Resolution No. 10445: Text Amendments to Section 3.5/Table 3.5-1 of the ... Page 1734 of 1755 For purposes of this Ordinance, self -storage facilities, mini -storage facilities and recreational vehicle storage facilities shall mean any building, equipment, facility or any other type of structure erected, placed, located or maintained that provides for the storage of private and personal real property, vehicles and equipment.
This moratorium shall not be interpreted as affecting the use or operation of alny:
1. Legally existing self -storage facilities, mini -storage facilities and recreational vehicle storage facilities in the City; or
i
1 2. Self -storage facilities, mini -storage facilities and recreational vehicle storage facilities that have not yet been completed but which are subject to:
a. A vesting tentative map; or
b. Development agreement; or
C. For which a building permit has been issued and in good faith reliance on such issuance substantial work has been completed and substantial liabilities incurrIred.
3. New self -storage facilities, mini -storage facilities and recreational vehicle storage facilities that will be constructed wholly within the boundaries of a legally operated Homeowners Association, will be used only and solely for the benefit of the members of the Homeowners Association and will not at any time be rented or otherwise made available to non- members of the Homeowners Association.
Those facilities for which a land use application was previously submitted and deemed complete consisting of the following:
Extra Space Storage
Cruising Cones LLC
Indio Palms RV Storage
Indio Self Storage
Ranch RR And Self Storage
West Coast Storage Facilities
Indio RV Storage
82815 Avenue 42
Assessor Parcel No. 612- 110-041
45755 Commerce Street
Assessor Parcel No. 610- 030- 001
83734 Dr. Carreon Boulevard
Assessor Parcel No. 612- 130- 008
611- 410- 065, 066, 067, 068, 070 071,
072, 075
Section 4. MORATORIUM EXTENDED.
In accordance with the authority granted to the City of Indio by California Government Code Section 65858 and for the reasons set forth herein above and Urgency, Ordinance No. 1793, the moratorium established by Ordinance No. 1793 is here by extended to July 1, 2024, and no approvals may be made or issued by the City, its officers or 'employees of any applications for a use permit, variance, building permit, business license or any other applicable entitlement or permit, for the use of any land within the City or the construction, establishment or operation of self -storage facilities, mini -storage facilities 5
Resolution No. 10445: Text Amendments to Section 3.5/Table 3.5-1 of the ... Page 1735 of 1755 and recreational vehicle storage facilities For the period of this Ordinance, or any extension thereof, a self -storage facilities, mini -storage facilities and recreational vehicle storage facilities shall be considered a prohibited use in any zoning district of the City and neither the City Council nor City staff shall approve any use permit, license, certificate of occupancy, zoning code or general plan amendment authorizing the use of any land .., within the City as self -storage facilities, mini -storage facilities and recreational vehicle storage facilities.
Section 5. PROHIBITION.
No person shall commence, construct, establish, or operate any self -storage facilities, mini -storage facilities and recreational vehicle storage facilities, as defined in this Ordinance, within the City limits of the City of Indio during the period this Ordinance is in effect.
Section 6. VIOLATION A PUBLIC NUSIANCE.
The construction, establishment or operation of any self -storage facilities, mini -storage facilities and recreational vehicle storage facilities as defined in this Ordinance, within the city limits of the City of Indio during the period this Ordinance is in effect is declared to be a public nuisance and poses a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare. No property in any zone of the City is to be used for purposes of a self - storage facilities, mini -storage facilities and recreational vehicle storage facilities during the period this Ordinance is in effect. The use of any property for such purpose shall be a public nuisance. A violation of this Ordinance shall be and is hereby declared to be contrary to the public interest and shall, at the discretion of the City, create a cause of action for injunctive relief as well as any other available civil remedies. Additionally, any person that violates this Ordinance may be subject to the City's applicable administrative remedies.
Section 7. SEVERABILITY.
The City Council of the City of Indio hereby declares that should any section, paragraph, sentence, phrase, term or word of this Ordinance be declared for any reason to be invalid; it is the intent of the City Council that it would have adopted all other portions of this Ordinance independent of the elimination here from of any such portion as may be declared invalid. If any section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone ( or more) section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase had been declared invalid or unconstitutional.
0
Resolution No. 10445: Text Amendments to Section 3.5/Table 3.5-1 of the ... Page 1736 of 1755 Section 8. REPORT.
The City Manager is authorized and directed to prepare the report required by paragraph d) of California Government Code Section 65858 describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to adoption of this Ordinance for presentation to the City Council no later than ten ( 10) days prior to the expiration of this Ordinance.
Section 9. EFFECTIVE DATE; FOUR -FIFTHS VOTE REQUIRED.
This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption if adopted by at least a four -fifths ( 4/ 5) vote of the total members of the City Council and shall be in effect for forty- five ( 45) days from the date of adoption, unless extended by the City Council as provided in California Government Code Section 65858.
