of the zone;
(v) Locations of swimming pools, spas, air conditioner equipment, pool and spa equipment (i.e., heater, pump), storage areas, utility installations, antenna, tennis courts, refuse storage areas and other auxiliary household equipment shall be noted on site plans;
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
(vi) Computed areas of building coverage, impervious surfaces, landscaping, and open space;
(vii) Dimension of property lines or boundary lines of project;
(viii) Location, names and widths of boundary streets; and recorded road, utility or drainage easements on property (where none exists, indicate by a note that no easement exists);
(ix) Elevation of existing curb and gutter where available or edge of pavement where no curb exists;
(x) Pad grade and finish-floor elevations; provide information on adjacent parcels if available;
(xi) Heights of existing or proposed walls and fences, as measured from exterior side of wall (side facing street or adjacent property);
(xii) A “line of sight” section for all in-fill construction;
(xiii) Clear delineation of all proposed driveways subject to the criteria outlined under Section 21.20.080; and
(xiv) For all large-scale development (ten (10) acres or larger), the inclusion of natural open space areas to provide habitat for native wildlife.
NOTE: All site plans must include sufficient information to demonstrate compliance with all applicable development standards in the Zoning Code. (3) Floor Plan. Square footage of living space and location, size, and use of all rooms.
Show all significant dimensions.
(4) Elevations.
(i) Provide all elevations identified as front, rear, right and left side; (ii) Show locations of doors, windows, chimneys, etc.; (iii) Show exterior finishes and roof material;
(iv) Dimension elevation from pad grade, indicate all significant vertical dimensions; and
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
(v) Show all proposed plant material (trees and shrubs) against elevations. Provide as separate set of elevations.
(5) Roof Plan. Only thirty (30) percent of the total roof area may exceed fifteen (15) feet in height, up to a maximum eighteen (18) feet. Identify that portion of the total roof area that exceeds fifteen (15) feet in height. Show percent calculation on plan. (6) Mailbox Design per United States Postal Service Requirements. Provide a minimum ½″ = 1′0″ scale mailbox design not to exceed four (4) feet in height and eighteen (18) inches in width or depth.
NOTE: Review of design packages containing landscape plans not prepared by a California licensed landscape architect will be subject to additional review fees incurred by the City for the review of such plans by professional design consultants. (7) Conceptual Lighting Plan. Plan shall be submitted delineating size, location, light spread, illuminating capacity (candle power) and hours of operation of proposed exterior lighting. Plan shall be in conformance with lighting standards found in Chapter 22.12 of the City Municipal Code.
(8) Materials Sample and Color Board. (Maximum size 8 ½″ x 14″): Sample of materials should be kept to a minimum size; include exterior finishes of residence including door and window trim colors, and garden walls, along with exterior colors. (Desert tone colors are preferred.)
(c) Fee. An application fee in an amount published by the Planning Department is required for review and processing of architectural design packages. (Ord. 727 § 2, 2020)
26529.00000\41879226.3
City of Indian Wells
Ordinance No. __
Section 21.90.030 of Title 21 Zoning Code is hereby amended to read in its entirety as follows:
21.90.030 Non-conforming uses and structures.
(a) General. Unless otherwise required by the municipal code, any legally established, lawful use of land, building, structure, or improvement may be continued except as provided herein, even if such use does not conform with the applicable provisions of the current municipal code.
(b) Abandonment. Any legally established non-conforming use of land, building, structure, or improvement that becomes vacant and remains unoccupied for a continuous period of one (1) year shall be termed abandoned, and all future uses shall comply with the regulations of the area in which it is located.
(c) Alterations or Additions. An existing building, structure, or improvement conforming as to use but that does not conform to the general development standards may be altered, added to or enlarged, provided that any alteration, addition, or enlargement complies with the current regulations of this division. (d) Maintenance. A legal non-conforming building, structure, site, or improvement shall be maintained in sound and safe condition.
(e) Restoration of Damaged Structures. A legal non-conforming building, and/or structure which is damaged or partially destroyed by fire, explosion or man-induced or natural disaster to the extent of more than seventy-five (75) percent of the fair market value according to the assessment as listed by the Riverside County Assessor for the fiscal year during which the destruction occurs shall be subject to all the applicable regulations specified by this division. (Ord. 387 § 1, 1996)
Legend
Common Interest Development
Areas (HOA’s)
City Boundary
1
Legend
Areas included with Staff’s
Clarifying Language Amendment
City Boundary
INDIAN WELLS CITY COUNCIL
January 18, 2024
To: City Council
From: Finance Department
Prepared by: Kevin McCarthy, Finance Director
Subject: Living Desert Funding Opportunity
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Council DISCUSSES provides DIRECTION; and
APPROVES Funding Consideration for The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens; and
FINDS the project to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15060.
SUMMARY:
The Finance Committee recommends that the City Council deliberate on a funding contribution of $2,000,000 to be disbursed in equal installments over a consecutive four- year period, commencing in the fiscal year 2023-24. It is advised that these payments be systematically incorporated into the City's annual budget appropriations until the total amount is fully disbursed.
This financial contribution represents a distinctive opportunity to enhance the prominence of Indian Wells through the strategic utilization of naming rights, thereby cultivating a robust and distinctive brand identity. The naming rights options under consideration include the following:
The Marketplace Restaurant and the Marketplace Patio
The Lion Ridge Habitat 2
The Rhino Encounter Pavilion
All these options serve as pivotal avenues for reinforcing the brand image of Indian Wells.
In this context, the Finance Committee strongly advocates for a meticulous examination of the naming rights possibilities associated with the Marketplace Restaurant and Marketplace Patio. Given their strategic presence within the confines of Indian Wells, the branding potential of these establishments is significant. Recognizing the pivotal role that
effective branding plays in community perception and engagement, the committee underscores the importance of aligning the City Council's considerations with th e overarching goal of enhancing Indian Wells' unique and compelling identity through these branding opportunities.
As described below, the final step in the City's Extraordinary Funding Policy is to hold a public hearing to determine the award of any funding. Based on discussions with the Living Desert Executive Team, the Finance Committee recommends that the Public Hearing be held on March 7, 2024.
BACKGROUND:
In November 2023, the Living Desert submitted a funding request (see attached) seeking $5,000,000 to bolster educational and programmatic initiatives. In exchange, the Living Desert offers naming opportunities for the new Marketplace Restaurant & Patio and Splash Pad, situated on Indian Wells land. This new amenity is anticipated to generate approximately $39,000 in new sales tax revenue for the City of Indian Wells beginning in 2025.
During an open session on December 7, 2023, the Council deliberated the funding proposal, received a presentation from Living Desert Staff, and considered public comments. After a thorough public engagement and discussion, the Council expressed a positive inclination towards supporting the Living Desert.
Subsequently, the City Council directed the Finance Committee to convene and determine an optimal funding amount and a specific term that aligns with the City's best interests.
The Finance Committee is tasked with presenting these recommendations for Council approval at the upcoming January meeting.
Funding approval triggers the City's Extraordinary Funding Policy, incorporating a robust community involvement component. The process encompasses public hearings, meetings, surveys, and a town hall meeting, ensuring comprehensive engagement with the community. The extraordinary funding steps are as follows:
Step (1): City Council Approval to Seek Community Input
The Finance Committee convened a public meeting on January 10, 2024, recommending a funding amount and term for City Council consideration. Subsequently, on January 18, 2024, the City Council will hold a public meeting to deliberate on the funding and gather community input.
Step (2): Community Engagement
The Living Desert will spearhead the Community Engagement component at its own expense, which includes:
Mailer to Residents: A written communication will be sent to all Indian Wells residents, summarizing information on the funding request and providing details of the Public Hearing and Town Hall meeting.
Town Hall Meeting: The Living Desert will host a Town Hall Meeting to engage residents and gather public input.
Online Civic Engagement Platform: The Living Desert will conduct a Community- wide mail survey or utilize a cloud-based online civic engagement platform/poll to gather additional community feedback. A subsequent report on the poll results will be presented to the City Council.
Step (3): Council Approval of Funding
Upon completion of community input methods, the City Council will hold a Public Hearing during a regularly scheduled meeting to determine the award of any funding.
DISCUSSION:
Finance Committee Recommendations:
The Finance Committee convened on January 10, 2024, to deliberate upon diverse funding alternatives and propositions. Throughout the session, the Committee delved into various factors, including:
• The prospective future sales tax associated with the Living Desert Marketplace. • Evaluation of existing General Fund funding sources.
• Assessment of the financial implications linked to a potential economic downturn. • Anticipation of heightened Public Safety costs in FY 2024-2025 and FY 2025-2026, attributed to alterations in Fire Department staffing models and forthcoming negotiations of labor contracts for public safety.
• Examination of potential 2024 State Ballot Measures that could impact municipal tax measures.
The Finance Committee urges the City Council to engage in a thorough and thoughtful examination of the proposal for a $2,000,000 funding allocation. Considering a comprehensive assessment of the facts and financial implications, the Finance Committee recommends a phased disbursement plan. The suggested approach involves distributing
the allocated funds in equal installments over the next four fiscal years, commencing in Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and continuing through Fiscal Year 2026-2027.
This deliberative structure aims to strike a balance between financial prudence and the imperative to meet identified needs within the community. By spreading the disbursements over an extended timeframe, the Finance Committee anticipates mitigating potential budgetary strain while ensuring a sustained and impactful financial contribution.
Furthermore, the Finance Committee proposes that these scheduled payments seamlessly integrate into the City's annual budget appropriations. This proactive step would foster fiscal transparency and allow for the systematic allocation of resources to accommodate the specified funding without jeopardizing the city's financial stability.
The considered approach reflects a commitment to responsible financial management, leveraging a nuanced understanding of the city's economic landscape. Through this carefully orchestrated disbursement strategy, the Finance Committee aims to optimize the impact of the funding contribution while safeguarding the city's fiscal resilience.
FISCAL IMPACT:
If the Council decides to fund the Living Desert, the funding will be sourced from the City's General Fund. This unbudgeted request necessitates a $500,000 supplemental appropriation during the Fiscal Year 2023-24. Funding for the three remaining fiscal years will be incorporated into the City’s annual budget appropriations.
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.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. The Living Desert funding request letter (dated November 17, 2023)
2. The Living Desert economic report
3. The Living Desert Marketplace Sales Tax Cash Flow
4. Community Assistance Funding Policy
Living Desert Funding
Opportunity
January 18, 2024
Presentation: January 18, 2024
City Council Meeting
Today’s topics
•Finance Committee Recommendation
•Extraordinary Funding Policy Steps
Living Desert Funding Opportunity
Assessment of Factors
1.The prospective future sales tax
2.Evaluation of existing funding sources.
3.Financial implications linked to a potential economic downturn.
4.Anticipation of heightened Public Safety costs
Living Desert Funding Opportunity
Finance Committee Recommendation:
•$2,000,000 over the next four years
•Disbursements to mitigate potential budgetary
strain
Naming Rights Opportunities
•The Marketplace Restaurant and Patio
•The Lion Ridge Habitat 2
•The Rhino Encounter Pavilion
Enhancing Indian Wells’ Prominence and Brand
Identity
The Café/Marketplace
Projected Open March 2025
The Pride of The Desert
‘Lion Ridge’
Projected Open November 2026
Extraordinary Funding Policy Steps
•Step (1): Council Approval to seek Community Input
•Step (2): Community Engagement
–Mailer to Residents
–Town Hall Meeting(s)
–Online Civic Engagement Platform
•Step (3) Public Hearing
–Approval of funds
–Anticipated March 7, 2024
Indian Wells Financial Analysis
ACCOUNT TYPE 2024B 2025F 2026F 2032F 2033F TOTAL
General Fund
Revenues 24,437,618 24,535,490 25,372,260 31,051,944 32,119,322 278,001,509 Annual % Change -5.6%0.4%3.4%3.4%3.4%
General Fund
Expenditures 22,605,467 21,400,275 22,254,623 28,378,332 29,593,244 249,916,897 Annual % Change 10.6%-5.3%4.0%4.2%4.3%
Total
Surplus/(GAP)1,832,151 3,135,216 3,117,637 2,673,612 2,526,077 28,084,611 Table 1: 10-year General Fund Surplus/(Gap) Forecast
4151-2
11+
taste
Canyon
Mid
Pram..
WILD
AMERICAS
Desert Plant
Centaz
wwy
D
r
T.nntry W114111. Mesons,
Con..ra.non C.m.t
♦+I++p
>r. anticea. Ewet EanlMt
Cacovacr
•
dFuture,
Cafe Marketplace &
Splashpad
Hoover biscu.ty Canter
1 111 + p 13
f\OT R h i InN
flDYENTVIIN
11t+t7
Nora arre.car.
P.o'rlc.
AFR!CAN
SAFAR!
O
Future
Lion Ridge &
Event Center
i +1
Ov
4111. CD
0 4uY
111110
MAIN
ENTRANCE/EXIT
IIIII Paved pathway
.0 Unpaved pathway
Nature trail
Ericcamt.•
011
n
Onserrano
Main
Entrance
1f
Rhino
Encounter
Cafe and
Patio �✓
THE LIVING DESERT ZOO & GARDENS
LION HABITAT
PREST I VUKSIC I GREENWOOD
♦ P C H I i F C 1 S • I n i F 2 I O P 5
44.14.00JAILOA4 r due torsi c• WSW
_..* m04.wnence,.
PRELIMINARY
ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN
Sl.h OVERVIEW
- L100
' / 1
The Cafe/Marketplace
Projected Open March 2025
The Pride of The Desert
'Lion Ridge'
Projected Open November 2026
•PVRoxLsf1sor
IMPROVEMENTS
\�`
`` _ -
_ -,,'----"\-,.. .-:\ Lam\ `' - `i
•
• 1;
Rhino Encounter
Naming Opportunity $2,000,
� l;,,v,1. .w
wl �d.l
November 17, 2023
Donna Griffith, Mayor
Indian Wells City Council Members
Christopher Freeland, City Manager
City of Indian Wells
44-950 Eldorado Drive
Indian Wells, CA 92210
Dear Indian Wells Mayor Griffith, City Council Members, City Manager Chris Freeland:
Enclosed please find a Living Desert proposal for funding for the 2023-2024 fiscal year and beyond. We are requesting $5,000,000 for educational and programmatic support. In exchange, we are offering significant naming opportunities for the new Marketplace Restaurant & Patio and the Lion Ridge Habitat which will be located on Indian Wells land.
We recognize that this is a substantial request, but we see it as an investment for a cultural asset within Indian Wells as well as an often-visited recreational and educational institution used extensively by Indian Wells residents.
Our Board of Trustees – led by Indian Wells resident Chairman Bill Appel – is pleased to present the proposal and believes it to be an alignment with the city’s focus on increasing tourism as well as providing outstanding opportunities for your residents to have at their pleasure.
Thank you for the opportunity to consider the proposal.
Allen Monroe
President / CEO, The Living Desert
Attachments:
•Pro Forma – Service Systems Associates
•Renderings of Marketplace and Lion Ridge
•Proposed Menu Options
•2023 Economic Impact Report
•Board of Trustees, Affiliations and Indian Wells live/work highlighted ATTACHMENT #1
Proposal to the City of Indian Wells – November 17, 2023 The Pride of the Desert
Marketplace Restaurant & Patio and Lion Ridge Naming Opportunities
A. History of Indian Wells’ Partnership with The Living Desert The Living Desert is one of the great assets of Indian Wells. Indian Wells is one of The Living Desert’s great assets, too. Some background:
• The City of Indian Wells has been an important partner with The Living Desert for more than 37 years when the city received a complimentary membership in 1985.
• Total funding received from the City over the 37 years is $1.6M and comprises support for our annual gala, sponsoring/ticket purchases for the WildLights holiday event throughout December, occasional small event support. • Total cumulative funding from ALL Indian Wells residents: $62,923,000. • The most recent and impactful financial support has been the $500,000 over the last five years as an investment in programming for schoolchildren and guests for the spectacular Rhino Savanna. The City support helped tell the story of why we brought in rhinos, a critically endangered species.
• For this support, the city received permanent recognition inside the entrance.
B. Recent Statistics with Indian Wells Resident Interaction • 5378 = Number of constituents in our database with an Indian Wells address • 2891 = Current Indian Wells households with TLD Memberships • 9 of The Living Desert’s 28 Trustees (and Legal Counsel Brian Harnik) live or work in Indian Wells:
i. Chairman Bill Appel (Toscana)
ii. Candace Holzgrafe (Desert Horizons)
iii. Sam Spinello (Eldorado)
iv. Craig McCollam (Toscana)
v. Jim Gould (The Reserve)
vi. Michael Schreter (Toscana),
vii. Sally Simonds, Phillip Smith Jr. (Toscana)
viii. Former Mayor Larry Spicer
Living Desert Members
Within Indian Wells
Annual Attendance # Comment
IW School Field
Trip Participants
(Ford Ele)
2018-2019 6209
Banner year for park-wide
attendance 138
2019-2020 3410 (Covid) 43
2020-2021 4453 12
2021-2022 6705 (Rhino Savanna opened) 28
2022 through June 30,
2023 5941
On track to equal or surpass
last year through 6/30/2023 218
• The year that the Rhino Savanna opened saw a 153,000 person increase in visitation. • The expectation is that the lion habitat will open in November 2026, along with a new dining facility and event center for large events, which will dramatically increase tourism and guests.
• The annual park guest count in Fiscal Year 2022-2023 totaled more than 616,800 surpassing that of the BNP Paribas (442,000) or Coachella Fest/Stagecoach (250,000) – albeit different time frames. • And, 77% of those annual visitors are estimated to be from out-of-area which aligns with Indian Wells goals to promote tourism.
C. BENEFITS and IMPACT: As one can see from the numbers, the residents of Indian Wells have a long and robust relationship with The Living Desert. They not only visit regularly, bringing grandchildren and guests to delight in seeing rhinos, giraffes, cheetahs, etc., hike our trails – all located in Indian Wells, but also financially support this cultural gem.
Schoolchildren from Gerald R. Ford Elementary School as well as all three local school districts and throughout southern California – come to learn about the science of the natural world.
Twenty-seven volunteers reside in Indian Wells – greeting guests, directing, sharing information on our animals and plants – giving local citizens a productive and useful way to share their talents and make a difference to the community.
D. Proposal: Educational and Programming Support. In appreciation for this level of collaboration, the following naming opportunities would be offered over a multi-year payment schedule.