Section 10. PUBLICATION.
The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause this Ordinance or a summary thereof to be printed once within fifteen ( 15) days after its adoption in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Indio.
PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of March 2024.
ATTEST:
SABDISANCH , CMC
CITY CLERK ADMINISTRATOR
7
Resolution No. 10445: Text Amendments to Section 3.5/Table 3.5-1 of the ... Page 1737 of 1755
CERTIFICATION
I, Sabdi Sanchez, City Clerk Administrator of the City of Indio, California, hereby certify that Urgency Ordinance No. 1810 was duly and regularly adopted at a meeting of the City Council of said City at its meeting held on the 6th day of March 2024 by the following vote, to wit:
Ayes: Ortiz, Fermon Holmes, Mayor Pro Tem Miller, Mayor Ramos Amith Noes: None
Publication Date: March 13, 2024
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Indio, California, this 6th day of March 2024.
SABDI SANCHEZ, CMC
City Clerk Administrator
City of Indio
1
Resolution No. 10445: Text Amendments to Section 3.5/Table 3.5-1 of the ... Page 1738 of 1755 3221 Hutchison Avenue, Suite D, Los Angeles, CA 90034 ◆ Phone (310) 838-2400 ◆ FAX (310) 838-2424 May 8, 2024
Honorable Chairperson Gloria Franz and Sent via e-mail to: [email protected] Members of the Planning Commission
150 Civic Center Mall
Indio, CA 92201
RE: Planning Commission Item 5.1, Proposed Resolution No. 2090 We appreciate the opportunity to provide this public comment letter on behalf of 1784 Holdings, LLC (“1784 Holdings”), developer of the approved Indio RV Storage project at the northwest corner of Enterprise Way and Van Buren Street (APNs 611-410-065, -066, -067, -068, -069, -070, -071, -072, and -075), across from the Valley Sanitary District treatment plant. This project was approved by the Planning Commission through Resolution No. 2065 on August 23, 2023. Since this approval, 1784 Holdings closed escrow on this property (under the legal entity name EWVBS-CA, LLC), and has been diligently advancing with the plan check process. 1784 Holdings understands the Planning Commission is considering proposed Resolution No. 2090, which would recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance prohibiting mini-storage, selfstorage, and RV storage facilities. If the Planning Commission adopts this resolution, and if City Council adopts an ordinance for such a prohibition, 1784 Holdings respectfully requests that the resolution and ordinance include language that clearly exempts storage facility projects with approved land use entitlements from any prohibition. Suggested language is listed below:
Nothing in this resolution/ordinance is intended to prohibit the establishment of those facilities for which a land use application was previously submitted and deemed complete prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 1791,1 which such facilities may be established and operated subject to the City’s nonconforming use regulations in Chapter 6.07 of the City’s Unified Development Code.
1784 Holdings is excited to continue moving forward with transforming their long-vacant property into an attractively designed, professionally managed storage facility, while meeting high local demand for this use and contributing to the community as a long-term corporate neighbor. We also appreciate your consideration of the above-requested language. If you have any questions, please contact me at [email protected] or (310) 838-2400 x110.
Sincerely,
Shane Stuart Swerdlow, Vice President
Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
1 Adopted on March 15, 2023, Ordinance No. 1791 established the moratorium on storage facilities.
Craig Lawson & Co., LLC
Land Use Consultants
Resolution No. 10445: Text Amendments to Section 3.5/Table 3.5-1 of the ... Page 1739 of 1755 From: Benjamin Egan
To: Kevin Snyder; Polo Doria; Shane Swerdlow; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Matthew Ottoson; Kate Rust; Peter Murray; [email protected]; [email protected]; Rick Leon; [email protected] Cc: Kendra Reif
Subject: RE: May 8, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting
Date: Wednesday, May 8, 2024 10:54:06 AM
Attachments: image008.png
image009.png
image010.png
image011.png
image012.png
image013.png
WARNING: External email. Please verify sender before opening attachments or clicking on links.
Kevin,
I do not know if I can make the meeting, but would like the concerns below shared with the planning commission and placed into the record.
My name is Benjamin Egan, and I am an Indio Resident, own one residential and two commercial properties within the City of Indio, and own Egan Civil, Inc. one of the few Civil Engineering Firms headquartered in the City of Indio. As a City of Indio Resident and Small Business owner, I am concerned about the land development regulations being proposed by the planning commission at this time.
While I understand the concerns about utilization of Industrial Land in the City of Indio, I think there are better ways to address those concerns than an outright ban on certain types of development. In reviewing the public record, I think much has been overlooked in the discussions about storage facilities. I agree that these facilities possibly should be limited, and development carefully considered in certain valuable areas, such as the Highway 111 corridor, portions of the Indio Blvd Corridor and at locations with immediate Interstate 10 Freeway Access such as within ½ mile of the Jefferson, Monroe, Jackson and Golf Center interchanges. However, there are other locations that have lay fallow for many decades and have existing permanent constraints that would make them good candidates for continuing to allow this kind of development.
For example, Commerce Street, south of Citrus Avenue south of the Border Patrol Facilities is of a completely different character than the above-mentioned locations. The proximity to the railroad, the VSD treatment facility, the wind and dust issues due to proximity to the wash, the sight distance issues with the intersection of Commerce Street and Avenue 45, as well as the lack of availability of power from IID, create unique challenges to development. They are not suitable for retail or office because of the noise levels from the railroad and the dust, and while they could support heavy industrial uses, they also are good locations for storage uses, which
Resolution No. 10445: Text Amendments to Section 3.5/Table 3.5-1 of the ... Page 1740 of 1755 have far lower electrical power requirements than heavy industrial uses. In fact, storage facilities would be good pilot projects for completely off grid electrical power systems due to their much lower power demands, and data collected from operating these facilities off-grid would be useful in developing ways of powering more intense electrical power users with completely off grid systems.
I am also concerned that I have seen no discussion of the Airport Land Use Commissions Bermuda Dunes Airport Land Use Plan and Countywide Policies included in any staff reports or discussion on this matter. For example, property located on the north and south side of Indio Blvd, at the T-Intersection with Jefferson Street south of Interstate 10 lies in a B1 Inner Approach/Departure per the Airport Land Use Plan for the Bermuda Dunes Airport published by Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. The airport land use plan recommends low height, low density, low intensity development in these areas to mitigate the potential for loss of life in the event of an aviation accident, with many types of development being outright prohibited. Storage facilities fit into the safety criteria for this zone nicely, and hence it would seem ill advised to outright ban a highly compatible use in an area with such constraints. (See https://rcaluc.org/sites/g/files/aldnop421/files/migrated/Portals-13-PDFGeneral-plannewplan-04--20Vol.-201-20County-20wide-20Policies.pdf and https://rcaluc.org/sites/g/files/aldnop421/files/2023-06/Bermuda%20Dunes.pdf) I would also point out that some areas of the City’s valuable industrial land are unavailable for development because of Government Agency interference. For example, approximately 16 acres of Industrial land on Oleander and Trader Place, close to the Monroe and Interstate 10 interchange, immediately east of the CV Mosquito and Vector Control Facility could support more employment generating uses but is presently owned by the CV Mosquito and Vector Control District, and are not on the market for sale or proposed for development. I don’t believe it was the intention when the CV Mosquito and Vector Control District was created that it would use public funds to secure and hold large swaths of land for no other purpose than a long-term investment. If the City is truly worried about the availability of industrial land that will generate employment opportunities, a more comprehensive study should be done on availability of land in the industrial zones, and if held by government entities, if they should be encouraged to divest the land if they do not have a use for it identified in their current development plans or budgets.
While I understand concerns about future availability for development that will improve employment opportunities, this can not be the sole consideration in outright banning a type of land use. Once construction is complete, housing does not generate significant employment, but no one would suggest a ban on building more housing, it is very much needed. Many religious organizations do not have paid clergy, but again, no one would propose a ban on building places of worship because they don’t generate employment, and they bring social benefits to the community. Likewise, development of Storage facilities needs to be approached with balance. Outright banning them could result in boats, rvs, cars etc… being crammed in people’s front yards and on the street. And while the argument may be made that
Resolution No. 10445: Text Amendments to Section 3.5/Table 3.5-1 of the ... Page 1741 of 1755 there are ordinances to prevent such, and that there are officers to enforce these ordinances, at what point does the lack of alternative storage locations become a problem. Hence a more responsible approach would be sound regulation, not an outright ban.
Also, the question should be asked why more employment intensive uses are not already occurring on these properties, as they are no way restricted from doing so in the current free market. Why, despite the availability of affordable industrial property, during a period of explosive growth in the Coachella valley and in the City of Indio over the past 2 decades, has there been a lack of development of warehouse, distribution, and manufacturing projects in the City’s industrial zones? Simply banning a certain type of land use that is in demand will not magically cause the type of development the City is seeking to occur. While it may be appropriate to regulate how much land is used for storage facilities, it would be shortsighted to implement an all out ban without researching, crafting, and adopting a plan to attract the type of development the City is seeking, otherwise the risk is the property will simply remain vacant for many decades, as it already has.
I also have not seen any discussion about the fact that the City of Indio, and the Coachella Valley have a unique situation, in that there are such a large number of seasonal residents.