• $5,000,000 - Marketplace Restaurant and Patio Naming -or- • $3,000,000 - Marketplace Building
• $1,000,000 - Marketplace Patio
• $1,000,000 - Marketplace Restaurant
• $3,000,000 - Lion Ridge Habitat 3
• $2,000,000 - Lion Ridge Habitat 2
Rationale:
Marketplace: Now that Phase 2 of the Pride of the Desert capital campaign has opened to great response, our sights continue to grow in order to attract more tourists, more guests, and widen our reach to educate about our mission to save endangered desert species. For the upcoming interim phase before bringing in lions and a special event center (Phase 3 – 2026), we are investing in offering top quality experiences for our guests. The immediate project is opening the Marketplace Restaurant and Patio. It is located 100% within the Indian Wells city boundary and overlooks the iconic Bighorn Mountain with its magnificent herd of ten bighorn sheep and lambs.
The restaurant will feature inside seating for 150 diners and will open up to an outdoor patio overlooking the Bighorn Mountain – an opportunity for our families and guests to enjoy a bite to eat or hold a private event unlike any other venue in Riverside County…a destination for weddings, corporate, family celebrations.
The Marketplace Restaurant and Patio is currently conservatively estimated to bring in $57,284,000 over the next ten years from F&B revenue and evening rentals – based on 36 events per year. Of this net revenue, 1% local sales tax – because the facility is located within Indian Wells – would bring in close to $600,000 in sales tax revenue to Indian Wells (currently not budgeted in the future Indian Wells budget). Again, this is a conservative ten-year estimate and anticipated to be a long game, and function as an ongoing, increasing sales tax generator for the City.
Lion Ridge: The Living Desert's deepening commitment to wildlife conservation will be fulfilled through the construction of the new Lion Ridge. Featuring African lions, this state-of-the-art habitat will further interpret the conservation stories of Africa's biggest cat. Just twenty years ago, it would have been unimaginable to think that the mighty lion would be facing the threat of extinction. However today, lions are facing increased pressures of human development and expansion.
Lion Ridge will feature three, one-acre lion habitats which will be the home of our new pride of lions. Each of the three habitats will be connected by a Lion Surround in the center and linked to each other by a series of catwalks above the surround. It will give visitors an immersive experience with the lions while they learn about these amazing animals. Lion Habitat #2 is partially located in Indian Wells city limits. Lion Ridge #3 is located in Palm Desert, but will be a breathtaking view through the windows of the new Lurie Events Center.
The Living Desert's new Lion Ridge habitat will share the depth of our conservation commitment and empower guests to make meaningful conservation actions to benefit all wildlife.
E. Final Thoughts: The Living Desert has included our 2023 Economic Impact Report prepared by Tourism Economics; the same company utilized by Visit Greater Palm Springs. In Fiscal Year 2022-2023, The Living Desert had an economic impact in the Coachella Valley of $148M…from the increased jobs, building labor, tourism, local spending, etc. Specifically for the City of Indian Wells, The Living Desert had a $7.9M economic impact.
With the advent of the new Marketplace (opening March 1, 2025) that will offer year- round innovative dining followed up by the new Lion Ridge habitat and the 500-seat Lurie Event Center in 2026, we expect The Living Desert to only grow as a cultural asset for our neighboring Indian Wells, increase tourist traffic, and add to the infrastructure of the city.
We invite the City of Indian Wells to be part of this continued growth by supporting programming and education over the next five years which will be recognized with a fabulous naming opportunity for the Marketplace Restaurant & Patio or Lion Ridge! Indian Wells’ enduring investment in The Living Desert and its future will have a lasting impact on the generations of residents and visitors to come. The Living Desert reminds people, in a unique and powerful way, that the world’s deserts are special places and provide an experience of nature like nowhere else.
Economic Impact of
the Living Desert Zoo
and Gardens
ATTACHMENT #2
Table of Contents
1.Research overview
2.Key findings
3.Direct impacts
4.Economic impacts summary
5.Economic impacts (FY 22/23)
6.Economic impacts (stabilized year)
7.Capital expenditure impacts
8.City key findings (FY 22/23)Page 205 of 323
RESEARCH OVERVIEW
Section 1
Introduction
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens (“Zoo”) is a nonprofit, accredited member of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.
The Zoo has been a top attraction in the Palm Springs area for more than 50 years –welcoming 616,900 visitors in the most recent fiscal year (FY 22/23) –and serves as an important economic anchor in Greater Palm Springs.
The Zoo is currently in a three-phase capital improvement project that includes new animal habitat space, a state-of-the-art event center, and new ways for guests to observe, interact with and learn about desert species. In 2021, the Zoo opened a new four-acre Rhino Savanna and is currently developing a lion’s exhibit.
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens’ annual operations, along with spending by Zoo patrons at local, off -site establishments and businesses, generates significant economic and fiscal (tax) impacts in Riverside County. This study analyzes the impacts attributable to the annual operations of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens for FY 18/19 through FY 22/23 and for a stabilized year of operations post expansion, as well as the one-time impacts for capital expenditures.
Tourism Economics prepared a comprehensive model to quantify the impacts arising from annual operational spending and capital expenditures at the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens, as well as patron spending at off -site establishments throughout the local economy.
Impact modeling is based on an IMPLAN input-output (I-O) model for the Riverside County economy.
The results of this study show the scope of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens’ impacts in terms of direct operational spending, capital expenditures, and off-site visitor spending, as well as total economic impacts, including total business sales, employment, labor income, and fiscal (tax) impacts.
KEY FINDINGS
Section 2
Summary Findings
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens generated a total
economic impact of $148.1 million in FY 22/23,
excluding capital expenditure impacts.
FY 22/23 Operations & Visitor Spending Impacts:In FY
22/23, the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens generated a total economic impact of $148.1 million, which included $54.9 million in total labor income, supported 1,484 part -time and full-time jobs, and generated $17.9 million in state and local tax revenues.
Stabilized Year Operations & Visitor Spending Impacts:In a stabilized year of operations post expansion, the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens is expected to generate a total
economic impact of $215.1 million, which is expected to include $83.0 million in total labor income, support 2,150 part-time and full-time jobs, and generate $25.3 million in state and local tax revenues.
In addition to the annual impacts, the one-time capital expenditure impacts due to Zoo expansion is expected to generate a total economic impact of $62.8 million.
Living Desert Zoo and Gardens Summary Economic Impacts
($ millions and number of jobs)
Source: Living Desert Zoo and Gardens, Tourism Economics Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 Stabilized Year
Business Sales $96.1 $68.8 $86.0 $135.3 $148.1 $215.1
Personal Income $34.8 $26.2 $30.9 $47.2 $54.9 $83.0
Employment 1,007 761 901 1,342 1,484 2,150
Taxes $18.1 $12.3 $16.2 $26.6 $28.8 $41.3
State & local taxes $11.1 $7.2 $10.0 $16.6 $17.9 $25.3
Federal taxes $7.0 $5.1 $6.2 $9.9 $10.9 $15.9
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens generated significant economic impacts as the Zoo spent money in the local
economy in the form of annual operational expenditures.
In addition to spending money during their visit to the Zoo, patrons also spent money at businesses and
establishments in the local economy during their stay in Greater Palm Springs, including local restaurants,
retailers, and recreation/entertainment venues.
In FY 22/23, the Zoo generated $98.2 million in direct
spending in the local economy, as outlined below.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens’ direct spending impact of $98.2 million generated a total economic impact of $148.1 million in the local economy, which supported 1,484 part-time and full-time jobs and generated $17.9 million in state and local taxes in FY 22/23.
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IMPACTS
OPERATIONS & VISITOR SPENDING ECONOMIC IMPACTS (FY 22/23) $148.1 MILLION
Total Economic Impact of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens (FY 22/23)
$98.2 MILLION
Direct Spending Impact of the Zoo (FY 22/23)
$77.9 MILLION
Off-Site Spending by Zoo Patrons
$148.1M
Total
Economic
Impact
1,484
Total
Jobs
Generated
$17.9M
Total
State & Local
Tax Revenues
$20.2 MILLION
Zoo Operating Expenditures
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE LIVING DESERT ZOO AND
GARDENS (FY 22/23)
DIRECT SPENDING
(FY 22/23)
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens is expected to
generate significant economic impacts as the Zoo spends money in the local economy in the form of annual
operational expenditures.
In addition to spending money during their visit to the Zoo, patrons also will spend money at businesses and
establishments in the local economy during their stay in Greater Palm Springs, including local restaurants,
retailers, and recreation/entertainment venues.
In a stabilized year of operations post expansion, the Zoo is expected to generate $141.9 million in direct spending in the local economy, as outlined below.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens’expected direct spending impact of $141.9 million is expected to generate a total economic impact of $215.1 million in the local economy, which is expected to support 2,150 part- time and full-time jobs and generate $25.3 million in state and local taxes in a stabilized year of operations post expansion.
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IMPACTS
OPERATIONS & VISITOR SPENDING ECONOMIC IMPACTS (STABILIZED YEAR) $215.1 MILLION
Total Economic Impact of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens (Stabilized Year)
$141.9 MILLION
Direct Spending Impact of the Zoo
(Stabilized Year)
$109.5 MILLION
Off-Site Spending by Zoo Patrons
$215.1M
Total
Economic
Impact
2,150
Total
Jobs
Generated
$25.3M
Total
State & Local
Tax Revenues
$32.4 MILLION
Zoo Operating Expenditures
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE LIVING DESERT ZOO AND
GARDENS (STABILIZED YEAR)
DIRECT SPENDING
(STABILIZED YEAR)
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens already invested and
has plans to further invest in significant capital to expand the Zoo’s footprint and operation.
The expansion is expected to cost $40.9 million.
ONE-TIME CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens’ capital expenditure direct spending impact of $40.9 million is expected to generate a total economic impact of $62.8 million, which is expected to support 509 part-time and full-time jobs and generate $3.0 million in state and local taxes.
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IMPACTS
ONE-TIME CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IMPACTS
$62.8M
Total
Economic
Impact
509
Total
Jobs
Generated
$3.0M
Total
State & Local
Tax Revenues
DIRECT SPENDING
ONE-TIME IMPACTS
$40.9 MILLION
Living Desert Zoo and Gardens Capital
Expenditure Direct Spending Impact
ONE-TIME IMPACTS OF THE LIVING DESERT ZOO AND
GARDENS CAPITAL EXPENDITURES
$62.8 MILLION
Total Economic Impact of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens Capital Expenditure
DIRECT IMPACTS
Section 3
Direct Impact Approach
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens generated an
estimated $98.2 million in direct spending in FY 22/23.
The accompanying table outlines the direct spending impacts attributable to the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens. These direct impacts ultimately serve as the inputs for the
economic impact model.
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' direct spending is
comprised of the following categories:
1.Approximately $20.2 million in operating expenditures in FY 22/23.
2.Approximately $77.9 million in off-site spending by
non-local patrons in FY 22/23, including spending at
local restaurants, retailers, and recreation/entertainment venues.
Direct spending impacts attributable to the Zoo
($ millions)
Source: Living Desert Zoo and Gardens, Tourism Economics Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
FY
22/23
Stabilized
Year
Total annual direct spending $63.6 $45.1 $57.0 $89.7 $98.2 $141.9 Operating expenditures $13.2 $12.8 $10.1 $17.1 $20.2 $32.4 Visitor off-site spending $50.3 $32.3 $46.8 $72.7 $77.9 $109.5
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
FY
22/23
Stabilized
Year
Operating expenses $13.2 $12.8 $10.1 $17.1 $20.2 $32.4
Salaries & wages $7.0 $7.3 $5.7 $7.7 $11.1 $16.1
Employees 194 197 157 211 252 400
Full-time 134 139 127 162 185 307
Part-time 60 58 30 49 67 93
Zoo Operational Spending
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens employed 252
part-time and full-time employees and incurred $20.2
million in operating expenses in FY 22/23.
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens spent $20.2 million in operational expenditures in FY 22/23, which included
spending on employee salaries and wages, professional
fees and contracts, park supplies, repairs and maintenance, marketing, and utilities, among others.
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens employed a total of 67 part-time and 185 full-time employees that earned a total of $11.1 million in FY 22/23.
Living Desert Zoo and Gardens operational spending
($ millions and number of employees)
Source: Living Desert Zoo and Gardens
Zoo Visitor Count and Origin
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens welcomed 616,900
total visitors in FY 22/23 and is expected to welcome
850,000 visitors in a stabilized year of operations post expansion.
In FY 22/23, the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens welcomed 616,900 visitors, which excludes school tours.
Approximately 77% or 473,800 of the 616,900 visitors
originated from outside Greater Palm Springs –including 63% that stayed overnight and 14% that visited for the day.
These visitors spent money while at the Zoo and at off-site establishments in the local economy, including local
restaurants, hotels, retailers, and recreation / entertainment venues.
Living Desert Zoo and Gardens visitor count by origin
(number of visitors)
Source: Living Desert Zoo and Gardens
Note: total patrons excludes school tours.
FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21 FY 21/22 FY 22/23 Stabilized Year
Total visitors 508,900 345,500 469,200 634,100 616,900 850,000 Locals 126,200 97,100 116,400 178,800 143,100 225,000
Day-trippers 81,900 49,900 75,900 87,900 84,800 128,700 Overnighters 300,800 198,500 277,000 367,400 389,000 496,300
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
FY
22/23
Stabilized
Year
Total visitor spending $50.3 $32.3 $46.8 $72.7 $77.9 $109.5 Lodging $17.9 $10.8 $15.2 $30.1 $32.2 $45.2
Food & beverage $14.5 $9.6 $14.2 $19.0 $20.5 $28.8
Entertainment $7.0 $4.6 $6.9 $9.2 $9.9 $13.9
Retail $6.4 $4.3 $6.3 $8.4 $9.1 $12.8
Local transportation $4.5 $3.0 $4.4 $5.9 $6.3 $8.9
Zoo Visitor Spending by Industry
The 473,800 visitors that originated from outside
Greater Palm Springs spent $77.9 million at off-site
establishments in the local economy in FY 22/23.
In FY 22/23, the 473,800 visitors to the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens spent $77.9 million at off-site establishments in the local economy, including local restaurants, hotels, retailers, and recreation / entertainment venues.
The 850,000 visitors that are expected to go to the Zoo in a stabilized year of operations post expansion are expected to spend $109.5 million at off-site establishments in the local economy.
Living Desert Zoo and Gardens visitor spending
($ millions)
Source: Tourism Economics
Note: Totals many not sum due to rounding.
Direct Spending (FY 22/23)
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' direct spending
impacts of $98.2 million (including visitor spending
and operational spending) was spread across a wide
range of sectors within the local economy.
In addition to the $77.9 million in visitor spending, the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens spent $20.2 million in
operating expenditures. In total, the Zoo generated $98.2 million in direct spending impact.
The direct spending impact of $98.2 million in the local economy was spread across a number of industries,
including $32.2 million in lodging expenditures, $20.5 million in food and beverage expenditures, $20.2 million in
operating expenditures, $9.9 million in
entertainment/recreation spending, $9.1 million in retail purchases, and $6.3 million in local transportation.
Source: Tourism Economics
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
SUMMARY
Section 4
Economic Impact Approach
The economic impacts of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens’ direct spending were estimated using regional Input-Output (I-O) models based on customized IMPLAN ( www.implan.com) models for the Riverside County economy. IMPLAN is recognized as an industry standard in local-level I-O models. An I-O model represents a profile of an economy by measuring the relationships among industries and consumers to track the flow of industry revenue to wages, profits, capital, taxes and suppliers. The supply chain is traced as dollars flow through the economy, representing indirect impacts. The model also calculates the induced impacts of spending. Induced impacts represent benefits to the economy as incomes earned as a result of direct spending are spent in the local economy, generating additional sales, jobs, taxes, and income.
The modeling process begins with aligning the direct expenditure measurements with the related sectors in the model (e.g. hotels, restaurants, retail, and recreation). The model is then run to trace the flow of these expenditures through the economy. In this process, the inter-relationships between consumers and industries generate each level of impact.
IMPLAN calculates three levels of impact –direct, indirect, and induced –for a broad set of indicators. These include the following:
▪Business sales (also called gross output)
▪Household income (including wages and benefits)
▪Employment
▪Federal taxes
▪State and local taxes Page 220 of 323
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
FY
22/23
Stabilized
Year
Total business sales $96.1 $68.8 $86.0 $135.3 $148.1 $215.1 Direct business sales $63.6 $45.1 $57.0 $89.7 $98.2 $141.9 Total personal income $34.8 $26.2 $30.9 $47.2 $54.9 $83.0 Direct personal income $24.4 $18.4 $21.7 $33.2 $38.5 $58.4 Total employment 1,007 761 901 1,342 1,484 2,150
Direct employment 719 534 647 963 1,059 1,534
Total taxes $18.1 $12.3 $16.2 $26.6 $28.8 $41.3
Total state & local taxes $11.1 $7.2 $10.0 $16.6 $17.9 $25.3 Total federal taxes $7.0 $5.1 $6.2 $9.9 $10.9 $15.9
Direct taxes $13.1 $8.8 $11.7 $19.4 $21.0 $30.1
Direct state & local taxes $8.3 $5.3 $7.4 $12.5 $13.4 $19.0 Direct federal taxes $4.9 $3.5 $4.3 $6.9 $7.6 $11.1
Economic Impact Summary
The Zoo generated a total economic impact of $148.1
million, which supported 1,484 part-time and full-
time jobs and generated $17.9 million in state and
local taxes in FY 22/23.
The accompanying table outlines the economic impacts in Riverside County attributable to the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens in FY 18/19 through FY 22/23 and in a stabilized year of operations post expansion.
Details for FY 22/23, the stabilized year of operations post expansion, and the capital expenditures are provided in the following three sections.
Living Desert Zoo and Gardens economic impact summary
($ millions and number of employees)
Source: Tourism Economics
Note: Totals many not sum due to rounding.Page 221 of 323
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
(FY 22/23)
Section 5
Direct
Business
Sales
Indirect
Business
Sales
Induced
Business
Sales
Total
Business
Sales
Total, all industries $98.2 $25.6 $24.3 $148.1
By industry
Lodging $32.3 $0.0 $0.0 $32.3
Food & Beverage $20.6 $1.5 $2.4 $24.5
Recreation and Entertainment $21.7 $0.9 $0.3 $22.9
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate $0.4 $7.7 $7.9 $16.0 Business Services $7.1 $6.9 $1.7 $15.8
Retail Trade $9.1 $0.5 $2.3 $11.8
Other Transport $3.5 $1.6 $0.6 $5.6
Education and Health Care $0.1 $3.8 $3.9
Gasoline Stations $2.6 $0.0 $0.2 $2.8
Wholesale Trade $1.3 $1.2 $2.5
Personal Services $0.8 $1.6 $2.4
Government $1.5 $0.9 $2.4
Construction and Utilities $0.8 $1.0 $0.5 $2.3
Communications $1.4 $0.7 $2.1
Manufacturing $0.4 $0.1 $0.5
Air Transport $0.0 $0.0 $0.1
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Business Sales by Industry
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' operations and
visitor spending generated a total economic impact of
$148.1 million in FY 22/22.