This would obviously result in an increased demand for storage facilities when residents are away during the summer. Hence, adequate storage facilities are essential to continue to see growth in the tourism industry which the City of Indio and the Coachella Valley significantly rely on. While such development should be carefully regulated, an outright ban could be as shortsighted as allowing development of these facilities to spawn uncontrollably.
I only recently have had opportunity to research this matter, hence the concerns above are not a comprehensive list, but they do illustrate that the discussion of the matter to date is incomplete, additional facts should be considered, and that there is opportunity to pursue a much better solution of proper regulation of these type of facilities opposed to an outright ban on a land use that does serve a needed purpose and that clearly is in demand.
Regards,
Benjamin Daniel Egan, PE, PLS
Principal
Egan Civil, Inc.
(760) 404-7663 Office
(760) 898-1106 Cell
Mailing Address:
PO BOX 5282
La Quinta, CA 92248-5282
Physical Address:
46150 Commerce Street, Suite 100
Indio, CA 92201
[email protected]
Resolution No. 10445: Text Amendments to Section 3.5/Table 3.5-1 of the ... Page 1742 of 1755 From: Kevin Snyder <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 3, 2024 5:02 PM
To: Polo Doria <[email protected]>; Shane Swerdlow <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Benjamin Egan <[email protected]>; Matthew Ottoson <[email protected]>; Kate Rust <[email protected]>; Peter Murray <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; Rick Leon <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Cc: Kendra Reif <[email protected]>
Subject: May 8, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting
Hello. The Planning Commission will be holding its regular meeting on Wednesday, May 8, 2024 beginning at 6:00 p.m. Included on the agenda is a public hearing on the Commission’s recommendation to the City Council on storage facilities. You may access the meeting agenda at: https://indio.civicweb.net/Portal/. Thank you.
Kevin Snyder, AICP
Community Development Director
[email protected]
O:760.541.4255 | M:760.296.7303
100 Civic Center Mall · Indio CA
92201
Citizen Self Service Portal
Resolution No. 10445: Text Amendments to Section 3.5/Table 3.5-1 of the ... Page 1743 of 1755 City of Indio
Planning Commission Minutes
Wednesday, May 8, 2024
Chairperson Gloria Franz called to order the Planning Commission Meeting for the City of Indio at 6:04 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 150 Civic Center Mall, Indio, California.
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Present:
Chairperson Gloria Franz
Vice-Chairperson Jacqueline " Jackie" Lopez - arrived at 6:10 p.m.
Commissioner Nicco Alexander Ysiano
Commissioner Christian Rodriguez Ceja
Absent:
Commissioner Gabriel Fajardo
City Staff Present:
Kevin Snyder, Director of Community Development, Layla Sarwari, Assistant City Attorney, Kendra Reif, Principal Planner, Niko Guitron, Assistant Planner, Reymundo Trejo, IWA General Manager, Michelle Tse, IWA Administrative Services Manager, Paulina Mendoza, Commission Secretary.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
led by Commissioner Rodriguez Ceja
3. PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
4. MINUTES
4.1 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 24, 2024 Motion was made by Commissioner Rodriguez Ceja to approve the minutes of the April 24, 2024, PC meeting, as presented. Commissioner Ysiano seconded the motion. Carried 4/0.
Chairperson Franz jumped to item 6.1
5. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS
5.1 Resolution No. 2090 - Recommendation from Planning Commission to the City Council recommending the approval of text amendments to the Unified Development Code and the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan to establish as prohibited land uses mini-storage facilities, self-storage facilities and recreational vehicle storage facilities and recommending a determination of a commonsense
Resolution No. 10445: Text Amendments to Section 3.5/Table 3.5-1 of the ... Page 1744 of 1755 Planning Commission
May 8, 2024
exemption pursuant to Section15061( b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines
Kevin Snyder, Community Development Director presented the Staff Report.
Chairperson Franz opened the public hearing at 6:34 p.m. with public comments from:
Brian McCalum
Karen
Chairperson Franz closed the public hearing at 6:39 p.m.
Motion was made by Commissioner Rodriguez Ceja and seconded by ViceChairperson Lopez to approve Resolution No. 2090 recommending to City Council the approval of text amendments to the Unified Development Code and the Highway 111 Corridor Specific Plan to establish as prohibited land uses mini-storage facilities, self-storage facilities and recreational vehicle storage facilities and recommending a determination of a commonsense exemption pursuant to Section15061( b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as presented by Roll Call Vote. Motion carried 4/0. Commissioner Fajardo was absent.
6. ACTION ITEMS
6.1 Proposed Adoption of Resolution 2088 Setting forth the FY 2024-25 Capital Improvement Program of the Indio Water Authority and Making General Plan Consistency Findings.
Reymundo Trejo, IWA General Manager presented the PowerPoint Presentation.
Discussion ensued.
Motion was made by Commissioner Rodriguez Ceja and seconded by Commissioner Ysiano to Adopt Resolution No. 2088, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Indio, California, finding that the proposed Fiscal Year 2024- 25 Capital Improvement Program of the Indio Water Authority is consistent with the City of Indio General Plan 2040, as presented by Roll Call Vote. Motion Carried 4/0. Commissioner Fajardo was absent.
7. STUDY SESSION ITEMS- NONE
8. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS
Commissioner Rodriguez Ceja commented on the groundbreaking of the Indio Sports Park.
Resolution No. 10445: Text Amendments to Section 3.5/Table 3.5-1 of the ... Page 1745 of 1755 Planning Commission
May 8, 2024
9. STAFF ITEMS
Kendra Reif, Principal Planner, reported that Oasis at Indio (formerly BH Properties), will be holding a community meeting on Thursday, May 9th at 5:30 p.m. at the COD Indio Campus to go over project details and answer any questions from the community.
Kevin Snyder, Community Development Director, reported on the Community Development Budget for FY 24/25 which includes funds to support training for Planning Commissioners.
10. ADJOURN
There being no further business to discuss, Chairperson Franz adjourned the regular meeting at 6:47 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Paulina Mendoza
Paulina Mendoza
Commission Secretary
Resolution No. 10445: Text Amendments to Section 3.5/Table 3.5-1 of the ... Page 1746 of 1755 City of Indio
City Council
June 19, 2024
STAFF REPORT
To: City Council
From: Bryan H. Montgomery, City Manager
Prepared by: Steven Graham Pacifico, City Attorney
Subject: Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 1813: Adoption of a Moratorium on the Establishment of any New Substance Abuse Treatment Facility or any Related Use or Activity in Order to Study Where Such Facilities may be Properly Located
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve by 4/5 vote Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 1813
SUMMARY:
Adoption of a moratorium on the establishment of any new substance abuse treatment facility or any use or activity related in order to study where such facilities may be properly located BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Overview:
This item is an interim urgency ordinance allowed under the City’s police powers and further under Government Code Section 65858. As of late, Staff has received several zoning-related inquiries related to new substance abuse treatment facilities. For this Ordinance, a substance abuse treatment facility is defined as “A facility primarily dedicated to providing specialized treatment, counseling, and support services for individuals dealing with substance abuse or dependency, which facility offers a range of services specific to addiction recovery, including detoxification, inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation, individual and group therapy, and aftercare programs. Unlike hospitals, substance abuse treatment facilities focus primarily on addiction-related care and do not offer general medical services or emergency medical treatment for unrelated health conditions” and shall be referred to as (“Subject Facilities”).
The City anticipates that some persons or businesses may be seeking to establish additional Subject Facilities within the City before a non-urgency ordinance would become effective. The underlying specific plan or zoning district dictates whether such Subject Facilities are permitted, conditionally permitted, or prohibited. For example in the Mixed Used Corridor (MU-C), such Subject Facilities, possibly could be permitted as a matter of right, or conditionally permitted, requiring a discretionary land use entitlement. At present such Subject Facilities could conceivably be located near sensitive uses, such as residential uses, religious facilities, or schools.
AGENDA ITEM #10.6
Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 1813 : Adoption of a Moratorium on the Est... Page 1747 of 1755 The City recognizes the need for such Subject Facilities, and at the same time is concerned that any negative secondary effects (such as loitering, accumulation of trash, noise, and the like) may be incompatible with the public health and safety of Indio and the City Council believes that careful consideration and thorough study of potential regulations pertaining to the Subject Facilities is required. If the Subject Facilities were permitted to be established in the City without appropriate regulation and study, such uses might be established in areas that could conflict with the policies of the General Plan (which was made available for review by the City Council by the office of the City Clerk and a copy of which was made available for review), be inconsistent with surrounding uses, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; and if such uses were allowed to proceed as allowed under the current zoning, such uses could conflict with, and defeat the purpose of, the proposal to study and adopt new regulations regarding the Subject Facilities.
Public Notice:
A notice of public hearing was published in the June 7, 2024 edition of the Desert Sun, the newspaper of record.
Analysis:
This interim ordinance will allow the Staff and the City to study the potential impacts such uses may have on the public health, safety and welfare, and further study the land use and economic development vision, goals and policies of the City of Indio General Plan 2040 adopted on September 18, 2019. Accordingly, the City finds that the following facts constitute the urgency are:
1. That the local police power includes broad authority to determine, for purposes of public health, safety, and welfare, the appropriate uses of land within a local jurisdiction's borders.
2. That State law protects local licensing practices, zoning ordinances, and other local actions taken pursuant to the City’s constitutional police power.
3. That the City is concerned with potential public nuisances caused by the Subject Facilities.
4. That the City has received several recent inquiries of several potential Subject Facilities within the City.
5. That certain Subject Facilities could be located, and possibly permitted without mitigation conditions, near sensitive uses such as residential, religious facilities and schools.