The $98.2 million in Zoo operational spending and off-site spending by visitors generated $25.6 million in indirect expenditures and $24.3 million in induced expenditures, resulting in a total economic impact of $148.1 million in the local economy in FY 22/23.
Business sales impacts by industry, FY 22/23
($ millions)
Source: Tourism Economics
Note: Totals many not sum due to rounding.
Business sales impacts by industry, FY 22/23
($ millions)
$0 $20 $40
Lodging
Food & Beverage
Recreation and Entertainment
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Business Services
Retail Trade
Other Transport
Education and Health Care
Gasoline Stations
Wholesale Trade
Personal Services
Government
Construction and Utilities
Communications
Manufacturing
Air Transport
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Direct Indirect Induced
Business Sales by Industry
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' operations and
visitor spending generated a total economic impact of
$148.1 million in FY 22/23.
The lodging industry was the most impacted industry with $32.3 million in total output in FY 22/23. The food &
beverage industry and recreation and entertainment
industry followed with $24.5 million and $22.9 million in total business sales, respectively.
Business sales impacts by industry, FY 22/23
($ millions)
Source: Tourism Economics
$ millions
Direct
Employment
Indirect
Employment
Induced
Employment
Total
Employment
Total, all industries 1,059 227 197 1,484
By industry
Recreation and Entertainment 322 15 6 343
Lodging 313 0 0 313
Food & Beverage 254 23 34 311
Business Services 61 82 19 162
Other Transport 61 20 9 90
Retail Trade 38 5 27 71
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 2 49 18 69
Education and Health Care 2 44 45
Personal Services 10 25 36
Construction and Utilities 6 4 2 12
Government 8 4 12
Wholesale Trade 5 4 9
Communications 3 2 5
Gasoline Stations 2 0 1 3
Manufacturing 1 0 2
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining 0 0 0
Air Transport 0 0 0
Employment by Industry
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' operations and
visitor spending generated a total employment
impact of 1,484 part-time and full-time jobs in FY
22/23.
The Zoo operations and visitor spending directly supported 1,059 full-time and part-time jobs. Indirect and induced impacts generated 227 indirect jobs and 197 induced jobs.
Employment impacts by industry, FY 22/23
(part-time and full-time jobs)
Source: Tourism Economics
Note: Totals many not sum due to rounding.
Employment impacts by industry, FY 22/23
(part-time and full-time jobs)
0 200 400
Recreation and Entertainment
Lodging
Food & Beverage
Business Services
Other Transport
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Education and Health Care
Personal Services
Construction and Utilities
Government
Wholesale Trade
Communications
Gasoline Stations
Manufacturing
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Air Transport
Direct Indirect Induced
Employment by Industry
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' operations and
visitor spending generated a total employment
impact of 1,484 part-time and full-time jobs in FY
22/23.
The recreation and entertainment ranked first with 343
total jobs in FY 22/23. The lodging industry sector followed with 313 total jobs.
Employment impacts by industry, FY 22/23
(part-time and full-time jobs)
Source: Tourism Economics
jobs
Direct
Personal
Income
Indirect
Personal
Income
Induced
Personal
Income
Total
Personal
Income
Total, all industries $38.5 $8.6 $7.8 $54.9
By industry
Lodging $13.4 $0.0 $0.0 $13.4
Recreation and Entertainment $12.2 $0.3 $0.1 $12.6
Food & Beverage $7.3 $0.7 $1.0 $9.0
Business Services $2.4 $3.2 $0.8 $6.4
Other Transport $1.6 $0.8 $0.3 $2.7
Education and Health Care $0.0 $2.2 $2.2
Retail Trade $1.1 $0.2 $0.8 $2.1
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate $0.1 $1.1 $0.5 $1.7
Personal Services $0.6 $1.1 $1.6
Government $0.7 $0.3 $1.1
Construction and Utilities $0.3 $0.2 $0.1 $0.7
Wholesale Trade $0.3 $0.3 $0.7
Communications $0.3 $0.1 $0.4
Gasoline Stations $0.1 $0.0 $0.1 $0.2
Manufacturing $0.1 $0.0 $0.1
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Air Transport $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Labor Income by Industry
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' operations and
visitor spending generated $54.9 million in total labor income in FY 22/23.
The Zoo generated $38.5 million in direct personal income, $8.6 million in indirect labor income, and $7.8 million in induced personal income, resulting in $54.9 million in total labor income in FY 22/23.
Labor income impacts by industry, FY 22/23
($ millions)
Source: Tourism Economics
Note: Totals many not sum due to rounding.
Labor income impacts by industry, FY 22/23
($ millions)
$0 $5 $10 $15
Lodging
Recreation and Entertainment
Food & Beverage
Business Services
Other Transport
Education and Health Care
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Personal Services
Government
Construction and Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Communications
Gasoline Stations
Manufacturing
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Air Transport
Direct Indirect Induced
Labor Income by Industry
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' operations and
visitor spending generated $54.9 million in total labor income in FY 22/23.
In FY 22/23, the lodging industry was the most impacted industry with $13.4 million in total labor income. The
recreation and entertainment industry followed with $12.6 million in total labor income, including $12.2 million in direct labor income and $0.4 million in indirect and induced labor income.
Labor income impacts by industry, FY 22/23
($ millions)
Source: Tourism Economics
$ millions
State Local Total
Total taxes $9.6 $8.3 $17.9
Sales $7.0 $1.5 $8.5
Bed Tax $0.1 $4.2 $4.3
Personal Income $1.6 $0.0 $1.6
Corporate $0.3 $0.0 $0.3
Social Insurance $0.2 $0.0 $0.2
Excise and Fees $0.3 $0.4 $0.7
Property $0.1 $2.2 $2.3
Direct
Indirect /
Induced Total
Total Tax Revenues $21.0 $7.8 $28.8
Federal $7.6 $3.3 $10.9
Personal Income $2.8 $1.3 $4.1
Corporate $0.4 $0.3 $0.6
Indirect Business $0.3 $0.2 $0.5
Social Insurance $4.1 $1.6 $5.7
State and Local $13.4 $4.5 $17.9
Sales $5.7 $2.8 $8.5
Bed Tax $4.3 $0.0 $4.3
Personal Income $1.1 $0.5 $1.6
Corporate $0.2 $0.1 $0.3
Social Insurance $0.2 $0.1 $0.2
Excise and Fees $0.5 $0.3 $0.7
Property $1.6 $0.7 $2.3
Tax Generation
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens' operations and
visitor spending generated $28.8 million in
governmental revenue in FY 22/23.
The Zoo’s operations and visitor spending generated a total fiscal (tax) impact of $28.8 million in FY 22/23.
The State of California government collected $9.6 million, and the local government collected $8.3 million as a result of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens.
Total tax revenue, FY 22/23
($ millions)
Source: Tourism Economics
State and local tax revenue, FY 22/23
($ millions)
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
(STABILIZED YEAR)
Section 6
$0 $10 $20 $30 $40 $50
Lodging
Recreation and Entertainment
Food & Beverage
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Business Services
Retail Trade
Other Transport
Education and Health Care
Gasoline Stations
Wholesale Trade
Personal Services
Government
Construction and Utilities
Communications
Manufacturing
Air Transport
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Direct Indirect Induced
Business Sales by Industry
Business sales impacts by industry, stabilized year
($ millions)
Source: Tourism Economics
Business sales impacts by industry, stabilized year
($ millions)
Source: Tourism Economics
Direct
Business
Sales
Indirect
Business
Sales
Induced
Business
Sales
Total
Business
Sales
Total, all industries $141.9 $37.4 $35.8 $215.1
By industry
Lodging $45.3 $0.0 $0.0 $45.3
Recreation and Entertainment $35.0 $1.3 $0.5 $36.8
Food & Beverage $29.0 $2.1 $3.5 $34.6
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate $0.7 $11.5 $11.6 $23.8 Business Services $9.3 $9.9 $2.5 $21.8
Retail Trade $12.8 $0.7 $3.3 $16.8
Other Transport $4.9 $2.3 $0.9 $8.1
Education and Health Care $0.2 $5.6 $5.7
Gasoline Stations $3.7 $0.0 $0.2 $4.0
Wholesale Trade $1.9 $1.8 $3.6
Personal Services $1.2 $2.4 $3.6
Government $2.3 $1.3 $3.5
Construction and Utilities $1.3 $1.4 $0.8 $3.5
Communications $2.0 $1.1 $3.0
Manufacturing $0.5 $0.2 $0.8
Air Transport $0.0 $0.1 $0.1
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining $0.0 $0.0 $0.1
$ millions
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Recreation and Entertainment
Food & Beverage
Lodging
Business Services
Other Transport
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Retail Trade
Education and Health Care
Personal Services
Construction and Utilities
Government
Wholesale Trade
Communications
Gasoline Stations
Manufacturing
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Air Transport
Direct Indirect Induced
Direct
Employment
Indirect
Employment
Induced
Employment
Total
Employment
Total, all industries 1,534 327 289 2,150
By industry
Recreation and Entertainment 504 21 9 535
Food & Beverage 357 32 51 439
Lodging 439 0 0 439
Business Services 79 116 28 223
Other Transport 85 29 13 128
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 3 73 26 102
Retail Trade 54 7 40 101
Education and Health Care 2 64 67
Personal Services 15 37 52
Construction and Utilities 9 6 3 18
Government 12 5 17
Wholesale Trade 7 6 13
Communications 4 3 7
Gasoline Stations 3 0 2 5
Manufacturing 2 1 3
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining 0 0 1
Air Transport 0 0 0
Employment by Industry
Employment impacts by industry, stabilized year
(part-time and full-time jobs)
Source: Tourism Economics
Employment impacts by industry, stabilized year
(part-time and full-time jobs)
Source: Tourism Economics
jobs
$0 $5 $10 $15 $20 $25
Lodging
Recreation and Entertainment
Food & Beverage
Business Services
Education and Health Care
Retail Trade
Other Transport
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Government
Personal Services
Wholesale Trade
Construction and Utilities
Communications
Gasoline Stations
Manufacturing
Air Transport
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Direct Indirect Induced
Direct
Personal
Income
Indirect
Personal
Income
Induced
Personal
Income
Total
Personal
Income
Total, all industries $58.4 $12.8 $11.8 $83.0
By industry
Lodging $21.0 $0.1 $0.0 $21.1
Recreation and Entertainment $18.6 $0.3 $0.4 $19.2
Food & Beverage $12.0 $1.3 $1.5 $14.7
Business Services $2.8 $4.3 $1.4 $8.5
Education and Health Care $0.0 $0.5 $3.3 $3.8
Retail Trade $1.8 $0.6 $1.3 $3.6
Other Transport $1.5 $1.3 $0.5 $3.3
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate $0.2 $1.2 $0.7 $2.1
Government $1.3 $0.7 $2.0
Personal Services $0.1 $0.5 $1.2 $1.8
Wholesale Trade $0.1 $0.5 $0.5 $1.1
Construction and Utilities $0.3 $0.4 $0.2 $0.9
Communications $0.0 $0.3 $0.2 $0.4
Gasoline Stations $0.1 $0.0 $0.1 $0.2
Manufacturing $0.1 $0.0 $0.1
Air Transport $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Labor Income by Industry
Labor income impacts by industry, stabilized year
($ millions)
Source: Tourism Economics
Labor income impacts by industry, stabilized year
($ millions)
Source: Tourism Economics
$ millions
Tax Generation
Total tax revenue, stabilized year
($ millions)
Source: Tourism Economics
State and local tax revenue, stabilized year
($ millions)
Source: Tourism Economics
Direct
Indirect /
Induced Total
Total Tax Revenues $30.1 $11.1 $41.3
Federal $11.1 $4.8 $15.9
Personal Income $4.2 $1.8 $6.0
Corporate $0.5 $0.4 $0.9
Indirect Business $0.4 $0.2 $0.6
Social Insurance $6.0 $2.3 $8.4
State and Local $19.0 $6.3 $25.3
Sales $8.0 $4.0 $12.0
Bed Tax $6.0 $0.0 $6.0
Personal Income $1.6 $0.7 $2.3
Corporate $0.2 $0.2 $0.4
Social Insurance $0.3 $0.0 $0.4
Excise and Fees $0.7 $0.4 $1.0
Property $2.3 $1.0 $3.2
State Local Total
Total taxes $13.7 $11.6 $25.3
Sales $9.9 $2.1 $12.0
Bed Tax $0.1 $5.9 $6.0
Personal Income $2.3 $0.0 $2.3
Corporate $0.4 $0.0 $0.4
Social Insurance $0.4 $0.0 $0.4
Excise and Fees $0.5 $0.6 $1.0
Property $0.2 $3.1 $3.2
CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
IMPACTS
Section 7
Direct
Business
Sales
Indirect
Business
Sales
Induced
Business
Sales
Total
Business
Sales
Total, all industries $40.9 $8.6 $13.3 $62.8
By industry
Construction and Utilities $32.7 $0.1 $0.3 $33.1
Business Services $8.2 $2.4 $0.9 $11.5
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate $2.0 $4.3 $6.3
Wholesale Trade $1.7 $0.7 $2.3
Education and Health Care $0.0 $2.1 $2.1
Food & Beverage $0.2 $1.3 $1.5
Retail Trade $0.2 $1.2 $1.4
Personal Services $0.2 $0.9 $1.1
Other Transport $0.7 $0.3 $1.0
Communications $0.3 $0.4 $0.7
Government $0.2 $0.5 $0.7
Manufacturing $0.6 $0.1 $0.6
Recreation and Entertainment $0.0 $0.2 $0.2
Gasoline Stations $0.0 $0.1 $0.1
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining $0.0 $0.0 $0.1
Air Transport $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Lodging $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
$0 $20 $40
Construction and Utilities
Business Services
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Wholesale Trade
Education and Health Care
Food & Beverage
Retail Trade
Personal Services
Other Transport
Communications
Government
Manufacturing
Recreation and Entertainment
Gasoline Stations
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Air Transport
Lodging
Direct Indirect Induced
Business Sales by Industry
Business sales impacts by industry, capital expenditures ($ millions)
Source: Tourism Economics
Business sales impacts by industry, capital expenditures ($ millions)
Source: Tourism Economics
$ millions
Direct
Employment
Indirect
Employment
Induced
Employment
Total
Employment
Total, all industries 359 56 94 509
By industry
Construction and Utilities 299 0 1 300
Business Services 60 24 9 93
Education and Health Care 0 21 21
Food & Beverage 2 16 19
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate 10 9 18
Retail Trade 1 13 14
Personal Services 2 12 14
Other Transport 6 4 10
Wholesale Trade 6 2 8
Recreation and Entertainment 1 3 4
Government 1 2 3
Manufacturing 2 0 2
Communications 1 1 1
Gasoline Stations 0 1 1
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining 0 0 0
Air Transport 0 0 0
Lodging 0 0 0 0 200 400
Construction and Utilities
Business Services
Education and Health Care
Food & Beverage
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Retail Trade
Personal Services
Other Transport
Wholesale Trade
Recreation and Entertainment
Government
Manufacturing
Communications
Gasoline Stations
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Air Transport
Lodging
Direct Indirect Induced
Employment by Industry
Employment impacts by industry, capital expenditures
(part-time and full-time jobs)
Source: Tourism Economics
Employment impacts by industry, capital expenditures
(part-time and full-time jobs)
Source: Tourism Economics
jobs
Direct
Personal
Income
Indirect
Personal
Income
Induced
Personal
Income
Total
Personal
Income
Total, all industries $21.0 $2.7 $4.0 $27.7
By industry
Construction and Utilities $17.8 $0.0 $0.1 $17.9
Business Services $3.3 $1.1 $0.4 $4.7
Education and Health Care $0.0 $1.1 $1.1
Personal Services $0.1 $0.6 $0.7
Food & Beverage $0.1 $0.5 $0.6
Wholesale Trade $0.4 $0.2 $0.6
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate $0.3 $0.3 $0.6
Retail Trade $0.1 $0.4 $0.5
Other Transport $0.3 $0.2 $0.5
Government $0.1 $0.2 $0.3
Manufacturing $0.1 $0.0 $0.1
Communications $0.1 $0.1 $0.1
Recreation and Entertainment $0.0 $0.1 $0.1
Gasoline Stations $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Air Transport $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
Lodging $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
$0 $10 $20
Construction and Utilities
Business Services
Education and Health Care
Personal Services
Food & Beverage
Wholesale Trade
Finance, Insurance and Real Estate
Retail Trade
Other Transport
Government
Manufacturing
Communications
Recreation and Entertainment
Gasoline Stations
Agriculture, Fishing, Mining
Air Transport
Lodging
Direct Indirect Induced
Labor Income by Industry
Labor income impacts by industry, capital expenditures
($ millions)
Source: Tourism Economics
Labor income impacts by industry, capital expenditures
($ millions)
Source: Tourism Economics
$ millions
State Local Total
Total taxes $1.9 $1.1 $3.0
Sales $0.8 $0.2 $1.0
Personal Income $0.9 $0.0 $0.9
Corporate $0.1 $0.0 $0.1
Social Insurance $0.1 $0.0 $0.1
Excise and Fees $0.1 $0.1 $0.2
Property $0.0 $0.7 $0.7
Direct
Indirect /
Induced Total
Total Tax Revenues $5.3 $3.1 $8.4
Federal $4.0 $1.5 $5.4
Personal Income $1.8 $0.5 $2.3
Corporate $0.0 $0.1 $0.2
Indirect Business $0.0 $0.1 $0.1
Social Insurance $2.1 $0.7 $2.8
State and Local $1.3 $1.7 $3.0
Sales $0.3 $0.7 $1.0
Personal Income $0.7 $0.2 $0.9
Corporate $0.0 $0.1 $0.1
Social Insurance $0.1 $0.0 $0.1
Excise and Fees $0.1 $0.2 $0.2
Property $0.2 $0.5 $0.7
Tax Generation
Total tax revenue, capital expenditures
($ millions)
Source: Tourism Economics
State and local tax revenue, capital expenditures
($ millions)
Source: Tourism Economics
CITY KEY FINDINGS
(FY 22/23)
Section 8
City Summary Findings (FY 22/23)
The following section presents the economic impacts
generated by Living Desert Zoo and Garden patrons off-site spending in five cities within Greater Palm Springs in FY 22/23.
These figures exclude the economic impact generated by the Living Desert Zoo and Garden’s operational expenditures, which were included in the aggregated Zoo impacts for all Greater Palm Springs presented in the prior sections.
The accompanying table outlines the economic impacts
generated by off-site visitor spending in each city:Palm Springs accounted for the largest portion ($30.9 million), followed by Palm Desert ($24.9 million), La Quinta ($14.9 million), Rancho Mirage ($14.0 million), and Indian Wells ($7.9 million).
Living Desert Zoo and Gardens Summary Economic Impacts
($ millions and number of jobs)
Source: Living Desert Zoo and Gardens, Tourism Economics Note: Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Indian
Wells
Palm
Desert
Palm
Springs La Quinta Rancho
Mirage
Business Sales $7.9 $24.9 $30.9 $14.9 $14.0
Personal Income $2.7 $8.5 $10.5 $5.1 $4.7
Employment 74 235 292 140 132
Taxes $1.8 $5.4 $7.2 $3.3 $3.0
State & local taxes $1.2 $3.6 $5.0 $2.2 $2.0
Federal taxes $0.6 $1.8 $2.2 $1.1 $1.0
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens generated significant economic impacts in Indian Wells as Zoo patrons spent
money at businesses and establishments in Indian Wells
during their trip to the Zoo, including local restaurants, retailers, and recreation/entertainment venues.
In FY 22/23, Zoo patrons spent $5.5 million in Indian
Wells, as outlined below.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens’ patron spending impact of $5.5 million generated a total economic impact of $7.9 million in the Indian Wells economy, which supported 74 part-time and full-time jobs and generated $1.2 million in state and local taxes in FY 22/23.
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IMPACTS: INDIAN WELLS
VISITOR SPENDING ECONOMIC IMPACTS (FY 22/23)
$7.9 MILLION
Total Economic Impact of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens (FY 22/23)$5.5 MILLION
Zoo Patron Spending In Indian Wells (FY 22/23)
$7.9M
Total
Economic
Impact
74 Total
Jobs
Generated
$1.2M
Total
State & Local
Tax Revenues
$2.7M LODGING ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IN INDIAN WELLS (FY 22/23)
DIRECT SPENDING
(FY 22/23)
$0.2M FOOD & BEVERAGE
$0.1M RETAIL
$1.8M ENTERTAINMENT
$0.7M LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens generated significant economic impacts in Palm Desert as Zoo patrons spent
money at businesses and establishments in Palm Desert
during their trip to the Zoo, including local restaurants, retailers, and recreation/entertainment venues.
In FY 22/23, Zoo patrons spent $17.2 million in Palm
Desert, as outlined below.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens’ patron spending impact of $17.2 million generated a total economic impact of $24.9 million in the Palm Desert economy, which supported 235 part-time and full- time jobs and generated $3.6 million in state and local taxes in FY 22/23.
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IMPACTS: PALM DESERT
VISITOR SPENDING ECONOMIC IMPACTS (FY 22/23)
$24.9 MILLION
Total Economic Impact of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens (FY 22/23)$17.2 MILLION
Zoo Patron Spending In Palm Desert (FY 22/23)
$24.9M
Total
Economic
Impact
235
Total
Jobs
Generated
$3.6M
Total
State & Local
Tax Revenues
$6.2M LODGING ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IN PALM DESERT (FY 22/23)
DIRECT SPENDING
(FY 22/23)
$4.7M FOOD & BEVERAGE
$3.0M RETAIL
$2.0M ENTERTAINMENT
$1.4M LOCAL TRANSPORTATION Page 243 of 323
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens generated significant economic impacts in Palm Springs as Zoo patrons spent
money at businesses and establishments in Palm Springs
during their trip to the Zoo, including local restaurants, retailers, and recreation/entertainment venues.
In FY 22/23, Zoo patrons spent $21.1 million in Palm
Springs, as outlined below.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens’ patron spending impact of $21.1 million generated a total economic impact of $30.9 million in the Palm Springs economy, which supported 292 part-time and full- time jobs and generated $5.0 million in state and local taxes in FY 22/23.
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IMPACTS: PALM SPRINGS
VISITOR SPENDING ECONOMIC IMPACTS (FY 22/23)
$30.9 MILLION
Total Economic Impact of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens (FY 22/23)$21.1 MILLION
Zoo Patron Spending In Palm Springs (FY 22/23)
$30.9M
Total
Economic
Impact
292
Total
Jobs
Generated
$5.0M
Total
State & Local
Tax Revenues
$11.7M LODGING ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IN PALM SPRINGS (FY 22/23)
DIRECT SPENDING
(FY 22/23)
$5.4M FOOD & BEVERAGE
$1.3M RETAIL
$1.7M LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
$1.1M ENTERTAINMENT Page 244 of 323
$3.8M FOOD & BEVERAGE
$0.5M LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
$0.9M ENTERTAINMENT
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens generated significant economic impacts in La Quinta as Zoo patrons spent
money at businesses and establishments in La Quinta
during their trip to the Zoo, including local restaurants, retailers, and recreation/entertainment venues.
In FY 22/23, Zoo patrons spent $10.3 million in La
Quinta, as outlined below.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens’ patron spending impact of $10.3 million generated a total economic impact of $14.9 million in the La Quinta economy, which supported 140 part-time and full- time jobs and generated $2.2 million in state and local taxes in FY 22/23.
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IMPACTS: LA QUINTA
VISITOR SPENDING ECONOMIC IMPACTS (FY 22/23)
$14.9 MILLION
Total Economic Impact of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens (FY 22/23)$10.3 MILLION
Zoo Patron Spending In La Quinta (FY 22/23)
$14.9M
Total
Economic
Impact
140
Total
Jobs
Generated
$2.2M
Total
State & Local
Tax Revenues
$3.8M LODGING
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE LIVING DESERT ZOO AND
GARDENS IN LA QUINTA (FY 22/23)
DIRECT SPENDING
(FY 22/23)
$1.2M RETAIL
$0.5M RETAIL
$0.8M LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
$2.4M ENTERTAINMENT
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens generated significant economic impacts in Rancho Mirage as Zoo patrons spent
money at businesses and establishments in Rancho
Mirage during their trip to the Zoo, including local
restaurants, retailers, and recreation/entertainment
venues.
In FY 22/23, Zoo patrons spent $9.7 million in Rancho
Mirage, as outlined below.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
The Living Desert Zoo and Gardens’ patron spending impact of $9.7 million generated a total economic impact of $14.0 million in the Rancho Mirage economy, which supported 132 part-time and full- time jobs and generated $2.0 million in state and local taxes in FY 22/23.
LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IMPACTS: RANCHO MIRAGE
VISITOR SPENDING ECONOMIC IMPACTS (FY 22/23)
$14.0 MILLION
Total Economic Impact of the Living Desert Zoo and Gardens (FY 22/23)$9.7 MILLION
Zoo Patron Spending In Rancho Mirage (FY 22/23)
$14.0M
Total
Economic
Impact
132
Total
Jobs
Generated
$2.0M
Total
State & Local
Tax Revenues
$3.5M LODGING ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE LIVING DESERT ZOO AND GARDENS IN RANCHO MIRAGE (FY 22/23)
DIRECT SPENDING
(FY 22/23)
$2.4M FOOD & BEVERAGE
About Tourism Economics
Tourism Economics is an Oxford Economics company with a singular objective: combine an understanding of the travel sector with proven economic tools to answer the most important questions facing our clients. More than 500 companies, associations, and destinat ion work with Tourism Economics every year as a research partner. We bring decades of experience to every engagement to help our clients make better marketing, investment, and policy decisions. Our team of highly-specialized economists deliver:
•Global travel data-sets with the broadest set of country, city, and state coverage available •Travel forecasts that are directly linked to the economic and demographic outlook for origins and destinations •Economic impact analysis that highlights the value of visitors, events, developments, and industry segments •Policy analysis that informs critical funding, taxation, and travel facilitation decisions •Market assessments that define market allocation and investment decisions Tourism Economics operates out of regional headquarters in Philadelphia and Oxford, with offices in Belfast, Buenos Aires, Du bai, Frankfurt, and Ontario.
Oxford Economics is one of the world’s foremost independent global advisory firms, providing reports, forecasts and analytica l tools on 200 countries, 100 industrial sectors and over 3,000 cities. Our best-of-class global economic and industry models and analytical tools give us an unparalleled ability to forecast external market trends and assess their economic, social and business impact. Headquartered in Oxford, England, with regional centers in London, New York, and Singapore, Oxford Economics has offices across the globe in Belfast, Chicago, Dubai, Miami, Milan, Paris, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Washington DC, we employ over 250 full-time staff, including 150 professional economists, industry experts and business editors—one of the largest teams of macroeconomists and thought leadership specialists.
For more information:
[email protected] Page 247 of 323
FYE 23 FYE 24 FYE 25 FYE 26 FYE 27 FYE 28 FYE 29 FYE 30 FYE 31 FYE 32 FYE 33 FYE 34 Yearly Attendance 6% Growth
Rate 600,000 636,000 674,160 714,610 757,486 802,935 851,111 902,178 956,309 1,013,687 1,074,509 1,138,979 Capture Rate 14.16%14.16%14.16%14.16%14.16%14.16%14.16%14.16%14.16%14.16% Average Transaction (Net
After Taxes)4%Inflation $26.69 $27.76 $28.87 $30.02 $31.22 $32.47 $33.77 $35.12 $36.53 $37.99 Potential F&B Revenue (Net
After Taxes)$2,547,856 $2,808,756 $3,096,373 $3,413,441 $3,762,978 $4,148,306 $4,573,093 $5,041,378 $5,557,615 $6,126,715 Evening Rental Events
(Weddings, Corporate,
Social, Gala)150 Guests $1,350,000 $1,404,000 $1,460,160 $1,518,566 $1,579,309 $1,642,481 $1,708,181 $1,776,508 $1,847,568 $1,921,471 Facility Rental $250 per Guests
Catering 4%Inflation
Equipment& Décor Rental 36 Events /year
Total Revenue Projection $3,897,856 $4,212,756 $4,556,533 $4,932,008 $5,342,287 $5,790,788 $6,281,274 $6,817,886 $7,405,183 $8,048,186 Estimated Revenue
over first 10 years $57,284,754
Ten Year Estimate 1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%1%
Estimated Indian Wells Share
of Sales Tax 572,847.54$ 38,978.56$ 42,127.56$ 45,565.33$ 49,320.08$ 53,422.87$ 57,907.88$ 62,812.74$ 68,178.86$ 74,051.83$ 80,481.86$ Café/Marketplace Revenue
Estimates
Projections are
VERY
conservative.
T:\Kevin\Living Desert Zoo\Cafe Marketplace Revenue Estimates ATTACHMENT #3
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-38
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS,
CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE FUNDING POLICY
AND RESCINDING PRIOR DISCRETIONARY FUNDING POLICIES
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Indian Wells recognizes the importance of a prudent long-term financial plan, as well as the value in providing financial assistance to organizations whose work benefits the City and the Coachella Valley; and WHEREAS, the City desires and intends to adopt a funding plan for community assistance expenditures consistent with a prudent long-term financial plan; and WHEREAS,the City desires and intends to amend the funding plan to make provisions for pledging monies.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.The City Council hereby RESCINDS prior resolutions amending or approving the Community Assistance Policy, including Resolution No. 2022-40.
SECTION 2.The City Council hereby ADOPTS that specific Community Assistance Funding Policy set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3.This Resolution shall take effect upon adoption.
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 November 2023. _________________________________
DONNA J.H. GRIFFITH
MAYOR
ATTACHMENT #4
City of Indian Wells
Resolution No. 2023-38
CERTIFICATION FOR RESOLUTION NO. 2023-38
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 on this 2nd day of November 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: Griffith, Peabody, Reed, Sanders, Whitman NOES: None
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________ _________________________________
ANGELICA AVILA TODD LEISHMAN
CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY
City of Indian Wells
Resolution No. 2023-38
EXHIBIT “A”
CITY OF INDIAN WELLS
COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE FUNDING POLICY
1. PURPOSE OF THIS POLICY
The Policy's purpose is to establish annual procedures and approvals associated with funding community assistance expenditures during the development of the City budget. In addition, the Policy sets defined processes to ensure the City's financial goals are maintained and opportunities for public input are available.
The City Council defines community assistance funding as optional expenditures that the City Council can disburse annually to financial aid-worthy non-profit organizations within the Coachella Valley that provide services that the City may not otherwise offer.
Budgetary approval is required for all community assistance funding. The City Council will publicly discuss community assistance funding at budgetary study sessions and council meetings during the review and adoption of the City budget. Public input is essential during these meetings.
2. COMMUNITY ASSISTANCE FUNDING
Community Assistance Funding for each new budget year shall be established as follows:
A. For each new budget year, the amount of the community assistance funding budget shall be established by calculating twenty-five percent (25%) of the prior year’s General Fund’s Net Change in Fund Balance (after all capital contributions) using year-end estimates established during the last quarter of each fiscal year.
B. Maximum funding shall not exceed $200,000 during each budget year.
C. Annual funding shall be split into two separate pools. The Grants-in-Aid program shall receive 80% of the available funding. The second pool shall operate at the sole discretion of the City Council and will receive the remaining 20% of the available funding.
D. The City has qualified its ability to meet its financial obligations under the current General Fund cash flow plan as approved and amended by the Finance Committee and consistent with the adoption of the City’s Annual Budget.
E. If funds are insufficient, the amount of community assistance funding shall be reduced or eliminated until all criteria have been met.
F. Budget Roll Forwards: Prior to the close of each fiscal year, the Finance Director shall roll forward any unexpended community assistance funds from either pool. For the avoidance of doubt, any unexpended community assistance funds shall “roll forward” into the next year’s budget, shall be available for spending, and shall be separate from the annual calculation establishing the annual Community Assistance Funding Program.
City of Indian Wells
Resolution No. 2023-38
3. EXTRAORDINARY FUNDING REQUESTS IN EXCESS OF $200,000 Extraordinary funding requests received by the City of more than $200,000 shall be considered separately from the policy requirements set forth above and shall be subject to the following criteria prior to City Council approval:
A. City staff shall request and require documentation in keeping with Community Assistance Grant Program Requirements. The Extraordinary Grants Committee will review the funding proposal as required for all Community Assistance Grants. The Committee shall make a written recommendation to the City Council of their findings.
B. A staff report summarizing the Committee’s recommendations shall be placed on the City Council agenda for consideration.
C. The Applicant shall have the opportunity to present to the Council when the item is scheduled for Council consideration.
D. If the City Council approves by a majority vote to move the item forward, a Community Involvement component will be required. The Applicant will oversee and direct the Community Involvement component at the Applicant’s own expense. This component shall include a program to inform the public about the long-range financial impact, share the funding proposal, and obtain feedback from the community. This will be accomplished through press releases, distributing informational materials pertinent to the proposal, public hearings, meetings, and surveys. The following steps must be taken and reviewed before a final decision by the City Council regarding the potential funding of a proposal exceeding $200,000:
i. The City will hold a minimum of one Public Hearing and Town Hall meeting to discuss the said proposal with the Applicant present. ii. A minimum of one written communication shall be sent via U.S. Postal Service to all Indian Wells residents to include summary information on the funding request, the budgetary impact to the City is funded, and the date, time, and location of Public Hearing and Town Hall meeting to accept community input on proposed funding. Each mailing shall be at the expense of the Applicant.
iii. The Applicant shall cause to be submitted to the media no less than one press release announcing the date, time, and location of the public hearing or meeting held to discuss and take testimony regarding the funding proposal.
iv. A Community-wide mail survey or cloud-based online civic engagement platform/poll shall be used to provide an additional vehicle to inform and provide community feedback as it relates to the funding proposal. Each poll shall be at the expense of the Applicant. A subsequent report on the poll results shall be provided to the City Council.
City of Indian Wells
Resolution No. 2023-38
v. The City Council shall be responsible for ensuring that legal and financial advice has been obtained and must consider whether the scope of the proposed funding request warrants further legal or financial advice from an independent source.
At such a time that all of the above community input methods have been completed, and considering the information obtained, the City Council shall determine the award of any such funding during a regularly scheduled City Council meeting.
26529.00000\41914219.7
1 INDIAN WELLS CITY COUNCIL
January 18, 2024
To: City Council
From: Measure J Ad Hoc Committee
Subject: Measure J Council Ad Hoc Committee Update
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Council RECEIVES and FILES the Measure J Council Ad Hoc Committee report.
BACKGROUND:
In March of 2020, the residents of Indian Wells placed Measure J on the ballot by a resident signature petition. The Indian Wells voters overwhelmingly supported the measure (61% yes and 39% no), changing City Council elections by expressly limiting Council service to two four-year terms over the course of a person’s “lifetime.” Under section 2.08.045, of the Municipal Code, the “City Clerk, or other election official authorized by law, shall not accept or verify the signatures on any nomination paper for any person, including any paper seeking election as a write -in candidate, nor shall he or she certify or place on the list of certified candidates, nor print or cause to be printed on any ballot, voter information guide, sample ballot or ballot label, the name of any person whose candidacy, if successful, will result in a City Council term that exceeds the limits set forth herein.”
In 2020, the City Clerk, who serves as the City’s election official, complied with Measure J by determining that a former councilmember who had already served two four-year terms during that councilmembers’ lifetime did not qualify for the 2020 November ballot.
A former councilmember, who previously served two four-year terms on the City Council, filed a complaint against the Indian Wells election official with the Riverside County Superior Court. His contention was that his previous service did not count toward his “lifetime” limit because Measure J was adopted after his service on the City Council.
The Riverside Superior Court held that “[t]he City’s term limits measure, Measure J, violates Government Code section 36502.” Section 36052 purports to limit all cities — including charter cities — to “apply[ing] [term limits] prospectively only.” The Superior Court considered the application of Measure J’s term limit to pre-2020 terms to be retroactive and therefore a violation of Section 36502.
26529.00000\41914219.7
2 The trial court ruling was not appealed by the Council, and the former councilmember who previously served two four-year terms was able to submit candidacy papers and be placed on the 2020 Election ballot.
Based on the Riverside County Superior Court writ from 2020, the election official applied the same rule in 2022 to allow former councilmembers that had served two four-year terms to pull candidacy papers. Three former councilmembers pulled candidacy papers and qualified for the November 2022 ballot.
DISCUSSION
At the City Council’s 2023 Strategic Planning session held on February 1, 2023, the Council directed an examination of Measure J. The Council approved the formation of an Ad Hoc Council Committee (“Committee”) comprised of then Mayor Pro Tem Greg Sanders and Councilmember Bruce Whitman to assist in the review of Measure J. The specific task was to determine whether a Council-initiated ballot measure might be needed to ensure the enforceability of the voters’ intent that Council service be limited to two terms over the course of a councilmember’s lifetime.
One of the first questions the Committee examined was the need for a new ballot measure to clarify Measure J. After careful review, the Committee determined that a ballot measure is not needed because there has been a chance in the “circumstances” of election law regarding charter-city authority and term limits.