6. That there may be secondary effects caused by the Subject Facilities, such as loitering, trash, and noise.
7. That the current market focus on the City for the Subject Facilities and the limited number of current facilities outside the City.
8. That the City Council anticipates that some may be seeking to establish additional Subject Facilities within the City before a non-urgency ordinance would become effective.
9. That if the Subject Facilities were permitted to be established within the City without appropriate regulation, such uses might be established in areas that could conflict with the policies of the General Plan (which was made available for review by the City Council by the office of the City Clerk) be inconsistent with surrounding uses, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; and if such uses were allowed to proceed as allowed under the current zoning, such uses could conflict with, and defeat the purpose of, the proposal to study and adopt new regulations regarding the Subject Facilities.
10.That the City needs to properly plan and develop the zoning, uses, regulations, and development standards that will affect the Subject Facilities within the City.
11.That the City Council desires to investigate and study the impacts of the Subject Facilities.
Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 1813 : Adoption of a Moratorium on the Est... Page 1748 of 1755
12.That absent the adoption of this Ordinance, the use, construction, establishment or operation of the Subject Facilities in the City may pose a serious threat to public health and safety, introducing incompatible land uses to existing neighborhoods or in close proximity thereto.
13.That absent the adoption of this Ordinance, the number and location of the Subject Facilities may increase the burden upon City services; and
Therefore, itisnecessarytoestablishatemporary,forty-five(45)days moratorium on the use, construction, establishment and/or operation of the Subject FacilitiesintheCity,pending completion of the City's study of the potential impacts.
If approved, commencing as of the effective date of this Ordinance and continuing thereafter for a period of forty-five (45) days, no approvals may be made or issued by the City, its officers or employees of any applications for a use permit, variance, building permit, business license or any other a applicable entitlement orpermit,fortheuseofanylandwithintheCityortheconstruction, establishmentoroperationofSubject Facilities.Fortheperiod ofthisOrdinance,oranyextensionthereof, Subject Facilitiesshallbe considered a prohibited use in any zoning district of the City and neither the City Council norCitystaffshallapproveanyusepermit,license,certificateofoccupancy,zoningcode orgeneralplanamendmentauthorizingtheuseofanylandwithintheCity or any Subject Facility. No person shall commence, construct, establish, or operate any Subject Facility, as defined in this Ordinance, within the City limits of the City of Indio during the period this Ordinance is in effect.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment1_OrdinanceNo1813UrgencyInterimOrdinance
APPROVAL(S):
Steven Graham Pacifico, City Attorney Approved - 12 Jun 2024
Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 1813 : Adoption of a Moratorium on the Est... Page 1749 of 1755 1 ORDINANCE NO. 1813
AN URGENCY INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
INDIO ADOPTING A MORATORIUM ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ANY NEW
SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT FACILITY, AS DEFINED, OR ANY USE OR
ACTIVITY RELATED THERETO, WITH EXCEPTIONS AS NOTED, FOR PROPERTIES
LOCATED IN THE CITY IN ORDER TO STUDY WHERE SUCH FACILITIES MAY BE
PROPERLY LOCATED AND FINDING THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE
EXEMPT FROM THE PROVISIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT PURSUANT TO TITLE 14 CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS SECTION 15061, SUBSECTION (B)(3), IN THAT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE
INVOLVES A PROACTIVE MEASURE TO REGULATE SUBJECT FACILITIES WITHIN
THE CITY AND DOES NOT HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT
THE ENVIRONMENT
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City of Indio’s police power, the City Council of the City of Indio ("City Council") has the authority to enact and enforce ordinances and regulations for the public peace, morals and welfare of the City and its residents; and WHEREAS, the local police power includes broad authority to determine, for purposes of public health, safety, and welfare, the appropriate uses of land within a local jurisdiction's borders; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65858 provides that, without following the procedures otherwise required prior to the adoption of a zoning ordinance and for the purpose of protecting the public safety, health and welfare, the City Council may adopt, as an urgency measure, an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses which may be in conflict with “a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the City Council, planning commission or the planning department is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time; and
WHEREAS, Staff has received several zoning-related inquiries related to new substance abuse treatment facilities; and
WHEREAS, for this Ordinance, a substance abuse treatment facility is defined as “A facility primarily dedicated to providing specialized treatment, counseling, and support services for individuals dealing with substance abuse or dependency, which facility offers a range of services specific to addiction recovery, including detoxification, inpatient and outpatient rehabilitation, individual and group therapy, and aftercare programs. Unlike hospitals, substance abuse treatment facilities focus primarily on addiction-related care and do not offer general medical services or emergency medical treatment for unrelated health conditions” and shall be referred to as (“Subject Facilities”); and WHEREAS, the City Council anticipates that some persons or businesses may be seeking to establish additional Subject Facilities within the City before a non-urgency ordinance would become effective; and
Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 1813 : Adoption of a Moratorium on the Est... Page 1750 of 1755 2 WHEREAS, the underlying specific plan or zoning district dictates whether such Subject Facilities are permitted, conditionally permitted, or prohibited; and WHEREAS, for example in the Mixed Used Corridor (MU-C), such Subject Facilities, possibly could be permitted as a matter of right, or conditionally permitted, requiring a discretionary land use entitlement; and