Changed Circumstances
The Committee is aware that after Measure J was approved by Indian Wells voters in March 2020, the Riverside Superior Court issued a writ compelling the City to allow a former Council Member who previously served two four-year terms to again run for a Council seat in November of 2020. The Committee is also aware that the writ was not appealed to by the City, and that the City complied with the writ in 2020 and November 2022 election, consistent with the Riverside Superior Court writ.
But then it came to the Committee’s attention that a significant change in circumstances has occurred since 2022. Specifically, new appellate cases decided in 2023 (1) emphasize that charter cities are insulated from state regulation in municipal affairs like local term limits and (2) support the application of Measure J’s two-term limit to all terms served during a person’s lifetime, regardless of when.
The Cultiva La Salud Case
In the Cultiva La Salud case, decided in March 2023, the Third District Court of Appeal held that “[u]nder the home rule doctrine [in the California constitution], a charter city's law is not preempted simply because it conflicts with a state law.… Nor is it necessarily
26529.00000\41914219.7
3 preempted even when the Legislature explicitly intends preemption… It is instead preempted only when it conflicts with a state law, the state law covers a subject of statewide concern, and the state law is reasonably related to ... resolution of that concern and narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference in local governance.” (Cultiva La Salud v. State of California (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 868, 875, internal citations and quotations omitted.)
This new case served to emphasize that even a statute that purports to regulate local term limits of charter cities, as Government Code section 36502, subdivision (b), purports to do, is not actually binding on a charter city if the subject is a local municipal affair, as opposed to a matter of statewide concern.
This called into question the validity of the Riverside County Superior Court’s ruling about the application of Section 36502 to Indian Wells and Measure J.
The Monell Case
Even more significant was the Fourth District Court of Appeal’s May 2023 decision in San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, in which the Court of Appeal held that a term limit similar to that imposed by Measure J is not retroactive at all if it is only applied to candidates who have not yet been elected, and is not used to try to unseat someone who is currently in office. “It is well settled that a statute does not operate retroactively merely because some of the facts or conditions upon which its application depends came into existence before the enactment.” San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v.
Monell (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1248, 1288, as modified on denial of reh'g (June 16, 2023), review denied (Aug. 16, 2023); internal quotations omitted.) As with Measure J, the term limit in Monell was a “change in the law” that only “affects … eligibility for future office”; it does not “give[] a different and potentially unfair legal effect to actions taken in reliance on the preenactment law” (id. at 1289), as would be the case if a new term limit were used to try to unseat a sitting council member. As the Court of Appeal put it with regard to the voter-approved term limits in Monell, [the Measure] cannot and does not kick out of office those [elected officials] who were already serving a … third term. That would indeed be a prohibited retroactive application. However, it will bar them — just as it bars … new [officials] — from serving another term later.” (Ibid.)
This Monell opinion, from the very District of the Court of Appeal that has jurisdiction over Riverside County and Indian Wells, is directly on point and compelling shows that Measure J’s application to future candidates (not to those holding office when it passed), is not retroactive at all, but is rather a permissible regulation of “eligibility for future office.”
This is a significant, clarifying change affecting how Measure J should be interpreted and applied. Specifically, this new case law, from a higher court, holds that all four-year terms on the City Council count toward the two-term limit imposed by Measure J.
26529.00000\41914219.7
4 Evaluating the New Legal Authority
The Committee shared this new clarifying legal authority with the City Clerk. It was agreed to obtain an independent legal opinion. The election official contacted the Law Firm of Olson Remcho, who specializes in election law, to provide a third-party legal opinion on the application of the new case law to Measure J.
Based on current binding law, the election official has no choice but to accept the determination that all terms of service on the Council during a person’s lifetime whether served before or after the passage of Measure J may now count toward the two-term limit, regardless of when the terms were served, consistent with the voters’ intent in imposing a lifetime limit through Measure J.
Therefore, based upon the determination of the Election Official as stated above, supportive by the recent appellate decisions and the opinion of the third-party legal counsel, the Council receives and files the Committee report.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Text of Measure J
2. Hanson v. Grandys Superior Court Ruling
3. Monell Case
4. Cultiva Case
Comments by Ty Peabody regarding Dana Reed made during City Council Meetings during Public Comment.
These transcriptions were made using video files of Indian Wells City Council Meetings and Microsoft Word Dictate.
October 21, 2021
I'm only here and it's hard to be here because I really would rather not. But the behavior of a councilman that's been going on for five years should not be tolerated and is being tolerated and this council refuses to take action even though an attorney has told them that there's a policy manual and there are policies to follow and the council's refusing to follow the policy. With only three minutes and I'm gonna read this very quickly. I'm only standing here in front of the Council because the Council lacked the courage to deal with serious issues related to Councilman Reed's continuous violations of the policy manual. Unlike the Council of 2012 who dealt with issues related to a council person, this Council has chosen to ignore its responsibility and the oath it took to enforce behavior related to the policy manual. Over the five years, Councilman Reed has continuously violated the policy manual. When called out for his behavior related to the manual, he would repeatedly apologize, and after a period of time, those apologies have no value. The continued bad behavior resulted in a mediation, which I'm not allowed to talk about directed by Robert Bernard, a lawyer and former mayor of Indian Wells. Such mediation was unsuccessful because Mr. Reed did not comply with the terms of the mediation. Section 314 of the policy manual, these violations should be brought forward to the council, hold an investigation, have a public hearing, and the council refused to do such. Over the last five years, Mr.
Reed has done the following: bullied his fellow council members, made disparaging remarks to residents in council meetings or by way of telephone, made disparaging remarks to the City Council members, made disparaging remarks to city employees and Troon employees, attacked a candidate running for council using his title and position [unintelligible], and potentially violated the states Brown Act. Mr.
Reed, just to give an example of residents and other people affected by Mr. Reed’s behavior; Gail McCury, Curtis Watkins, Bruce Underwood, Bruce Whitman, Doug Hansen, Ken Welch, Donna Griffith, Kimberly Musik, Laura Schriever, city staff and Indian Wells staff. Mr. Reed has violated the following; conflict of interest, best practices, commitment to civility, pledge of civility, code of ethics, council conduct and relationship to committees, council conduct and relationship to electors, and value of respect. I put together a 300-page book on Mr. Reed and asked for action. No action was taken this council sworn to an oath. And they swore to uphold the policy manual and they are not doing that. So, for the next council meetings, 6 council meetings, I will present my detail, everything that has happened and hope that this council will do something to stop this kind of behavior. Thank you.
November 4, 2021
Good afternoon, Council. I'm back again. As I said that I would come back because the Council has failed to take action against the councilman who has continuously done the wrong thing to its residents, Indian Wells employees, and Indian Wells Golf Resort. What you see up there on the board is the mediation agreement, which was supposed to be the culmination of solving this problem. It turned out it wasn't. What this mediation...I'll only point out a couple of things. One, Mr. Reed was to apologize to the City Council and the and the city staff and to the public, and he did so. But this was the 4th or 5th time he had done that. Mr. Green...Mr. Reed also agreed not to violate the manual. He's already done that and the council knows about it and certain council members in the city manager understand it is a Public Comments: Item I.2-
Measure J- Glenn Schubert
violation of the agreement. He also basically...this notebook...this 300-page book on Mr. Reed has been turned in and it should be noted that it documents everything I'm saying. The most important thing of this is the City Council...the city attorney made some comments based upon a question by Mr. Sanders.
First of all, the city attorney said it's not for the council to enforce this jurisdiction, jurisdiction. It's a private agreement. I take total exception. And this is the third time the city attorney has said something in writing that was wrong that he had to retract. The fact of the matter is if you read the last sentence, it says if any of the above items are not complied with the complaints of PB and Reed shall proceed that the City Council pursuant to the manual. It also states in section 314-010 that if the formal relation is not successful that the council will turn this over to a third party and bring it back for a hearing. They're refusing to do that. The city attorney also said that the...this was a private matter. The city paid $50,000 approximately to resolve this matter. The city also passed 2 resolutions on two things in that policy manual because of this document. So, the city attorney is totally off base when he says that because the city paid for it and Mr. Reed is still a council member, he's still responsible underneath the policy manual and even though I'm a private citizen, I fall under the private citizen rules of the policy manual, which are very clearly written in the policy manual. So, I asked this council to please do the appropriate thing.
If you don't, you're just gonna hear from me at the next meeting, at the next meeting, and the next meeting and the next meeting will be with Mr. Reed is sworn in, and I will discuss the 15 people that he has abused over the period of time.
December 16, 2021
I'm only here because this Council has failed to perform their responsibilities under the policy manual and under the other rules, that this...the oath that you've all taken, including the oath that Mr. Reed took today. And it it's it's beyond my imagination that nothing was done about the 100, the 300 pages of violations of Mr. Reed. I do not believe that Mr. Reed actually should be allowed to serve as Mayor. Mr.
Reed has violated the following sections of the Policy Manual. Conflict of Interest, Best Practices, Be Respectful, Commitment to Civility, Pledge of Civility, Code of Ethics, Council conduct in relationship to committees, council conduct and relationship to electors. Value of respect. He took an oath to uphold the consensus of the policy manual and has failed to do so consistently over the last three to five years.
Mr. Reed has also violated the Mayor-Mayor Pro Tem rotation policy made disparaging remarks to residents, to council meetings or by way of telephone, made disparaging remarks to city committee members, made disparaging remarks to city employees and Troon employees, attacked a candidate for running for City Council in the last election when he was not running and he used an anonymous name instead of putting his name in such mailing. In fact, Mr. Reed has disparaged over 18 residents, city employees, IW employees, and other members of the valley...Coachella Valley. Mr. Reed has also filed unwarranted complaints with the FPPC against fellow council members to no avail. Mr. Reed’s behavior has cost the city over $100,000 in legal fees, particularly at the time when we were working to conserve funds during COVID. Mr. Reed finally personally signed a mediation...a settlement agreement where he publicly apologized for his previous uncivil conduct and agreed not to violate the policy again. That lasted 5 months and then he violated such mediation and the city paid for that mediation. Yet no action was ever taken by this council even though you are required to do so under the policy manual, this council should eliminate the policy manual since you're not willing to live to the standards under this manual.
February 17, 2022
Good afternoon. I am here today to actually follow up on something that Bruce Whitman said today about anonymous hit pieces. In 2012, seven of us who are running for office were hit with hit pieces that were factually inaccurate, and actually some of them were more than me. In 2016 we didn't have any hit pieces. We did have a candidate attacked verbally, Mr. Bruce Underwood. In 2012. We went back to hit pieces, hit pieces like that. And I will give that to the clerk. That hit piece was done by Mr. Reed. And it was an intentional effort to interfere and sway an election. And to be very candid with you, it did sway the election. All you have to look is at the votes. That kind of behavior is just not acceptable for the city.
This was part of a 300-page report submitted to the city to take action of censure against Mr. Reed.
When Mr. Reed did this, he filled out two forms, a 496 and a 497. On that form the 497, he claimed that he had paid $2000 to a company out of Riverside County that specializes in hit pieces of people all over Southern California. It's called Empire Taxpayer Association. On the 497, Mr. Reed broke his $2000 donation to taxpayers. To Mr. Miss. To Musik, Sanders, Hanson and Donna Griffith. They didn't even know about it. They didn't even know that that 497 had their names on like they had made the donation to Taxpayers. Mr. Reed then went on and realized that people had found these 497s and he went on to write a letter, which was also incorrect because Mr. Reed sent it to all of the existing council members, the people elected, the city manager, and the city attorney. And in that he made the comment to the fact that it is often said that “politics ain't beanbag.” This is not a funny thing. This is not a joke. Mr. Reed has done this and this city, other cities. He did it to Bruce Underwood in 2016. He's done it to Gail Macquarie. He's done it to the golf committee. You particularly Mr. Miss Musik, Mr. Sanders, who got the benefit of Mr. Reed's actions, refused to censure Mr. Reed even though this action, like the other actions, were violations of city policy, including civility. I find it unbelievable that this Council refused to take action and just ignore this. And for you that took the benefit of it, you should be ashamed of yourselves.
March 17, 2022
Today I'm here to address my comments regarding Mr. Reed to two Council members who refuse to take any action, even though there are so many violations of the policy manual on the oath of office. We all took an oath of office. We all agreed to abide by the policy manual. Mr. Reed has violated every section of that policy manual over the last five years, including best practices, Pledge of Civility, Code of Ethics, Commitment to Civility, Values of Respect, and Council Conduct. Whereas Mr. Reed violated the policy manual, he continued to bully and made disparaging remarks to council members. He continually disparaged, made disparaging comments to residents at meetings or by way of telephones. He continually disparaged council committee member, I mean committee members, city employees. In the 2020 election, Mr. Reed interfered in the election by sending out an anonymous hit piece to the detriment of the candidate, to the benefit of other candidates running. This hit piece was factually inadequate but did sway an election. This action was a violation of city policy manual on the council relationship to electors. I asked the two people that I am directing these comments to, were you aware that Mr. Reed claimed that you got a $500 donation and were you aware that you would have used that money for the hit piece? That is all documented in the paperwork I've just given you. Are you aware that in 2016, during the election, Mr. Reed threatened Bruce Underwood, who was a candidate against him? Are you aware that Mr. Reed has filed numerous FPPC complaints against other council members, including Patrick Mullaney, a retired FBI agent of 25 years and head of profiling. That's not acceptable.
And you're aware that Mr. Reed violated the mediation agreement and cost the city $50,000 for that mediation agreement and during that mediation agreement he lied and misrepresented certain facts
and was called out by the mediator for such falsehoods. Mr. Reed was found to have violated the city's policy manual and had to apologize for these violations as part of the mediation agreement. Mr. Reed agreed not to violate the policy manual again, but he did. Two council members and the city manager stated Mr. Reed violated the mediation agreement but no action was taken. Even though he is a member of the council and I am a resident of the city, that does not excuse that behavior. Are you already aware that Mr. Reed served two terms as mayor Pro Tem in violation of a policy that we've had forever. Nobody serves 2 years in a row in any office, and Mr. and Miss Musik was not given the courtesy of rejecting that position. If she had rejected it, Mr. Reed could have served for two years, but they didn't even give her the courtesy of asking her whether she wanted it or didn't want it. Are you aware that Mr. Reed violated the ballot measure on the CV link by working with Laquinta wth working with La Quinta on the giving land for the CV link? And finally, are you aware that Mr. Reed just recently contacted Constant Contact to basically try to shut down Indian Wells Views, which is a, which is an e- mail by all residents, and it's an e-mail that all residents can participate in. They can comment. They can make any comment they want. He did...it didn't work for Mr. Reed. He tried to say there was a wrong address, didn't work. Constant Contact put it back on. Thank you. Maybe you should think about this in the future. If you're not gonna do it, get rid of the policy manual.
April 21, 2022
This will be the last time I talk about this because it's futile. This council would does not want to exercise their responsibilities. They don't believe in the manual, they don't believe in the oath they took and it's really shameful. I was on this council for eight years. We took our job seriously. You have not. I have two forms here one was Mr. Reed's 497 related, related to his donation. Somebody said to me, well, it really wasn't a contribution. This report says contribution report, it was a contribution. This money went to a hit piece on a on a candidate in the last election. Mr. Reed was a sitting member of this council and he put out a hit piece that was disgraceful. It swayed an election and two of you may not have been elected if that had been said not happened, but you've allowed this to go on. You're not willing to take any action and I accept that. I don't like it and I think it's cowardice not to deal with it. And we go to the mediation acceptance that was a $50,000 investment by the city because of the actions of Mr. Reed. The mediator found that Mr. Reed had violated the policy manual and he had a copy of a 300-page book that documented that. Some of you didn't even read the book, so how you could make a decision is beyond my imagination. This document says very clearly Mr. Reed shall publicly read an apology to the Council at a meeting, he did that. Why did he do it? Must have done something wrong. But ohh no. This council says ohh no, it's OK. No problem. This reminds me of government at the federal level. It also says Mr.
Green...Reed hereby agrees not to violate the manual in the future and on the new council members watch he did that, and that was documented and nothing happened. Then two weeks ago, we had a councilman have an outburst yelling at a resident. Has the City Council said anything to that counselor? Has the city manager said anything or have any of you said anything? Because that is a violation of the policy manual. So, in my opinion, you're having a discussion of policy manual. Get rid of it. You're not willing to live by the rules. We all are supposed to live by rules and by regulations. This council doesn't want to do that and hasn't done it and isn't going to do it. So as far as I'm concerned, this will be an election issue for all the public to understand just exactly what and what has not gone on? It's shameful that Mr. Reed would interfere in an election to the benefit of some of the people sitting on the dais.
September 15, 2022
In the last eight years, Mr. Reed and one other person from this city has filed numerous complaints with the FPPC to no avail, and the only purpose of that is to attack an individual, there's nothing to gain. Also during that period of time, Mr. Reed has violated over and over and over again, the policy manual of this city to the point that the mediator at one point, which cost the city approximately $50,000, found Mr.
Reed guilty of improper behavior under the policy manual. And he was then to apologize to the public, which he did, and he was to agree to not violate the policy manual again. That didn't happen. He has continued to do so. Now during this election, with my first mailing I said let's all do this on the basis of issues. On the basis of what you've contributed or you think you can contribute to the city that obviously didn't work. And Mr. Reed has created a thing called a diary. Which is nothing more than a political piece if you read it. And in that diary he chose to notice...notice that I was...a complaint was filed against me to the FPPC. That complaint relates to two pieces of mail that one was done before the election, one was done after. They were both about the financial situation at the Indian Wells golf resort. They were not political pieces. Mr. Reed had no reason to bring this up and the only way Mr. Reed would know about this was he...that he did it. Which in this letter he says, not me, thou profess, sometimes too much. And the and in this piece he went on and the only way he would know it because the city did not put out anything on the complaint. So, there's only one way you can know. Either you put it out...that you put the complaint out or somebody told you that the complaint had been filed. Then in the next piece...the next diary, which again is a political piece, he attacked Mr. Whitman. A brand-new candidate, relatively new person to Indian Wells, has done nothing wrong and all of the candidates are running should have the credit and the respect to be appreciated and not have hit pieces. Mr. Reed has a history in the elections of attacking people. In 2016, he attacked Bruce Underwood and actually threatened him. In 2020, he put out a hit piece, anonymous hit piece, not with his name on it. And that hit piece swayed an the election. I'm hoping that this time Mr. Reid and everybody else will act properly and do the right thing and deal with issues and deal with your record, whatever your record is. Thank you.
Good morning Madam Mayor and City Council. My name is Glenn Schubert. It saddens me today that we have to have this meeting as well as having to involve the city attorney. The city attorney references Measure “I” which was overwhelmingly passed by voters in March of 2020 in his legal opinion. So why does this sadden me? Because also in March of 2020, registered voters of Indian Wells overwhelmingly approved Measure “J” which amended the IWMC section 2.08.045 and established a two-term lifetime limit on City Council service. No person would be eligible to serve more than two four-year terms during his or her lifetime.
Two current members of the City Council, Councilmember Ty Peabody and Councilmember Dana Reed, decided that the rule established by the voters did not apply to them. Unfortunately, two other former council members, Mr. Doug Hansen and Mr. Ted Mertens, have also walked down the same path. The actions taken by these individuals demonstrate a complete lack of integrity and bring dishonor to the oath they swore to uphold. Their disregard for the wishes of voters should be a wake-up call to the residents of Indian Wells.
Why should residents believe that these self-serving individuals would do what is right and in the best interests of our city? We have all heard the idiom “actions speak louder than words.” I ask that all residents look at the actions of these individuals, and any other former two-term council members who are contemplating running again for office and decide if that is someone you would trust to faithfully represent you.
Finally, Measure “J” prohibits the City Clerk or Election Official from accepting or verifying nomination papers for any person, including any nomination for any write-in candidate, or from certifying or placing on the list of certified candidates, or printing on any ballot or other voter information document, the name of any person whose candidacy, if successful, will exceed the term limits. I implore the city to uphold the municipal code and not allow disingenuous actors to openly disrespect the residents of Indian Wells. I thank you for your time.
';1'_-; i.,l-trii',liii 1. :4?
Chris Freeland
FROM Ty Peabody
DATE:December L9,2423
TO:
RE Glenn Schubert Violation of Policy Manual
At the Council meeting on Tuesday, December 5, Glenn Schubert spoke derogatorily about two existing Council members and two previous Council members, Donna, as mayor, should have stopped him, but didn't. His tirade was preplanned in advance of the meeting. lt was no coincidence that he spoke at a meeting regarding the mayor pro-tern position. He is a commissioner on the Planning Commission and is required to be respectfulto the City Council and fellow residents.
The Policy Manual is very specific about proper behavior/discourse at Council meetings. He spoke angrily and without facts related to his directive. The previous two Council members and the existing Council members have contributed far beyond anything he has done. Just a couple of important achievements by this group of Council members include:
o lncurring no debt during their terms.
o lncreased revenue and cash flow every year during their terms. ' o Had no unfunded pension liability.
r Put S2M away every year for any unanticipated expense or disaster. o Added the following successful amenities to the golf resort:
o Pavilion
o Food Truck *o Shots in the Dark
o Top Tracer : -
r Managed city through COVID without touching the City's reserves.
None of the four Council members violated any policy or ballot measure by running for the City Council. ln fact, the court ruled that the ballot measure was wrong related to applying it to past service. The City did not appeal this court decision.
I believe you should meet with Glenn and explain the Policy Manual section regarding proper behavior.
ORDINANCE NO. 728
AN ORDINANCE OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 2.08.045 OF CHAPTER 2.08 (CITY
COUNCIL) OF THE INDIAN WELLS MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH A
TWO-TERM LIFETIME LIMIT ON CITY COUNCIL SERVICE
NOW THEREFORE, THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF INDIAN WELLS DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Subject to the approval of a majority of the voters of the City of Indian Wells at the scheduled election so designated by the City Council in a separate resolution placing the proposal on the ballot for such election, Section 2.08.045 of Chapter 2.08 of the Indian Wells Municipal Code is hereby amended to read in its entirely as follows:
2.08.045 Term limits
No person shall be eligible for nomination and/or election to the office of Member of the City Council for more than two (2) four ( 4) year terms during his or her lifetime, including, without limitation, terms to which the person was nominated and appointed to office by the City Council in lieu of a General Municipal Election pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10229. No person who has been elected to or held office as a City Council Member for two (2) four ( 4) year terms during his or her lifetime may seek nomination and election to that office, as a formally nominated or write-in candidate. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any person who is appointed by the City Council to fill a vacant office of a City Council Member and serves in that office for less than two ( 2) years, shall be eligible for nomination and election for two (2) full four (4) year terms thereafter. The City Clerk, or other election official authorized by law, shall not accept or verify the signatures on any nomination paper for any person, i ncluding any paper seeking election as a write-in candidate, nor shall he or she certify or place on the list of certified candidates, nor print or cause to be printed on any ballot, voter information guide, sample ballot or ballot label, the name of any person whose candidacy, if successful, will result in a City Council term that exceeds the limits set forth herein.
SECTION 2. If any portion of this Ordinance is declared invalid by a court of law or other legal body with applicable authority, the invalidity shall not affect or prohibit the force and effect of any other provision or application of the Ordinance that is not deemed invalid. The voters of the City hereby declare that they would have circulated for qualification and/or voted for the adoption of this Section, and each portion thereof, regardless of the fact that any portion of the initiative may be subsequently deemed invalid.
SECTION 3,. To the fullest extent allowed by law, the provisions of this Ordinance shall prevail over, and supersede, all other provisions of the Municipal Code and any ordinances, resolutions or administrative policies of the City of Indian Wells which are in conflict with any provision of this Ordinance.
SECTION �- This Section shall not be repealed or amended except by a measure approved by a majority of the electors voting on the issue at a General Municipal Election, or at a special election called for that purpose.
ATTACHMENT #1
City of Indian We ll s
Ordinance No. 728
SECTION~. Thi s Ordinance sha ll ta ke effect on ly if approved by a majority of the eligibl e voters of the City of Indian We ll s vot in g at a Speci al Municipal electio n to be held on March 3, - 2020, and sha ll take effect te n (10) days after the City Council has certifi ed th e results of the Special Municipal election by reso lution.
SECTION §. The Mayor is hereby authorized to attest to the adoption of this Ordinance by the People voti ng thereon on March 3, 2020, by signing w here indicated be low.
I here by certify that the foregoing Ordinance was PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by th e People of the City of Indian We ll s on the 3 rd day of March, 202 0.
Dated: ~\..,\~ ~ ) L.-(52_0
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
--..
CITY CLERK CITY ATTORNEY
ATTACHMENT #2
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1 91 Cal.App.5th 1248
Court of Appeal, Fourth District,
Division 2, California.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS,
Plaintiff and Appellant;
v.
Lynna MONELL, as Clerk, etc.,
Defendant and Respondent;
Nadia Renner, Intervener and
Appellant.
E077772
|
Filed May 25, 2023
|
As Modified on Denial of
Rehearing June 16, 2023
|
Certified for Partial Publication.*
Synopsis
Background: County board of
supervisors filed a combined complaint
and writ petition in which board sought
a declaration that voter-approved
initiative that amended county charter
to limit a supervisor to a single
four-year term and to limit a
supervisor’s compensation to $5,000 a
month was invalid and an injunction
and writ of mandate preventing
initiative’s enforcement. After a trial as
a writ petition, the Superior Court, San
Bernardino County, No.
CIVSB2025319, Donald R. Alvarez, J.,
2021 WL 5296486, entered a ruling
that granted the mandate petition and
struck down the initiative in its
entirety. Proponent of initiative
appealed, and board cross-appealed.
Holdings: The Court of Appeal,
Ramirez, P.J., held that:
[1]passage of a superseding measure
did not render the appeal and
cross-appeal moot;
[2]regulatory interests justified the term
limit, which was not a severe
restriction on rights under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments;
[3]on its face, the compensation cap did
not violate federal and state
minimum-wage laws;
[4]any conflict between the
compensation cap and county
ordinance that required elected county
officials to be provided with certain
benefits was not a basis to find that the
compensation cap was invalid;
[5]the terms of the newly elected
supervisors began on the date provided
by the county charter, i.e., the first
Monday in December following the
election;
[6]pursuant to state statute, initiative
went into effect ten days after the vote
was declared by the board;
[7]term limit did not kick out of office
those supervisors who were already
serving a term beyond their first time,
ATTACHMENT #3
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2
but it would bar them from serving
another term later; and
[8] compensation cap could not apply to
supervisors elected at the same election
that approved the initiative.
Reversed and remanded with
instructions.
Menetrez, J., dissented and filed
opinion.
Procedural Posture(s): Petition for
Rehearing; On Appeal; Motion for
Costs; Petition for Writ of Mandate.
West Headnotes (36)
[1]
Mandamus Dismissal of
appeal
Passage of a superseding
measure did not render moot
appeal and cross-appeal from
trial court’s ruling that granted
petition by county board of
supervisors for a writ of
mandate striking down
voter-approved initiative that
amended county charter to limit
a supervisor to a single
four-year term and to limit a
supervisor’s compensation to
$5,000 a month; although a trial
court had upheld the
superseding measure, it would
likely be a year or so before an
appellate court would issue a
ruling, and even if the
superseding measure were
ultimately upheld, there would
still be a live issue regarding
supervisors’ compensation for
period in which the challenged
initiative was in force.
[2]
Mandamus Supersedeas or
stay of proceedings
Even though there was a
pending appeal concerning a
superseding measure, the Court
of Appeal would not stay
appeal and cross-appeal from
trial court’s ruling that granted
petition by county board of
supervisors for a writ of
mandate striking down
voter-approved initiative that
amended county charter to limit
a supervisor to a single
four-year term and to limit a
supervisor’s compensation to
$5,000 a month; the parties had
already fully briefed the appeal
and cross-appeal, the Court of
Appeal had already heard oral
argument, and the appeal
concerning the superseding
measure was filed later.
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 3
[3]
Action Moot, hypothetical or
abstract questions
Courts have no jurisdiction to
decide moot cases, but they are
tasked with the duty to decide
actual controversies by a
judgment which can be carried
into effect.
[4]
Constitutional Law Elections
in general
A court considering a challenge
to a state election law must
weigh the character and
magnitude of the asserted
injury to the rights protected by
the First and Fourteenth
Amendments that the plaintiff
seeks to vindicate against the
precise interests put forward by
the state as justifications for the
burden imposed by its rule,
taking into consideration the
extent to which those interests
make it necessary to burden the
plaintiff’s rights. U.S. Const.
Amends. 1, 14.
[5]
Constitutional Law Elections
in general
Constitutional Law Voting
rights and suffrage in general
When rights under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments are
subjected to severe restrictions
by a state election law, the law
must be narrowly drawn to
advance a state interest of
compelling importance, but
when the law imposes only
reasonable, nondiscriminatory
restrictions’ upon the First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights
of voters, the state’s important
regulatory interests are
generally sufficient to justify
the restrictions; that latter,
lesser scrutiny is not pure
rational-basis review, but rather
it is a deferential review in
which the court must actually
weigh the burdens imposed on
the plaintiff against the precise
interests put forward by the
state, and the court must take
into consideration the extent to
which those interests make it
necessary to burden the
plaintiff’s rights. U.S. Const.
Amends. 1, 14.
[6]
Constitutional Law Elections
in general
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 4
In a challenge to a state election
law under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments, courts
will uphold as “not severe”
restrictions that are generally
applicable, even-handed,
politically neutral, and which
protect reliability and integrity
of election process. U.S. Const.
Amends. 1, 14.
[7]
Constitutional
Law Elections, voting, or
ballot access in general
Courts will strike down state
election laws as severe speech
restrictions only when they
significantly impair access to
ballot, stifle core political
speech, or dictate electoral
outcomes. U.S. Const. Amend.
1. [8]
Constitutional Law Term
limits
Voter-approved initiative that
amended county charter to limit
a supervisor to a single
four-year term was not a
“severe restriction” on rights
under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments, and thus strict
scrutiny did not apply and
instead the court would weigh
the burden imposed on the
supervisors against regulatory
interests; four years was ample
time for a supervisor, as a
member of a five-member
board, to at least attempt to tick
off all the boxes on his or her
legislative to-do list. U.S.
Const. Amends. 1, 14.
[9]
Constitutional Law Term
limits
As a general rule, term limits
are not so severe as to trigger
strict scrutiny in a challenge to
such limits under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments. U.S.
Const. Amends. 1, 14.
[10]
Constitutional Law Term
limits
Counties Ordinances and
by-laws
Under deferential review that
was applicable to
writ-of-mandate-based
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 5
challenge in which county
board of supervisors asserted
that voter-approved initiative
that amended county charter to
limit a supervisor to a single
four-year term violated the First
and Fourteenth Amendments,
regulatory interests justified
term limit; voters retained the
basic fundamental right to cast
their ballots for the qualified
candidate of their choice, the
term limit allowed an
incumbent to serve a significant
period in office, a term-limited
incumbent was free to run for
another office, and long-term
entrenched incumbents could
obtain excessive power, which,
in turn, could discourage other
qualified candidates from
running for office or could
provide the incumbent with an
unfair advantage in winning
reelection. U.S. Const.
Amends. 1, 14.
[11]
Mandamus Presentation and
reservation in lower court of
grounds of review
Mandamus Record and
assignments of error
On appeal following ruling that
granted writ-of-mandate
petition and struck down
voter-approved initiative that
amended county charter to limit
a supervisor to a single
four-year term, proponent of
initiative forfeited argument
that candidates did not have a
fundamental right to run for
public office; proponent failed
to raise the argument below,
which was sufficient for
forfeiture, and proponent also
failed to raise the argument in
her opening brief on appeal,
which was also sufficient for
forfeiture.
[12]
Constitutional Law Elections
in general
When deciding in a challenge
under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments whether the
state’s important regulatory
interests are generally sufficient
to justify election restrictions,
elaborate, empirical verification
of the weightiness of the state’s
asserted justifications is not
required. U.S. Const. Amends.
1, 14.
[13]
Counties Legislative control
of acts, rights, and liabilities
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 6
California Constitution grants a
charter county “home rule,”
i.e., the authority of the people
to create and operate their own
local government and define
the powers of that government,
within the limits set out by the
Constitution. Cal. Const. art.
11, § 3.
[14]
Counties Legislative control
of acts, rights, and liabilities
While charter cities are granted
by California Constitution
broad authority over municipal
affairs, there is no
corresponding grant of
authority and autonomy over
county affairs of charter
counties. Cal. Const. art. 11, §§
3, 5.
[15]
Counties Legislative control
of acts, rights, and liabilities
Subject to the caveat that while
charter cities are granted by
California Constitution broad
authority over municipal
affairs, there is no
corresponding grant of
authority and autonomy over
county affairs of charter
counties, case law dealing with
charter cities also applies to
charter counties. Cal. Const.
art. 11, §§ 3, 5.
[16]
Counties Legislative control
of acts, rights, and liabilities
A county charter supersedes
state law only when the county
is legislating in its proper
sphere; hence, charter
provisions cannot control in
matters of statewide concern
where the state has occupied
the field. Cal. Const. art. 11, §
3. [17]
Counties Compensation
In a general law county, the
governing body must set its
members’ compensation; by
contrast, in a charter county, the
county charter may provide the
method of setting the
compensation of members of
the governing body, i.e., the
governing body has no power
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 7
to set the compensation of its
members, unless the county
charter so provides. Cal. Const.
art. 11, §§ 1(b), 3, 4(b).
[18]
Counties Compensation
Voters in a charter county may
set supervisors’ compensation
by an initiative that amends the
county charter. Cal. Const. art.
11, §§ 1(b), 3, 4(b); Cal.
Gov’t Code § 25300.
[19]
Municipal
Corporations Initiative
The local electorate’s right to
initiative is generally
co-extensive with the
legislative power of the local
governing body; however, the
presumption in favor of the
right of initiative is rebuttable
upon a definite indication that
the Legislature, as part of the
exercise of its power to preempt
all local legislation in matters
of statewide concern, has
intended to restrict that right.
[20]
Statutes Construing together;
harmony
It is a court’s duty to read the
elements of a statute together,
harmonizing and giving effect
to them all.
[21]
Constitutional
Law Avoidance of doubt
Courts should, if reasonably
possible, construe a statute in a
manner that avoids any doubt
about its constitutional validity.
[22]
Counties Compensation
Labor and
Employment Municipal or
county ordinances
On its face, voter-approved
initiative that amended county
charter to limit a supervisor’s
compensation to $5,000 a
month did not violate federal
and state minimum-wage laws;
despite contention that the
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 8
wage cap meant that
supervisors might be paid less
than minimum wage after
deduction of all benefits, such
contention was based on
speculation.
[23]
Constitutional Law Facial
invalidity
On a facial challenge, a court
will not invalidate a statute
unless it poses a present total
and fatal conflict with
applicable constitutional
prohibitions, i.e., challengers
cannot prevail by suggesting
that in some future hypothetical
situation constitutional
problems may possibly arise as
to the particular application of
the statute.
[24]
Counties Compensation
Any conflict between a county
ordinance that required elected
county officials to be provided
with certain benefits and a
voter-approved initiative that
amended the county charter to
limit a supervisor’s
compensation to $5,000 a
month was not a basis to find
that the compensation limit was
invalid; the compensation limit
was part of the county charter,
the ordinance was a mere
ordinance, and the California
Constitution gave the voters in
a charter county the power to
amend a charter by initiative.
Cal. Const. art. 11, §§ 1(b),
3(b), 4(b).
[25]
Appeal and Error Verdict,
Findings, Sufficiency of
Evidence, and Judgment
Generally, on appeal, judgment
or order will be affirmed if it is
correct on any theory,
regardless of trial court’s
reasons; thus, respondent may
assert new theory to establish
that order was correct on that
theory unless doing so would
unfairly prejudice appellant by
depriving him or her of
opportunity to litigate issue of
fact.
[26]
Counties Term of office,
vacancies, and holding over
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 9
As was relevant to determining
how voter-approved initiative
that amended county charter to
limit a supervisor to a single
four-year term and to limit a
supervisor’s compensation to
$5,000 a month applied to
newly elected county
supervisors, the terms of the
newly elected supervisors
began on the date provided by
the county charter, i.e., the first
Monday in December following
the election, despite argument
that the California Constitution
provided the terms for
non-legislative elective offices
commenced on the Monday
after January 1 following the
election; that constitutional
provision governed only state
elective offices, not local ones.
Cal. Const. art. 2, § 20; Cal.
Const. art. 11, § 4.
[27]
Counties Ordinances and
by-laws
As was relevant to determining
how voter-approved initiative
that amended county charter to
limit a supervisor to a single
four-year term and to limit a
supervisor’s compensation to
$5,000 a month applied to
newly elected county
supervisors, the initiative went
info effect ten days after the
vote was declared by the board.
Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 23723,
23724; Cal. Elec. Code §§
9102, 9122.
[28]
Municipal
Corporations Initiative
California Constitution’s
provision on when an initiative
statute takes effect applies only
to statewide initiatives; local
initiatives are governed by a
parallel statutory scheme.
Cal. Const. art. 2, § 10(a);
Cal. Elec. Code § 9122.
[29]
Courts Previous Decisions as
Controlling or as Precedents
Cases are not authority for
propositions that are not
considered.