WHEREAS, at present such Subject Facilities could conceivably be located near sensitive uses, such as residential uses, religious facilities, or schools; and WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes the need for such Subject Facilities, and at the same time is concerned that any negative secondary effects (such as loitering, accumulation of trash, noise, and the like) may be incompatible with the public health and safety of Indio and the City Council believes that careful consideration and thorough study of potential regulations pertaining to the Subject Facilities is required; and WHEREAS, if the Subject Facilities were permitted to be established in the City without appropriate regulation and study, such uses might be established in areas that could conflict with the policies of the General Plan (which was made available for review by the City Council by the office of the City Clerk and a copy of which was made available for review), be inconsistent with surrounding uses, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; and if such uses were allowed to proceed as allowed under the current zoning, such uses could conflict with, and defeat the purpose of, the proposal to study and adopt new regulations regarding the Subject Facilities; and WHEREAS, the placement of such Subject Facilities needs to be studied pursuant to the land use and economic development vision, goals and policies of the City of Indio General Plan 2040 adopted on September 18, 2019;and
WHEREAS, to address community concerns regarding the potential proliferation of the Subject Facilities, it is necessary for the City Council to study the potential impacts such uses may have on the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, based on the foregoing and those matters determined at the meeting at which this Ordinance is introduced and adopted, the City Council finds the use, construction, establishment and/or operation of the Subject Facilities would pose a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare, and that a temporary moratorium is thus necessary; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance is an interim urgency ordinance adopted pursuant to the authority granted to the City by Government Code Section 65858 and is for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare. The City finds that the following facts constitute the urgency are:
1. That the local police power includes broad authority to determine, for purposes of
Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 1813 : Adoption of a Moratorium on the Est... Page 1751 of 1755 3 public health, safety, and welfare, the appropriate uses of land within a local jurisdiction's borders.
2. That State law protects local licensing practices, zoning ordinances, and other local actions taken pursuant to the City’s constitutional police power.
3. That the City is concerned with potential public nuisances caused by the Subject Facilities.
4. That the City has received several recent inquiries of several potential Subject Facilities within the City.
5. That certain Subject Facilities could be located, and possibly permitted without mitigation conditions, near sensitive uses such as residential, religious facilities and schools.
6. That there may be secondary effects caused by the Subject Facilities, such as loitering, trash, and noise.
7. That the current market focus on the City for the Subject Facilities and the limited number of current facilities outside the City.
8. That the City Council anticipates that some may be seeking to establish additional Subject Facilities within the City before a non-urgency ordinance would become effective.
9. That if the Subject Facilities were permitted to be established within the City without appropriate regulation, such uses might be established in areas that could conflict with the policies of the General Plan (which was made available for review by the City Council by the office of the City Clerk) be inconsistent with surrounding uses, or be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; and if such uses were allowed to proceed as allowed under the current zoning, such uses could conflict with, and defeat the purpose of, the proposal to study and adopt new regulations regarding the Subject Facilities.
10. That the City needs to properly plan and develop the zoning, uses, regulations, and development standards that will affect the Subject Facilities within the City.
11. That the City Council desires to investigate and study the impacts of the Subject Facilities.
12. That absent the adoption of this Ordinance, the use, construction, establishment or operation of the Subject Facilities in the City may pose a serious threat to public health and safety, introducing incompatible land uses to existing neighborhoods or in close proximity thereto.
13. That absent the adoption of this Ordinance, the number and location of the Subject Facilities may increase the burden upon City services; and WHEREAS, as a result, it is necessary to establish a temporary, forty-five (45) day moratorium on the use, construction, establishment and/or operation of the Subject Facilities in the City, pending completion of the City's study of the potential impacts; and WHEREAS, in addition, it is necessary to prohibit, as a public nuisance, the use of any structure for use of the Subject Facilities for the duration of this Ordinance, or any extension thereof; and
WHEREAS, a notice of public hearing was published in the June 7, 2024 edition
Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 1813 : Adoption of a Moratorium on the Est... Page 1752 of 1755 4 of the Desert Sun, the newspaper of record; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council determines, by at least a four-fifths (4/5) vote, that this urgency ordinance is a matter of City-wide importance, is a reasonable and necessary measure designed for the immediate preservation and protection of the public health, safety or welfare of the community, and is in accord with the public purposes and provisions of applicable State and local laws and requirements.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF INDIO, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES AND RESOLVESAS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. CEQA: The City Council finds that adoption of this urgency interim ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Title 14 California Code of Regulations section 15061, subsection (b)(3), in that the proposed ordinance involves a proactive measure to regulate Subject Facilities within the City and does not have the potential to significantly impact the environment.