[30]
Statutes General and specific
statutes
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 10
Statutes Earlier and later
statutes
If conflicting statutes cannot be
reconciled, later enactments
supersede earlier ones, and
more specific provisions take
precedence over more general
ones; but when these two rules
are in conflict, the rule that
specific provisions take
precedence over more general
ones trumps the rule that
later-enacted statutes have
precedence.
[31]
Counties Term of office,
vacancies, and holding over
Voter-approved initiative that
amended county charter to limit
a supervisor to a single
four-year term, which was
initiative that went into effect
11 days after the terms of the
newly elected supervisors
began, did not kick out of office
those supervisors who were
already serving a term beyond
their first time, but it would bar
them from serving another term
later.
[32]
Statutes Language and Intent;
Express Provisions
Statutes do not operate
retrospectively unless the
Legislature plainly indicates
otherwise.
[33]
Statutes Nature and definition
of retroactive statute
In general, application of law is
retroactive only if it attaches
new legal consequences to, or
increases party’s liability for,
event, transaction, or conduct
that was completed before
law’s effective date; thus,
critical question for
determining retroactivity
usually is whether last act or
event necessary to trigger
application of statute occurred
before or after statute’s
effective date.
[34]
Statutes Nature and definition
of retroactive statute
A law is not retroactive merely
because some of the facts or
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 11
conditions upon which its
application depends came into
existence prior to its enactment.
[35]
Statutes Purpose and intent;
unambiguously expressed
intent
Legislative intent should not be
resorted to where a statute is
clear on its face.
[36]
Counties Compensation
Voter-approved initiative that
amended county charter to limit
a supervisor’s compensation to
$5,000 a month could not apply
to supervisors elected at the
same election that approved the
initiative; initiative did not take
effect until after the election,
state statute provided that the
salary of any elected public
office could not be reduced
during an election year after
any candidate for that particular
office had filed the requisite
forms declaring his or her
candidacy for that particular
office, and it could be assumed
that the newly elected
supervisors had filed their
candidacy forms before the
election. Cal. Gov’t Code §
1235.
West Codenotes
Limited on Constitutional Grounds
Cal. Gov’t Code § 25300
**168 APPEAL from the Superior
Court of San Bernardino County.
Donald R. Alvarez, Judge. Reversed
and remanded with directions.
(Super.Ct.No. CIVSB2025319)
Attorneys and Law Firms
The Red Brennan Group and Aaron D.
Burden; Briggs Law Corporation and
Cory J. Briggs, San Diego, for
Intervener and Appellant.
The Sutton Law Firm, Bradley W.
Hertz, and Nicholas L. Sanders for
Plaintiff and Appellant.
Jolena E. Grider, Deputy County
Counsel, for Defendant and
Respondent.
Jonathan M. Coupal, Timothy A.
Bittle, Sacramento, and Laura E.
Dougherty for Amicus Curiae Howard
Jarvis Taxpayers Foundation.
Jennifer B. Henning for Amicus Curiae
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 12
California State Association of
Counties.
OPINION
RAMIREZ P. J.
*1258 The facts are simple. The legal
issues are not.
On November 3, 2020, the voters of
San Bernardino County passed
Measure K. It amended the county
charter so as to (1) **169 limit a
supervisor to a single four-year term
and (2) limit a supervisor’s
compensation to $5,000 a month. At
the same time, a new supervisor was
elected, and two more new supervisors,
elected in March 2020, were waiting to
take office.
The trial court ruled that the one-term
limit is unconstitutional. It also ruled
that the compensation limit is
constitutional, but, because Measure K
is not *1259 severable, it, too, must be
struck down. Finally, it ruled that
Measure K did not apply to the new
supervisors (although it acknowledged
that the issue was moot, in light of its
other rulings).
Nadia Renner — the proponent of
Measure K — appeals. She contends
that:
(1) The one-term limit is constitutional.
(2) The compensation limit is
severable.
(3) Measure K applies to the new
supervisors.
(4) The trial court erred by enjoining
the certification, authentication,
recordation, and filing of Measure K.
The San Bernardino County Board of
Supervisors (Board) cross-appeals. It
contends that:
(5) Supervisors’ compensation cannot
be set by initiative, because state law
delegates supervisors’ compensation
exclusively to boards.
(6) The compensation limit violates
minimum wage laws; alternatively, if it
effectively forces supervisors to work
part-time, it impairs essential
governmental functions.
(7) The compensation limit improperly
acts as a referendum on San
Bernardino County Code section
13.0614 (section 13.0614), which
provides for supervisors’
compensation.
We perceive a preliminary issue of
appealability. However, we will
conclude that the trial court’s ruling is
appealable.
We will hold that the one-term limit is
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 13
constitutional. We will further hold that
supervisors’ compensation can be set
by initiative. The Board has not shown
that the compensation limit violates
minimum wage laws. The Board also
has not shown that the compensation
limit conflicts with section 13.0614;
even assuming it does, the voters can
amend or abrogate an ordinance not
only by referendum, but also by
initiative. Because both the one-term
limit and the compensation limit are
valid, we need not decide whether
Measure K is severable. As to whether
Measure K applies to the new *1260
supervisors, we reach a split decision:
The one-term limit applies, but the
compensation limit does not.1
Finally, assuming the trial court erred
by enjoining the certification,
authentication, recordation, and filing
of Measure K, the error is forfeited,
harmless, and/or moot.
I
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL
BACKGROUND
A. Statement of Facts.
The following facts are taken from
Renner’s statement of facts and
statement of the case, which the Board
concedes are accurate; from the
declaration, and exhibits introduced
below; and from matters of which the
trial court took judicial notice.
Renner is the proponent of Measure K,
a San Bernardino County initiative.
Measure K amends the county charter.
It has four key provisions. First, it
provides that a supervisor can serve
only one **170 four-year term. An
unexpired term counts toward the
four-year limit, but only if it has two or
more years left to run when Measure K
goes into effect. Previously,
supervisors were limited to three
consecutive four-year terms. Second, it
limits the compensation of a
supervisor, including all benefits, to
$5,000 a month. Previously,
supervisors’ compensation was set at
the average of the compensation of
supervisors in Riverside, Orange, and
San Diego Counties. Third, it provides:
“To the extent permitted by law, the
provisions of this Charter Amendment
shall be effective on voter approval of
the initiative as provided by California
law.” Fourth, it includes a severability
provision.
On November 3, 2020, Measure K
passed, with 66.84 percent of the votes.
Another initiative on the ballot at the
same time, Measure J, completely
revised and restated the county charter.
It, too, passed, but barely, with only
50.72 percent of the votes. Measure J
would have limited supervisors to three
terms (consecutive or not) and would
have given them a salary set at 80
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 14
percent of a superior court judge’s
salary and the same benefits as
department heads. However, because
Measure K got more votes, it
supersedes Measure J to the extent that
they conflict. (Elec. Code, §§ 9102,
9123; see *1261 Taxpayers to Limit
Campaign Spending v. Fair Pol.
Practices Com. (1990) 51 Cal.3d 744,
765-768, 274 Cal.Rptr. 787, 799 P.2d
1220.)
At the same time, new supervisor Joe
Baca, Jr. was elected to the Board; two
more new supervisors, Col. Paul Cook,
and Dawn Rowe, had been elected in
March 2020 and were waiting to take
office. On December 7, 2020, they
were sworn in. On December 8, 2020,
the Board (including the newly elected
supervisors) certified the results of the
election.
B. Statement of the Case.
Meanwhile, on December 2, 2020, the
Board filed a combined complaint and
writ petition, seeking a declaration that
Measure K was invalid plus an
injunction and a writ of mandate
preventing its enforcement. The only
named defendant was Lynna Monell, in
her official capacity as the Clerk of the
Board. However, the trial court gave
Renner leave to intervene.
On January 8, 2021, the trial court
granted the Board’s application for a
temporary restraining order (TRO).2
The case was tried to the court as a writ
petition, based on trial briefs and oral
argument, with no live testimony.
The trial court granted the petition. It
ruled that the one-term term limit was
unconstitutional. It further ruled that
the compensation limit was
constitutional; however, it was not
severable, and therefore Measure K as
a whole was invalid. Finally, it ruled
that Measure K was prospective only,
and therefore it did not apply to the
new supervisors. However, it
acknowledged that this issue was moot
in light of its other rulings.
C. Subsequent Statutory Changes.
On October 4, 2021 — after the trial
court ruled — Assembly Bill No. 428
(2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (AB 428) was
enacted (Stats. 2021, ch. 462, p. 6507),
and on January 1, 2022, it went into
effect. AB 428 was enacted specifically
in response to Measure K. (Assem.
Com. on Elections, Analysis of Assem.
Bill No. 428 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) as
amended Mar. 18, 2021, p. 3.) It
amended **171 Government Code
section 25000, subdivision (b) so that it
now provides, as relevant here
(additions italicized):
“(1) Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the board of
supervisors of any general law or
charter county may adopt or the
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 15
residents of the county *1262 may
propose, by initiative, a proposal to
limit to no fewer than two terms or
repeal a limit on the number of terms a
member of the board of supervisors
may serve on the board of supervisors.
Any proposal to limit the number of
terms a member of the board of
supervisors may serve on the board of
supervisors shall apply prospectively
only ....
“(2) The changes made to this
subdivision by the act that added this
paragraph shall not affect any term
limits that were legally in effect prior
to January 1, 2022 ....”
It also amended Government Code
section 25300, subdivision (b) so that it
now provides (additions italicized):
“The board of supervisors shall
prescribe the compensation of all
county officers, including the board of
supervisors, and shall provide for the
number, compensation, tenure,
appointment and conditions of
employment of county employees.
Except as otherwise required by
Section 1 or 4 of Article XI of the
California Constitution, such action
may be taken by resolution of the board
of supervisors as well as by ordinance.”
II**
Unpublished Text Follows
APPEALABILITY
The trial court issued a “ruling”
granting the mandate petition. It did not
enter a formal judgment. It also did not
expressly rule on the Board’s second
(injunction) and third (declaratory
relief) causes of action. Moreover, as
far as the record shows, it did not
actually issue either a writ or a
permanent injunction.
There is a preliminary question of
whether the ruling is appealable. We
conclude, however, that it was.
“[A]n order granting or denying a
petition for an extraordinary writ [can]
constitute[ ] a final judgment for
purposes of an appeal, even if the order
is not accompanied by a separate
formal judgment. [Citations.]”
(Public Defenders’ Organization v.
County of Riverside (2003) 106
Cal.App.4th 1403, 1409; cf. Natomas
Unified School Dist. v. Sacramento
County Bd. of Education (2022) 86
Cal.App.5th 1013, 1027.)
“[A] ruling on a petition for writ of
mandate is not appealable if other
causes of action remain pending
between the parties. [Citation.]”
(Canandaigua Wine Co., Inc. v. County
of Madera (2009) 177 Cal.App.4th
298, 302.) But “an order constitutes a
final judgment despite other causes of
action remaining if the order
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 16
effectively disposes of the entire case.
For example, an order is appealable if
it resolves an allegation that is essential
to all of the causes of action.
[Citation.]” (Id. at p. 303.)
Here, the trial court’s ruling effectively
resolved the cause of action for an
injunction, by declaring that Measure
K is unconstitutional and “cannot be
implemented ....” It also effectively
resolved the cause of action for
declaratory relief, again by declaring
Measure K unconstitutional. The ruling
“contemplated no further action, such
as the preparation of another order or
judgment [citation], and disposed of all
issues between all parties.”
(Laraway v. Pasadena Unified
School Dist. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th
579, 583.) Moreover, it is clear from
the record that the parties themselves
did not contemplate any further judicial
action.
It follows that the ruling is appealable.
End of Unpublished Text
III
THE EFFECT OF MEASURE D
Nothing much had happened in that
case until after the oral argument in this
case, when the Board requested, and
we granted, calendar preference. Even
with calendar preference, however, in
the ordinary course of business, it is
likely to be six months or more before
we decide it —to say nothing of how
much time any subsequent Supreme
Court review will consume.
[1]The fact that Measure D has not yet
been struck down, and thus is
presumptively valid, does not make
this case moot. “A case becomes moot
when events ‘ “render[ ] it impossible
for [a] court, if it should decide the
case in favor of plaintiff, to grant him
any effect[ive] relief.” ’ [Citation.]”
(In re D.P. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 266,
276, 303 Cal.Rptr.3d 388, 522 P.3d
645, *1263 italics added.) If we
dismiss this case as moot, and if
Measure D is then struck down, any
relief we grant as to Measure K would
still be effective; however, we would
have no way of bringing this case back
to life again. And even if Measure D is
eventually upheld, this case still will
not be moot; there would still be a live
issue regarding the supervisors’
compensation from 2020 through 2022.
[2] [3]The only even arguable question is
whether we should stay this appeal
pending the outcome of the Measure D
litigation. There is not even any
pending motion for a stay. The Board
did ask us to take the oral argument off
calendar, pending the resolution of the
Measure D litigation, but we have
already denied that request. We see no
reason why the appeal filed later
should have precedence over the one
filed earlier. Renner has paid her filing
fee; the parties have fully briefed the
appeal; prior to oral argument, we
drafted and issued a tentative opinion;
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 17
and we heard oral argument. Courts
have no jurisdiction to decide moot
cases, On the flip side, however, “[a]
court is tasked with the duty ‘ “to
decide actual controversies by a **172
judgment which can be carried into
effect ....” ’ [Citation.]” (In re D.P.,
supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 276, 303
Cal.Rptr.3d 388, 522 P.3d 645, italics
added.) It is time to decide this case.
IV
THE ONE-TERM LIMIT
The trial court ruled that the one-term
limit violates “voters’ and incumbents’
1st and 14th amendment rights.”
Renner contends that it erred.
A. The Anderson-Burdick
Framework.
“It is beyond cavil that ‘voting is of the
most fundamental significance under
our constitutional structure.’ [Citation.]
It does not follow, however, that the
right to vote in any manner and the
right to associate for political purposes
through the ballot are absolute.
[Citation.]” (Burdick v. Takushi
(1992) 504 U.S. 428, 433, 112 S.Ct.
2059, 119 L.Ed.2d 245 (Burdick).)
“Election laws will invariably impose
some burden upon individual voters.
Each provision of a code, ‘whether it
governs the registration and
qualifications of voters, the selection
and eligibility of candidates, or the
voting process itself, inevitably affects
— at least to some degree — the
individual’s right to vote and his right
to associate with others for political
ends.’ [Citation.]” (Burdick, supra,
504 U.S. at p. 433, 112 S.Ct. 2059.)
[4]“A court considering a challenge to a
state election law must weigh ‘the
character and magnitude of the asserted
injury to the rights protected by *1264
the First and Fourteenth Amendments
that the plaintiff seeks to vindicate’
against ‘the precise interests put
forward by the State as justifications
for the burden imposed by its rule,’
taking into consideration ‘the extent to
which those interests make it necessary
to burden the plaintiff’s rights.’
[Citations.]
[5]“Under this standard, the
rigorousness of our inquiry into the
propriety of a state election law
depends upon the extent to which a
challenged regulation burdens First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights. Thus, ...
when those rights are subjected to
‘severe’ restrictions, the regulation
must be ‘narrowly drawn to advance a
state interest of compelling
importance.’ [Citation.] But when a
state election law provision imposes
only ‘reasonable, nondiscriminatory
restrictions’ upon the First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights of
voters, ‘the State’s important
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 18
regulatory interests are generally
sufficient to justify’ the restrictions.
[Citations.]” (Burdick, supra, 504
U.S. at p. 434, 112 S.Ct. 2059.)3
“This latter, lesser scrutiny is not ‘pure
rational basis review.’ [Citation.]
Rather, ‘the court must actually
“weigh” the burdens imposed on the
plaintiff against “the precise interests
put forward by the State,” and the court
must take “into consideration the extent
to which those interests make it
necessary to burden the plaintiff’s
**173 rights.” ’ [Citation.] Review
under this balancing test is ‘quite
deferential’ .... [Citation.]” (SAM Party
of New York v. Kosinski (2d Cir. 2021)
987 F.3d 267, 274.)
[6] [7]“ ‘Courts will uphold as “not
severe” restrictions that are generally
applicable, even-handed, politically
neutral, and which protect the
reliability and integrity of the election
process. [Citation.] ...’ [Citation.]
‘Courts will strike down state election
laws as severe speech restrictions only
when they significantly impair access
to the ballot, stifle core political
speech, or dictate electoral outcomes.’
[Citation.]” (Rawls v. Zamora (2003)
107 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1116, 132
Cal.Rptr.2d 675.)
B. Whether the One-Term Limit Is
“Severe.”
[8]The trial court ruled that the one-term
limit was “severe” because it “is not
merely about limiting the term but
limiting the term to one time ....”
*1265 1. Relevant case law.
In Legislature v. Eu (1991) 54
Cal.3d 492, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816
P.2d 1309 (Eu), our Supreme Court
upheld Proposition 140, which imposed
lifetime term limits of two four-year
terms per state senator and three
two-year terms per state
assemblymember. (See Eu at pp.
502-506, 518, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816
P.2d 1309.)
The court began by saying: “[T]he
initiative power must be liberally
construed to promote the democratic
process. [Citation.] Indeed, it is our
solemn duty to jealously guard the
precious initiative power, and to
resolve any reasonable doubts in favor
of its exercise. [Citation.] As with
statutes adopted by the Legislature, all
presumptions favor the validity of
initiative measures and mere doubts as
to validity are insufficient; such
measures must be upheld unless their
unconstitutionality clearly, positively,
and unmistakably appears. [Citation.]”
(Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 501, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.)
It then held that strict scrutiny was not
required because the term limits did not
have a “serious impact on First
Amendment freedoms of speech and
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 19
association,” as they “d[id] not affect
speech interests and ... impact[ed] all
political parties on an equal basis.
[Citation.]” (Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at
p. 515, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d
1309.) Rather, the term limits were
entitled to “wide latitude,” because
they “[we]re applied in an even-handed
manner without discriminating against
particular citizens or classes of
citizens.” (Id. at p. 516, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.)
In Bates v. Jones (9th Cir. 1997) 131
F.3d 843 (en banc) (Bates), cert. den.
(1998) 523 U.S. 1021, 118 S.Ct. 1302,
140 L.Ed.2d 468, the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals similarly upheld
Proposition 140. It held that its impact
on the plaintiffs’ claimed “right to vote
for the candidate of one’s choice and ...
right of an incumbent to again run for
his or her office” was “not severe.”
(Id. at p. 847.) It explained that
“term limits on state officeholders is
[sic] a neutral candidacy qualification,
such as age or residence, which the
State certainly has the right to impose.