SECTION 2. Incorporation: The recitals and statements of fact set forth in the preamble to this Ordinance are true and correct, constitute a substantive part of this Ordinance, and are incorporated herein by this reference. Based on those facts, the City Council finds, determines and declares that this Ordinance is necessary as an emergency measure for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety pursuant to, and as authorized by, Section 65858(a) of the California Government Code. Accordingly, this Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption.
SECTION 3. Direction: It is necessary to establish a temporary, forty-five (45) day moratorium on the use, construction, establishment and/or operation of new Subject Facilities pending completion of the City's study of the potential impacts and regulation of such, and possible amendments to the City's zoning ordinance and related provisions of the Indio Municipal Code to ensure that adequate development standards and implementation regulations are in effect prior to permitting such within the City of Indio.
To that end, the City Manager is directed to analyze the appropriateness of the Subject Facilities within the city limits of the City of Indio, including but not limited to, the desirability, appropriateness and effectiveness of development standards and regulatory controls.
This moratorium shall not be interpreted as affecting the use or operation of any:
1. Legally existing Subject Facilities in the City; or
2. Subject Facilities that have not yet been completed but which are subject to: a) A vesting tentative map; or b) Development agreement; or c) For which a building permit has been issued and in good faith reliance on such issuance substantial work has been completed and substantial liabilities incurred.
SECTION 4. Moratorium Established: In accordance with the authority granted to the City of Indio by California Government Code Section 65858 and for the reasons set
Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 1813 : Adoption of a Moratorium on the Est... Page 1753 of 1755 5 forth herein above, commencing as of the effective date of this Ordinance and continuing thereafter for a period of forty-five (45) days, no approvals may be made or issued by the City, its officers or employees of any applications for a use permit, variance, building permit, business license or any other applicable entitlement or permit, for the use of any land within the City or the construction, establishment or operation of Subject Facilities. For the period of this Ordinance, or any extension thereof, Subject Facilities shall be considered a prohibited use in any zoning district of the City and neither the City Council nor City staff shall approve any use permit, license, certificate of occupancy, zoning code or general plan amendment authorizing the use of any land within the City for any Subject Facility.
SECTION 5. Prohibition: No person shall commence, construct, establish, or operate any Subject Facility, as defined in this Ordinance, within the City limits of the City of Indio during the period this Ordinance is in effect.
SECTION 6. Violation and Public Nuisance: The construction, establishment or operation of any Subject Facility as defined in this Ordinance, within the city limits of the City of Indio during the period this Ordinance is in effect is declared to be a public nuisance and poses a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare. No property in any zone of the City is to be used for purposes of a Subject Facility during the period this Ordinance is in effect. The use of any property for such purpose shall be a public nuisance. A violation of this Ordinance shall be and is hereby declared to be contrary to the public interest and shall, at the discretion of the City, create a cause of action for injunctive relief as well as any other available civil remedies. Additionally, any person that violates this Ordinance may be subject to the City's applicable administrative remedies.
SECTION 7. Severability: The City Council of the City of Indio hereby declares that should any section, paragraph, sentence, phrase, term or word of this Ordinance be declared for any reason to be invalid; it is the intent of the City Council that it would have adopted all other portions of this Ordinance independent of the elimination here from of any such portion as may be declared invalid. If any section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one (or more) section, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase had been declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 8. Report: The City Manager is authorized and directed to prepare the report required by paragraph (d) of California Government Code Section 65858 describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to adoption of this Ordinance for presentation to the City Council no later than ten (10) days prior to the expiration of thisOrdinance.
Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 1813 : Adoption of a Moratorium on the Est... Page 1754 of 1755 6 SECTION 9. Effective Date; Four-Fifths Vote Required: This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon adoption if adopted by at least a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the total members of the City Council and shall be in effect for forty-five (45) days from the date of adoption, unless extended by the City Council as provided in California Government Code Section 65858.
SECTION 10: Publication: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause this Ordinance or a summary thereof to be printed once within fifteen (15) days after its adoption in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Indio.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 19th day of June 2024. ___________________________
LUPE RAMOS AMITH
MAYOR
ATTEST:
________________________________
SABDI SANCHEZ, CMC
CITY CLERK ADMINISTRATOR
Urgency Interim Ordinance No. 1813 : Adoption of a Moratorium on the Est... Page 1755 of 1755