[Citation.] With regard to incumbents,
they may enjoy the incumbency of a
single office for a number of years, and
... they are not precluded from running
for some other state office. [¶] Most
important, the lifetime term limits do
not constitute a discriminatory
restriction. [They] make[ ] no
distinction on the basis of the content
of protected expression, party
affiliation, or inherently arbitrary
factors such as race, religion, or
gender. Nor do[ ] [they] ‘limit [ ]
political participation by an identifiable
political group whose members share a
particular viewpoint, associational
preference, or economic status.’
[Citation.]” (Ibid.)
**174 Significantly, the Board has not
cited any case striking down any term
limits on First and Fourteenth
Amendment grounds.
*1266 2. Application here.
[9]Under Eu and Bates, at least as a
general rule, term limits are not so
“severe” as to trigger strict scrutiny.
The trial court distinguished those
cases, however, on the ground that a
one-term lifetime limit is “severe.” In
light of the way “severe” has been
interpreted and applied, this was error.
In Eu, the court concluded that the
term limits there were not severe
because they were nondiscriminatory
— they “[we]re applied in an
even-handed manner without
discriminating against particular
citizens or classes of citizens.” (Eu,
supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 516, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.) They
were not based on the content of
protected speech. (Id. at p. 515, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.) “They
impact[ed] all political parties on an
equal basis. [Citation.]” (Ibid.) A
one-term limit is no different in these
respects.
In Bates, the court concluded that the
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 20
same term limits were not severe
because (1) they were “neutral,” (2)
they allowed incumbency “for a
number of years” and did not preclude
an incumbent from running for a
different state office, and (3) they did
not distinguish “on the basis of the
content of protected expression, party
affiliation, or inherently arbitrary
factors such as race, religion, or
gender.” (Bates, supra, 131 F.3d at
p. 847.) Again, a one-term limit is no
different.
In general, however, a restriction is not
“severe” within the meaning of the
Anderson-Burdick test if it is “
‘generally applicable, even-handed,
politically neutral, and ... protect[s] the
reliability and integrity of the election
process. [Citation.] ... ’ [Citation.]”
(Rawls v. Zamora, supra, 107
Cal.App.4th at p. 1116, 132
Cal.Rptr.2d 675.) The one-term limit
here passes these criteria with flying
colors. While Bates also threw into
the mix the stringency of the effect of
the restriction, we believe that is more
appropriately considered when
weighing the benefits of the restriction
against the burden on voters’ and
candidates’ rights, as we do in part
IV.C.2, post. (See Eu, supra, 54
Cal.3d at p. 518, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283,
816 P.2d 1309.)
*1267 C. Whether the Regulatory
Interests Are Sufficient to Justify the
One-Term Limit.
[10]The trial court also ruled that, even
assuming Measure K’s one-term limit
was not “severe,” “the stated reason
[for it] is not sufficient to justify
imposing the burden [of] precluding an
incumbent from seeking re-election.” It
explained, “A one-term limit is not
providing a supervisor sufficient time
in the governing body position.”
“Additionally, ... the desire to ensure a
candidate seeks to serve the public
interest cannot justify then precluding a
candidate or electing an incumbent he
believes is serving the interest of the
voters at least for one or two additional
terms of office. And a reasonable
remedy exists if the incumbent seeking
re-election is not performing
competently: the electorate vote for the
other candidate.”
1. Relevant case law.
In Eu, the Supreme Court balanced
the claimed injury to First and
Fourteenth Amendment rights against
the State’s claimed interests, as
follows.
First, it considered “the nature of the
injury to the rights affected ....” (Eu,
supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 517, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309; see
id. at pp. 517-519, 286 Cal.Rptr.
283, 816 P.2d 1309.) It concluded that
the term limits “do[ ] affect the **175
rights of voters and candidates to a
degree ....” (Id. at p. 519, 286
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 21
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.) With
respect to candidates, however, the
impact was “mitigate[d]” by three
factors: “First, the affected incumbent
is not barred from seeking any other
public office .... Second, the term
limitations arise only after the
incumbent already has had the
opportunity to serve a significant
period in office ....” (Id. at p. 518,
286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.)
Third, the term limits in most instances
did not count terms served before they
went into effect. (Ibid.)
Similarly, with respect to voters, it was
unclear whether a right to vote for a
particular candidate even existed.
(Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 519, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309; see also
id. at pp. 516, 518, 286 Cal.Rptr.
283, 816 P.2d 1309.) In any event, the
court accepted the argument that the
term limits there “d[id] not truly impair
the franchise, for the voters retain the
basic fundamental right to cast their
ballots for the qualified candidate of
their choice.” (Id. at p. 519, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309; see also
ibid. [“mitigating aspects[ ]
include[e] the voters’ continued right to
vote for any qualified candidates”].)
Second, it considered “the interests
asserted by the state as justifications
for that injury ....” (Eu, supra, 54
Cal.3d at p. 517, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283,
816 P.2d 1309; see id. at pp.
520-522, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d
1309.) It observed that “
‘[c]onstitutional restrictions
circumscribing the ability of
incumbents to succeed themselves
appear in over twenty state
constitutions, and exist in the
Twenty-second Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States with
regard to the Presidency. The universal
authority is that restriction upon the
succession of incumbents serves a
rational public *1268 policy and that,
while restrictions may deny qualified
men an opportunity to serve, as a
general rule the over-all health of the
body politic is enhanced by limitations
on continuous tenure. [Citations and fn.
omitted].’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p. 520,
286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.)
“[T]he substantial reasons for limiting
the right of incumbents to succeed
themselves ... include ‘[t]he power of
incumbent officeholders to develop
networks of patronage and attendant
capacities to deliver favorably disposed
voters to the polls,’ ‘fears of an
entrenched political machine which
could effectively foreclose access to
the political process,’ and the belief
that regularly disrupting those
‘machines’ ‘would stimulate criticism
within political parties’ and ‘insure a
meaningful, adversary, and competitive
election.’ [Citation.]
“In addition, ... ‘... a limitation upon
succession of incumbents removes the
temptation to prostitute the government
to the perpetuation of a particular
administration. [Citation.] ...
Meretricious policies which sacrifice
the well-being of economic, social,
racial, or geographic minorities are
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 22
most likely where a political figure,
political party, or political interest
group can rely upon electorate inertia
fostered by the hopelessness of
encountering a seemingly invincible
political machine.’ [Citation.]” (Eu,
supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 521, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.)
Third, it considered “the necessity for
imposing the particular burden
affecting the plaintiff’s rights, rather
than some less drastic alternatives.”
(Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 517, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309; see
id. at pp. 522-524, 286 Cal.Rptr.
283, 816 P.2d 1309.) It noted that
“incumbents do indeed appear to enjoy
considerable advantages over other
candidates. [Citations.]” (Id. at p.
523, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d
1309.) “It is true ... that [the
proponents] have not offered evidence
to **176 support all of the various
premises on which [the term limits are]
based. But ... a state need not
demonstrate empirically all of the
various evils that its regulations seek to
combat ....’ [Citation.]” (Id. at p.
524, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d
1309.)
The opponents argued that alternative
measures, such as “a limitation on
consecutive terms, together with
additional restrictions on campaign
contributions to legislators, decreased
fringe and pension benefits, and
additional incentives for early
retirement, would have been sufficient
to promote and accomplish the state
interests previously discussed.” (Eu,
supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 522-523, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.) The
court responded that “[r]ealistically,
only a lifetime ban could protect
against various kinds of continued
exploitation of the ‘advantages of
incumbency’ captured through past
terms in office. The remainder of [the
opponents’] suggested ‘alternatives’
essentially involve narrow changes in
the system of providing contributions
or compensation for legislators,
changes that would afford ‘career
politicians’ with independent resources
little incentive to voluntarily terminate
public service.” (Id. at p. 524, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.)
*1269 “[W]e conclude,” the court said,
“the interests of the state in
incumbency reform outweigh any
injury to incumbent office holders and
those who would vote for them.”
(Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 524, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.) Indeed,
the court observed, “it is unlikely we
would reach a different result applying
strict scrutiny .... (Id. at p. 515, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.)
By contrast, Bates upheld the state’s
justification for the term limits with
little discussion. It said, “[A] lack of
term limits may create ‘unfair
incumbent advantages.’ Long-term
entrenched legislators may obtain
excessive power which, in turn, may
discourage other qualified candidates
from running for office or may provide
the incumbent with an unfair advantage
in winning reelection.” (Bates,
supra, 131 F.3d at p. 847.) “California
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 23
voters apparently perceived lifetime
term limits for elected state officials as
a means to promote democracy by
opening up the political process and
restoring competitive elections. This
was their choice to make. [Citation.]”
(Ibid.)
2. Application here.
We apply the three-part
Anderson-Burdick framework as
our Supreme Court did in Eu. It
must be remembered that review under
this framework is deferential — all the
more so when the electoral restriction
being analyzed was enacted by
initiative. Moreover, when the
restriction is “ ‘reasonable [and]
nondiscriminatory,’ ... ‘the State’s
important regulatory interests are
generally sufficient to justify’ the
restrictions. [Citations.]” (Burdick,
supra, 504 U.S. at p. 434, 112 S.Ct.
2059.)
a. The nature of the injury to the rights
affected.
i. The voters’ rights.
(a) The nature of the right.
Federal courts have held that voters
have no right to vote for a particular
candidate. (Citizens for Legislative
Choice v. Miller (6th Cir. 1998) 144
F.3d 916, 921; Stiles v. Blunt (8th
Cir. 1990) 912 F.2d 260, 266 [voters
do not have “an absolute right to
support a specific candidate regardless
of whether he or she has satisfied
reasonable eligibility requirements”],
cert. den. (1991) 499 U.S. 919, 111
S.Ct. 1307, 113 L.Ed.2d 241.)
Eu acknowledged this. (Eu, supra,
54 Cal.3d at pp. 516, 518, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.)
However, it noted that, at least at the
time, **177 Canaan v. Abdelnour
(1985) 40 Cal.3d 703, 714-716, 221
Cal.Rptr. 468, 710 P.2d 268
(Canaan) was to the contrary. (Eu,
supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 516, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.)
Canaan had held that “[a] ban on
write-in voting affects ... the right of ...
voters to cast ballots for the candidates
of their *1270 choice.” (Canaan,
supra, at p. 715, 221 Cal.Rptr. 468, 710
P.2d 268.) Eu concluded that, while
term limits “affected ... the voters’ right
to reelect the incumbent” (Eu, supra,
at p. 517, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d
1309; see also id. at p. 519, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309), the
existence and scope of this right were
“unclear”; hence, “the legal impact of
[term limits] on the voters remain[ed]
uncertain.” (Id. at p. 519, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.) It
treated this uncertainty as a “mitigating
aspect.” (Ibid.)
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 24
After Eu was decided, the Supreme
Court overruled Canaan.
(Edelstein, supra, 29 Cal.4th at p.
183, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 727, 56 P.3d
1029.) While the extent to which
Edelstein overruled particular
portions of Canaan is open to debate
(see ibid.), Edelstein did disavow
a specific right to vote for a particular
candidate in favor of a more general
right “to make free choices and to
associate politically through the vote
....” (Id. at pp. 175, 177-178,
182-183, 126 Cal.Rptr.2d 727, 56 P.3d
1029.)
(b) The impact on the right.
Term limits do not affect these general
rights. Voters still have the right to
make free choices and to associate
politically through the vote. As in
Eu, the term limits here “do not truly
impair the franchise, for the voters
retain the basic fundamental right to
cast their ballots for the qualified
candidate of their choice.” (Eu,
supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 519, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.)
ii. The candidates’ rights.
(a) The nature of the right.
[11]In her reply brief, Renner argues that
candidates do not have a fundamental
right to run for public office. She
forfeited this contention by failing to
raise it below. (Delta Stewardship
Council Cases (2020) 48 Cal.App.5th
1014, 1074, 262 Cal.Rptr.3d 445.) She
further forfeited it by failing to raise it
in her opening brief. (Raceway Ford
Cases (2016) 2 Cal.5th 161, 178, 211
Cal.Rptr.3d 244, 385 P.3d 397.)
In any event, we reject this contention
on the merits.
The California Supreme Court has held
that “[t]he right to seek public office ...
[is] fundamental.” (Canaan, supra,
40 Cal.3d at p. 727, 221 Cal.Rptr. 468,
710 P.2d 268.) “There has been some
suggestion in the case law that the right
to be a candidate for public office may
not be fundamental in and of itself.
[Citations.] However, this court has
described the right to hold public office
as ‘valuable, fundamental and one that
is subject to First Amendment
protection ....’ [Citations.]” (Id. at p.
714, 221 Cal.Rptr. 468, 710 P.2d 268.)
Admittedly, as mentioned, Canaan
was overruled in Edelstein, but not
on this particular ground. (Edelstein,
supra, 29 Cal.4th at p. 183, 126
Cal.Rptr.2d 727, 56 P.3d 1029.)
Moreover, the earlier cases on which
Caanan itself relied have never been
overruled. ( *1271 Johnson v.
Hamilton (1975) 15 Cal.3d 461, 468,
125 Cal.Rptr. 129, 541 P.2d 881 [“the
right to hold public office [is] valuable,
fundamental and ... subject to First
Amendment protection ....”];
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 25
Zeilenga v. Nelson (1971) 4 Cal.3d
716, 723, 94 Cal.Rptr. 602, 484 P.2d
578 [“the right to run for public office
is as fundamental a right as is the right
to vote”].)
More recently, in Eu, the Supreme
Court said, “Two important rights are
affected **178 by [term limits],
namely, the incumbent’s right to run
for public office, and the voters’ right
to reelect the incumbent to that office.”
(Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 517, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309, italics
added.) Thus, it analyzed the impact on
candidates (id. at pp. 517-518, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309), and it
weighed that impact, along with the
impact on voters, against the state’s
interest in the term limits at issue.
(Id. at pp. 519-520, 522-524, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.)
Federal cases are not to the contrary.
According to the United States
Supreme Court, “The right of ... an
individual to a place on a ballot is
entitled to protection ....” (Lubin v.
Panish (1974) 415 U.S. 709, 716, 94
S.Ct. 1315, 39 L.Ed.2d 702; see also
Moore v. Martin (8th Cir. 2017) 854
F.3d 1021, 1025 [“Ballot access
restrictions implicate ... the rights of
potential candidates for public office
....”], cert. den. ––– U.S. –––– [138
S.Ct. 321, 199 L.Ed.2d 210];
Phillips v. City of Dallas (5th Cir.
2015) 781 F.3d 772, 778-779 [“This
court has been unequivocal in its
recognition of a First Amendment
interest in candidacy.”]; Davies v.
Grossmont Union High School Dist.
(9th Cir. 1991) 930 F.2d 1390, 1397
[“the individual’s right to seek public
office is inextricably intertwined with
the public’s fundamental right to
vote”]; Branch v. FCC (D.C. Cir.
1987) 824 F.2d 37, 47 [the existence of
a “right to seek political office ... is
undeniable ....”], cert. den. (1988) 485
U.S. 959, 108 S.Ct. 1220, 99 L.Ed.2d
421.)
Admittedly, the United States Supreme
Court “has not ... attached such
fundamental status to candidacy as to
invoke a rigorous standard of review.”
(Bullock v. Carter (1972) 405 U.S.
134, 142-143, 92 S.Ct. 849, 31 L.Ed.2d
92; see also Clements v. Fashing
(1982) 457 U.S. 957, 963, 102 S.Ct.
2836, 73 L.Ed.2d 508 [“Far from
recognizing candidacy as a
‘fundamental right,’ we have held that
the existence of barriers to a
candidate’s access to the ballot ‘does
not of itself compel close scrutiny.’ ”]
[plur. opn. of Rehnquist, J.]
(Clements).)
However, this simply means that strict
scrutiny is not required. If it were, few
provisions for “the selection and
eligibility of candidates” (Burdick,
supra, 504 U.S. at p. 433, 112 S.Ct.
2059) would escape challenge. “[T]o
say that the right to candidacy is not
fundamental is not to say that a rational
basis analysis applies.”
(Brazil-Breashears v. Bilandic (7th
Cir. 1995) 53 F.3d 789, 792, cert. den
516 U.S. 869, 116 S.Ct. 188, 133
L.Ed.2d 125.) Rather — just like *1272
San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors v. Monell, 91 Cal.App.5th 1248 (2023) 309 Cal.Rptr.3d 163, 2023 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4954
© 2023 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 26
the voter’s right to vote — the
candidate’s right to run for office is
subject to the Anderson-Burdick
test. (See, e.g., Libertarian Party of
Arkansas v. Thurston (8th Cir. 2020)
962 F.3d 390, 398.)4
Eu concluded that the term limits
“do[ ] affect the rights of ... candidates
to a degree ....” (Eu, supra, 54 Cal.3d
at p. 519, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d
1309.) **179 With respect to
candidates, however, the impact was
“mitigate[d]” by three factors: “First,
the affected incumbent is not barred
from seeking any other public office ....
Second, the term limitations arise only
after the incumbent already has had the
opportunity to serve a significant
period in office ....” (Eu, supra, 54
Cal.3d at p. 518, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283,
816 P.2d 1309.) Third, the term limits
in most (though not all) instances did
not count terms served before they
went into effect. (Ibid.)
(b) The impact on the right.
With respect to candidates, a one-term
limit is ipso facto more burdensome
than the two-and three-term limits in
Eu. Nevertheless, the reasons stated
in Eu for concluding that the impact
was “mitigate[d]” largely also apply
here.
First, a termed-out incumbent is free to
run for any other county (or state or
federal) office.
Second, the term limits do allow an
incumbent to serve “a significant
period in office.” (Eu, supra, 54
Cal.3d at p. 518, 286 Cal.Rptr. 283,
816 P.2d 1309.) The term limits in
Eu, while they were not one-term
limits, allowed a state senator to serve
for no more than eight years and a state
assembly member to serve for no more
than six years. The difference between
the six or eight years there and the four
years here is not sufficient to be
constitutionally significant.
The Board argues that in Eu, a
termed-out assemblymember could still
run for and serve in the Senate (or vice
versa), and thus could serve a total of
fourteen years in the Legislature.
Nevertheless, these are separate
constitutional offices. Eu
specifically determined that the
six-year and eight-year terms —
considered separately, and not as a total
fourteen-year span — each constituted
“a significant period in office.” (Eu,
supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 518, 286
Cal.Rptr. 283, 816 P.2d 1309.)
The Board also cites testimony that it
takes a supervisor “several years” to
learn the job, and that a one-term limit
“will impact County operations in an
extremely negative and harmful way.”
Government Code section 25000,
subdivision (a) sets a supervisor’s term
at four years. Every newly elected
supervisor faces the possibility of not
being reelected. Thus, the Legislature
has determined that four years is a
reasonable time in which to expect a